Climate Change Dump #1

[RalphH]

[avb3]

For a long time, deniers have said, "But look at the Antarctic ice.. it's spreading".

Being a mile wide and an inch thick when you used to be 12 inches thick does not equate to more ice. And now there is empirical data to back that up.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/w...glaciers-20815

"It has become increasingly clear in recent years that ocean waters are eating away at the undersides of the ice shelves that fringe Antarctica and buttress its many glaciers. A new study released Tuesday has found that hundreds of feet of ice have been lost from the bottoms of a few of these ice shelves and glaciers in a region of the continent that is contributing the most to sea level rise."

Before



After

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

For a long time, deniers have said, "But look at the Antarctic ice.. it's spreading".

Being a mile wide and an inch thick when you used to be 12 inches thick does not equate to more ice. And now there is empirical data to back that up.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/w...glaciers-20815

"It has become increasingly clear in recent years that ocean waters are eating away at the undersides of the ice shelves that fringe Antarctica and buttress its many glaciers. A new study released Tuesday has found that hundreds of feet of ice have been lost from the bottoms of a few of these ice shelves and glaciers in a region of the continent that is contributing the most to sea level rise."

Before



After

Firstly. Already showed you proof across continents and looking across time since 1800 that sea level rise is linear with no impact by man. Is we are not increasing a natural sea level rise that has been occurring since The last ice age 13000 years ago.
I also showed you a peer reviewed study that clearly demonstrates sea level rise is wholly within the natural change. No increase.

Therego you posting a blog to say sea level is rising fails your city.

Antarctic ice has been growing and reached a historic peak this year. Here is a NASA link.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/...record-maximum

Another point you missed is the study showing lots of ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica due to volcanic forces. In Antarctica this wasn't enough to over come gains.

Your argument has failed. Sorry.

And to further toss a nail in your argument...your blog complains of Thwaites glacier loss...here is the link to the volcanic influence in that area.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...12821X14005780

Booyaaa.

[Sundancefisher]

Antarctic geothermal heating

http://news.ucsc.edu/2015/07/antarctic-heating.html

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Antarctic geothermal heating

http://news.ucsc.edu/2015/07/antarctic-heating.html

You're missing the point totally. This has nothing to do with any land warming ice, but the ocean. The ice cover was larger, but not thicker. And THAT is the issue.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

You're missing the point totally. This has nothing to do with any land warming ice, but the ocean. The ice cover was larger, but not thicker. And THAT is the issue.

And you miss you don't know if ocean currents naturally fluctuate in cycles over thousands of years.

You also need to know in the area you say is thinner and impacts your thinking...it is thinner due to geothermal forcing. Ocean venting and volcanic activity. In fact that corner of Antarctica has a massive volcano under it. I will let you research its name.

[Sundancefisher]

Your ideology says mankind is increasing earths temperature. Proof is sea level rise increasing due to man.

I showed most recent study of the data proved there is no additional rise over normal natural amounts. I showed you all of NOAA's public data showing only linear relationships since 1800 also proving no additional impacts from mankind.

So pause to think on your part?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Your ideology says mankind is increasing earths temperature. Proof is sea level rise increasing due to man.

I showed most recent study of the data proved there is no additional rise over normal natural amounts. I showed you all of NOAA's public data showing only linear relationships since 1800 also proving no additional impacts from mankind.

So pause to think on your part?

You are well aware that there are multiple lines of evidence that clearly show the release of CO2 since the industrial age, which obviously is not natural, has led to an increase in global temperatures.

After all, this is the first time in earth's history where CO2 increased BEFORE temperatures did, instead of trailing. And you know that, right?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

You are well aware that there are multiple lines of evidence that clearly show the release of CO2 since the industrial age, which obviously is not natural, has led to an increase in global temperatures.

After all, this is the first time in earth's history where CO2 increased BEFORE temperatures did, instead of trailing. And you know that, right?

Do you agree sea level rise is not one?

[ak-71]

Originally Posted by avb3

After all, this is the first time in earth's history where CO2 increased BEFORE temperatures did, instead of trailing. And you know that, right?

There is really never 100% consensus on anything in science, there is a famous saying "Ask 2 geologists a question and you will get 3 opinions".
Not my field, but, since it's not yours either I am optimistic - If I find you any reference trying to explain PETM by some kind of green gas injection, as a cause for warming ~55 million years ago (with additional CO2 release from oceans when warming progressed), will you stop using the forum to promote your climate agenda for a year?
I mean if there are people who are trying (nobody really "knows" as you often claim) to explain warming by some cataclysmic cosmic event that caused CO2 levels to rise first, as in not "trailing" - will you stop your propaganda for a year?

[ak-71]

You are silent for longer than usual
Are you choosing between:

a) "It was debunked!" (followed by a "carefully selected random article" to support your position)

or

b) "OK, whatever, but it only proves my point!"

Any of the above is a good choice for politically minded person

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

You are well aware that there are multiple lines of evidence that clearly show the release of CO2 since the industrial age, which obviously is not natural, has led to an increase in global temperatures.

After all, this is the . And you know that, right?

Jurassic?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

You are well aware that there are multiple lines of evidence that clearly show the release of CO2 since the industrial age, which obviously is not natural, has led to an increase in global temperatures.

After all, this is the first time in earth's history where CO2 increased BEFORE temperatures did, instead of trailing. And you know that, right?

Jurassic?

And do you really believe comparing a microscopic period of time against a broad sense millions of years ago proves anything for you?

You said sea level rise is proof. That proof is gone. So does that not shimmer your core belief?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...vel-effect-man

Four Studies Find ‘No Observable Sea-Level Effect’ From Man-Made Global Warming


By Barbara Hollingsworth | September 14, 2016 | 11:39 AM EDT

Still of former Vice President Al Gore in his 2006 film, "An Inconvenient Truth."


(CNSNews.com) – Ten years after former Vice President Al Gore warned in his 2006 Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, that if nothing was done to stop man-made global warming, melting Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets could raise sea levels by up to 20 feet, four peer-reviewed scientific studies found “no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming.”

“It is widely assumed that sea levels have been rising in recent decades largely in response to anthropogenic global warming,” Kenneth Richard writes at NoTricksZone. “However, due to the inherently large contribution of natural oscillatory influences on sea level fluctuations, this assumption lacks substantiation….

“Scientists who have recently attempted to detect an anthropogenic signal in regional sea level rise trends have had to admit that there is ‘no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming’,” Richard points out, listing four peer-reviewed studies published this year that have all come to the same conclusion.

In a paper published on May 18, Hindumathi Palanisamy at the Laboratoire d’Etudes en Geophysique et Oceanograhie Spatiales (LEGOS) in Toulouse, France and her co-authors explain that “sea level is an integrated climate parameter that involves interactions of all components of the climate system (oceans, ice sheets, glaciers, atmosphere, and land water reservoirs) on a wide range of spatial and temporal scales….

“Since 1993, sea level variations have been measured precisely by satellite altimetry. They indicated a faster sea level rise of 3.3 mm/yr over 1993-2015. Owing to their global coverage, they also reveal a strong regional seal level variability that sometimes is several times greater than the global mean sea level rise,” the researchers state.

“Considering the highly negative impact of sea level rise for society, monitoring sea level change and understanding its causes are henceforth high priorities.”

Comparing sea level changes between 1950 and 2009 in the Indian Ocean, South China and Caribbean Seas, Palanisamy’s team found that the “tropical Pacific displays the highest magnitude of sea level variations.”

“the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal”However, by studying “sea level spatial trend patterns in the tropical Pacific and attempting to eliminate signal corresponding to the main internal climate mode, we show that the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal.”

Another group of scientists led by Mohammad Hadi Bordbar from the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany also concluded in a study published in April that the recent sea level trends in the tropical Pacific “are still within the range of long-term internal decadal variability.

“Further, such variability strengthens in response to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations, which may further hinder detection of anthropogenic climate signals in that region,” the study found.

In another study also published in April, a research team led by Sonke Dangendorf of the Research Institute for Water and Environment at the University of Siegen, Germany said that “superimposed on any anthropogenic trend there are also considerable decadal to centennial signals linked to intrinsic natural variability in the climate system… In the Arctic, for instance, the casual uncertainties are even up to 8 times larger than previously thought.

“This result is consistent with recent findings that beside the anthropogenic signature, a non-negligible fraction of the observed 20th century sea level rise still represents a response to pre-industrial natural climate variations such as the Little Ice Age” – a period of low temperatures which occurred between 1300 and 1850.

In a fourth paper published online in January in the Journal of Coastal Research, lead author Jens Morten Hansen of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland and his co-authors studied sea level patterns from the eastern North Sea to the central Baltic Sea over a 160-year period (1849-2009).

“Identification of oscillators and general trends over 160 years would be of great importance for distinguishing long-term, natural developments from possible, more recent anthropogenic sea-level changes,” the researchers note.

“However, we found that a possible candidate for such anthropogenic development, i.e. the large sea-level rise after 1970, is completely contained by the found small residuals, long-term oscillators, and general trend. Thus, we found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world's best recorded region.”

In addition, the Earth’s coasts actually gained land over the past 30 years, according to another study published August 25 in Nature Climate Change.

Researchers led by Gennadii Donchyts from the Deltares Research Institute in the Netherlands found that the Earth’s surface gained a total of 58,000 square kilometers (22,393 square miles) of land over the past 30 years, including 33,700 sq. km. (13,000 sq. mi.) in coastal areas.

“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” study co-author Fedor Baart told the BBC.

“We were able to create more land than sea level rising was taking.”

Interesting

[From The Hip]

https://youtu.be/MTIsI95IscY

FTH

[Sooner]

Originally Posted by From The Hip

https://youtu.be/MTIsI95IscY

FTH

Watch that one a lot. Too funny and yet true. We are a spec in time, the planet has been through worse. If we are the top dog, we will adapt to the planets changes. If not, we will be shaken off like fleas.

When the big asteroid is bearing down on us like in the Simpsons episode, can i get my carbon tax money back?

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by angelanave

The camping tents are somewhat a different from party ones as they have to climate more rough and hard or about to change edges. Camping tents come in every type of sizes, ranging from a camping tent which is meant for a one person to a large one that can provide accommodation to six people. These types of tents are not so large and can be inclined in some minutes.
Thanks& regards,
Angelanave
inflatable tents |military tents | |refugee tents | | camping tents

Mods.... can we make this a sticky?

[ak-71]

Originally Posted by Talking moose

Mods.... can we make this a sticky?

It's in a climate change thread by AVB - IT IS STICKY