billvon 2,471 #176 April 9, 2012 >Regardless, here's the 1988 prediction from Hansen Looks like he was right again. That's a very good match to scenario C. But keep looking, I am sure you will find a prediction that is .05C off, and you will be then able to ignore the mountain of evidence that has been collected and concentrate with laser-like focus on that bit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #177 April 9, 2012 Quote>Regardless, here's the 1988 prediction from Hansen Looks like he was right again. That's a very good match to scenario C. And a complete debunk of your 1981 graph that you tried to snow everyone with. QuoteBut keep looking, I am sure you will find a prediction that is .05C off, and you will be then able to ignore the mountain of evidence that has been collected and concentrate with laser-like focus on that bit. Mountain of evidence? Like Trenberth's missing heat? The non-existent 'tropical hotspot'? The flat temps for the last dozen years while CO2 climbs ever higher? Looks like the people ignoring evidence and concentrating like lasers are the CO2 crowd.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #178 April 9, 2012 Quote>Regardless, here's the 1988 prediction from Hansen Looks like he was right again. That's a very good match to scenario C. But keep looking, I am sure you will find a prediction that is .05C off, and you will be then able to ignore the mountain of evidence that has been collected and concentrate with laser-like focus on that bit. Clearly you have no clue what scenario C is. Let me bring you up to speed. scenario C was what we could expect if we halved our co2 output. Since we did not do that, a thinking person would conclude we would have to use scenario A which was what was going to happen if we did nothing to reduce co2 output. Funny our co2 output is even higher that Hansen predicted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #179 April 9, 2012 QuoteMount Kilimanjaro melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover, there is danger in cut n pasting - you don't bother to verify the details yourself. I camped right next to Furtwangler Glacier. Just 5 years ago, it was still whole, now it is two pieces with a big gap in the middle. On the plus side, they do keep pushing out the date by which they assert there will be no more ice, from 2015 till at least the 20s, yet the shrinkage on this one is easily seen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #180 April 9, 2012 "they do keep pushing out the date by which they assert there will be no more ice, from 2015 till at least the 20s" I couldn't have said it better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #181 April 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteMount Kilimanjaro melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover, there is danger in cut n pasting - you don't bother to verify the details yourself. So is presuming that it was anecdote and not reported: "TANZANIA, Africa (eTN) - Standing as the highest mountain in Africa, Mount Kilimanjaro is slowly regaining its snow after several years of drought in East Africa and the effects of climate change in African continent. The snow is slowly mounting on the top point of the mountain, giving new hopes to Mount Kilimanjaro environmental watchdogs and tourists that the mountain may not lose its beautiful ice cap as scientists predicted."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #182 April 9, 2012 When I only write 4 sentences, it shouldn't be too hard for either of you to quote and reply in context. Unless you find that too difficult to do. The glaciers have been shrinking dramatically. Perhaps that shouldn't be a shock - it's Africa, ffs! This isn't like the 10s of feet of sea rise predictions...this is directly observable by those who are actually on the mountain. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #183 April 9, 2012 QuoteWhen I only write 4 sentences, it shouldn't be too hard for either of you to quote and reply in context. Unless you find that too difficult to do. When you snip a single sentence, it shouldn't be very hard to reply in context, either. Unless you find that too difficult to do. QuoteThe glaciers have been shrinking dramatically. Perhaps that shouldn't be a shock - it's Africa, ffs! This isn't like the 10s of feet of sea rise predictions...this is directly observable by those who are actually on the mountain. Yup, and there's studies that show it's more due to deforestation and land use than global warming. Link "Long-term ice retreat at the summit of Kilimanjaro therefore is most likely to be influenced by changes in local land-use as well as more regional free-air changes."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #184 April 9, 2012 QuoteYup, and there's studies that show it's due to deforestation and land use, and not global warming. Link Note - there were studies beforehand. In 2009 I wrote in December, 2009 on this forum that QuoteA studay [sic] many years ago linked local deforestation with the retreat of Kilimanjaro's glacier - the theory that the deforestation led to lower humidity at the lower perimeter. Updrafts would not condense enough to allow sufficient accretion to stave off ablation. The thought is just that - not that the Kilimanjaro glacier is ablating any more rapidly but that lesser precipitation means less accretion. Picture a car battery. If it was started four times per day and driven for 10 minutes each time, it would maintain a charge. But if it was started four times a day and driven for two minutes each time, you may find that the battery is slowly being drained. It's not that any more power is being pulled from it but it's not receiving the same recharge. Kilimanjaro's glaciers may not be ablating any more rapidly but just not being recharged with as much precipitation to maintain stasis. Also note that the processes of accretion/ablation of tropical glaciers are different from temperate ones. There is much more ablation through sublimation in the tropics. But either way, anthropogenic factors are playing a role. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #185 April 10, 2012 Quote But either way, anthropogenic factors are playing a role. Both you and mnealtx are now trying to give a different cause. But the statement I addressed was that the melting was not occurring at all! Stick to the topic, guys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #186 April 10, 2012 QuoteQuote But either way, anthropogenic factors are playing a role. Both you and mnealtx are now trying to give a different cause. But the statement I addressed was that the melting was not occurring at all! Actually, the statement you addressed was snow accumulation. QuoteStick to the topic, guys. Indeed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #187 April 11, 2012 Quote>Which is why you continue to ignore the dozen years of FLAT temps while >CO2 *continues* to rise. And during the 1940's there were 20 years or so when the temperature DECLINED while CO2 levels continued to rise. I am sure there were people back then just like you saying "See? No warming. It's over." They made the same mistake you did. Impeccable logic Bill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #188 April 26, 2012 www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0426/Antarctic-ice-melting-from-below-reveals-satellite... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #189 April 26, 2012 Quotewww.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0426/Antarctic-ice-melting-from-below-reveals-satellite And *still* on a positive growth trend.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #190 April 26, 2012 QuoteQuotewww.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0426/Antarctic-ice-melting-from-below-reveals-satellite And *still* on a positive growth trend. www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=polar-ice-sheets-melting-faster-than-predicted You need to use the same dictionary that everyone else does. www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #191 April 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotewww.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0426/Antarctic-ice-melting-from-below-reveals-satellite And *still* on a positive growth trend. www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=polar-ice-sheets-melting-faster-than-predicted You need to use the same dictionary that everyone else does. www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html Would that be your dictionary, where "gun" is the same as "murder"? No thanks, I think I'll look at the data, instead - it has the refreshing quality of being honest.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #192 April 26, 2012 all of your citations address area, not volume. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #193 April 26, 2012 Quoteall of your citations address area, not volume. Widespread Persistent Thickening of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet by Freezing from the Base link "Most of the melting ice shelves are located in west Antarctica, where the flow of inland glaciers to the sea has also been accelerating " Just how do shrinking glaciers "accelerate toward the sea", pray tell?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #194 April 26, 2012 Quote all of your citations address area, not volume. What else do you expect? If he were honest he'd destroy his own position.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #195 April 26, 2012 Quote Quote all of your citations address area, not volume. What else do you expect? If he were honest he'd destroy his own position. Speaking of honesty, I notice you reply to his comment and not my rebuttal.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #196 April 26, 2012 You had no valid rebuttal. Just distortions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #197 April 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteall of your citations address area, not volume. Widespread Persistent Thickening of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet by Freezing from the Base link Ironically, I'm currently reading a book that deals with exactly that.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #198 April 26, 2012 Quote Quote Quote all of your citations address area, not volume. Widespread Persistent Thickening of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet by Freezing from the Base link Ironically, I'm currently reading a book that deals with exactly that. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,679 #199 April 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteall of your citations address area, not volume. Widespread Persistent Thickening of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet by Freezing from the Base link Ironically, I'm currently reading a book that deals with exactly that. One new paper, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting. Source: NASA Little, if any, surface warming is occurring over East Antarctica. Radar and laser-based satellite data show a little mass loss at the edges of East Antarctica, which is being partly offset by accumulation of snow in the interior, although a very recent result from the NASA/German Aerospace Center's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) suggests that since 2006 there has been more ice loss from East Antarctica than previously thought. Overall, not much is going on in East Antarctica -- yet. Source: NASA Meanwhile, measurements from the Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass. Isabella Velicogna of JPL and the University of California, Irvine, uses Grace data to weigh the Antarctic ice sheet from space. Her work shows that the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate. "The important message is that it is not a linear trend. A linear trend means you have the same mass loss every year. The fact that it’s above linear, this is the important idea, that ice loss is increasing with time," she says. And she points out that it isn’t just the Grace data that show accelerating loss; the radar data do, too. "It isn't just one type of measurement. It's a series of independent measurements that are giving the same results, which makes it more robust." Source: NASA... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 388 #200 April 27, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteall of your citations address area, not volume. Widespread Persistent Thickening of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet by Freezing from the Base link Ironically, I'm currently reading a book that deals with exactly that. One new paper, which states there’s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting. Source: NASA Little, if any, surface warming is occurring over East Antarctica. Radar and laser-based satellite data show a little mass loss at the edges of East Antarctica, which is being partly offset by accumulation of snow in the interior, although a very recent result from the NASA/German Aerospace Center's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) suggests that since 2006 there has been more ice loss from East Antarctica than previously thought. Overall, not much is going on in East Antarctica -- yet. Source: NASA Meanwhile, measurements from the Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass. Isabella Velicogna of JPL and the University of California, Irvine, uses Grace data to weigh the Antarctic ice sheet from space. Her work shows that the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate. "The important message is that it is not a linear trend. A linear trend means you have the same mass loss every year. The fact that it’s above linear, this is the important idea, that ice loss is increasing with time," she says. And she points out that it isn’t just the Grace data that show accelerating loss; the radar data do, too. "It isn't just one type of measurement. It's a series of independent measurements that are giving the same results, which makes it more robust." Source: NASA I gave you fair warning three years ago, but you didn't listen. Now I will rub your nose in it. The next year will be more fun then the last. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
