30 Jun 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseWe have been over this before. The Great Hurricane of 1780 was really strong. I don't think they are getting stronger at all. Just a lot of hype. In fact, Nova says there are more hurricanes when the climate cools. This makes frequency of storms irrelevant as well.
Are you just being obtuse deliberately or are you just blind?
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/coral.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/earth-ice-melting-glaciers-disappearing-glacier-los-glaciares-national-park-us-geological-survey-a7730466.html
I suppose all that is just fake news?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/F ...[text shortened]... the revolving door, WHAT EVIDENCE? YOU HAVE SHOWN ME NOTHING, Rinse and repeat. Again and again.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/killer-hurricanes.html
I asked you about sea level rise. Show me an acceleration of sea level rise.
https://qz.com/1180919/coral-reefs-thrive-despite-global-warming-say-scientists-with-3d-images-from-scripps-institution-of-oceanography/
https://principia-scientific.org/climate-shock-90-percent-worlds-glaciers-growing/
Originally posted by @metal-brainYou mean THIS Principia Scientific?
We have been over this before. The Great Hurricane of 1780 was really strong. I don't think they are getting stronger at all. Just a lot of hype. In fact, Nova says there are more hurricanes when the climate cools. This makes frequency of storms irrelevant as well.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/killer-hurricanes.html
I asked you about sea le ...[text shortened]... anography/
https://principia-scientific.org/climate-shock-90-percent-worlds-glaciers-growing/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-international/
What a total shocker, you posting a 'scientific' article from a lunatic fringe group espousing all you talk about.
BTW do you talk about ANYTHING else but CO2? Seems to me you are a one trick pony with one interest only, to beat up climate science because Singer says so.
02 Jul 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseThat is the same website you questioned before and demanded a peer reviewed article instead of trying to prove it wrong. You are doing the same thing again with factual information. Wanting it to be wrong does not make it wrong. You are in denial of facts.
You mean THIS Principia Scientific?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/principia-scientific-international/
What a total shocker, you posting a 'scientific' article from a lunatic fringe group espousing all you talk about.
BTW do you talk about ANYTHING else but CO2? Seems to me you are a one trick pony with one interest only, to beat up climate science because Singer says so.
Mediabiasedfactcheck is obviously biased itself. Here is an example I found on that website.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-climate-reality-project/
The climate reality project was founded by Al Gore, the man who mislead an entire generation of morons into believing Co2 was the cause and temperatures were the effect. Despite the fact he is a propagandist who will not admit he mislead a whole generation of morons his climate reality is not reality at all and that hack link you posted calls it factual reporting!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
🙄
Originally posted by @metal-brainWe will know in another ten years who is right. Meanwhile all you have is opinion of your buddy Singer and not much else while the majority of climate scientists know what is going on. I showed one post saying glaciers are rapidly disappearing around the world and you counter with Antarctica ice getting thicker? Avoid issues much?
That is the same website you questioned before and demanded a peer reviewed article instead of trying to prove it wrong. You are doing the same thing again with factual information. Wanting it to be wrong does not make it wrong. You are in denial of facts.
Mediabiasedfactcheck is obviously biased itself. Here is an example I found on that website.
...[text shortened]... ot reality at all and that hack link you posted calls it factual reporting!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
🙄
03 Jul 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseAnother "you will find out" reply from you. You have no proof the majority of climate scientists believe what you claim. Once again, do you support a more thorough poll that gets the opinions of at least half of all climate scientists? Your failure to answer this simple question implies you don't have much confidence in what you are claiming.
We will know in another ten years who is right. Meanwhile all you have is opinion of your buddy Singer and not much else while the majority of climate scientists know what is going on. I showed one post saying glaciers are rapidly disappearing around the world and you counter with Antarctica ice getting thicker? Avoid issues much?
I created a thread on this forum about rising sea levels and how all melting glaciers end up in the sea. If glaciers were rapidly disappearing it would show up in higher sea levels. That has not happened so you have repeatedly failed to prove your claim has any validity.
04 Jul 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainThat is a blatant lie, when glaciers disappear there is not enough liquid water developed to raise sea levels, only the massive ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica can make a real change in sea levels.
Another "you will find out" reply from you. You have no proof the majority of climate scientists believe what you claim. Once again, do you support a more thorough poll that gets the opinions of at least half of all climate scientists? Your failure to answer this simple question implies you don't have much confidence in what you are claiming.
I create ...[text shortened]... evels. That has not happened so you have repeatedly failed to prove your claim has any validity.
You really are a one trick pony, interested ONLY in destroying climate science totally for what reason we can only guess.
I would assume then you are a total Pruitt fan, not caring if environmental protections in place for decades is destroyed by this assswipe.
It seems almost like you are some kind of alien entity trying to screw up the entire human ecosystem.
You certainly do not have the interests of those people most likely to be directly effected by sea level rise or temperature rise or death of coral reefs.
One wonders exactly what is your motivation in all this.
Originally posted by @sonhouse"only the massive ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica can make a real change in sea levels."
That is a blatant lie, when glaciers disappear there is not enough liquid water developed to raise sea levels, only the massive ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica can make a real change in sea levels.
You really are a one trick pony, interested ONLY in destroying climate science totally for what reason we can only guess.
I would assume then you are ...[text shortened]... rature rise or death of coral reefs.
One wonders exactly what is your motivation in all this.
Aside from the fact ice sheets are glaciers, what the hell are you crying about? If it will not raise sea levels significantly if glaciers disappear why are you sounding the alarm bell again in panic?
Perhaps you should study the difference between glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice. Melting sea ice has no impact on sea level rise, just glaciers and ice sheets which are also glaciers.
My motivation is the truth, something you don't seem interested in. If glaciers melting has little impact on sea level rise what is the problem you perceive? Now you have to make up something else.
Originally posted by @metal-brainhttp://extremeicesurvey.org/why-do-glaciers-matter/
"only the massive ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica can make a real change in sea levels."
Aside from the fact ice sheets are glaciers, what the hell are you crying about? If it will not raise sea levels significantly if glaciers disappear why are you sounding the alarm bell again in panic?
Perhaps you should study the difference between glac ...[text shortened]... pact on sea level rise what is the problem you perceive? Now you have to make up something else.
Besides raising ocean levels it also changes heat exchange which can stop ocean currents and that alone will change climate patterns around the world regardless of ocean level rises.
The ocean currents moderating climate in western Europe, UK and eastern US has already declined by 30%. Ending of glaciers will accelerate that effect, probably stop those currents completely or altering the current where it does not flow up from the tropics and just circles around Florida or some such and not bringing its warming effect making for very bad winters in spite of what world temperature rises happen.
05 Jul 18
Originally posted by @sonhouseYou said this:
http://extremeicesurvey.org/why-do-glaciers-matter/
Besides raising ocean levels it also changes heat exchange which can stop ocean currents and that alone will change climate patterns around the world regardless of ocean level rises.
"only the massive ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica can make a real change in sea levels. "
Are you retracting that statement? If not you are contradicting yourself. More wild theories about ocean currents this time. Why don't you give this up before you embarrass yourself further?
Originally posted by @metal-brainI don't think he's contradicted himself. Antarctic and Greenlandic icesheet melt has the largest effect on sea level because the Arctic ice sheet is floating and has therefore displaced the same amount of water by mass. Other glaciers melting might be expected to affect sea levels, but not to the extent of either Greenland's or the Antarctic's ice sheets.
You said this:
"only the massive ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica can make a real change in sea levels. "
Are you retracting that statement? If not you are contradicting yourself. More wild theories about ocean currents this time. Why don't you give this up before you embarrass yourself further?
Variations in Ocean currents are known to have regional climatic consequences. So I'm not sure there is much of a basis for your critique of sonhouse's post.
05 Jul 18
Originally posted by @deepthoughtThe irony is that you have now contradicted yourself. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept it was an unintentional error.
I don't think he's contradicted himself. Antarctic and Greenlandic icesheet melt has the largest effect on sea level because the Arctic ice sheet is floating and has therefore displaced the same amount of water by mass. Other glaciers melting might be expected to affect sea levels, but not to the extent of either Greenland's or the Antarctic's ice she ...[text shortened]... ic consequences. So I'm not sure there is much of a basis for your critique of sonhouse's post.
Please revise your contradictory statement and provide your sources of information for your claims.
05 Jul 18
Originally posted by @metal-brainSo you want to continue denying any effects from melting ice? Did you get the part where the ocean currents warming Europe and eastern US has already weakened by 30% and counting and there is a definite correlation between loss of ice and ocean currents.
The irony is that you have now contradicted yourself. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept it was an unintentional error.
Please revise your contradictory statement and provide your sources of information for your claims.
That doesn't bother you? Everything will work out in time? Is that your POV?