Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[McDad]

Lighten up regarding my sarcasm. You've gotta have thick skin around here.

I am concerned about AGW and you should be too. My repartee in this thread may not reflect that concern accurately, but when faced with blatant denialism, what are you gonna do? I'd rather laugh than cry

I'm all for global warming, now.

 

[BartW]

World of Change: Collapse of the Larsen-B Ice Shelf : Feature Articles

Larsen Ice Shelf

Here's some more incredible time-lapses:


The Arctic Ice "Death Spiral" Continues


It's crazy to think we may see ice-free arctic summers in our lifetimes. It's looking like it will happen in just a few decades, well ahead of IPCC projections

 

[Sandvol]

I’ve shown you why you’re wrong about the phase relation between CO2 and T from several different angles, yet you continue to ignore the facts and sprew this nonsense. Heck, you don’t even engage in conversation. Deny deny deny. This is the line between skeptic and denialist. A skeptic can actually be swayed by evidence. A skeptic will engage in conversation about the evidence. All you do is move from one denialist talking point to the next.

The IR properties of CO2 and resulting greenhouse effect are scientific fact and not up for debate. If you reject that, you’re a denier.

Global surface temperature measurements are robust and have been replicated using multiple methodologies by multiple independent teams composed of both climate realists and “skeptics”. If you continue to believe that the surface temperature measurements are corrupted you’re not a skeptic – you’re a denier.

The original “hockey stick” graph has been replicated with and without tree ring proxies, using multiple different statistical methodologies, and by multiple independent teams of researchers. If you continue to believe that the “hockey stick” is a fraud you’re not a skeptic—youre a denier.

Climategate has been thoroughly investigated by the UK Parliament, the Oxburgh panel, the ICCER, Pennsylvania State University and the National Science Foundation (focused on Michael Mann), and NOAA, and yet the only allegation of misconduct that wasn’t completely debunked was that of Phil Jones and UEA not properly sharing data in response to FoI requests. If you continue to cling to thoroughly disproved allegations of misconduct coming from those emails youre not a skeptic – you’re a denier

While the rate of global warming (specifically global surface temperatures) has slowed recently, the actual surface temperatures are still within the 95% probability ranges for of the model projections. Those who claim that the recent slowdown in rising surface temperatures means climate models are all wrong may be simply ignorant of what the climate models say. But if you still claim that the models are all wrong even after being educated about model projections you’re not a skeptic – you’re a denier.

And,
in good company. I am officially a global warming denier and I wear it as a badge of honor you sociopath:

WSJ: "Warren Buffett, Climate-Change Denier"



Warren Buffett, Climate-Change Denier

By JAMES FREEMAN Updated March 4, 2014 8:06 a.m. ET


THE WALL STREET JOURNAL MORNING REPORT

The billionaire chairman of Berkshire Hathaway is on some kind of roll. Yesterday we told you about his warning on public pension funds in his annual letter to shareholders. Now, he's puncturing deeply-held liberal myths about global warming. Mr. Buffett tells CNBC that extreme weather events are not becoming more common, and that climate change is not altering his company's calculations when insuring against catastrophic weather events. "The public has the impression that because there's been so much talk about climate that events of the last 10 years from an insured standpoint and climate have been unusual," he said. "The answer is they haven't."

 

[BartW]

I'm all for global warming, now.

See, some might mistake this for sarcasm

 

[BartW]

And,
in good company. I am officially a global warming denier and I wear it as a badge of honor you sociopath:

WSJ: "Warren Buffett, Climate-Change Denier"



Warren Buffett, Climate-Change Denier

By JAMES FREEMAN Updated March 4, 2014 8:06 a.m. ET


THE WALL STREET JOURNAL MORNING REPORT

The billionaire chairman of Berkshire Hathaway is on some kind of roll. Yesterday we told you about his warning on public pension funds in his annual letter to shareholders. Now, he's puncturing deeply-held liberal myths about global warming. Mr. Buffett tells CNBC that extreme weather events are not becoming more common, and that climate change is not altering his company's calculations when insuring against catastrophic weather events. "The public has the impression that because there's been so much talk about climate that events of the last 10 years from an insured standpoint and climate have been unusual," he said. "The answer is they haven't."

Thanks jimmy. You're a few pages late with the buffet quote. Might want to go back and catch up.

Funny you embrace the role of denialist, most simply deny it

 

[MG1968]

Top 5 failed 'snow free' and 'ice free' predictions | The Daily Caller

the AGW alarmists have learned their lessons and are now predicting events 100 years in the future since they won't be around in a century to be reminded of how wrong they were.

 

[Sandvol]

Global Sea Ice

 

[McDad]

See, some might mistake this for sarcasm

No sarcasm, Kiwi. Absolutely serious.

 

[Sandvol]

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

New paper finds "remarkable" growth of glaciers on Tibet plateau over past decade "challenging to explain"



A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth finds the high Asian mountain inner Tibet Plateau glaciers are gaining remarkable quantities of ice mass. According to the authors, there is a "remarkable positive signal (+30 Gigatons/yr) in the inner Tibet Plateau, which is challenging to explain" and almost completely offsets loss of 35Gt/yr elsewhere in the region.

The authors explain a 5-year cycle found in other Asian high mountain glacier mass as due to the natural "influence of Arctic Oscillation and El Niño-Southern Oscillation."

Evaluation of Glacier Changes in High Mountain Asia Based on 10-year GRACE-RL05 Models
Shuang Yi*, Wenke Sun



In this paper, 10 years of time-variable gravity data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) Release 05 have been used to evaluate the glacier melting rate in High Mountain Asia (HMA) using a new computing scheme, i.e., the Space Domain Inverse (SADI) method. We find that in HMA area there are three different kinds of signal sources that should be treated together. The two generally accepted sources, glacier melting and India underground water depletion, are estimated to change at the rate of -35.0 ± 5.8 Gt/yr (0.09 mm/yr sea level rising) and -30.6 ± 5.0 Gt/yr, respectively. The third source is the remarkable positive signal (+30 Gt/yr) in the inner Tibet Plateau, which is challenging to explain. Further, we have found that there is a five-year undulation in Pamir and Karakoram, which can explain the controversies of the previous studies on the glacier melting rate here. This five-year signal can be explained by the influence of Arctic Oscillation and El Niño-Southern Oscillation.

 

[BartW]

I was talking about Arctic sea ice. Arctic vs. Antarctic and land vs. sea ice is the very first topic I addressed in this thread. We’ve officially come full circle.

To recap, Antarctica is very different from the Arctic. It’s a continental land mass surrounded by water. The Arctic is a water body surrounded by land. Land ice is ice that's accumulated over thousands of years from snowfall, while sea ice is formed over water during the winter and almost entirely melts in the summer. Antarctica is rapidly losing land ice.

This decreases the salinity of the water around Antarctica, making it easier to form sea ice in the winter. There are other factors that contribute to Antarctic sea ice increase but that one is the most obvious and easy to understand. Antarctica is losing land ice much more rapidly than it's gaining sea ice. Overall global sea ice is decreasing. The higher-than-projected rate of Arctic sea ice decline is a cause for concern.

Similarly, while some glaciers are growing due to local conditions, the majority are retreating.

And overall, global glacier mass is rapidly decreasing.

 

[McDad]

Bring on the warming. Let us bask in its warmth and terror!

 

[BartW]

That's certainly not the only problem with the way the climate change is being addressed. But there's a fundamental flaw with economic objections to acting on climate change -- they're shortsighted. What will hurt the economy more: flooded coastal cities (meaning refugees), extensive drought, food and water shortages, more extreme weather, and foreign political instability, or raising the emissions standards for cars and industries? Many people and businesses are already feeling the negative effects of climate change. I already brought up the reinsurance industry. Here's some more examples:

Industry Awakens to Threat of Climate Change

“Increased droughts, more unpredictable variability, 100-year floods every two years,” said Jeffrey Seabright, Coke’s vice president for environment and water resources, listing the problems that he said were also disrupting the company’s supply of sugar cane and sugar beets, as well as citrus for its fruit juices. “When we look at our most essential ingredients, we see those events as threats.” Coke reflects a growing view among American business leaders and mainstream economists who see global warming as a force that contributes to lower gross domestic products, higher food and commodity costs, broken supply chains and increased financial risk. Their position is at striking odds with the longstanding argument, advanced by the coal industry and others, that policies to curb carbon emissions are more economically harmful than the impact of climate change."

"Nike, which has more than 700 factories in 49 countries, many in Southeast Asia, is also speaking out because of extreme weather that is disrupting its supply chain. In 2008, floods temporarily shut down four Nike factories in Thailand, and the company remains concerned about rising droughts in regions that produce cotton, which the company uses in its athletic clothes. “That puts less cotton on the market, the price goes up, and you have market volatility,” said Hannah Jones, the company’s vice president for sustainability and innovation. Nike has already reported the impact of climate change on water supplies on its financial risk disclosure forms to the Securities and Exchange Commission."

"Although many Republicans oppose the idea of a price or tax on carbon pollution, some conservative economists endorse the idea. Among them are Arthur B. Laffer, senior economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan; the Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, who was economic adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign; and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the head of the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, and an economic adviser to the 2008 presidential campaign of Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican.

“There’s no question that if we get substantial changes in atmospheric temperatures, as all the evidence suggests, that it’s going to contribute to sea-level rise,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said. “There will be agriculture and economic effects — it’s inescapable.” He added, “I’d be shocked if people supported anything other than a carbon tax — that’s how economists think about it.”

Facing the Facts: Climate Change Is Bad For Business

"A recent study by the Carbon Disclosure Project shows that at least 70% of major businesses are concerned about the threats that climate change poses to their companies. 51% of the businesses contacted for the study said that climate change, specifically heavy rains and droughts, has already had a very large impact on operations, always in a negative way.

These aren’t mom and pop operations either. Massive corporations like Wal-Mart, Dell Computers, and L’Oreal are among those who have reported negative economic impacts from climate change related disasters. "

Climate Denial Industry Costs Us $500 Billion a Year

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has announced in its latest World Energy Outlook that every year of delayed action to address climate change will add $500 Billion to the price tag of saving the planet.

I'd like to hear a response to this post. Also, I'd like to hear why you think big oil, including Exxon, BP, Shell, and others, both acknowledge the threat of global warming and support a carbon tax.

 

[Sandvol]

New paper finds Greenland melted much more during the prior interglacial than present-day


A paper under open review for The Cryosphere finds that during the last interglacial [Eemian], melting of the Greenland ice sheet produced 1.4 meters more sea level rise than during the current interglacial. The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications demonstrating that the last interglacial was much warmer than the present, Greenland 8C warmer, sea levels up to 31 feet higher, and there is no evidence that the current interglacial is any different.



The Cryosphere Discuss., 8, 1151-1189, 2014
www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/8/1151/2014/
doi:10.5194/tcd-8-1151-2014

 

[BartW]

New paper finds Greenland melted much more during the prior interglacial than present-day


A paper under open review for The Cryosphere finds that during the last interglacial [Eemian], melting of the Greenland ice sheet produced 1.4 meters more sea level rise than during the current interglacial. The paper adds to many other peer-reviewed publications demonstrating that the last interglacial was much warmer than the present, Greenland 8C warmer, sea levels up to 31 feet higher, and there is no evidence that the current interglacial is any different.



The Cryosphere Discuss., 8, 1151-1189, 2014
www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/8/1151/2014/
doi:10.5194/tcd-8-1151-2014

Yet another paper that you haven't read, much less considered the implications of. I doubt the authors approve of you or your 'skeptic' website misrepresenting their work to cast doubt on AGW.

You're really embracing your new denialist self. The cycle is plain as day.

1. You (a) ask a question (b) make a claim or (c) copypaste from your 'skeptic' website

2. I address your post

3. Instead of considering my response, evaluating the evidence, and responding with a question or counterargument, you ignore everything and move on to your next denialist talking point.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat

 

[Weezy]

I'd like to hear a response to this post. Also, I'd like to hear why you think big oil, including Exxon, BP, Shell, and others, both acknowledge the threat of global warming and support a carbon tax.

Large companies always favor roadblocks which hurt smaller companies disproportionately, and carbon taxes would kill coal.

 

[UGADawg4Life]

Dawg drive-by or new participant? There's so much wrong with this post I don't even know where to begin. If you have a specific problem or question pertaining to the topic I'll address it. Chances are it's been covered in this thread more than once

2,137 posts since '08, Einstein. Who died and left you keeper of climate change info? Oh wait.......YOU'RE AL GORE!!!!! hmy: BTW, do you deny that there was an Ice Age? The globe's been warming since then. Did the 100,000 humans on Earth at that time cause the warming?

 

[BartW]

Large companies always favor roadblocks which hurt smaller companies disproportionately, and carbon taxes would kill coal.

Tbh that may have contributed to Exxon's relatively recent reversal on AGW. They held out for a long time and were one of the largest funders of the denial industry. But now Exxon dominates natural gas and natural gas is slightly more carbon efficient than other fossil fuels. Keyword slightly.

But still, acting on climate change will be a significant burden on the entirety of the fossil fuel industry. Shell is the most carbon intensive big oil company and they support the carbon tax. Even the World Coal Association acknowledges the reality of AGW. There are tons of businesses that realize acting on climate change is necessary and inevitable, despite the short-term losses.

Large Companies Prepared to Pay Price on Carbon

 

[BartW]

2,137 posts since '08, Einstein. Who died and left you in charge of climate change info? Oh wait.......YOU'RE AL GORE!!!!! hmy:

I've seen you post on VN. Not implying you are new to the site, just to this thread. There are lots of drive-by smear posts in this thread, hence the question. So, are you sticking around for legitimate discussion or is this just another dawg drive-by?

 

[UGADawg4Life]

I've seen you post on VN. Not implying you are new to the site, just to this thread. There are lots of drive-by smear posts in this thread, hence the question. So, are you sticking around for legitimate discussion or is this just another dawg drive-by?

After having listened to years of debates on the subject of global warming, I have come to my own conclusion. Yes, possibly the globe's temps have risen minutely. But they've been rising since the Ice Age. And that was, obviously, not the fault of man. I'm an outdoorsman, so I am very interested in taking care of our planet. I'm all for reducing emissions, pollutants, etc. But I don't think that global warming was caused by said maladies. I believe that it is a cycle and that we just happen to be on the warming side of that cycle. I also think that people like Al Gore are using global warming to pad their pockets and keep research jobs, etc.

 

[Sandvol]

After having listened to years of debates on the subject of global warming, I have come to my own conclusion. Yes, possibly the globe's temps have risen minutely. But they've been rising since the Ice Age. And that was, obviously, not the fault of man. I'm an outdoorsman, so I am very interested in taking care of our planet. I'm all for reducing emissions, pollutants, etc. But I don't think that global warming was caused by said maladies. I believe that it is a cycle and that we just happen to be on the warming side of that cycle. I also think that people like Al Gore are using global warming to pad their pockets and keep research jobs, etc.

Absolutely correct Dawg. The Earth does have natural short, intermediate and long-term climate cycles. Man's affects on the cycles are very minimal. This has nothing to do with concern for the environment. It is just part of the liberal agenda to control every aspect of our lives and to control the free market. Those sociopathic masterminds think they are smarter than the free market.

 

[BartW]

After having listened to years of debates on the subject of global warming, I have come to my own conclusion. Yes, possibly the globe's temps have risen minutely. But they've been rising since the Ice Age. And that was, obviously, not the fault of man. I'm an outdoorsman, so I am very interested in taking care of our planet. I'm all for reducing emissions, pollutants, etc. But I don't think that global warming was caused by said maladies. I believe that it is a cycle and that we just happen to be on the warming side of that cycle. I also think that people like Al Gore are using global warming to pad their pockets and keep research jobs, etc.

You seem like an honest skeptic so I’ll address your position point by point. You are correct that climate is cyclical. However, we are not supposed to be on a warming trend. Our current interglacial peaked about 10,000 years ago, and ever since temperatures have slowly been dropping (we’re scheduled to enter the next ice age soon). Temperatures have risen 1.5 C since pre-industrial times. For perspective, the last ice age was only 4-5 C colder than today. The range of global average temperatures between the hottest interglacial and coldest ice age is about 10 C. Scientists predict temperatures will increase another 3 – 4.5 C by the end of this century. Here are some figures I posted earlier:

For those that have been asking "What is the climate supposed to be doing?" or "What if it's a natural cycle?" let me give you some context:

No matter what time frame you look at, the current pace of global warming is unprecedented. AND it's happening while our planet should be cooling.

Additionally, we know the rise in temperatures is mostly due to greenhouse gas emissions from (among several independent lines of reasoning) spectroscopic measurements of radiation leaving the earth’s surface and radiation leaving the atmosphere:

Anyhow, the relative amounts of CO2 and H2O don’t accurately convey their relative significance to our greenhouse effect. Using spectroscopy we can measure the radiation emitted from the surface and the radiation leaving the top of our atmosphere.

From this we can calculate how much energy is being trapped by each gas. The radiative forcing due to H2O is 75 W/m2 and the forcing from CO2 is 32 W/m2 (Explaining how the water vapor greenhouse works). The daily average insolation for earth is about 250 W/m2 (Earth’s Insolation). So maybe that paints a better picture of how a 40% increase in CO2 from pre-industrial times can raise global temperatue 1 degree (or more). Also keep in mind that water vapor is a feedback, not an independent forcing. The amount of water vapor in the air is almost entirely determined by the temperature, at least anywhere that has surface water (like, the 70% of the planet that's oceans). So it can’t ‘cause’ global warming, it can only amplify it.:

And the notion that climate scientists need global warming to get their paycheck is false. If there wasn’t strong evidence that AGW is a threat nobody would be studying it. These scientists would simply be studying something else. Earth scientists aren’t paid any more than academics in other physical sciences. And earth scientists in academia are paid far less than their contemporaries in the private sector. The implication of climate scientists being paid under the table to falsify their data is that of a global science conspiracy theory.

Al Gore is not a scientist, he ‘s a politician and a moron. I’m sorry if his documentary is your impression of the science. The science is robust. There is a 97%+ consensus among climate scientists that human emissions are causing global warming. I'm a libertarian geoscientist and I wish it weren't true, but it is. The reality of AGW is a widely accepted fact in the scientific community.

 

[Sandvol]

 

[BartW]

View attachment 75074

 

[McDad]

This graph would be more effective if there were a huge explosion at the end of the animation.

Like Alderaan exploding after the attack by the Death Star.

Coincidentally, both are science fiction.

 

[BartW]

This graph would be more effective if there were a huge explosion at the end of the animation.

Like Alderaan exploding after the attack by the Death Star.

Coincidentally, both are science fiction.

Maybe if scientists used more explosions you people would be interested enough to learn a thing or two. My plot is not science fiction, it's observational data. The data are the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomaly datasets.