The Earth is 5% greener now than it was 20 years ago

[patman post]

That doesn't stop me being able to read the weather reports . When you alluded  the shops were selling bikinis at Christmas in the Pacific coast mountains I nearly choked on my breakfast . I know its not as cold there as in say Banff in the Rockies but it aint no tropical paradise thats for sure .

No I haven't been home for a while (2019) which is maybe too long . I'll see what I can do though I must admit I prefer it in the spring and fall than the extremes of Summer and Winter .

Bikinis?

Try reading tourist info, I bet you'll find there are places that a few years ago may have had year round temperatures as low as you say, but these days areas in front of the receding snow line are in the teens and twenties in the summer months. I'm not Canadian but I've regularly visited relatives in North Van, and seen for myself the changes in summer and winter.*** 

Sunscreen, sun hats, sun glasses, shorts, lighter weight clothing and walking shoes are still needed in both winter and summer these days. 

*** Congrats on some excellent red wines due to a particular micro climate....

[Streetwalker]

You obviously haven't been to the Whistler area recently...

That doesn't stop me being able to read the weather reports . When you alluded  the shops were selling bikinis at Christmas in the Pacific coast mountains I nearly choked on my breakfast . I know its not as cold there as in say Banff in the Rockies but it aint no tropical paradise thats for sure .

No I haven't been home for a while (2019) which is maybe too long . I'll see what I can do though I must admit I prefer it in the spring and fall than the extremes of Summer and Winter .

[patman post]

Are you aving a laugh ? Why the feck would shops keep summer goods in shops(apart from not being bothered to take them out back )  in a town that rarely ,hardly never gets above freezing for 3 months of the year

You obviously haven't been to the Whistler area recently...

[Streetwalker]

Not me. I was about two. I reckon I'm more advanced now, and can see the things sink through snow and ice each winter.

If remains are being disgorged after 40 years without digging for them, doesn't it show we're melting through, or stopping, snowfall quicker than we thought?

I'm an interloper here, my only real experience of snowy winter is around Whistler, and I've also seen its retreating snowline in summer. Some shops there are keeping summer goods all year round as the snow moves uphill...

Are you aving a laugh ? Why the feck would shops keep summer goods in shops(apart from not being bothered to take them out back )  in a town that rarely ,hardly never gets above freezing for 3 months of the year 

[BeElBeeBub]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66334788

The fact they have found a climber lost in the 80's due to snow levels, shows we at the same level we were at 40 years ago

Can you explain the "we are at the same.level" bit?

The article explicitly states the remains were revealed due to the glacier shrinking over the last 40 years. 

[BeElBeeBub]

I'm not being rude but your understanding is incorrect.

"heat (as in atmospheric heat) doesn't produce CO2" : One of the fundamentals of the whole AGW topic is that CO2 is a product or heat, and if you don't get this then we might as well stop here. The Earth warms for a period, the sea responds over an 800 year period by releasing CO2, this is not open for debate. You saying heat doesn't produce more CO2 in the atmosphere is wrong.

I will respond to your other points when I have time.

I think there was a misinderstanding. i read your statement....

"....Can you name any process where the product is also the driver? We have on Earth, a mechanism where CO2 is the product of heat, physics doesn't allow the CO2 to be a driver of heat. We would have thermal runaway...."

....as an argument that CO2 cannot be a driver of warming because that would mean it was both a product and driver of a process, which you implied (via "can you name") was impossible. Of course it is not impossible for something to be both a product and a driver of a process.

Was your argument in fact: "CO2 is a product of warming not a cause because CO2 cannot be a driver"?

Can you explain why you think CO2 cannot be a driver of the current warming?  If you believe that the effect of CO2 concentration on warming has already reached it's maximum ("saturation") it would explain why you don't believe in AGW. 

I agree a warming atmosphere can increase CO2 by things like melting tundra (I mentioned) or warming oceans degassing (I didn't mention).

Those mechanisms are part of what ended the ice ages via feedback - an initial warming caused by something other than CO2 (in that case increased solar radiation reaching the earth) released CO2, this CO2 then increased the warming releasing more CO2 and so on in a classic positive feedback loop.

As a side note, this is the origin of the "CO2 lags temperature.therefore cannot be the cause" fallacy.

Likewise you claim "physics doesn't allow CO2 to be a driver of heat". Where is your evidence for this? Is it your "CO2 saturation experiment" argument? 

[patman post]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66334788

The fact they have found a climber lost in the 80's due to snow levels, shows we at the same level we were at 40 years ago

Not me. I was about two. I reckon I'm more advanced now, and can see the things sink through snow and ice each winter.

If remains are being disgorged after 40 years without digging for them, doesn't it show we're melting through, or stopping, snowfall quicker than we thought?

I'm an interloper here, my only real experience of snowy winter is around Whistler, and I've also seen its retreating snowline in summer. Some shops there are keeping summer goods all year round as the snow moves uphill...

[Nick]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66334788

The fact they have found a climber lost in the 80's due to snow levels, shows we at the same level we were at 40 years ago

[Nick]

I don't want to be rude but this is absolutely riddled with misidertandings and errors. Possibly it is poorly worded so doesn't reflect your true understanding.

Let's start with "name a process..."

Yes I can name a process. One of the most basic and every day. Combustion (fire). Heat (the driver) causes a chemical reaction that produces more heat (the product).

Secondly, we *don't* have a "...mechanism where CO2 is the product of heat...."

heat (as in atmospheric heat) doesn't produce CO2 (unless you count increased probability of wildfires) - there *are* feedback mechanisms such as melting of arctic tundra releasing methane. Scientists are worried that could cause a "thermal runaway" although the exact tipping point and extent of that are debated.

but I don't think that is what you are talking about.

Again, without wishing to be rude, you don't seem to know much about this beyond the standard "anti" talking points.

So far you have proposed that climate change is driven by orbital changes - proven false

You've.thrn argued that the models predicting it are wrong in various ways
They don't match measurements (troposphere warming anomaly - false readings do march expected rates, global warming rates are 50% predicted - false, measured rates are within expected tolerances (sub 20%))

You've also brought the "CO2 saturation" argument up twice - again false, meme based on century old oversimplification of physics

I suspect I won't convince you but have any of my rebuttals had any effect? For example do you accept the troposphere is warming at a rate consistent with the models?  Do you accept that the "CO2 saturation" argument is flawed?

I'm not being rude but your understanding is incorrect. 

"heat (as in atmospheric heat) doesn't produce CO2" : One of the fundamentals of the whole AGW topic is that CO2 is a product or heat, and if you don't get this then we might as well stop here. The Earth warms for a period, the sea responds over an 800 year period by releasing CO2, this is not open for debate. You saying heat doesn't produce more CO2 in the atmosphere is wrong. 

I will respond to your other points when I have time. 

[HDQQ]

Unlikely.

Never overestimate the impotent rage of the young. Especially the current crop. They will huff and puff, but being ridden with a basic decency, will always come true in the end

I think us oldies are better at doing impotent rage. 

[BeElBeeBub]

Unlikely.

Never overestimate the impotent rage of the young. Especially the current crop. They will huff and puff, but being ridden with a basic decency, will always come true in the end

[Streetwalker]

[Borchester]

Yeah, you might find they may not and you'll have to wipe your own arse in the nursing home.

Unlikely.

Never overestimate the impotent rage of the young. Especially the current crop. They will huff and puff, but being ridden with a basic decency, will always come true in the end

[BeElBeeBub]

As long as the young work hard and pay my pensions I don't care what they are driving

Yeah, you might find they may not and you'll have to wipe your own arse in the nursing home.

[BeElBeeBub]

Still, I might have a solution to the problem.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

According to these guys, the earth was heating up between 1980 and the present, but cooling between 1900 and the 1940s, with things levelling out between the two periods.

No you just struggle to read a graph



The base line is the AVERAGE of the temps between 1880- and 2020, so as the temperature is rising, of course the period at the start of the series is below the average!

No month since 1980 has been below the average temperature of the 20th Century and no month in the last decade has been cooler than any month in the preceding 160 years.