Climate change causes and impacts are accelerating, experts warn - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15053260
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power

You also ended up saying Solanki fabricated his data when I pointed out that his measurements of increased solar activity show no corresponding spike in average temperatures.

Could you please either provide a quote to that effect or apologize for makin' $#!+ up about what I have plainly written? Thank you.
Or you were saying that the graph you presented as evidence of a trendless 69 year cycle is fabricated.

You were not clear on which.

Please quote me claiming a 69y cycle. Thank you.
#15053261
Pants-of-dog wrote:If your conspiracy theory requires the entire federal government to be in on it,

You made that up. Only the handful of people who control temperature data need to be in on it.
and please note that this still only deals with US climatologists and does not explain how foreign climatologists are also kept in line,

They all use NASA/NOAA global temperature data.
then your conspiracy theory fails because of the sheer number of people needed to keep the secret.

It's a pretty open "secret." Anyone can learn about it on Youtube.
#15053265
@Truth To Power

I pointed out that your graph showing a trendless 60 year cycle did not show a spike in temperature at the same time that Solanki measured increased solar activity.

You then replied that “The temperature records have been retroactively falsified”.

This means that either you meant that Solanki’s work is falsified, or the graph you cited is falsiifed.

You said it here:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=177165&start=60#p15045486

And you are shifting the goalposts about your conspiracy theory.

You were originally claiming that the funding only came from one source. Now you are claiming that the temperature data only comes from one source.

Please try to keep track of your arguments.
#15053304
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power

I pointed out that your graph showing a trendless 60 year cycle did not show a spike in temperature at the same time that Solanki measured increased solar activity.

Because as I explained to you so very clearly and patiently, they are two completely different phenomena. Solanki was studying century- to millennium-scale variations in solar activity, and the ~60y temperature cycle has nothing to do with solar variation.
You then replied that “The temperature records have been retroactively falsified”.

Which is also true, but is not related to the other two phenomena.
This means that either you meant that Solanki’s work is falsified, or the graph you cited is falsiifed.

No, that is just you committing another logical fallacy.
You said it here:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=177165&start=60#p15045486

So as readers can confirm for themselves, not what you now claim, above, that I said.
And you are shifting the goalposts about your conspiracy theory.

Nope.
You were originally claiming that the funding only came from one source.

The great majority of it.
Now you are claiming that the temperature data only comes from one source.

No, the global temperature data climate scientists base their research on comes from one source, the same source as most of the funding.
Please try to keep track of your arguments.

Oh, I do. But it's obvious you can't.
#15053307
@Truth To Power

You still do not understand. Your two pieces of evidence contradict each other. This is why you claimed one was false.

And your conspiracy theories are nonsense. Again, there is no way for one group to control all the funding for climatologists and thereby force 5e vast majority of climatologists to secrecy.
#15053423
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Truth To Power

You still do not understand. Your two pieces of evidence contradict each other. This is why you claimed one was false.

No. I stated it was false because it is.
And your conspiracy theories are nonsense. Again, there is no way for one group to control all the funding for climatologists and thereby force 5e vast majority of climatologists to secrecy.

Sorry, I don't have the patience to walk you through it all again when you so obstinately refuse to know facts. All I can suggest is that you heed actual physical events rather than fraudulent graphs, maps or numbers concocted by anti-fossil-fuel propagandists, and see me continue to be proved right over and over again through future decades as CO2 continues to rise exponentially and no climate crisis or emergency happens as a result.
#15053427
Truth To Power wrote:
Sorry, I don't have the patience to walk you through it all again when you so obstinately refuse to know facts.



Like the fact that you don't count?

What a science says is determined by the community of those scientists. You're just a fan in the stands hollering that the ref is a bum.
#15053460
late wrote:Like the fact that you don't count?

Did that make you feel better about being wrong?
What a science says is determined by the community of those scientists. You're just a fan in the stands hollering that the ref is a bum.

Science is based on the fact that the community of scientists can be wrong. Actual physical events always have the final say. All I can suggest is that you heed actual physical events rather than fraudulent graphs, maps and numbers concocted by anti-fossil-fuel propagandists, and see me continue to be proved right over and over again through future decades as CO2 continues to rise exponentially and no climate crisis or emergency happens as a result. Given the fact that solar activity was anomalously high for most of the 20th century, the big climate crisis risk is global cooling caused by a Little-Ice-Age-type lull in solar activity.
#15053466
Truth To Power wrote:
Science is based on the fact that the community of scientists can be wrong. Actual physical events always have the final say.



That much was accurate.

The rest was crap. As I said before, subsequent work has only reinforced the consensus, you are spewing Big Oil propaganda.
#15053491
Truth To Power wrote:No. I stated it was false because it is.


Which of your two pieces of evidence is false?

Sorry, I don't have the patience to walk you through it all again when you so obstinately refuse to know facts. All I can suggest is that you heed actual physical events rather than fraudulent graphs, maps or numbers concocted by anti-fossil-fuel propagandists, and see me continue to be proved right over and over again through future decades as CO2 continues to rise exponentially and no climate crisis or emergency happens as a result.


Again, this idea that all the graphs and studies are lying is only possible if most climatologists are lying.

And that only makes sense if they had a common cause (which they do not) or were forced to do so. And there seems to be no method of coercing them to lie.
#15053497
Pants-of-dog wrote:
And that only makes sense if they had a common cause (which they do not) or were forced to do so. And there seems to be no method of coercing them to lie.



Big Oil has been paying people to lie for decades. Lots of people, some might even be in this forum.

I signed up here some years ago. But I didn't participate because you clearly have a troll infestation, some of which are pro or semi-pro.
#15053575
late wrote:That much was accurate.

It was all accurate.
The rest was crap.

Heed actual physical events, and watch me be proved right over and over again in the next decades.
As I said before, subsequent work has only reinforced the consensus, you are spewing Big Oil propaganda.

No. It's true that subsequent work has reinforced the consensus -- it's only actual physical events that have continued and will continue to disprove it. The dire prognostications have uniformly failed to occur in reality, and will not be occurring. The earth's surface has not warmed noticeably since the 1940s -- or the 940s. Sea level continues to rise at the same rate it has since the Little Ice Age ended over 150ya. There continues to be no noticeable increase in weather-related deaths. Crop yields continue to rise. Neither drought nor flood has increased in frequency, intensity or duration. Where is the climate "crisis" or "emergency"? It's all just Chicken Little nonsense.
#15053577
Pants-of-dog wrote:Which of your two pieces of evidence is false?

The one that erased the 1910-1940 warming and the 1940-1970 cooling.
Again, this idea that all the graphs and studies are lying is only possible if most climatologists are lying.

<sigh> Again, no one said, "all." Climatologists have been deceived by the handful of government operatives who control global temperature data.
And that only makes sense if they had a common cause (which they do not) or were forced to do so. And there seems to be no method of coercing them to lie.

Career prospects do the job just fine. Look at modern mainstream neoclassical economics, which is an even bigger scientific hoax.
#15053603
Truth To Power wrote:
No. It is you who have missed the obvious and indisputable fact that there is no climate crisis. It is entirely fabricated, nothing but Chicken Little shrieking with no basis in actual physical events.



You don't get to rewrite a science.


The reality here is you are shoveling propaganda, and you know it. Hope you got a good paycheck out of it.
#15053606
Truth To Power wrote:The one that erased the 1910-1940 warming and the 1940-1970 cooling.


Would that be the Solanki paper, or the graph you presented?

<sigh> Again, no one said, "all." Climatologists have been deceived by the handful of government operatives who control global temperature data.

Career prospects do the job just fine. Look at modern mainstream neoclassical economics, which is an even bigger scientific hoax.


I see. You are completely ignoring the original argument about funding.

I will assume that you are conceding that the impossibility of coercing climatologists to lie by withholding funding.

I see you are making new vague and unverifiable claims about this supposed conspiracy. I am simply going to ignore these until some evidence is produced.

—————————

    Greenland's Rapid Melt Will Mean More Flooding

    The Greenland Ice Sheet is rapidly melting, having lost 3.8 trillion tons of ice between 1992 and 2018, a new study from NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) finds. The study combined 26 independent satellite datasets to track global warming's effect on Greenland, one of the largest ice sheets on Earth, and the ice sheet melt's impact on rising sea levels. The findings, which forecast an approximate 3 to 5 inches (70 to 130 millimeters) of global sea level rise by 2100, are in alignment with previous worst-case projections if the average rate of Greenland's ice loss continues.

    Changes to the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are of considerable societal importance, as they directly impact global sea levels, which are a result of climate change. As glaciers and ice sheets melt, they add more water to the ocean. Increasing rates of global warming have accelerated Greenland's ice mass loss from 25 billion tons per year in the 1990s to a current average of 234 billion tons per year. This means that Greenland's ice is melting on average seven times faster today than it was at the beginning of the study period. The Greenland Ice Sheet holds enough water to raise the sea level by 24 feet (7.4 meters).

    The paper, published Dec. 10 in Nature, is the result of an international collaboration between 89 polar scientists from 50 scientific institutions supported by NASA and ESA. The Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise, or IMBIE, used well-calibrated data from 13 NASA and ESA satellite missions to create the most accurate measurements of ice loss to date. The team found that half of the loss is tied to surface ice melting in warmer air. The rest of the loss is the result of factors such as warmer ocean temperatures, iceberg calving and the ice sheet shedding ice into the ocean more quickly.

    "There are climate projections that are based on models of varying levels of complexity and observations, but they have large uncertainties. Our study is purely an observational one that tests those uncertainties. Therefore, we have irrefutable evidence that we seem to be on track with one of the most pessimistic sea level rise scenarios," said Erik Ivins, second author and lead scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

    Greenland is home to the only permanent ice sheet outside Antarctica. The sheet covers three-fourths of Greenland's land mass. But in the last 26 years, Greenland's melting ice has added 0.4 inches (11 millimeters) to sea level rise. Its cumulative 3.8 trillion tons of melted ice is equivalent to adding the water from 120 million Olympic-size swimming pools to the ocean every year, for 26 years.

    "As a rule of thumb, for every centimeter rise in global sea level, another 6 million people are exposed to coastal flooding around the planet," said Andrew Shepherd, lead author and scientist from the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. "On current trends, Greenland ice melting will cause 100 million people to be flooded each year by the end of the century, so 400 million in total due to sea level rise."

    In addition to storm surges and high tides that will increase flooding in many regions, sea level rise exacerbates events like hurricanes. Greenland's shrinking ice sheet also speeds up global warming. The vast expanse of snow and ice helps cool down Earth by reflecting the Sun's rays back into space. As the ice melts and retreats, the region absorbs more solar radiation, which warms the planet.

    The new study will contribute to the evaluation and evolution of sea level rise models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in evaluating risks to current and future populations. The results of the study currently appear consistent with the panel's worst-case projections for sea level rise in the next 80 years.

    "The full set of consequences of future melt from the Greenland Ice Sheet remain uncertain, but even a small increase in sea level can have devastating effects on ports and coastal zones, cause destructive erosion, wetland flooding, and aquifer and agricultural soil contamination with salt," said Ivins.

    This is the third IMBIE study on ice loss as a result of global warming. IMBIE's first report in 2012 measured both Greenland and Antarctica's shrinking ice sheets, finding that the combined ice losses from Antarctica and Greenland had increased over time and that the ice sheets were losing three times as much ice as they were in the early 1990s. Antarctica and Greenland continue to lose ice today, and that rate of loss has accelerated since the first IMBIE study.

    IMBIE is supported by the NASA Earth Science Division and the ESA Climate Change Initiative.
#15053707
late wrote:You don't get to rewrite a science.

I do if ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS prove I'm right and the "science" is wrong, as they continue to do every hour of every passing day that CO2 increases with no discernible ill effects.
The reality here is you are shoveling propaganda, and you know it.

I know I am the one challenging the paid-for and very expensive propaganda. The whole anti-fossil-fuel hysteria campaign has the fingerprints of big PR all over it. No one gets that kind of constant, full-time, full-court press in the media for self-evident non-events without spending a LOT of money for it.
Hope you got a good paycheck out of it.

Still waiting for that first paycheck...
#15053711
Truth To Power wrote:
I do if ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVENTS prove I'm right and the "science" is wrong, as they continue to do every hour of every passing day that CO2 increases with no discernible ill effects.


The whole anti-fossil-fuel hysteria campaign has the fingerprints of big PR all over it.



Utter BS. That argument, among actual scientists, ended over 20 years ago.

No, the propaganda is pure Big Oil, esp. the Koch brothers. At least that's the way it is in the real world. What goes on in your hallucinations is a different matter.
#15053742
Pants-of-dog wrote:Would that be the Solanki paper, or the graph you presented?

The graph.
I see. You are completely ignoring the original argument about funding.

Nope. Who is funding Michael Mann's uniformly unsuccessful lawsuits attempting to silence dissenting views? Who is paying for the massive anti-CO2 PR campaign and media attention to the non-event of climate? Who paid to get Greta Thunberg onto that UN podium that millions of other, more deserving voices would have given anything to have?
I will assume that you are conceding that the impossibility of coercing climatologists to lie by withholding funding.

It's obviously not impossible. It's routine.
I see you are making new vague and unverifiable claims about this supposed conspiracy.

It is in the nature of conspirators to hide their activities.
The findings, which forecast an approximate 3 to 5 inches (70 to 130 millimeters) of global sea level rise by 2100, are in alignment with previous worst-case projections if the average rate of Greenland's ice loss continues.

Ah, actually, that is in line with the established average rate of sea level rise that dates from the end of the Little Ice Age 150 years ago, when CO2 was at the pre-industrial level. So the study actually confirms that CO2 is having no discernible effect on global climate or sea level increase.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

But you don't know if your god exists. Seek a[…]

Could be a reading comprehension problem on top o[…]

As i said, yes. Majority of consumers live in the[…]

Key Rasmussen Polls

Rasmussen tends to swing to the Right.... Try RCP[…]