Global Warming and Oceans

[Lurker]

Fine, it's what you "believe".

Does it bother you at all that a large part of your argument is made up of debunked talking points provided by industry shills, like the whole "450 million years ago" bullshit you keep repeating?

[Lurker]

and here's another example of a debunked denier talking point that Embar keeps repeating...

You may not remember this, but in the 70s when climatologists were preaching about the coming of a new ice age (funny how a few decades change things), there was doom and gloom predicted, famines, collapse of civilazation, etc. I do not accept that a warming planet endangers the planets habitability. Why do you?

One guy wrote a book about a new ice age. You are lying (or being an ignorant dupe) when you say that "climatologists were preaching" about it or when you try to compare the overwhelming evidence and consensus regarding our present warming with what one guy said in the 70's.

We've pointed this fact out before. Why are you incapable of absorbing information to such a degree that you'd trot out an obvious lie like this, a lie you've used and were corrected on in the past?

[Kulaf]

I think the whole Antarctic ice sheet ranks #10 on the most debunked excuse list:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarct ... ng-ice.htm

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Stupid double post. Cox can eat a dick.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

It really is like arguing with a creationist.

I didn't say I was more (or less) qualified to interpret data sets. I said this is what I beleive, and it hasn't been proved otherwise to me since too many anomolies exist.

In saying "this is what I beleive, and it hasn't been proved otherwise to me since too many anomolies exist," you are claiming greater ability to interpret the data than the overwhelming majority of those experts in the field. You can't have it both ways. No climatologist believes "too many anomalies exist" to draw conclusions based on the available data, and in suggesting otherwise, you're effectively saying "I know better than they do."

I do not think climatologists are lying. I beleive they are drawing a conclusion from the data that is different from mine.

So you believe 99% of the experts are wrong.

I do not think the world is jeopardy, even if the planet is warming.

Again, you think the overwhelming majority of the experts are wrong.

As of 2009, global hurricane energy had decreased to 30 year lows. Don't take my word for it, look it up.

I didn't say "global hurricane energy," I said "hurricane activity," meaning frequency. My apologies if this was not clear. Either way, on average both intensity and frequency have been measurably rising. A one- or two-year data set is of very little consequence when compared to several decades, and the trend is likely to continue.

You still never responded to this:

Explain how you're more qualified to interpret the data over those individuals who have dedicated their lives and careers to doing so. For example, if I tried to "educate" you on marine biology and proper conservation of these ecosystems, would you waste your time listening to me knowing that I have absolutely no formal education on the subject?

or this:

Explain how you justify endangering the habitability of our only life-sustaining planet in defiance of the professional conclusions of virtually every expert on the subject of climate.

You tapdanced around the first, and made no efforts to respond to the second by way of denial that climatologists know what the fuck they're talking about. Whether you believe they know their field of study is irrelevant, and the question still stands. At least I was able to determine that you believe 99% of climatologists are inept by process of elimination when you said you don't believe they're lying.

Please respond to the two remaining inquiries. Here they are one last time.

Explain how you're more qualified to interpret the data over those individuals who have dedicated their lives and careers to doing so.

Explain how you justify endangering the habitability of our only life-sustaining planet in defiance of the professional conclusions of virtually every expert on the subject of climate.

[Ddrak]

The thing is there's not "too many anomalies". Each and every anomaly is identified and the theory expanded to cover it. That's the sign of a good theory, not a bad one. A bad theory would be completely destroyed by anomalies and show wildly varying predictions while the current climatology is quite stable under pressure of new evidence and theoretical refinement.

When people call us up for tech support, sometimes they have theories based on the data they've seen. Usually they're completely wrong because we're the experts in our system and they're just guessing based on experience with completely different systems. Claiming to have come to a different conclusion to most climatologists from the same data is about the equivalent of calling the CDC and telling them they don't know shit about Ebola and you've thought about it a little bit and a bit of rancid milk will cure it.

In the 70s, a couple of people thought the world was cooling. Mostly they didn't really have a clue. Now that computing is about 10,000,000,000 times more powerful for the same cost (adjusted for inflation) they can simulate and process just a little bit better and get some more accurate results.

I accept that a warming planet endangers habitability simply because that's what the science tells us. If you don't care to trust science and want to believe something else then you're more than welcome to but historically science has been validated over dearly held beliefs more times than I'd care to count. The simple fact is warming reduces the ability for the planet to naturally sustain life. This is a long-term effect however and we'd better start looking at tech to get around that.

Yes, global hurricane energy is at 30 year lows. Again, conflating short term data with long term trends is dangerous and the link between hurricane energy and global warming is fairly tenuous in the face of far stronger SOI/ENSO effects. Given that we're in the middle of an extremely strong southern cooling cycle (hence the Aussie rain), the South Pacific is pretty quiet. Global warming on the other hand is a minor year over year player and the best indications show a rising overall trend since the mid-1800s but it's pretty shaky. Excellent coverage by the author of the 2009 study here. Again, climatology is in complete agreement with the data and STILL predicts long-term warming.

On ocean warming, the rate of warming hasn't slowed unless you go to sub-decade measurements (which again are pointless in a climate change discussion). Data source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling ... ediate.htm. Note that a LOT of people look at the "last decade" when trying to refute the established science for climate because the late 90's were abnormally warm so any trend will look towards cooling. Taken over a proper data set, warming is clear.

Also, contrary to Embar's false understanding, Antarctic ice has been declining rapidly. It's only the SEA ICE that has been increasing and that is absolutely in line with climatology and therefore NOT a contradiction at all.

Additionally, contrary to Embar's claims, climate models are quite good. No model predicted a "large drop" in ocean levels and there's hasn't been one - models are correct. The models predict the increase in Antarctic sea ice and decline in land ice - models are correct. Models predict long-term sea level increase which is evident and not slowing - models are correct. Models predict long-term sea temperature rise which is evident and not slowing - models are correct. Models predict long-term atmospheric temperature rises, which is evident and not slowing - models are correct. Models predict global net ice melting but localized growth (such as Antarctic sea ice), and this is evident - models are correct. Models predict some correlation in hurricane energy but much stronger local influences, and this is evident - models are correct.

You know, I don't think Embar is actually paying attention to the models at all. He appears to be just making shit up about the models he's formed in his mind rather than the actual models which fit the climate data well within their error margins. The question is whether he'll be honest enough to face up to the corollary of his parting statement: If their models are working, maybe the assumptions in those models are likely correct.

Personally, ten years ago I thought climate change science was a crock as well. I spent a long time looking into the claims of both sides and the science shows clearly that it is changing and that humans are very likely causing it. The public speeches on the matter are doing a disservice to both sides - I think Gore and company overplay the science and cause distrust when new factors cause tweaks to the models and I think the anti-science crowd just continually shoot themselves in the foot by cherry-picking data instead of conducting a rigorous analysis. It's no conspiracy that the scientists agree - it's actually because the science is pretty damn clear and consistent with no significant contradictions or flaws.

What I'm far more skeptical on is the actions by governments to slow this change. I think it's far too special-interest driven with no significant long-term investment in technology that will truly make a lasting difference. Politics really doesn't give a damn about 100 years time - it's all about the next 2-4 years to the election. Australia is horrific at carbon reduction - our major export is coal so do you think there's any *real* work to kill off that export market? Hell no - we're just stuffing around with idiotic money redistribution schemes that will make negligible difference to any sort of emissions and just employ a bunch of public servants to administer it all.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

I think the whole Antarctic ice sheet ranks #10 on the most debunked excuse list:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarct ... ng-ice.htm

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm? ... NewsID=242

We can go link to link. Your site is deidicated to explaining away theories that may challenge global warming. NASA maybe isn't as interested in that. From the NASA article, east Antartica isn't losing ice mass. West Antarctica is, but through accerlerated glacial movement towards the sea, and the reasons for that aren't well known yet. And in your link, they clearly state that Antartic sea ice is increasing.

[Harlowe]

Ddrak already addressed sea ice, unless you didn't bother reading what he wrote. Is that really all you have to say after reading what Ddrak and Jarachoi posted? There were numerous counter points and even questions.

At this point, I think you just stubbornly cling to your view on climate change regardless of the science, because it's part of your political philosophy.

[Lurker]

I think the whole Antarctic ice sheet ranks #10 on the most debunked excuse list:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarct ... ng-ice.htm

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm? ... NewsID=242

We can go link to link. Your site is deidicated to explaining away theories that may challenge global warming. NASA maybe isn't as interested in that.

From your link...

There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent’s giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper, which states there has been less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as “proof” that there’s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading.

Gravity data collected from space using NASA’s Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveals that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.

This is the second time you've linked to a legitimate article pretending it supported your argument when it actually debunks the shallow talking points you are parroting, apparently hoping that nobody would click the link. Further, your link didn't contradict what Kulaf posted, it supported it. Why the dishonesty?

Which leads back to my question... Does it bother you at all that a large part of your argument is made up of debunked talking points provided by industry shills?

[Ddrak]

I completely approve of the NASA link. It clearly states Antarctica as a whole is rapidly losing ice in the very first sentence:

The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Ddrak already addressed sea ice, unless you didn't bother reading what he wrote. Is that really all you have to say after reading what Ddrak and Jarachoi posted? There were numerous counter points and even questions.

At this point, I think you just stubbornly cling to your view on climate change regardless of the science, because it's part of your political philosophy.

Did you read hte link Harlowe? Its not as cut and dried as you seem to imply.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I completely approve of the NASA link. It clearly states Antarctica as a whole is rapidly losing ice in the very first sentence:

The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.

Dd

And in the body of the article it says NASA thinks its due to glacial movement, not melting of the land ice. Which may or may not be related to global warming.

[Lurker]

I completely approve of the NASA link. It clearly states Antarctica as a whole is rapidly losing ice in the very first sentence:

The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.

Dd

And in the body of the article it says NASA thinks its due to glacial movement, not melting of the land ice. Which may or may not be related to global warming.

Embar, you do realize that we can all read the article, right? I'm asking because you just lied about what NASA said again.

Nowhere does the article say or imply that the glacial movement "may or may not be related to global warming". To the contrary, the article says "the retreat of West Antarctica’s glaciers is being accelerated by ice shelf collapse. Ice shelves are the part of a glacier that extends past the grounding line towards the ocean; they are the most vulnerable to warming seas."

The entire article details how warming seas are causing Antarctica to lose mass at an accelerating rate.

So you started off parroting a denier talking point that global warming theory is wrong because ice in Antarctica is growing (or that ice loss was slowing), tried to fool everyone into thinking that NASA agreed with you when they were saying you were wrong, and now you do a 180 and say the glaciers are retreating after all but NASA says it's not because of warming.

Stop.Lying. Just give up. The type of denial you are parroting doesn't work in an open forum.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Like I said, it's like arguing with a creationist. And just like with flat-earthers, holocaust deniers, and creationists, what is the appropriate response?

Stop engaging them. They're delusional to the point that they will never admit they're wrong, no matter how many facts they have to swat away. Arguing with them just gives them a false sense of validation that their position is worth examination or on equal footing with "the opposition."

If I didn't know better, I'd say Embar sold his B-Rants account to Rsak.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I completely approve of the NASA link. It clearly states Antarctica as a whole is rapidly losing ice in the very first sentence:

The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.

Dd

And in the body of the article it says NASA thinks its due to glacial movement, not melting of the land ice. Which may or may not be related to global warming.

Embar, you do realize that we can all read the article, right? I'm asking because you just lied about what NASA said again.

Nowhere does the article say or imply that the glacial movement "may or may not be related to global warming". To the contrary, the article says "the retreat of West Antarctica’s glaciers is being accelerated by ice shelf collapse. Ice shelves are the part of a glacier that extends past the grounding line towards the ocean; they are the most vulnerable to warming seas."

The oceans surrounding Antarctica have been warming10, so Schodlok doesn’t doubt that the ice shelves are being undermined by warmer water being brought up from the depths. But he admits that it hasn’t been proven rigorously, because satellites can’t measure underneath the ice.

Apparently you missed that part when you "read" the article.

The entire article details how warming seas are causing Antarctica to lose mass at an accelerating rate.

So you started off parroting a denier talking point that global warming theory is wrong because ice in Antarctica is growing (or that ice loss was slowing), tried to fool everyone into thinking that NASA agreed with you when they were saying you were wrong, and now you do a 180 and say the glaciers are retreating after all but NASA says it's not because of warming.

Stop.Lying. Just give up. The type of denial you are parroting doesn't work in an open forum.

[Lurker]

The oceans surrounding Antarctica have been warming10, so Schodlok doesn’t doubt that the ice shelves are being undermined by warmer water being brought up from the depths. But he admits that it hasn’t been proven rigorously, because satellites can’t measure underneath the ice.

Apparently you missed that part when you "read" the article.

So, warmer water from the depths undermining the ice shelves hasn't been "proven rigorously". That's not much to hang your hat on considering you started out saying things that are untrue and are now cherry picking and misrepresenting the thrust of the article.

You were wrong about Antarctica being an anomaly, wrong about the ice mass growing, wrong about the ice loss slowing... but don't let any of that wrongness get in the way of what you believe.

[Kulaf]

Funny.....he reads one book and stops believing in God after how many years......but we link article after article and he clings to this belief.

/boggle

[Harlowe]

When did Embar stop believing in God? Did I miss some religious drama?

[Kulaf]

Ohh heck yeah. He read "Divinity of Doubt" and everything changed.

[Harlowe]

Okay, I'm going to have to echo Kulaf...

Funny.....he reads one book and stops believing in God after how many years......but we link article after article and he clings to this belief.

/boggle

/boggle

/boggle

Unless maybe Christianity and Climate Change are counter-productive to his financial aspirations.