Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

<sigh> Yes, but it is also in the post-ice age warm period since the last glacial maximum (LGM -- also called the Wurm or Wisconsin ice age) that ended ~12Kya.

That is what an equivocation fallacy is: use of the same term to mean two different things while pretending they are the same. In this case, "ice age" means both the long-term cold climate regimes -- of which the most recent is the Quaternary or Pleistocene climate era of alternating comparatively long glaciated periods and brief interglacials over the last 2.5My -- and the individual ~100Ky glaciated periods of the Pleistocene that have a diverse and confusing nomenclature depending on the geographic locale (Wurm, Riss, Gunz, etc.).

The assumption that we are still in an ice age, and the glaciers will be returning, is just that: an assumption based on the pattern established over the last 2.5My. But in all likelihood, human (or superhuman AI) intervention will permanently stop the glaciers' return, and the Quaternary Ice Age will be over.

 

Thank you for admitting your error. That was my only point.

It's perfectly common and correct usage to refer to the ice age that ended ~12Kya. That there are two different meanings of "ice age" does not imply that one must be wrong. We just have to be careful to keep them straight.

Right. Paleoclimate data clearly record much faster increases at the ends of glacial periods. Moreover, the century-scale warming since the end of the little Ice Age ~200ya is comparable to multiple other warming episodes just in the Holocene.

 

I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

Its not an assumption. Scientific fact. Remember, right there in YOUR source right after you cut off your quote trying to support your assertion that we are not.

Precisely the opposite here, they will be receding. Coming out of the previous glacial period temperatures were 4-5 degrees warmer than what we see today, long before any burning of fossil fuels. This hysterical blaming of fossil fuels when we are witnessing a cycle that has continued for millions of years is absurd. Makes no more sense than blaming this springs rise of temperature over the winter's on CO2. Its a natural cycle.

 

Revealing you havent admitted your error 1000 times greater.

 

Greenland was greener than it is today in the Medieval warm period 1000 years ago. No reason to believe the repeat of what happened 1000 years ago is now due to mans burning of fossil fuels.

 

So all those IPCC studies by the most relevant scientists in the world - they don't know about Greenland? They are all conspiring against you.

 

Its not against me. Their propaganda is directed to everyone. Post modernist neo marxist. They reject objective reality and are all about creating a perception of reality.

“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.” Maurice Strong

“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” Senator Timothy Wirth

“A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.” Richard Benedick

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald:

“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.” Mikhail Gorbachev

“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.” President Jacques Chirac

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,
We redistribute de facto the worlds wealth by climate policy,
the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the worlds resources will be negotiated.
Ottmar Edenhofer

To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Stephen Schneider

 

There is nothing alarming about anybody's research results regarding Greenland.

 

I agree.

 

And the nett yearly ice melt on Greenland has accelerated from ~34 Gt/year between 1992-2001 to ~270 Gt/year between 2002-2023, and will keep accelerating until the spruce forests are replanted.
And similarly, the nett yearly ice melt on Antartica has accererated from ~30 Gt/year between 1992-2001 to ~150 Gt/year between 2002-2023.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/31156
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/31158
https://www.antarctica.gov.au/about...climate-change/ice-sheets-and-sea-level-rise/

 

Global Temperatures and Reduced Cloud Cover: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor.../global-temperatures-and-reduced-cloud-cover/

Could global warming be explained by less clouds?

 

Turns out environmentalist’s aren’t “greens” after all. They hate greening of the planet. Odd.

 

What's the correlation coefficient to support your hypothesis? And is that why the yearly nett loss of ice on Greenland and Antarctica is accelerating?

 

Not my hypothesis. Just throwing it out there for discussion.

 

When you ask why something is happening, it turns out that's strong evidence that it isn't.

 

Given that temperatures in Antarctica rarely get above freezing, I think melting might be a minor factor in land ice-loss.

 

Doesn't change the scientific fact that the reduction of ice on the ice caps is accelerating from global warming, as measured by professional scientists. If you hypothesize the loss of ice is not from the ice melting, then what is causing the accelerating ice reduction in the glaciers and ice caps?

 

It is your hypothesis!!!
So what is the statistical evidence that there is a loss of cloud cover, or is that data just normal variability from data collection, and that there is no statistically significant change in cloud cover?

 

One possible cause for the decrease in ice could be evaporation (or ‘sublimation’) and wind-erosion. On the other side of the equation, precipitation could be the main factor determining ice-gain. Depending on what data-set you trust, the global temperature might not even be accelerating as of late.

 

I don't know why you're trying to pin this hypothesis on me. I didn't come up with the idea. But the idea that cloud-cover could be responsible for global warming was corroborated by Delgado-Bonal et al (2020) who, using NASA data, estimated that there has been an increase in shortwave solar radiation of 3.5 W/m² between 1984 to 2014 which was mainly determined by cloud-modulation (see graph below).

https://notrickszone.com/2020/03/02...diation-increase-important-to-recent-warming/

 

Or the green fairies could be digging it up.
But either way, there is still a very strong correlation between the increasing atmospheric CO2 from human activity and the increasing global temperatures.

 

Agreed. But is CO2 causing temperature to change or is temperature causing CO2 to change? Humlum et al (2013) discovered an 11 month time-lag between temperature-changes and corresponding CO2-changes, with temperature-change preceeding CO2-change (see his graph below).



https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818112001658

https://notrickszone.com/2020/10/05...s-co2-changes-upending-scientific-perception/

 

That's your choice. But I accept the consensus of credible scientists and climatologists that increases in atmospheric CO2 from human activity have increased global warming from the green house effect.
Amen Amen
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions

 

Haven't really thought this through have you?