Global Warming Much Much worse than predicted.

reply to post by Grimpachi


It's really not a thread you can just skim through and understand the details in it's fullest. When you have time read it and this way you can see what I see.

Religion may or may not be of importance. I don't remember referencing it... can you please show me what you are talking about?

I do believe our government can do more harm than good and I did reference that. I also believe I referenced deforestation and manipulating weather. So.... again I am not sure what you are disagreeing with there.

It all DOES add up. Very true... but it's not one particular "thing". The Space Weather is indeed the bigger picture I am trying to get you to grasp.

You say, "I don't believe in taking a passive stance on the issue or leaving it in gods hands." So tell me, what are you doing to actively combat this issue at hand?

What is insane to me is how people actually think our leaders are believers. hahaha! They believe in nothing but the almighty dollar as their actions show this time and time again.

The problem I have is when people are crying global warming when the actual term is not accurate and it confuses the masses especially when they are being hammered with record snow. John Holdren doesn't even call the term global warming anymore. He calls it climate disruption. www.foxnews.com...
www.skepticalscience.com...

Climate change is the accepted term these days to describe an accelerated change that covers all basis including but not limited to changes in the jet stream that dumps feet of snow in an area where they usually do not receive snow.

What most people don't realize is that there are constant ebbs and flows that go into climatological changes and that the Earth itself goes through its own changes. Based on the history of Earth that most meteorologists and climatologists use - Earth is substantially cooler now than it was during the last period between ice ages. What also is interesting is that the general trend of Earth is that it is cooling.

There are a lot more factors than simple "warmest average temperature on record" or "warmer sea water" to look at. You have to look at the total spread of each and every variable to determine a pattern. What has been found over the last several years is that a cooling process is what is actually occurring.

A good example of this on a small scale btw is this:
A good portion of the time a temperature reading at Juneau of 75 F in the Autumn would tend to suggest a temperature of around 40 F in Chicago (as highs). Every portion of the Earth is going to have a different average. Today the average high here is 78 F, we topped out at 71 F. That does not suggest the year has been cooler than average though, because we had temperatures several days ago of near 100 F. The Earth is always in balance. The presence of warmth in one place means the presence of cold in another. It has always ben this way and will always be that way.

A good resource for further reading based on what I just said is "Meteorology Today" by Donald Ahrens. I *think* they're up to their 10th Edition now. It's as a textbook and great as a general insight to how meteorology and climatology actually work.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


You need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

The six-fold acceleration of sea level rise in the last decade was reported in what is claimed to be a leak from the IPCC. I quoted what the article stated. I did the math to show that the predictions do not match up with the data.

You can't even understand the quote that you posted.

From your link.

The loss of the ice sheet is not inevitable because surface melting has long time scales and it might re-grow to its original volume or some fraction thereof if global temperatures decline. However, a significant decay of the ice sheet may be irreversible on millennial time scales. In the 21st century surface melting is projected to remain small on the Antarctic ice sheet, while we have medium confidence that snowfall will increase.

Might re-grow also means might not re-grow. "Medium confidence that snowfall will increase" also means medium confidence that snowfall might not increase."

You don't know me from Sam Adams, and yet you comment on my scientific knowledge, well scientific knowledge also means look at all the numbers, not just cherry picking what you want to believe, like all of the anti-GW crowd's posted nonsense.

I am not making anything up, I am pointing out the facts that show might isn't based on any solid information.

This is what is going on with Antarctic ice.

ossfoundation.us...

Antarctica is melting, not growing. In fact the ice mass is dropping at an accelerating rate due to multiple factors including accelerated glacial ice calving rates. The loss of sea based ice allows the Antarctic ice to move faster towards the ocean resulting in an increased rate of loss of the Antarctic ice.

An accelerating rate means that the ice loss is dropping at a faster and faster rate. Look up calculus.



Notice the curve.

reply to post by rnaa


Good posting, thanks for contributing.

Well I wouldn't characterize poet1b's post as making things up. A bit of hyperbole about the sea level rise acceleration perhaps, but not just making things up. Poetic license maybe? Anyway, it is beyond question that if the Greenland melt accelerates, the sea rise rate will accelerate because of it. Six times is probably in the wrong ballpark, but still...

I admit, I don't know how accurate the reported six times figure actually is, but I keep reading about the acceleration, and yet the predictions for the future don't change, and basic math says if the rate of global warming is accelerating, then what solid evidence demonstrates that it will not continue to accelerate.

There is a lot of big money being spent to deny global warming. I wonder how much of it influences even those trying to look at the real science.

Personally, I think the only thing that can be done, is to face the reality of what is happening.

reply to post by MamaJ


It takes me 2 seconds to read through the fake data and fake agenda. Now go with your sandals and hempware.

www.climatedepot.com...

reply to post by TheRedneck

Simply put, regardless of how much you or anyone else wants it to be true, regardless of how desperately you or anyone else dreams about or writes about or prays about some miraculous form of energy appearing to suddenly remove our dependence on oil, it just isn't going to happen that way.

We could use a whole lot less energy, by getting rid of treaties that arrange for cheap chit to be made on one side of the planet by slave labor, designed to fail, and shipping that junk to the other side of the planet to sell to people on credit to enrich a few at the expense of the many.

That would require going back to market economics, but sadly brainwashed masses would rather live in denial and ignorance.

reply to post by poet1b

You know, I can sit and debate you for the next twenty years on Global Warming Theory and maybe never agree on a single issue, but I could also spend twenty years trying to find one thing in that post I can disagree with... and still fail.

Excellent points!

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Thanks Redneck,

We actually agree on some issues.

And there are times when you put up some good points, that make me do some research.

I appreciate your contributions, even if sometimes it doesn't seem that way.

Interesting Subject Global Warming Green House Effect.
Not only was this Best summer Recorded in Western Canada but the Humidity is Alot more noticeable then ever before,People in Area around Sin City have about 3% 5% Dry Air always this is the First ever Report I have personaly received from people I know who are telling me the Humidity they are for first time ever feels more like Tropical Rain Forest humidity. I am starting to Be leave Global Warming is Truly worse then they let on one only has to Look at North Pole !

reply to post by poet1b


The fact that Arctic ice this year is 60% greater than last year proves the complex math calcs you've just posted are meaningless.

I'll say it again...60% MORE ice than last year...Global warming?

Hard to argue with data like this.

reply to post by poet1b

The six-fold acceleration of sea level rise in the last decade was reported in what is claimed to be a leak from the IPCC.

No, it was not reported in the leaked draft, the author of the article just claimed it was, just to contradict himself in the next paragraph. Whatever his motives were to falsely represent the numbers, it would have been easy for you to verify if any of the claims are true. But you didn't.

well scientific knowledge also means look at all the numbers, not just cherry picking what you want to believe

First seek verification wether your numbers are correct. You would have instantly noticed half of the numbers were just made up and the other half was incorrectly reported.

The only reason for your confusion was your failure to check the facts.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


I have provided other sources that confirm what was stated in the Op linked article, which you have failed to address.

Where are your sources that say different. What you have provided does not back up your claims. See charts above.

andy06shake
Global warming, im more worried about Global cooling. Compare the Arctic ice sheet from 2012 to now in Sep 2013 and I think it may surprise you.

wow...one year change....ok....global warming is OVER...YEAH!!!!...cut the funding, fire the scientists, no more talk or discussion about it, it's all crap....

reply to post by MamaJ


Care to provide some links to these studies on which you base your claim?

I have done a great deal of research on the matter, posted numerous links to back up my opinion.

You should do the same, if you have such studies to cite.

reply to post by poet1b

I have provided other sources that confirm what was stated in the Op linked article, which you have failed to address.

No you haven't, not a single one. I've already pointed out why your math is faulty, multiple times now. Here we go again.

Let's start with the basics. Your six-fold acceleration for the rate of change.

Greenland's contribution to rising sea levels “very likely” rose to an average of 0.59 millimeters a year from 2002 to 2011, from 0.09 millimeters a year in the prior decade, according to the draft.

You've failed to verify if any of the values given are either correct or can be found in the cited reports at all. They're not and cannot, neither in the IPCC's AR4 nor in the leaked draft.

IPCC AR4

Leaked Second Order Draft

For context, the AR4’s assessment was 0.21 ± 0.07 mm yr–1 for Greenland and 0.21 ± 0.35
mm yr for Antarctica, over the period 1993–2003.

That should be enough to fix your math. Now you know where to look you can find the correct numbers yourself.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


Bragging about things that you have not done is the same thing as believing in fantasy. You have not shown anything about my math, when challenged, you denied that I had a source, and produced a quote from a link that did not back your claims.

I have provided links that show the ice melt is accelerating, again, you choose to remain deluded.

First, your link titled "Stop green Suicide has such a sophomoric name, it will never be taken seriously, except by people easily brainwashed by right wing radio shows.

Again, your own link does not back up your claims. Probably the difference is that I can read these reports and understand them, while you do not.

High confidence that the higher rate is real.

It concludes that there is high confidence that this higher rate, which is also seen
25 in tide gauge data over the same period, is real but does not necessarily reflect a recent acceleration,
26 considering the previously reported multi-decadal oscillations of the mean sea level.

"but does not necessarily reflect a recent acceleration", as in maybe there is a chance that the acceleration isn't real.

So what does chapter 3 say?

It is virtually certain that globally averaged sea level has risen at a mean rate between 1.4 and 2.0 mm yr–1 over the 20th Century and between 2.7 and 3.7 mm yr–1 since 1993 (both ranges 99% confidence).

If that is the averaged sea level rise since 1993, what is the average rise between 2001 and 2011? Chap 3 doesn't have a side line breakdown, and the charts don't show up.

The idea that this is a temporary rise comes from a comparison to the period between 1930 to 1950. The time leading up to WWII and through WWII shows a high rate of increase in ocean levels. This only contributes to the concept that global warming is cause by modern industry. It only makes sense that the massive amounts of energy released to fight the battles of WW II would lead to global warming, and an increase in Ocean levels.

Except now we are not fighting WW II.

reply to post by poet1b


You need to stop making up your own conversations with some imaginary skeptics, you're obviously out of your depth here.

It's simple really. What is the estimate, as stated in the IPCC's AR4, for Greenland's contribution to sea level rise prior to the last decade?

The article in your OP claims it's 0.09 mm yr-1. Where does this number come from? Have you provided any other source confirming this number? Have you made any attempt to confirm for yourself that this is indeed what the IPCC has said?

What is the IPCC's new estimate? Same questions as above.

First, your link titled "Stop green Suicide has such a sophomoric name, it will never be taken seriously,

Do you realise what you just did?

_____________________________________________________________

A cautious advice for anybody who has made this far in the thread, regarding leaked drafts from the IPCC.

bbc.co.uk

But those involved with the IPCC say that even now, just a month away from publication, you would be "foolish in the extreme" to take this latest leak as conclusive.

"It is guaranteed it will change," said Jonathan Lynn, spokesman for the IPCC. "In September, the scientists will go through the 15-page summary for policymakers, line by line."

________________________________________________________________


You've been made aware that you've based your little math exercise on made-up numbers. If you keep insisting that you still can't see where you got it wrong, you should seriously contemplate the definition of 'being delusional'. Or was it your intention to mislead on purpose?

reply to post by talklikeapirat

Try reading comprehension before you reply to a point no one has made. What was discussed was poet's claim of a accelerated warming rate in the last 3-4 decades. How fast is the planet warming, not if it is warming in general. Has the average rate of warming increased over a statistical significant period. It has not.

OK, that is technically correct. So far in the 2000's, temperatures have not risen as fast as they did in the 1990's. But they are still rising and will continue to rise as long as the underlying causes of that rising continue to rise. 1998 temperatures seem to be the new floor (though it is still too early to be certain of that).

So lets examine the underlying cause of the acceleration decline. Reflect that 2010 was the hottest year on record, even though it experienced the strongest La Nina in 50 years, and very low solar output as well. Had those occurrences not served to ameliorate the heat wave, it would have been much worse.

Keep in mind also that 1998, the former record holder and threshold date science deniers like to use as a poster child for some reason, was influenced by the strongest El Nino in the 20th century.

Think of it this way, you are in a car and put your foot down. The car hits its maximum speed of 100 going down hill; that's 1998. A different car hits 110 going up hill; that's 2010. Which is more powerful? Who knows how fast 2010 would have gotten to if they were going down hill. Which car would be faster on the flat?

poet1b
reply to post by MamaJ

 

Care to provide some links to these studies on which you base your claim?

I have done a great deal of research on the matter, posted numerous links to back up my opinion.

You should do the same, if you have such studies to cite.

I have posted a link to the thread twice already. Have you not read my replies?

That same link is in my signature. I have been studying this subject for well over three years now. That doesn't mean I am an expert nor do I KNOW all truths. I know what I have studied and have come to a conclusion that the root comes from space. If you do not agree, fine. I don't care about being right but I do care about all aspects being considered, including space weather.