Global warming is real


#3000

Sixfold increase in Antarctic ice loss over the past 40 years, annual losses estimated to be 250 billion tons / year.

The total mass loss increased from 40 ± 9 Gt/y in 1979–1990 to 50 ± 14 Gt/y in 1989–2000, 166 ± 18 Gt/y in 1999–2009, and 252 ± 26 Gt/y in 2009–2017.


#3001

Yup. So you have to figure out from a slew of weather stations not only from the two location, but others around the world if the heat and cold cancel each other out to a more “normal” average temperature for the day/month/season/year.


#3002

So Ice Caps never reform?


#3003

Good thing we have a bunch of PhDs to crunch the data and determine averages.


#3004

I guess those Socialist Left Wing Politicians were right about Global Warming!

It’s not just a theory made up by some Scientists for people “Money”. It’s really really real!


#3005

You can choose to put your faith in politicians or talk radio hosts. When it comes to scientific questions, I go with the scientists from around the world.


#3006

We need to burn more coal and have more cows to hold off the next ice age. Man has always done well in global warming periods.


#3007

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


#3008

When you have active volcanoes under the ice that’s going to happen.

Newly discovered volcanoes under the areas losing the most ice is all that’s needed to explain it. There’s no evidence of any warming at the surface level to account for it.


#3009

You’re putting your belief in people with a politically driven agenda, not hard science.

Most of their jobs are also dependent on them promoting the AGW theory.


#3010

People who frequently change and outright make up data and throw away data that doesn’t support their predetermined outcome are not reliable.

They have no actual temperature data to work from for about 90% of the planet collected prior to the 1940’s. The rest they make up and estimate.


#3011

The ice is melting from below, not above and they discovered active volcanoes underneath the glacier which account for that melting.

http://www.cfact.org/2018/06/27/volcanic-heat-found-under-antarcticas-fastest-melting-glacier/


#3012

We’ll know that sometime in the next 1000 years. Could be a decade, could be 1000 years. Either way the Holocene epoch will end. Interglacials typically last about 12K years, the current one is approximately 11K years old. The real question is will the Quaternary continue, or will it end? It has already lasted longer than either of the 2 previous ice ages, though that is debatable. Either way, we are geologically speaking nearing what should be the end of the Quaternary. We should hope so, the alternative is bleak.


#3013

Short of a gamma ray burst, a huge CME, or a meteor impact nothing could impact humanity to the level the next Ice Age will.

Between the direct and indirect impacts we’ll see billions die.


#3014

That doesn’t get addressed enough, I myself believe in AGW but I am more inclined to listen to people like Freeman Dyson who is a genius and doesn’t have a monetary interest in it. He even says it is a problem and has a manmade element but it’s not the end of the world. He also talks about how the world has become more greener, meaning there has been some positive effects with the increased carbon dioxide which never gets addressed.

As you say there as a huge movement (companies) and billions invested in being proven right and implementing the policies.


#3015

I don’t buy it at all. We’re no where near the highs of the last three inter-glacial cycles in spite of an approximate 300% increase in global CO2 since industrialization began.

There’s also the problem of CO2 increasing following heating due to the increase in biological activity and out-gassing of the oceans as carbonates break down.

The most basic element of proving a theory is being able to show it repeatedly is true under controlled conditions in the lab and AGW theory simply cannot be.

You can raise the levels of CO2 to such a level that no animal live other than anaerobic bacteria can survive in a closed environment without raising the temperature by more than a couple of degrees F unless you pressurize the container.

Even if it could be proven that our contribution has raised the temp’s by a degree or two that just means we have created more arable land and more available water.

Glaciation ties up vast amounts of fresh water and creates massive droughts as a direct result with lower rainfall as a secondary result of the lower temps.

They wouldn’t have to keep tossing out temp data that doesn’t support the theory and cook the rest of it to fit the predetermined outcome if the theory held any actual basis in fact.

What also gets completely ignored is the fact that there was no temperature data for more than 90% of the earth’s surface prior to the 40’s and none at all prior to about 300 years ago when accurate thermometers first became available ans started getting distributed widely to the major cities.

Everything else prior is flat made up or taken from proxy data.


#3016

This is a little too superficial of an analysis.

Eccentricity has been driving the cycles but currently, and for the next tens of thousands of years, eccentricity is going to be extremely stable.

Obliquity is decreasing and will be for the next 12k years, and precession is bringing the northern hemisphere winter at aphelion in about 10k years.

So no, we aren’t entering an ice age in 1k years. Our climate is going to be stable for 25k to 50k year’s due to low variation in eccentricity.


#3017

Nope, the planets 4.5 billion years old so thinking it’s the first time for anything is silly.

These scientists disagree also.


#3018

This is true for scientists around the world? That’s quite a conspiracy you have constructed. Even scientists in the oil & gas field accept AGW.


#3019

When it comes to the “Consensus View on AGW” it’s certainly true.

Their jobs are almost all exclusively reliant on supporting the theory.