Global temperatures drop sharply, what will the global warming alarmist say?

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by imind

some contrarians seemingly love, when 'refuting' the science of AGW, to bring al gore into the discussion, when al gore isn't cited as a source. IOW, al gore is used as a strawman.

the problem i see with the contrarian argument is that you seem to be arguing not against the science, but rather against the medias presentation of it (and trying to equate the two), as all the arguments are of that nature. the al gore strawman, the picking apart of news stories that don't accurately reflect the science and claiming victory when these mistakes are 'refuted', and your claim that the WAIS is never footnoted. i don't know what you're reading. whenever i've read about the antarctic ice, they've always clearly referred to it, or the region specific to the story.

begin arguing against the science (well, before you do that, you're going to actually have to read it), and this discussion will become more honest.

your suggestion that the "alarmists are screaming the antarctic is shrinking" is not reflected in that article. while the WAIS was not specifically mentioned, the portion that is melting certainly was, several times, with geographic specific locations supporting it. the very first sentence tells you what is being reported on. from the article...
tell me, which part of the article is incorrect or misleading?


what illusion is that, exactly? the illusion of presenting the WAIS as a "small chunk" of ice? the wilkins shelf alone is over 16,000 sq km.

This is the core issue of this whole debate...the data and science are rarely ever discussed, instead media articles are the center piece...The media knows that they can sell more if the article is more sensationalized...There is not much news in "nothing of any significant note is happening", or "Climate appears to be going through cycles that are consistent with the known record" Additionally, there is not much funding from politicos if that is the outcome...

If you re-read my comments they are specific to the person stating that there is a contradiction in the data presented...

That either demonstrates ignorance of the facts being discussed (honest motives, just ignorance) or it demonstrates intellectual dishonesty (impure motives) which is even more alaring as it tends to prey upon others ignorance in order to promote an agenda, which is consistent with Al Gore...

To that end the post re: contracdictory information...which the "data" used as evidence is only referring to the WAIS, and the other article is referencing the entire Antarctic...

"what illusion": the generally accepted view in the american public, thanks to discussing possible conclusions versus actual data, is that the antarctic is shrinking...meanwhile we know it is not shrinking..So, the illusion is, ignore the facts, but focus on this small piece over here...It is no different than an illusionist/magician...

but if we want to discuss the science, lets start a thread specifically for that...instead the preponderance of these threads are triggered by some media article or some politicians summary of the science... it is what it is...

[imind]

Originally Posted by MTdream

This is the core issue of this whole debate...the data and science are rarely ever discussed, instead media articles are the center piece...The media knows that they can sell more if the article is more sensationalized...There is not much news in "nothing of any significant note is happening", or "Climate appears to be going through cycles that are consistent with the known record"

you will not get an argument from as to the media's ability to sensationalize the subject, or any subject. but to suggest that our current climate is 'business as usual' is incorrect.

also, let us not pretend this is flowing in one direction. that op-ed (and what relevance an op-ed piece has is beyond me) stating that much of the science of global warming has been discredited is rubbish.

Additionally, there is not much funding from politicos if that is the outcome...

unsupported, and reeks of conspiracy. if you're going to continue with this line of thought i'd like to see some evidence.

That either demonstrates ignorance of the facts being discussed (honest motives, just ignorance) or it demonstrates intellectual dishonesty (impure motives) which is even more alaring as it tends to prey upon others ignorance in order to promote an agenda, which is consistent with Al Gore...

gore's film did more good than bad, and presented far more truths than untruths.

but if we want to discuss the science, lets start a thread specifically for that...instead the preponderance of these threads are triggered by some media article or some politicians summary of the science... it is what it is...

i would be more than happy to. where would you like to begin?

[thatguyoverthere]

MTDream, good posts. I'm glad that you at least are willing to discuss this issue. Although we might be on opposite ends of opinion (but maybe not as far apart as one would imagine), I'm appreciative that you're willing to discuss it directly. I'd like to open the lines of communication if possible and gain insight into specific aspects of your thinking.

I hope you and Imind do start a new thread and discuss the science. That would be very interesting to read.

Regarding Antarctic ice: That specific discussion actually started on here because the skeptics kept claiming Antarctic ice was expanding.

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

...
Some polar caps are melting at an alarming rate, but others are expanding at an equally alarming rate, somethign the global warming enviro crowd doesn't mention.
...

No ice at the North Pole v.Santa can't swim

Originally Posted by JaJae

...
It's also important to note that while the glaciers are melting at the north pole they're expanding at the south pole at what some consider to be an alarming rate... for some reason we don't get sensationalized news stories about that though.

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Ice in the north pole is shrinking and ice in antartica is growing at an alarming rate, yet all the media focuses on is the north pole. Fantastic...

So, it appears to me that the conventional wisdom is that Antarctic ice is expanding, not decreasing. And to date I have not found anyone who can explain why the two folks quoted above use the word "alarming" to describe the ice expansion.

In one of my earlier posts in this thread, I mentioned that I wrote to all the scientists quoted in a Christian Science Monitor article that had been presented to me as evidence that Antarctic ice was expanding. So far, four have written me back, all pretty much saying what you did: that this doesn't contradict the GRACE measurements or the Rignot study. I'm still confused, and then when you say "The Alarmists continue to scream the Antarctic is shrinking...which is intellectually dishonest...yet technically correct." I'm even more confused.

(And for the record: None of the four scientists responding to me said that they would characterize the expansion of Antarctic ice as "alarming", but two did mention that major Antarctic would indeed be alarming.)

So, the seasonal sea ice is expanding, but the multi year land ice is decreasing. Is that correct?

And, what should one take away from the fact Antarctic ice is expanding? That the globe isn't warming? That human activity is not affecting the changing climate? That anthropogenic global warming won't be a problem? That it offsets Arctic ice decrease?

I'm not trying to get into a back and forth fight. I really would like some insight.

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

MTDream, good posts. I'm glad that you at least are willing to discuss this issue. Although we might be on opposite ends of opinion (but maybe not as far apart as one would imagine), I'm appreciative that you're willing to discuss it directly. I'd like to open the lines of communication if possible and gain insight into specific aspects of your thinking.

I hope you and Imind do start a new thread and discuss the science. That would be very interesting to read.

Regarding Antarctic ice: That specific discussion actually started on here because the skeptics kept claiming Antarctic ice was expanding.



No ice at the North Pole v.Santa can't swim





So, it appears to me that the conventional wisdom is that Antarctic ice is expanding, not decreasing. And to date I have not found anyone who can explain why the two folks quoted above use the word "alarming" to describe the ice expansion.

In one of my earlier posts in this thread, I mentioned that I wrote to all the scientists quoted in a Christian Science Monitor article that had been presented to me as evidence that Antarctic ice was expanding. So far, four have written me back, all pretty much saying what you did: that this doesn't contradict the GRACE measurements or the Rignot study. I'm still confused, and then when you say "The Alarmists continue to scream the Antarctic is shrinking...which is intellectually dishonest...yet technically correct." I'm even more confused.

(And for the record: None of the four scientists responding to me said that they would characterize the expansion of Antarctic ice as "alarming", but two did mention that major Antarctic would indeed be alarming.)

So, the seasonal sea ice is expanding, but the multi year land ice is decreasing. Is that correct?

And, what should one take away from the fact Antarctic ice is expanding? That the globe isn't warming? That human activity is not affecting the changing climate? That anthropogenic global warming won't be a problem? That it offsets Arctic ice decrease?

I'm not trying to get into a back and forth fight. I really would like some insight.

To start with, it appears your mixing the details...arctic/antarctic...

the thin shallow first year stuff you are referencing, is happening in the arctic (north pole area)

The antarctic is expanding...the antarctic is generally split into two portions when discussed, and the small portion (less than 10% of antarctic) is the WAIS which is what gets all the press as far as shrinking, and the portion expanding is the EAIS...

WAIS is the same area as the Antarctic Peninsula...which has been used or purported to be the "bellweather" for the global climate...and the arcticle used as supporting evidence on "contradictory" is only referencing the WAIS or Antarctic peninsula section, and the other articles were referencing all of Antarctica...

moral of the story, I truly dont think we can say with absolute certainty that we know what is happening in antarctica...why? the area is sooooo vast, and the amount of ice is soooo voluminous....my opinion and not fact is that anything we discuss on this topic is speculation of formulas and not absolute certainty...but then again, that is just IMHO...

I wont begin to defend comments of others referncing expansion as alarming...

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

And, what should one take away from the fact Antarctic ice is expanding? That the globe isn't warming? That human activity is not affecting the changing climate? That anthropogenic global warming won't be a problem? That it offsets Arctic ice decrease?

I'm not trying to get into a back and forth fight. I really would like some insight.

I think any conclusions from isolated or even regionalized events then extrapolated to the whole, would be filled with too many variables and produce too many flaws to truly meet the rigors of Science, but would more than likely make good journalism or political speeches



So, to your questions...in order...

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

what should one take away from the fact Antarctic ice is expanding?

that factors are contributing to the Antarctic Ice to expand (not trying to be a smartass, just fact)

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

That the globe isn't warming?

no, in fact it really might not even mean that the Antarctic is cooling, as the largest area of EAIS is actually qualified as a desert, thus it could be warming that is causing the expansion, but since there is no data (that I am aware of) supporting the warming of the EAIS I would not draw that conclusion...but it is a possibility...

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

That human activity is not affecting the changing climate?

Do not see how one could draw that correlation from the articles presented, even ignoring the fact they are discussing different regions...

However, if you wanted personal opinion, I would say Human activity is affecting the climate...but I think it is presumptious to state with any level of certainty to what extent or even if it is negative or positive. Please do not assume I am making the leap to burn all the gas you want, and throw away all you want, trash the planet, as it is just rhetoric and noise int eh bigger discussion...

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

That anthropogenic global warming won't be a problem?

Again, these articles would not allow you to come to any conclusion on mans influence...IMHO

Originally Posted by thatguyoverthere

That it offsets Arctic ice decrease?

Assuming you are meaning that the gains in teh Antarctic are offsetting the losses in the Arctic...I would merely state that since the EAIS contains roughly 80% of the total glacial Ice on the planet, that if it gains even single digit percentages, then it is more than likely going to offset the majority of other regionalized ice loss...However, it is yet to be seen what the impact of increasing ice on teh South pole, and "decreasing" ice on the north pole does, lots of research being conducted to try and predict the impacts of magnetic force etc. but any conclusions from that science now, would be way too premature since it is relatively young study, and likely will have some corrections to theories...but the above is JMO as there really is not settled science...

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by imind

what illusion is that, exactly? the illusion of presenting the WAIS as a "small chunk" of ice? the wilkins shelf alone is over 16,000 sq km.

Not trying to argue to argue, but just putting things in perspective...

clearly the "chunk of ice" will not fit in a drink glass, butthis chunk of ice in terms of comparison to the whole of the antarctic...

it is 1/10th of one percent....


Again, perspective for most is lost when compared to global scale...16,000 sq. km, might seem like an enormous thing to someone on the east coast or in europe...But where I am from, a large ranch is 100,000+ acres (400sq. km)...and if you had one...it would more than likely not even be the biggest in the county...

It is all perspective...

[imind]

Originally Posted by MTdream

...
It is all perspective...

the perspective i was considering is the impact on the rest of the world as sea levels rise.

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by imind

the perspective i was considering is the impact on the rest of the world as sea levels rise.

And your assumption is that it is not within norm? The Oceans are pretty big...they (never done the math) probably evaporate more water monthly than is contained in that chunk of ice...

[thatguyoverthere]

Thanks for the info, MTDream, I appreciate it.

[AMTR]

I hope I am wrong and warming continues. As others learned that as the earth has warmed so have Mars and Jupiter. The mechanism(s) behind the warming are probably more complex than imagined, but most will be found to be beyond humankinds control we can discredit those pushing human CO2 emissions are responsible for the warming and humanity can alter what is in essence an interglacial warm up period. Unfortunately, I fear that while the fiddlers (Global Warming alarmists) have fiddled, the human race has been walked in a catastrophe. As cooling worsen so to will food shortages and deaths from cold and starvation. All we can do, is list the names of all those universities and people who stopped expansion of power plants, drilling, refineries and working on ways to burn coal with reduced harmful emissions. These people should not eat when others in the nation are starving. These people should not be warm when others in the nation are freezing. Of course, the laws will have to be changed to enable the hungry and cold to take from the loons who kept humanity in a dream of pretty flowers and birds flying and happy singing people who need not endure any ills of technology or energy use. Who are some of these people? The Club of Rome founders and supporters; Mann with his junk science J curve now discredited but too late; scientists who pushed junk computer simulations as real representations of reality;the SIC judges who ruled CO2 is a dangerous and killing gas that must be stopped; Gore with his fraudulent junk science movie made to help him become super rich selling CO2 credits are just a few; scientists and departments jumping on the Global Warming band wagon for funding and profit and prestige without every questioning the merits of the basic arguments; political leaders, activists and organizations that sought to silence thousands of scientists and academics trying to bring debate and sanity to a world hooked on hysteria science. Before they go underground and hide from the nightmare they are responsible for worsening, people need to list everyone of these people for those in the future who will want to try them for crimes against humanity.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by AMTR

As others learned that as the earth has warmed so have Mars and Jupiter.

Mars heating was shown to be because of surface activity.
Mars Warming Due to Dust Storms, Study Finds

[imind]

Originally Posted by MTdream

...(never done the math)...

the heart of the contrarian argument.

Originally Posted by amtr

I hope I am wrong and warming continues. ...

you're commentary is as worthless to this discussion as an op-ed. this discussion is dependent on science, not opinion.

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by imind

the heart of the contrarian argument.

and your emoticon is essentially the heart of the alarmists argument...when you cant prove with scientific rigor attack the person...

I was attempting to get someone to bite the bait and go research it themselves...

the answer to the math, is that over twice as much water evaporates monthly...Roughly (and ther eis lots of debate on this, but this crowd seems to like Wiki answers) 434,000 km³ of water evaporates annually from the ocean...or 36,166km³ monthly...versus the size of your chunk of ice...which all we really know, definitively, is the area of it, not the volume of it...(not to be pedantic or anything)

and your response is why it is generally not worth the effort to get into a dialog on this topic...

[imind]

Originally Posted by MTdream

and your emoticon is essentially the heart of the alarmists argument...when you cant prove with scientific rigor attack the person...

and your response is why it is generally not worth the effort to get into a dialog on this topic...

you offered nothing but an admittedly uninformed opinion. my response was more than warranted.

I was attempting to get someone to bite the bait and go research it themselves...

why would anyone? its your claim, you substantiate it.

the answer to the math, is that over twice as much water evaporates monthly...Roughly (and ther eis lots of debate on this, but this crowd seems to like Wiki answers) 434,000 km³ of water evaporates annually from the ocean...or 36,166km³ monthly...versus the size of your chunk of ice...which all we really know, definitively, is the area of it, not the volume of it...(not to be pedantic or anything)

and what happens to the water that evaporates? does it remain forever in the heavens?

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by imind

you offered nothing but an admittedly uninformed opinion. my response was more than warranted.

why would anyone? its your claim, you substantiate it.

and what happens to the water that evaporates? does it remain forever in the heavens?

"I offered nothing?" hmmm how about perspective that destroyed the panic?

"Why would anyone research stuff?" Oh I dont know, to be informed? and try and understand things versus just bowing at the Global Warming alter?

"What happens to the water?" That there is a KEY to the whole Global Warming debate...So, why dont we discuss this? Rather than attacking people, like you seem to like to continue to do, which yields nothing...

but expecting unemotional debate and discussion is possibly too much to ask for this topic...

it is reinforcing why I left this forum to begin with...

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by imind

and what happens to the water that evaporates? does it remain forever in the heavens?

[imind]

Originally Posted by MTdream

"I offered nothing?" hmmm how about perspective that destroyed the panic?

what panic do you speak of? was i panicked? were you? what panic did you destroy, or did you simply offer an admittedly uninformed opinion?

"Why would anyone research stuff?" Oh I dont know, to be informed? and try and understand things versus just bowing at the Global Warming alter?

you complain of emotional arguments and personal attacks, then offer the above? incidentally, my comment on the contrarian argument was given in jest. i cannot say the same for yours.

and don't try turn to this into something it is not. i didn't ask why anyone would research stuff, as i have already done so. you made an unsupported claim, and i don't believe it is asking too much to have support for any claims made.

"What happens to the water?" That there is a KEY to the whole Global Warming debate...

please elaborate.

So, why dont we discuss this? Rather than attacking people, like you seem to like to continue to do, which yields nothing...

i ask you to do the same.


and thank you for the illustration, schrodinger's cat.

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by imind

what panic do you speak of? was i panicked? were you? what panic did you destroy, or did you simply offer an admittedly uninformed opinion?

you complain of emotional arguments and personal attacks, then offer the above? incidentally, my comment on the contrarian argument was given in jest. i cannot say the same for yours.

and don't try turn to this into something it is not. i didn't ask why anyone would research stuff, as i have already done so. you made an unsupported claim, and i don't believe it is asking too much to have support for any claims made.

going to take the high road and ignore your attacks as well as your assumptions of being uninformed...your either ASSuming, or just trying to distract...The desire to get others to research things comes from an educational background, where I prefer to not spoon feed others but trigger the desire to learn...

Originally Posted by imind

please elaborate.

Hmmm, where to start...Well water vapor is the largest Greenhouse gas, and thus has the largest effect on climate.

Now the part we are just learning is the impact/efficiency of the Oceans/Aquifers/vegatation/and yes even Fossil Fuel deposits have

Table 1: Estimated major stores of carbon on the Earth. Sink Amount in Billions of Metric Tons Atmosphere 578 (as of 1700) - 766 (as of 1999) Soil Organic Matter 1500 to 1600 Ocean 38,000 to 40,000 Marine Sediments
and Sedimentary Rocks 66,000,000 to 100,000,000 Terrestrial Plants 540 to 610 Fossil Fuel Deposits 4000


The other major contributing factor, is Volcanic activity...Specifically, underwater volcanic activity...Since 70-80% of volcanic activity is happening in the oceans/underwater...and there is proof of its catastrophic impact, we know there is much more to this puzzle than we can digest in a headline or a political speech, which is where most get there data points...

Now adding to the mix is research of El Nino, and traditional volcanic (warning LARGE file linked) activity "causing El Nino" and impacts of oceanic impacts on El Nino, and affects/effects of Sea levels due to both oceanic and land based volcanoes...

and just to stir things up a little more...the impacts of oceanic volcanoes on greenland and once though of impossible things happening to impact the arctic glacial ice...And since we are learning there are FAR more undersea volcanoes than once thought... and newly foudned types of volcanoes...Oceanic volcanoes might be a bigger impact than we know...


well, that is enough for now...and should spur some conversation...

[imind]

Originally Posted by MTdream

going to take the high road and ignore your attacks

lol, you haven't been attacked.

as well as your assumptions of being uninformed...

again, dude, don't misquote me. it was your argument that was uninformed. to quote you...

they (never done the math) probably evaporate more water monthly than is contained in that chunk of ice...

the above is, by definition, an uninformed opinion.

your either ASSuming, or just trying to distract...

ah, i see now what you meant. you're going to ignore your attacks on me. well done.

The desire to get others to research things comes from an educational background, where I prefer to not spoon feed others but trigger the desire to learn...

you want to debate the science of AGW, but have me look for all of your answers. as i've said before, i've done the research, and i don't need you entice me to do it again. i'd prefer you simply substantiate your arguments, which is standard practice and courtesy.

Hmmm, where to start...Well water vapor is the largest Greenhouse gas, and thus has the largest effect on climate.

Now the part we are just learning is the impact/efficiency of the Oceans/Aquifers/vegatation/and yes even Fossil Fuel deposits have

Table 1: Estimated major stores of carbon on the Earth. Sink Amount in Billions of Metric Tons Atmosphere 578 (as of 1700) - 766 (as of 1999) Soil Organic Matter 1500 to 1600 Ocean 38,000 to 40,000 Marine Sediments
and Sedimentary Rocks 66,000,000 to 100,000,000 Terrestrial Plants 540 to 610 Fossil Fuel Deposits 4000


The other major contributing factor, is Volcanic activity...Specifically, underwater volcanic activity...Since 70-80% of volcanic activity is happening in the oceans/underwater...and there is proof of its catastrophic impact, we know there is much more to this puzzle than we can digest in a headline or a political speech, which is where most get there data points...

Now adding to the mix is research of El Nino, and traditional volcanic (warning LARGE file linked) activity "causing El Nino" and impacts of oceanic impacts on El Nino, and affects/effects of Sea levels due to both oceanic and land based volcanoes...

and just to stir things up a little more...the impacts of oceanic volcanoes on greenland and once though of impossible things happening to impact the arctic glacial ice...And since we are learning there are FAR more undersea volcanoes than once thought... and newly foudned types of volcanoes...Oceanic volcanoes might be a bigger impact than we know...


well, that is enough for now...and should spur some conversation...

i'm sorry, but i don't understand what point you are trying to make with the above. could you state it succinctly?

[MTdream]

Originally Posted by imind

lol, you haven't been attacked.

again, dude, don't misquote me. it was your argument that was uninformed. to quote you...

the above is, by definition, an uninformed opinion.

ah, i see now what you meant. you're going to ignore your attacks on me. well done.

you want to debate the science of AGW, but have me look for all of your answers. as i've said before, i've done the research, and i don't need you entice me to do it again. i'd prefer you simply substantiate your arguments, which is standard practice and courtesy.

i'm sorry, but i don't understand what point you are trying to make with the above. could you state it succinctly?

not gonna bother, your too informed for me...

as to the potential ASSuming being an attack on you...it is an old phrase, when you ASSUME you make and ASS out of U not Me...and well this is now thread two that this has happened...


as to the explaining things succinctly, well that is the field of politicians and pseudo scientists...I have provided links, you have proven to not read them...I have provided positions, you have proven merely to continue yoru path of assuming to be more informed...

you claim to want to discuss/debate, yet you show the inability to even conduct yourself in a manner that encourages that activity...

So, once again, my last post in this forum for a while...will see if natural selection can encourage better discussion...