Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[mybrainhurts]

Gadgetmac said:

mybrainhurts said:

Gadgetmac said:

mybrainhurts said:

Gary C said:

PRTVR said:

The scientists predicted glaciers in a American national park would disappear by 2020, even had a sign made,
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-nat...
As I said junk science.

Because of course they haven't retreated ?

Not forgetting they weren't there at all a mere 7000 years ago.

And yet you don’t quote the rest of the paragraph that you lifted that information from.

Here, I’ll help you...

"The glaciers have been here for 7,000 years and will be gone in decades. This is not part of the natural cycle." The melting of these structures is "all atmospherically driven," he added.

What's that got to do with them not existing 7000 years ago? Thanks for trying to help, though.

Simply pointing out that you’ll happily extract just the one point from what the scientist said whilst ignoring the rest.

No need to thank me, you’re welcome.

I didn't extract anything, I said the glaciers did not exist 7000 years ago.

[Gadgetmac]

mybrainhurts said:

Gadgetmac said:

mybrainhurts said:

Gadgetmac said:

mybrainhurts said:

Gary C said:

PRTVR said:

The scientists predicted glaciers in a American national park would disappear by 2020, even had a sign made,
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-nat...
As I said junk science.

Because of course they haven't retreated ?

Not forgetting they weren't there at all a mere 7000 years ago.

And yet you don’t quote the rest of the paragraph that you lifted that information from.

Here, I’ll help you...

"The glaciers have been here for 7,000 years and will be gone in decades. This is not part of the natural cycle." The melting of these structures is "all atmospherically driven," he added.

What's that got to do with them not existing 7000 years ago? Thanks for trying to help, though.

Simply pointing out that you’ll happily extract just the one point from what the scientist said whilst ignoring the rest.

No need to thank me, you’re welcome.

I didn't extract anything, I said the glaciers did not exist 7000 years ago.

Which you got from that article....go on...tell me you knew that about those particular glaciers anyway....

[mybrainhurts]

Gadgetmac said:

mybrainhurts said:

Gadgetmac said:

mybrainhurts said:

Gadgetmac said:

mybrainhurts said:

Gary C said:

PRTVR said:

The scientists predicted glaciers in a American national park would disappear by 2020, even had a sign made,
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-nat...
As I said junk science.

Because of course they haven't retreated ?

Not forgetting they weren't there at all a mere 7000 years ago.

And yet you don’t quote the rest of the paragraph that you lifted that information from.

Here, I’ll help you...

"The glaciers have been here for 7,000 years and will be gone in decades. This is not part of the natural cycle." The melting of these structures is "all atmospherically driven," he added.

What's that got to do with them not existing 7000 years ago? Thanks for trying to help, though.

Simply pointing out that you’ll happily extract just the one point from what the scientist said whilst ignoring the rest.

No need to thank me, you’re welcome.

I didn't extract anything, I said the glaciers did not exist 7000 years ago.

Which you got from that article....go on...tell me you knew that anyway....

Yes, I got that period of time from the article. It made me question what is norrmal if the ice didn't exist 7000 years ago. You erroniously decided I was misrepresenting what a scientist was saying about the future, not the past. Therein lies our difference, which would have been avoided had you taken the time to RTFQ. Ok, now?

[LimSlip]

A CNN director was recently caught out saying that CNN was moving onto climate scaremongering now that people have become tired of CV19. They couldn't print anything truthful if they tried.

Gadgetmac said:

Which you got from that article....go on...tell me you knew that about those particular glaciers anyway....

If having the glaciers is considered the correct state of affairs, why didn't they exist 7000 years ago? Is it possible that the climate was different then? Was the climate incorrect at that point?

Edited by LimSlip on Thursday 29th April 22:23

[Gadgetmac]

The glaciers are simply a feature that can be measured to give some insight into what's happening with the climate now.

They are melting at an increased rate which shows no signs of slowing down...as the satellite data shows.

[mko9]

So they are melting back to the non-existence they exhibited about 7000 years ago. Which state is the correct state of the climate?

[kerplunk]

mko9 said:

So they are melting back to the non-existence they exhibited about 7000 years ago. Which state is the correct state of the climate?

lol - oh look a squirrel

[Gadgetmac]

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

So they are melting back to the non-existence they exhibited about 7000 years ago. Which state is the correct state of the climate?

lol - oh look a squirrel

I’m tempted to play the deniers game of “prove it!”.

As far as I’m concerned those glaciers were still there 7,000 years ago...I wonder where they’re getting their data from to contradict that?

[mko9]

Gadgetmac said:

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

So they are melting back to the non-existence they exhibited about 7000 years ago. Which state is the correct state of the climate?

lol - oh look a squirrel

I’m tempted to play the deniers game of “prove it!”.

As far as I’m concerned those glaciers were still there 7,000 years ago...I wonder where they’re getting their data from to contradict that?

Quick, dodge and then fall back on faith!

[Gadgetmac]

mko9 said:

Gadgetmac said:

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

So they are melting back to the non-existence they exhibited about 7000 years ago. Which state is the correct state of the climate?

lol - oh look a squirrel

I’m tempted to play the deniers game of “prove it!”.

As far as I’m concerned those glaciers were still there 7,000 years ago...I wonder where they’re getting their data from to contradict that?

Quick, dodge and then fall back on faith!

Jeez thats your contribution to the scientific debate is it, whats the correct state of the climate?

Moving on...

[mybrainhurts]

Gadgetmac said:

mko9 said:

Gadgetmac said:

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

So they are melting back to the non-existence they exhibited about 7000 years ago. Which state is the correct state of the climate?

lol - oh look a squirrel

I’m tempted to play the deniers game of “prove it!”.

As far as I’m concerned those glaciers were still there 7,000 years ago...I wonder where they’re getting their data from to contradict that?

Quick, dodge and then fall back on faith!

Jeez thats your contribution to the scientific debate is it, whats the correct state of the climate?

Moving on...

Before you move on, yes, I'd say that's a pretty important question for the science.

[Gadgetmac]

mybrainhurts said:

Gadgetmac said:

mko9 said:

Gadgetmac said:

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

So they are melting back to the non-existence they exhibited about 7000 years ago. Which state is the correct state of the climate?

lol - oh look a squirrel

I’m tempted to play the deniers game of “prove it!”.

As far as I’m concerned those glaciers were still there 7,000 years ago...I wonder where they’re getting their data from to contradict that?

Quick, dodge and then fall back on faith!

Jeez thats your contribution to the scientific debate is it, whats the correct state of the climate?

Moving on...

Before you move on, yes, I'd say that's a pretty important question for the science.

Then do look up what the scientists think the “correct state of the climate” is.

[mybrainhurts]

Gadgetmac said:

mybrainhurts said:

Gadgetmac said:

mko9 said:

Gadgetmac said:

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

So they are melting back to the non-existence they exhibited about 7000 years ago. Which state is the correct state of the climate?

lol - oh look a squirrel

I’m tempted to play the deniers game of “prove it!”.

As far as I’m concerned those glaciers were still there 7,000 years ago...I wonder where they’re getting their data from to contradict that?

Quick, dodge and then fall back on faith!

Jeez thats your contribution to the scientific debate is it, whats the correct state of the climate?

Moving on...

Before you move on, yes, I'd say that's a pretty important question for the science.

Then do look up what the scientists think the “correct state of the climate” is.

Not much point when they don't have a bloody clue..

[anonymous-user]

Isn’t it any wonder so many people switch off and don’t care?

[Gadgetmac]

Here’s a couple of new studies aleady peer reviewed but maybe not to a high enough degree for some.

Antarctic ice-sheet melting to lift sea level higher than thought, study says

https://phys.org/news/2021-04-antarctic-ice-sheet-...

Extract

Global sea level rise associated with the possible collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has been significantly underestimated in previous studies, meaning sea level in a warming world will be greater than anticipated, according to a new study from Harvard researchers.

The report, published in Science Advances, features new calculations for what researchers refer to as a water expulsion mechanism. This occurs when the solid bedrock the West Antarctic Ice Sheet sits on rebounds upward as the ice melts and the total weight of the ice sheet decreases. The bedrock sits below sea level so when it lifts, it pushes water from the surrounding area into the ocean, adding to global sea level rise.

The new predictions show that in the case of a total collapse of the ice sheet, global sea level rise estimates would be amplified by an additional meter within 1,000 years.

"The magnitude of the effect shocked us," said Linda Pan, a Ph.D. in earth and planetary science in GSAS who co-led the study with fellow graduate student Evelyn Powell. "Previous studies that had considered the mechanism dismissed it as inconsequential."

"If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapsed, the most widely cited estimate of the resulting global mean sea level rise that would result is 3.2 meters," said Powell. "What we've shown is that the water expulsion mechanism will add an additional meter, or 30 percent, to the total."

But this is not just a story about impact that will be felt in hundreds of years. One of the simulations Pan and Powell performed indicated that by the end of this century global sea level rise caused by melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would increase 20 percent by the water expulsion mechanism.

"Every published projection of sea level rise due to melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet that has been based on climate modeling, whether the projection extends to the end of this century or longer into the future, is going to have to be revised upward because of their work," said Jerry X. Mitrovica, the Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and a senior author on the paper. "Every single one."

Pan and Powell, both researchers in Mitrovica's lab, started this research while working on another sea level change project but switched to this one when they noticed more water expulsion from the West Antarctic ice sheet than they were expecting.

[Gadgetmac]

Climate change: Amazon may be turning from friend to foe

https://phys.org/news/2021-04-climate-amazon-frien...

Extract

The Brazilian Amazon released nearly 20 percent more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the last decade than it absorbed, according to a stunning report that shows humanity can no longer depend on the world's largest tropical forest to help absorb manmade carbon pollution.

From 2010 through 2019, Brazil's Amazon basin gave off 16.6 billion tonnes of CO2, while drawing down only 13.9 billion tonnes, researchers reported Thursday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The study looked at the volume of CO2 absorbed and stored as the forest grows, versus the amounts released back into the atmosphere as it has been burned down or destroyed.

"We half-expected it, but it is the first time that we have figures showing that the Brazilian Amazon has flipped, and is now a net emitter," said co-author Jean-Pierre Wigneron, a scientist at France's National Institute for Agronomic Research (INRA).

"We don't know at what point the changeover could become irreversible," he told AFP in an interview.

[ruggedscotty]

versus the amounts released back into the atmosphere as it has been burned down or destroyed.

so its who thats destroying it or burning it down ? wouldnt be us would it ?

if it was left to its own natural devices would it not continue to grow and soak up carbon dioxide.

[Gadgetmac]

ruggedscotty said:

versus the amounts released back into the atmosphere as it has been burned down or destroyed.

so its who thats destroying it or burning it down ? wouldnt be us would it ?

if it was left to its own natural devices would it not continue to grow and soak up carbon dioxide.

It’s quite possible it would it’s just that, like climate change/co2 emissions, there are a lot of vested interests that won’t allow the clearance of the Amazon to stop.

[kerplunk]

mybrainhurts said:

Gadgetmac said:

mko9 said:

Gadgetmac said:

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

So they are melting back to the non-existence they exhibited about 7000 years ago. Which state is the correct state of the climate?

lol - oh look a squirrel

I’m tempted to play the deniers game of “prove it!”.

As far as I’m concerned those glaciers were still there 7,000 years ago...I wonder where they’re getting their data from to contradict that?

Quick, dodge and then fall back on faith!

Jeez thats your contribution to the scientific debate is it, whats the correct state of the climate?

Moving on...

Before you move on, yes, I'd say that's a pretty important question for the science.

No it's a bloody stupid question of the sort beloved by deniers who like wasting time thunking up stupid questions.

[Kawasicki]

Gadgetmac said:

Climate change: Amazon may be turning from friend to foe

https://phys.org/news/2021-04-climate-amazon-frien...

Extract

The Brazilian Amazon released nearly 20 percent more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the last decade than it absorbed, according to a stunning report that shows humanity can no longer depend on the world's largest tropical forest to help absorb manmade carbon pollution.

From 2010 through 2019, Brazil's Amazon basin gave off 16.6 billion tonnes of CO2, while drawing down only 13.9 billion tonnes, researchers reported Thursday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The study looked at the volume of CO2 absorbed and stored as the forest grows, versus the amounts released back into the atmosphere as it has been burned down or destroyed.

"We half-expected it, but it is the first time that we have figures showing that the Brazilian Amazon has flipped, and is now a net emitter," said co-author Jean-Pierre Wigneron, a scientist at France's National Institute for Agronomic Research (INRA).

"We don't know at what point the changeover could become irreversible," he told AFP in an interview.

The amazon is also a huge source of methane, which is a 4632 more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon is.

The quicker we chop is down and properly drain the soil the better.