A Major Scientist changed mind re Global Warming

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Turns out that many scientists have actually been incorrect about global warming. The ice caps are melting about three times faster than they thought they would>

Unless, of course, they turn out to be incorrect about that. We should probably wait until they reach consensus, right?

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

Well, no, because they said it would go at a certain rate, and they are actually measuring, and it's going faster.

Do you get that? They are going out and taking physical measurements?

Do you even read any of this stuff?

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

So, when actual measurements are much lower than global warmists predict, we ignore them, and when they're not, we say it proves it, right?

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

What we do is pay attention to what is actually happening, not what we want to happen.

We also determine what is most plausible based one we are finding. We don't keep going over the same ground over and over and keep asking the same questions that have been repeatedly answered. This is how knowledge moves forward.

There is no proof here, of anything other than the ice is melting much faster than what it thought it would, which is not good. And you can try to twist that in whatever way you think you are doing, but that's the simple fact.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

Gee, some of that made no sense. An edit feature would be helpful.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<There is no proof here, of anything other than the ice is melting much faster than what it thought it would, which is not good.>

Actually, it might not be that bad. If the ice is melting much faster than what some thought it would, and the seas are not rising faster than what some thought they would, then maybe the seas won't rise as much as some have predicted.

Anyway, here are some articles from peer reviewed scientific journals that either fail to support or contradict the idea that humans are causing the ice to melt and the seas to rise.

<a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5818/1529" target="_blank">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/
content/abstract/315/5818/1529</a>
<a href="http://bowfell.geol.ucl.ac.uk/~lidunka/EPSS-papers/djw3.pdf" target="_blank">http://bowfell.geol.ucl.ac.uk/
~lidunka/EPSS-papers/djw3.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossr
ef/2007/2006GL028492.shtml</a>
<a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2006GL026510.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossr
ef/2006.../2006GL026510.shtml</a>
<a href="http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006.../2006GL027175.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossr
ef/2006.../2006GL027175.shtml</a>
<a href="http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ResearchProjects/Hartmann" target="_blank">http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/R
esearchProjects/Hartmann</a>%20and%20Wendler%202005.pdf

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

I'll read them to see what they say!

 

Originally Posted By mrichmondj

Maybe someone thinks that we don't have reading comprehension skills here, but none of those articles either detract from or contradict human influenced climate change theories. I found that most of the data supported current climate change findings.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Maybe someone thinks that we don't have reading comprehension skills here, but none of those articles either detract from or contradict human influenced climate change theories.>

It's because you say things like that that someone thinks you don't have reading comprehension skills.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

I read the first one, and it actually doesn't address itself either way to the question of human causation, despite your claim of "here are some articles from peer reviewed scientific journals that either fail to support or contradict the idea that humans are causing the ice to melt and the seas to rise."

It's pretty short, so I'll just paste it here:

"After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellite measurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth's ice sheets are changing. As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall. Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year. This is only a modest contribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 millimeters per year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade. In both continents, there are suspected triggers for the accelerated ice discharge—surface and ocean warming, respectively—and, over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidly counteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climate models. "

That doesn't go into human causation one way or the other. It's not mrichmondj who has trouble with reading comprehension, at least on this one.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<I read the first one, and it actually doesn't address itself either way to the question of human causation, despite your claim of "here are some articles from peer reviewed scientific journals that either fail to support or contradict the idea that humans are causing the ice to melt and the seas to rise.">

Right. That one fails to support. It also makes the point that the loss of Antarctic and Greenland ice mass only contributes about 1.4 inches per century to the average global sea-level rise. One and a half inches of sea level rise every one hundred years is not going to cause massive flooding, and is hardly worth taking drastic measures for, even if it's established that we are causing global warming.

 

Originally Posted By mrichmondj

If you are so confident in your claims, why don't you invest in some oceanfront property in Miami Beach and let us all know how that works out by the middle of this century?

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

oh. well there you go...

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<If you are so confident in your claims, why don't you invest in some oceanfront property in Miami Beach and let us all know how that works out by the middle of this century?>

Because my money is better off in the stock market right now. Oceanfront property in Miami Beach is too expensive.

 

Originally Posted By mrichmondj

Good luck with the stock market this quarter. The outlook isn't too bright.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

That's what you said last quarter. You were spectacularly wrong.

 

Originally Posted By DAR

Regarding the ice caps have you guys ever tried this little scientific experiment? Take a bowl. Fill it half full of water. Add a lot of ice cubes or a block of ice. Mark the level of the water once that is done. Let it melt. Note the water level has not risen because the ice melted. Ice caps are sometimes floating masses.

 

Originally Posted By DAR

And it may reduce hurri<a href="http://www.scientificblogging.com/news/global_warming_may_mean_fewer_hurricanescanes" target="_blank">http://www.scientificblogging.
com/news/global_warming_may_mean_fewer_hurricanescanes</a>.

 

Originally Posted By DAR

Let's try that again.

<a href="http://www.scientificblogging.com/news/global_warming_may_mean_fewer_hurricanes" target="_blank">http://www.scientificblogging.
com/news/global_warming_may_mean_fewer_hurricanes</a>

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

Here's a peer-reviewed article that makes that point - <a href="http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~gav/REPRINTS/VS_07_SHEARS.final.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~gav/
REPRINTS/VS_07_SHEARS.final.pdf</a>