Why do so many people deny climate change

[itfitzme]

The last time they were free of ice was 20 million years ago. Because of Continental drif and thei current locations of thee land masses, that can't happen any longer. Because of the circum polar current, Atarctica is climactically isolated from the rest of the world. Warm water can't reach it. That wasn't the case when it was attached to South America.

But the ice is melting in Greenland. It's been demonstrated. The question is, if it's melting now, and we have no alternative but to continue putting more megatons of GHGs into the atmosphere, what's to limit the melting?

Horeshit. I haven't seen any convincing evidence of that.

Looky here, a website by the NSIDC dedicated just to Greenland's declining ice.

Greenland Ice Sheet Today | Surface Melt Data presented by NSIDC

 

[Abraham3]

Food for thought - and discussion

Antarctic ice grows as climate warms - environment - 02 April 2013 - New Scientist

Antarctic ice grows as climate warms

17:52 02 April 2013 by Fred Pearce
Magazine issue 2911.

Call it a tale of two poles. While sea ice in the Arctic is vanishing fast, the extent of Antarctic ice has increased. Good explanations for the growth of ice in the Southern Ocean have been hard to find, but now the problem may have been cracked. Counter-intuitively, it seems global warming may be cooling southern surface waters.

Nobody predicted that the fate of ice at each pole would take such different paths in just 30 years, with Arctic sea ice dropping more than 15 per cent, even as Antarctic ice has risen by more than 5 per cent. The link between global warming and melting in the Arctic is clear cut, but the situation is more complex in the south. There, ocean water below a depth of 100 metres has been getting warmer, in line with rising ocean temperatures worldwide, but surface waters and the air above have become cooler.

The reason, say Richard Bintanja and colleagues at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, is that the deep warm water is melting the shelves of floating ice that extend from the continent. This is setting off flotillas of icebergs and creating a layer of cool, fresh water at the ocean's surface. Measurements and previous modelling studies show this is happening, say Bintanja and his team.

They hypothesise that the layer of cool surface water insulates the remaining floating ice from warm deep currents. Using a climate model, they show that a realistic injection of cool meltwater should bulk up Antarctic ice. They predict these trends will continue.

It sounds like good news – a powerful negative feedback on global warming. And it is. But the process has an unexpected consequence for global sea levels.

Climate models predict that, in a warmer world, ice slipping off Antarctica will raise sea levels. But they also show warmer air will hold more moisture, generating more snowfall over Antarctica. Piled up on the continent, that snow will keep water out of the oceans and moderate or even reverse the sea level rise from Antarctic melting.

Bintanja says that is wrong. Warm deep ocean currents will keep eating away at the ice shelves. But the cooler than anticipated air will evaporate less moisture and produce less snow. "More water stays in the ocean," he told New Scientist. Result: a cooler climate but more sea level rise.

This is controversial. Paul Holland of the British Antarctic Survey says the results make sense but thinks his own theory blaming the extra ice on changing wind patterns may contribute.

The issue needs to be resolved if we want accurate predictions of sea level rise. A draft of the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could only say that the growth of Antarctic sea ice is "consistent with internal variability" – meaning it is essentially random. Testable hypotheses like those proposed by Bintanja and Holland help provide reliable forecasts.

Journal reference: Nature Geoscience, doi.org/k2r

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sometimes "counterintuitively" just means "yeah we can't figure it out either"

 

[mamooth]

Sure it was..... You losers are so easy to manipulate!

Poor Westwall. He never learns not to hook himself. And he'll never make it into the reason-based community. In the reason-based community, if we make a claim, we don't show opinion pieces by partisan cranks to back it up. We show the actual data. I know, crazy, huh? At least by denialist standards, it's totally insane, looking at data instead of political opinions.

Now, on to the primary data. If Mr. Connolly is deleting all contrary opinions to push his AGW bias on Wikipedia, the deletion logs will show it. Let's look at his Wikipedia deletion log.

Deletion log - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since he's supposedly such a demon, you should find hundreds of cases of censorship in that wiki deletion log. But concerning the topic of global warming, there are 3 or 4 deletions. All minor bookkeeping stuff that no one cared about, not even the page authors.

So, the denialists were completely bamboozled by their denialist masters. Who didn't tell them that Wikipedia has conflict-of-interest rules that are strictly enforced, and that any actions an editor takes in his area must be reviewed by multiple unfriendly eyes. And the poor denialists never even considered looking at actual data, being it's so totally foreign to their nature to look at data instead of political screeds.

There's more. Here's his protection log, and his block log. Should be chock full of thousands of evil biased ... oh wait, it's still all just very mundane wiki stuff.

Protection log - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Block log - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, the stories of demon Connolly single-handedly making thousands of adjustments to push AGW are wild fabrications, as proven by the Wikipedia logs.

That's point one, that some denialists lied their asses off.

Point two is that denialist cultists like Westwall won't care. They'll still repeat the big lie, even after it's been proven to be a big lie. To hardcore denialists, cult loyalty trumps truth every time. No stupid facts have ever changed Westwall's mind before, and he's not going to change his ways now.

 

[westwall]

"All denialists are required to chant it."

It is well understood that teenage girls make decisions and rules by consensus. The very nature of reality is determined by consensus.

Denialists also, like a bunch of teenage girls, think by consensus.

"The Science is Settled"

Seems to be what you keep claiming.

Quite the contrary. That is the AGW cultists' meme. The rest of the world is saying "hold on here, what evidence do you have for your dogma?"

 

[westwall]

Food for thought - and discussion

Antarctic ice grows as climate warms - environment - 02 April 2013 - New Scientist

Antarctic ice grows as climate warms

17:52 02 April 2013 by Fred Pearce
Magazine issue 2911.

Call it a tale of two poles. While sea ice in the Arctic is vanishing fast, the extent of Antarctic ice has increased. Good explanations for the growth of ice in the Southern Ocean have been hard to find, but now the problem may have been cracked. Counter-intuitively, it seems global warming may be cooling southern surface waters.

Nobody predicted that the fate of ice at each pole would take such different paths in just 30 years, with Arctic sea ice dropping more than 15 per cent, even as Antarctic ice has risen by more than 5 per cent. The link between global warming and melting in the Arctic is clear cut, but the situation is more complex in the south. There, ocean water below a depth of 100 metres has been getting warmer, in line with rising ocean temperatures worldwide, but surface waters and the air above have become cooler.

The reason, say Richard Bintanja and colleagues at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, is that the deep warm water is melting the shelves of floating ice that extend from the continent. This is setting off flotillas of icebergs and creating a layer of cool, fresh water at the ocean's surface. Measurements and previous modelling studies show this is happening, say Bintanja and his team.

They hypothesise that the layer of cool surface water insulates the remaining floating ice from warm deep currents. Using a climate model, they show that a realistic injection of cool meltwater should bulk up Antarctic ice. They predict these trends will continue.

It sounds like good news – a powerful negative feedback on global warming. And it is. But the process has an unexpected consequence for global sea levels.

Climate models predict that, in a warmer world, ice slipping off Antarctica will raise sea levels. But they also show warmer air will hold more moisture, generating more snowfall over Antarctica. Piled up on the continent, that snow will keep water out of the oceans and moderate or even reverse the sea level rise from Antarctic melting.

Bintanja says that is wrong. Warm deep ocean currents will keep eating away at the ice shelves. But the cooler than anticipated air will evaporate less moisture and produce less snow. "More water stays in the ocean," he told New Scientist. Result: a cooler climate but more sea level rise.

This is controversial. Paul Holland of the British Antarctic Survey says the results make sense but thinks his own theory blaming the extra ice on changing wind patterns may contribute.

The issue needs to be resolved if we want accurate predictions of sea level rise. A draft of the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could only say that the growth of Antarctic sea ice is "consistent with internal variability" – meaning it is essentially random. Testable hypotheses like those proposed by Bintanja and Holland help provide reliable forecasts.

Journal reference: Nature Geoscience, doi.org/k2r

"While Arctic ice is vanishing fast...." With a statement like that, when presented with the reality below....one can't take anything these clowns have to say seriously...

 

[Abraham3]

How would you characterize Arctic ice extents and mass trends since the beginning of satellite data? I know you fellows are all really excited about this season's improved melt, but do you actually think you've got enough data to announce some kind of turn-around? I mean, what do you think is happening now?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Food for thought - and discussion

Antarctic ice grows as climate warms - environment - 02 April 2013 - New Scientist

Antarctic ice grows as climate warms

17:52 02 April 2013 by Fred Pearce
Magazine issue 2911.

Call it a tale of two poles. While sea ice in the Arctic is vanishing fast, the extent of Antarctic ice has increased. Good explanations for the growth of ice in the Southern Ocean have been hard to find, but now the problem may have been cracked. Counter-intuitively, it seems global warming may be cooling southern surface waters.

Nobody predicted that the fate of ice at each pole would take such different paths in just 30 years, with Arctic sea ice dropping more than 15 per cent, even as Antarctic ice has risen by more than 5 per cent. The link between global warming and melting in the Arctic is clear cut, but the situation is more complex in the south. There, ocean water below a depth of 100 metres has been getting warmer, in line with rising ocean temperatures worldwide, but surface waters and the air above have become cooler.

The reason, say Richard Bintanja and colleagues at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, is that the deep warm water is melting the shelves of floating ice that extend from the continent. This is setting off flotillas of icebergs and creating a layer of cool, fresh water at the ocean's surface. Measurements and previous modelling studies show this is happening, say Bintanja and his team.

They hypothesise that the layer of cool surface water insulates the remaining floating ice from warm deep currents. Using a climate model, they show that a realistic injection of cool meltwater should bulk up Antarctic ice. They predict these trends will continue.

It sounds like good news – a powerful negative feedback on global warming. And it is. But the process has an unexpected consequence for global sea levels.

Climate models predict that, in a warmer world, ice slipping off Antarctica will raise sea levels. But they also show warmer air will hold more moisture, generating more snowfall over Antarctica. Piled up on the continent, that snow will keep water out of the oceans and moderate or even reverse the sea level rise from Antarctic melting.

Bintanja says that is wrong. Warm deep ocean currents will keep eating away at the ice shelves. But the cooler than anticipated air will evaporate less moisture and produce less snow. "More water stays in the ocean," he told New Scientist. Result: a cooler climate but more sea level rise.

This is controversial. Paul Holland of the British Antarctic Survey says the results make sense but thinks his own theory blaming the extra ice on changing wind patterns may contribute.

The issue needs to be resolved if we want accurate predictions of sea level rise. A draft of the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could only say that the growth of Antarctic sea ice is "consistent with internal variability" – meaning it is essentially random. Testable hypotheses like those proposed by Bintanja and Holland help provide reliable forecasts.

Journal reference: Nature Geoscience, doi.org/k2r

"While Arctic ice is vanishing fast...." With a statement like that, when presented with the reality below....one can't take anything these clowns have to say seriously...

Is the pink color where the ocean is boiling?

 

[bripat9643]

In your imagination.

It's recorded here in the forum.

Pull it forward, seeing as you are so confident.

BTW, have you figured out photosynthesis and soil carbon yet?

Refer to these posts:

#484
#586
#588
#589
#1163
#1177
#1183
#1240
#1241
#1282
#1509

And that's just in this thread.

 

[Abraham3]

What's with you and the boiling ocean? Has anyone ever claimed the ocean would boil or is the problem that you're not able to recognize facetiousness or sarcasm? That'd be a shame. I think it's time to put you back on the ignore list. Just too much insightfully cutting repartee. ;-)

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's with you and the boiling ocean? Has anyone ever claimed the ocean would boil or is the problem that you're not able to recognize facetiousness or sarcasm? That'd be a shame. I think it's time to put you back on the ignore list. Just too much insightfully cutting repartee. ;-)

Hansen was being sarcastic when he said the oceans could begin to boil?
Starting at 2:00.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxfiuKB_R8]James Hansen: The Runaway Greenhouse Effect - YouTube[/ame]

 

[itfitzme]

What's with you and the boiling ocean? Has anyone ever claimed the ocean would boil or is the problem that you're not able to recognize facetiousness or sarcasm? That'd be a shame. I think it's time to put you back on the ignore list. Just too much insightfully cutting repartee. ;-)

Hansen was being sarcastic when he said the oceans could begin to boil?
Starting at 2:00.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxfiuKB_R8]James Hansen: The Runaway Greenhouse Effect - YouTube[/ame]

They could, if the greenhouse effect went into a runaway condition. What is it that you are having problems with?

 

[itfitzme]

It's recorded here in the forum.

Pull it forward, seeing as you are so confident.

BTW, have you figured out photosynthesis and soil carbon yet?

Refer to these posts:

#484
#586
#588
#589
#1163
#1177
#1183
#1240
#1241
#1282
#1509

And that's just in this thread.

Try presenting it and demonstrate what you think it means. We will have a great time laughing at you.

 

[mudwhistle]

When you have been lied to the first time about the climate becoming an ice age in the 70's then changed to warming you tend not to believe them.

They also are not addressing why so many planets in our solar system climates are changing also.

It seems to be tied to something that is happening to our Solar System not mankind's pollution.

It was the global warming deniers, who you now believe, who lied to you about a coming Ice Age. The vast majority of scientists were predicting global warming in the 70s.

And the planetary canard has been addressed! Some planets and moons are warming, but other planets and moons are cooling, so it is obviously related to conditions in each location rather than a solar system related cause.

Obviously.........*rolling eyes*

 

[itfitzme]

What is this thing????

 

[itfitzme]

When you have been lied to the first time about the climate becoming an ice age in the 70's then changed to warming you tend not to believe them.

They also are not addressing why so many planets in our solar system climates are changing also.

It seems to be tied to something that is happening to our Solar System not mankind's pollution.

You need to stop believing every single thing you read and learn about the things that you do.

" This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature"

You might also consider that 1970 was 40 years ago, so you should get over it.

Try keeping up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's with you and the boiling ocean? Has anyone ever claimed the ocean would boil or is the problem that you're not able to recognize facetiousness or sarcasm? That'd be a shame. I think it's time to put you back on the ignore list. Just too much insightfully cutting repartee. ;-)

Hansen was being sarcastic when he said the oceans could begin to boil?
Starting at 2:00.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uxfiuKB_R8]James Hansen: The Runaway Greenhouse Effect - YouTube[/ame]

They could, if the greenhouse effect went into a runaway condition. What is it that you are having problems with?

I'm having problems with the claim our oceans could boil.
Maybe the warmers should run a new computer model? LOL!

 

[itfitzme]

Hansen was being sarcastic when he said the oceans could begin to boil?
Starting at 2:00.


James Hansen: The Runaway Greenhouse Effect - YouTube

They could, if the greenhouse effect went into a runaway condition. What is it that you are having problems with?

I'm having problems with the claim our oceans could boil.
Maybe the warmers should run a new computer model? LOL!

Well, then you are scientifically illiterate so it isn't surprising you have trouble. Evaporate might be a more apt term.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...e-global-warming-venus-ocean-climate-science/

"In the past few years, however, physicists have been training supercomputers on the lowly water molecule, calculating its properties from first principles—and finding that it absorbs more radiation at more wavelengths than they'd realized before. In a paper published this week in Nature Geosciences, those calculations have rippled into a simple climate model. The paper's conclusion contains this slightly unsettling sentence: "The runaway greenhouse may be much easier to initiate than previously thought.""

.....


"What my results show is that if you put about ten times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as you would get from burning all the coal, oil, and gas—about 30,000 parts per million—then you could cause a runaway greenhouse today. So burning all the fossil fuels won't give us a runaway greenhouse. "

So, it seems a bit iffy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They could, if the greenhouse effect went into a runaway condition. What is it that you are having problems with?

I'm having problems with the claim our oceans could boil.
Maybe the warmers should run a new computer model? LOL!

Well, then you are scientifically illiterate so it isn't surprising you have trouble. Evaporate might be a more apt term.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...e-global-warming-venus-ocean-climate-science/

"In the past few years, however, physicists have been training supercomputers on the lowly water molecule, calculating its properties from first principles—and finding that it absorbs more radiation at more wavelengths than they'd realized before. In a paper published this week in Nature Geosciences, those calculations have rippled into a simple climate model. The paper's conclusion contains this slightly unsettling sentence: "The runaway greenhouse may be much easier to initiate than previously thought.""

.....


"What my results show is that if you put about ten times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as you would get from burning all the coal, oil, and gas—about 30,000 parts per million—then you could cause a runaway greenhouse today. So burning all the fossil fuels won't give us a runaway greenhouse. "

So, it seems a bit iffy.

Well, then you are scientifically illiterate so it isn't surprising you have trouble. Evaporate might be a more apt term.

Hansen is scientifically illiterate, just because he said the oceans could boil?
You should tell him yourself.

 

[itfitzme]

I'm having problems with the claim our oceans could boil.
Maybe the warmers should run a new computer model? LOL!

Well, then you are scientifically illiterate so it isn't surprising you have trouble. Evaporate might be a more apt term.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...e-global-warming-venus-ocean-climate-science/

"In the past few years, however, physicists have been training supercomputers on the lowly water molecule, calculating its properties from first principles—and finding that it absorbs more radiation at more wavelengths than they'd realized before. In a paper published this week in Nature Geosciences, those calculations have rippled into a simple climate model. The paper's conclusion contains this slightly unsettling sentence: "The runaway greenhouse may be much easier to initiate than previously thought.""

.....


"What my results show is that if you put about ten times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as you would get from burning all the coal, oil, and gas—about 30,000 parts per million—then you could cause a runaway greenhouse today. So burning all the fossil fuels won't give us a runaway greenhouse. "

So, it seems a bit iffy.

Well, then you are scientifically illiterate so it isn't surprising you have trouble. Evaporate might be a more apt term.

Hansen is scientifically illiterate, just because he said the oceans could boil?
You should tell him yourself.

Well, I don't generally watch video. I am a reader. So I have no idea what the video says.

You shouldn't worry your pretty head about it though. AWG will be a disaster well before that occurs, if at all.

The realist issues are species habitat changes, drougth, and excessive precipitation. Maybe coastline erosion.

Hopefully the permafrost melt won't release too much methane.

If you are looking for definitive amswers, you migh want to stick to accounting.