Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
durbster said:
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Diderot said:
The BBC is always a good source of misinformation.
Devastating comment.Where do you get your information from Diderot?
Honestly Diderot, considering how many times you walk yourself into this humiliation, one might expect you to have thought of something at least resembling a credible source that you could pretend supports your position.
But nope, you've got nothing, and that answers the question perfectly.
As ever, I try to read primary source material rather than have anything ‘interpreted’ for me; as an academic it’s easy as I have access to most Journals via the Uni so very little is paywalled. Where do you get your information from?
durbster said:
Ivan stewart said:
durbster said:
GroundZero said:
The 'facts' as you put it. in that video, are coming from the IPCC reports themselves. So, not sure why you would have a complaint with that if you are signed up to the IPCC narratives?
So yes, I'd say if anyone looking in on this discussion wants to see what the IPCC reports say (or do not say), for the 'facts', then please watch the video.
Incredible logic there. If you want to find out what the IPCC says, you must ignore what the IPCC says and instead only listen the GWPF's version of what the IPCC says. So yes, I'd say if anyone looking in on this discussion wants to see what the IPCC reports say (or do not say), for the 'facts', then please watch the video.
In the same way that the best way to find out what's going on in Ukraine is to only watch Russian state media.
All the polar bears extinct due to loss of sea ice ,low lying pacific Islands under water etc ..
Empirical data not IPCC or GIGO or any person.
However, if IPCC report contents and indeed many published papers differ from politicians' / activists' / media hacks' utterings, ho ho ho.
Toddling off to RC, Grist, SkSc, et al agw advocacy blogs is hilarious (see Diderot's post for what to do; if only more could).
People believing and parroting the utterings without checking 'the science' (ho ho ho again) are what, silly or credulous or politically motivated or ? Lots of possibilities and only they know.
However, if IPCC report contents and indeed many published papers differ from politicians' / activists' / media hacks' utterings, ho ho ho.
Toddling off to RC, Grist, SkSc, et al agw advocacy blogs is hilarious (see Diderot's post for what to do; if only more could).
People believing and parroting the utterings without checking 'the science' (ho ho ho again) are what, silly or credulous or politically motivated or ? Lots of possibilities and only they know.
turbobloke said:
Empirical data not IPCC or GIGO or any person.
However, if IPCC report contents and indeed many published papers differ from politicians' / activists' / media hacks' utterings, ho ho ho.
Toddling off to RC, Grist, SkSc, et al agw advocacy blogs is hilarious (see Diderot's post for what to do; if only more could).
People believing and parroting the utterings without checking 'the science' (ho ho ho again) are what, silly or credulous or politically motivated or ? Lots of possibilities and only they know.
wibble wobble snot fume, ice age ahoy, gigo doesn't apply to MY predictions, I'm special.However, if IPCC report contents and indeed many published papers differ from politicians' / activists' / media hacks' utterings, ho ho ho.
Toddling off to RC, Grist, SkSc, et al agw advocacy blogs is hilarious (see Diderot's post for what to do; if only more could).
People believing and parroting the utterings without checking 'the science' (ho ho ho again) are what, silly or credulous or politically motivated or ? Lots of possibilities and only they know.
Diderot said:
As ever, I try to read primary source material rather than have anything ‘interpreted’ for me; as an academic it’s easy as I have access to most Journals via the Uni so very little is paywalled. Where do you get your information from?
"as an academic"You still believe that'll get you credibility points on the internet?
Anyway, I don't believe you. If you really did read the primary source material, what you say here would be at least somewhat informed by the primary source material.
Instead, what you say is beat-for-beat propaganda that comes from the usual sources. And like all parrots, you don't seem understand much of what you're repeating since you can't sustain any discussion about it beyond the superficial.
Once again I invite you to prove me wrong and list some of the titles of this supposed material that you're basing your views on. Don't worry, even if the contents are only for well-clever academics like yourself, just the titles will do.
durbster said:
Diderot said:
As ever, I try to read primary source material rather than have anything ‘interpreted’ for me; as an academic it’s easy as I have access to most Journals via the Uni so very little is paywalled. Where do you get your information from?
"as an academic"You still believe that'll get you credibility points on the internet?
Anyway, I don't believe you. If you really did read the primary source material, what you say here would be at least somewhat informed by the primary source material.
Instead, what you say is beat-for-beat propaganda that comes from the usual sources. And like all parrots, you don't seem understand much of what you're repeating since you can't sustain any discussion about it beyond the superficial.
Once again I invite you to prove me wrong and list some of the titles of this supposed material that you're basing your views on. Don't worry, even if the contents are only for well-clever academics like yourself, just the titles will do.
Your belief is irrelevant beyond your own imagination, as per your belief in agw. Academics do have access to journals, primary sources, unlike agw activists who have access to agw advocacy blogs.
It's curious that you ask for titles when others have been posting paper titles and references for years. How do you miss all of them? Or maybe the advocacy blogs don't have a recipe-reply for as many as they might. How about McKitrick 2021 taking apart the 1999 paper on attribution such that when the duff stats are corrected with a standard remedy the greenouse signal linking emissions to weather disappears? Or the stack of papers between 2018 and 2020 such as the Christy paper showing that the agw null hypothesis should be rejected, or the others posted several times one of which (remember the author?) shows that there's no role for CO2 in non-existent manmade dangerous climate change? You've had plenty to cope with and haven't coped. Memory failure?
Can't sustain discussion, that's funny, how many posts in are we, and don't forget: 'The Science' is settled, there's no room for debate...you're letting the side down by advocating it.
ETA some titles for you may appear later today depending on work.
Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 14th May 15:29
turbobloke said:
Diderot may be along at some point, meanwhile...
Your belief is irrelevant beyond your own imagination, as per your belief in agw. Academics do have access to journals, primary sources, unlike agw activists who have access to agw advocacy blogs.
It's curious that you ask for titles when others have been posting paper titles and references for years. How do you miss all of them? Or maybe the advocacy blogs don't have a recipe-reply for as many as they might. How about McKitrick 2021 taking apart the 1999 paper on attribution such that when the duff stats are corrected with a standard remedy the greenouse signal linking emissions to weather disappears? Or the stack of papers between 2018 and 2020 such as the Christy paper showing that the agw null hypothesis should be rejected, or the others posted several times one of which (remember the author?) shows that there's no role for CO2 in non-existent manmade dangerous climate change? You've had plenty to cope with and haven't coped. Memory failure?
Can't sustain discussion, that's funny, how many posts in are we, and don't forget: 'The Science' is settled, there's no room for debate...you're letting the side down by advocating it.
ETA some titles for you may appear later today depending on work.
If you have access to primary sources that actually prove you to be correct why are you constantly posting spam and misinformation from the GWPF and similar blogs. Your belief is irrelevant beyond your own imagination, as per your belief in agw. Academics do have access to journals, primary sources, unlike agw activists who have access to agw advocacy blogs.
It's curious that you ask for titles when others have been posting paper titles and references for years. How do you miss all of them? Or maybe the advocacy blogs don't have a recipe-reply for as many as they might. How about McKitrick 2021 taking apart the 1999 paper on attribution such that when the duff stats are corrected with a standard remedy the greenouse signal linking emissions to weather disappears? Or the stack of papers between 2018 and 2020 such as the Christy paper showing that the agw null hypothesis should be rejected, or the others posted several times one of which (remember the author?) shows that there's no role for CO2 in non-existent manmade dangerous climate change? You've had plenty to cope with and haven't coped. Memory failure?
Can't sustain discussion, that's funny, how many posts in are we, and don't forget: 'The Science' is settled, there's no room for debate...you're letting the side down by advocating it.
ETA some titles for you may appear later today depending on work.
Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 14th May 15:29
Total BS as usual.
El stovey said:
If you have access to primary sources that actually prove you to be correct why are you constantly posting spam and misinformation from the GWPF and similar blogs.
Total BS as usual.
If ever there was anything closer to the emperor’s new clothes it’s climate change , mind I'm old enough to remember we had to build nuclear bunkers to save our species , now it’s windmills and solar farms !!Total BS as usual.
Follow the politics and the money !!
I'm also fortunate enough to have access to a lot of publications but the truth is most all papers are available to anyone these days. Between arXiv and similar, academics being easily contactable and Sci-Hub if you're willing.
Turbobloke constantly references a fairly small number of papers, most of which were shot down as nonsense years ago. These days he's a lot lazier and doesn't even bother trying to cover the fact he's mostly reposting propaganda from elsewhere.
Turbobloke constantly references a fairly small number of papers, most of which were shot down as nonsense years ago. These days he's a lot lazier and doesn't even bother trying to cover the fact he's mostly reposting propaganda from elsewhere.
Ivan stewart said:
El stovey said:
If you have access to primary sources that actually prove you to be correct why are you constantly posting spam and misinformation from the GWPF and similar blogs.
Total BS as usual.
If ever there was anything closer to the emperor’s new clothes it’s climate change , mind I'm old enough to remember we had to build nuclear bunkers to save our species , now it’s windmills and solar farms !!Total BS as usual.
Follow the politics and the money !!
El s asks why material hasn't been posted that has, then spams the thread with a false claim of spam and adds irony by mentioning bs. Great work, no less than expected.
Did somebody ask for paper/author information? Bearing in mind that our politicians and other politicians base their wonderful & wise policies on climate model outputs, and bearing in mind the video posted recently re. what "The Science" says, here are two lists, extracts from papers (abstracts and content, so primary sources needed) and authors. The orders of content and author lists don't match, adding to the entertainment. Authors may have more than one paper.
Our agw supporters will have little difficulty matching them up, given their access to primary sources and knowledge from careful scrutiny of earlier posts (by me) covering this material and more of a similar nature. There won't be any shooting of messengers, or waffle, or trolling / spam, surely.
Content
recent global warming is primarily a result of natural causes
humans do not exert fundamental control over the Earth’s climate
the Sun is the primary forcing of Earth’s climate system
over 1/3 million lines having strengths as low as 10?27 cm of the HITRAN database were used...at current concentrations, the forcings from all greenhouse gases are saturated...the saturations of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are so extreme that the per-molecule forcing is attenuated by four orders of magnitude
model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean
these results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance
using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011…(we find) changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature
while the observed analogue exhibits a warming trend over the test interval it is significantly smaller than that shown in models, and the difference is large enough to reject the null hypothesis that models represent it correctly
these findings stress the importance of natural oscillations and of the Sun to properly interpret climatic changes
results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate
the temperature field of the global troposphere and lower stratosphere (is) not as predicted by agw theory
investigated intrinsic properties of the lower stratospheric temperature are not related to those of the troposphere, as is expected by the global warming theory.
Authors
Happer
Mao et al
McKitrick
McKitrick and Christy
Humlum et al
Christy and McNider
Scafetta
Christy et al
Knox and Douglass
Newberry et al
Fleming
Varotsos and Efstathiou
durbster said:
Diderot said:
As ever, I try to read primary source material rather than have anything ‘interpreted’ for me; as an academic it’s easy as I have access to most Journals via the Uni so very little is paywalled. Where do you get your information from?
"as an academic"You still believe that'll get you credibility points on the internet?
Anyway, I don't believe you. If you really did read the primary source material, what you say here would be at least somewhat informed by the primary source material.
Instead, what you say is beat-for-beat propaganda that comes from the usual sources. And like all parrots, you don't seem understand much of what you're repeating since you can't sustain any discussion about it beyond the superficial.
Once again I invite you to prove me wrong and list some of the titles of this supposed material that you're basing your views on. Don't worry, even if the contents are only for well-clever academics like yourself, just the titles will do.
Maybe you could answer my question; where do you get your information from?
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Diderot said:
As ever, I try to read primary source material rather than have anything ‘interpreted’ for me; as an academic it’s easy as I have access to most Journals via the Uni so very little is paywalled. Where do you get your information from?
"as an academic"You still believe that'll get you credibility points on the internet?
Anyway, I don't believe you. If you really did read the primary source material, what you say here would be at least somewhat informed by the primary source material.
Instead, what you say is beat-for-beat propaganda that comes from the usual sources. And like all parrots, you don't seem understand much of what you're repeating since you can't sustain any discussion about it beyond the superficial.
Once again I invite you to prove me wrong and list some of the titles of this supposed material that you're basing your views on. Don't worry, even if the contents are only for well-clever academics like yourself, just the titles will do.
Almost all of us are laymen here so this basically boils down to what information we believe we can trust.
I find a more compelling case comes from the thousands of scientists studying the fields directly related to climate change, the researchers directly studying the effects around the world, as well as the established and respected science journals who report on all that.
You trust a handful of scientists who are funded by political lobby groups in the United States. That's your choice of course but you should own it and not pretend otherwise.
Diderot said:
Maybe you could answer my question; where do you get your information from?
You know where I get my information from. I have been citing my sources ever since I got involved in this daft thread. I even occasionally go to the trouble of seeking out the denier's sources when they've chosen to leave them out because they are trying to mislead and misrepresent. You accused others of trusting unreliable sources so my question - which you still haven't answered - what do you consider a reliable source?
hairykrishna said:
I'm also fortunate enough to have access to a lot of publications but the truth is most all papers are available to anyone these days. Between arXiv and similar, academics being easily contactable and Sci-Hub if you're willing.
Turbobloke constantly references a fairly small number of papers, most of which were shot down as nonsense years ago. These days he's a lot lazier and doesn't even bother trying to cover the fact he's mostly reposting propaganda from elsewhere.
Yep, in my experience you can simply contact the authors of the work and they'll happily answer questions about it, and send the paper if you want it Turbobloke constantly references a fairly small number of papers, most of which were shot down as nonsense years ago. These days he's a lot lazier and doesn't even bother trying to cover the fact he's mostly reposting propaganda from elsewhere.
hairykrishna said:
Turbobloke constantly references a fairly small number of papers, most of which were shot down as nonsense years ago. These days he's a lot lazier and doesn't even bother trying to cover the fact he's mostly reposting propaganda from elsewhere.
No, he doesn't, though your reasoning by assertion on behalf of The Cause is endearing. Fairly small is many tens in the past few years (50+ in the last two posts alone) since peer review really opened up in 2018, and they haven't been 'shot down in flames' as what you refer to is the usual ad homs, big oil bullshine and the rest of the nonsense from advocacy blogs. Some are repeated of course, firstly because they give key findings which not everyone will have read first time, and because agw supporters routinely ignore and carry on ramping The Cause, so a reminder is occasionally needed - but there are plenty available to you as well as me, what with your journal access, do go take a look. If you do, you might offer more than evidence-free personal attacks, for a change.
What's getting shot down involves AGW papers, starting years ago when Sloan and Wolfendale tried to shoot down Shaviv but it backfired, then the scary Resplandy oceans paper got retracted due to a schoolboy error about errors, and most recently the key 1999 attribution paper has been shown to use deeply flawed stats. Quite the opposite to your "simplified dramatic statement" (H/T Schneider).
Anyway...You're welcome. Try some more. A finding may be related to more than one paper and author(s), not commonly in memos to politicians.
-Recent temperature rate of change and extent is not unprecedented
-Carbon dioxide is good for ecosystems, global net ecosystem production increased by at least 117 Tg C per year between 1995 and 2014 with the vast majority of that increase (~90%) due to aerial fertilization effects from increased CO2 levels
-Ice mass changes are not unprecedented, not as modelled
-Arctic expedition1930/31 data 4.6 °C warmer than 1981-2010 with Feb ’31 average 10.7 deg C warmer
-Glaciers - not retreating due to global warming
-Coral changes - not unprecedented, events seen today occurred in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s
-Sea level rise per AR5 model projections invalidated
-Global coasts growing not shrinking
-Hurricane frequency - no significant trend in the data
-Hurricane attribution to anthropogenic forcing is not established
-Attribution statistical methodology fundamentally flawed, when a standard remedy is applied the greenhouse signal vanishes
-Floods and Droughts not intensifying globally
-Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall - models fail to simulate post?1950 trend
-Cold weather mortality across the US is more than 16x higher than for hot weather
-Polar bear numbers stable and increasing not decreasing in surveys
-Jellyfish numbers not linked to carbon dioxide (save the jellyfish)
-Major climate forcings omitted by IPCC modelling
-CMIP5 model regional projections deficient for Greenland, UK and parts of Europe (global is global)
-Hydrological cycle - no detectable global-scale human influence (models wrong)
-Tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more CO2 with warming, contrary to models
Courtesy of Alley et al, Fawcett et al, Lewis & Curry, Fife et al, Douglass et al, Christy et al, Saha et al, Hanna et al, Nguyen et al, Thompson et al, Allan, Spencer & Braswell, Nguyen et al, Lindzen & Choi, Svensmark et al, Bucha and Bucha. Agee et al, Pitt, Yu et al, Zhang et al, Sheffield et al, Hanel et al, Macklin et al, McKitrick, Barredo, Trenary et al, Pielke et al, Watson, Weinkle et al, Donchyts et al, Duvat, Xu et al, Kamenos & Hennige, Andersson et al, Humlum, Weldeab et al, Bookhagen et al, Opel et al, Joughin and Tulaczyk, Wingham et al
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 15th May 12:41
turbobloke said:
...
-Recent temperature rate of change and extent is not unprecedented
-Carbon dioxide is good for ecosystems, global net ecosystem production increased by at least 117 Tg C per year between 1995 and 2014 with the vast majority of that increase (~90%) due to aerial fertilization effects from increased CO2 levels
-Ice mass changes are not unprecedented, not as modelled
-Arctic expedition1930/31 data 4.6 °C warmer than 1981-2010 with Feb ’31 average 10.7 deg C warmer
-Glaciers - not retreating due to global warming
-Coral changes - not unprecedented, events seen today occurred in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s
-Sea level rise per AR5 model projections invalidated
-Global coasts growing not shrinking
-Hurricane frequency - no significant trend in the data
-Hurricane attribution to anthropogenic forcing is not established
-Attribution statistical methodology fundamentally flawed, when a standard remedy is applied the greenhouse signal vanishes
-Floods and Droughts not intensifying globally
-Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall - models fail to simulate post?1950 trend
-Cold weather mortality across the US is more than 16x higher than for hot weather
-Polar bear numbers stable and increasing not decreasing in surveys
-Jellyfish numbers not linked to carbon dioxide (save the jellyfish)
-Major climate forcings omitted by IPCC modelling
-CMIP5 model regional projections deficient for Greenland, UK and parts of Europe (global is global)
-Hydrological cycle - no detectable global-scale human influence (models wrong)
-Tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more CO2 with warming, contrary to models
Oh look, it's a big list of false and misleading claims from the chief of misrepresentation.-Recent temperature rate of change and extent is not unprecedented
-Carbon dioxide is good for ecosystems, global net ecosystem production increased by at least 117 Tg C per year between 1995 and 2014 with the vast majority of that increase (~90%) due to aerial fertilization effects from increased CO2 levels
-Ice mass changes are not unprecedented, not as modelled
-Arctic expedition1930/31 data 4.6 °C warmer than 1981-2010 with Feb ’31 average 10.7 deg C warmer
-Glaciers - not retreating due to global warming
-Coral changes - not unprecedented, events seen today occurred in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s
-Sea level rise per AR5 model projections invalidated
-Global coasts growing not shrinking
-Hurricane frequency - no significant trend in the data
-Hurricane attribution to anthropogenic forcing is not established
-Attribution statistical methodology fundamentally flawed, when a standard remedy is applied the greenhouse signal vanishes
-Floods and Droughts not intensifying globally
-Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall - models fail to simulate post?1950 trend
-Cold weather mortality across the US is more than 16x higher than for hot weather
-Polar bear numbers stable and increasing not decreasing in surveys
-Jellyfish numbers not linked to carbon dioxide (save the jellyfish)
-Major climate forcings omitted by IPCC modelling
-CMIP5 model regional projections deficient for Greenland, UK and parts of Europe (global is global)
-Hydrological cycle - no detectable global-scale human influence (models wrong)
-Tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more CO2 with warming, contrary to models
And all the while, as with all good propagandists, accusing others of performing the very tricks he uses.
turbobloke said:
Remember Schneider's advice to fellow travellers: make bold simplified statements (and forget any doubts). Most journalists wouldn't understand beyond that point anyway, so the indoctrination-by-headlines continues.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
...
-Recent temperature rate of change and extent is not unprecedented
-Carbon dioxide is good for ecosystems, global net ecosystem production increased by at least 117 Tg C per year between 1995 and 2014 with the vast majority of that increase (~90%) due to aerial fertilization effects from increased CO2 levels
-Ice mass changes are not unprecedented, not as modelled
-Arctic expedition1930/31 data 4.6 °C warmer than 1981-2010 with Feb ’31 average 10.7 deg C warmer
-Glaciers - not retreating due to global warming
-Coral changes - not unprecedented, events seen today occurred in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s
-Sea level rise per AR5 model projections invalidated
-Global coasts growing not shrinking
-Hurricane frequency - no significant trend in the data
-Hurricane attribution to anthropogenic forcing is not established
-Attribution statistical methodology fundamentally flawed, when a standard remedy is applied the greenhouse signal vanishes
-Floods and Droughts not intensifying globally
-Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall - models fail to simulate post?1950 trend
-Cold weather mortality across the US is more than 16x higher than for hot weather
-Polar bear numbers stable and increasing not decreasing in surveys
-Jellyfish numbers not linked to carbon dioxide (save the jellyfish)
-Major climate forcings omitted by IPCC modelling
-CMIP5 model regional projections deficient for Greenland, UK and parts of Europe (global is global)
-Hydrological cycle - no detectable global-scale human influence (models wrong)
-Tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more CO2 with warming, contrary to models
Oh look, it's a big list of false and misleading claims from the chief of misrepresentation.-Recent temperature rate of change and extent is not unprecedented
-Carbon dioxide is good for ecosystems, global net ecosystem production increased by at least 117 Tg C per year between 1995 and 2014 with the vast majority of that increase (~90%) due to aerial fertilization effects from increased CO2 levels
-Ice mass changes are not unprecedented, not as modelled
-Arctic expedition1930/31 data 4.6 °C warmer than 1981-2010 with Feb ’31 average 10.7 deg C warmer
-Glaciers - not retreating due to global warming
-Coral changes - not unprecedented, events seen today occurred in the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s
-Sea level rise per AR5 model projections invalidated
-Global coasts growing not shrinking
-Hurricane frequency - no significant trend in the data
-Hurricane attribution to anthropogenic forcing is not established
-Attribution statistical methodology fundamentally flawed, when a standard remedy is applied the greenhouse signal vanishes
-Floods and Droughts not intensifying globally
-Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall - models fail to simulate post?1950 trend
-Cold weather mortality across the US is more than 16x higher than for hot weather
-Polar bear numbers stable and increasing not decreasing in surveys
-Jellyfish numbers not linked to carbon dioxide (save the jellyfish)
-Major climate forcings omitted by IPCC modelling
-CMIP5 model regional projections deficient for Greenland, UK and parts of Europe (global is global)
-Hydrological cycle - no detectable global-scale human influence (models wrong)
-Tropical forest biomass doesn’t release more CO2 with warming, contrary to models
And all the while, as with all good propagandists, accusing others of performing the very tricks he uses.
turbobloke said:
Remember Schneider's advice to fellow travellers: make bold simplified statements (and forget any doubts). Most journalists wouldn't understand beyond that point anyway, so the indoctrination-by-headlines continues.
Those are published papers offering evidence, unlike your lowbrow ad hom packed evidence free drivel. That means it's not a matter of bold simplified statements, but statements followed by a set of published sources of evidence for them.
See the recent post from hairykrishna for a bold / simplified / evidence-free statement, an ad hom logicl fallacy as per your post. Common ground!
A nerve has been touched; desperation is evident from the small bill hooks (yours and El stovey's tag team metooism).
Memo to politicians ref a recent finding from Christie et al: researchers from Cambridge University, Newcastle University, and New Zealand’s University of Canterbury have found that 85% of the 1,400km-long ice shelf along the eastern Antarctic Peninsula "underwent uninterrupted advance" between surveys of the coastline in 2003-4 and 2019. In satellite data yes, but not infallible (!) climate models.
Even where peninsula ice calving is reported, there's a failure by hacks to point out that an ice peninsula represents growing ice, ice growing out over the warmer ocean, which is melted from water below not from a supposedly globally warming atmosphere above. Atmospheric circulation patterns are implicated - not V8 engine tax gas just bags of bilge for life.
Even where peninsula ice calving is reported, there's a failure by hacks to point out that an ice peninsula represents growing ice, ice growing out over the warmer ocean, which is melted from water below not from a supposedly globally warming atmosphere above. Atmospheric circulation patterns are implicated - not V8 engine tax gas just bags of bilge for life.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff