Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Over the past two decades, the massive platforms of floating ice that dot the coast of Antarctica have been thinning and doing so at an increasing rate, likely at least in part because of global warming. Scientists are worried about its implications for significant sea level rise.

The ice shelves—some of which are larger than California and tens to hundreds of yards thick—are the linchpins of the Antarctic ice sheet system, holding back the millions of cubic miles of ice contained in the glaciers that flow into them, like doorstops. As the ice sheets thin, the massive rivers of ice behind them can surge forward into the sea.

Antarctica holds enough ice, if it all melted, to raise sea levels more than 200 feet. That would take hundreds to thousands of years, but the recent thinning of the ice shelves means that there has already been an increase in the rate of Antarctica’s contribution to sea level rise, and it’s accelerating.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...witter+Feed%29

[boutons_deux]

Antarctic Ice Shelves Melting 70 Percent Faster In Last Decade, Study Shows

The frozen fringes of western Antarctica have been melting 70 percent faster in the last decade, raising concern that an important buttress keeping land-based ice sheets from flowing to the sea could collapse or vanish in coming decades, a new study shows.

An acceleration in the flow of massive ice sheets would add substantially to the ongoing rise of sea levels, according to Fernando Paolo, a geophysicist at the University of California, San Diego’s Scripps Ins ution of Oceanography and lead author of the study published online Thursday in the journalScience.

“They hold back the ice discharge from the ice sheet into the ocean,” Paolo said. “In the long term, that is the main concern from losing volume from an ice shelf.”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/antarctic-ice-shelves-melting-70-percent-faster-in-last-decade-study-shows/

[DarrinS]

Antarctic Ice Shelves Melting 70 Percent Faster In Last Decade, Study Shows

The frozen fringes of western Antarctica have been melting 70 percent faster in the last decade, raising concern that an important buttress keeping land-based ice sheets from flowing to the sea could collapse or vanish in coming decades, a new study shows.

An acceleration in the flow of massive ice sheets would add substantially to the ongoing rise of sea levels, according to Fernando Paolo, a geophysicist at the University of California, San Diego’s Scripps Ins ution of Oceanography and lead author of the study published online Thursday in the journalScience.

“They hold back the ice discharge from the ice sheet into the ocean,” Paolo said. “In the long term, that is the main concern from losing volume from an ice shelf.”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/antarctic-ice-shelves-melting-70-percent-faster-in-last-decade-study-shows/

Gee, you think there might be any geothermal activity in western Antarctica?

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...witter+Feed%29

Do you think a two decade monitoring is enough to see global trends in such a massive system as the earth?

I hope not...

[Wild Cobra]

Gee, you think there might be any geothermal activity in western Antarctica?

No...

The warmers are deniers when it comes to such things.

[Nbadan]

Not sure what to think about this...

College-Educated Republicans Most Skeptical of Global Warming
Source: Gallup
March 26, 2015
College-Educated Republicans Most Skeptical of Global Warming
by Frank Newport and Andrew Dugan

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Republicans with higher levels of education are more likely than those in their parties with less education to say that the seriousness of global warming is "generally exaggerated." By contrast, Democrats with some college or more are less likely than those with less education to believe the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated.

Seventy-four percent of Republicans with a college degree say it is exaggerated, compared with 57% of those with high school education or less saying the same. Democrats are much less likely in general to say that the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated, but those a college degree (15%) are significantly less likely to say this than those with a high school education or less (27%). The relationship between education and views of global warming among independents is generally similar to that shown among Republicans.

These opposing trends by party suggest that higher levels of education reinforce core partisan positions; in this case, Republicans' strong tendency to question or deny global warming and Democrats' inclination to affirm it. The trends also suggest that partisanship rather than education is a main lens through which Americans view global warming and its effects, particularly for those who claim allegiance to one of the two major political parties.

These results come from an aggregation of more than 6,000 interviews conducted as part of Gallup's annual Environmental Poll conducted each March from 2010 to 2015. Over that time, Americans' views about the seriousness of global warming have been steady: 43% on average have said it was generally exaggerated, 24% generally correct and 31% have said it was generally underestimated. Longer term, though, Republicans' and Democrats' views about global warming have increasingly diverged.

Read more: http://www.gallup.com/poll/182159/co...gn=syndication

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Gee, you think there might be any geothermal activity in western Antarctica?

Gee you think you'd link something detailing it rather than alluding to your refutation mailer because you know you will be shamed with it once again. Your next original thought will be your first.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you think a two decade monitoring is enough to see global trends in such a massive system as the earth?

I hope not...

So you are trying to assert that the thinning could be natural variation? That is what you are going to go with? Looking stupid has never stopped you before so why should I expect that to change?

[DarrinS]

Gee you think you'd link something detailing it rather than alluding to your refutation mailer because you know you will be shamed with it once again. Your next original thought will be your first.

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/1...acier-melting/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/1...acier-melting/

is not only being eroded by the ocean

From the link. Article clearly states ocean temperatures are eroding them as well. Now for the other side?

[boutons_deux]

From the link. Article clearly states ocean temperatures are eroding them as well. Now for the other side?

AGW deniers Don't Need No Steenkin' Facts, except those "facts" from BigCarbon scientists.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

AGW deniers Don't Need No Steenkin' Facts, except those "facts" from BigCarbon scientists.

It's clearly him just regurgitating something from a mailer and he didn't even look at the study the mailer referenced. He ran away again just like all the other times he's done that.

He much like you with your bolding and spam is a creature of habit. He does that all the time.

[boutons_deux]

Republican Senators: Can You Explain Climate Change To Us, EPA, So We Can Not Believe You Some More?

Some of the biggest climate deniers in the Senate want the EPA to school them on how climate modeling works. No doubt this is so they can gain a greater appreciation of just how complex science is, so they can marvel at how great our understanding of the natural world is.

That, or they’re looking for stuff they can cherry-pick out of context to claim that global warming is a hoax, and we should start burning all the coal we can dig up before Jesus comes back.

The gang of deniers, led by Sen. Jeff Sessions, sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy asking the agency to explain why its climate models are so darn socialist, following a March hearing in which Sessions grilled McCarthy on bits of data that she refused to answer off the top of her head, because she obviously is a liar:

Sessions wanted to know if soil all over the world was more moist or less moist, and whether the world has more or fewer droughts, and if the soil is moister on average worldwide, then how can droughts be getting worse?

And what about hurricanes?

Why won’t you answer the question?

It’s easy, lady! And of course, at the 4:22 mark, Sessions even dragged out the old “no temperature increase for 18 years” canard.

Then he berated McCarthy for not knowing whether actual world temperatures were more or less than the “average of the models predicting how fast the temperature would increase.”

After briefly insisting that CO2 was just harmless “plant food that doesn’t harm anybody except that it might include temperature increases,” Sessions proclaimed it was “a stunning development” that the head of the EPA, “who should know more than anyone in the world” about climate change, couldn’t answer a simple loaded question.

In his letter to McCarthy, Sessions complained that while “questions regarding the impacts of climate change were clear and straightforward, none of the questions received direct answers, and many responses contained caveats and conditions.”

Damn it, how can we trust science about worldwide climate systems that doesn’t reduce complex sets of data down to simple yes-or-no answers?

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, one of the others who signed the letter, at least has the common sense to throw a snowball on the Senate floor, which proved that there’s no climate change.

Why can’t McCarthy be as simple and honest?

Read more at http://wonkette.com/581766/republica...W3vxued0Ei6.99

[Phenomanul]

Antarctic Ice Shelves Melting 70 Percent Faster In Last Decade, Study Shows

The frozen fringes of western Antarctica have been melting 70 percent faster in the last decade, raising concern that an important buttress keeping land-based ice sheets from flowing to the sea could collapse or vanish in coming decades, a new study shows.

An acceleration in the flow of massive ice sheets would add substantially to the ongoing rise of sea levels, according to Fernando Paolo, a geophysicist at the University of California, San Diego’s Scripps Ins ution of Oceanography and lead author of the study published online Thursday in the journalScience.

“They hold back the ice discharge from the ice sheet into the ocean,” Paolo said. “In the long term, that is the main concern from losing volume from an ice shelf.”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/antarctic-ice-shelves-melting-70-percent-faster-in-last-decade-study-shows/

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Polar Sea ice coverage has been trending downward, while Antartic Sea ice has been on the rise... combined average coverage however has been relatively steady over the last 35 years:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....withtrend.jpg


Not according to the ACTUAL data from the website above... the researchers make allusions to "some data set they analyzed"... convenient, no? Why not show it... and place it against historical satellite imagery....?

[boutons_deux]

sea ice isn't the problem, melting land ice is the disaster (Greenland, glaciers world wide, antarctic land ice).

Are you one of the Bible humpers who HOPE for natural disasters as prelude to End Times and your 1st class ticket to heaven?

[SnakeBoy]

Fuzzy what do you personally do to reduce your carbon footprint?

He holds in all of his farts.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Polar Sea ice coverage has been trending downward, while Antartic Sea ice has been on the rise... combined average coverage however has been relatively steady over the last 35 years:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....withtrend.jpg


Not according to the ACTUAL data from the website above... the researchers make allusions to "some data set they analyzed"... convenient, no? Why not show it... and place it against historical satellite imagery....?

While much of Antarctica is below sea level, its mostly land. When the glaciers on land move to the sea is the problem. Sea ice floats and doesn't displace additional area.

I'm concerned about the glaciers on land that are going out to sea which contribute to the total volume of the worlds oceans. Just because you can show satellite photos that the ice sheets are still there doesn't really change that. Go to google scholar and you can find several studies detailing how both the west and east ice sheets are thinning and coming out to sea.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...witter+Feed%29

Oh so you are going to go the intellectually dishonest Darrin/WC route and instead on engaging my refutations you will just hope no one notices?

The sea ice is immaterial and your study doesn't even consider what is going on with the land ice. That is ty biasing. Second, I gave you a study detailing expeditions measuring the antarctic ice thickness and how it is thinning rapidly. You understand the notion of volume as opposed to surface area?

Where do you think the rising sea levels are coming from if not for the antarctic? New physical properties of water now?

[Phenomanul]

Oh so you are going to go the intellectually dishonest Darrin/WC route and instead on engaging my refutations you will just hope no one notices?

The sea ice is immaterial and your study doesn't even consider what is going on with the land ice. That is ty biasing. Second, I gave you a study detailing expeditions measuring the antarctic ice thickness and how it is thinning rapidly. You understand the notion of volume as opposed to surface area?

Where do you think the rising sea levels are coming from if not for the antarctic? New physical properties of water now?

Quit making assumptions about my intentions... clearly folks here have biases whether or not they admit to having them... you fall in that camp as well. I actually have a pretty laborious day-job and don't have all the time in the world (at least not as much as I used to) to discuss these issues ad infinitum... I was simply posting the data itself... Why not post articles detailing how much snowfall Antartica receives annually (all recorded data) to show sets of data that are less microscopic in view than that periods covered by the studies you presented... Given that you're accusing me of intellectual dishonesty... how about you look in the mirror of disingenuous logic. I get it, I get it... if someone else holds a position other that your own you automatically want to label them as anti-intellectuals - that ad hominem argument gets tired pretty quickly... peace bro. Don't expect another rebuttal (I don't have as much time as you all do)...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Quit making assumptions about my intentions... clearly folks here have biases whether or not they admit to having them... you fall in that camp as well. I actually have a pretty laborious day-job and don't have all the time in the world (at least not as much as I used to) to discuss these issues ad infinitum... I was simply posting the data itself... Why not post articles detailing how much snowfall Antartica receives annually (all recorded data) to show sets of data that are less microscopic in view than that periods covered by the studies you presented... Given that you're accusing me of intellectual dishonesty... how about you look in the mirror of disingenuous logic. I get it, I get it... if someone else holds a position other that your own you automatically want to label them as anti-intellectuals - that ad hominem argument gets tired pretty quickly... peace bro. Don't expect another rebuttal (I don't have as much time as you all do)...

You posted the exact same link that had been addressed before. I don't care what excuse you came up with for not bothering to check. I don't give a if it 'makes you tired.' Quit being a dishonest hack.

Can you tell thickness from satellite photos? Moreso do you in any way address the narrowing thickness of the ice or the land ice which is what is key in any way shape or form? Do you even consider the land versus sea dichotomy?

No, you don't. Instead you say I should post other studies that have nothing to do with anything.

[Phenomanul]

You posted the exact same link that had been addressed before. I don't care what excuse you came up with for not bothering to check. I don't give a if it 'makes you tired.' Quit being a dishonest hack.

Can you tell thickness from satellite photos? Moreso do you in any way address the narrowing thickness of the ice or the land ice which is what is key in any way shape or form? Do you even consider the land versus sea dichotomy?

No, you don't. Instead you say I should post other studies that have nothing to do with anything.

I said no rebuttal, but geeesh... It always devolves to insults with you guys... first you all complain that others don't "see" what you want them to see but it's because you automatically assume your arguments are 100% correct and error free - you don't accept dissent. You aren't here for the truth... just the version of it that suits your already entrenched position... If others don't fall in line with your view you resort to namecalling and bad manners.

Consider this: My grandparents have a house on the bay (here in town) that I basically grew up in. It has its own fishing pier. My grandfather reinforced the final stauncheons on that pier about 25 years ago with epoxy-coated Hastelloy tubes (supported by 15 foot deep cement feet) . My brother and I would mark the water levels at high and low tides as children. Over the past 30 years (high-tide / low-tide - whichever is used as reference) the water levels on that pier have remained at relatively the same heights. One of the reasons why I've failed to be convinced by the alarmist AGW crowd (over the past 15 years or so) is because I have sufficient references of my own (that most other folks simply don't have in their own life's experience) to know that sea levels haven't risen as dramatically as SEVERAL REPUTABLE scientific journals predicted over the past two decades. More importantly, they think we've forgotten about their many false/erroneous claims such that folks like youreself cry foul play when we don't take them for their every word. One such claim was that sea-ice coverage would be SIGNIFICANTLY reduced by 2010 as posted by boutons back in 2005/2006. That, of course didn't happen (the grander argument you didn't realize I was making).

So no, I'm not necessarily ignoring what you had posted earlier. In the bigger picture, however, the data set I initially posted presents us with yet another instance where a fear-pandering prediction failed to stand up to the evidence. So what do you all do? Cry that "we're" ignoring "other new" evidence and studies (oh, how intellectually dishonest of us) - 'evidences" that are presented myopically from the start (given their frame of reference for the chosen period). The way I see it... until their predictions are valid, it's just more of the same agenda driven drivel.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I said no rebuttal, but geeesh... It always devolves to insults with you guys... first you all complain that others don't "see" what you want them to see but it's because you automatically assume your arguments are 100% correct and error free - you don't accept dissent. You aren't here for the truth... just the version of it that suits your already entrenched position... If others don't fall in line with your view you resort to namecalling and bad manners.

Consider this: My grandparents have a house on the bay (here in town) that I basically grew up in. It has its own fishing pier. My grandfather reinforced the final stauncheons on that pier about 25 years ago with epoxy-coated Hastelloy tubes (supported by 15 foot deep cement feet) . My brother and I would mark the water levels at high and low tides as children. Over the past 30 years (high-tide / low-tide - whichever is used as reference) the water levels on that pier have remained at relatively the same heights. One of the reasons why I've failed to be convinced by the alarmist AGW crowd (over the past 15 years or so) is because I have sufficient references of my own (that most other folks simply don't have in their own life's experience) to know that sea levels haven't risen as dramatically as SEVERAL REPUTABLE scientific journals predicted over the past two decades. More importantly, they think we've forgotten about their many false/erroneous claims such that folks like youreself cry foul play when we don't take them for their every word. One such claim was that sea-ice coverage would be SIGNIFICANTLY reduced by 2010 as posted by boutons back in 2005/2006. That, of course didn't happen (the grander argument you didn't realize I was making).

So no, I'm not necessarily ignoring what you had posted earlier. In the bigger picture, however, the data set I initially posted presents us with yet another instance where a fear-pandering prediction failed to stand up to the evidence. So what do you all do? Cry that "we're" ignoring "other new" evidence and studies (oh, how intellectually dishonest of us) - 'evidences" that are presented myopically from the start (given their frame of reference for the chosen period). The way I see it... until their predictions are valid, it's just more of the same agenda driven drivel.

It helps if you actually point out where my arguments are flawed instead of throwing out a personal anecdote and claiming that boutox is the standard of climate science you have to overcome.

Fear-mongering? I said the ice sheet are thinning and have been talking about land ice. You have no response to this whatsoever. All you have posited was that the high end of the range of outcomes didn't come to pass and that is about it. You wave you hands alot and talk of sea ice as if it stopped floating.

If you want to be butthurt because I am aggressive and mean then fine but the arguments were still made.

[Phenomanul]

It helps if you actually point out where my arguments are flawed instead of throwing out a personal anecdote and claiming that boutox is the standard of climate science you have to overcome.

Fear-mongering?

Not by you personally... but by study, after study, after study, after study that gets posted on this website.

I said the ice sheet are thinning and have been talking about land ice. You have no response to this whatsoever. All you have posited was that the high end of the range of outcomes didn't come to pass and that is about it. You wave you hands alot and talk of sea ice as if it stopped floating.

I did have a response... it's a corrolary based on the fact that I've drawn my envelope to encompass both poles and the oceans... The corrolary doesn't argue whether or not ice floats... it argues that since they are in the same system, that any ice that breaks off, floats off, will eventually drift far enough away from the poles to melt... when it does, the water from the melted ice should contribute to the overall volume of the world's oceans - given enough time and based on a myriad of highly publicized predictions (Google them) all that ice (the water therein) should have raised global sea levels by several feet. THAT SIMPLY HASNT HAPPENED. It's a verifiable statement of fact - the underlying definition for evidence.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not by you personally... but by study, after study, after study, after study that gets posted on this website.



I did have a response... it's a corrolary based on the fact that I've drawn my envelope to encompass both poles and the oceans... The corrolary doesn't argue whether or not ice floats... it argues that since they are in the same system, that any ice that breaks off, floats off, will eventually drift far enough away from the poles to melt... when it does, the water from the melted ice should contribute to the overall volume of the world's oceans - given enough time and based on a myriad of highly publicized predictions (Google them) all that ice (the water therein) should have raised global sea levels by several feet. THAT SIMPLY HASNT HAPPENED. It's a verifiable statement of fact - the underlying definition for evidence.

I'm not going to google your mythical studies and that is the first time you have discussed ice melting but again wgaf. If the amount of ice on land is going down then it has one of two places to go. I have studied this extensively as well and when I make my assertions about land ice I include a study detailing decades of ice thickness measurements. You still wave your hands at sea ice.

And while you keep on waving your hands at the high end predictions not coming true, I have one question: have sea levels been rising?

You have not met the burden of proof on your claim and I will bet a dollar to a donut that the you pull up comes from something other than a scientific study.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

he acceleration of global sea level change from the end of the 20th century through the last two decades has been significantly swifter than scientists thought, according to a new Harvard study.

The study, co-authored by Carling Hay, a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences (EPS), and Eric Morrow, a recent Ph.D. graduate of EPS, shows that calculations of global sea-level rise from 1900 to 1990 had been overestimated by as much as 30 percent. The report, however, confirms estimates of sea-level change since 1990, suggesting that the rate of change is increasing more rapidly than previously understood. The research is described in a Jan. 14 paper in Nature.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...el-correction/

[Phenomanul]

So the fact that the world's oceans have yet to permanently inundate any piers world-wide is not a significant enough data point for you...? Good to know where we stand on your objectivity.

I'm not waving my hands at anything... I'm simply looking at the bigger picture that you are apparently unable to accept.

LOL "mythical studies".... It's a well known fact many journals publicized predictions that included convincing imagery such as completely different maps of our coasts... Just like the "Ice Age" scare of the late 70's... How easy you all forget. Well, I don't.