Greenland's most critical glacier is suddenly gaining ice. CNN: here's why that's bad

submitted by iamonlyoneman from edition.cnn.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, science is the current best knowledge. The uncovering of new facts produces new understanding, and the scientific consensus occasionally moves to align with new facts.

More often a new fact doesn't fundamentally refute an understanding but adds to it.

The enhanced greenhouse effect is contributing to the ice mass loss in Greenland. An oscillation is affecting this one particular glacier, so that it has been going through a growth phase. It doesn't overthrow anything we know. It just adds some detailed knowledge about the micro-climate of one glacier.

The only irony here is how fanatical cultists like you who believe in the infallibility of science actually have the biggest egos.

On the contrary. The changing of one's understanding based on new facts is the opposite of having a big ego.

Let's all forget that the old science was once published too and demand that being published is absolute proof of truth, and proof that this new truth is based on the smart people doing smart things and advancing human knowledge. The only true knowledge of humanity. The published knowledge. It is in the Bible now and obviously that means it has divine properties of invoation, discovery, and novelty.

What?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The enhanced greenhouse effect is contributing to the ice mass loss in Greenland.

Show me the math on that. Let me run the experiment to verify your claims.

You can't because it is not real science in the traditional sense. It is modern "science" which is your religious claims. Claims made by "preists" of your religion that the common man has to simply believe "because it's science".

Real science says that man made co2 is a tiny fraction of all co2 in the atmosphere. Real science says that co2 only blocks a tiny fraction of the infrared spectrum and can NOT block the majority of radiant heat. Real science says that co2 increases lead to diminishing effects on insulation, meaning every addition to co2 blocks less heat than the last. Real science says that co2 is a tiny impact on temperatures compares to all the other contributors. It is far from the dominant effect and absolutely NOT a "thermostat" as your religion claims.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Show me the math on that.

It's not rocket science mate. I've melts more when it's hotter.

Real science says that man made co2 is a tiny fraction of all co2 in the atmosphere.

Human activity has increased atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial 280 or 290 ppm to today's 415 ppm.

In round numbers 30% anthropogenic.

Is that what you're calling a tiny fraction?

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth's emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere.

Yes the impact of greenhouse gases is stated per doubling of concentration. The effect decreases with increasing concentration.

I'm not that interested in flat earthers

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's not rocket science mate. I've melts more when it's hotter.

That's not at issue at all and bas nothing to do with the math. How many BTUs are being retained by man made CO2? Where is the math on that? How many BTUs are retained by other factors? Where is the math on that?

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's lots of papers that decompose the warning into natural and anthropogenic warming.

I'm bored of arguing with flat earthers, but look up Stott et al (2000) , titled something like "control of 20th century warming by natural and anthropogenic forcing" for the first one, and papers over the past 22 years that cite that one. Meehl et al. either 2004 or 2005 has an interesting piece of mathematics showing approximate linearity of the warning to forcing. As in the temperature response to forcing is approximately additive.

But there's a lot of literature for you to read there. Bottom line, natural forcing contributed to dinner of the warning prior to about 1950, but the world would have cooled again since then. Nearly 100% of the warning since 1900 is anthropogenic, and more than 100% of the warning since 1950 is anthropogenic.

I don't have the time or inclination to go through the math in detail with a flat earther, but if you have the inclination to go through it yourself, that should get you started.