International CNN: Greenland Gaining ice might not be a good thing? Climate Science or perpetual Scaremongering?

[andnowweknow]

I love climate change threads on Sherdog...it's amazing the things people, in the face of overwhelming evidence, will disagree on. As far as the green extreme folks, I always wish they would have a deeper understanding of historical climate change. Things ain't so bad people, and you're just gonna have to stop polluting and accept that the coast isn't going the be the coast in the future.

 

[tinker_190]

"Global warming" is still correct, but people (like TS) are confused by the term--since, even though as a the "globe" as a whole was getting warmer, not all areas were (like the glacier in question). "Climate change" is a more fitting term because even if you're in an area which is cooling, or staying the same--the affect of the rest of the globe warming will change your climate.

So, the part of the ocean that glacier resides has gotten a couple degrees cooler in the past few years. That's just one little spot on the planet. And just a couple measly years.

Temperatures fluctuate up and down every few years, but the trend is going up. The down years are still lower than the up years, but they are warmer than previous down years and the up years are warmer than previous up years.

Do you have this going back further, possibly to pre-industrial revolution? Or possibly with some dual Y axis with industrial output or human population?

Basically something that shows when the "switch" was flipped when humans started actually having the capacity to affect the environment?

 

[P0NYBOY]

Those planes buried in the ice in greenland are 72 feet deeper than they were in 1992 and this accumulating of ice has only been predicted to change to melting in 81 years. Of course, the predictions are usually trumpeted by people with an agenda.

 

[abiG]

"Global warming" is still correct, but people (like TS) are confused by the term--since, even though as a the "globe" as a whole was getting warmer, not all areas were (like the glacier in question). "Climate change" is a more fitting term because even if you're in an area which is cooling, or staying the same--the affect of the rest of the globe warming will change your climate.

Oh, bullshit, TS understands this just fine.

The first trace of global warming I have found goes back to 1817:
"It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."
--President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817


We don't really here much more of this until 1922:
"The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen , Norway . Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds."
-- AP as published in the Washington Post, November 2, 1922

This idea continues and builds up speed for decades as it was massively funded. By the 70's however, the research just wasn't coming back as expected so entire narrative changed 180 degrees. This is when the global cooling hysteria became major news.

Basically, the funds for the global warming bullshit ran out, so they went right on to global cooling.

Time did a big piece, then the BBC and then the Newsweek piece. This was followed by several articles/news stories over the next several years that promoted this same idiocy.

The narrative went something like this:


Science
Another Ice Age?
Monday, Jun 24, 1974...
http://web.archive.org/web/20060812.../time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html

Then, 1983 rolls around as the research here failed as well and guess what? Yup... global warming again:


By 1988, global warming was fully back as they had been ramping up the idea of carbon 'credits' for years, by 2008 we found out it was climate change, in 2010 we had climate disruption and by 2018 we had a full-on climate crisis. Hell, moonbat AOC recently warned us that we have only 12 years left.

The bottom line? As long as you keep changing the narrative, you can never be wrong.

 

[abiG]

World In Midst of Carbon Drought (w/ Prof. William Happer, Princeton University)

 

[IDL]

Today on how to get fired from your research position in 5 words or less

Why? When it comes to predicting the future you don't know the outcome most of the time. It's not an exact science, and saying something in definitive terms is usually false because you don't know.

 

[Seano]

NPR: Doctors blame climate change for heat-related illnesses in Florida

See this is the type of shit that, just when people are saying "maybe there's something to this" forces them to then say "Oh, fuck the fuck off, you fucking fuck."

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

The term "climate change" has been politicized and is thus now toxic.

If you ask questions, you are deemed a science denier by the left, mostly by those that deny Biology to gain social media points by the deranged leftists and to keep their jobs.

And so, real science is now practically non-existent now when it comes to this topic as even scientists that point out the flaws in what is being said are now being fired, discredited, removed from studies/positions...

The last ice-age ended around 11,700 years ago. right around the time when those that are now natives of the America's crossed the Bering-Straights which is now impossible. Why? Because the planet has been warming and melting all the ice from the ice age causing the oceans to rise and cover it...oh, wait that happened around 11,000 years ago.

Through-out recorded history we have examples of this continuing. Egypt used to be a fertile land, green as a mother fucker...the land of "plenty".

They found proof that much of what is now the black sea, was actually dry land and around 5,600 B.C, over-flow from the Caspian Sea flowed into it from glacier melting.

We have recorded proof of "polar vortexes" back in the 1800s when they bothered to actually start recording weather events...looks like they are not new and caused by humanity after-all.

We already know that there was a vast warming period at the time of the last ice-age called "late glacial", an unexplained sudden increase in warming over a few centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Glacial

Why did we have such a warm midieval period and get a mini ice age from 1650 to 1850?!? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Can all this just be cyclical? Dont ask...or you are a science denier.

 

[no fat chicks]

The term "climate change" has been politicized and is thus now toxic.

If you ask questions, you are deemed a science denier by the left, mostly by those that deny Biology to gain social media points by the deranged leftists and to keep their jobs.

And so, real science is now practically non-existent now when it comes to this topic as even scientists that point out the flaws in what is being said are now being fired, discredited, removed from studies/positions...

The last ice-age ended around 11,700 years ago. right around the time when those that are now natives of the America's crossed the Bering-Straights which is now impossible. Why? Because the planet has been warming and melting all the ice from the ice age causing the oceans to rise and cover it...oh, wait that happened around 11,000 years ago.

Through-out recorded history we have examples of this continuing. Egypt used to be a fertile land, green as a mother fucker...the land of "plenty".

They found proof that much of what is now the black sea, was actually dry land and around 5,600 B.C, over-flow from the Caspian Sea flowed into it from glacier melting.

We have recorded proof of "polar vortexes" back in the 1800s when they bothered to actually start recording weather events...looks like they are not new and caused by humanity after-all.

We already know that there was a vast warming period at the time of the last ice-age called "late glacial", an unexplained sudden increase in warming over a few centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Glacial

Why did we have such a warm midieval period and get a mini ice age from 1650 to 1850?!? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Can all this just be cyclical? Dont ask...or you are a science denier.

Pretty much every example you posted has explainable explanations that are readily available. I don't accuse of you being a denier I accuse you of being lazy

 

[JonesBones]

Global Warming is a theory of everything, which means it is a theory of nothing. Every thing that happens confirms global warming.

 

[JonesBones]

NPR: Doctors blame climate change for heat-related illnesses in Florida

lol again, the Theory of Everything. A theory that can be used to describe everything, describes nothing.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Pretty much every example you posted has explainable explanations that are readily available. I don't accuse of you being a denier I accuse you of being lazy

You proved my point because there are still scientists who challenge the data of it not being natural and they are silenced...and that was not the case before 15 years ago.

One of the best examples is the sudden drop-off of scientists wanting to speak about the Milankovitch theory and the 100,000 year problem being allowed to do so. They have all since been driven out of science and disenfranchised even though BOTH theories are still in good standing. And it only happened after the politicization of this issue.

Those scientists found a direct correlation between the reasons for the sudden increase in ice-age length with a slow steady increase in global temperatures preceding them and with a slight increase in temperatures before mini-ice ages.

The list has yet to be refuted, the warm periods before the Minoan, the Roman and Medieval "warm" periods were all followed by mini ice ages and the LARGE warming periods before the Huronian abd Holocene ice ages which were the longest in history...and those warming periods were much higher that what we are facing today which is only slightly warmer than the mini warming periods before the short ice-ages.

But, whatever...I am the "lazy" one for questioning and not being exactly what I pointed out in the post you replied to...like you.

 

[JonesBones]

Remember people, it is acceptable to debate/speculate the mass of particles and how a multiverse or other universes behave, but global warming is a fucking fact that cannot be debated. lol. Why aren't people trying to push things like the multiverse out of science? Because there is no moral imperative. The only type of person suitable to study this is somebody who gives no fucks about humanity. Only then can it be objective.

 

[no fat chicks]

You proved my point because there are still scientists who challenge the data of it not being natural and they are silenced...and that was not the case before 15 years ago.

One of the best examples is the sudden drop-off of scientists wanting to speak about the Milankovitch theory and the 100,000 year problem being allowed to do so. They have all since been driven out of science and disenfranchised even though BOTH theories are still in good standing. And it only happened after the politicization of this issue.

Those scientists found a direct correlation between the reasons for the sudden increase in ice-age length with a slow steady increase in global temperatures preceding them and with a slight increase in temperatures before mini-ice ages.

The list has yet to be refuted, the warm periods before the Minoan, the Roman and Medieval "warm" periods were all followed by mini ice ages and the LARGE warming periods before the Huronian abd Holocene ice ages which were the longest in history...and those warming periods were much higher that what we are facing today which is only slightly warmer than the mini warming periods before the short ice-ages.

But, whatever...I am the "lazy" one for questioning and not being exactly what I pointed out in the post you replied to...like you.

" The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Reportconsidered the timing and areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely-independent regional climate changes rather than a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. At most, there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[10]"
From the wiki you quoted. . .

But muh fringe rogue scientist spoke against it. That's some anti vax level argument your putting out there. Find some data that can better describe the recent warming trend. I'm all for co2 and other ghgs having no effect on our planet if the proof is there. Instead all we get is accusations of there being a secret cabal of disingenuous independent scientists along with deliberate misinterpretations of data akin to creationists.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

" The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, all separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Reportconsidered the timing and areas affected by the Little Ice Age suggested largely-independent regional climate changes rather than a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. At most, there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[10]"
From the wiki you quoted. . .

Welcome to science where there are almost always conflicting data reports...yet, magically all conflicting data reports for todays warming must be silenced.

I wonder if you will do more things to prove my original point and wonder if you will ever understand why I made it while doing it...and all while ignoring my last post that with far more information in it which is harder to refute.

 

[Scheme]

Everything bad is because of climate change

Everything good is because of solar energy

It's that simple you fucking peons. Grow a brain morans.

 

[Sketch]

Everything bad is because of climate change

Everything good is because of solar energy

It's that simple you fucking peons. Grow a brain morans.

Don't forget cows and airplanes

 

[trident]

The nice thing about the climate change debate is it keeps us from having the pollution talk.

 

[Scheme]

The nice thing about the climate change debate is it keeps us from having the pollution talk.

Or the garbage in the ocean talk
Or the running out of fish talk
Or the mass deforestation talk
Or the real root cause... overpopulation

 

[trident]

Or the garbage in the ocean talk
Or the running out of fish talk
Or the mass deforestation talk
Or the real root cause... overpopulation

Yup, you get the picture.