JW USA: A Witness responds to Lloyd Evans about JW and global climate change

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

........ also pencil in April 8, 2024, in Vincinnes, Indiana, for the next great American total Solar Eclipse.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

It may be as a practical matter almost impossible to "catch-up", Billy, but you need to spend a year researching what a bunch of fraudsters and fakers the IPCC is. There have been many documentations of their internal "bad science" ... BECAUSE ... they faked data to fit the fake models.

If you spend now  until about mid-2020 you might... MIGHT ... catch up.

The key words to start with is "IPCC emails".

https://www.foxnews.com/science/fastest-thinning-greenland-glacier-threw-nasa-scientists-for-a-loop-its-actually-growing?cmpid=NL_SciTech

[Space Merchant]

@BillyTheKid46 Yes. Meanwhile, you have people will speak of global warming and climate change, and at the same time they ignore recent events concerning such, for example, glaciers in Greenland, while on the other side of things you have people at NASA in a situation such as this:

 

That being said, there is always something about global and climate change when it is concerning the powers that be, and those who think they know such things without doing a little bit of the research show themselves unaware of things.

[Space Merchant]

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

It may be as a practical matter almost impossible to "catch-up", Billy, but you need to spend a year researching what a bunch of fraudsters and fakers the IPCC is. There have been many documentations of their internal "bad science" ... BECAUSE ... they faked data to fit the fake models.

If you spend now  until about mid-2020 you might... MIGHT ... catch up.

The key words to start with is "IPCC emails".

https://www.foxnews.com/science/fastest-thinning-greenland-glacier-threw-nasa-scientists-for-a-loop-its-actually-growing?cmpid=NL_SciTech

You beat me to the finish line, but yes, absolutely yes. The powers that be LOVE to spin the global warming/climate change narrative, mixing and picking a truth with untruths, and so forth. Money tends to talk if it tickles the right ears, in this sense.

[Anna]

On 3/22/2019 at 10:31 PM, The Librarian said:

@TrueTomHarley I still getting used to this theme.

I think I will actually ask the @admin to go back to the default. 

It was giving me a "headache" and put me off coming here. Glad it's back to normal.

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

https://www.foxnews.com/science/fastest-thinning-greenland-glacier-threw-nasa-scientists-for-a-loop-its-actually-growing?cmpid=NL_SciTech

News outlets, even those who support global warming (climate change) science, have contributed to the belief that we should not trust 99 scientists out of 100 by so often giving nearly 50 percent of their coverage to the nay-sayer instead of only 1 percent. And some news outlets, appealing to older conservative audiences, like FoxNews, will focus only on the 1 percent, as if only 1 of the 99 is telling the truth and the other 99 must have a hidden agenda. And it's still mostly non-scientists who write the news and decide how to "position" "dramatize" or politicize these various reports. 

This is also the case of a Greenland glacier that had been rapidly thinning for 20 years but has spent the last 3 years slowing down and therefore actually getting thicker in parts. Some news outlets have pointed to the anomaly as if it might create doubt about the general pattern. Of course, the report about this glacier came from the same scientists that their audience is supposed to always mistrust. So the focus is on how this anomaly surprised "the scientists" as if they were dumbfounded about how they could have been so wrong.

Since we are being taught to only trust news outlets instead of science outlets, how about this one from Forbes? https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2019/03/26/the-good-bad-and-ugly-of-greenlands-jakobshavn-glacier-slowing-and-gaining-mass/#153ea8922179

But even before reading this much better article in Forbes one should read carefully the claims made in the FoxNews version:

The glacier — known as Jakobshavn, which sits on Greenland's west coast — is still contributing to sea level rise, but it's losing less ice than expected. . . .

But this crisp change won't last forever. Once the NAO climate pattern flips back, the Jakobshavn will likely start melting faster and thinning again, the researchers said.

"Jakobshavn is getting a temporary break from this climate pattern," Josh Willis, of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the principal investigator of OMG, said in the statement. "But in the long run, the oceans are warming. And seeing the oceans have such a huge impact on the glaciers is bad news for Greenland's ice sheet."

The FoxNews article admits that the glacier lost 500 feet in height (think of a 50 story building) but gained back 100 feet largely through snow accumulation.

Between 2003 and 2016, its thickness (from top to bottom) dwindled by 500 feet (152 meters).

But in 2016, the waters flowing from Greenland's southern tip to its western side cooled by more than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit . . .

In all, Jakobshavn grew about 100 feet (30 m) taller between 2016 and 2017, the researchers found. But, as mentioned, the glacier is still contributing to ocean level rise worldwide, as it's still losing more ice to the ocean than it is gaining from snow accumulation, the researchers said.

The Forbes article is better in that it avoids the sensationalism of only focusing on the quotes of scientists who were surprised at the anomaly, and also quotes scientists who claimed to realize that this type of thing is expected. (There are always going to be 'exceptions that prove the rule.')

The more important surprise is a more dangerous one, in that it shows just how sensitive glaciers are to water temperatures, and therefore this is worse news than expected. The Forbes article adds: https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2019/03/26/the-good-bad-and-ugly-of-greenlands-jakobshavn-glacier-slowing-and-gaining-mass/#153ea8922179

Bad news is, if glaciers are this sensitive to the ocean, we’ll be revising sea level rise projections upwards [a]gain soon.

He's right and that's ugly.

The article points out that this glacier alone contributed 1 mm to this 90 mm rise since 1995. Also:

It is important to remember that oceans are also not the only driver of Greenland's melt. A 2019 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science is a stark reminder that Greenland is melting four times faster than expected. The OMG tends to focus on ocean process, but other scientists studying Greenland's climate highlight other key factors too (atmospheric warming and more humid atmosphere, more liquid water clouds, darkening surface from earlier melt). While "the pause" is "relatively" good news and a good lesson on the role of regional variability within a dynamic climate system , it must not be overplayed or spun to some narrative that climate change is not happening or has reversed.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

All things change ... get used to it !

What used to be the sea bottom of the Gulf of Mexico, with all the fishes, large and small ... is now Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and States North.

With glaciers, what used to be the plains of what we now call Illinois and surrounding States is now the Great Lakes .

The mighty Mississippi River was relocated when the land tilted by Earthquakes.

At one time, the ENTIRE planet Earth was covered with two MILES of ice.  Before that,  molten lava 4,000 miles deep.

The Earth is slowing down its rotation about 2 milliseconds every hundred years, as the Moon gets further and further away, at about 1-1/2 inches per year.

I have in a bookcase here at home, a pie shaped section of a tree cut from a slice of a petrified tree that I bought in Arizona, where millions of trees lie on the ground, exposed by erosion, and it still has the rings and bark on the outside arc, replaced molecule by molecule, as the wood was replaced by minerals, and became stone. 

This tree fell to Earth in Nicaragua 283 MILLION years ago and at a small fraction of an inch per year was carried, with a whole forest of similar trees, by continental drift to what is now Arizona ..... where someone picked it up, cut it, and I bought it.

The Earth is changing. 

Always has .... always will.

What used to be jungles, are now deserts. What used to be deserts are now jungles.  What used to be flat plains are now mountains.

Mankind does not possess the ability to affect climate change ... one way or another.  Not to cause it. Not to change it. Not to stop it.

The only REAL greenhouse gas is water vapor ... a multi trillion ton collection of floating WATER. 

Clouds that circle the Earth, and float above  your head ... shiny on the top ... dark on the bottom ... covering continents,  nations and oceans.

And of course, that ever present fusion reactor in the sky, 93,000,000 miles away, our variable star called The Sun.

If we had a spasm total global thermonuclear war, setting the entire Earth on fire ... we would have a global nuclear winter for about four years, devastation almost beyond imagination.

And then ... rain would wash the pollutants out of the air and it would fall to Earth as acid rain ... and in about ten years, the climate would return to what it was ... as determined by our Star, the Sun, and orbital mechanics .... whatever it is.

Even with total global thermonuclear war, we cannot change the climate ... only the weather for about a decade.

All things change ... get used to it !

If the sea levels rise ......

buy a boat!

... or move !

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

It would certainly be something to consider if a person lives in a fantasy world dictated by their own imagination. Something missing from that fantasy of 283 million years of evolution seems to be humans. Unless someone can find factual evidence man existed 283 million years ago and were privy to the same conditions of climate change by natural erosion.

Billy ..... you are the best I have ever seen at misapplying whatever anyone says.   You take someone's key words and misapply them to  fit your own agenda.

("Something missing from that fantasy of 283 million years of evolution....")

In this case, the word "erosion", which you have mentioned several times, and has NOTHING to do with this conversation.

This is a COMMON problem of ALL agenda driven thinking processes

I said the piece of petrified wood I have is 283 million years old ... NOT that mankind was 283 million years old.

When your ENTIRE thinking processes are controlled, governed, and shaped by AGENDA ... you can ignore a billion and more tons of HARD EVIDENCE.

Agenda driven thinking ALWAYS results in theocratic hallucinations.

Add that to negligible reading comprehension, and you live in a cartoon world, untouched by tawdry or magnificent reality.

[TrueTomHarley]

Okay, TTH, admit when you have overstated it. You told @Srecko Sostar and @JW Insider that Americans were split 50/50 on climate change.

In fact, it looks like 2/3 think it exists and is man-made. 1/5 think it is a fraud. 

44% worry much about it, down from 60 something. About 1/3, including some who think it is real and manmade, don’t fret about it.

With all the ideologues, zealot, and sometimes outright liars trying to skew perceptions in their direction, one looks for new indicators from trustworthy sources. For me, that is statements of the WT that they are now devoting multiple times the resources that they one did to disaster relief.

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/03/28/gallup-poll-americans-remain-concerned-over-global-warming-44-worry-a-great-deal-about-it/

[JW Insider]

41 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You told @Srecko Sostar and @JW Insider that Americans were split 50/50 on climate change.

Americans in the United States are close enough to 50/50. But to be fair, you weren't speaking about Americans. I only responded to your claim about "the world."

On 3/22/2019 at 4:11 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

The world splits down the middle on climate change.

Measuring stats from Gallup-style surveys can be very misleading, too, especially on a topic that varies so much by demographic (education, age and political ideology). 17 year old HS students in rural areas will have a different outlook than 18 year old college students in cities. Lack of worry can be a positive measure among some and a negative outlook of total despair among others. 

57 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

For me, that is statements of the WT that they are now devoting multiple times the resources that they one did to disaster relief.

It's to be expected, in my opinion too, but it does not necessarily follow that these additional resources are due to climate change. There might have been a decision to devote more resources due to several other factors. And if funds for these purposes were to run out, it would also not follow that climate change disasters had diminished. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

19 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

And if funds for these purposes were to run out, it would also not follow that climate change disasters had diminished. 

Coincidence is not causality.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

For me, that is statements of the WT that they are now devoting multiple times the resources that they one did to disaster relief.

That's the thing about WDS ... it makes you see things that are not there .... a theocratic hallucination.  A mirage. The remembrance of a favorite cartoon that was never actually made.

[JW Insider]

20 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Mankind does not possess the ability to affect climate change ... one way or another.  Not to cause it. Not to change it. Not to stop it.

I think it can be misleading to look at the ability of the atmosphere to absorb billions of tons of elements in the form of gases and particulates outside of the "normal" levels of Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Dihydrogen Monoxide 😉, Methane, Ozone, etc. But the theory of global warming is really about "tipping points." It's not "linear." The atmosphere can absorb tons of "pollutants, but only up to a certain point when new effects can be measured.

It's also an attempt to explain why we have been able to measure the gasses trapped in ice for thousands of years based on deep core samples and see a very stable rise and fall in "greenhouse gases" up until the last few decades. These are evidently natural cycles. You can think of distortion, interference or spikes in an otherwise smooth sine wave on an oscilloscope. These "spikes" could be from oceanic or volcanic disruptions over the last thousands of years, and we can't really correlate these with global temperatures since there was no one there to measure prior to the last few decades. So the threshold line is theoretically arbitrary. Still, if we could hypothesize a "tipping point" threshold line, it's easy to see that spikes that occur below the threshold line would be meaningless. But to test the theory we would want to watch for possible additional effects over the line. But now we have a new spike that hasn't abated, and it's 10 times taller than the last spike on the chart below (not shown).

Why a huge spike now? Is there more volcanic activity now? NO. Is there more methane and CO2  released now? YES. So this is where and why we would start looking for cause and effect.

It's not fully analogous, but some TV Science channel once ran a special about how you could kill the Sun with a chunk of iron. Completely false, but it turns out that there are stars of certain sizes that would not survive an influx of iron. More accurately, stars fuse hydrogen to helium -- and the core of the star, through real alchemy, can "fuse" elements all the way up to iron, but no further. If it starts trying to fuse iron, it means its energy will quickly be lost and the star will quickly collapse. The point is that it might be surprising that a star (depending on mass/gravity) that has a certain level of iron in it could be fine, but just a tiny bit more and the whole star just collapses.