Danno wrote: » Very interesting thread (so far) and somewhat comforting to hear that there is a rather broad Church here with regards to this topic whereas a few years ago, many would have had inhibitions about speaking out against "the machine" that really is a select few peddling nonsense on the back of a genuine concern. I am highly sceptical of what is being sold. Make no mistake, this is another market - but this is market 2.0, for our minds.
Oneiric 3 wrote: » Must you keep using that 'lol' thing. It offends my senses.
Akrasia wrote: » Did you read any of his sources? Did you find any credible? or of the credible ones, did they actually support his argument?
Global Historical Climate Network Daily - Description Introduction GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network)-Daily is an integrated database of daily climate summaries from land surface stations across the globe. Like its monthly counterpart (GHCN-Monthly) , GHCN-Daily is comprised of daily climate records from numerous sources that have been integrated and subjected to a common suite of quality assurance reviews. GHCN-Daily contains records from over 100,000 stations in 180 countries and territories. NCEI provides numerous daily variables, including maximum and minimum temperature, total daily precipitation, snowfall, and snow depth; however, about one half of the stations report precipitation only. Both the record length and period of record vary by station and cover intervals ranging from less than a year to more than 175 years.
Heat loss from Earth's interior triggers ice sheet slide towards the sea Date: January 22, 2018 Source: Aarhus University Summary: In North-East Greenland, researchers have measured the loss of heat that comes up from the interior of the Earth.This enormous area is a geothermal 'hot spot' that melts the ice sheet from below and triggers the sliding of glaciers towards the sea.
Recently it was suggested that there may be a hidden heat source beneath GIS caused by a higher than expected geothermal heat flux (GHF) from the Earth’s interior. Here we present the first direct measurements of GHF from beneath a deep fjord basin in Northeast Greenland. Temperature and salinity time series (2005–2015) in the deep stagnant basin water are used to quantify a GHF of 93 ± 21 mW m−2 which confirm previous indirect estimated values below GIS. A compilation of heat flux recordings from Greenland show the existence of geothermal heat sources beneath GIS and could explain high glacial ice speed areas such as the Northeast Greenland ice stream.
Irishsneachta wrote: » Didn't think you had any senses given you don't have a brain. Plenty of nonsense that's about it lol.
gabeeg wrote: » There was no procedure beyond empathy. I'm assuming... Hoping... That when most people start reading the stuff you post they realise it's incredibly silly. It's not a global conspiracy. That's all in your head
Irishsneachta wrote: » Believe 97% of Scientists or someone who bases his opinions on the above reasons lol.
dense wrote: » Please show link to where the 100% of scientists were ever asked anything about the topic at hand? So that I too may believe this essential magic 97% of them something something etc. No rush. Belief is a great thing, the church used to thrive on it.
gabeeg wrote: » I'll answer this back to front of you don't mind, as this was the only question you asked which genuinely challenged me. I'd probably use it to my advantage, being honest with you. He's not an experienced climatologist. He's MT Cranium. MT Cranium is the legend that got 2010 right. MT Cranium is a weather God around these parts. The man behind MT Cranium is another matter entirely, and I'd never seek to silence him. His thoughts on climate change are probably very interesting, and I'd love to read them.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » I’m prepared to be fairly sceptical of the more extreme alarmists but watching the way the disingenuous charlatans of the other side argue, this thread has convinced me that anthropogenic global warming is probably true.
Nabber wrote: » Didn’t 97% of scientists think the earth was flat or that the sun circled the earth?
I’m all for factual science, but to follow something based on how much of the community follows is just plain stupid.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » I'm intrigued at this statement. Why do you hate seeing him express his doubts? Why do you say reckless? Is it because he's a climatologist with vast experience and, as you say, a respected poster on this forum? Is the fact that he's one of your 3% of cats that says no? Would you just rather he kept his comments to himself because they're not what you want to hear and people may actually listen, reading beyond the first line? What if he agreed with you? Would it be the same story?
Akrasia wrote: » Is MT actually a qualified climatologist? I've never seen him describe himself as one.
Oneiric 3 wrote: » It is what it is. I said nuffin... Nice try at deflecting from points raised in the article itself, which I note, you didn't even attempt to comment on.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Yes he is.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Which side is "the other side"? Which "side" are you on? What do you think of Irishsneachta's personal insults?
Why does there need to be sides? It's people with different opinions. Data are presented and should be analysed without the party politics of having to be on one side. Of course AGW is true. It has to be, Physics says so. It's just the extent that's under discussion. It would appear to be having a lot less effect that previously believed, based on some recent data.
George Sunsnow wrote: » Our new normal weather? Isn’t that a bit presumptuous? How old is the earth again?
Akrasia wrote: » Well then he really should know better. Meteorologists can get caught up in the chaotic nature of weather models but climatologists should focus on smoothed averages. MT focuses too much on individual records, and it seems to me that he is skeptical of climate change in part because he knows that there some of the extreme weather events in the past were more extreme than the current global warming driven events. His mistake is in conflating extreme historical events with what is becoming our new new normal weather.
Akrasia wrote: » This wasn't aimed at me, but I would like to urge everyone to be civil and polite to each other (well, except to dense, that guy gets what he deserves )
The observed warming is still within predicted range of the IPCC, and the outcomes if we fail to act are still very serious.
The reason there appear to be sides is because some people only comment to dispute things that say global warming is serious but let outright deniers say anything they like without rebuke.
Akrasia wrote: » A new analysis from this year has all but ruled out low climate sensitivity as proposed by Prof Bates and MThttps://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450 It narrows the likely range for climate sensitivity to between 2.2c and 3.4c with the most likely figure to be close to 2.8c 2.8c warming is a disaster
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » No, you've had your say, others have had theirs. Who's "letting" people say what they want to say? Are you implying some people shouldn't be allowed to post an opinion different to yours, such as in the case of MT, or that the mods should delete such posts? Sounds like it's a dictatorship you want here.
gabeeg wrote: » He's quite clearly not saying that. Look up the word rebuke. That's where you went wrong.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Wow, you're advocating insults against a guy who hasn't thrown any. What about Irishsneachta?
But statistically nearer the lower percentile of the range (despite a strong El Ni and you're not sure why.
No, you've had your say, others have had theirs. Who's "letting" people say what they want to say? Are you implying some people shouldn't be allowed to post an opinion different to yours, such as in the case of MT, or that the mods should delete such posts? Sounds like it's a dictatorship you want here.
Neddyusa wrote: » This thread is very amusing. On the one side you have the majority of the most respected long-term weather and climate analysts on this forum. These people are thoughtfully and respectfully making their points using reason and logic. On the other side there are 3-4 individuals who have no track record in the weather forum, throwing put-downs and insults around like confetti; using glib one-liners and text speak. If I came to this thread without the slightest ideas about Climate Change I'd leave it with no doubt about who is making sense (GL, MT, GS, Oneric etc), and who is just peddling got air. :rolleyes:
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » Do you have the full article or did you just read the abstract? I'm not paying $199 for full access.
