Arctic sea ice loss due to global warming II

No, RESEARCH papers - you know those things scientists write when they have carefully measured the facts - as opposed to the bloggers on the internet who just make stuff up

 

There is a difference between stupidity and lack of education

Stupidity is the refusal to look at facts and learn how to read science reports

Education is the means by which you can learn NOT to be stupid

Now there is a very easy method to show how educated and erudite you or anyone reading this, is

Simply support your stance with some considered and thoughtful research that demonstrates that you have educated yourself in the topic and understand I have NEVER called you "stupid"

Can you put forth a post that is supported by research like Mannie and the other "warmists" do? Can you support your stance the way we have and do ours?

{{{{{{{{{{{sigh}}}}}}}}}}}

I live in hope that one day ONE denialist will actually come up with something that IS supported by research

 

You are very good at talking down to people....congratulations.

 

You mean like Monet on his polar bear paper having is wife and co-worker in the peer review process. GW has corrupted science and the peer review provess

 

You seem very good at not actually dealing with the challenge to support your position with some actual evidence.

Instead you play the "poor me, I'm so picked on" card.

LOLOLOL....get a clue....try looking at the scientific evidence instead of swallowing such bs propaganda from the reality deniers...

 

Oh congratualtions you have learned from the best of them haven't you? Silence your opponent when they disagree with you buy inferring or just flat out telling them that they are too stupid to know. Good job.

Tell me why I would be required to present you with information to support my beliefs...when others already have? You won't listen, you know it. So, just stop playing the "you're so stupid you can't even provide" CARD.

I have already stated that you think it's true, I think it's a myth. You won't change my mind with your BS "scientific evidence"...just wondering why you care? I mean really you people are so touchy. You can believe what you believe while listening to your "scientific propaganda" if you wish, until it effects me directly....I could give a (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

LOLOLOL.....well, I have learned about modern climate science from "the best of them". As for the rest of your response....if it can be called that....it seems pretty disconnected from reality. No matter what I might think privately, I have never, on this forum, told you that you were "too stupid to know". Forum rules strictly prohibit any such personal attacks so your accusations ring false. Specifically, in the last few posts, Bowerbird simply challenged you to back up your claims by saying, quite rationally:

You then played your "poor, poor me, I'm being attacked" card, which appears to be one of your favorites, and refused to do as she suggested. So then I reiterated the challenge to put up or shut up and once again you try to turn it into a baseless accusation of someone calling you stupid. LOL. Good way to deflect attention from the actual substance of the challenge you refused to meet.

Well, dude, there are so many really obvious reasons, it's hard to know where to begin. If we were discussing your "beliefs" about what are the best pizza toppings, then you would not be "required" to back up your opinions. However when we are debating a substantive issue involving science, like AGW, your posts are fairly meaningless if you can't back your statements up with some references to actual science.

Cheap cop-out. The claim that nameless "others already have" posted the scientific backing for your claims is too foolish and meaningless to bother with. If you can't provide any references or citations, it just indicates that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

And once again you're sort of telling what is technically called a "lie". No one called you stupid (except perhaps the voices in your head). You were just challenged to demonstrate that you knew something about the topic, which is something that you have so far failed to do.

So you admit that your mind is closed and that you don't care about the scientific evidence that has convinced virtually the entire world scientific community. OK, we get it, no use talking to you again except to debunk your nonsense for the benefit of other readers of the forum.

And there's another good technique for avoiding the challenge to back up your ignorant claims with some real evidence. LOL. Just more hot air with no substance.

But OK dude, keep your head in the sand. Nobody really cares what mental gymnastics you have to do to stay in denial or what your ignorant opinions are about things you don't understand and haven't bothered to learn anything about. You don't care what the evidence shows and nobody else cares about your opinions on the matter.

Just out of curiosity though, if you really couldn't "give a (*)(*)(*)(*)" about this issue, as you claim, why are you wasting your time writing posts for a thread about arctic ice loss on a specifically environmental forum?

 

Not really sure why you won't leave this alone. But ok.

To this...

In your previous post you had said this...

Translation..."You're too stupid to know"

To this...

When? That would suggest that it actually affected me in some way, which it didn't. I was merely pointing out (not in this many words, but...here goes again) that people such as you, and that other person who responded to me are completely incapable of having a discussion about this with people who don't subscribe to the whole "The world is heating up" nonsense without being called names, or being talked down to.

And the rest of this post is another example of what I've been trying to point out.

 

Your "translations" seem to be based only on your own insecurities and self-doubts, not on what anyone else actually said to you. Your attacks on others for "talking down to you" are lies. No one has said any of the things you attribute to them. What you imagine you're pointing out is also quite false. Your opponents in this debate are very capable of having a debate without calling anyone any names. The forum rules require that, as a matter of fact. What we plainly do instead is provide references and citations that support the statements we're making about AGW and that simple thing, backing up what you say with evidence, seems to be quite beyond you since you've never done it in my experience of your posts.

As I said before....

 

Thanks for chiming in. Why you found it necessary I have no idea.

 

Why you're even posting on this thread on this forum, no one can figure out. You certainly don't contribute anything but pointless, vacuous posts that add nothing of value or substance to the debate.

 

Well perhaps if you hadn't started out so rude, we would be having a discussion by now. (not that you'd be interested in anything I had to say) But, when people become insulting or petty I rather enjoy speaking to them in a manner they deserve. Now, if you stop posting to me...we can call it a day.

 

What qualifiers do I need? If you did not understand it you could have either 1)asked me or 2) googled "thermal expansion of the ocean. Anyone familiar with basic physics would have immediately understood what I wrote. So here you are, discussing climate change with not even a basic understanding of physics. Another perfect example of why you are labeled a "denier"; all you can do is deny the evidence without even a simple understanding of the facts.

 

Well perhaps if you hadn't started out by referring people to a bunch of really lame denier cult blogs as if they amounted to any kind of evidence, we wouldn't have had to school you in the requirements of actual debate on scientific issues. Too bad you're so thin-skinned and clueless.

 

I'm sorry I did that, when exactly?

Typical..."I'm smarter than you" BS.

Thin skinned? Nope, just totally hate people who continuesly resort to "I'm smarter than you" (call them what they are) insults. When trying to have someone else see your point of view. It doesn't work in the real world or on blogs...people just shut you off. It has been my experience that the more someone calls you "uneducated" or infer that only they have the knowledge to "school you" it is more due to their "over education" and not living in the "real world" to understand how to communicate with people. They lack commonsense to function in the "real world"....they tend to think that all there is to life is a college campus, and that people will bow down and forever be impressed by them...because they have a degree in this and a degree in that. I would much rather spend my time with people who have actually lived a life.

Clueless? Look, this whole global warming scam is nothing more than a bunch of "overeducated" commonsense lacking campus dwelling nitwits that have been bought and paid for by some very influential and powerful people who will benefit greatly from all the "green energy projects" and the selling of worthless "carbon credits". I do know that Pelosi, and Gore stand to make incredible sums of money with their carbon "monopoly" credits. You do not find that a bit curious, suspicious? Nothing? As I said...commonsense is lacking greatly in people that peddle this bogus insane notion that this country should be brought to it's knees for "clean air" while there are countries like India and China releasing toxic fumes into the air every hour, every minute, every second of the day.

 

Just because you state that water expands when heated doesn't mean the oceans are going to rise significantly. Factors such as ocean depth and salinity must be factored in as well as ocean/land areas.

Also, there are discrepancies in Satellite and Argo data regarding ocean temperature. In addition, you really don't know how much heat/cold will be generated in the atmosphere because climate models have been received a 'human touch'....

 

You fill your posts with your own ignorance and you never bother to look things up and find out the facts for yourself. Here's a peer reviewed paper that was published in the journal 'Science' a few years ago. Do you suspect these scientists of just 'making up' the whole issue of 'thermal expansion'?

How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise?

Science 18 March 2005:
Vol. 307 no. 5716 pp. 1769-1772
DOI: 10.1126/science.1106663

1. Gerald A. Meehl*,
2. Warren M. Washington,
3. William D. Collins,
4. Julie M. Arblaster,
5. Aixue Hu,
6. Lawrence E. Buja,
7. Warren G. Strand and
8. Haiyan Teng

+ Author Affiliations
1. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Post Office Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307, USA.

Abstract

Two global coupled climate models show that even if the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere had been stabilized in the year 2000, we are already committed to further global warming of about another half degree and an additional 320% sea level rise caused by thermal expansion by the end of the 21st century. Projected weakening of the meridional overturning circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean does not lead to a net cooling in Europe. At any given point in time, even if concentrations are stabilized, there is a commitment to future climate changes that will be greater than those we have already observed.


***

 

And you don't bother to actually address the issues I bring up and instead personally insult me with your made-up accusations.

That paper is based on climate models which may or may not be accurate. The rate of sea level rise has decreased over the past 5 or 6 years from 3.2mm/yr to only 1.5mm/yr. as determined by satellite altimetry. (available since 1992).

As far as the climate models go...consider these quotes:

"The fact that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." - Kevin Trenberth


"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and isn't statistically significant." - Phil Jones

"Abstract: The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change. Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations."


"Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from VAriation in Earth's Radiant Energy Balance" - Roy W. Spencer/William D. Braswell.

So you see, anyone can make their own 'model.'

That statement is devoid of any real perspective.

NOTE: If you continue to insult me, there is no reason to continue this discussion.

 

Well, I'm sorry if you felt that I was trying to "personally insult" you but I wasn't. What you take to be an "accusation" is actually more of an 'observation'. Don't take it "personally", dude. Being so thin skinned might turn out to be painful for you if you want to debate on public forums, even relatively polite ones like this one. That was an observation of the simple facts of the matter. Your posts are filled with ignorant myths that you never seem to bother to check out for yourself. That is a very easy fact to demonstrate. Let's look at the rest of this post of yours.






You started off denying that 'thermal expansion' of water was real or could affect sea levels, apparently in complete ignorance of the fairly basic information that the thermal expansion of water, and in particular, sea water, is an established fact and an often observed result of some of the basic laws of physics. You could easily and at any point have googled the topic and gotten the straight info but you continued to pursue your very ignorant assumption that everyone else was just 'making it up' to scare people. LOL. To really make my point here, it would be good to go back over the whole strung out dialog you've engaged in on this point.

So once again you seem to miss the point and get things wrong. The paper I cited was just an example of scientists in this field acknowledging the existence and significance of the thermal expansion of the ocean water. The models they are using have nothing to do with the reality of the thermal expansion of water.

What causes sea level to change?

The level of the sea at the shoreline is determined by many factors in the global environment that operate on a great range of time-scales, from hours (tidal) to millions of years (ocean basin changes due to tectonics and sedimentation). On the time-scale of decades to centuries, some of the largest influences on the average levels of the sea are linked to climate and climate change processes.

Firstly, as ocean water warms, it expands. On the basis of observations of ocean temperatures and model results, thermal expansion is believed to be one of the major contributors to historical sea level changes. Further, thermal expansion is expected to contribute the largest component to sea level rise over the next hundred years. Deep ocean temperatures change only slowly; therefore, thermal expansion would continue for many centuries even if the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases were to stabilize.

The amount of warming and the depth of water affected vary with location. In addition, warmer water expands more than colder water for a given change in temperature. The geographical distribution of sea level change results from the geographical variation of thermal expansion, changes in salinity, winds, and ocean circulation. The range of regional variation is substantial compared with the global average sea level rise.



As far as your unsupported claims about sea level changes, they are simply wrong.


(graph from Church 2008)

How much is sea level rising?

And here we have another example of you filling your posts with ignorant myths. Trenberth is not talking about a 'lack of warming' on Earth, he is talking about not being able to account for just where all of the extra heat energy that is being retained inside the atmosphere as measured by satellites is actually going. They think it is being cycled down into the deeper parts of the oceans but there are no temperature sensors down there now to confirm that. Here's an explanation in more detail.

The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth

Your post indicates that you don't understand either the meaning of 'statistically significant' or the obvious fact that 1998 was unusually hot even within a rising temperature trend. Pretty much every year after 1998 was still warmer than all of the preceding years on record. And, as it turns out, that whole trick question of asking about the statistical significance of global warming over a very short time period has been rendered moot by the addition of another years worth of data.

Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
BBC News
10 June 2011
(excerpts)
"The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn't significant at the standard 95% level that people use," Professor Jones told BBC News. "Basically what's changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years - and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years. "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."

Professor Jones' previous comment, from a BBC interview in Febuary 2010, is routinely quoted - erroneously - as demonstration that the Earth's surface temperature is not rising.

Unfortunately for your accuracy, semi-deniers like Spencer make really crappy models that are full of bad science that all of the other scientists then point out. Your paper was debunked pretty thoroughly.

Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer
Jul 29, 2011

Spencer's Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback
by Kevin Trenberthand John Fasullo
29 July 2011


Point, set and match.

 

And there you go again. You are starting to become a waste of my time.

I most certainly did not deny thermal expansion. I was saying you give no perspective and cannot produce an experiment on the oceans to prove that thermal expansion will result in the catastrophic scenario you continue to falsely paint.

Making presumptive and insulting statements with absolutely no proof seems to be your stock and trade. The 'dialog' clearly shows your lack of comprehension. You really don't care what others have to say you just bulldoze your way through while smashing over the facts that don't suit your agenda.

The paper you cited was based on models and we know those models are based on faulty data or truncated data. Again, you throw out jargon with no qualifications. You continue to evade the issue I brought up in the first place by lying about what I posted. Either address the issue or forget any more discussion with me.

That statement says nothing about actual sea rise/fall other than there are 'many factors' involved and, of course, the warmist-whacko term 'climate change' which is a milk-toast term describing whatever the utterer thinks will cause folks to open their pocketbooks.

I have BOLDED the words you really need to think about here. I could add...Woulda, coulda, shoulda....

What does any of that prove? Unless you are proving your own false statement...congratulations on that...I guess.

No they're not.

What a convoluted statement of goobdleygook. Apparently your vaunted climatologists have to have translators now and apologists. That link you provided says Trenberth was LOOKING for warming in the first place. When he didn't find what was 'expected' he wondered why. Classic case of pre-determined outcome.

Sorry, I deleted the rest of your post by accident...oh well....not much there anyway.

 

I think this is called the "magic fairy approach" as in "No Johnny Global warming is not going to happen because the magic fairy will come down and make all that nasty fysics that says water expands when heated go away and not happen to the oceans"

 

Your posts amount to nothing but pointless drivel and nonsense that you cannot back up with any evidence. You are not worth engaging in debate because you don't know how. The only reason I will respond to your posts from now on will be to debunk your misinformation and lies with the facts and the scientific data for the benefit of others who may be following the thread.

 

I accept your white flag...

 

Ha ha ha! Can I use this as a signature line please?


I am so hearing this in the voice of Kent Brockman.

 

Oh wow!!!

The combination of this with you avatar is just priceless!!!

You have just become my new favourite poster! Where have you been all my life!