kallend 2,148
Recommended Posts
Quote
But, since you're such the expert - why don't YOU explain how Mars is showing the same approximate increase in temperature (approx .5C) and over the same duration (about the last 30 years) as the Earth has.
The argument that Martian warming disproves anthropogenic global warming fails on two points - there is little empirical evidence that Mars is actually warming (IOW, you cherry pick) and Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations.
Of some 100 measurable bodies in the solar system, only 6 show any evidence of warming, and some are cooling.
rehmwa 2
QuoteWhereas Uranus is seeing a decrease in temperature over the past few decades.
Maybe it has to do with the Vaseline temperature
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
turtlespeed 226
Quote
It's also the case that the running average is also decreasing steadily (9% less ice per decade, on average), although obviously there are statistical fluctuations from year to year which the likes of Marc and Mike grasp at as if they were straws.
(edited for format)
if 10% of the earths ice melted New York would be under water. So New York should have been under water already - Wait how long has this been an issue? When did they start taking measurements?
Yes - 10% of the ice melts every year - but it is reformed in other places at the same time.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
billvon 3,116
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>if 10% of the earths ice melted New York would be under water.
Uh, no. If floating ice melts, the sea level doesn't change at all.
>Yes - 10% of the ice melts every year - but it is reformed in other places
>at the same time.
Again, no. The amount of ice varies significantly; the reason it doesn't change sea level much is that most of it is floating. The entire Northern ice cap could melt and the sea level wouldn't change an inch.
Now, if Greenland started melting more quickly, you would see a significant change in sea level.
Uh, no. If floating ice melts, the sea level doesn't change at all.
>Yes - 10% of the ice melts every year - but it is reformed in other places
>at the same time.
Again, no. The amount of ice varies significantly; the reason it doesn't change sea level much is that most of it is floating. The entire Northern ice cap could melt and the sea level wouldn't change an inch.
Now, if Greenland started melting more quickly, you would see a significant change in sea level.
QuoteQuote
It must also explain why the top 10 warmest years since 1880 are (in order) 2005, 2007, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2003, 2004, 2001, 2008, 1997. (data accordng to NASA/GIST 2009)
My my, all of them within the last 12 years out of 128.
Hmmm. What happened to 1934 - STILL the hottest year with 1998 according to what I've seen?
While I am no climatologist and therefore I am probably considered unqualified (what does a lawyer know about climate and raw data) I decided to take.a look at the NASA data.
[Url]http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt[/url]
Those data are JUST the continental USA, Counselor. The discussion is on GLOBAL climate change. Even a lawyer should know the difference between the USA and the world.
Here are the global data.
Your link doesn't work.
So are you in agreement that the, say, 2006 was not the warmest year in the US since records have been kept? Are you also in agreement that the 9 of the 12 years between 1994 and 2006 were not showing a steady increase?
Finally - would you therefore agree that the temperatures of the US can provide no indication of global warming?
If so, you sir are unqualified to make that assessment. In fact, in January of 2007 we were told that 2006 was the warmest year in United States history. In fact, that warming was reason to show that global warming is real.
[Url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901949.html[/url]
So here's a scientist who made allegations proven false (2006 was not the hottest year) and that it is an indication of global warming.
Hotter temps in the US = global warming.
Cooler temps in the US = irrelevance.
The temperature is consistently increasing, ergo manmade global warming.
The temperature is not continually increasing, which is irrelevant.
2006 was the hottest year ever because of global warming.
2006 was not the hottest year ever, but check out trends.
The global warming advocates have been wrong too fucking often. That a leading scientist would say 2006 was the hottest year ever in the US, meaning man made global warming is real, and then be incorrect but US temps don't matter is disingenuous.
Quote
Arctic ice decreases every summer? Fuck me! This is absolutely shocking!
Yes, isn't it amazing that Marrc Rush didn't know that! Says something about HIS credibility.
It's also the case that the running average is also decreasing steadily (9% less ice per decade, on average), although obviously there are statistical fluctuations from year to year which the likes of Marc and Mike grasp at as if they were straws.
Are there statistical fluctuations from day to day? Month to month? Decade to decade? Score to score? Century to century? Millenium to millenium?
I suspect that there are. I suspect that the 100 year average of ice for the 1800's was dramatically higher than for the medieval climate optimum.
But I suspect the response is and shall remain, "Back then, even if it did happen, we did not have humans pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Thus irrelevant."
I've noticed the new track is that it is relevant if it hasn't happened before. When it is pointed out that it has happened before, it is irrelevant because humans never caused it before.
US temperatures are relevant if there is a hot day, hot year or a strong storm. If it turns out that it wasn't a hot year, it's irrelevant.
Trends are relevant so long as the trend period is defined as those periods that show warming. Cooling trends are irrelevant "blips." Warming trends are relevant evidence.
Cooling periods are natural variability.
Warming periods are unnatural, man made events.
El Nino and La Nina are abnormal variants of the ocean temperature in the south Pacific. Of course, they are more frequent than "normal" ocean temps. El nino is proof of global warming. La Nina is proof of climate change.
This is the pattern I see.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
turtlespeed 226
Quote>if 10% of the earths ice melted New York would be under water.
Uh, no. If floating ice melts, the sea level doesn't change at all.
>Yes - 10% of the ice melts every year - but it is reformed in other places
>at the same time.
Again, no. The amount of ice varies significantly; the reason it doesn't change sea level much is that most of it is floating. The entire Northern ice cap could melt and the sea level wouldn't change an inch.
Now, if Greenland started melting more quickly, you would see a significant change in sea level.
Hmmm - So about the changes in arguments over the years . . . glaciers are ice, right? There are a few glaciers around (Yes that is sarcasm, there are thousands, in case you were unaware), and they shrink and grow . . . and they shrink and grow, . . . and they shrink and grow.
And now that they are growing again, lets switch to floating ice - because there is no way to definitively measure it.
If Man can make such a difference on the climate - why don't you advocate making a bunch of ice and dumping it back in the ocean. What's a couple of trillion tons of ice between alies? We have the capability, don't we?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
billvon 3,116
>So about the changes in arguments over the years . . . glaciers are ice, right?
>There are a few glaciers around (Yes that is sarcasm, there are thousands, in
>case you were unaware), and they shrink and grow . . .
Right. And?
>And now that they are growing again . . .
No, on average they're not.
=========
World’s Glaciers Shrink for 18th Year
January 30th, 2009
The University of Zurich’s World Glacier Monitoring Service reports that in 2006 and 2007 that the world’s glaciers lost 2 meters (2000 mm) of thickness on average.
They note, “The new data continues the global trend in accelerated ice loss over the past few decades.” The rate of ice loss is twice as fast as a decade ago.
This is consistent with other recent research (see Another climate impact comes faster than predicted: Himalayan glaciers “decapitated” and AGU 2008: Two trillion tons of land ice lost since 2003 and links below).
Bloomberg has an excellent story on report:
“One year doesn’t tell us much, it’s really these long-term trends that help us to understand what’s going on,” Michael Zemp, a researcher at the University of Zurich’s Department of Geography, said in an interview. “The main thing that we can do to stop this is reduce greenhouse gases” that are blamed for global warming.
The Alps have suffered more than other regions with half of the region’s glacier terrain having disappeared since the 1850s, Zemp said. Almost 90 percent of the glaciers in the Alps are smaller than 1 square kilometer (0.4 square mile) and some are as thin as 30 meters, he said….
Glaciers further inland in Alaska in such sites as the Kenai mountains and Scandinavia matched the overall declining trend seen in Chile, Colombia and throughout the Alps.
The World Glacier Monitoring Program has measured 30 glaciers, of an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 worldwide, in nine mountain ranges since 1980. More ice has been lost than gained on average in 25 of the past 28 years with the last year of growth reported in 1989, when the Berlin Wall was dismantled and Communist regimes fell across eastern Europe.
Glacier loss is measured by hammering poles into the ice sheet and observing how much the ice has retreated or gained against the measuring rod. Calculations are made too at the tongue or end of the glacier while satellite technology is also employed, Zemp said.
The pace of the decline has doubled since the 1990s, when the average loss was about 0.3 meters compared with 0.7 meters now, he said….
Some glaciers in the Alps, including Italy’s Calderone, have shrunk so much it’s becoming difficult to take accurate measurements, Zemp said. Such ice has not recovered from the 2003 European summer heat wave that melted the snow, revealing darker ice underneath which heats up faster than whiter surfaces.
The global average temperature has risen 0.76 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times as humans used more fossil fuels to generate energy and power machinery, according to the UN’s Environment Program.
Ice melt is even speeding in Greenland. In 2007, U.S. scientists discovered that water from melting glaciers, draining from a 5.6 square-kilometer lake on Greenland’s ice sheet, reached a peak flow exceeding that of Niagara Falls.
====================
>And now that they are growing again, lets switch to floating ice -
>because there is no way to definitively measure it.
What are you talking about? It's not hard to measure floating ice.
>If Man can make such a difference on the climate - why don't you
>advocate making a bunch of ice and dumping it back in the ocean.
OK. Let us know how much more you're willing to pay in taxes, and I'll let you know how much ice that will buy us.
>There are a few glaciers around (Yes that is sarcasm, there are thousands, in
>case you were unaware), and they shrink and grow . . .
Right. And?
>And now that they are growing again . . .
No, on average they're not.
=========
World’s Glaciers Shrink for 18th Year
January 30th, 2009
The University of Zurich’s World Glacier Monitoring Service reports that in 2006 and 2007 that the world’s glaciers lost 2 meters (2000 mm) of thickness on average.
They note, “The new data continues the global trend in accelerated ice loss over the past few decades.” The rate of ice loss is twice as fast as a decade ago.
This is consistent with other recent research (see Another climate impact comes faster than predicted: Himalayan glaciers “decapitated” and AGU 2008: Two trillion tons of land ice lost since 2003 and links below).
Bloomberg has an excellent story on report:
“One year doesn’t tell us much, it’s really these long-term trends that help us to understand what’s going on,” Michael Zemp, a researcher at the University of Zurich’s Department of Geography, said in an interview. “The main thing that we can do to stop this is reduce greenhouse gases” that are blamed for global warming.
The Alps have suffered more than other regions with half of the region’s glacier terrain having disappeared since the 1850s, Zemp said. Almost 90 percent of the glaciers in the Alps are smaller than 1 square kilometer (0.4 square mile) and some are as thin as 30 meters, he said….
Glaciers further inland in Alaska in such sites as the Kenai mountains and Scandinavia matched the overall declining trend seen in Chile, Colombia and throughout the Alps.
The World Glacier Monitoring Program has measured 30 glaciers, of an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 worldwide, in nine mountain ranges since 1980. More ice has been lost than gained on average in 25 of the past 28 years with the last year of growth reported in 1989, when the Berlin Wall was dismantled and Communist regimes fell across eastern Europe.
Glacier loss is measured by hammering poles into the ice sheet and observing how much the ice has retreated or gained against the measuring rod. Calculations are made too at the tongue or end of the glacier while satellite technology is also employed, Zemp said.
The pace of the decline has doubled since the 1990s, when the average loss was about 0.3 meters compared with 0.7 meters now, he said….
Some glaciers in the Alps, including Italy’s Calderone, have shrunk so much it’s becoming difficult to take accurate measurements, Zemp said. Such ice has not recovered from the 2003 European summer heat wave that melted the snow, revealing darker ice underneath which heats up faster than whiter surfaces.
The global average temperature has risen 0.76 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times as humans used more fossil fuels to generate energy and power machinery, according to the UN’s Environment Program.
Ice melt is even speeding in Greenland. In 2007, U.S. scientists discovered that water from melting glaciers, draining from a 5.6 square-kilometer lake on Greenland’s ice sheet, reached a peak flow exceeding that of Niagara Falls.
====================
>And now that they are growing again, lets switch to floating ice -
>because there is no way to definitively measure it.
What are you talking about? It's not hard to measure floating ice.
>If Man can make such a difference on the climate - why don't you
>advocate making a bunch of ice and dumping it back in the ocean.
OK. Let us know how much more you're willing to pay in taxes, and I'll let you know how much ice that will buy us.
turtlespeed 226
Quote
OK. Let us know how much more you're willing to pay in taxes, and I'll let you know how much ice that will buy us.
Not MY taxes - I'm on the OTHER side - Your taxes can pay for it though since it is your concern.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
billvon 3,116
>Not MY taxes . ..
"Let someone else pay." The one constant refrain here on SC.
"Let someone else pay." The one constant refrain here on SC.
mnealtx 0
QuoteWhereas Uranus is seeing a decrease in temperature over the past few decades. So tell us - do you REALLY think that the outer planets orbit a different sun?
And Titan is warming - your point being?
QuoteOr will you just ignore that bit of data since it doesn't fit with the denier talking points?
Like you ignore the Mars data because it doesn't fit with the zealot talking points?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 3,116
>And Titan is warming - your point being?
That since some planets are warming, and some are cooling, there may be more to it than saying "it's the sun, stupid!"
>Like you ignore the Mars data because it doesn't fit with the zealot
>talking points?
I don't ignore it at all. It is one data point in a solar system filled with planets, some warming, some cooling, all under the same sun.
That since some planets are warming, and some are cooling, there may be more to it than saying "it's the sun, stupid!"
>Like you ignore the Mars data because it doesn't fit with the zealot
>talking points?
I don't ignore it at all. It is one data point in a solar system filled with planets, some warming, some cooling, all under the same sun.
mnealtx 0
Quote>And Titan is warming - your point being?
That since some planets are warming, and some are cooling, there may be more to it than saying "it's the sun, stupid!"
Where did I say that, Bill? You seem to keep making answers to things I haven't said.
Quote>Like you ignore the Mars data because it doesn't fit with the zealot
>talking points?
I don't ignore it at all. It is one data point in a solar system filled with planets, some warming, some cooling, all under the same sun.
True, you don't ignore it - you just use it to imply that any 'denier' can't realize that "it's the CO2, stupid!!"
Seems like it's only the "deniers" that are doing the research or asking the questions, anymore. So much for the 'open minds' of the 'consensus'.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 3,116
>Where did I say that, Bill?
I didn't claim you did. It's the common denier term used to describe the argument that Mars is warming up, therefore it's the Sun's output that's changing instead of anything that's happening on Earth.
>Seems like it's only the "deniers" that are doing the research or
>asking the questions, anymore.
If you believe that, then you're not reading much in the way of real research. Let's look at reports in the last few issues of Science:
-Impact of Shifting Patterns of Pacific Ocean Warming on North Atlantic Tropical Cyclones
-Amplified Trace Gas Removal in the Troposphere
-Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Across the Mid-Pleistocene Transition
-Fossil Plant Relative Abundances Indicate Sudden Loss of Late Triassic Biodiversity in East Greenland
-Oxygen-18 of O2 Records the Impact of Abrupt Climate Change on the Terrestrial Biosphere
Not as sexy or as popular as saying "It's the Sun, stupid!" but I think you might be better served by such sources.
I didn't claim you did. It's the common denier term used to describe the argument that Mars is warming up, therefore it's the Sun's output that's changing instead of anything that's happening on Earth.
>Seems like it's only the "deniers" that are doing the research or
>asking the questions, anymore.
If you believe that, then you're not reading much in the way of real research. Let's look at reports in the last few issues of Science:
-Impact of Shifting Patterns of Pacific Ocean Warming on North Atlantic Tropical Cyclones
-Amplified Trace Gas Removal in the Troposphere
-Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration Across the Mid-Pleistocene Transition
-Fossil Plant Relative Abundances Indicate Sudden Loss of Late Triassic Biodiversity in East Greenland
-Oxygen-18 of O2 Records the Impact of Abrupt Climate Change on the Terrestrial Biosphere
Not as sexy or as popular as saying "It's the Sun, stupid!" but I think you might be better served by such sources.
mnealtx 0
Quote>Where did I say that, Bill?
I didn't claim you did. It's the common denier term used to describe the argument that Mars is warming up, therefore it's the Sun's output that's changing instead of anything that's happening on Earth.
Oh, really? Every 'denier' site out there is saying that, hmm?
Bull.
It's ok, bill - you can admit that you have your horse hitched to the CO2 argument - just quit pretending that you even give a thought to anything BUT CO2 being the main cause.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteQuote
It must also explain why the top 10 warmest years since 1880 are (in order) 2005, 2007, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2003, 2004, 2001, 2008, 1997. (data accordng to NASA/GIST 2009)
My my, all of them within the last 12 years out of 128.
Hmmm. What happened to 1934 - STILL the hottest year with 1998 according to what I've seen?
While I am no climatologist and therefore I am probably considered unqualified (what does a lawyer know about climate and raw data) I decided to take.a look at the NASA data.
[Url]http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt[/url]
Those data are JUST the continental USA, Counselor. The discussion is on GLOBAL climate change. Even a lawyer should know the difference between the USA and the world.
Here are the global data.
Your link doesn't work.
.
Works for me.
Nice, but scientifically meaningless rant there, Counselor.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteWhereas Uranus is seeing a decrease in temperature over the past few decades. So tell us - do you REALLY think that the outer planets orbit a different sun?
And Titan is warming - your point being?QuoteOr will you just ignore that bit of data since it doesn't fit with the denier talking points?
Like you ignore the Mars data because it doesn't fit with the zealot talking points?
Why are you ignoring the Uranus data? Why are you ignoring the 96 other planets and moons that are NOT heating? Because they don't fit your denier taliking points?
Mars's climate is just about the stupidest denier argument yet, since it's so obviously flawed.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Are you saying Uranus is getting colder?
Is it just age, or is there a draft?
Is it just age, or is there a draft?
billvon 3,116
>Oh, really? Every 'denier' site out there is saying that, hmm?
I just did a Google search. 4,400 hit. Top 5:
========
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,400 for "It's the sun, stupid!". (0.19 seconds)
1. FOXNews.com - It's the Sun, Stupid - Opinion (Global warming alarmists need to look up and see the light.)
2. It's the Sun, stupid! (New direct evidence demonstrate that changes in solar activity influence climate. Willie Soon. www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com.)
3. Watts Up With That?: It's the Sun, stupid (The The United Nations's IPCC Report comes out today so I thought I'd make a report too.)
4. It's the Sun, Stupid « The Global Warming Hoax (Go outside at noon on a cloudless day. globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2007/)
5. Red Clay Citizen: It's the Sun, Stupid (The End of Global Warming) (Poof. Just like that, global warming hysteria is starting to evaporate. Consider this from Lorne Gunte. . .)
=========
>Bull.
Epic fail, my friend. 4400 hits. I particularly liked the quote from the site "Ilovemycarbondioxide.com."
I just did a Google search. 4,400 hit. Top 5:
========
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,400 for "It's the sun, stupid!". (0.19 seconds)
1. FOXNews.com - It's the Sun, Stupid - Opinion (Global warming alarmists need to look up and see the light.)
2. It's the Sun, stupid! (New direct evidence demonstrate that changes in solar activity influence climate. Willie Soon. www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com.)
3. Watts Up With That?: It's the Sun, stupid (The The United Nations's IPCC Report comes out today so I thought I'd make a report too.)
4. It's the Sun, Stupid « The Global Warming Hoax (Go outside at noon on a cloudless day. globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2007/)
5. Red Clay Citizen: It's the Sun, Stupid (The End of Global Warming) (Poof. Just like that, global warming hysteria is starting to evaporate. Consider this from Lorne Gunte. . .)
=========
>Bull.
Epic fail, my friend. 4400 hits. I particularly liked the quote from the site "Ilovemycarbondioxide.com."
mnealtx 0
QuoteI just did a Google search. 4,400 hit.
I did one too: 3010 hits for "It's the CO2, stupid". You have a point, somewhere?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 3,116
>You have a point, somewhere?
Nope. I said it was the common term used to describe Martian weather, and you said "Bull." You were wrong; it IS the common term used to describe the warming you are always bringing up. In other words, denier sites are doing precisely what you do, and I demonstrated it by showing that there are thousands of sites that use just that phrase.
I know you will never, ever admit an error on your part, so if you want to believe that it is not a common term used by deniers I'll be happy to move on.
Nope. I said it was the common term used to describe Martian weather, and you said "Bull." You were wrong; it IS the common term used to describe the warming you are always bringing up. In other words, denier sites are doing precisely what you do, and I demonstrated it by showing that there are thousands of sites that use just that phrase.
I know you will never, ever admit an error on your part, so if you want to believe that it is not a common term used by deniers I'll be happy to move on.
Those data are JUST the continental USA, Counselor. The discussion is on GLOBAL climate change. Even a lawyer should know the difference between the USA and the world.
Here are the global data.
Yes, isn't it amazing that Marc Rush didn't know that! Says something about HIS credibility.
It's also the case that the running average is also decreasing steadily (9% less ice per decade, on average), although obviously there are statistical fluctuations from year to year which the likes of Marc and Mike grasp at as if they were straws.
(edited for format)
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites