Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

As Mr_F pointed out, newhaul has no idea whether he is coming or going.



From your above link we find this chart from Skeptical Science, which shows that not only is Greenland losing ice, but that the rate of loss is accelerating.


I was going to let your first post slide, but since you brought it up again... Here's your other post:

Here is the title and first paragraph from that article:

The author has concluded that Greenland's ice sheet is "robust and stable", and in fact is a "growing ice sheet". The first reference that he provides to support his conclusion is IS NOT from a reputable scientific source, but is instead from another obscure online journal, azocleantech.com. Here is the title and lead paragraph from AzoCleanTech:

Huh?!?! The two titles and lead paragraphs don't seem to be saying the same thing. newhaul's article says that Greenland's ice sheet is growing; the AzoCleanTech article talks about the mechanism by which the ice sheet has remained stable for a long time, but "suggests that stability may not continue"!

So which of the two articles is correct? Here is the abstract from the original scientific article:

Surface-atmosphere decoupling limits accumulation at Summit, Greenland | Science Advances

My conclusion is that the AzoCleanTech article correctly reported the conclusions of the Science Advances article, but that the author of newhaul's article had no idea what he was writing about, and so wrote an error-filled article to support his opinion of what would play well in the denier blogosphere.

It doesn't seem to matter what the source war mists tend to " cherry pick" parts that seem to support their dogma regardless of the context of the entire study papers conclusions.
Truth be told I tend to occasionally post links to reports that support the fact that the climate science is definitely not settled quite the opposite . It seems that the more they learn the less they know.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

It doesn't seem to matter what the source warmists tend to " cherry pick" parts that seem to support their dogma regardless of the context of the entire study papers conclusions.

Um look, it's alot more common here that the links posted against AGW actually do not prove the point despite a catchy title, and the more credible links usually contain info that acknowledges or supports AGW.

As I mentioned previously, claiming there's no AGW is an increasingly unsupported and irrational position, and most people have moved away from outright denial.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

mixed in with your usual level of snottiness intended to mask insecurity, but that's ok.

Originally Posted by Delfin

Your conclusion? Seriously, SO, your conclusion is the Dr. Berkelhammer doesn't know anything about this subject?

I think your post should be exhibit A in any case to be made that when you boil it down, warmists simply will believe what they will believe and anyone who disagrees with them will be alleged to be a buffoon. I don't have your list of journal articles, but I can reference the lead author of this study, who according to you publishes a journal piece "full of errors":

I am sorry you are so worked up worrying people will think you are a buffoon, but do you think that claiming that Berkelhammer wrote the article newhaul posted makes you look like less of a buffoon?

Hint: they usually list the author right near the top.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Um look, it's alot more common here that the links posted against AGW actually do not prove the point despite a catchy title, and the more credible links usually contain info that acknowledges or supports AGW.

As I mentioned previously, claiming there's no AGW is an increasingly unsupported and irrational position, and most people have moved away from outright denial.

LE I'm not exactly a denier. I do acknowledge that the winters are not as cold as they were 40 years ago but I do disagree that humans have had any measurable impact on the climate .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

LE I'm not exactly a denier. I do acknowledge that the winters are not as cold as they were 40 years ago but I do disagree that humans have had any measurable impact on the climate .

Friend, that's the very definition of climate change denier.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Maybe you should pull your head out of the fact-free cloud it's stuck in.

Greenland sees record-smashing early ice sheet melt | Climate Home

Yes, SO, in the summertime Greenland ice melts. But if you understood anything about the study published the water from the melted ice basically stays in place in most all locations which is why the researchers stated that there was little to no total ice lost except around the edges. I really wish you would try to pay attention. Correcting you is getting tedious.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Friend, that's the very definition of climate change denier.

Newhaul is a skeptic of whether climate change that he acknowledges is predominantly due to human activity. That means he is not a climate change denier, anymore than I am. It means he is not a dupe of the AGW scam.

Intentionally pretending that their opponents are saying things they are not is one of the more disreputable characteristics of the truly uninformed and dishonest warmist.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Newhaul is a skeptic of whether climate change that he acknowledges is predominantly due to human activity. That means he is not a climate change denier, anymore than I am. It means he is not a dupe of the AGW scam.

Intentionally pretending that their opponents are saying things they are not is one of the more disreputable characteristics of the truly uninformed and dishonest warmist.

"I do disagree that humans have had any measurable impact on the climate"

Tell us again that that isn't denial of AGW.

I know where the dishonesty lies.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Yes, SO, in the summertime Greenland ice melts. But if you understood anything about the study published the water from the melted ice basically stays in place in most all locations which is why the researchers stated that there was little to no total ice lost except around the edges. I really wish you would try to pay attention. Correcting you is getting tedious.

I refer you back to this question: when calculating a total, do you feel it is best to include just one part, or all the parts?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"I do disagree that humans have had any measurable impact on the climate"

Tell us again that that isn't denial of AGW.

I know where the dishonesty lies.

What is it about the word "measurable" you find confusing, or are the 12 molecules out of 400 a material contribution in your mind?

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by mr_f

I refer you back to this question: when calculating a total, do you feel it is best to include just one part, or all the parts?

I refer you back to the main question. Is reducing temps by 1/5th of a degree by 2100 at the cost of trillions a sound policy or evidence of a dangerous and delusional state of mind? You keep avoiding this fundamental question, and I don't blame you, since it does appear to be a delusion that troubles your mind.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

What is it about the word "measurable" you find confusing, or are the 12 molecules out of 400 a material contribution in your mind?

Still confused about how much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is attributable to us?

Hint: your confusion stems from the same problem you had with sea level rise and with greenland's melting: is it best to calculate a total by including just one part, or all the parts?

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Right-o, and Obamacare is saving the average family $2,000 per year, ethanol saves energy and raising the minimum wage doesn't cause increased unemployment among unskilled workers. Got it.

Can you prove the opposite is true, or is this the usual right extremist view with little to no fact attached?

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Have a great weekend everyone one, off to start ripping up the Teak deck....

Hey Rich...you doing that to your boat?

[Dauntlessny]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I answered the question that was posed.


We do know how much CO2 is absorbed and emitted by the earth and the oceans.



This diagrams illustrates Earth's carbon cycle. It shows how carbon atoms 'flow' between various 'reservoirs' in the Earth system. The sizes of reservoirs are in units of gigatons of carbon (GtC). Flows between reservoirs are in units of gigatons of carbon per year (GtC/yr). The values for human influences such as fossil fuel use and cement production represent the state of the carbon cycle in the mid-1980s, which according to the CDIAC have increased substantially, i.e. more than doubled..

Please remember that CO2 is not the only factor. GCM have numerous variables.

Actually we don't. What we know is the net. But don't let science get in the way of a good discussion.