Arctic sea ice loss due to global warming

Your assumption that the sources provided by warmists are accurate is naive. Look at the sources provided on ice loss. Other than me, did you see anywhere that mentioned the total ice extent? Are you able to put the supposed ice loss into perspective? How much data do you suppose is enough to supply a reliable population for a statistical analysis. So far, predictions are being made on a very limited data set. Anyone with half a brain can see there is just not enough data to make such dire predictions yet the so-called climatologists grab any scrap they can to keep their grants flowing and their pensions fat and excluding skeptics from their cabal.

 

no. its based on the fact that I have considerable contact with scientists from a variety of disciplines, none of whom question whether global warming is occurring, because they understand the basic principles.

there may be uncertainty over the rate, and how it will affect us all, but there is no real disagreement among scientists (ie those who have the knowledge to be able to understand what is happening to our globe) about it.

if you look at the sources where there is any disagreement, you will find it is from people who have a poor understanding of science, or from a few "mavericks" whose research area does not relate to life and physical sciences, or natural sciences - and who are effectively talking about a field they are not familiar with.

they may also be paid to express these views.

 

Can you please address my post instead of going off on a tangent?

If they are 'uncertain over the rate' or 'how it will affect us all' they why do warmists make dire predictions that get plastered across the liberal news media? I gave you the facts...20 MILLION gigatons of land ice. 300 gitatons (or so) lost (supposedly) yearly. Even if you believe that figure...do the math. (20,000,000 / 300 = 66666 YEARS) and that is presuming the rate of ice loss is stable throughout those 66 THOUSAND years. We already know that the rate of ice loss fluctuates. Plus, the population of data is comprises only about a decade or so.

This is NOT ENOUGH information to predict any kind of cataclysmic event, significant sea level rise etc.

[quote[if you look at the sources where there is any disagreement, you will find it is from people who have a poor understanding of science, or from a few "mavericks" whose research area does not relate to life and physical sciences, or natural sciences - and who are effectively talking about a field they are not familiar with.

they may also be paid to express these views.[/QUOTE]

Afraid not....the extent of land ice is well known. Ask yourself why in all the warmist reporting there is little to no perspective given.

 

A cataclysmic event will happen.

The Himalayan glaciers will melt and reduce the 4 major rivers in Asia to a trickle.

The nation of Bengladesh will be reclamed by the ocean.

The state of Texas will turn into a desert.
Many island nations will cease to exist.

There will be widespread famine and hunger and an increase of tropical illnesses.

And we here in the south get more stinkin ants...crazy, hairy ants from South America.

 

No doubt, the earth has a history of cataclysmic events, volcano eruptions, earthquakes etc.

Ahem...the Himalayan glaciers are growing. (You were kidding, yes?)

Since GW started around 1950 (according to the current 'consensus') Blangladesh's own government scientists say that Bangladesh is actually gaining land.

""Bangladesh - New data shows that Bangladesh's landmass is increasing, contradicting forecasts that the South Asian nation will be under the waves by the end of the century, experts say.

Scientists from the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) have studied 32 years of satellite images and say Bangladesh's landmass has increased by 20 square kilometres (eight square miles) annually."

Texas already has its share of deserts. The Chihuahuan and Trans-Pecos come immediately to mind.

Many Island nations have come and gone in the past as well. Not much change there.

Considering that to be true (and I don't for 1 minute think it is) More CO2 and warmer weather plus more water means more crops and LESS hunger. Illness easily spans the globe right now with the advent of air travel.

Probably hitched a ride with all those illegal immigrants.

 

Afraid not....the extent of land ice is well known. Ask yourself why in all the warmist reporting there is little to no perspective given.[/QUOTE]

the first line of your post framed the context in which you are framing the rest of it.

that is all that needs to be addressed.

 

When scientist manipulate science it turns me off, way off..


Jollee

 

lols ...

I think science turns you off regardless ...

this may be because you rely on political blogs for "scientific" information ...

but I suspect that its because science is a mystery to you anyway.

 

Your Plum wrong, Science is exciting, cheating for Grant Money is (*)(*)(*)(*)ty! They should be ashamed!


Jollee

 

yeah sure jollee,

whatever you say ....

do you think evolution theory is a lie as well?

 

No you claimed fallacy. That is a copout to not address the facts of the link

 

So you have no proof to refute the articles

 

I have shown lies you have nothing here.

They used september temps to show hottest october. They used lies about Himalayas

I have shown other things you ignore

 

OK then....are you willing to have the government dictate to you what you should eat just in case you might get diabetes? BTW recent scientific studies show that type 2 diabetes is influenced more by genetics than type 1. Look it up. Like I said, try sticking to the issues at hand.

No 'scientists' don't 'know' that human activity has anything to do with 'global climate.' They are just guessing based on relatively scant statistics. Yet the warmist sheep are willing to let radical leftists in the government compromise their personal economic well being.

 

I don't need the government to dictate to me - but even if I did, that wouldn't change the fact that dietary factors contribute to diabetes.

scientists DO know that human factors contribute to global warming.

just because you don't know, doesn't mean that those who study these things don't know.

and the fact that you seem to thnk its all a leftist conspiracy just goes to show that you are lookig at the issue from an extremely parochial point of view.

globally it isn't a left/right issue. how to dea with it MAY be divided along those lines, but the science isn't.

 

Inheritance of risk factors for type II is stronger than for type I. If you'd have researched your premise adequately you would not have made that statement.

If you want to keep drawing some kind of correlation between diabetes and GW then you need to add that the Earth's climate may be predisposed cyclical warming and cooling over which humans have no control.

The problem here is that there is no definition for GW in the first place. There are only models that are subject to human intervention. Also you cannot cite exactly how much (if any) humans contribute to it. The field is poorly understood.

People who 'study these things' include skeptics as well however, you and your ilk call them 'deniers' because you want to deny their findings that there is much to question in the field of climate research.

GW is embraced by the environmental crowd which are largely 'progressive' left-wing whackos. They denigrate folks for using so-called 'fossil' fuels while offering no real solutions.

Deal with what? Mildly increasing temperatures that are probably just part of one of the Earth's thousands or millions of years cycles? Get real, we need to deal with our current energy problem which is the LACK of an adequate fuel supply caused by environmental whackos who have thwarted this country's ability to become energy independent for decades.

We have petroleum in abundance, we have natural gas in abundance it is criminal that environmental elements have stopped US from accessing it and making us dependent on OPEC.

 

how much CO2 emissions is man made is measurable...

they're deniers because that is precisely their position, their evidence is backing their stance is weak to non-existent...

the Pentagon is a left wing wacko group???...there are many solutions to fossil fuel, another silly denial-ism on your part...

all evidence says it is not a natural cycle...the fuel shortage problem isn't environmental wacko's it's greed and stubbornness of those refusing to accept the facts, the planets environment trumps your desire for cheap fuel...

but Denmark has managed to completely cut it's reliance on OPEC oil...and the USA's number one foreign oil supplier is Canada and Mexico 2nd, not OPEC, the USA finds it's self dependent because of viewpoints like yours that prevent solutions...

 

There is a gap in the amount of CO2 measured in the atmosphere and the calculated amount of anthropogenic emissions. Only about 1/2 of human CO2 emissions end up staying in the atmosphere.

So-called anthropogenic GW is not strong enough to stand up to scrutiny so proponents of AGW slap the 'denier' label on anyone who questions their 'consensus.'

Currently fossil fuel is the one most transportable, economic fuel available. The solution does not lie in 'many' less efficient generators of energy. And if you think the Pentagon doesn't have vast reserves of petroleum they you are mistaken.

What about nuclear plants? Clean, more efficient than solar, wind or hydro. We have had them for years yet the enviro whackos have blocked their construction.

How about natural gas? We have vast reserves that can be access through frakking. There is a petition to tell Obama to mandate all new US Gov. & USPS vehicles be natural gas powered...here...wh.gov/4Mu....

I see...so it is 'greedy' for me to put gas in my car? That's insane thinking. Provide a better alternative and I assure I will use it...Where is it? All environmentalists want to do is shut down commerce by limiting the fuel supply while they offer nothing in its place.

Wind power generates about 18% of Denmark's electricity. Coal, however, is still the most popular electricity-generating fuel and, in Denmark, accounts for about 48% of its electricity.

 

I will do it your way.

Incorrect

Incorrect

Wyly's point was that the DoD sees CC as a threat to national security.

Incorrect. Construction and nuclear waste disposal costs have blocked the construction.

Yes if you are unwilling to pay for the "real" cost of the FFs.

That is 18% less than a few years ago. In few more years, amount of coal being used will be even less. Despite what some naysayers believe, Rome was not built in day.

 

Wrong again..

Incorrect...Wyly was referring to the Pentagon and GW.

Construction has been blocked by enviro-whackos and disposal costs are relatively minimal. Wrong again.

No one knows the 'real' cost of FF because of all the needless environmental regulations of which the cost is passed down to the consumer...not to mention draconian taxes.

Actually that 18% has remained fairly steady. In addition, Denmark is looking to extend interconnections so that they can import power when the wind doesn't blow. Also, investigators have been looking into carbon-credit fraud of billions of kroner originating in the Danish quota register.

Also the we must remember that any stated CO2 emissions have to be 'adjusted' because Denmark does not claim their full amount if they export some of its electricity production. Emissions are also calculated using algorithms based on assumptions.

It's a scam...pure and simple.

 

Actually external costs of fossil fuels are known and fairly uncontroversial. See, for example, the recent American Economic Review paper by Muller et. al., reported on here.