The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Now the thing is I was told that global warming was going to get worse and worse and that the ice was going to melt faster and faster and that with every year that passes there would be less ice.

Never mind that the antartic has been gain ice for years.

All the believers are acting like no end of the world is the end of the world.

I apologize if I'm repeating myself (it's hard to keep up with the discussion).
The warm water is increased precipitation on Antarctica,but the glacial losses each year outpace the snowfall,for a net loss of ice.
The continent has lost enough that its experiencing tectonic uplift.
Also it's a sleeping giant volcanically.Tectonic movements elsewhere are enough to trigger asperity-locked,fault rupture-related eruptions.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by niky

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ic...elt-gore-2014/

He is referring to sea ice.

And the possibility that sea ice will disappear within the next few years.

We're still on track to get there, eventually.

-

Again, howeer, Al Gore is NOT a scientist. He is almost as guilty of misreading the data analyses as deniers are.

Some of the models show a 75% chance that the Arctic ice will be gone for some of the summer in 5-7 years. <--- This is not a "prediction" - it is reporting what the worst case modeling was.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Those are the excuses I was looking for.

It's cool and wet and fall like here.
I was told man made global warming was supposed to make summer last until November.
I wish man made global warming was real too.

With business as usual,we're looking at 8.1-degrees F global average temperature increase by 2100.
This might not change frequency or temporal changes,but it would change the intensity of any seasonal event.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

You don't say.
I wonder why all the alarmists weren't going off over this.
I figured that they would at least be making excuses.
Well their's always the antartic......

The Arctic is not yet at it's minimum yet, this year. Check out the interactive graph:

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/c...sea-ice-graph/

The Antarctic is at a new record low ice area:



It was at a record high, in just 2014. So it has swung a huge amount, in a very short period of time.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

Where are most solar panels made?
Chinese companies account for around 60 percent of total annual solar cell manufacturing capacity globally.
How clean is China's electricity?
China generates 69% of its electricity from coal.

They've been leading the world in PV and wind installation since 2015,eclipsing Germany,who's Norwegian-owned coal mines are looking for a buyer so they can accelerate their offshore wind farms.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by niky

Chernobyl isn't even that bad, all things considered.

So you have a few places where plants and animals *might* experience a slightly higher mutation rate than elsewhere, and in which they do sometimes get a little more cancer, but with no humans around to suppress populations, animals will thrive. Even around leaky old nuclear reactors (which mostly have failsafes built into them nowadays, anyway).



More like millenia. The antarctic ice cover has been growing for thousands of years.

But that growth is slowing down.

You don't look at absolutes, you look at trends. And that trend is showing a reversal, as losses of ice in some areas look set to outstrip general gains.

As of 2015,they were losing more from glaciers than they were gaining from snow.Winds have increased in velocity by 10-15% over the last 30-years and are literally blowing snow off the ice cap before it can stick.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Al gore said it was based on a computer modeling.
We already know they never ever share source data for global warming computer models with the general public.
Probably because you can program computer modeling to literally show anything you want and that's what they did.

Please provide a citation for this information.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

RedPoint, do you know if any of these models have been used to predict the past and if so, how they did?

I believe that when sulfate aerosols were included in the General Circulation Model,in 1995, that they got a match for the first time.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Xist

It seems that most people either accept Andygriffith Global Warming or they refuse to consider it. This seems to be the only [mostly] civilized discussion that I have seen.

I'm looking at an article at home,from a Milankovitch cycle expert who got into climate change research.He's talking about 3-camps of belief:
*Skeptics (which includes all scientists)
*Deniers (who reject science and empirical evidence)
*Believers (who defer to the scientific community)
He also mentions Albert Gore Jr.,and one other,who he labelled passionate 'Exaggeraters'.
and in the same sentence expresses gratitude to Gore for attempting to bring a conversation about climate change to the general public.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Granted, I haven't looked yet, but I still haven't seen someone show the public how a given model has accurately hindcasted past climate, and to what degree of accuracy.

You'd think that is the first thing the public should see if trying to convince them of the future. While that link said models are hindcasted, they didn't show the hind-casting and accuracy.

I have a reference to a General Circulation Model which showed a statistically-accurate fit,backwards and forwards,compared to observed data, in 1995.
I'll see if I can find it.