Arguing with Idiots, Global Warming Addition XXV

Timothy Birdnow

On the Wattsupwiththat Facebook page I had an argument with another Gang-greenous alarmist type.

Rob Healy says:

Sea levels are rising, ice sheets are thinning, glaciers are retreating, oceans are warming, average temperatures are rising. All easily measurable, and they have been measured.

My friend from across the pond John Lees replies:

Rob Healy And when the oceans are found to be cooling - then just "correct" the data: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCooling

Healy retorts:

What we found was that ocean heating was larger than scientists previously thought, and so the contribution of thermal expansion to sea level rise was actually 50 percent larger than previous estimates.”
You didn’t read this did you? The above quote is in the conclusion.

Jim Church jumps in:

Rob Healy Even if this is true it doesn’t mean anything more than what’s happened for eons previously—both

James Earvin adds:

Average temperature has gone up about one degree C.

The rate of sea level rise has not changed appreciably in over a century according to tide gauges. The satellite record shows an essentially steady rate over the entire record since the mid-'90s.

Meanwhile, the dramatic and indisputable changes have been that the US and Canadian growning season has increased about 2 weeks, and the entire planet is greening. More good than bad. Overall, the measurable benefits have outweighed the negatives.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

I step in:

Rob Healy Re: your reply to John Lees; I think that was the point he was making. They just "correct" the data whenever it suits their purposes.

Also, there is nothing "easily measured" when talking about a global scale. You do realize that every measurement taken has built-in inaccuracies, and that we do not measure the entire planet but only certain spots and extrapolate. To say we know what planetary temperatures are doing is laughable; we don't measure every square inch of the Earth. We do data smoothing, which presents a dubious picture.

I would add that the Antarctic has been gaining ice - or not. Icesat says it gained, GRACE says it lost. Which is correct? They both took data through the first decade of the 20th centuries. Shows contradictory results.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/

So naturally everyone went with GRACE and ignored Icesat, even though GRACE had a history of problems.

I would add Antarctic sea ice was growing as of March of this year. https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/data/current-state-sea-ice-cover That contradicts the theory.

Also, after years of losing ice, Greenland saw a slight gain in 2017. How is that possible with carbon dioxide -driven warming? https://www.climate.gov/greenland-2017

Measuring sea level is not so simple either. The Earth did not come equipped with a tidal gauge. There are multiple things that effect sea levels. They have been rising since the last ice age and especially since the end of the Little Ice Age. And are we measuring sea level rise or tidal pool erosion? I know of at least one case where Michael Mann claimed sea level rise but it was really just erosion from new levees on the river feeding into the pool where he was measuring.

I ask you, if sea level rise is accelerating, why would the Maldives build 4 new airports? https://maldives.net.mv/35056/maldives-to-open-four-new-airports-in-2020/ They already have no fewer than 10 in operation, on land that is barely above sea level. Are investors stupid for foolishly wasting their money or do they know something?

Why is there no panic selling of beachfront property?

The fact is claims of accelerating sea level rise stem from computer models run by government-paid scientists who are under pressure to produce hysterical claims. Governments like this because it allows them to tax more, spend more, and regulate more.

The fact is we do NOT have good data, at least not good enough to make such bold, confident predictions as we have been treated to for so many years.

And climate is always changing.

Oh, and even if this comports with the models (which are still quite self-serving and off) one must ask if that means anything. Clearly there are all sorts of forcings that we do not take into account, or do so without understanding their impact. Clouds for one. Geothermal heat is another. Land use changes.

It is in no way as simple and straightforward as you suggest.

Mr. Healy isn't biting:

I retort:

I suppose you read my comment before I was done editing Rob Healy. I produce much of it there.

Oh, I would add this https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15754-3 Notice most of all ocean warming was confined to the Southern Hemisphere,. And even then Argo probes have been a huge disappointment to most warmists such as yourself.

That was where the "missing heat" was said to be located. Of course you guys couldn't explain how this heat went missing, or how it wound up in the deep oceans. Atmospheric warming isn't likely to wind up in the deep oceans and not be in the atmosphere.

The hot spot in the troposphere has not been found in contradiction to models.There was much fanfare about i'ts alleged discovery back in '15, but it is easily debunked. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/14/claim-climate-scientists-find-elusive-tropospheric-hot-spot-over-the-southern-ocean/

So where are your measurements there? I would ask you to supply YOUR proof as you are the one making unusual claims. Climate skeptics need only point out the inconsistencies with your alarmist views. It is up to YOU to provide incontrovertible proof, not us.

Mr. Healy responds:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp

Rob Healy

According to what evidence?

I reply:

I suppose you read my comment before I was done editing Rob Healy. I produce much of it there.

Oh, I would add this https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15754-3 Notice most of all ocean warming was confined to the Southern Hemisphere,. And even then Argo probes have been a huge disappointment to most warmists such as yourself.

That was where the "missing heat" was said to be located. Of course you guys couldn't explain how this heat went missing, or how it wound up in the deep oceans. Atmospheric warming isn't likely to wind up in the deep oceans and not be in the atmosphere.

The hot spot in the troposphere has not been found in contradiction to models.There was much fanfare about i'ts alleged discovery back in '15, but it is easily debunked. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/14/claim-climate-scientists-find-elusive-tropospheric-hot-spot-over-the-southern-ocean/

So where are your measurements there? I would ask you to supply YOUR proof as you are the one making unusual claims. Climate skeptics need only point out the inconsistencies with your alarmist views. It is up to YOU to provide incontrovertible proof, not us.

So Mr. Healy, you appeal to the very same people who have been caught lying to us in the past. Remember when they fiddled with historical data to say 2005 http:// icecap.us/ images/uploads/ NOAAroleinclimat egate.pdfwas warmest on record? For that matter, have you read the Climategate e-mails? They opnely brag about using tricks on the public. These were people at CRU and had a huge impact on the thinking of the climatology community. But now we are to believe them because, by gosh by golly, they are all abot you know, that thing, science! It amazes me how uncritical climate alarmists are..

Arthur Ballard chimes in:

Jim Church I studied geology. The present edition of global warming is entirely due to humans having increased atmospheric CO2 by 50%.

I respond:

I know others who have studied Geology who beg to differ Arthur Ballard.

And half of all carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is anthropogenic? Ri-ight! You assume that the entire rise of measured co2 is human induced. All of it.

I suppose you don't know that carbon dioxide continued to rise at the same rate in the atmosphere during the Covid shutdown,https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide where industrial emissions were curtailed? https://earth.stanford.edu/news/covid-lockdown-causes-record-drop-carbon-emissions-2020

So how does that comport with your theory? Do emissions soak into the furniture in the lab offices and then waft out over time?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:55 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1330 words, total size 10 kb.