"I like as ice also as an indicator of climate change for its political neutrality. Ice asks no questions, presents no arguments, reads no newspapers, listens to no debates. Its not burdened by ideology and carries no political baggage as it crosses the threshold from solid to liquid. It just melts."
- Dr Henry Pollack, Geophysicist University of Michigan.
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
so what happened during the MWP and the previous 1000 year warm periods that were warmer than today? you may know a lot but you are still clearly biased to your own conclusions to the extent that you will theorise away other possible causes whilst insulting anyone who has a different view than yours. childish behaviour
@hughgallagher The latest scientific research suggests that the MWP was largely due to a strongly positive North Atlantic Oscillation that lasted for about 350 years. In the Pacific during much of this time, the ENSO was stuck in a La Niña phase, meaning the equatorial Pacific was cooler than normal, as was much of the world during the MWP, ie. the slope water current over the Laurentian fan was warmer in the LIA than the MWP. The current warming cannot be explained by the same mechanisms.
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
Something to consider - in the 1800's solar output increased than leveled off a few decades ago. Over 70% of that additional solar energy ended up in the worlds oceans which can store heat for hundreds of years. Also, during the past century the strength of the earths magnetic field has decreased by about 15%, plus we have the South Atlantic Anomaly, both of which which allows more solar particles to enter earths atmosphere. Does AGW theory and climate models take into account any of this?
No, climate modelers can't take that into account since nobody fully understands all the factors involved in climate change or how those factors interact with each other. The only thing we know for certain, based on the historical climate record, is the earths climate is always changing. The historical climate record shows double digit temp changes within a decade or two in the past so I don't get excited over the 1 degree change we've seen over the past 100 years.
you asked if ocean heat and solar particles were considered.
They were.
Models, in any case, are not the basis for the science. They are merely tools. The earth has run this experiment before, so we know how it responds to forcings, whether from GHG, orbital, volcanic, or solar changes.
"This is highly unusual and unexpected but the fact that three completely different views of the sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation....If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate." - Annual meeting of the solar physics division of the American Astronomical Society, June 14th, 2011
newsflash: we've been in a solar minimum, the lowest in a century, for 4 years. during that time we've had the second warmest year (2009) and the warmest year(2010) in the record. see
NASA by googling
nasa deep solar minimum
also my vid here
watch?v=LMA9D-ZWwrg
and
my blog post by googling
Graph of the Day: What if the Sun Goes into another Maunder Minimum?
@greenman3610 Several years ago NASA got caught fudging their data and after they corrected it the warmest year on record was in the 1930's. In fact, several of the top 10 warmest years in the corrected report were in the 1930's. I've also read that some of the temperature stations in the northern latitudes are being excluded from global average temp reports. btw, this year Britain's Met Office is reporting 2010 was the 2nd warmest year on record. Who do we believe?
actually, they had an error, which was corrected, and indicated that 1934 was marginally warmer in the continental US. The error had no bearing on global measurements - for which 2010 was tied as the warmest, 2009 second.
No temp stations are being "excluded", and in any case, satellite readings are in agreement.
The Met office uses a slightly different method of measurement, but also agrees that the overall trend is warming.
As to who to believe, my approach is to believe the overwhelming majority, 97+percent, or working, publishing climate scientists - rather than the denialist conspiracy internet sites from where you obviously get your "information".
@greenman3610 Ad Hominem arguments such are yours, along with concensus, are not part of the scientific method. Also not part of the scientific method is preventing scientists from expressing their views and publishing their research in major publications. In fact, there is a something soon to be published by a climate scientist which is being kept somewhat secret so that AGW proponents can't put pressure on the publisher to cancel publication.
@greenman3610 Concensus does not make something scientific fact. A good example would be Meteor Crater in Az. It wasn't that long ago the concensus among scientists was the crater was a volcanic feature.
@greenman3610 Here's a quote from what you claim is a "denialist conspiracy internet sites."
"Data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years [1995 to 2010]. By the Met Office's own account, the total rise in world temperatures since the 1850s has been less than 0.8 degrees."
@greenman3610 Here's another quote from what you claim is a "denialist conspiracy internet sites"
"the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is shown to mimic the major features of global average temperature change during the 20th Century – including three-quarters of the warming trend."
Spencer of course, most famous for being repetitively, stubbornly, and conspicuously wrong on the most important research of his life. see
watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc
starting at about 5:00 - you'll see that his own data confirm current warming.
Spencer, the self described 'official climatologist of the Rush LImbaugh show" is, for the record, a creationist as well - not that there's anything wrong with that.
google
Roy Spencer: And all this time, we thought you were a scientist. Weird.
@greenman3610 In another of your youtube pages you mentioned Dick Chaney and said I supported wars for oil. Today in regards to Roy Spencer you say he is a creationist and mention Rush Limbaugh. What does any of that have to do with climate change? You're just trying to minimize my skepitcal input .
Spencer does not deny global warming and has made what I consider one of the most truthfull statements on the subject - nobody knows for certain what all the factors are that cause climate change.
Does that 97% figure come from the subset of 77 climatologists, out of over 3,000 sciientists who responded, in an online survey conducted by the University Of Illinois several years ago? If so, who are the 75 out 77 climateologists who think humans are soley responsible for global warming?
The maximum reduction in global temperature caused by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption occurred in August 1992 with a reduction of 0.73°C. The United States experienced its third coldest summer in 77 years during 1992. In other words, much of the warming that occured in the mid 1990's was a rebound from the cooling casued by the volcanic eruption and, according to warmist Phil Jones, there has been no "significant warming" since 1998.
actually, the pinatubo cooling almost exactly matched Jim Hansen's 1988 climate models, thereby providing one of the most convincing real life proofs of their skill.
watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw
as far as Phil Jones -- dude, you have GOT to get your denial talking points straight. It's not 98, it's 95.
see here
watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc
btw, he said "statistically significant warming", and that was last year. As of now, it's significant.
"The United States experienced its third coldest summer in 77 years during 1992."
Laughable, We're talking global temp. I can imagine a mass of hot air heading towards the USA and stopping at our borders. The planet is heat engine and the ice is our heat exchanger, as it decreases out temps will increase.
@Klaatu2Too The trend in global temp is clear, you choose to deny it. The pathos of the denial mind is what intrigues me. It's not only that you deny physics and thermal dynamics, it's that you deny the very power of data. The tools of statistics and modeling are the enemy of the denialist. But I got to hand it to you, it takes a lot of faith to bet against the laws of physics. The longer you live the less chance you have to win. If you live long enough, you'll see it, but never never admit it.
@MrWhylie The trend is clear. During the past 11,000 years Earth's climate has had many dramatic shifts which includes the end of the LIttle Ice Age in the 1800's which is when our current warming trend began. There are many factors involved in climate change, some of which are not giving due consideration by AGW proponents and modelers, and that does not make for good science. How can you build an accurate model or theory when these factors are not included nor fully understood.
@Klaatu2Too How do you know temp 11,000 years ago? Think about the years spent on the ice to collect this data. Think about all the work and sacrifice of all these climate researchers. Why did they do it, to get rich? They did it because it's important to understand our planet, our home. You show me a denialist that has spent any time on the ice. Think of all the years of denial ahead of you. Let your denial sustain you. Bring your denial deep inside your self. Then hide and watch.
@MrWhylie Re: "How do you know temp 11,000 years ago?"
Science reports based on ice core samples and marine sediment core samples. These samples give us a climate record that goes back a million years or more. These samples show us climate change is common and they show us the climate change which has occured since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1800's is minor compared to some climate changes in the past. Anyone who thinks what we're seeing now is not normal is the denialist.
@MrWhylie Sudden Climate Transitions During The Quaternary
"the record of the last 150,000 years, at least a few large climate changes certainly occurred on the timescale of individual human lifetimes, the most well-studied and well-established of these being the ending of the Younger Dryas, and various Holocene climate shifts. Many other substantial shifts in climate took at most a few centuries, and they too may have occurred over a few decades."
the Dryas is a perfect example of a sudden shift. It was not, however, global.
Famously, the gulf stream/ocean conveyer stopped feeding warmth to northern europe, which became cold. The heat did not go away, it was diverted for a thousand years or so.
This is the case with a number of marked, and rapid climate shifts that show up in the Greenland core, but are balanced by opposite shifts in the Antarctica core.
In 1992, the planet was experiencing the aftermath of the largest volcanic eruption since 1912, Pinatubo, which ejected huge volumes of reflective particulates into the atmosphere.
The cooling effect was predicted almost exactly by James Hansen 4 years before in his testimony before congress.
100 years ago the big concern was global cooling. 30 years later the concern was global warming. 30 years later the concern was global cooling and now, 30 years later, we're back to global warming. Does anyone see a pattern here?
A simple climate model forced by satellite-observed changes in the Earth’s radiative budget associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is shown to mimic the major features of global average temperature change during the 20th Century – including three-quarters of the warming trend.
Amundsen made the voyage in a sailboat he installed an 18 horsepower engine in. The point is both the Northwest and Northeast Passages in the past have been ice free for several months so it's not something that only is occuring recently that can be blamed global warming on.
the difference, of course, is that now we are drilling for oil, sending large ships,and planning to deploy naval fleets as the arctic thaws. The story of amundsen's 3 year struggle to get thru is thrown up as more denialist drivel to confuse the uninformed.
Sorry, not working here.
for lecture by the US Navy's Chief oceanographer on what's happening in the arctic, see
@greenman3610 Denialist drivel? The real denialists are the ones who deny the earths climate has never been stable. A stable climate would be unusual and based on many studies involving ice cores, ocean mud cores, etc., climate change is normal and bigger changes in much less time have occured in the past than what we've seen in the past 100 years.
The rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic. The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century.
Arctic sea ice is a poor indicator of warming, because it isn't anchored in place. It drifts. Arctic sea ice changes have more to do with its movement into warmer waters due to fickle winds than with global temperatures.
Contrast Antarctic sea ice. It's anchored in place by a continent, so it doesn't blow around... and it's NOT shrinking.
(Plus, it's at lower latitudes, so it matters more for albedo-feedback.)
14 months after greenman's uploaded his similarly alarmist 2009 video v=2nruCRcbnY0 about declining Arctic sea ice, the headlines were all about the dramatic INCREASE in Arctic sea ice.
"Arctic ice recovers from the great melt" read the Sunday Times headline, 4/4/2010:
webcitation(dot)org(slash)5zco3UeWW
But now, 14 months later, it's back down to 2007 levels.
Arctic sea ice is as fickle as the wind... because it's the wind that mainly drives it.
On the one hand Arctic Sea ice is a strong point for the AGW crowd. It's a shame that the creators of this video dissemble with their argument on percentages of Arctic v Antarctic ice. Absolute amounts is a better comparison, or if you insist on percentages NH ice / total ice versus SH ice / total ice. It's not good to compare the Arctic to the Arctic and the Antarctic to the Antarctic as percentages because the Arctic has much less ice than the Antarctic - you're dividing by a smaller number.
here is no "of course" in anything. I too start with a hypothesis but when I defend the hypothesis I start with facts and lead up to a confirmation of the hypothesis. I would be interested in knowing total ice and would give special credence to satellite measurements of Greenland glacial thickness, etc. ALSO, please refer to your vid "that 1500 year thing" in which you argue (about poles) that "when one part of the planet warms, another cools at the same time.”
In that video, the statement related to graphs showing a see saw pattern between the north and south, at certain times in the ice core record. It related to changes in the north/south heat flows of ocean currents. That pattern is not now in place. We are seeing warming around the globe, and more rapidly at the poles than anywhere else. Both the major ice sheets, at greenland and antarctica are shrinking, and global sea ice, per the cryosphere graph, is shrinking , of course.
I'm looking at the graph titled 30 year Global Sea Ice Area 1979 to present. I don't see much but noise. Maybe a very slight downtrend. It looks like we are currently about a quarter million square km short. Is that a lot? Percentagewise? I was responding to what was said in the video about antarctic ice. If the video is no longer current then my mistake. I'll surf on.
Of course you say dramatically and unmistakably. These are just adjectives. Like I said the trend looks pretty slight to me - based on the chart you referred me to. Maybe I am looking at i wrong? I'm not sure I see a trend I need to worry about or that is unnatural. Also remember that I am still responding to your vid in which it says that when we look at southern sea ice , "We indeed see increasing sea ice" Does your vid need revising?
With global temps on the decline so far in 2011, we should see how much, if any, sea ice returns over the next few years. If we see evidence of the globe continuing to cool and the sea ice returning back to "normal" levels we would know there is no human made global warming and we are simply observing normal climate cycles. 30 years of warming, followed by 30 years of cooling, etc.
You have to average the temperature over a decade or so to smooth out natural fluctuations from ENSO and solar cycles BEFORE you can discuss the climate trends.
According to the NASA data, the 11 year mean is the highest on record and shows no hint of "cyclical" behavior.
Human influence is simply overwhelming the system, whether you like it or not.
@greenman3610 I don't know how, when or why but it's almost as if the more reputable you are, the more likely that you won't be taken seriously or be perceived to have a secret, nefarious agenda. And if you make the slightest mistake, it's all over - anything you say will be discredited out of hand by the "new age experts"
climate deniers feel that the more expertise, training, and experience a climate scientist has, the more likely he or she is one of "them", the hidden conspiracy that's trying to contaminate their precious bodily fluids. (or something)
It's a perfect, seamless, hermetically sealed, logic loop.
Wow all these melting glaciers and no rise in sea level. You guys have every financial government sponsored grant incentive to be a proponent of a theory that cant militate any modeling or pass any scientific standard. Its so odd that some glaciers are melting while some are growing I wonder which ones get reported on? Follow the money.
Is this what world peace brings. 70 years since a global war, 70 years of being spoiled and spoon fed, 70 years of forgetting what it's like to face REAL austerity. Have we become so bored, so empty, so peaceful, that to fill the gap where hatred used to lurk, we must make up phantoms to appease the neanderthalic gene.
Deniers, you are wrong. Go make enemies of the bedroom mirror. No one is out to get you, only your bored yet overactive imaginations.
I think you will find the message is this - 'Now that the human race is becoming more peaceful, people are deliberately making enemies (climate scientists/ Al Gore etc) simply b/c they have nothing better to do.
A case of it's Sunday night, I'm bored. Think I'll go on YT and wind up a few tree-huggers.
@robhoneycutt "man's CO2 has NOTHING to do with climate" science says that "the climate always changes" quite obvious "10 million years extinction events CAUSED CO2 to change" do you think CO2 rise caused mass extinction? huh? "AGW wankers are full of shit" proven by the Cop15, Cancun16, and CRU emails. "will NOT be ice free conditions in the Arctic" a NW passage can open without the icecap melting "can't even tell us the weather 2 weeks ahead" that's also quite apparent
@soakupthesunman That is probably the most strangely structure argument I believe I've ever read. Not a whip of logic and a lot of ranting... and what's with all the quotation marks?
@robhoneycutt youtube removed all the carriage returns, each quote was from my post you said was in error, the words not between quotes point up that you are in error. try to keep up. your failure to bother understanding the post indicates the lack of thought you have given AGW issues. I don't think you gave it a moment's effort
@soakupthesunman You obviously don't understand sea level rise. We aren't talking about waves or tides in the ocean. We're talking about the overall average rise in sea level. That means tides, waves, everything are all 1 meter higher.
Take every appropriate RECYCLABLE material w/ REFLECTIVE properties & build an ENORMOUS 'mirror' out in space that can be periodically moved into position so that it shields us from the sun for 1 or 2 days/month. With light & temperature @ our command we'll soon have an ice supply regulated by will. Recycle, create jobs, a re-invigorated space program, everyone on the planet may volunteer to help for 1 day & it won't have to cost trillions of dollars & we learn to stand united in a common goal.
I dont deny climate change... i deny human responsability... yeah ice cap are melting... but so it's the case on Mars right now... we are responsible for that too?
@Talvrae The Mars ice cap issue comes from one paper regarding surface albedo changes caused by Martian storms that have turned up darker soils. If the sun were causing warming (which is what you're suggesting) them we would see even warming down through the atmosphere. What we actually see is tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect.
As Richard Alley pointed out in congressional testimony last week, Mars, with it's orbital variations and dust storms, makes a poor solar sensor.
We have a number of solar watching satellites in space that are very accurate, and the sun shows no change in the last 50 years that would cause the recent warming.
Moreover, during the last 2 very warm years, solar activity has been the lowest in a century.
@TheSnowlover123 "albedo" just means "reflectivity". Changing sea ice alters the local albedo most significantly (~90% for fresh snow-covered ice vs 10% for open ocean water), but changing the albedo for polar regions also changes the globally averaged albedo.
@vesperus1981 The video is mostly about melting sea ice in the Arctic. Since sea ice is already floating, it does not raise sea levels when it melts (Archimedes).
duh, oh, I get it, you think if the sea ice melts, sea level rises.
no, sea ice is like an ice cube in your shot glass, when it melts it does not raise the level of liquid.
Its the land based ice sheets, on greenland and antarctica that are raising sea level, and are moving about 100 years faster than we thought they would just a short time ago.
@greenman3610 Hey greenman, I suppose it's trivial compared to sliding of land based sheets into the ocean or their melting, but melting sea ice does raise sea level by decreasing the density of the oceans.
@quidproquo2004 More importantly, losing sea ice allows the ocean underneath to warm more, so that sea level rises slightly because of thermal expansion. But these effects are small compared with contributions from lost land ice, and compared with the overall climate impact of reducing planetary reflectivity (albedo).
@vesperus1981 I think you're not understanding how much sea level rise is expected. If you go to the IPCC reports you'll see that sea level has risen and is accelerating. I wouldn't expect NYC to be under water in your lifetime. What this is all about is the problems that we leave to our grandchildren.
I believe there are new projections that are suggesting a 1.5 meter rise by the end of the 21st century.
@TheSnowlover123 If you read the time history of Goddard's predictions, as even outlined on the WUWT discussion board, you will see that Goddard was confident of his predictions until the last minute. The point is not that other people are doing great at predicting sea ice: it is just that WUWT gave Goddard's "high ice" predictions too much attention through most of summer when they looked plausible, then pretended he'd been consistently right when he wasn't.
@greenman3610 They help understand part of the reason why the ice caps are melting. But no, they don't solely support the claim that GW is not human induced.
What does support this claim is the Sun's weaker magnetic field (observed with less sunspots). This has led to a reduction in clouds which lets more radiation through to the surface. The ecosystems natural reaction to this Sun induced GW is to add CO2 to the GHG. Presently, CO2 represents less than 10% the GHG of which 1% is human induced.
@mattyelle1 "Presently, CO2 represents less than 10% the GHG of which 1% is human induced."
If you take the time to read any of the scientific literature on this issue you'll see that humans are producing 30 GT of CO2 each year, which is about 23 GT a year more than natural systems can absorb. This, in turn, accounts for the measured increases in atmospheric CO2 levels over the past century. Google: Keeling Curve
@robhoneycutt I know this. The figures I have posted are still correct. Hiding these numbers is adding to the scare tactic to recruit new pro-carbon tax people.
But putting man-made global warming debates aside, I hope we can agree that Carbon Tax is a Ponzi scheme type world tax which will be used to establish a world government while widening the gap between rich and poor even further. The governing party will have unprecedented power to shut down any business they feel is "carbon polluting".
@mattyelle1 Your argument started with undersea volcanoes and geothermal heat under Greenland. That didn't work, so now you're on to sunspots. That doesn't work because, in fact, GW is not well correlated with sunspots or TSI. So now you tell us that the Oregon Institute disagrees with AGW. Google Art Robinson (head of the Institute) and see what else he believes. Ask why he lied about the paper he sent out with his petition. Are you one of the new trolls brought in by WUWT?
@541iceman How do you figure it doesn't work? Maybe the truth isn't as simple as you would wish it to be. In fact, science isn't simple at all. The solution to understanding GW is not simple. This is why there is so much debate between world scientists. I am simply pointing out some contributing factors.
"Are you one of the new trolls brought in by WUWT?"
-are you serious? This is ridiculous. Since when is skepticism attacked? It has always been the other way around. Don't flip it.
@mattyelle1 My point was not that different things don't contribute to climate; it was that you throw out one red herring, get told you're wrong and, rather than demonstrate that you know what you're talking about, move right on to the next idea (which was also wrong). Then, rather than argue from facts re Art Robinson, you drop that as well. Suggests that you're just working through the denier's playbook.
@541iceman There is no "denier's" playbook. You are becoming skeptic of the other side of the story yourself to point that u assume there r CoIntelPro-like agents working to deny AGW. I'm a canadian engineer with no ties to any organizations. Simply put, AGW via the GHE is simply ridiculous and blind-sighted. The planet is a closed system. If you add 2 the amount of CO2 in the atm, it also brings up the TOA albedo reflecting more rays out into space.
How Low Can It Go? Sun Plunges into the Quietest Solar Minimum in a Century
we have been in the lowest sunspot cycle in the last hundred years, and 2009 was the second warmest year on the record, with 2010 probably going to be the warmest.
@greenman3610 Actually here in San Diego this past summer, and it looks like the entire year will be, the coldest I've ever remembered. I do recall some national weather reports of heat waves elsewhere. Possibly a national thermal low instead of a normal localized desert low drawing in the extra coastal cool.
How much of the land locked ice is also land locked run off?
2010 will end up globally as the warmest in the record, or very, very close.
2009 is at number 2 right now. Important to note that we are just coming out of the lowest solar activity cycle in a century.
Not sure what you mean by "land locked run off" - but when the
ice sheets melt, they are generally melting at the edges, as glaciers accelerate toward the sea - so the meltwater is immediately going toward sea level rise.
@greenman3610 Land locked run off, like dumping into a basin, Great Salt lake is a good example. I understand Greenland may have some land locked run off areas but not all of it. Same with Antarctica has a land locked area where it has no route to the sea, and again not much of it overall.
@SlackerSlayer Land-locked runoff is negligible. The IPCC talks of the contribution of "mountain glaciers" and "land-terminating glaciers", but they still mostly ultimately run off to the sea. Of course, flowing a thousand km along a river, and maybe through lakes and reservoirs leads to a different contribution to the water cycle than if they melt directly into the ocean.
@greenman3610 This makes perfect sense if you understand the fundamental principles of physics. The sunspots are created by the Sun's magnetic field. This is the magnetic field that pulls on water molecules to create clouds. In recent history, the Sun's magnetic field has been weaker (as you also state). This is the cause for the diminished activity of clouds. With less clouds blocking and absorbing Sun Rays, the ground has been subjected to more heating by radiation....
@greenman3610 The planet naturally reacts to this by emitting more CO2 into the greenhouse gases to bring up the Top of Atmosphere (TOA) albedo during the day, and keep some more heat in during the night hence reducing the day/night temp differential.
How does the planet release more CO2? The decomposing processes in forests and in oceans are accelerated (higher temp), ice sheets (containing massive CO2) melt, volcanic activity goes up (warmer in the Earth's core), and more forest fires.
@greenman3610 Historically, the planet has been much warmer and has had much more CO2 in the atmosphere. Yet life has not only survived, it flourished. Looking at nature near the equator demonstrates that higher temp supports more life. In fact, life as we know it depends on water so as long the temp stays below 100 degrees Celcius, life will flourish. Clearly we are not going to get anywhere near this number so humans will survive this natural GW.
@greenman3610 Nope. Counting the 10 million year event with CO2 changing rapidly. Although new studies show that life did not near extinction but instead flourished. This is according to the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute:
@mattyelle1 Who are you paid by? (1) No evidence in your story that the Arctic submarine volcanoes are recently active. (2) No evidence that the Greenland geothermal heat under the specific ice stream being discussed has changed. (3) Geothermal heat flux is already understood as an important control on ice sheet dynamics. (4) Changes in ice don't explain changes in global heat balance, but vice versa is quite straightforward.
@mattyelle1 If you're claiming that current warming is not human induced you, 1) have to explain why virtually everyone who studies climate comes to the exact opposite conclusion, and 2) need to present a mechanism for the multiple lines of evidence that show that warming is from enhanced GHG effects.
@robhoneycutt How can you say that virtually everyone who studies climate comes to the exact same conclusion?
30,000+ scientists of which many are climatologists have come the other conclusion. GW is not human induced: watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
GHG increase is the ecosystems reaction to higher temperatures. GW is due to a weakened magnetic field of the Sun (less sunspots) which pulls on less clouds. Less clouds allows more radiation to reach the surface bringing up the temp.
@mattyelle1 I'm sorry you are so woefully misinformed but there are not 30,000+ climate scientists in the world. There are maybe about 3000 at best. You are falling for a ruse created by the Oregon Institute that is a petition of almost completely NON-climate scientist.
@robhoneycutt Read again please. Of which many are climate scientists (and related fields). Other's are engineers. Turns out engineers know physics, chemistry and often biology inside out, and they study and design closed-systems of energy for a living. The planet's atmosphere is a closed-system which engineers can study and understand just as well as any climatologist granted they use historical data from climatologists.
On the other hand, the IPCC has many bureaucrats on it's team.
@robhoneycutt More than half your "climate experts" have direct ties with bureaucrats and are directly paid by them. In fact, only 4 climate experts agree with the fraudulent IPCC document on GW. Here is a youtube user that has done some good research: watch?v=6IMGiNn9hmc
@robhoneycutt How can we have a constructive argument in the seek of truth if you keep attacking my credibility and that of my sources. Instead, better stick to the arguments about bureaucrats and the science about GW. The attack game is getting old my friend.
@robhoneycutt nice. a smart-ass "greener" who's convinced he's right. Thanks for clarifying. Your a waste of my time. A sheeple lifer that will always be easily manipulated by the banking elite.
I suppose you also think Osama Bin Laden staged 911? lol don't answer that please. save me from your ignorance!
@subach so you are both arrogant enough not to think anyone deserves to reply to your stupid comment and ignorant enough to believe you are right without question,
@WinduWarrior Well you did reply, didn't you? But I actually didn't say anything like that at all. All I did was present an argument which was exactly equivalent in value to the argument presented by mattyelle1. Now as for the validity of the either argument; I leave it up to the reader to decide.
@wdgarraway Listen i don't have time to argue or go over all the details. Believe what you want it's your right. But be fair and consider the consequences of carbon tax too.
Just type: IPCC in google news and read the articles. Highly controversial stuff. It will impoverish the world to a point of famine. Families in colder countries will have to start heating with fire wood. This emits ridiculous CO2.
@mattyelle1 if we continue with BAU famine is inevitable due to a) oil peaking in 2006 and b) changing climate makes current agricultural zones untenable.
uhm...well, there's the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, NASA, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, Geological Society of America, every respected scientific organization on the planet, and the National Science Academy of every country big enough to have a National Academy...
@mattyelle1 GHG increase in the paleoclimate record, yes, is a feedback related to temperature. That's very different than today when fossil fuel energy is generating 30 GT a year of CO2 and overwhelming natural systems.
If you look at the sunspot record there is almost no correlation between that and current warming.
@mattyelle1 Oh, and regarding the video link... Try to find out what the state of that law suit is. Fact is, it never happened. It's just a lot of hot air put out by John Coleman. The video is 2 1/2 years old. Not quite up to date.
@mattyelle1 Refresher on what? That skeptics are stupid opportunists who look to capitalize on the climate issue to sell books? And a year old article pointing out that there was one typo in a 3000 page highly technical report?
(2) Even the UK has ground to a halt due to severe wintry conditions, yet it's reported that as global temperatures go, this year is the second warmest since 1989, But Locally in the UK this year has seen record cold temperatures for 30 years in January and the earliest winter in 17 years this November. funding for useless "global warming" research needs to be brought to an immediate halt & put to use in more important areas such as flooding prevention or Bad weather preperation.
TheTempestSpark says: "Even the UK has ground to a halt due to severe wintry conditions, " and "Locally in the UK this year has seen record cold temperatures for 30 years"
yeah, it's called warming oceans, would NATURALLY produce more snow in the winters as much more moisture has evaporated from the oceans
see watch?v=UbIKGosGSIs
"useless "global warming" research needs to be brought to an immediate halt"
spoken like a true idiot who doesn't understand the mountains of data supporting GW
(1)The cost of all the "global warming" research with little or inconclusive results over the past 15 years is an astounding waste of money, even the met office today said the the rate of warming of the Earth has been and is slowing down, meanwhile over the past 15 years billions have been flushed down the toilet. billions that could have been spent on localized disaster prevention to save lives from the real threat of local weather paterns.
"I like as ice also as an indicator of climate change for its political neutrality. Ice asks no questions, presents no arguments, reads no newspapers, listens to no debates. Its not burdened by ideology and carries no political baggage as it crosses the threshold from solid to liquid. It just melts."
- Dr Henry Pollack, Geophysicist University of Michigan.
Awesome quote. So durn true.
Astrostevo 6 months ago in playlist Climate Denial Crock of the Week
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 6 months ago
so what happened during the MWP and the previous 1000 year warm periods that were warmer than today? you may know a lot but you are still clearly biased to your own conclusions to the extent that you will theorise away other possible causes whilst insulting anyone who has a different view than yours. childish behaviour
hughgallagher 7 months ago
@hughgallagher
other causes could include flying saucers, fairy dust, or bigfoot.
however, no one has been able to find evidence for that.
by contrast, current AGW science has been hammered out with actual evidence over 150 years, and best fits the data.
other warm periods, try
watch?v=ZGFAWzjO378
and
watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA
greenman3610 7 months ago 4
@hughgallagher The latest scientific research suggests that the MWP was largely due to a strongly positive North Atlantic Oscillation that lasted for about 350 years. In the Pacific during much of this time, the ENSO was stuck in a La Niña phase, meaning the equatorial Pacific was cooler than normal, as was much of the world during the MWP, ie. the slope water current over the Laurentian fan was warmer in the LIA than the MWP. The current warming cannot be explained by the same mechanisms.
nevermindedness 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a quick simple solution to global warming and climate change. It is called Muon Catalysed Fusion. As worked on Star Scientific. NO CO2. NO Greenhouse Gases. NO Toxic Waste. The source is dueterium from the World's Oceans - virtually limitless. It is cheap to produce. WE NEED IT NOW. See the website "Star Scientific Limited", Blog "The Big Picture by Andrew Horvath", Youtube video - "In the Footsteps of Fusion"
2110kop 7 months ago
Something to consider - in the 1800's solar output increased than leveled off a few decades ago. Over 70% of that additional solar energy ended up in the worlds oceans which can store heat for hundreds of years. Also, during the past century the strength of the earths magnetic field has decreased by about 15%, plus we have the South Atlantic Anomaly, both of which which allows more solar particles to enter earths atmosphere. Does AGW theory and climate models take into account any of this?
Klaatu2Too 7 months ago
@Klaatu2Too
yup
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 Re: "yup"
No, climate modelers can't take that into account since nobody fully understands all the factors involved in climate change or how those factors interact with each other. The only thing we know for certain, based on the historical climate record, is the earths climate is always changing. The historical climate record shows double digit temp changes within a decade or two in the past so I don't get excited over the 1 degree change we've seen over the past 100 years.
Klaatu2Too 7 months ago
@Klaatu2Too
you asked if ocean heat and solar particles were considered.
They were.
Models, in any case, are not the basis for the science. They are merely tools. The earth has run this experiment before, so we know how it responds to forcings, whether from GHG, orbital, volcanic, or solar changes.
for a good primer, see the opening statement at
watch?v=l9Sh1B-rV60
greenman3610 7 months ago
aqua.nasa.gov/about/team_spencer.php
Klaatu2Too 7 months ago
"This is highly unusual and unexpected but the fact that three completely different views of the sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation....If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate." - Annual meeting of the solar physics division of the American Astronomical Society, June 14th, 2011
Klaatu2Too 8 months ago
@Klaatu2Too
newsflash: we've been in a solar minimum, the lowest in a century, for 4 years. during that time we've had the second warmest year (2009) and the warmest year(2010) in the record. see
NASA by googling
nasa deep solar minimum
also my vid here
watch?v=LMA9D-ZWwrg
and
my blog post by googling
Graph of the Day: What if the Sun Goes into another Maunder Minimum?
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 Several years ago NASA got caught fudging their data and after they corrected it the warmest year on record was in the 1930's. In fact, several of the top 10 warmest years in the corrected report were in the 1930's. I've also read that some of the temperature stations in the northern latitudes are being excluded from global average temp reports. btw, this year Britain's Met Office is reporting 2010 was the 2nd warmest year on record. Who do we believe?
Klaatu2Too 7 months ago
@Klaatu2Too
actually, they had an error, which was corrected, and indicated that 1934 was marginally warmer in the continental US. The error had no bearing on global measurements - for which 2010 was tied as the warmest, 2009 second.
No temp stations are being "excluded", and in any case, satellite readings are in agreement.
The Met office uses a slightly different method of measurement, but also agrees that the overall trend is warming.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610
Nasa current temp graphs, google
nasa key indicators
As to who to believe, my approach is to believe the overwhelming majority, 97+percent, or working, publishing climate scientists - rather than the denialist conspiracy internet sites from where you obviously get your "information".
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 Ad Hominem arguments such are yours, along with concensus, are not part of the scientific method. Also not part of the scientific method is preventing scientists from expressing their views and publishing their research in major publications. In fact, there is a something soon to be published by a climate scientist which is being kept somewhat secret so that AGW proponents can't put pressure on the publisher to cancel publication.
Klaatu2Too 7 months ago
@greenman3610 Concensus does not make something scientific fact. A good example would be Meteor Crater in Az. It wasn't that long ago the concensus among scientists was the crater was a volcanic feature.
Klaatu2Too 7 months ago
@greenman3610 Here's a quote from what you claim is a "denialist conspiracy internet sites."
"Data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years [1995 to 2010]. By the Met Office's own account, the total rise in world temperatures since the 1850s has been less than 0.8 degrees."
dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1335798/Global-warming-halted-Thats-happened-warmest-year-record.html
Klaatu2Too 7 months ago
@Klaatu2Too
for more on this deliberate distortion:
watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc
greenman3610 7 months ago
Comment removed
Klaatu2Too 7 months ago
@greenman3610 Here's another quote from what you claim is a "denialist conspiracy internet sites"
"the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is shown to mimic the major features of global average temperature change during the 20th Century – including three-quarters of the warming trend."
drroyspencer[dot]com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/
The truth does not need ad hominem attacks to support it but that seems to be one of the favored tactics of the AGW crowd.
Klaatu2Too 7 months ago
@Klaatu2Too
Spencer of course, most famous for being repetitively, stubbornly, and conspicuously wrong on the most important research of his life. see
watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc
starting at about 5:00 - you'll see that his own data confirm current warming.
Spencer, the self described 'official climatologist of the Rush LImbaugh show" is, for the record, a creationist as well - not that there's anything wrong with that.
google
Roy Spencer: And all this time, we thought you were a scientist. Weird.
greenman3610 7 months ago
@greenman3610 In another of your youtube pages you mentioned Dick Chaney and said I supported wars for oil. Today in regards to Roy Spencer you say he is a creationist and mention Rush Limbaugh. What does any of that have to do with climate change? You're just trying to minimize my skepitcal input .
Spencer does not deny global warming and has made what I consider one of the most truthfull statements on the subject - nobody knows for certain what all the factors are that cause climate change.
Klaatu2Too 7 months ago
@greenman3610
Does that 97% figure come from the subset of 77 climatologists, out of over 3,000 sciientists who responded, in an online survey conducted by the University Of Illinois several years ago? If so, who are the 75 out 77 climateologists who think humans are soley responsible for global warming?
Klaatu2Too 7 months ago
The maximum reduction in global temperature caused by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption occurred in August 1992 with a reduction of 0.73°C. The United States experienced its third coldest summer in 77 years during 1992. In other words, much of the warming that occured in the mid 1990's was a rebound from the cooling casued by the volcanic eruption and, according to warmist Phil Jones, there has been no "significant warming" since 1998.
Klaatu2Too 8 months ago
@Klaatu2Too
actually, the pinatubo cooling almost exactly matched Jim Hansen's 1988 climate models, thereby providing one of the most convincing real life proofs of their skill.
watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw
as far as Phil Jones -- dude, you have GOT to get your denial talking points straight. It's not 98, it's 95.
see here
watch?v=cp-iB6jwjUc
btw, he said "statistically significant warming", and that was last year. As of now, it's significant.
google
Phil Jones, warming since 1995 now "significant'
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610
I'm always here to help.
just ask if you need more.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@Klaatu2Too
"The United States experienced its third coldest summer in 77 years during 1992."
Laughable, We're talking global temp. I can imagine a mass of hot air heading towards the USA and stopping at our borders. The planet is heat engine and the ice is our heat exchanger, as it decreases out temps will increase.
MrWhylie 7 months ago
@MrWhylie "The United States experienced its third coldest summer in 77 years during 1992."........"Laughable, We're talking global temp"
In 1992 the average global temp cooled by 0.5 degrees C.
Klaatu2Too 7 months ago
@Klaatu2Too The trend in global temp is clear, you choose to deny it. The pathos of the denial mind is what intrigues me. It's not only that you deny physics and thermal dynamics, it's that you deny the very power of data. The tools of statistics and modeling are the enemy of the denialist. But I got to hand it to you, it takes a lot of faith to bet against the laws of physics. The longer you live the less chance you have to win. If you live long enough, you'll see it, but never never admit it.
MrWhylie 7 months ago
@MrWhylie The trend is clear. During the past 11,000 years Earth's climate has had many dramatic shifts which includes the end of the LIttle Ice Age in the 1800's which is when our current warming trend began. There are many factors involved in climate change, some of which are not giving due consideration by AGW proponents and modelers, and that does not make for good science. How can you build an accurate model or theory when these factors are not included nor fully understood.
Klaatu2Too 7 months ago
@Klaatu2Too How do you know temp 11,000 years ago? Think about the years spent on the ice to collect this data. Think about all the work and sacrifice of all these climate researchers. Why did they do it, to get rich? They did it because it's important to understand our planet, our home. You show me a denialist that has spent any time on the ice. Think of all the years of denial ahead of you. Let your denial sustain you. Bring your denial deep inside your self. Then hide and watch.
MrWhylie 7 months ago
@MrWhylie Re: "How do you know temp 11,000 years ago?"
Science reports based on ice core samples and marine sediment core samples. These samples give us a climate record that goes back a million years or more. These samples show us climate change is common and they show us the climate change which has occured since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1800's is minor compared to some climate changes in the past. Anyone who thinks what we're seeing now is not normal is the denialist.
Klaatu2Too 7 months ago
@MrWhylie Sudden Climate Transitions During The Quaternary
"the record of the last 150,000 years, at least a few large climate changes certainly occurred on the timescale of individual human lifetimes, the most well-studied and well-established of these being the ending of the Younger Dryas, and various Holocene climate shifts. Many other substantial shifts in climate took at most a few centuries, and they too may have occurred over a few decades."
esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
Klaatu2Too 7 months ago
@Klaatu2Too
the Dryas is a perfect example of a sudden shift. It was not, however, global.
Famously, the gulf stream/ocean conveyer stopped feeding warmth to northern europe, which became cold. The heat did not go away, it was diverted for a thousand years or so.
This is the case with a number of marked, and rapid climate shifts that show up in the Greenland core, but are balanced by opposite shifts in the Antarctica core.
watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ
greenman3610 7 months ago
@Klaatu2Too
"During the past 11,000 years Earth's climate has had many dramatic shifts ..not giving due consideration"
watch a dimwitted congressman make this same argument to one of the planet's most brilliant scientists.
watch?v=L2m9SNzxJJA
greenman3610 7 months ago
@Klaatu2Too
In 1992, the planet was experiencing the aftermath of the largest volcanic eruption since 1912, Pinatubo, which ejected huge volumes of reflective particulates into the atmosphere.
The cooling effect was predicted almost exactly by James Hansen 4 years before in his testimony before congress.
watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw
see also
watch?v=PLnJttkhDTM
greenman3610 7 months ago
100 years ago the big concern was global cooling. 30 years later the concern was global warming. 30 years later the concern was global cooling and now, 30 years later, we're back to global warming. Does anyone see a pattern here?
Klaatu2Too 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A simple climate model forced by satellite-observed changes in the Earth’s radiative budget associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is shown to mimic the major features of global average temperature change during the 20th Century – including three-quarters of the warming trend.
drroyspencer[dot]com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/
Klaatu2Too 8 months ago
Over 100 years ago Roald Amundsen and his crew traveled from Greenland to San Francisco through the Northwest Passage.
Over 130 years ago Nils Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld and his crew traveled from Sweden to the Bering Strait through the Northeast Passage.
Klaatu2Too 8 months ago
@Klaatu2Too
It took amundsen 3 years.
fail.
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610
Amundsen made the voyage in a sailboat he installed an 18 horsepower engine in. The point is both the Northwest and Northeast Passages in the past have been ice free for several months so it's not something that only is occuring recently that can be blamed global warming on.
Klaatu2Too 8 months ago
@Klaatu2Too
the difference, of course, is that now we are drilling for oil, sending large ships,and planning to deploy naval fleets as the arctic thaws. The story of amundsen's 3 year struggle to get thru is thrown up as more denialist drivel to confuse the uninformed.
Sorry, not working here.
for lecture by the US Navy's Chief oceanographer on what's happening in the arctic, see
watch?v=CBBEyJVj5MY
and
watch?v=T3dcc0mV-n4
greenman3610 8 months ago
@greenman3610 Denialist drivel? The real denialists are the ones who deny the earths climate has never been stable. A stable climate would be unusual and based on many studies involving ice cores, ocean mud cores, etc., climate change is normal and bigger changes in much less time have occured in the past than what we've seen in the past 100 years.
Klaatu2Too 8 months ago
From a NASA study, 2007.
The rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic. The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century.
Klaatu2Too 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For those who fret about the recent decline in Arctic sea ice, here's your cure:
tinyurl(dot)com(slash)iceatnpole
Be sure to scroll down to view the photos of open water at the north pole ~50 years ago.
ncdave4life 8 months ago
Arctic sea ice is a poor indicator of warming, because it isn't anchored in place. It drifts. Arctic sea ice changes have more to do with its movement into warmer waters due to fickle winds than with global temperatures.
Contrast Antarctic sea ice. It's anchored in place by a continent, so it doesn't blow around... and it's NOT shrinking.
(Plus, it's at lower latitudes, so it matters more for albedo-feedback.)
ncdave4life 8 months ago
14 months after greenman's uploaded his similarly alarmist 2009 video v=2nruCRcbnY0 about declining Arctic sea ice, the headlines were all about the dramatic INCREASE in Arctic sea ice.
"Arctic ice recovers from the great melt" read the Sunday Times headline, 4/4/2010:
webcitation(dot)org(slash)5zco3UeWW
But now, 14 months later, it's back down to 2007 levels.
Arctic sea ice is as fickle as the wind... because it's the wind that mainly drives it.
ncdave4life 8 months ago
@ncdave4life
anyone can look at the graphs by googling
nasa key indicators
and judge for themselves
greenman3610 8 months ago
On the one hand Arctic Sea ice is a strong point for the AGW crowd. It's a shame that the creators of this video dissemble with their argument on percentages of Arctic v Antarctic ice. Absolute amounts is a better comparison, or if you insist on percentages NH ice / total ice versus SH ice / total ice. It's not good to compare the Arctic to the Arctic and the Antarctic to the Antarctic as percentages because the Arctic has much less ice than the Antarctic - you're dividing by a smaller number.
HenryNichols50 8 months ago
@HenryNichols50
cryosphere today has the absolute global ice numbers. They are of course, down.
greenman3610 8 months ago
here is no "of course" in anything. I too start with a hypothesis but when I defend the hypothesis I start with facts and lead up to a confirmation of the hypothesis. I would be interested in knowing total ice and would give special credence to satellite measurements of Greenland glacial thickness, etc. ALSO, please refer to your vid "that 1500 year thing" in which you argue (about poles) that "when one part of the planet warms, another cools at the same time.”
HenryNichols50 8 months ago
@HenryNichols50
In that video, the statement related to graphs showing a see saw pattern between the north and south, at certain times in the ice core record. It related to changes in the north/south heat flows of ocean currents. That pattern is not now in place. We are seeing warming around the globe, and more rapidly at the poles than anywhere else. Both the major ice sheets, at greenland and antarctica are shrinking, and global sea ice, per the cryosphere graph, is shrinking , of course.
greenman3610 8 months ago
I'm looking at the graph titled 30 year Global Sea Ice Area 1979 to present. I don't see much but noise. Maybe a very slight downtrend. It looks like we are currently about a quarter million square km short. Is that a lot? Percentagewise? I was responding to what was said in the video about antarctic ice. If the video is no longer current then my mistake. I'll surf on.
HenryNichols50 8 months ago
@HenryNichols50
It is unmistakably down, globally.
Most dramatically, the northern sea ice is shrinking. The southern sea ice is not shrinking as fast, for a number of reasons.
Land ice on both poles is dramatically declining.
greenman3610 8 months ago
Of course you say dramatically and unmistakably. These are just adjectives. Like I said the trend looks pretty slight to me - based on the chart you referred me to. Maybe I am looking at i wrong? I'm not sure I see a trend I need to worry about or that is unnatural. Also remember that I am still responding to your vid in which it says that when we look at southern sea ice , "We indeed see increasing sea ice" Does your vid need revising?
HenryNichols50 8 months ago
@HenryNichols50
another suggestion. the National snow and ice data center has a FAQ page on sea ice.
lots of good info there
google
nsidc sea ice faq
and no, my video is correct.
greenman3610 8 months ago
With global temps on the decline so far in 2011, we should see how much, if any, sea ice returns over the next few years. If we see evidence of the globe continuing to cool and the sea ice returning back to "normal" levels we would know there is no human made global warming and we are simply observing normal climate cycles. 30 years of warming, followed by 30 years of cooling, etc.
wadefulp 1 year ago
@wadefulp
"cooling" nonsense- google
Yes, it’s a record-breaking winter: Arctic sees lowest January sea ice extent in satellite record
greenman3610 1 year ago
You have to average the temperature over a decade or so to smooth out natural fluctuations from ENSO and solar cycles BEFORE you can discuss the climate trends.
According to the NASA data, the 11 year mean is the highest on record and shows no hint of "cyclical" behavior.
Human influence is simply overwhelming the system, whether you like it or not.
nightvidcole 11 months ago
How can denialists not take Rear Admiral Titley seriously? He's a career military officer, for chrissakes.
Muad420 1 year ago 2
@Muad420
Don't you see? The more credible the military officer, the more it proves how big the conspiracy is!
The more credible the scientist, the surer you can be that he's an elitist .
greenman3610 1 year ago 4
@greenman3610 I don't know how, when or why but it's almost as if the more reputable you are, the more likely that you won't be taken seriously or be perceived to have a secret, nefarious agenda. And if you make the slightest mistake, it's all over - anything you say will be discredited out of hand by the "new age experts"
bannor99 1 year ago
@bannor99
climate deniers feel that the more expertise, training, and experience a climate scientist has, the more likely he or she is one of "them", the hidden conspiracy that's trying to contaminate their precious bodily fluids. (or something)
It's a perfect, seamless, hermetically sealed, logic loop.
greenman3610 1 year ago
fascinating, the AGW bot just sent me this link, 2010/12/21/sea-ice-news-32-southern-comfort
ibram786 1 year ago
@ibram786
right. if you watched the vid, Antarctic winter ice is growing at about 0.7 percent per decade.
Total global sea ice still declining last time I looked.
greenman3610 1 year ago 3
I wonder how many angels could dance on Anthony Watts's head?
Ziasudra 1 year ago 7
@Ziasudra : As Marcus said in an episode of 'Babylon-5' : "As many as want to." ;-)
Astrostevo 6 months ago in playlist Climate Denial Crock of the Week
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Climate change, lol
goodinohio 1 year ago
After watching 6 hours of House hearings on Climate Change, I am not surprised to hear Admiral Titley responding to Rohrbacher.
ainefairygoddess 1 year ago
Ice tells no lies.
68spaceman 1 year ago 2
Wow all these melting glaciers and no rise in sea level. You guys have every financial government sponsored grant incentive to be a proponent of a theory that cant militate any modeling or pass any scientific standard. Its so odd that some glaciers are melting while some are growing I wonder which ones get reported on? Follow the money.
detox4u 1 year ago
@detox4u Sea level has risen.
TrueMetis 1 year ago
Is this what world peace brings. 70 years since a global war, 70 years of being spoiled and spoon fed, 70 years of forgetting what it's like to face REAL austerity. Have we become so bored, so empty, so peaceful, that to fill the gap where hatred used to lurk, we must make up phantoms to appease the neanderthalic gene.
Deniers, you are wrong. Go make enemies of the bedroom mirror. No one is out to get you, only your bored yet overactive imaginations.
TheElasticJesus 1 year ago
@TheElasticJesus yes, we are bored. that is why we 'made up' global warming...
you are so intelligent... *scoff*
HeroDanny 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HeroDanny
you are so intelligent... *scoff*
Read my comment again.
I think you will find the message is this - 'Now that the human race is becoming more peaceful, people are deliberately making enemies (climate scientists/ Al Gore etc) simply b/c they have nothing better to do.
A case of it's Sunday night, I'm bored. Think I'll go on YT and wind up a few tree-huggers.
TheElasticJesus 1 year ago 2
you jackasses, man's CO2 has NOTHING to do with climate.
the climate always changes.
even the storied "10 million years extinction events" more likely
CAUSED CO2 to change, rather than being caused BY CO2 changing.
Get over it, give it up, we know you AGW wankers are full of shit.
There will NOT be "ice free conditions" in the Arctic.
imagine how stupid it is to think this guy can forecast 40 years
ahead, they can't even tell us the weather 2 weeks ahead.
soakupthesunman 1 year ago
@soakupthesunman Sorry, but you are not correct on pretty much everything you said.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
soakupthesunman 1 year ago
@soakupthesunman That is probably the most strangely structure argument I believe I've ever read. Not a whip of logic and a lot of ranting... and what's with all the quotation marks?
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Comment removed
soakupthesunman 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt youtube removed all the carriage returns, each quote was from my post you said was in error, the words not between quotes point up that you are in error. try to keep up. your failure to bother understanding the post indicates the lack of thought you have given AGW issues. I don't think you gave it a moment's effort
soakupthesunman 1 year ago
@soakupthesunman No. Even reading through all the muck there is no logic to what you're proclaiming.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt I simply took each line from my earlier reply and explained it to you, which is more than the AGW set has ever done.
Now they're saying that a "1 meter rise" in sea levels could mean a 1 meter reduction in some places and a rise of several meters somewhere else.
These AGW flaks are full of shit.
soakupthesunman 1 year ago
@soakupthesunman You obviously don't understand sea level rise. We aren't talking about waves or tides in the ocean. We're talking about the overall average rise in sea level. That means tides, waves, everything are all 1 meter higher.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago 2
Thanks for your reply there.
Astrostevo 1 year ago
Take every appropriate RECYCLABLE material w/ REFLECTIVE properties & build an ENORMOUS 'mirror' out in space that can be periodically moved into position so that it shields us from the sun for 1 or 2 days/month. With light & temperature @ our command we'll soon have an ice supply regulated by will. Recycle, create jobs, a re-invigorated space program, everyone on the planet may volunteer to help for 1 day & it won't have to cost trillions of dollars & we learn to stand united in a common goal.
asiankevind 1 year ago
I dont deny climate change... i deny human responsability... yeah ice cap are melting... but so it's the case on Mars right now... we are responsible for that too?
Talvrae 1 year ago
@Talvrae The warming on Mars is due completely to major dust storms revealing large patches of darker soil which absorb more sunlight.
In fact, the past few decades have the sun reducing its output, with some of the other planets, like Uranus, getting cooler.
smartmusicfreak 1 year ago
@Talvrae The Mars ice cap issue comes from one paper regarding surface albedo changes caused by Martian storms that have turned up darker soils. If the sun were causing warming (which is what you're suggesting) them we would see even warming down through the atmosphere. What we actually see is tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@Talvrae
see the vid "Mars Attacks"
watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM
As Richard Alley pointed out in congressional testimony last week, Mars, with it's orbital variations and dust storms, makes a poor solar sensor.
We have a number of solar watching satellites in space that are very accurate, and the sun shows no change in the last 50 years that would cause the recent warming.
Moreover, during the last 2 very warm years, solar activity has been the lowest in a century.
google
nasa deep solar minimum
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 i believe by the time it matters technology will be so far advanced that it can solve all our problems.
MrTrueConservative 1 year ago
@MrTrueConservative - Yeah... some of my chain-smoking friends are now dead... they thought for sure there would be a cure for cancer by now.
rapauli 1 year ago
@rapauli
that's the basic "geo-engineering will save us" argument.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@TheSnowlover123 "albedo" just means "reflectivity". Changing sea ice alters the local albedo most significantly (~90% for fresh snow-covered ice vs 10% for open ocean water), but changing the albedo for polar regions also changes the globally averaged albedo.
541iceman 1 year ago
@vesperus1981 The video is mostly about melting sea ice in the Arctic. Since sea ice is already floating, it does not raise sea levels when it melts (Archimedes).
541iceman 1 year ago 2
I might believe what you're saying in this video but why hasn't the sea level risen. New York city is still here? Seriously? I open to the facts.
vesperus1981 1 year ago
@vesperus1981
There are no predictions that New York is imminently going to disappear.
However, the most serious observers are predicting between half a meter and 2 meters in this century - with a good deal of uncertainty.
google
As Glaciers Melt, Scientists Seek Data on Rising Seas
greenman3610 1 year ago
@vesperus1981
duh, oh, I get it, you think if the sea ice melts, sea level rises.
no, sea ice is like an ice cube in your shot glass, when it melts it does not raise the level of liquid.
Its the land based ice sheets, on greenland and antarctica that are raising sea level, and are moving about 100 years faster than we thought they would just a short time ago.
see the sea level vid
watch?v=kffsux-ifKk
greenman3610 1 year ago 2
@greenman3610 Hey greenman, I suppose it's trivial compared to sliding of land based sheets into the ocean or their melting, but melting sea ice does raise sea level by decreasing the density of the oceans.
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
@quidproquo2004 More importantly, losing sea ice allows the ocean underneath to warm more, so that sea level rises slightly because of thermal expansion. But these effects are small compared with contributions from lost land ice, and compared with the overall climate impact of reducing planetary reflectivity (albedo).
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman Agreed.
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
@vesperus1981 I think you're not understanding how much sea level rise is expected. If you go to the IPCC reports you'll see that sea level has risen and is accelerating. I wouldn't expect NYC to be under water in your lifetime. What this is all about is the problems that we leave to our grandchildren.
I believe there are new projections that are suggesting a 1.5 meter rise by the end of the 21st century.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@TheSnowlover123 If you read the time history of Goddard's predictions, as even outlined on the WUWT discussion board, you will see that Goddard was confident of his predictions until the last minute. The point is not that other people are doing great at predicting sea ice: it is just that WUWT gave Goddard's "high ice" predictions too much attention through most of summer when they looked plausible, then pretended he'd been consistently right when he wasn't.
541iceman 1 year ago
Let me shed some light on the reason for the ice caps melting...
sciencedaily(dot)com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm
livescience(dot)com/environment/071213-greenland-magma.html
Please don't ignore the facts people. GW is real, but it's definitely not human induced.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1
neither of these citations supports your claim.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 They help understand part of the reason why the ice caps are melting. But no, they don't solely support the claim that GW is not human induced.
What does support this claim is the Sun's weaker magnetic field (observed with less sunspots). This has led to a reduction in clouds which lets more radiation through to the surface. The ecosystems natural reaction to this Sun induced GW is to add CO2 to the GHG. Presently, CO2 represents less than 10% the GHG of which 1% is human induced.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 "Presently, CO2 represents less than 10% the GHG of which 1% is human induced."
If you take the time to read any of the scientific literature on this issue you'll see that humans are producing 30 GT of CO2 each year, which is about 23 GT a year more than natural systems can absorb. This, in turn, accounts for the measured increases in atmospheric CO2 levels over the past century. Google: Keeling Curve
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt I know this. The figures I have posted are still correct. Hiding these numbers is adding to the scare tactic to recruit new pro-carbon tax people.
But putting man-made global warming debates aside, I hope we can agree that Carbon Tax is a Ponzi scheme type world tax which will be used to establish a world government while widening the gap between rich and poor even further. The governing party will have unprecedented power to shut down any business they feel is "carbon polluting".
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Your argument started with undersea volcanoes and geothermal heat under Greenland. That didn't work, so now you're on to sunspots. That doesn't work because, in fact, GW is not well correlated with sunspots or TSI. So now you tell us that the Oregon Institute disagrees with AGW. Google Art Robinson (head of the Institute) and see what else he believes. Ask why he lied about the paper he sent out with his petition. Are you one of the new trolls brought in by WUWT?
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman How do you figure it doesn't work? Maybe the truth isn't as simple as you would wish it to be. In fact, science isn't simple at all. The solution to understanding GW is not simple. This is why there is so much debate between world scientists. I am simply pointing out some contributing factors.
"Are you one of the new trolls brought in by WUWT?"
-are you serious? This is ridiculous. Since when is skepticism attacked? It has always been the other way around. Don't flip it.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 My point was not that different things don't contribute to climate; it was that you throw out one red herring, get told you're wrong and, rather than demonstrate that you know what you're talking about, move right on to the next idea (which was also wrong). Then, rather than argue from facts re Art Robinson, you drop that as well. Suggests that you're just working through the denier's playbook.
541iceman 1 year ago
@541iceman There is no "denier's" playbook. You are becoming skeptic of the other side of the story yourself to point that u assume there r CoIntelPro-like agents working to deny AGW. I'm a canadian engineer with no ties to any organizations. Simply put, AGW via the GHE is simply ridiculous and blind-sighted. The planet is a closed system. If you add 2 the amount of CO2 in the atm, it also brings up the TOA albedo reflecting more rays out into space.
I suggest you read my answer to greenman.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1
google
How Low Can It Go? Sun Plunges into the Quietest Solar Minimum in a Century
we have been in the lowest sunspot cycle in the last hundred years, and 2009 was the second warmest year on the record, with 2010 probably going to be the warmest.
Please explain in light of your theory.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Actually here in San Diego this past summer, and it looks like the entire year will be, the coldest I've ever remembered. I do recall some national weather reports of heat waves elsewhere. Possibly a national thermal low instead of a normal localized desert low drawing in the extra coastal cool.
How much of the land locked ice is also land locked run off?
ISamuelII 1 year ago
@ISamuelII
2010 will end up globally as the warmest in the record, or very, very close.
2009 is at number 2 right now. Important to note that we are just coming out of the lowest solar activity cycle in a century.
Not sure what you mean by "land locked run off" - but when the
ice sheets melt, they are generally melting at the edges, as glaciers accelerate toward the sea - so the meltwater is immediately going toward sea level rise.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Land locked run off, like dumping into a basin, Great Salt lake is a good example. I understand Greenland may have some land locked run off areas but not all of it. Same with Antarctica has a land locked area where it has no route to the sea, and again not much of it overall.
SlackerSlayer 1 year ago
@SlackerSlayer
not much of that at this point. melting is on the coasts, the interior areas tend to be higher elevation and colder.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@SlackerSlayer Land-locked runoff is negligible. The IPCC talks of the contribution of "mountain glaciers" and "land-terminating glaciers", but they still mostly ultimately run off to the sea. Of course, flowing a thousand km along a river, and maybe through lakes and reservoirs leads to a different contribution to the water cycle than if they melt directly into the ocean.
541iceman 1 year ago
@ISamuelII Your weather in San Diego is exactly that. Weather. Not climate.
If you look at global averages this year is likely to be the hottest in recorded history. And this decade is the hottest in recorded history.
Low latitude Pacific coast regions (to my understanding) will likely see less of the effects of global warming that many other parts of the world.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@greenman3610 This makes perfect sense if you understand the fundamental principles of physics. The sunspots are created by the Sun's magnetic field. This is the magnetic field that pulls on water molecules to create clouds. In recent history, the Sun's magnetic field has been weaker (as you also state). This is the cause for the diminished activity of clouds. With less clouds blocking and absorbing Sun Rays, the ground has been subjected to more heating by radiation....
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 What have you been smoking? "Magnetic field that pulls on water molecules to create clouds"- "fundamental principles of physics"- ROTFL
indulis1 1 year ago
Comment removed
indulis1 1 year ago
@greenman3610 The planet naturally reacts to this by emitting more CO2 into the greenhouse gases to bring up the Top of Atmosphere (TOA) albedo during the day, and keep some more heat in during the night hence reducing the day/night temp differential.
How does the planet release more CO2? The decomposing processes in forests and in oceans are accelerated (higher temp), ice sheets (containing massive CO2) melt, volcanic activity goes up (warmer in the Earth's core), and more forest fires.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Historically, the planet has been much warmer and has had much more CO2 in the atmosphere. Yet life has not only survived, it flourished. Looking at nature near the equator demonstrates that higher temp supports more life. In fact, life as we know it depends on water so as long the temp stays below 100 degrees Celcius, life will flourish. Clearly we are not going to get anywhere near this number so humans will survive this natural GW.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1
if you ignore those nasty 10 million year extinction events that tend to happen when Co2 changes rapidly......
greenman3610 1 year ago
@greenman3610 Nope. Counting the 10 million year event with CO2 changing rapidly. Although new studies show that life did not near extinction but instead flourished. This is according to the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute:
stri(dot)si(dot)edu/english/about_stri/headline_news/news/article(dot)php?id=1234
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@greenman3610 yeah, but in denierland it's always opposite day!
sTevefor3 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Who are you paid by? (1) No evidence in your story that the Arctic submarine volcanoes are recently active. (2) No evidence that the Greenland geothermal heat under the specific ice stream being discussed has changed. (3) Geothermal heat flux is already understood as an important control on ice sheet dynamics. (4) Changes in ice don't explain changes in global heat balance, but vice versa is quite straightforward.
541iceman 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 If you're claiming that current warming is not human induced you, 1) have to explain why virtually everyone who studies climate comes to the exact opposite conclusion, and 2) need to present a mechanism for the multiple lines of evidence that show that warming is from enhanced GHG effects.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt How can you say that virtually everyone who studies climate comes to the exact same conclusion?
30,000+ scientists of which many are climatologists have come the other conclusion. GW is not human induced: watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
GHG increase is the ecosystems reaction to higher temperatures. GW is due to a weakened magnetic field of the Sun (less sunspots) which pulls on less clouds. Less clouds allows more radiation to reach the surface bringing up the temp.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 I'm sorry you are so woefully misinformed but there are not 30,000+ climate scientists in the world. There are maybe about 3000 at best. You are falling for a ruse created by the Oregon Institute that is a petition of almost completely NON-climate scientist.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
Comment removed
spin12 1 year ago
Comment removed
spin12 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt Read again please. Of which many are climate scientists (and related fields). Other's are engineers. Turns out engineers know physics, chemistry and often biology inside out, and they study and design closed-systems of energy for a living. The planet's atmosphere is a closed-system which engineers can study and understand just as well as any climatologist granted they use historical data from climatologists.
On the other hand, the IPCC has many bureaucrats on it's team.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 So, I suppose you're the kind of person who would go to, say, your dentist, for a second opinion on your cancer diagnosis.
Or, if you were having plumbing problems you'd call a carpenter.
A nuclear physicist might have an opinion on climate but would not be an expert in the field any more than you or I.
If you look at who compiles the scientific information in the IPCC reports it is climate experts. Not bureaucrats.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago 8
@robhoneycutt More than half your "climate experts" have direct ties with bureaucrats and are directly paid by them. In fact, only 4 climate experts agree with the fraudulent IPCC document on GW. Here is a youtube user that has done some good research: watch?v=6IMGiNn9hmc
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 That video is probably the worst example of cherry picking data to support your claim as there possibly could be.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt How can we have a constructive argument in the seek of truth if you keep attacking my credibility and that of my sources. Instead, better stick to the arguments about bureaucrats and the science about GW. The attack game is getting old my friend.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 If you will use some rational arguments we can discuss them. So far you've not provided anything.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt nice. a smart-ass "greener" who's convinced he's right. Thanks for clarifying. Your a waste of my time. A sheeple lifer that will always be easily manipulated by the banking elite.
I suppose you also think Osama Bin Laden staged 911? lol don't answer that please. save me from your ignorance!
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 When you find something substantial to debate stop back by.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@mattyelle1
I suppose you don't know scat-o-catis was really behind 9/11 and staging global warming? lol don't answer that please. Save me from your ignorance!
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
subach 1 year ago
@subach so you are both arrogant enough not to think anyone deserves to reply to your stupid comment and ignorant enough to believe you are right without question,
do us all a favour and shut up
WinduWarrior 1 year ago
@WinduWarrior Well you did reply, didn't you? But I actually didn't say anything like that at all. All I did was present an argument which was exactly equivalent in value to the argument presented by mattyelle1. Now as for the validity of the either argument; I leave it up to the reader to decide.
subach 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 " In fact, only 4 climate experts agree with the fraudulent IPCC document on GW"
Really? only 4. How about the thousand or so who worked on the document? Do they all (except 4) disagree with their own work?
wdgarraway 1 year ago 2
@wdgarraway Listen i don't have time to argue or go over all the details. Believe what you want it's your right. But be fair and consider the consequences of carbon tax too.
Just type: IPCC in google news and read the articles. Highly controversial stuff. It will impoverish the world to a point of famine. Families in colder countries will have to start heating with fire wood. This emits ridiculous CO2.
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 if we continue with BAU famine is inevitable due to a) oil peaking in 2006 and b) changing climate makes current agricultural zones untenable.
Paladiea 1 year ago
@mattyelle1
uhm...well, there's the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, NASA, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, Geological Society of America, every respected scientific organization on the planet, and the National Science Academy of every country big enough to have a National Academy...
that's pretty much it.
greenman3610 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 GHG increase in the paleoclimate record, yes, is a feedback related to temperature. That's very different than today when fossil fuel energy is generating 30 GT a year of CO2 and overwhelming natural systems.
If you look at the sunspot record there is almost no correlation between that and current warming.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Oh, and regarding the video link... Try to find out what the state of that law suit is. Fact is, it never happened. It's just a lot of hot air put out by John Coleman. The video is 2 1/2 years old. Not quite up to date.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago
@robhoneycutt OK here is a refresher...
timesonline(dot)co(dot)uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
canadafreepress(dot)com/index.php/article/30577
mattyelle1 1 year ago
@mattyelle1 Refresher on what? That skeptics are stupid opportunists who look to capitalize on the climate issue to sell books? And a year old article pointing out that there was one typo in a 3000 page highly technical report?
robhoneycutt 1 year ago 2
@mattyelle1
30,000 scientist crock
watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ
greenman3610 1 year ago
(2) Even the UK has ground to a halt due to severe wintry conditions, yet it's reported that as global temperatures go, this year is the second warmest since 1989, But Locally in the UK this year has seen record cold temperatures for 30 years in January and the earliest winter in 17 years this November. funding for useless "global warming" research needs to be brought to an immediate halt & put to use in more important areas such as flooding prevention or Bad weather preperation.
TheTempestSpark 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TheTempestSpark says: "Even the UK has ground to a halt due to severe wintry conditions, " and "Locally in the UK this year has seen record cold temperatures for 30 years"
yeah, it's called warming oceans, would NATURALLY produce more snow in the winters as much more moisture has evaporated from the oceans
see watch?v=UbIKGosGSIs
"useless "global warming" research needs to be brought to an immediate halt"
spoken like a true idiot who doesn't understand the mountains of data supporting GW
lennyhipp 1 year ago
(1)The cost of all the "global warming" research with little or inconclusive results over the past 15 years is an astounding waste of money, even the met office today said the the rate of warming of the Earth has been and is slowing down, meanwhile over the past 15 years billions have been flushed down the toilet. billions that could have been spent on localized disaster prevention to save lives from the real threat of local weather paterns.
TheTempestSpark 1 year ago
ADM. David Titley there is deff something strange about this dude, notice how his not blinking at all
mystaa1 1 year ago
@robbieopen
Actually, if you just just google: volcanic activity medieval warm period
you will get a ton of papers and articles on this.
robhoneycutt 1 year ago