Earth Day: Mike Mann’s Warning from 1998

April 22, 2018

Advertisements

24 Responses to “Earth Day: Mike Mann’s Warning from 1998”

  1. Andy Lee Robinson Says:

    Here’s another favourite reality check:
    James Burke on CO₂ in 1989

  2. rhymeswithgoalie Says:

    “Last week it was announced a piece of the Antarctic ice shelf the size of Washington, D.C. broke off.”

    A mere 70 square miles. How cute by today’s standards.

    😦

    • ted knopper Says:

      The piece which came lose, is still there, it simply broke off the ice shelf. All that floating ice has zero effect on sea level so it is irrevalent to ocean levels or the trend which per tidal data from the French is 4 inch rise in the next 100 years and per NOAA data from places not rising or falling is 3 inch trend in the next 100 years. One can argue that the trend is changing but the actual data does not show that.

      One thing which may be more important to climate change is solar output changes not including those shown by the sunspot cycle. Data on that is sparse in the study record but some do show increased solar output.

      I would argue that from the rapid melt off of the last ice age, the medievil warm period and the little ice age, solar output is not constant and is the actual driver of climate change as CO2 changes follow, do not precede climate change.

      • Sir Charles Says:

        Hey ted. Here some basics:

        Here the full playlist

        BTW, when ice breaks off it is indeed adding to sea level rise. Like a cube of ice you’re tossing into your glass.

        • dumboldguy Says:

          Chucky, in his usual haste to try to show someone up and crow about his imagined superiority, misses the target a bit with “BTW, when ice breaks off it is indeed adding to sea level rise. Like a cube of ice you’re tossing into your glass”.

          Sloppy science, Chucky. Pay attention.

          Knopper may be a moron, bur he was talking about ice that was already floating, and it therefore would not change sea level if if broke off and floated away from a larger floating sheet.

          What you’re talking about is more akin to a chunk of ice breaking off a grounded glacier, which WOULD cause sea level to rise once it sank into the water.

          • Sir Charles Says:

            You can also accuse Eric Rignot of “Sloppy science”, dumbo. Now you pay attention:

            Whenever Larsen C does collapse, be it soon or decades from now, the new iceberg serves as a sign that the instability of the ice sheets is progressing south toward the body of Antarctica, where vast stores of land-bound water—meters, not millimeters of sea level rise—are similarly buttressed by ice shelves. “As climate warming advances farther south,” added Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at the University of California, Irvine, in a statement, “it will affect larger and larger ice shelves that currently hold back bigger and bigger glaciers, so their collapse will contribute more to sea level rise.”

            => Delaware-sized iceberg splits from Antarctica

            Ice sheets calving from the mainland are indeed adding to sea level rise. Plus the more unstable glaciers make more calving inevitable. Go attacking someone else, dumbo. You’re only losing the battle with me.

      • Gingerbaker Says:

        Jesus H. Chriminy, Ted – every effing sentence of your comment is a falsehood. Yet another troll.

  3. dumboldguy Says:

    Let’s see—-it’s 20 years since the (rather svelte but already hair-impaired) Mike Mann warning, almost 30 years since James Burke’s. Can we throw James Hansen
    from 1988 in there as well?

    But now it’s all a Chinese hoax. Ask the Dumpster Fire and Head Moron in the White House or any good Repugnant like Smith or Inhoffe.

  4. dumboldguy Says:

    LOL—-the dumbass demented rooster we call Chucky once again trips and falls into a pile of dung as he struts around the barnyard crowing about his imagined victory.

    Once he cleans up, he may want to spend some time studying science and looking up words in the dictionary—-might be less embarrassing than getting HIS ass kicked while the whole world watches. It looks really STUPID when one quotes people without really understanding what they said, and both Rignot’s and my science are in agreement and neither are “sloppy”—-that word IS appropriate to Chucky’s thinking, though, so keep it around for future use.

    As I thought I made clear in my original comment, Chucky does NOT really understand the difference between ice SHEETS, ice SHELVES, ICE bergs, CALVING, and GLACIERS, and perhaps not even what “floating” means (remember Archimedes?) He proves that with this mish-mosh of confusion:

    “Ice sheets calving from the mainland are indeed adding to sea level rise. Plus the more unstable glaciers make more calving inevitable”.

    Chucky says “Go attacking someone else, dumbo. You’re only losing the battle with me”. ROTFLMAO! First, it is impossible to fight a battle of wits about science with someone who is only half-armed science-wise. Second, I am not attacking Chucky as much as attempting to teach him—-once a teacher always a teacher, as the saying goes, and he reminds me of many of the science ignorant kids I taught back in the day. Stop whining and embarrassing yourself, Chucky—-learn some science!
    I am your friend, and only your friends will tell you when you’re full of shit—-your enemies will tell everyone BUT you.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      PS I am answering Chucky’s comment of April 24, 2018 at 11:57 as a new comment here to avoid the vertical “stretch” that makes reading less fun.

    • Sir Charles Says:

      Nice response from a guy who first complained about ad hominem and who wanted to debate “science”. You do your nick a lot of credit here, dumbo 🙂

      Next.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        Yes, it was indeed a “nice” response from someone who is trying to be your friend and help you get up to speed on science.

        And I don’t complain about ALL ad hominem attacks, just those spewed by demented roosters. Calling someone an idiot when you have explained the evidence multiple times and they still refuse to address it is not an ad hominem attack, but rather a statement of fact. Similarly, tacking an insult onto any argument might be bad form, but it doesn’t automatically make it an ad hominem.

        And yes, I DO want to talk about the science—-it’s not a debate, and there are no quotes around the word—when will you study enough that you too know the difference between ice SHEETS, ice SHELVES, ICE bergs, CALVING, and GLACIERS? Rignot and I know the difference, why don’t you? And why won’t you simply admit it?

        • Sir Charles Says:

          I admit I don’t need you as a “friend”, dumbo. All the rest can be read in the comments I already posted.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            The “comments you already posted: show your lack of understanding of the basic science involved, particularly in your quoting of Rignot and saying we don’t agree. The “all the rest” is that you are not a credible source of commentary here on Crock (although you DO google up some good stuff—too bad you don’t understand much of it).

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Glad we agree.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: