EAU Data Suggests Warming Ended In 1997

[Shady]

Shady... do the right thing! Change your thread title

Waldo, I stepped up and did just that. I changed confirmed to suggests. I think that's a more accurate description.

Turns out they were wrong on the Himalayan mountains losing all their ice.

I was just reading about that, and thought about posting it. It's another example of the alarmism from the so-called experts. If they'd just be a little more measured in their approach, it would do them and their cause a lot more good. Instead of resorting to their ridiculous over-the-top radical fear based conclusions.

[Michael Hardner]

Turns out they were wrong on the Himalayan mountains losing all their ice.

If you accept that, then do you accept the other parts of the paper that say ice is melting elsewhere - Greenland, the Arctic, the Antarctic ?

NASA satellites reveal colossal ice melt, greenhouse gasses blamed

[GostHacked]

If you accept that, then do you accept the other parts of the paper that say ice is melting elsewhere - Greenland, the Arctic, the Antarctic ?

NASA satellites reveal colossal ice melt, greenhouse gasses blamed

Even if all the snow and ice melted on this planet, it would not equate to the seas rising to biblical catastrophic proportions.

[waldo]

Even if all the snow and ice melted on this planet, it would not equate to the seas rising to biblical catastrophic proportions.

I've highlighted this point many times when the unscrupulous raise their malice;

... considering that, given uncertainty, the IPCC AR4 report chose to expressly not include the impacts/effects of ice-sheet melting (i.e. Greenland/Antarctica), just who is/are your particular target(s) in puffing up your, 'biblical catastrophic', hyperbole, hey?

[GostHacked]

I've highlighted this point many times when the unscrupulous raise their malice;

... considering that, given uncertainty, the IPCC AR4 report chose to expressly not include the impacts/effects of ice-sheet melting (i.e. Greenland/Antarctica), just who is/are your particular target(s) in puffing up your, 'biblical catastrophic', hyperbole, hey?

My target is those who believe everything that is coming out of the Preacher's lips.

[waldo]

Even if all the snow and ice melted on this planet, it would not equate to the seas rising to biblical catastrophic proportions.

I've highlighted this point many times when the unscrupulous raise their malice;

... considering that, given uncertainty, the IPCC AR4 report chose to expressly not include the impacts/effects of ice-sheet melting (i.e. Greenland/Antarctica), just who is/are your particular target(s) in puffing up your, 'biblical catastrophic', hyperbole, hey?

My target is those who believe everything that is coming out of the Preacher's lips.

good to know you haven't the presence to substantiate your unscrupulous malice intent

[GostHacked]

good to know you haven't the presence to substantiate your unscrupulous malice intent

There is no malice. But you can still believe that there is, if it makes you feel better about your argument.

But it is a warm winter here overall. But it is not the first time I have experienced it, nor will it be the last. It's all cycles. I predict in the future there will be a 50% chance there will be a winter as warm as this. In the end if that never happens, that all falls within the 50% chance of probability and I still end up being right.

Edited February 12, 2012 by GostHacked

[waldo]

There is no malice. But you can still believe that there is, if it makes you feel better about your argument.

then step-up and substantiate your, "biblical catastrophe & preacher" nonsense

But it is a warm winter here overall. But it is not the first time I have experienced it, nor will it be the last. It's all cycles. I predict in the future there will be a 50% chance there will be a winter as warm as this. In the end if that never happens, that all falls within the 50% chance of probability and I still end up being right.

whatever you think you're predicting, whatever you think you'll be right about... what does that have to do with the recent posts you're now running away from?

[GostHacked]

then step-up and substantiate your, "biblical catastrophe & preacher" nonsense

Sorry, Chicken Little, the sky is not falling.

whatever you think you're predicting, whatever you think you'll be right about... what does that have to do with the recent posts you're now running away from?

Not sure what there is to run away from, being a denier and all.

[Keepitsimple]

If you accept that, then do you accept the other parts of the paper that say ice is melting elsewhere - Greenland, the Arctic, the Antarctic ?

NASA satellites reveal colossal ice melt, greenhouse gasses blamed

You've picked a good example to demonstrate how "alarmists" should have more measured comments. Your article uses words like "colossal" and "stunning" and "incredible" but if you read to the end of the article, here's what you find:

Their results yielded two surprises: The melt rate for glaciers and ice caps outside Antarctica and Greenland made a smaller contribution to sea-level rise than had been estimated, and the melt rate in the Asian mountains, including the Himalayas, was dramatically lower: 4 billion tons annually versus up to 50 billion.

So.....what do YOU think the headline should have read......that Greenland and Antarctica are melting....or that all the melting outside those two areas has been over-estimated - if not grossly over-estimated?

[waldo]

Sorry, Chicken Little, the sky is not falling.

hey chicken little buddy... who mentioned 'biblical catastrophic' and 'preacher'? Why that... was you!

Not sure what there is to run away from, being a denier and all.

from these recent posts you've spewed forth... run away, run away!!!

[Michael Hardner]

So.....what do YOU think the headline should have read......that Greenland and Antarctica are melting....or that all the melting outside those two areas has been over-estimated - if not grossly over-estimated?

I think that the headline about the Hymalayas is fine, but that's not the full story. If you accept that the paper is true, then you have to accept the fact that melting and warming is happening is all.

[Michael Hardner]

Sorry, Chicken Little, the sky is not falling.

Waldo's point is that you are the one who talked about catastrophic sea rise.

[waldo]

You've picked a good example to demonstrate how "alarmists" should have more measured comments. Your article uses words like "colossal" and "stunning" and "incredible" but if you read to the end of the article, here's what you find:

the words, "colossal" and "stunning" are those of the writer... the supposed word "incredible" is attributed to one of the scientists involved in the related study. However, when you read the official NASA Jet Propulsion Lab release, that word "incredible" shows as "huge". In that regard I would suspect the original writer of the CSMonitor linked article, "may", have changed "huge" to "incredible". In any case, is "incredible" such a breech of your fake skeptic etiquette?

So.....what do YOU think the headline should have read......that Greenland and Antarctica are melting....or that all the melting outside those two areas has been over-estimated - if not grossly over-estimated?

yes, GRACE satellite measurements are now being used to further refine previous estimates which were all based on ground level measurements that were extrapolated to the higher regions of, for example, the Himalayan mountains.

are the lower Himalayan glaciers melting - yes, absolutely. Is there a incredible huge amount of overall global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps during the study period - yes, absolutely... about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles)

in any case, in an earlier MLW post I spoke to some of that preliminary GRACE satellite data:

now, last I checked,

you disappeared when it was pointed out to you

the area within the report that included actual shrinkage/rates for Greenland/Antarctica.

again, per the above prior MLW post link, for example, I pointed out to you the area within the IPCC AR4 report that references Greenland shrinkage; specifically: Greenland, shrinkage of 50 to 100 Gt yr–1 for 1993 to 2003 and shrinkage at even higher rates between 2003 and 2005. Additional NASA GISS graphic -

here

: In any case, as compared to some of the numnut MLW usual suspects attempting to showcase their 4-to-7 year surface temperature short term (cherry-picked) trending games, a Greenland ice-sheet melt start point from 1993, relatively speaking, is a significantly longer period of time. Are there uncertainties concerning ice-sheet model projections? Yes... yes, there are; however, do you maintain this period of time, since 1993, hasn't allowed for a separation of fluctuation versus trend? Notwithstanding studies that show significant mass balance loss, particularly since the 70's, example -

here

:

more than likely the shorter interval period that has skeptic/deniers so perplexed reflects on the accuracy results returned from the relatively recent launched GRACE satellite... as it measures shifts in gravity fields. Yes, most certainly, skeptic/deniers have difficulty with the GRACE measurements of Greenland ice sheet mass:

[GostHacked]

I think that the headline about the Hymalayas is fine, but that's not the full story. If you accept that the paper is true, then you have to accept the fact that melting and warming is happening is all.

Look at it like the 2012 dudes. OMG the earth is going to line up on teh galactic plane on Dec 21.... ... just like it does EVERY year. But that does not prevent others from making you believe the world is going to end..

Now onto the biblical flodding.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday.html

However, the biggest danger, many experts warn, is that global warming will cause sea levels to rise dramatically. Thermal expansion has already raised the oceans 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). But that's nothing compared to what would happen if, for example, Greenland's massive ice sheet were to melt.

"The consequences would be catastrophic," said Jonathan Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the University of Arizona in Tucson. "Even with a small sea level rise, we're going to destroy whole nations and their cultures that have existed for thousands of years."

Overpeck and his colleagues have used computer models to create a series of maps that show how susceptible coastal cities and island countries are to the sea rising at different levels. The maps show that a 1-meter (3-foot) rise would swamp cities all along the U.S. eastern seaboard. A 6-meter (20-foot) sea level rise would submerge a large part of Florida.

You can do a search for others.

[waldo]

You can do a search for others.

there's no definitiveness in your dated 2004 article... and there's an emphasis on uncertainties. In any case, it's quite revealing that you wormed your way back to pre-2007 IPCC AR4. As I've highlighted many times now, the IPCC was most conservative in it's estimates concerning sea-level rise; in fact, choosing not to include actual melting related to the massive Greenland and Antartica ice-sheets - because of uncertainties. Why not put your fake skeptics hat on, for a change, and actually look up what the IPCC AR4 consensus was on sea-level rise - hurry back now!

[bush_cheney2004]

....wormed your way back to pre-2007 IPCC AR4. As I've highlighted many times now, the IPCC was most conservative in it's estimates concerning sea-level rise;

Correct...they just make it up as they go along. That was so...."2004". :)

[Shady]

But it is a warm winter here overall. But it is not the first time I have experienced it, nor will it be the last. It's all cycles.

Exactly. This year has been a warm winter. Last year was a very cold winter.

[GostHacked]

there's no definitiveness in your dated 2004 article... and there's an emphasis on uncertainties. In any case, it's quite revealing that you wormed your way back to pre-2007 IPCC AR4. As I've highlighted many times now, the IPCC was most conservative in it's estimates concerning sea-level rise; in fact, choosing not to include actual melting related to the massive Greenland and Antartica ice-sheets - because of uncertainties. Why not put your fake skeptics hat on, for a change, and actually look up what the IPCC AR4 consensus was on sea-level rise - hurry back now!

So I can't go back past 2004 with their own data, but they can convince me that they have figured out that this is the fastest warming period in MILLIONS of years........

So I guess when the next sets of data come out, you can say .. why are you going to pre 2010 IPCC data????

Damn, even earlier IPCC data is no longer worth anything. Kind of telling, don't you think?

[waldo]

Exactly. This year has been a warm winter. Last year was a very cold winter.

weather, meet Shady. Shady, meet weather

[waldo]

So I can't go back past 2004 with their own data, but they can convince me that they have figured out that this is the fastest warming period in MILLIONS of years........

So I guess when the next sets of data come out, you can say .. why are you going to pre 2010 IPCC data????

Damn, even earlier IPCC data is no longer worth anything. Kind of telling, don't you think?

what are babbling about? - I suggested you look to the IPCC for the consensus scientific summary on sea level rise. I also highlighted the IPCC is most conservative in it's sea-level rise projections... that it chose not to include ice-sheet melting associated with Greenland & Antarctica. Instead you presume to pull up a 2004 dated article, one pre-2007 IPCC AR4; an article that, again, includes no definitiveness and highlights uncertainties. Let's make it clearer for you - what does your linked article have to do with the IPCC? Equally, let me, once again, reinforce for you that the IPCC does not have "data"... it includes and presents all manner of data associated with the 'science of the day'. It's always illuminating to realize the most fervent IPCC attackers haven't a bloody clue as to how it functions!

[Shady]

weather, meet Shady. Shady, meet weather

And waldo meet cycles.

[waldo]

And waldo meet cycles.

go for it Shady... since you failed with your OP attempt, try for... cycles!

[GostHacked]

And waldo meet cycles.

It's just like how these threads go. Cycles. You see it, I see it.... oh well.

I AM AN ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING DENIER !!!!

[waldo]

I AM AN ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING DENIER !!!!

admittance is always the first step in any recovery program - good luck with your struggle.