Greenland’s Melting Ice Nears a ‘Tipping Point,’

[Into the Night]

Run for the hills!!! A foot by 2100!

Just make sure the hill is at least a foot high!

 

[Into the Night]

So 98% of the greatest scientific minds are wrong and little old you are correct.

WRONG. The '98%' number is bogus. It was generated by bad math. Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacy.

...LOL, i bet you are a trump supporter also.

Non-sequitur fallacy. Trump has nothing to do with it. BTW, 'Trump' is a proper name. It is capitalized, even if you don't like the guy. Bulverism fallacy. Guilt by association fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

And what have they to do with the debate on global warming, are they in the 2% camp against the 98% camp? and the pair of them have never said man has nothing to do with global warming.

There is no '2% camp' or '98% camp'. False dichotomy fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.

Define 'global warming'. This is a meaningless buzzword.

 

[Into the Night]

They could be right and man is responsible for 50% of global warming or they could be wrong and man is responsible for 100% of global warming.

Science is not a casino. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Define 'global warming'.

 

[Into the Night]

You obviously didn't read the link, or perhaps the science was too much for your background.

There is no science here...move along...move along...

The article stated that many other groups did similar studies

Consensus is not used in science. Science is not a 'study' or a 'research'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

on solar forcing,

The Sun doesn't 'force' anything. It simply puts out light (some of which is heat).

and not one study came up with over a 10% attribution.

What 'global warming'? Define 'global warming'. It is a meaningless buzzword. It is also not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

The IPCC incorporates all those studies into the previously posted Forcing graph.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are using made up numbers.

As for Shaviv. He spoke at Heartland Institute's ICCC7 (7th Annual International Conference on Climate Change). Over $67 Million was put up by Exxon-Mobil, the Koch Brothers, and the Scaife Foundation. He spoke at ICCC2. Over $47 Million from energy companies and right-wing foundations.
If Exxon-Mobile and the Koch brothers Heartland Institute invest $114 Million into a couple conferences, and they use Shaviv as their keynote speaker, you can bet your life that he made enough in 2 speeches to retire.
...deleted Holy Link...

A biased source is not a source. False authority fallacy.

 

[perthbum]

The "gold standard" is fool's gold.

Critique of the new Santer et al. (2019) paper

[FONT=&]Posted on March 1, 2019 by curryja | 124 comments[/FONT]
by Ross McKitrick
Ben Santer et al. have a new paper out in Nature Climate Change arguing that with 40 years of satellite data available they can detect the anthropogenic influence in the mid-troposphere at a 5-sigma level of confidence. This, they point out, is the “gold standard” of proof in particle physics, even invoking for comparison the Higgs boson discovery in their Supplementary information.
Continue reading →

Of course it is,,,,,, 98% says its happening but of course you tell us it aint, who do we believe the 98% top brains or you and your 2% deniers who none have come up with an argument that is so easy to debunk.

 

[perthbum]

There's that old '98%' random number again. You are denying statistical mathematics. You are also clueless where this number comes from.

Please explain if 98 out of a 100 scientists think its happening thats 98%, please explain your mathematics.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Please explain if 98 out of a 100 scientists think its happening thats 98%, please explain your mathematics.

If you read the actual studies, instead of what people lie about them...

You will see that the 97% to 98% number is simply how many people think AGW is significant. Now to me, and most scientists, significant is a 5% to 10% value, or higher. If I was polled on the question, I would be among that 98%. Then, the lying pundits come around, and convince the ignorant that the 98% means "most" of the the global warming. Not just as low as 5% to 10%.

You guys are simply duped.

 

[longview]

Please explain if 98 out of a 100 scientists think its happening thats 98%, please explain your mathematics.

If you look at Cook et al 2013, you can see that simply saying 97% is incorrect, without qualifications.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience.
Cook evaluated 11 944 climate abstracts,
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
but only 4013 of the abstracts expressed an opinion, and of those only 3774 were judged by the criteria as
endorsing the idea that Humans are causing global warming.

 

[Into the Night]

OSLO • Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a "gold standard" level of certainty, adding to pressure for cuts in greenhouse gases to limit rising temperatures, scientists said.

Not even gold plated. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. Such a thing is not possible according to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

"Humanity cannot afford to ignore such clear signals," the US-led team wrote in the journal Nature Climate Change, referring to satellite measurements of rising temperatures over the past 40 years.

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature. They can only measure light. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Such a "gold standard" was applied in 2012, for instance, to confirm the discovery of the Higgs boson subatomic particle, a basic building block of the universe.

There is no such thing as a 'gold standard' in science. Buzzword fallacy. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Dr Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, and lead author of the study out on Monday, said he hoped the findings would win over sceptics and spur action.

He can blow it out his left nostril. There are no 'findings'.

Mainstream scientists say the burning of fossil fuels is causing more floods, droughts, heat waves and rising sea levels.

Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. No one is measuring the number of frequency of floods, droughts, or heat waves. These are each subjective terms, not quantifiable. It is not possible to measure the global sea level. There is no reference.

US President Donald Trump, who has often cast doubt on global warming, plans to pull out of the 197-nation Paris climate agreement which seeks to end the fossil fuel era this century by shifting to cleaner energies such as wind and solar power.

Good that he did. There is no such thing as 'cleaner energy'. This is another meaningless buzzword. Wind and solar power are piddle power. They won't provide the energy needs of society, no matter how much you want them to. They are costly as well.

Sixty-two per cent of Americans polled last year believed that climate change has a human cause, up from 47 per cent in 2013, according to the Yale Programme on Climate Change Communication.

Polls are meaningless. They are not a proof. Consensus is not used in science.

Professor John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, which runs the third set of data, said there were still many gaps in understanding climate change.

Define 'climate change'. You seem to like using a lot of buzzwords.

Separately, in 2013, the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded it is "extremely likely", or at least 95 per cent probable, that human activities have been the main cause of climate change since the 1950s.

So what? The IPCC says a lot of screwy stuff. They've been saying this for a long time. Not news.

Dr Peter Stott of the British Met Office, who was among the scientists drawing that conclusion and was not involved in Monday's study, said he would favour raising the probability one notch to "virtually certain", or 99 per cent to 100 per cent. "The alternative explanation of natural factors dominating has got even less likely," he said.

There are no proofs in science. Science isn't a casino.

The last four years have been the hottest since records began in the 19th century.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy.

The IPCC will next publish a formal assessment of the probabilities in 2021.

Science has no ability to predict, in and of itself. Science isn't a casino. It doesn't use prophets or seers. Theories of science must be formalized into a closed system such as mathematics to gain the power of prediction. The resulting equation is called a 'law'. What is the equation for predicting probabilities in 2021? Oh...that's right. Science isn't a casino.

"I would be reluctant to raise to 99-100 per cent, but there is no doubt there is more evidence of change in the global signals over a wider suite of ocean indices and atmospheric indices," said Professor Nathan Bindoff, a climate scientist at the University of Tasmania.

Like every other climate 'scientist', this one denies science and mathematics. There is no such thing as a global 'climate'. There is no such thing as global weather.

 

[Into the Night]

The effects of magnetic fields / Lessons online / Human and Robotic Exploration / Our Activities / ESA

"The Earth’s magnetic field does a similar job. The charged particles in cosmic rays are deflected by the magnetic field and many are prevented from hitting the atmosphere directly."

Cosmic rays are not affected by Earth's magnetic field. You are still confusing the solar wind with cosmic rays.

 

[Into the Night]

Of course it is,,,,,, 98% says its happening but of course you tell us it aint, who do we believe the 98% top brains or you and your 2% deniers who none have come up with an argument that is so easy to debunk.

Argument from randU fallacy. False dichotomy fallacy. Argument by repetition fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Please explain if 98 out of a 100 scientists think its happening thats 98%, please explain your mathematics.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Argument by repetition fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Cosmic rays are not affected by Earth's magnetic field. You are still confusing the solar wind with cosmic rays.

You really piss me off you know.

You are on the right side of the argument, but you are so f..n ignorant on the science, or facts of this topis...

You are the definition of a denier, so I simply cannot support you.

People like you are the reason other why people laugh and put down the real science, because you are the definition of a denier.

You are pathetic.

 

[gfm7175]

If the cup is big enough that the icicle will float, no.

It seems like he doesn't realize that water gets displaced, and that water expands when it freezes...

So, as long as the frozen water is floating, it will be fine.

 

[Nickyjo]

I talked to someone today about the 50 degree temp in NJ yesterday and the 7 degree temp this morning. I said shows you climate change is real. His response, yeah so much for global warming. So frustrating!!

Stop talking to Trump about this. You'll get nowhere.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It seems like he doesn't realize that water gets displaced, and that water expands when it freezes...

So, as long as the frozen water is floating, it will be fine.

Wait a moment.

As much as I dislike him, he is correct. His response was spot on. I think you are too, but not sure of your intent.

He simply doesn't understand how greenhouse gasses work. He is on the right side of the argument, but is very, very ignorant to how greenhouse gasses are real.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I talked to someone today about the 50 degree temp in NJ yesterday and the 7 degree temp this morning. I said shows you climate change is real. His response, yeah so much for global warming. So frustrating!!

Really?

Do you know the difference between weather and climate change?

 

[perthbum]

If you read the actual studies, instead of what people lie about them...

You will see that the 97% to 98% number is simply how many people think AGW is significant. Now to me, and most scientists, significant is a 5% to 10% value, or higher. If I was polled on the question, I would be among that 98%. Then, the lying pundits come around, and convince the ignorant that the 98% means "most" of the the global warming. Not just as low as 5% to 10%.

You guys are simply duped.

Sorry you are wrong, 98% say man is playing a major part in global warming, not 5 or 10% more like 90% or higher of global warming is down to man when you look at their views, read the reports, they dont lie.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Sorry you are wrong, 98% say man is playing a major part in global warming, not 5 or 10% more like 90% or higher of global warming is down to man when you look at their views, read the reports, they dont lie.

Define "significant" lease.

 

[perthbum]

Re: Greenland’s Melting Ice Nears a ‘Tipping Point,’

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans

Analysis: Why scientists think 100% of global warming is due to humans | Carbon Brief

The extent of the human contribution to modern global warming is a hotly debated topic in political circles, particularly in the US.

During a recent congressional hearing, Rick Perry, the US energy secretary, remarked that “to stand up and say that 100% of global warming is because of human activity, I think on its face, is just indefensible”.

However, the science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear. Humans emissions and activities have caused around 100% of the warming observed since 1950, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) fifth assessment report.

Here Carbon Brief examines how each of the major factors affecting the Earth’s climate would influence temperatures in isolation – and how their combined effects almost perfectly predict long-term changes in the global temperature.

Carbon Brief’s analysis finds that:

Since 1850, almost all the long-term warming can be explained by greenhouse gas emissions and other human activities.
If greenhouse gas emissions alone were warming the planet, we would expect to see about a third more warming than has actually occurred. They are offset by cooling from human-produced atmospheric aerosols.
Aerosols are projected to decline significantly by 2100, bringing total warming from all factors closer to warming from greenhouse gases alone.
Natural variability in the Earth’s climate is unlikely to play a major role in long-term warming.


Animation by Rosamund Pearce for Carbon Brief. Images via Alamy Stock Photo.


How much warming is caused by humans?
In its 2013 fifth assessment report, the IPCC stated in its summary for policymakers that it is “extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature” from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity. By “extremely likely”, it meant that there was between a 95% and 100% probability that more than half of modern warming was due to humans.

This somewhat convoluted statement has been often misinterpreted as implying that the human responsibility for modern warming lies somewhere between 50% and 100%. In fact, as NASA’s Dr Gavin Schmidt has pointed out, the IPCC’s implied best guess was that humans were responsible for around 110% of observed warming (ranging from 72% to 146%), with natural factors in isolation leading to a slight cooling over the past 50 years.

Similarly, the recent US fourth national climate assessment found that between 93% to 123% of observed 1951-2010 warming was due to human activities.

These conclusions have led to some confusion as to how more than 100% of observed warming could be attributable to human activity. A human contribution of greater than 100% is possible because natural climate change associated with volcanoes and solar activity would most likely have resulted in a slight cooling over the past 50 years, offsetting some of the warming associated with human activities.

‘Forcings’ that change the climate
Scientists measure the various factors that affect the amount of energy that reaches and remains in the Earth’s climate. They are known as “radiative forcings”.

These forcings include greenhouse gases, which trap outgoing heat, aerosols – both from human activities and volcanic eruptions – that reflect incoming sunlight and influence cloud formation, changes in solar output, changes in the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface associated with land use, and many other factors.

To assess the role of each different forcing in observed temperature changes, Carbon Brief adapted a simple statistical climate model developed by Dr Karsten Haustein and his colleagues at the University of Oxford and University of Leeds. This model finds the relationship between both human and natural climate forcings and temperature that best matches observed temperatures, both globally and over land areas only.

The figure below shows the estimated role of each different climate forcing in changing global surface temperatures since records began in 1850 – including greenhouse gases (red line), aerosols (dark blue), land use (light blue), ozone (pink), solar (yellow) and volcanoes (orange).

The black dots show observed temperatures from the Berkeley Earth surface temperature project, while the grey line shows the estimated warming from the combination of all the different types of forcings

 

[perthbum]

Define "significant" lease.

read above

 

[perthbum]

Re: Greenland’s Melting Ice Nears a ‘Tipping Point,’

All deniers arguments debunked in 10 questions.

10 myths about climate change | WWF

 

[Lord of Planar]

read above

So. You have no coherent answer.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Greenland’s Melting Ice Nears a ‘Tipping Point,’

All deniers arguments debunked in 10 questions.

10 myths about climate change | WWF

Believe as you wish. You are just proving you fail to understand our argument.