2 2
rushmc

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

Recommended Posts

According to the IPCC, global warming has lead to no significant trend in floods, droughts, hurricanes and wildfires.  That leaves sea level rise......what does the IPCC say about sea level rise?  Let’s check in.

The IPCC-endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm finds a warming Antarctica results in more precipitation locked up as ice on the continent. This contributes to reducing sea levels: a -1.2 mm/year−1 mitigation of sea level rise over the next 80 years.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 Let’s check in.

15 fucking years of this same circular discussion. It's like dealing with someone who really really needs rehab. They're never going to learn another way until they are receptive to another way. I just can't do this anymore, so I'm going to AL-AGAW. It's a safe place for me to understand why the loved ones of us who come to AL-AGAW are in despair, feeling hopeless, unable to believe that things can ever change. We want our lives to be different, but nothing we have done, said, shared or tried  has brought about change in those we love that are deniers.  The deniers come from all walks of life; young or old, rich or poor, man or woman. Deniers are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, children or grandparents, whose denial causes pain and fear for all who love them. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

According to the IPCC

Your reputation here has been so busted that hanging it on the IPCC coattails won't do a thing to save it.

In this post, we have:

Summary: brenthutch is full of shit as usual, now he's desperate enough to cherry pick and misquote the IPCC to make his points. You know, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That IPCC.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

15 fucking years of this same circular discussion. It's like dealing with someone who really really needs rehab. They're never going to learn another way until they are receptive to another way. I just can't do this anymore, so I'm going to AL-AGAW. 

You know you are under no obligation to feed them, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but he does know personally that the right approach and information to conservatives can work. It worked on him, it worked on Turtle. And it’s to Biguns credit that he figured that others had open minds too. 
However, neither of them were as invested in this, they were more interested in actual data. 
It’s like the religious zealot who sees their own church, and everyone else is a heretic or pagan. 
Wendy P. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

The deniers come from all walks of life; young or old, rich or poor, man or woman. Deniers are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, children or grandparents, whose denial causes pain and fear for all who love them. 

 

I would suggest that it is you guys who are in denial.

You deny there are more polar bears, you deny food production is at an all time high, you deny deaths from floods, droughts, wildfires, tornadoes and hurricanes are at an all time low, you deny the climate models run much hotter than observation, you deny the “it’s cold because it’s hot” nonsense has been debunked, you deny deserts are shrinking not growing, you deny green vegetation has grown by 10% since 2000 because of elevated CO2, you deny arable land has increased not decreased.

All of these actual OBSERVATIONS, run counter the the CAGW narrative.

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled”

Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Your reputation here has been so busted that hanging it on the IPCC coattails won't do a thing to save it.

In this post, we have:

Summary: brenthutch is full of shit as usual, now he's desperate enough to cherry pick and misquote the IPCC to make his points. You know, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That IPCC.

 

“With rising global temperature, GCMs indicate increasingly positive SMB for the Antarctic Ice Sheet as a whole because of greater accumulation (Section 10.6.4.1). For stabilisation in 2100 with SRES A1B atmospheric composition, antarctic SMB would contribute 0.4 to 2.0 mm yr–1 of sea level fall (Table 10.7). Continental ice sheet models indicate that this would be offset by tens of percent by increased ice discharge (Section 10.6.4.2), but still give a negative contribution to sea level, of –0.8 m by 3000 in one simulation with antarctic warming of about 4.5°C (Huybrechts and De Wolde, 1999).”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

“With rising global temperature, GCMs indicate increasingly positive SMB for the Antarctic Ice Sheet as a whole because of greater accumulation (Section 10.6.4.1). For stabilisation in 2100 with SRES A1B atmospheric composition, antarctic SMB would contribute 0.4 to 2.0 mm yr–1 of sea level fall (Table 10.7). Continental ice sheet models indicate that this would be offset by tens of percent by increased ice discharge (Section 10.6.4.2), but still give a negative contribution to sea level, of –0.8 m by 3000 in one simulation with antarctic warming of about 4.5°C (Huybrechts and De Wolde, 1999).”

Do you even understand the stuff you're quoting?

I doubt you do. Stop pretending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Anyway, to clarify for the other readers here, I can translate the blurb (brenthutch hasn't provided the exact reference).

Terms:

  • GCMs: Global Climate Models
  • SMB: surface mass balance
  • SRES: Special Report on Emissions Scenario
    • A1B: scenario where the world continues to adopt renewables at a moderate pace
    • A1FI: scenario where the world keeps using and doubles down on fossil fuels (the approach brenthutch is recommending)

So in this computer MODEL (not measurements as brenthutch thinks), modelling global emissions under scenario A1B results in Antarctica accumulating ice due to increased snowfall from increased moisture in the air.

However, this ice accumulation is almost entirely negated, but not quite, by increased ice discharge, so the net contribution is only about -0.8m in about 980 years (year 3000).

But the other sources of sea level increase, such as thermal expansion of seawater, pretty much swamps out this almost-zero contribution (0.8 mm per year vs 3.0 mm per year), so overall sea levels will still rise.

But again, this is a prediction from a MODEL that brenthutch doesn't believe in, but he just posted the blurb without any comment because really, he doesn't have a clue what it's saying.

references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Emissions_Scenarios

https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html

 

Edited by olofscience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Do you even understand the stuff you're quoting?

I doubt you do. Stop pretending.

Which of the following do you wish to challenge?

 

more polar bears, food production is at an all time high, deaths from floods, droughts, wildfires, tornadoes and hurricanes are at an all time low, the climate models run much hotter than observation, “it’s cold because it’s hot” nonsense has been debunked, deserts are shrinking not growing, vegetation has grown by 10% since 2000 because of elevated CO2, arable land has increased not decreased.

Crickets?  That’s what I thought.:x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, brenthutch said:

Which of the following do you wish to challenge?

 

 

more polar bears, food production is at an all time high, deaths from floods, droughts, wildfires, tornadoes and hurricanes are at an all time low, the climate models run much hotter than observation, “it’s cold because it’s hot” nonsense has been debunked, deserts are shrinking not growing, vegetation has grown by 10% since 2000 because of elevated CO2, arable land has increased not decreased.

Crickets?  That’s what I thought.:x

I just did. You really didn't know what it was saying :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

more polar bears

And I really just have to add, there are no polar bears in Antarctica.

You're just as bad as Zoe - she uses bad computer code to try to impress people, you use IPCC quotes you don't understand to try to hang on their coattails.

5 minutes ago, olofscience said:

vegetation has grown by 10%

Did you read Zoe's latest blog post? Even she's abandoned the 10% figure and she's now saying it's 5%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, olofscience said:

And I really just have to add, there are no polar bears in Antarctica.

You're just as bad as Zoe - she uses bad computer code to try to impress people, you use IPCC quotes you don't understand to try to hang on their coattails.

Did you read Zoe's latest blog post? Even she's abandoned the 10% figure and she's now saying it's 5%.

Who said anything about polar bears in Antarctica?  You will just have to take that up with Zoe.

Try focusing.  I gave you an entire menu to choose from, let’s try again.

more polar bears(in the arctic of course) food production is at an all time high, deaths from floods, droughts, wildfires, tornadoes and hurricanes are at an all time low, the climate models run much hotter than observation, “it’s cold because it’s hot” nonsense has been debunked, deserts are shrinking not growing, vegetation has grown by 10% since 2000 because of elevated CO2, arable land has increased not decreased.

Take your pick.  It should be easy for a genius like you to take on a dolt like me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Take your pick.  It should be easy for a genius like you to take on a dolt like me.

So do you now agree with the SRES computer model?

And, do you now support renewables since it's a big part of scenario A1B you just posted about?

Again note that what you posted was a prediction from a computer model, not actual historical data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, olofscience said:

So do you now agree with the SRES computer model?

And, do you now support renewables since it's a big part of scenario A1B you just posted about?

Again note that what you posted was a prediction from a computer model, not actual historical data.

Just an illustration that the “settled science” is far from settled.  Everything from my list is based on actual observations not conjecture.  With which one/s do you disagree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, olofscience said:

And I really just have to add, there are no polar bears in Antarctica.

He meant all the penguins at the North Pole.

Quote

Did you read Zoe's latest blog post? Even she's abandoned the 10% figure and she's now saying it's 5%.

Give her a few weeks; she'll be claiming that greening doesn't matter, so your quibble that the amount of greening is in fact 0% is irrelevant.  What REALLY matters is that it's cold outside right now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Crickets?  That’s what I thought.:x

When you were choosing your online persona for this environment, you could have created any personality you could possibly imagine.

Why didn't you choose to be someone better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

When you were choosing your online persona for this environment, you could have created any personality you could possibly imagine.

Why didn't you choose to be someone better?

Quite possibly, he did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

When you were choosing your online persona for this environment, you could have created any personality you could possibly imagine.

Why didn't you choose to be someone better?

Wow, just personal sniping, no engagement on the substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

When you were choosing your online persona for this environment, you could have created any personality you could possibly imagine.

Why didn't you choose to be someone better?

You can only be who you are?

Remember the second law of physics? Brent can only be Brent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

Wow, just personal sniping, no engagement on the substance.

Quack, quack, quack, if it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, tastes like a duck. It was a duck!

Do you honestly think people would get frustrated with strawmen, moving goalposts, etc.

Substance? really. Substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
18 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Quack, quack, quack, if it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, tastes like a duck. It was a duck!

Do you honestly think people would get frustrated with strawmen, moving goalposts, etc.

Substance? really. Substance.

I have given several examples of real world observations that contradict the CAGW narrative.  Instead of engaging in a substantive manner, all I get is obfuscation and insults.  
I guess if that is all you have then......that is all you have.:`|

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
2 2