Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
It's the game of whack-a-mole she plays that wears me out.
We can refute and disprove her posts all day long; like I said, it won't make any difference..

LOL, if you "can refute and disprove her posts all day long;" why don't you? Why do you resort to attacking the messenger when you could post the science that would disprove what she posts?

My guess, you can't dispute what she posts. What she posts makes you so uncomfortable that you resort to self defense mechanisms such as calling names and making rude references.

Fun Facts wrote:

To another poster:

From above
"This result is in accordance
with the results presented by Monaghan et al.(2006), which demonstrate statistically insignificant changes in the SMB over the past 50 yr."
Actually the above referenced paper is on snowfall. There has been no significant increase in snowfall in the last 50 years.
August 2006 > Monaghan et al., 313 (5788): 827-831
Thermo Fisher Scientific
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
Science 11 August 2006:
Vol. 313 no. 5788 pp. 827-831
DOI: 10.1126/science.1128243
Report
Insignificant Change in Antarctic Snowfall Since the International Geophysical Year
Andrew J. Monaghan1,*,
David H. Bromwich1,
Ryan L. Fogt1,
Sheng-Hung Wang1,
Paul A. Mayewski3,
Daniel A. Dixon3,
Alexey Ekaykin4,
Massimo Frezzotti5,
Ian Goodwin6,
Elisabeth Isaksson7,
Susan D. Kaspari3,
Vin I. Morgan8,
Hans Oerter9,
Tas D. Van Ommen8,
Cornelius J. Van der Veen2,
Jiahong Wen10
Abstract
Antarctic snowfall exhibits substantial variability over a range of time scales, with consequent impacts on global sea level and the mass balance of the ice sheets. To assess how snowfall has affected the thickness of the ice sheets in Antarctica and to provide an extended perspective, we derived a 50-year time series of snowfall accumulation over the continent by combining model simulations and observations primarily from ice cores. There has been no statistically significant change in snowfall since the 1950s, indicating that Antarctic precipitation is not mitigating global sea level rise as expected, despite recent winter warming of the overlying atmosphere."
You should read this stuff before you post.

LOL. You missed the important point:

Antarctic precipitation is not mitigating global sea level rise as expected, despite recent winter warming of the overlying atmosphere.

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5788/8...

kristy wrote:

<quoted text>
You know what's funny. All these climate scientists with PhD's have made such outrageous predictions in the past, it is now coming back to haunt them, so now they just end up arguing against their past predictions. Example, Dr. Viner publicly proclaims snow will be a thing of the past, then when it snows they pretend they never said it and blame it on the skeptics and then start a circular argument with themselves stating how they knew all along they knew snow would increase. They do it with all their predictions.
Look what they just recently said about Antarctic Sea Ice:
Antarctic sea ice extent in mid-August reached a record or near-record level high at 18.7 million square kilometers, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center External Non-U.S. government site.
The positive growth of total sea ice extent around Antarctica, which averages 18 million square kilometers at the height of winter, is part of a long-term trend and is consistent with how scientists believe climate change affects the southernmost continent.
http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenth...
Back in 2007, the IPCC said this:
In contrast to the Arctic, there are signs of a slight increase in the extent of annual mean sea ice [in the Antarctic] over the period 1979–2005 (+1.2 per cent per decade) based on the NASA Team retrieval algorithm. The IPCC concluded that this overall increase was not significant and that there are NO CONSISTENT TRENDS trends during the period of satellite observations.
What a bunch of BS.

Yep,

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/303/2013/tc-7...

This paper indicates that the ice in Antarctica is not so different from the time period of the LIA. Therefore not significantly different.

A review of the ice core data from Antarctica and Greenland indicates that the Antarctica activity precedes the Greenland activity. In other words, it gets cold/hot in Antarctica before is gets cold/hot in Greenland.

If the current state of Antarctica is something like the time period of the LIA what could that mean.

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>LOL. You missed the important point:
Antarctic precipitation is not mitigating global sea level rise as expected, despite recent winter warming of the overlying atmosphere.
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5788/8...

I think you wanted to post your comment to Patriot.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep,
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/303/2013/tc-7...
This paper indicates that the ice in Antarctica is not so different from the time period of the LIA. Therefore not significantly different.
A review of the ice core data from Antarctica and Greenland indicates that the Antarctica activity precedes the Greenland activity. In other words, it gets cold/hot in Antarctica before is gets cold/hot in Greenland.
If the current state of Antarctica is something like the time period of the LIA what could that mean.

However, there has never been a period in the past where CO2 was dumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. So how can we expect the same historic patterns to hold for modern times? Is it possible that Greenland will be affected by the increase of atmospheric CO2 before Antarctica? This seems to be the part that many doubters miss. While some historic events do project into the future, that does not mean that they are the only events that affect our climate.

There may be some natural events such as orbital or decreased energy from the sun that are indicating a cooling trend of the Earth but what we are witnessing is an opposite trend. Why?

Argue about atmospheric temperatures all you want but as I have said before, it is the accumulation of heat that is the problem. The earth is heating.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files...

kristy wrote:

<quoted text>
I just love it when someone pops in and doesn't even know what was being referred to in my post. My post was about botched predictions and science. I suggest you read my comment to BOZO aka Dr. Bozo PhD regarding that post:
http://www.topix.com/forum/chicago/T1046AOH0D...
Oh and by the way, you need to update your talking points on the Antarctic sea ice. I realize it's hard to keep up, but now the talking point is that the AGW scientists always predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase. So you can either go along with that or start arguing with the AGW scientists, it's up to you how you want to handle that.
"Antarctic sea ice extent in mid-August reached a record or near-record level high at 18.7 million square kilometers, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center External Non-U.S. government site. The positive growth of total sea ice extent around Antarctica, which averages 18 million square kilometers at the height of winter, is part of a long-term trend and is consistent with how scientists believe climate change affects the southernmost continent.
http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenth...

Up date mu talking points?? Hard to keep up??? I never once mentioned Antarctica Sea Ice now did I. You need to more carefully read what is written to you. I realize that you have stated that the planet is warming...but simply disagree with some of the stated fact's and science. So, you see, I just did not pop-in. The ongoing conditions in Antarctica ARE consistent with a warming planet. Am I a alarmist, yes....are the eventual catastrophic events going to happen tommorrow..no, next year, no, in a decade or two or three..who knows? But they are going to happen none the less. That is my point, it's undeniable. The event's that are now in motion will continue. We as a species seem to lack the will to change. Rather it's greed or a continuation of the status quo is a mute point. Bantering back&forth about science and who says what is counterproductive....someone needs to step up.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
However, there has never been a period in the past where CO2 was dumped into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. So how can we expect the same historic patterns to hold for modern times? Is it possible that Greenland will be affected by the increase of atmospheric CO2 before Antarctica? This seems to be the part that many doubters miss. While some historic events do project into the future, that does not mean that they are the only events that affect our climate.
There may be some natural events such as orbital or decreased energy from the sun that are indicating a cooling trend of the Earth but what we are witnessing is an opposite trend. Why?

True. We have never put as much fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere as we are now. We have never had as many people as we have now. Nor have we had as many large concrete cities as we have now. Nor have we had as many large reservoirs as we have now. There are many things about us that are different from what we have been in the past.

So why is CO2 the culprit? And if it is, why is it going up and the temperatures are not?

The poles tend to operate in a see saw pattern, one up the other down. The south pole was warmer in the recent past and is now cooler. The current warmth of Greenland is more likely to be following the historical pattern.

CO2 is a trace gas, if you had 1 million red jelly beans, CO2 would be 400 blue jelly beans. Yes small amounts of some things can still have a big impact. That's just like the sun. Very small differences in activity have a very big impact.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL, if you "can refute and disprove her posts all day long;" why don't you? Why do you resort to attacking the messenger when you could post the science that would disprove what she posts?
My guess, you can't dispute what she posts. What she posts makes you so uncomfortable that you resort to self defense mechanisms such as calling names and making rude references.

Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. And you know it, because I've been dealing with you for quite a while.

A year ago, two years ago, I was posting refutations to anything deniers could come up with. It was SO easy, it was fun to shoot the fish in the barrel. Every time I researched some claim by a denier, I found it to be either false or misleading or mistaken or misunderstood. I found people who couldn't read graphs, couldn't comprehend abstracts and conclusions. I found items posted that a denier claimed said this or that when it said just the opposite of what the denier claimed.

I find that their sources are most often sites like whatsupwiththat, aei, guardian, icecap, iceagenow; blogs and psuedoscience and junk science, never the research or the truth. Rarely a real university source or a peer-reviewed paper.

You've harped on the emails like they meant something conspiratorial when they were just the stolen candid conversations between scientists.

When real scientists are cited, they include the skeptics and fossil fuel employees like Goddard and Pielke and Christy and McIntyre and Spencer. Hanson, Jones, Trenberth, Mann, and others are discounted and vilified.

I've posted real life and real time non-scientific circumstantial evidence of climate change like insurance company actions, moving plant hardiness zones, encroaching sea level reports, and alternative energy growth statistics and had the replies come back that "that's always happened" or "they're just doing it for the money". Or maybe they'll accuse Al Gore of melting all the ice in Texas.

So now I use a shorthand form for my refutations, since I have used the long form for years. The short form is that deniers are not skeptics, and they are either 1. stupid, 2. liars, or 3. paid to be stupid and lie.

I have better things to do than beat my head against your denying wall. You are psychologically unprepared for the consequences, the price, and the changes that climate change is bringing. You will deny till your dying day and there's no changing that. I certainly can't do it; I doubt any AGW acceptor on this or any other thread can, despite their very best efforts.

So, my summation of all the arguments and proof that I have ever posted is simply this:

Deniers are idiots.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
True. We have never put as much fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere as we are now. We have never had as many people as we have now. Nor have we had as many large concrete cities as we have now. Nor have we had as many large reservoirs as we have now. There are many things about us that are different from what we have been in the past.
So why is CO2 the culprit? And if it is, why is it going up and the temperatures are not?
The poles tend to operate in a see saw pattern, one up the other down. The south pole was warmer in the recent past and is now cooler. The current warmth of Greenland is more likely to be following the historical pattern.
CO2 is a trace gas, if you had 1 million red jelly beans, CO2 would be 400 blue jelly beans. Yes small amounts of some things can still have a big impact. That's just like the sun. Very small differences in activity have a very big impact.

Heat.

kristy wrote:

<quoted text>
OMG...and you call me dense. LOL

We all call you dense. LOL

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
You know what's funny? YOU!
What a bunch of BS, the stuff you spout, trying to distract from the reality.
The Earth IS warming.
WE are the reason.
It's going to get worse.
There are things we can do about it.

...and on the 7th day we rested.
Ca we give that child an "Amen"

Did you miss the news? No statistically significant warming during the past 16 years... but you have made it clear that no matter what your climate experts say you will continue to believe in the existence of the "missing warming".

:-)

Fun Facts wrote:

CO2 is a trace gas, if you had 1 million red jelly beans, CO2 would be 400 blue jelly beans.

Potassium is a trace element. If you had 1 million red jelly beans, Potassium would be 400 blue jelly beans.

And you'd be dead.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL, if you "can refute and disprove her posts all day long;" why don't you?

Classic creationist Gish gallop.

Too tiresome.

Looks good on your CV, not on mine, as Dawkins said.

Krusty spends all day looking for denialist arguments from denier blogs, cutting and pasting them here, considers this a debate, and a weariness to refute any of her second-hand denier arguments some sort of victory.

Cheered on by her usual companions in this little denial circle jerk.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
Heat.

Really? No answer.

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Been there, done that, got the tee-shirt. And you know it, because I've been dealing with you for quite a while.
A year ago, two years ago, I was posting refutations to anything deniers could come up with. It was SO easy, it was fun to shoot the fish in the barrel. Every time I researched some claim by a denier, I found it to be either false or misleading or mistaken or misunderstood. I found people who couldn't read graphs, couldn't comprehend abstracts and conclusions. I found items posted that a denier claimed said this or that when it said just the opposite of what the denier claimed.
I find that their sources are most often sites like whatsupwiththat, aei, guardian, icecap, iceagenow; blogs and psuedoscience and junk science, never the research or the truth. Rarely a real university source or a peer-reviewed paper.
You've harped on the emails like they meant something conspiratorial when they were just the stolen candid conversations between scientists.
When real scientists are cited, they include the skeptics and fossil fuel employees like Goddard and Pielke and Christy and McIntyre and Spencer. Hanson, Jones, Trenberth, Mann, and others are discounted and vilified.
I've posted real life and real time non-scientific circumstantial evidence of climate change like insurance company actions, moving plant hardiness zones, encroaching sea level reports, and alternative energy growth statistics and had the replies come back that "that's always happened" or "they're just doing it for the money". Or maybe they'll accuse Al Gore of melting all the ice in Texas.
So now I use a shorthand form for my refutations, since I have used the long form for years. The short form is that deniers are not skeptics, and they are either 1. stupid, 2. liars, or 3. paid to be stupid and lie.
I have better things to do than beat my head against your denying wall. You are psychologically unprepared for the consequences, the price, and the changes that climate change is bringing. You will deny till your dying day and there's no changing that. I certainly can't do it; I doubt any AGW acceptor on this or any other thread can, despite their very best efforts.
So, my summation of all the arguments and proof that I have ever posted is simply this:
Deniers are idiots.

So you call skeptics names, denigrate their characters, refuse to refute their posts or engage in discussions because you're lazy?

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
Really? No answer.

You need to study the difference between atmospheric temperatures differentials and their realtionship to ocean temperature differentials. For example, the heat required to warm the entire atmosphere 1 degree would only heat the ocean approximately 0.0008 degree since the mass of the ocean is about 300 times the mass of the atmosphere. Liquid water has a specific heat of about 4 J/g K while oxygen and nitrogen are about 1 J/g K. So I hope you understand the difficulty in projecting atmospheric temperatures. However, it should be understood that the ocean is able to absorb much more heat than the atmosphere with a much smaller temperature change. Also it should be understood that the interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere will indeed cause much variation in atmospheric temperatures. It should also be understood that this energy gain by the ocean will manifest itself in warmer temperatures in the atmospere over the long term.

The Earth is gaining heat. That has been established.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
You need to study the difference between atmospheric temperatures differentials and their realtionship to ocean temperature differentials. For example, the heat required to warm the entire atmosphere 1 degree would only heat the ocean approximately 0.0008 degree since the mass of the ocean is about 300 times the mass of the atmosphere. Liquid water has a specific heat of about 4 J/g K while oxygen and nitrogen are about 1 J/g K. So I hope you understand the difficulty in projecting atmospheric temperatures. However, it should be understood that the ocean is able to absorb much more heat than the atmosphere with a much smaller temperature change. Also it should be understood that the interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere will indeed cause much variation in atmospheric temperatures. It should also be understood that this energy gain by the ocean will manifest itself in warmer temperatures in the atmoshpere over the long term.

True. It takes about 10 years for oceans to distribute the heat absorbed throughout the system. That's why we are seeing the flattening and decreasing of temperatures. We are 10 years from when the sun went into the minimum that lasted so long between solar cycles 23 and 24.

If cycle 24 peaked in 11/2011 (SIDC), or 2/2012 (SSN) then we are in for a long slide down. Cycle 24 is predicted to last 14 years, with some predictions as long as 17 years. If so, then the oceans will receive less heat and will have less heat to distribute throughout the system.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
True.

Yes. He was true in everything he pointed out but you are not responding to those accurate points.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
It takes about 10 years for oceans to distribute the heat absorbed throughout the system.

Unsupported gibberish. The oceans absorb the heat in shallow or deeper layers (depending on how clear the water is) but the dominant effect is in vertical transport of heat which means that heat absorbed today may be move out of the atmosphere/water interface for very long times.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
That's why we are seeing the flattening and decreasing of temperatures.

We are seing a flattening of AIR temperatures mostly because of a strong La-Nina moving a lot of deeper COOL water to the surface. His point is that this is a small change in ocean that can have a large effect on air temperature.

Fun Facts wrote:

<quoted text>
We are 10 years from when the sun went into the minimum that lasted so long between solar cycles 23 and 24.
If cycle 24 peaked in 11/2011 (SIDC), or 2/2012 (SSN) then we are in for a long slide down. Cycle 24 is predicted to last 14 years, with some predictions as long as 17 years. If so, then the oceans will receive less heat and will have less heat to distribute throughout the system.

There is no 'decadal cycle' in air temperature or coorelation of the solar cycle with the temperature. The oceans and land have too much thermal mass to be affected by short term cycles such as the sunspot cycle except in the 200 year changes to amplitude which has enough effect to be seen. However, even that cycle is only a SMALL factor (< 0.2C) overall and on a downward trend. The cycle 24 and 25 are just data points in that cycle.

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:

<quoted text>
The Earth is gaining heat. That has been established.

...and THAT is your point after all your prior b as in b s as in s? It "has been established" that the Earth is gaining heat?

I am happy to inform you that your experts have been saying for many years now that the Earth is NOT gaining heat!

Check it out...'They' are trying to find the missing energy but (so far) can't.

Keep the 'Faith Baby'!