Effects/Implications of Climate Change on Jetstreams

[bush_cheney2004]

The Thwaites glacier was declared as unstable over 40 years ago (Ohio State University glaciologist John Mercer). Old news trumped up as new by climate change alarmists.

http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/news/antarctic-ice-sheet-20140512/#.U3qYTLRUGSo

Edited May 19, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[On Guard for Thee]

The Thwaites glacier was declared as unstable over 40 years ago (Ohio State University glaciologist John Mercer). Old news trumped up as new by climate change alarmists.

http://www.nasa.gov/jpl/news/antarctic-ice-sheet-20140512/#.U3qYTLRUGSo

The new news is that 40 years of study have indicated an increase in the speed of movement. You could have an increase in sea level of as much as 4 feet in as little as 200 years. Try to keep up.

[Keepitsimple]

The new news is that 40 years of study have indicated an increase in the speed of movement. You could have an increase in sea level of as much as 4 feet in as little as 200 years. Try to keep up.

You said it...."could" and "in as little as"......those are just some of the alarmist weasel words - throw in "may" and "might" for good measure. Meanwhile, ice extent in Antarctica is at its highest level in the satellite record.

[On Guard for Thee]

You said it...."could" and "in as little as"......those are just some of the alarmist weasel words - throw in "may" and "might" for good measure. Meanwhile, ice extent in Antarctica is at its highest level in the satellite record.

And that ice extent has been deemed to be caused by unusual precipitation that adds fresh water to salt which brings up the freezing level. Now why do you suppose that precip is occurring?

[-1=e^ipi]

An effect so small the negative effects can't be measured means no effect for the purpose of the point I am making.

We can measure changes in sea levels over the past few decades. But anyway, it is a bit pointless to argue over semantics.

Can you define what you mean by define?

I mean consensus as it's commonly understood by people who converse in English.

Look, I could say the following:

'There is a scientific consensus on hamburgers'

This statement could mean:

'There is a scientific consensus that hamburgers are bad'

'There is a scientific consensus that hamburgers are good'

'There is a scientific consensus that hamburgers are tasty'

'There is a scientific consensus that hamburgers are made of meat'

'There is a scientific consensus that hamburgers come from mars'

The original statement is poorly defined, where as the latter statements are more specific and better defined. Similarly, you constantly refer to:

'The scientific consensus on climate change.'

Which is vague. Do you mean?

'The scientific consensus that climate change exists?'

'The scientific consensus that climate change is partially caused by humans?'

'The scientific consensus that recent climate change is mostly due to humans?'

'The scientific consensus that climate change is bad?'

'The scientific consensus that mitigation is the best way to approach the issue of climate change?'

'The scientific consensus that climate change is caused by magical gnomes that live in Iceland?'

I don't know which 'consensus' you are referring to and you refuse to define it no matter how many times I ask. As Tim said, it is mostly likely because you wish to use a bait-and-switch tactic.

there is a robust consensus that anthropogenic global climate change is occurring.

This would be an example of a clearly defined consensus that I would agree with.

[eyeball]

It's about time you finally caught up.

But anyway, it is a bit pointless to argue over semantics.

[-1=e^ipi]

It's about time you finally caught up.

Care to actually define wtf you mean by consensus yet?

[eyeball]

What you said works for me. Extremely robust consensus as opposed to incredibly frail denial.

VAST as opposed to miniscule.

Edited May 20, 2014 by eyeball

[-1=e^ipi]

What you said works for me. Extremely robust consensus as opposed to incredibly frail denial.

Was that so hard? Why did it take you so many posts?

[eyeball]

[Keepitsimple]

And that ice extent has been deemed to be caused by unusual precipitation that adds fresh water to salt which brings up the freezing level. Now why do you suppose that precip is occurring?

There's always some sort of after-the-fact add-on theory when the original theory/predictions fall flat. The predictions were that both poles should be shrinking.........now that one is expanding at record levels, the alarmists have grasped on to the Thwaites Glacier and what could or might happen in centuries - if the computer models hold true - which they have undeniably have not.

[eyeball]

There's always some sort of after-the-fact add-on theory when the original theory/predictions fall flat.

It's called the scientific method - 'a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge'. Normally used by millions of scientists who subscribe to it

Edited May 20, 2014 by eyeball

[Keepitsimple]

It's called the scientific method - 'a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge'. Normally used by millions of scientists who subscribe to it

That's exactly why the science isn't "settled". The "science" hasn't been able to accurately recreate the past - or even explain many of the historical "anomoles" - the computer models have been dreadful in predicting the future......and of course they've been completely puzzled by the present "lack of warming". The social engineering idealogues, embodied by the UN's IPCC and financed in the billions by the anti-fossil fuel lobby have kicked the scientific method to the curb with their shrill "science is settled" diatribe, shouting down all criticism to their beliefs........but the determining factor in scientific theories is observation - and that's where the theories and models are found to be so wanting.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[cybercoma]

The scientific method produces the best explanations for nature. If climate-change deniers had a better explanation, it's the one that would be used by scientists. This is why there's consensus. When a better explanation comes out, scientists will adopt that one. The only people that are absolutely certain of the answers and refuse to change their minds are religious zealots, who rely on faith over reason.

Edited May 20, 2014 by cybercoma

[TimG]

The scientific method produces the best explanations for nature If climate-change deniers had a better explanation, it's the one that would be used by scientists.

This presumes that our scientific institutions are structured to support such an open minded view. In the real world scientific research is completely dependent on governments for funding and, as a result, needs to produce science that motivates politicians to provide funding. This leads to science that is designed to create alarm and/or fear rather than science that soberly looks at the available data. Furthermore, this complete dependence on creating fear in order to extract funding means that science that undermines the fear based narrative must be suppressed or at least minimized to keep the cash coming in.

The real deniers are people who refuse to acknowledge the political nature of scientific research today.

Edited May 20, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

There's always some sort of after-the-fact add-on theory when the original theory/predictions fall flat. The predictions were that both poles should be shrinking.........now that one is expanding at record levels, the alarmists have grasped on to the Thwaites Glacier and what could or might happen in centuries - if the computer models hold true - which they have undeniably have not.

Which pole is it you think is expanding rapidly?

[Keepitsimple]

Which pole is it you think is expanding rapidly?

There's only two - the South Pole......you disagree that Antarctica has record ice extent than at any time in the satellite record?

[On Guard for Thee]

There's only two - the South Pole......you disagree that Antarctica has record ice extent than at any time in the satellite record?

Well we all know what's happening to the north, a quick look at a sat. photo will show you that. And when you have a chunk of ice 4 times the size of Vancouver Island sliding off the south I have to conclude it's not because it's getting any colder. With regard to the increase of the ice you speak of such as what trapped those two ships earlier this year, again, we all fresh or the fresher the water, the higher the temp it freezes at. There is usually very little precip. at the polls, especially the south, just too damn cold most of the time. Add global warming, evaporation increases, and we all know what goes up must come down, so precip increases. Less salty seawater, more ice. Things are not always as they seem. Unfortunately it seems not enough of that precip is falling on top of the ice sheets on shore to replace that which is being undercut from the bottom by warmer ocean currents.

[Keepitsimple]

Well we all know what's happening to the north, a quick look at a sat. photo will show you that. And when you have a chunk of ice 4 times the size of Vancouver Island sliding off the south I have to conclude it's not because it's getting any colder.

With regard to the increase of the ice you speak of such as what trapped those two ships earlier this year, again, we all fresh or the fresher the water, the higher the temp it freezes at. There is usually very little precip. at the polls, especially the south, just too damn cold most of the time. Add global warming, evaporation increases, and we all know what goes up must come down, so precip increases. Less salty seawater, more ice.

Things are not always as they seem. Unfortunately it seems not enough of that precip is falling on top of the ice sheets on shore to replace that which is being undercut from the bottom by warmer ocean currents.

1) No - we don't know exactly what's going on in the North. There was a big to-do about the year 2007 having the most loss of ice in the sattellite record - but almost no news about the year 2013 being on par with the satellite period average. This year is still well within the 2 standard deviation window. Now that we are likely experiencing some cooling, who knows what the longer term trend might be? Read the overview and "Conditions in Context" in the link I've provided. Just keep an open mind.

2) Increasing ice extent in the Antarctic is about far more than a couple of boats getting stranded. Firstly, almost the entire continent is expanding it's ice extent. The Thwaite's glacier is an anomole - while the theory's "mechanics" are sound, the end result of a collossal ice shelf crashing into the sea is based largely on the high end of computer model warming estimates - models that have already been rendored dubious at best. Furthermore - in spite of this questionable position - the resulting predictions are couched in alarmist caveats such as "may" or "might" and "could"....over time periods that may span centuries!

3) Indeed - things are not as they might seem.....because the nature of the news media is to report sensationalism - to report the extraordinary. No one wants to read that ice and temperatures were the same as last year or that "we're reporting that there are no hurricanes".

Link: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Edited May 22, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[On Guard for Thee]

1) No - we don't know exactly what's going on in the North. There was a big to-do about the year 2007 having the most loss of ice in the sattellite record - but almost no news about the year 2013 being on par with the satellite period average. This year is still well within the 2 standard deviation window. Now that we are likely experiencing some cooling, who knows what the longer term trend might be? Read the overview and "Conditions in Context" in the link I've provided. Just keep an open mind.

2) Increasing ice extent in the Antarctic is about far more than a couple of boats getting stranded. Firstly, almost the entire continent is expanding it's ice extent. The Thwaite's glacier is an anomole - while the theory's "mechanics" are sound, the end result of a collossal ice shelf crashing into the sea is based largely on the high end of computer model warming estimates - models that have already been rendored dubious at best. Furthermore - in spite of this questionable position - the resulting predictions are couched in alarmist caveats such as "may" or "might" and "could"....over time periods that may span centuries!

3) Indeed - things are not as they might seem.....because the nature of the news media is to report sensationalism - to report the extraordinary. No one wants to read that ice and temperatures were the same as last year or that "we're reporting that there are no hurricanes".

Link: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Well according to NOAA 2012 showed the most reduced level of ice coverage in the arctic since satellite recordings have been available. According to NASA, they don't say "might" about slippage of the Thwaites, they just ponder how fast it will happen. The "might" hovers around whether or not other ice sheets will slip after the Thwaites goes.

[On Guard for Thee]

This presumes that our scientific institutions are structured to support such an open minded view. In the real world scientific research is completely dependent on governments for funding and, as a result, needs to produce science that motivates politicians to provide funding. This leads to science that is designed to create alarm and/or fear rather than science that soberly looks at the available data. Furthermore, this complete dependence on creating fear in order to extract funding means that science that undermines the fear based narrative must be suppressed or at least minimized to keep the cash coming in.

The real deniers are people who refuse to acknowledge the political nature of scientific research today.

so all that missing ice in the arctic has been caused by political party's? Maybe they had a big old party and used up all the ice in their rum and cokes.

[TimG]

so all that missing ice in the arctic...

Please explain why we should care about "melting ice in the arctic"? It is simply a fact. It is neither good nor bad.

Yet we are constantly lectured about why melting ice is a bad thing - this is where the politics comes in. Scientists simply noting that ice is declining or that it is good thing is not going to get them as much funding as scientists who say that ice is melting and ***ITS THE END OF THE WORLD***.

Until you understand the political nature of the scientific narratives you will not understand why our scientific establishment is untrustworthy.

Edited May 23, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Please explain why we should care about "melting ice in the arctic"? It is simply a fact. It is neither good nor bad.

Yet we are constantly lectured about why melting ice is a bad thing - this is where the politics comes in. Scientists simply noting that ice is declining or that it is good thing is not going to get them as much funding as scientists who say that ice is melting and ***ITS THE END OF THE WORLD***.

Until you understand the political nature of the scientific narratives you will not understand why our scientific establishment is untrustworthy.

It sounds like you don't want to fund scientists unless they come up with findings that suit you. Do you work for Harper per chance?

[TimG]

It sounds like you don't want to fund scientists unless they come up with findings that suit you.

You are missing the point entirely. I am saying scientists have to motivate politicians to fund them. They do this by trying to generate fear among the public by exaggerating risks and/or threats. This has nothing to do with who I think should be funded. It is about assessing the reliability of the research that is produced.

The one caveat: this effect is not so significant in fields where theories can be tested against the real world.

Edited May 23, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

You are missing the point entirely. I am saying scientists have to motivate politicians to fund them. They do this by trying to generate fear among the public by exaggerating risks and/or threats.

That sounds like a Stephen Harper prattle. I don't care which way scientists swing. Nor should you. I fly for a living and i can tell you the air going over the wing isn't Liberal or Conservative or NDP, it's air. Scientists have through their work come up with information that makes you and I safewr when we strap into a seat on an airliner. We need the info scientists provide. We don't need them to be swayed by political aspirations.