The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

Your doing it again; thirteen consecutive posts. Permalinks, pleez.

I looked at my notes.Not really anything to share.

???

defenestrated! That's what you are.

'Splain me, Lucy.

Are you just trying to bury Permalink #7584? I led with a complement.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I would just add that,us being better off may cost us our planet.

If you read the ipcc reports you would know that they don't contain language anything like that.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I know what James Hansen says about it.He's probably the world's foremost expert on the subject.
Get off that high horse.You have no intellectual high ground.Just because you're reading obsolete information,doesn't make you a expert on obsolete information.
You're not studying for content as much as you're angling to criticize all things IPCC.

I most definitely have the high ground.
It's not obsolete, it's junk science.
I think their reports would be better and less objectionable if they weren't so full of freshly picked cherries.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

When you actually share some 'science' I'll be happy to participate.

Not my fault you won't talk about the obvious cherry picking.
And you just dodge dodge dodge.
So far it looks like the ipcc cherry picking is so blatant, pervasive and obvious its undefendable by even the most hard core believers.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If you read the ipcc reports you would know that they don't contain language anything like that.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

..... the ipcc cherry picking is so blatant, pervasive and obvious.....

4 oil pan tries to grasp the exxon AGW denier backbiting boardroom strategy, but the exxon mess keeps slithering into its posts.

[litesong]

Arctic sea ice Volume continues its decrease over time:
https://skepticalscience.com/arctic-sea-ice-2019.html

Since 1979 Arctic sea ice Volume loss is represented by an ice cube, 14.5 miles long, by 14.5 miles wide, by 76,600 feet high. The energy needed to melt such an ice cube is 39 times the annual energy consumption of the U.S.

Once the Arctic sea ice melts entirely in September of a future year, the energy that melted the ice, will then ADD to energy already heating the Arctic Ocean & seas, that decreasing sea ice has uncovered. Also, energy will continue melting Arctic sea ice earlier within most years, till Arctic sea ice completely melts in August, July, June, May.... earlier months? With Arctic sea ice complete melts in July & June, the sun elevation above the horizon will be at its highest in the sky. Such solar elevations will assure that much extra solar energy is absorbed into the Arctic Ocean & seas, that was never able to enter & transform into infra-red energy previously, because in-coming solar radiation was reflected off the Arctic sea ice & back into space.

These are positive feedback loops, in addition to man-made GHGs, which absorb infra-red energy radiating outward & delay heat radiating towards space.

Wherever melted sea ice uncovers ocean & sea waters that have downwellings, absorbed solar energy will be conducted downward, to Arctic Continental shelves & even deeper into deep ocean waters for long-term storage. Again, this is another positive feedback loop, in addition to AGW.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

If you read the ipcc reports you would know that they don't contain language anything like that.

Says you - but the scientists who wrote the IPCC say otherwise.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by litesong

4 oil pan tries to grasp the exxon AGW denier backbiting boardroom strategy, but the exxon mess keeps slithering into its posts.

I can tell you have never read an ipcc report either.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Not my fault you won't talk about the obvious cherry picking.
And you just dodge dodge dodge.
So far it looks like the ipcc cherry picking is so blatant, pervasive and obvious its undefendable by even the most hard core believers.

The only cherry picking is yours.

You are the outlier - and you have no facts or data.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Says you - but the scientists who wrote the IPCC say otherwise.

That should be easy to prove.
Show me in a report where it says the world is going to end?
I bet you're really good at control F searching reports for the most dire bits.
Off to it now.