Researchers: Northeast Greenland Ice Loss Accelerating
“The fact that the mass loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet has generally increased over the last decades is well known,” Khan said, “but the increasing contribution from the northeastern part of the ice sheet is new and very surprising.” Source.
Report: Arctic Biodiversity Under Serious Threat From Climate Change
"Climate change caused by human activities is by far the worst threat to biodiversity in the Arctic. Some of these changes are already visible, according to a new report prepared by 253 scientists led by Dr Hans Meltofte of Aarhus University."
"“Climate change is by far the worst threat to Arctic biodiversity. Temperatures are expected to increase more in the Arctic compared to the global average, resulting in severe disruptions to Arctic biodiversity some of which are already visible,” warns Meltofte.
A planetary increase of 2°C, the worldwide agreed upon acceptable limit of warming, is projected to result in vastly more heating in the Arctic with anticipated temperature increases of 2.8-7.8°C this century. Such dramatic changes will likely result in severe damage to Arctic biodiversity.
Climate change impacts are already visible in several parts of the Arctic. These include northward range expansions of many species, earlier snow melt, earlier sea ice break-up and melting permafrost together with development of new oceanic current patterns." Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 03-18-2014).]
The average temperature in 2003 was 14.61 degrees Celsius. And the average temperature in 2013 was 14.61 degrees Celsius, at a growth rate of 0 percent.
in fact, since 1959 — as far back as NOAA’s dataset goes for carbon dioxide levels — carbon dioxide has increased a whopping 25.48 percent, from 315.97 ppm to today’s level of 396.48 ppm. Yet, temperatures are up a mere 4.2 percent, from 14.02 degrees Celsius to its current level of 14.61 degrees. UPDATE 3/14, 11AM
As for the Celcius/Kelven discussion, it seems I am not the only one seeing a problem in the reporting
This is less important, since temperature in Celsius is an interval type of data, whereas carbon emissions are a quantitative, ratio type of data with a zero reading being possible at least in principle. This makes comparing the overall growth rates between the two extremely problematic, because depending on the temperature scale used — Celsius, Fahrenheit, and Kelvin — the growth rate will vary wildly. However, we can still compare acceleration.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Every time Flyinfieros posts a chart from skepticalscience he is quoting information from non-scientists
Completely inaccurate. But fascinating you make this baseless claim then post three links to a pseudo-news agency article written by Robert Romano, a guy with an art degree in political science.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Read more at NetRightDaily.com Read more at NetRightDaily.com Read more at NetRightDaily.com
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 03-18-2014).]
The average temperature in 2003 was 14.61 degrees Celsius. And the average temperature in 2013 was 14.61 degrees Celsius, at a growth rate of 0 percent.
in fact, since 1959 — as far back as NOAA’s dataset goes for carbon dioxide levels — carbon dioxide has increased a whopping 25.48 percent, from 315.97 ppm to today’s level of 396.48 ppm. Yet, temperatures are up a mere 4.2 percent, from 14.02 degrees Celsius to its current level of 14.61 degrees. UPDATE 3/14, 11AM
As for the Celcius/Kelven discussion, it seems I am not the only one seeing a problem in the reporting
This is less important, since temperature in Celsius is an interval type of data, whereas carbon emissions are a quantitative, ratio type of data with a zero reading being possible at least in principle. This makes comparing the overall growth rates between the two extremely problematic, because depending on the temperature scale used — Celsius, Fahrenheit, and Kelvin — the growth rate will vary wildly. However, we can still compare acceleration.
Avengador won't even admit to believing the crap he flings on here.
That article is a great example of someone coming to their own conclusions without the expertise to do so. Uses NASA data sets but ignores what they say about it.
"A study led by the University of Leeds has shown that global warming of only 2°C will be detrimental to crops in temperate and tropical regions, with reduced yields from the 2030s onwards." Source.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: As for the Celcius/Kelven discussion, it seems I am not the only one seeing a problem in the reporting ...This makes comparing the overall growth rates between the two extremely problematic, because depending on the temperature scale used — Celsius, Fahrenheit, and Kelvin — the growth rate will vary wildly.
Change in Kelvin is the exact same as change in Celsius...
The CAGW alarmist media is awash today with claims based on a paper published in Nature Climate Change that "Greenland's ice loss has nearly tripled in a decade" and "the Greenland ice sheet has lost it's last grip." As usual, the paper has been hyped by the media to portray impending doom, while examination of the actual scientific paper reveals very little of concern.
Figure 1a shows the tiny region of Greenland that the paper studied, with a blowup of this region in figure 2 below. The authors find an increase in the natural glacier calving process in this regional, relatively tiny portion of the Greenland ice sheet. According to the authors, this is due to regional warming found at the site "HKH" marked by an "X" in fig. 2a below. The key word here is regional, which indicates these processes are localized and not characteristic of global warming. In fact, the authors also looked at another nearby site "DH" marked by an "X" in fig. 2a below and found that this site cooled over the past decade.
Examination of Figure 2 below reveals that over the past 34 years 1978-2012: Annual sea surface temperature anomaly has cooled at both sites DH and HKH June-August summer temperatures sswarmed at site HGH but cooled at site DH, and are only about 2C above the freezing point Annual air temperatures at both sites increased, but are about 10 degrees cooler than the freezing point These localized, regional changes were not predicted by climate models and are not supportive of the CAGW meme, and in fact suggest that other processes are responsible. For example, geothermal sources have recently been discovered under the Greenland ice sheet, which create lakes under the ice sheet and lubricate the natural slide to calving in the ocean. In addition, storm activity and winds largely control Arctic sea ice, which can act as an impediment to glacier calving.
Staying ahead of the warmist propaganda and arm waving... <snip>
The Hockey Schtick is severely biased and has no credibility. Their motto on the front page is "If you can't explain the 'pause', you can't explain the cause", nevermind that the so-called "pause" is between non-existent and a cherry picked contrived scenario.
But regardless, the actual paper by Nature says:
Here, we show that the northeast Greenland ice stream, which extends more than 600 km into the interior of the ice sheet, is now undergoing sustained dynamic thinning, linked to regional warming, after more than a quarter of a century of stability. This sector of the Greenland ice sheet is of particular interest, because the drainage basin area covers 16% of the ice sheet (twice that of Jakobshavn Isbræ) and numerical model predictions suggest no significant mass loss for this sector, leading to an under-estimation of future global sea-level rise.
Sounds fairly important. How is this propaganda?
Just for fun, also on the front page of The Hockey Schtick, they show the solar index which deniers tend to use to explain variations in climate:
So, from a denier perspective - solar activity is at an extreme low, and the warming has "paused". What is going to happen when the solar activity returns to normal?
Here's How NASA Thinks Society Will Collapse Too much inequality and too few natural resources could leave the West vulnerable to a Roman Empire-style fall. http://www.nationaljournal....ll-collapse-20140318
You refuse to acknowledge the context of either the thread you point to, or the smiley face at the end of my post. But in typical fashion for you, you will use ANYTHING, including personal insults or anecdotes, because you think it makes you win the argument.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
Need a new petition...EXECUTE anyone who participates in the biggest scam in human history.
Note the smiley that any person who ISNT a moron or troll would know what it means. But keep up your personal attacks, FlyinFieros. You will NOT stop this thread, or my posting in it.
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.
Whatever you do, don't acknowledge the facts presented, just use the lazy argument about the SOURCE.
I actually addressed the "facts" presented, right after I noted that the Hockey Schtick has no credibility. And you still haven't addressed that your so-called warming "pause" that has become the crux of your argument is nothing more than a cherry picked scenario. A cherry picked scenario that the Hockey Schtick uses as their motto/mission statement, which says a lot about their reporting standards.
Funny you say that I attack the source and not the facts, and then do the exact same thing with NASA (which is far more authoritative than your blog site):
quote
riginally posted by fierobear: No socio-political agenda at NASA, right?
Here's How NASA Thinks Society Will Collapse
Another example of your stunning hypocrisy.
So fierobear, from a denier's point of view, since solar activity is down and temperatures are flat, what happens when solar activity returns to normal? (it's really not that difficult of a question.)
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 03-19-2014).]
So fierobear, from a denier's point of view, since solar activity is down and temperatures are flat, what happens when solar activity returns to normal?
It's very embarrassing for the forum that you refuse to acknowledge murdering political opponents is wrong. Considering the context of your call for murder includes forum members, it's rather disturbing and alarming.
Some random philosophy professor from the Rochester Institute of Technology named Lawrence Torcello has decided that if you don’t agree with him on climate change, then you should be criminally prosecuted. Here is his actual quote in the UK journal, “The Conversation”, “We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent.”
An interesting position given that Torcello downgrades the number of scientists who are in agreement on climate change to “a majority.”
Given this premise, the President of the United States would need to be charged as criminally negligent as NASA scientist Dr. Roy Hubbard has expressed doubts about the conclusions of warmists attributing far more influence to the sun and its changing cycles for any short term warming rather than the anti-carbon mantra.
Or perhaps he is upset with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the warmist headquarters, which has been compelled to lower the bottom end of its estimated range of warming by half a degree Celsius.
Michael Mann, the hockey stick warmist guru, in a piece whining that those who don’t agree with him are distorting the evidence reports on the IPCC change as follows, “The IPCC reports a likely range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (roughly 3 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit) for this quantity, the lower end having been dropped from 2.0 degrees C in the fourth IPCC assessment. The lowering is based on one narrow line of evidence: the slowing of surface warming during the past decade.”
So, flat temperatures in the 2000s are already altering the predictive models the United Nations IPCC relies on to convince governments to issue carbon emissions restrictions. For a relationship—a doubling of CO2 emissions affecting global temperatures—that is supposed to rely on physics, the potential range of 3 degrees Celsius being the “likely” change in temperature leaves vast uncertainty.
But in the church of Global Warming, Bishop Torcello wants to lead an inquisition against those who differ in their analysis of the data in order to potentially “save the planet”. Maybe the IPCC will let the aptly named Torcello light the bonfires to burn scientific manuscripts that don’t conform to their accepted view of the world?
Of course, this manuscript burning is only a pre-cursor to giving those heretics who dare challenge his narrow view the Joan of Arc treatment themselves in the fires and ash of their burning underlying research. After all, the very moral authority of the recently convened Church of Global Warming itself is at stake.
While the “Torch of Rochester” claims otherwise, his odd view that competing dangerous views should not be able to be financed without penalty must make his fellow faculty members extremely uncomfortable. After all, his thoughts as a philosophy professor are financed at his private university haven. Should those who gave money to RIT be prosecuted because of Torcello’s wild musings?
Under “The Torch’s” standards, they should be, unless of course, they agree with whatever the fashionable eco-fascist theory of the day happens to be.
Normally, it would be wise to just dismiss this oddball professor as an anomaly, but we don’t live in normal times. At University campuses across North America the concept of inclusion, safe spaces, and civil rights have been trumping the free exchange of ideas for years.
Now, that “The Torch” has been let out of his cage one wonders how many blank-eyed minions will follow him in the belief that they have a freedom from dissenting thought. Thought which cannot be tolerated because it disrupts the on-going march toward the consensus enjoyed in totalitarian states across the globe.
For “The Torch” and his ilk the only way to “co-exist” and achieve true “inclusion” is to jail and exclude those who disagree.
Originally posted by fierobear: Note the smiley that any person who ISNT a moron or troll would know what it means.
Of course you're trying to change your story.
Let's recap shall we?
2/26/14 - You made a post slamming the New York Times for a cartoon that depicts murdering climate deniers for cold weather trolling. Cold weather trolling comes in many forms, but basically goes like this: "It's cold outside, global warming is disproven." Here.
2/26/14 - I made a post calling you out as a hypocrite. You and Arn have both sounded the call for murdering your political opponents on this issue. Here.
2/27/14 - You make 8 posts without acknowledging your hypocritical calls for murder, but really it was an attempt to burry the evidence. Starting here.
2/28/14 - You make 2 posts, still refusing to acknowledge you have been called out for being a textbook hypocrite. Starting here.
2/28/14 - I call you out for ignoring the evidence you're a textbook hypocrite. Here.
3/2/14 - You make 2 posts, still ignoring the fact you're a hypocrite. Starting here.
3/8/14 - You finally acknowledge your plain as day hypocrisy, but you defend your calls for murder with politically based rationalization. You make 2 more additional posts. Here.
3/18/14 - I call you out for ignoring the fact your desire to murder political opponents is wrong. Here.
3/19/14 - You acknowledge the fact your defense of murder is not going to go over well, you pitch a new excuse "[I used a smiley face at the end of my post]", calling me a moron and a troll for not understanding you were joking. Here.
Here's what's really sad. You weren't joking. You were serious about your calls for murder. Using a ear to ear grin smiley face after calling for the murder of innocent people isn't the cop out you think it is.
Liars do two things: take forever to come up with a story and change their story as time goes on.
I called you out as a hypocrite the same day you were guilty of it. You took 11 days to respond, despite the fact you made 21 posts on other topics in this thread. You weren't having computer problems. You had the free time. You personally chose to ignore the fact you just made yourself out to be a hypocrite. What's worse, after delaying all this time, you defended your calls for murder as if they were a practical and rational solution.
Fast forward 5 days, you again defend your original call for murder and defend your original statement. Stating the explanation was 'over my head.'
Fast forward 4 days (today), you try to pitch a completely new excuse "[I was kidding]". As if we're going to ignore the fact you already defended your calls for murder, twice.
Calling attention to the fact you used a smiley face while calling for the murder of innocent people really makes you look like a psychopath. Especially after defending your wishes to murder innocent people on two separate occasions.
Further, this is not an "ad hominem" attack. Calling it an 'ad hominem' attack is your pathetic attempt to escape accountability for your actions. This is on topic and relevant to the discussion. Remember, you made the post calling out the NYT for something you are also guilty of. I simply introduced you, the kettle, to the pot. You personally made it part of the discussion.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: But keep up your personal attacks, FlyinFieros.
You literally just called me a moron and a troll.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: You will NOT stop this thread, or my posting in it.
You're woefully unaware of my goals. And that's perfectly fine.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 03-19-2014).]
More cracks in the "consensus". By newfs own standard, he will have to believe this.
Finally, Some Real Climate Science
The American Physical Society has been amongst the loudest alarmist organisations whipping up hysteria about CO2, but a review of its position that has placed three sceptics on the six-member investigatory panel strongly suggests the tide has turned
Just for the record, Fierobear started the thread to discuss the evidence against AGW. Flyinfieros is the troll who logged onto the thread to try to shoot down the poster. He continually attacks the personality, integrity and sources of those who post contrary to his personal assertions.
Just for the record, Fierobear started the thread to discuss the evidence against AGW. Flyinfieros is the troll who logged onto the thread to try to shoot down the poster. He continually attacks the personality, integrity and sources of those who post contrary to his personal assertions.
He is a troll by all definitions.
What is a discussion if not an informal debate????
As I have mentioned before if Fierobear (or anyone else that starts a thread on a discussion board) only wants to allow those who agree to participate they should start a blog and limit the users.
Your definition of a troll seems about as accurate as your definition of a discussion.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-20-2014).]
Just for the record, Fierobear started the thread to discuss the evidence against AGW. Flyinfieros is the troll who logged onto the thread to try to shoot down the poster.
This is a discussion forum. Fierobear picked the wrong place to post if he wanted an echo chamber.
More cracks in the "consensus". By newfs own standard, he will have to believe this.
Finally, Some Real Climate Science
The American Physical Society has been amongst the loudest alarmist organisations whipping up hysteria about CO2, but a review of its position that has placed three sceptics on the six-member investigatory panel strongly suggests the tide has turned
Believe what? As far as I could read the APS latest statement on Climate Change has not been released.
You might want to try reading past the headlines that make the denier blogs.
Here is the current statement from APS.
quote
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
Imagine that a organization that reviews and updates their statement on such things as scheduled.
Any more breaking news there, Glenn?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-20-2014).]
Posted by Anthony Watts Paul Westhaver writes in Tips and Notes:
CNN talking empty head (Feyerick) asks Bill Nye if approaching Meteor was a result of global warming…. but Bill’s response is oddly disquieting.
“Except it’s all science,” Nye said rescuing Feyerick. “The word meteorology and the word meteor come from the same root, so…”
Nye went on to discuss the asteroid which has missed impacting earth by 15 minutes. He says if this body were to impact over a populated area like New York City, that municipality would be completely leveled.
Posted by Anthony Watts Paul Westhaver writes in Tips and Notes:
CNN talking empty head (Feyerick) asks Bill Nye if approaching Meteor was a result of global warming…. but Bill’s response is oddly disquieting.
“Except it’s all science,” Nye said rescuing Feyerick. “The word meteorology and the word meteor come from the same root, so…”
Nye went on to discuss the asteroid which has missed impacting earth by 15 minutes. He says if this body were to impact over a populated area like New York City, that municipality would be completely leveled.
I did. Their statement remains the same but hey let us know when you have some actual news. Edit: Oh...... you may want to contact the author of the opinion piece as there are at least one grammatical error in his blog.
quote
Just to recite some of them points in the can of worms soon to be authoritatively exposed.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-20-2014).]
It isn't about the STATEMENT having changed, and it's not about Anthony Watts. Read the QUESTIONS that have been raised about the IPCC report and so on.
