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

[Surface Detail]

False.

[h=2]Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic[/h]

A litany of bullst*t. In particular, the claim that there has been "virtually no global warming since 2000" is simply wrong. Why do you believe and repeat this crap?

 

[Jack Hays]

A litany of bullst*t. In particular, the claim that there has been "virtually no global warming since 2000" is simply wrong. Why do you believe and repeat this crap?

I suppose because it's true.

 

[Surface Detail]

I suppose because it's true.

You really do have a blind spot for graphs, don't you? Is it not completely obvious to you that a line of best fit drawn through the points from 2000 to date will have an upward slope of roughly 0.1 C per decade?

 

[Jack Hays]

You really do have a blind spot for graphs, don't you? Is it not completely obvious to you that a line of best fit drawn through the points from 2000 to date will have an upward slope of roughly 0.1 C per decade?

Which is 1.0C per century = virtually no warming. Thank you for making my point.
Add in that cooling has begun, and the picture clarifies further.

 

[gfm7175]

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.

Yes, ITN's comment was correct. Mine was too. My intent is irrelevant, but it was merely to add some elaboration for the person who ITN was correcting...

As to the greenhouse gas bit, I have found ITN to be correct, so you can add me to the "right side of the argument, but ignorant of how greenhouse gasses work" list.

 

[Lord of Planar]

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

All 98% of scientists are lying?

No, but then 98% of the scientists only agree AGW is signoficant.

It's obvious you believe the lies of the pundits, instead of reading actual research papers.

 

[Jack Hays]

You really do have a blind spot for graphs, don't you? Is it not completely obvious to you that a line of best fit drawn through the points from 2000 to date will have an upward slope of roughly 0.1 C per decade?

And FYI, the Paris Accord target for 2100 is to keep warming to 2.0C. On the trend since 2000 we'll stay at half that without doing anything different. Thanks for your help.

 

[perthbum]

9 ways we know humans triggered climate change
Most Americans recognize climate change, but some are still unsure about its causes.

Tens of thousands of scientists in more than a hundred nations have amassed an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to a clear conclusion: Humans are the main cause.
Scientists are more confident than ever that humans are causing global warming.
Causes of global warming, facts and information

 

[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.

Plenty of people have pointed out Cook's bad math. Argument of the Stone.

 

[Into the Night]

You really piss me off you know.

Too bad. I really don't care.

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

So...I am right, but I am wrong??? WTF???

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

Void argument fallacy.

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

True Scotsman fallacy. Void argument fallacy.

You are pathetic.

Insult fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Being right on a theory of science is not about intent, dude.

He simply doesn't understand how greenhouse gasses work.

They don't. See the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

He is on the right side of the argument, but is very, very ignorant to how greenhouse gasses are real.

They aren't.

You can't create energy out of nothing.
You can't destroy energy into nothing.
You can't heat the surface using a colder gas.
You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
You can't trap light.
You can't trap heat.
You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

Now...do you want to try for the Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon argument this time?
Or, do you just want to make vague claims that 'it just works'?

 

[Into the Night]

Really?

Do you know the difference between weather and climate change?

Define 'climate change'. This is a meaningless buzzword.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Yes, they do lie.

 

[Jack Hays]

9 ways we know humans triggered climate change
Most Americans recognize climate change, but some are still unsure about its causes.

Tens of thousands of scientists in more than a hundred nations have amassed an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to a clear conclusion: Humans are the main cause.
Scientists are more confident than ever that humans are causing global warming.
Causes of global warming, facts and information

"If I were wrong, one would have been enough." --Albert Einstein

 

[Media_Truth]

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

Every deniers theory Debunked .

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

That is a great link. You hear all those denier's arguments on this forum. Nothing but Oil Industry propaganda and dishonesty.

 

[Media_Truth]

Are you aware that the "Onion of concerned not-at all scientists" is a for profit organization that takes money off the gullible, who wish to belong to it, with no check on if they have any science understanding at all, and publishes drivel?

Are you a member? Can be if you pay.

You have a bad habit of lying. Are you trying to be like Trump?

About Us | Union of Concerned Scientists

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a national nonprofit organization founded 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who sought to use the power of science to address global problems and improve people’s lives.

 

[Media_Truth]

A litany of bullst*t. In particular, the claim that there has been "virtually no global warming since 2000" is simply wrong. Why do you believe and repeat this crap?

Certainly you must be missing something? Nine of the ten warmest years since 2000. Certainly Jack can explain how these are non-oil-industry lies.

 

[Into the Night]

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

However, the science on the human contribution to modern warming is quite clear.

What warming? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There is no theory of science mentioned here. What science?

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.

There is no observation. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. The IPCC is full of ****.

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.

They are full of **** too. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

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.

What warming? There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor has the capability of warming the Earth. You cannot decrease the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics.

If greenhouse gas emissions alone were warming the planet, we would expect to see about a third more warming than has actually occurred.

You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You are creating additional energy out of nothing.

They are offset by cooling from human-produced atmospheric aerosols.

You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You are destroying energy into nothing.

Natural variability in the Earth’s climate is unlikely to play a major role in long-term warming.

What is Earth's climate? There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather.

How much warming is caused by humans?

What warming?

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.

The IPCC is full of ****.

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.

NASA's full of **** too. They are just copying the IPCC ****.

 

[Into the Night]

read above

Circular definition. You cannot define a word or phrase with itself.

 

[Into the Night]

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

All deniers arguments debunked in 10 questions.

10 myths about climate change | WWF

Another site that ignores science.

Define 'climate change'. Define 'global warming'. You can't have any theory of any kind based on meaningless buzzwords.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor is a source of the additional energy. You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase it's temperature at the same time.

 

[Media_Truth]

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

What warming? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There is no theory of science mentioned here. What science?

There is no observation. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. The IPCC is full of ****.

They are full of **** too. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

What warming? There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor has the capability of warming the Earth. You cannot decrease the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You can't create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics.

You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You are creating additional energy out of nothing.

You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You are destroying energy into nothing.

What is Earth's climate? There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather.

What warming?

The IPCC is full of ****.

NASA's full of **** too. They are just copying the IPCC ****.

Funny how Perthblum provided many links, with scientific research and backup for his comments. And you don't provide one link. NOT ONE! Quite pathetic!

 

[Surface Detail]

And FYI, the Paris Accord target for 2100 is to keep warming to 2.0C. On the trend since 2000 we'll stay at half that without doing anything different. Thanks for your help.

Nope, you are wrong as usual. The goal of the Paris Accord is to keep overall warming to less than 2.0 C. There is no 2100 target. If we continue as we are, warming will be substantially higher than 2 C above industrial levels by 2100 and still rising rapidly. That would be catastrophic.

 

[Tim the plumber]

You have a bad habit of lying. Are you trying to be like Trump?

About Us | Union of Concerned Scientists

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a national nonprofit organization founded 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who sought to use the power of science to address global problems and improve people’s lives.

And you can be one if you give them some money.....

Not for profit but the owners get paid lots...

 

[Jack Hays]

Nope, you are wrong as usual. The goal of the Paris Accord is to keep overall warming to less than 2.0 C. There is no 2100 target. If we continue as we are, warming will be substantially higher than 2 C above industrial levels by 2100 and still rising rapidly. That would be catastrophic.

By your own statement (#278) if we continue as we are warming will only be 1.0C by 2100. I doubt we'll even warm that much.

 

[Media_Truth]

And you can be one if you give them some money.....

Not for profit but the owners get paid lots...

Links please...