Alpine glaciers 50% gone by 2050 no matter what

[fncceo]

no matter what​

So stop fretting about it and party on.

 

[ding]

I'm still having a bit of difficulty on accepting you as the world's foremost denialist authority on climate change.
My reservations are most likely on account of your track record on not accepting D. evolution, while pretending you do.

Assume I am correct when I say that simple physics calculates the GHG effect of CO2 to be 1C for each doubling of CO2, do you think it should just be accepted as fact that that 1C of warming would produce another 3.5 C worth of warming through feedbacks? Especially when the 3.5C of additional warming is only based upon computer modelling of the planet?

Seems unreasonable to blindly accept 1C of GHG warming producing an additional 3.5C of warming.

I'm not questioning the 1C. I'm questioning the additional 3.5C from computer modelling.

 

[ding]

This question too, is rock solidly defined according to the political divide.

The political right are just never going to buy in,
At least until their houses blow away in a storm,
and they're left standing in what was their bedrooms with bare asses. ~

I'm wondering why such an intelligent person as yourself can't understand why I would question their model. Can you tell me why you are doing that?

 

[Crick]

Yep.

And how have they not been caught? That temperature data come from thousands of thermometers. The process of getting data from satellites involves hundreds of people. Do you really think someone is willing to pay them all off and that they are ALL willing to BE paid off? Sorry, dude, but IT FAILS THE SANITY TEST.

 

[progressive hunter]

And how have they not been caught? That temperature data come from thousands of thermometers. The process of getting data from satellites involves hundreds of people. Do you really think someone is willing to pay them all off and that they are ALL willing to BE paid off? Sorry, dude, but IT FAILS THE SANITY TEST.

the insanity is you give us a few numbers without any evidence thats not how its supposed to be and expecting us to believe you or change our lives in a major way that would make the rich richer,,

 

[Flash]

No, they didn't. But in case you're interested in what has actually happened, it looks like this:

View attachment 891216

Glacier mass balance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 891217

Arctic Glacier Mass Balance

This indicator provides information on the cumulative change in mass balance of glaciers over time. Glacier mass balance data are calculated based on a variety of measurements at the surface of a glacier, including measurements of snow depths and snow density. The net balance is the average mass...

www.globalchange.gov

You lie, as usual.

VERY close to every word that comes from AGW deniers' mouths is a lie. That is why they have no credibility. The world's science community has enormous credibility save with the very small minority of "useful idiots" taken in by the fossil fuel industry PR campaign whose opinions - due to their ignorance and the DK effect - have always been completely irrelevant in the larger conversation.

If it weren't for their lies, the deniers wouldn't exist.

Bogus sources that have been caught lying.

 

[Donald H]

I'm wondering why such an intelligent person as yourself can't understand why I would question their model. Can you tell me why you are doing that?

Simply because the climate change denialists have been discredited and relegated to the fringe of humanity.
I'm no Nobel prize winner in climate science like you, but I trust the 98% of the experts who don't deny. It's been settled science with them for decades now.

And why do you deny? Is it something to do with your Christian beliefs that man can't influence the climate in the face of the God's steady hand?

 

[ding]

Simply because the climate change denialists have been discredited and relegated to the fringe of humanity.
I'm no Nobel prize winner in climate science like you, but I trust the 98% of the experts who don't deny. It's been settled science with them for decades now.

And why do you deny? Is it something to do with your Christian beliefs that man can't influence the climate in the face of the God's steady hand?

Do you think you can address the point I made rather than your straw-man?

What part of my objection is unreasonable?

Simple physics calculates the GHG effect of CO2 to be 1C for each doubling of CO2, do you think it should just be accepted as fact that that 1C of warming would produce another 3.5 C worth of warming through feedbacks? Especially when the 3.5C of additional warming is only based upon computer modelling of the planet?​

​

Seems unreasonable to blindly accept 1C of GHG warming producing an additional 3.5C of warming.​

​

I'm not questioning the 1C. I'm questioning the additional 3.5C from computer modelling.​

 

[Donald H]

Assume I am correct when I say that simple physics calculates the GHG effect of CO2 to be 1C for each doubling of CO2, do you think it should just be accepted as fact that that 1C of warming would produce another 3.5 C worth of warming through feedbacks? Especially when the 3.5C of additional warming is only based upon computer modelling of the planet?

No, I won't assume you are right on anything, and especially if it's an attempt to contradict established sciience. I won't even assume that it would prove anything that would discredit mainstream science! How could it possibly do such a thing. I will, once again assume that it's your problem with your god who won't allow you to accept science.

Seems unreasonable to blindly accept 1C of GHG warming producing an additional 3.5C of warming.

I'm not questioning the 1C. I'm questioning the additional 3.5C from computer modelling.

Climate science acceptance/denial is one of the issues that make up the political divide in America. It's one of the hot button issues that can cause Americans to start killing each other in a coming civil war.

abortion, climate science, racism, big/small government, vaccines, health care, etc., etc.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm no Nobel prize winner in climate science like you, but I trust the 98% of the experts who don't deny. It's been settled science with them for decades now.

Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann agrees with you.

 

[ding]

No, I won't assume you are right on anything, and especially if it's an attempt to contradict established sciience. I won't even assume that it would prove anything that would discredit mainstream science! How could it possibly do such a thing. I will, once again assume that it's your problem with your god who won't allow you to accept science.



Climate science acceptance/denial is one of the issues that make up the political divide in America. It's one of the hot button issues that can cause Americans to start killing each other in a coming civil war.

abortion, climate science, racism, big/small government, vaccines, health care, etc., etc.

You won't play along hypothetically because you aren't dumb enough to admit 1C of warming from CO2 will produce another 3.5C warming of feedback.

But that is exactly what you believe. You believe 1C of GHG effect will create another 3.5C of warming.

 

[ding]

Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann agrees with you.

Donald believes 1C of GHG effect will create another 3.5C of warming.

 

[Donald H]

Do you think you can address the point I made rather than your straw-man?

No! I can't and won't pretend to be able or willing to address the hundreds of non-relevant points that are introduced by religious denialists such as you.

What part of my objection is unreasonable?

Simple physics calculates the GHG effect of CO2 to be 1C for each doubling of CO2, do you think it should just be accepted as fact that that 1C of warming would produce another 3.5 C worth of warming through feedbacks? Especially when the 3.5C of additional warming is only based upon computer modelling of the planet?​

​

Seems unreasonable to blindly accept 1C of GHG warming producing an additional 3.5C of warming.​

​

I'm not questioning the 1C. I'm questioning the additional 3.5C from computer modelling.​

Ask an accredited climate scientist and get back to me. Assuming that your god would allow it??

If you can prove that the 3.5C number is wrong (as quoted) and you can convince mainstream experts it's wrong, then you will perhaps made a minor point for the denialist side? None of which could make a damn bit of difference of course. Have I made myself clear?

 

[Donald H]

You won't play along hypothetically because you aren't dumb enough to admit 1C of warming from CO2 will produce another 3.5C warming of feedback.

But that is exactly what you believe. You believe 1C of GHG effect will create another 3.5C of warming.

You're going ;back to your frantic style of posting before you receive my answer. I don't do that and I won't allow you either.

 

[ding]

No! I can't and won't pretend to be able or willing to address the hundreds of non-relevant points that are introduced by religious denialists such as you.

Ask an accredited climate scientist and get back to me. Assuming that your god would allow it??

If you can prove that the 3.5C number is wrong (as quoted) and you can convince mainstream experts it's wrong, then you will perhaps made a minor point for the denialist side? None of which could make a damn bit of difference of course. Have I made myself clear?

You believe 1C of GHG effect will create another 3.5C of warming.

 

[ding]

You're going ;back to your frantic style of posting before you receive my answer. I don't do that and I won't allow you either.

You believe it's unreasonable to question 1C of GHG effect creating another 3.5C of warming. I don't. I believe it's reasonable to question 1C of GHG effect creating another 3.5C of warming. And that's why I do it.

 

[Donald H]

You won't play along hypothetically because you aren't dumb enough to admit 1C of warming from CO2 will produce another 3.5C warming of feedback.

But that is exactly what you believe. You believe 1C of GHG effect will create another 3.5C of warming.

Do climate scientists say it will?

If so then it will!

Will a butterfly's wing beats in Japan produce a hurricane in Florida?

If it's your misinterpretation or your religion or some other denialist dogma then it's N.A. Let me know.

 

[ding]

Do climate scientists say it will?

If so then it will!

Will a butterfly's wing beats in Japan produce a hurricane in Florida?

If it's your misinterpretation or your religion or some other denialist dogma then it's N.A. Let me know.

You believe 1C of GHG effect will create another 3.5C of warming.

 

[ding]

Do climate scientists say it will?

If so then it will!

That's what a cuck of climate scientists would say.

 

[Donald H]

You believe 1C of GHG effect will create another 3.5C of warming.

I've told you and once again for the final time: If 98% of climate scientists believe it's true then I believe it too.

If it's some kind of christian charade you're inventing then it's N. A.

As I consider you N.A. until you can refresh your christian schtick.