Antarctic ice shelf thinning accelerates

[OohPooPahDoo]

. Are you saying rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?

I'm saying a wisp of CO2 has no discernible effect on temperature on planet Earth

Are rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?

Not according to the IPCC. AR1 clearly stated that all warming pre 1950 was natural variation and man had little to nothing to do with it.

So what did cause CO2 to go up in the past 150 years?

So, what caused it to go up before human kind ever showed up and before human industry ever took place?

the sun

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

. Are you saying rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?

I'm saying a wisp of CO2 has no discernible effect on temperature on planet Earth

Are rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?

Not according to the IPCC. AR1 clearly stated that all warming pre 1950 was natural variation and man had little to nothing to do with it.

So what did cause CO2 to go up in the past 150 years?

Simple... CO2 lags warmth by 200-300 years.

Uhhh, not now it doesn't. Maybe you can explain that.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Things Einstein or any other real scientist, never said:

Relativity is settled science

We have consensus

Special relativity is actually quite settled, and there is a consensus. If you can find me a physicist that says otherwise I'd love to meet him.

Though, in Einstein's day, of course, it would not have been "settled". He just came up with it.

AGW btw predates Einstein's relativity.

 

[westwall]

I'm saying a wisp of CO2 has no discernible effect on temperature on planet Earth

Are rising temperatures are what caused the co2 to go up in the last 150 years? Yes or no?

Not according to the IPCC. AR1 clearly stated that all warming pre 1950 was natural variation and man had little to nothing to do with it.

So what did cause CO2 to go up in the past 150 years?

So, what caused it to go up before human kind ever showed up and before human industry ever took place?

the sun

So. Why is it not the Sun now? Occams Razor says it is....

 

[westwall]

Things Einstein or any other real scientist, never said:

Relativity is settled science

We have consensus

Special relativity is actually quite settled, and there is a consensus. If you can find me a physicist that says otherwise I'd love to meet him.

Though, in Einstein's day, of course, it would not have been "settled". He just came up with it.

AGW btw predates Einstein's relativity.

No, it doesn't. The theory that CO2 is a GHG does. Not the theory of AGW.

 

[IanC]

Most of the land surface is either rising (rebound from having glaciers sitting on top) or sinking. If you find the pivot point and search out tide gauge stations in that area, what do you find? From the examples I've seen there is a 1-2 mm/yr SLR. Certainly not the 3+ mm/yr the satellites appear to show, for uncheckable ocean locales.
Which tide gauges are the satellites adjusted to? I don't know, it is not easily accessible info.

So... you know this topic better and have conducted a better analysis than the CU Sea Level Research Group. That's amazing. You've done a good job of hiding your flame Ian.

I have no doubt that I would have made a perfectly acceptable climate science researcher if that was the direction life had taken me. I may even have fallen into line with the groupthink so common in climate science because that is the easiest way to get funding.

as an outside observer all I have to do is peruse the data, infer the idea behind the paper and decide whether the conclusions are correct or even supported by the data. in climate science I often find that the conclusions are poorly supported by the available data, and the ideas behind the papers are skewed in such a way as to almost be misdirection.

here is a common example of a climate science paper. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n5/full/nclimate2159.html

the idea was to give a plausible reason for the drop in altimetry SLR in the 2000's. they decided to 'correct' for La Ninas. voila!

but what would have happened if they corrected the 1990's for El Ninos instead? 2.5mm/yr?


there are too many graphs like this one, to get on board with the doomsday scenarios being predicted.

 

[Old Rocks]

Things Einstein or any other real scientist, never said:

Relativity is settled science

We have consensus

Special relativity is actually quite settled, and there is a consensus. If you can find me a physicist that says otherwise I'd love to meet him.

Though, in Einstein's day, of course, it would not have been "settled". He just came up with it.

AGW btw predates Einstein's relativity.

No, it doesn't. The theory that CO2 is a GHG does. Not the theory of AGW.

Mr. Phd Geologist, the Special Theory of Relativity was proposed in 1905. Arrhenius showed what the increase in CO2 by man would do when it doubled the natural amount in 1896. AGW predates Relativity.

 

[Liminal]

Actually, I am.

You cannot imagine how difficult that is to believe. So difficult, that no one here does.

I know I don't.

Big deal. What you believe is so immaterial to the discussion that your mere mention of it exposes the weakness of your so called arguments. Scientists attack evidence. Asshats attack people.

People pretending to be scientists have no idea what the evidence means, let alone knowing how to attack the evidence.

Then by all means present some for me to destroy. So far all you have done is shoot your mouth off.

Evidence of what? Evidence that you aren't a scientist? You've already done that work for me.

 

[Liminal]

Let's use our heads Mr jc. Isostasy - the rise and fall of the contintents - is roughly symmetric around the planet. Just about as much rises as falls. Thus this process will have very little effect on the average global sea level. The thermal expansion from global warming and the increase from Greenland and Anatarctica's melted ice WILL raise levels globally. Now, I've had a few geology classes, but I'm no geologist. But the first article I came across when I started looking seemed to be related to whatever Westwall and OldRocks were talking about and it claimed, as you saw, that continental subduction led to an increase in local sea level. That only makes sense: lower the coastline and the ocean will come to a higher point. However geocentric sea level - the level of the ocean with respect to the center of the Earth, will rise. As continental masses are subducted below the previous sea level, they displace the ocean's volume. Think what would happen were we to pick up Mt Everest and drop it into the Pacific. The ocean would rise slightly everywhere, wouldn't it.

No, it's not. Isostatic rebound is the Earth returning to it's original level after the overbearing ice sheet has melted. Period. The raising of the Himalayas is due to the collision of the Indian plate into the Asian plate with a small amount of isostatic rebound thrown in.

Isostatic rebound CAN'T be symmetrical around the planet. Just think (I know it's hard for you) of what that statement means. Really, think about it.

And, yet again, you reinforce my statements that subduction zones don't cause sea level decrease which is what olfraud, NOT ME, was claiming.

A nearly impressive level of Wikipedia based knowledge.

 

[jc456]

You cannot imagine how difficult that is to believe. So difficult, that no one here does.

I know I don't.

Big deal. What you believe is so immaterial to the discussion that your mere mention of it exposes the weakness of your so called arguments. Scientists attack evidence. Asshats attack people.

People pretending to be scientists have no idea what the evidence means, let alone knowing how to attack the evidence.

Then by all means present some for me to destroy. So far all you have done is shoot your mouth off.

Evidence of what? Evidence that you aren't a scientist? You've already done that work for me.

How about, something that proves 120 ppm of CO2 actually does anything to temperatures!

 

[jc456]

You cannot imagine how difficult that is to believe. So difficult, that no one here does.

I know I don't.

Big deal. What you believe is so immaterial to the discussion that your mere mention of it exposes the weakness of your so called arguments. Scientists attack evidence. Asshats attack people.

People pretending to be scientists have no idea what the evidence means, let alone knowing how to attack the evidence.

What evidence?

How much evidence do I need to smell bullshit?

Well, if you want to go there today every piece of evidence posted on this forum has smelt like bullshit!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Things Einstein or any other real scientist, never said:

Relativity is settled science

We have consensus

Special relativity is actually quite settled, and there is a consensus. If you can find me a physicist that says otherwise I'd love to meet him.

Though, in Einstein's day, of course, it would not have been "settled". He just came up with it.

AGW btw predates Einstein's relativity.

AGW does not predate Einstein. AGW started after you guys crapped out on "Global Cooling"

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Things Einstein or any other real scientist, never said:

Relativity is settled science

We have consensus

Special relativity is actually quite settled, and there is a consensus. If you can find me a physicist that says otherwise I'd love to meet him.

Though, in Einstein's day, of course, it would not have been "settled". He just came up with it.

AGW btw predates Einstein's relativity.

AGW does not predate Einstein. AGW started after you guys crapped out on "Global Cooling"

The first paper on agw was published in 1896 by Arrhenius. Einsteins first paper wasn't published until 1905. I'll leave it as an exercise to you to figure out which came first...1896 or 1905.

AGW started after you guyscrapped out on "Global Cooling"

debunked like a zillion times. You should unplug yourself then plug yourself back in, see if that helps

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Things Einstein or any other real scientist, never said:

Relativity is settled science

We have consensus

Special relativity is actually quite settled, and there is a consensus. If you can find me a physicist that says otherwise I'd love to meet him.

Though, in Einstein's day, of course, it would not have been "settled". He just came up with it.

AGW btw predates Einstein's relativity.

AGW does not predate Einstein. AGW started after you guys crapped out on "Global Cooling"

The first paper on agw was published in 1896 by Arrhenius. Einsteins first paper wasn't published until 1905. I'll leave it as an exercise to you to figure out which came first...1896 or 1905.

AGW started after you guyscrapped out on "Global Cooling"

debunked like a zillion times. You should unplug yourself then plug yourself back in, see if that helps

Do you know what AGW stands for?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Things Einstein or any other real scientist, never said:

Relativity is settled science

We have consensus

Special relativity is actually quite settled, and there is a consensus. If you can find me a physicist that says otherwise I'd love to meet him.

Though, in Einstein's day, of course, it would not have been "settled". He just came up with it.

AGW btw predates Einstein's relativity.

AGW does not predate Einstein. AGW started after you guys crapped out on "Global Cooling"

The first paper on agw was published in 1896 by Arrhenius. Einsteins first paper wasn't published until 1905. I'll leave it as an exercise to you to figure out which came first...1896 or 1905.

AGW started after you guyscrapped out on "Global Cooling"

debunked like a zillion times. You should unplug yourself then plug yourself back in, see if that helps

Do you know what AGW stands for?

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf

Have you figured out if 1896 predates 1905 yet? Lemme know.

 

[mamooth]

So. Why is it not the Sun now? Occams Razor says it is....

And Westwall now fails at the Razor. No actual scientist could ever fail that hard at something so essential.

The Razor says the simplest theory THAT EXPLAINS THE OBSERVED EVIDENCE is most likely correct. The solar theory is contradicted by the observed evidence in multiple ways.

1. The solar theory predicts stratospheric warming. We see stratospheric cooling.

2. The solar theory does not predict OLR decreasing in the greenhouse gas bands, as we measure.

3. The solar theory does not predict backradiation increasing, as we measure.

4. The solar theory would require ALL planets, dwarf planets and moons be warming. Most (Mercury, Venus, Luna, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) are not warming Uranus is cooling, while Neptune and Pluto are warming.

5. And most important, the solar theory would require the sun be getting hotter. The sun has been getting cooler.

In direct contrast, AGW is the simplest theory that explains all the observed data. Hence, Occams Razor says that AGW theory is the most likely to be correct.

 

[westwall]

So. Why is it not the Sun now? Occams Razor says it is....

And Westwall now fails at the Razor. No actual scientist could ever fail that hard at something so essential.

The Razor says the simplest theory THAT EXPLAINS THE OBSERVED EVIDENCE is most likely correct. The solar theory is contradicted by the observed evidence in multiple ways.

1. The solar theory predicts stratospheric warming. We see stratospheric cooling.

2. The solar theory does not predict OLR decreasing in the greenhouse gas bands, as we measure.

3. The solar theory does not predict backradiation increasing, as we measure.

4. The solar theory would require ALL planets, dwarf planets and moons be warming. Most (Mercury, Venus, Luna, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) are not warming Uranus is cooling, while Neptune and Pluto are warming.

5. And most important, the solar theory would require the sun be getting hotter. The sun has been getting cooler.

In direct contrast, AGW is the simplest theory that explains all the observed data. Hence, Occams Razor says that AGW theory is the most likely to be correct.

No, if something happened before, then it is most likely that what caused it then, is causing it now you dipshit. I mean really admiral, your fundamental lack of scientific understanding is so profound I am surprised you can even walk.

 

[mamooth]

As always happens, Westwall couldn't find his balls and give an honest response.

Westwall, the gig's up. You can't get every bit of the science totally wrong every time for years running, and then think you can handwave away all your hilarious failures just by soiling yourself and flinging the poo yet another time.

You're not a scientist. You've never been a scientist. You're a lying fraud, and everyone here knows it.

It's just not possible for someone as ignorant as you to ever have been a scientist. Even the chronic substance abuse and creeping senility which is so evident in your posts couldn't reduce a real scientist to your classification of "totally 'effin stupid".

 

[jc456]

So. Why is it not the Sun now? Occams Razor says it is....

And Westwall now fails at the Razor. No actual scientist could ever fail that hard at something so essential.

The Razor says the simplest theory THAT EXPLAINS THE OBSERVED EVIDENCE is most likely correct. The solar theory is contradicted by the observed evidence in multiple ways.

1. The solar theory predicts stratospheric warming. We see stratospheric cooling.

2. The solar theory does not predict OLR decreasing in the greenhouse gas bands, as we measure.

3. The solar theory does not predict backradiation increasing, as we measure.

4. The solar theory would require ALL planets, dwarf planets and moons be warming. Most (Mercury, Venus, Luna, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) are not warming Uranus is cooling, while Neptune and Pluto are warming.

5. And most important, the solar theory would require the sun be getting hotter. The sun has been getting cooler.

In direct contrast, AGW is the simplest theory that explains all the observed data. Hence, Occams Razor says that AGW theory is the most likely to be correct.

Nope

 

[jc456]

As always happens, Westwall couldn't find his balls and give an honest response.

Westwall, the gig's up. You can't get every bit of the science totally wrong every time for years running, and then think you can handwave away all your hilarious failures just by soiling yourself and flinging the poo yet another time.

You're not a scientist. You've never been a scientist. You're a lying fraud, and everyone here knows it.

It's just not possible for someone as ignorant as you to ever have been a scientist. Even the chronic substance abuse and creeping senility which is so evident in your posts couldn't reduce a real scientist to your classification of "totally 'effin stupid".

And yet.........no experiments.