Forum Decorum

[kassy]

apparently dolphins and whales are going to get the virus, it is all trump's fault, and if we don't genocide all the minks we are all going to die.

Well it was an actual science article (and as you can see in some replies there is a precedent).
Culling the mink is not a bad idea (and then stop breeding them)...we also always genocide them for fur coats or whatever they become after there short life...

[HapHazard]

There's a covid thread here?

[be cause]

There's a covid thread here?

    shhh !

[gandul]

Oren, you are an imbecile, and I think everybody knows, even Neven knows, he probably finds you a useful IDIOT

[vox_mundi]

That definitely sounds like an exception to Hanlon’s razor

[greylib]

Oren, you are an imbecile, and I think everybody knows, even Neven knows, he probably finds you a useful IDIOT

Hanlon's razor is a principle or rule of thumb that states, "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Known in several other forms, it is a philosophical razor which suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior.

Gandul, I won't be using Hanlon's razor on you. I don't think you're an imbecile - I'm attributing your posts to pure malice. And I think everybody knows, even Neven knows...

[John_The_Elder]

I can not understand how the moderators allow such to pass as civil discussion. It won't be long before no one is here to post or to read, except for the trolls and deniers. Someone should grow pair and do the job ( that they are not paid to do)

[be cause]

I'm sorry folks .. I can only ask .. Gandul has his defenders , I know not why ,  and ONLY NEVEN can put him on moderation or remove his presence altogether , something I personally have preferred for a considerable time . b.c.

[oren]

Gandul - feel free to call me silly names as long as you don't disrupt the forum I am tasked with moderating (the Cryosphere section). The tragedy is that I consider you intelligent and have Liked quite a few of your posts over the last year. However your anger and belligerence have been growing and you are losing the ability to contribute usefully on a public forum, lashing out at other posters and making repeated defensive posts.
The forum is about the science, not about your ego. If you can't control it, the moderators will do it for you, an unhappy task but one that must be done.

[John_The_Elder]

I have been here for 10+ years. I cannot continue to be a party to any group that refuses to do what is good for that group. So like Nanning I will say adieu and best wishes to all.
John

[sidd]

Does no one here but me use a killfile ?

sidd

[HapHazard]

[gerontocrat]

I have been here for 10+ years. I cannot continue to be a party to any group that refuses to do what is good for that group. So like Nanning I will say adieu and best wishes to all.
John

Bummer,

Au revoir(?) John.

A steady loss of forum members will continue unless something is done. The moderators have been at it a good few months now. I think Neven could now delegate authority to the moderators to put members on moderation, and even to bar a member if they all agree.

If nothing is done even about simple abuse one must eventually assume that the abusers have won ownership of the forum and the time has come to look for pastures new, which would be a real drag; but ho-hum, nothing lasts forever.

[Tom_Mazanec]

I didn't even know what a killfile is, sidd.
But I don't ignore anyone...I try to hear everything.
And I'm still here.

[kassy]

I have been here for 10+ years. I cannot continue to be a party to any group that refuses to do what is good for that group. So like Nanning I will say adieu and best wishes to all.
John

As members of the forum we are a group. But that does not mean we are a group in real live and that is actually what makes these message boards interesting.

If you read the non cryosphere content you see that there is a variety of members with different views.

I am really not sure what John actually means or thinks we should do all together.

As to ignore lists: they are a good solution if you just find a posters contribution a waste of time.

[sailor]

--- or remove his presence altogether ---

I also support this, not even waste moderation time.
Oren, I also had a good opinion of him months ago, I even defended him in one of his tantra with blumen. But he clearly is trolling the forum now.
For my taste, his behavior since end of summer has been so off-putting like no-one in the forum since Viddaloo. And now he trolls A-Team and insults Oren. No way Gandul!

(by the way, Gandul means "lazy ass" in español and that is what he has been doing lately in the main thread).

[SteveMDFP]

Gandul - feel free to call me silly names as long as you don't disrupt the forum I am tasked with moderating (the Cryosphere section).

I would beg you to be less stoic, Oren.  Permitting gross incivility to remain anywhere on the site presents an example to some of what will be considered acceptable.  And a needless warning to others about what they may be subjected to.

It's a bit like magnanimously allowing weeds free reign over a square foot of your garden.  Or tolerating just one crack house on your block to flourish.

Human communities are fragile things.  Like a garden, they must be tended to thoughtfully, or they will perish.

[oren]

In general I tend to agree Steve. I think hard lines should be drawn, and ad hom (and name calling) attacks should be edited out, however that is time consuming for moderators and is often late unless the member in question is in moderation. In my section I do try to do that as much as I can. OTOH, stoicism ia a good trait so as not to take personally silly insults on an Internet forum, even one I care so much about as this one.

[be cause]

 it's gone way past editing time here .. we need someone with balls (or not) to say 'enough .. go get your kicks elsewhere' .. b.c.
 

[HapHazard]

Unreal that nothing happened yet. Let the mass exodus begin, I guess.

[oren]

Gandul has finally been put on moderation.
To all, please hang tight in there. The environment and our future is more important than a few trolls and disgruntled posters. Put on ignore whoever makes you want to quit. Report to moderator whatever bugs you. Yes it works, and moderators do act. And use a stoic approach as a final defense.

[Neven]

I apologise for being slow to act. The reaction to SARS-CoV-2 is making life hard at the moment, sucking up energy.

[Tom_Mazanec]

I'm sorry, Neven, are you sick? Or is it just the news?

[John_The_Elder]

I received several emails today informing me that Nevin had come forward to put Gandul on moderation.
Thank you to Nevin and all the mods.
Now back to lurking.....

[HapHazard]

Ignore lists only work when quotes for the ignoree also gets ignored. Further, then the ignoree is good outside of one particular subsection, that decision becomes difficult. "Baby with the bathwater" and all that.

I remember the days when I didn't have enough time in the day to keep up with every single thread on my own site. Running a forum takes way more time than you'd think it does.

[sidd]

Yes, a perthread ignore is also missing in usenet readers [1], so this is a longstanding flaw. 

There is a cumbersome fix. Keep a tab open with the Profile/modify profile/edit ignore list page while reading a section. Add and subtract ignorees as you go and reload the subsection. Posts by ignorees magically disappear and appear upon subsection page reload as you add and delete ignorees.

I did say it was cumbersome ...

sidd

Note 1: Usenet has an infinite subthread capacity, but one could kill all subthreads arising from a killfiled author's posts ...  I once piped realclimate into my local usenet news setup just so i could use a usenet reader.  But both realclimate and this forum have no real concept of threading so i quit that experiment. I went back to custom killprogram for realclimate and playing with ignore lists as i read this forum. Someday i might repeat that experiment with NLP processing to identify authors, and more important, threads.

[WildFit]

Ignore lists only work when quotes for the ignoree also gets ignored. Further, then the ignoree is good outside of one particular subsection, that decision becomes difficult. "Baby with the bathwater" and all that.

I remember the days when I didn't have enough time in the day to keep up with every single thread on my own site. Running a forum takes way more time than you'd think it does.

There is one advantage of ignore lists that certainly remains:

You can choose each time whether you have the nerves and the mood to read posts from people who mostly post difficult things, in a difficult or provoking way, both, in content and manners.
This again at least keeps me from spontaneous replies that I later have to regeret, most for their uselesness more than for their content, albeit often both, most of the times.

I'm not talkin about this forum specifically, it's a general experience, I'm more active in developers forums for computer and smartphone software because I lack the necessary insight, skills and knowledge on climate, weather and sea-ice topics.

[RikW]

I almost never use ignore lists, I just ignore the posts by not reading them if it's neccessary.

[sailor]

The different countries are examples of different ways the pandemic was handled.
In the context here Spain was a prime example of this:

Fourthly, another problem with his analysis.  He seems to defend the idea of sequestering the high-risk people, while allowing low-risk to go about their business.  Makes perfect logical sense, but only if you don't recognize how society actually functions.

So no need to get worked up about it.

It is the header that triggered me

it didn't work so swell in Spain ....

It’s almost like a personal note. What if I write “Ha, the Dutch were not very happy after all”

Wha the hell does he/she mean with these comments? I would like an explanation from him/her.

[oren]

Neven posted a video where someone claimed the solution was to protect the old and vulnerable and let everyone else go about their business freely.
A poster explained correctly that this is impossible in an actual society. Kassy recalled the issue that happened in Spain in the spring with elderly care homes, as an example of why separating the old doesn't actually work.
In reality similar examples are abundant in many countries, because it is indeed nearly impossible to implement.

I really don't see any reason to be offended.

[kassy]

I think it is a misinterpretation. Vox posts a lot of news articles so the part in italics is a personal comment to make it stand out from the article. Here it was just a comment on an earlier post.

Anyway nice that you brought it up here instead of the thread.

[sailor]

The pandemic has been very hard in Spain as in the rest of the world. The total mismanagement of nursing homes during the first wave from the authorities was criminal, I recognize.

Half of death in second wave are from nursing homes, this is not good news but has nothing to do with what happened in first wave. Then there were entire regions like Madrid that criminally published protocols to leave the elderly unattended as the hospitals were flooded. Now there are outbreaks in nursing homes and there is response. It is a correlation (and not causation) that many of the fatalities are from nursing home elderlies, as it is the old people that mosly die from COVID-19, but they are not denied hospital care as in the first wave. Also, the level of deaths is literally a tenth of what it was in the first wave. A twentieth in Madrid and Catalonia.

Health system is much more aware of nursing homes breakouts. The level of testing is general is very high. There have been partial lockdowns where the incidence explodes. there’s plenty of improvement amidst what this pandemic represents.

I am not sure of the good faith of vox-mundi in bringing the International Amnesty report, with a sarcastic comment to introduce it.

[kassy]

Your mistake is interpreting his comment as sarcastic which it is not.
You added details on Spain in reaction to an article, pietkuip added details about Sweden and so we know more.



 

[vox_mundi]

sailor,

I'm sorry that you took the post in that manner.

Thank you for explaining the current health situation in Spain. That's what I try to do regarding the US situation.

As kassy and oren and others have noted, herd immunity is futile. The news article I posted was a continuation of the previous 4-5 posts.

'it didn't work so swell in Spain ...' didn't have you or anyone else name on it. It was an observation, based on the article, that, like in the US, herd immunity doesn't work.

The Amnesty International report was referenced in the original AFP article. I try to provide links so people can read and form their own opinions themselves.

Neither sarcasm or rejoicing are elements that I implied in that post. It mystified me as to how you had arrived at that.

As a senior with a heart condition who is also taking care of a elderly family member, I'm fully aware of the risks should either catch it.

In the US over 100,000 seniors died because of ineptitude on the part of some people in government. People continue to die. It is reality in the US. That's why some of my post point this out.

If you found it personally offense, my sincere apologies.

vox

[KiwiGriff]

Re the present discussion on: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE thread.
I will not clutter ASLR's thread with off topic as I find it far too valuable. Not that I think ASLR is infallible and knows all .

 I  hate deniers with a passion .
I have spent the last decade debunking their illogical and often fraudulent bullshite. Deniers and their games  have no place here at all ever.

This is a science forum. If we quote a figure as being from a paper we do not modify that figure so it says something that the paper does not.
 
 After over a decade of researching denial bullshite I could tell at a glance the figure supplied by  Hefaistos had  been fucked with and would not be what was in the quoted paper.  It took me only a few minutes to track down  a copy of the paper to confirm the figure had been added to with out explanation or support
I called  Hefaistos on supplying a doctored figure that is not what was in the paper he linked to.
When asked for the source of his appended figure he has still failed to provide it .This is not the only time Hefaistos has misrepresent  or failed to give a link to the source for his information.  I believe this is because he is getting information from fringe websites  and attempting to hide this fact .
That is totally not acceptable on this forum. We should never give space to fringe whackos and their supporters on here .

Hefaistos should be either banned outright or go into permanent moderation ....

[oren]

... All well known data we have is from an icehouse state world. When looking at paleo data you have some historic parameters which we use with our models.

We do not have proper snapshots of the transitions.

We know that the Holocene Climate Optimum had less ice then today. That was due to orbital forcing.

...

Attached is a figure with the Greenland ice sheet development, Briner et al 2016, fig 2. "The Greenland Ice Sheet retracted to its minimum extent between 5 and 3 ka /bp/"

Yes, there was a lot less ice in the Holocene optimum! That figure also puts the current ice losses at the GIS in some perspective...

Briner et al 2016, "Holocene climate change in Arctic Canada and Greenland"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379116300427

Now we get down to whether there were misleading annotations in the graph I originally posted.

And yet your latest follow-up post failed to address this specific question despite claiming to do so.
Posters here have explained that:
* The figure you posted was not included in the source you linked. Rather it was cut out of a larger figure, and annotated. You failed to provide the correct source for the annotated version, or to note that the figure is a processed version just based on the linked source. You failed to explain who did the annotation.
* The annotation claimed the line was up to 2015, while it was really up to 1950. You failed to provide accurate information, instead posted misleading information. You failed to double-check your sources as to whether information which seems controversial and helps you win arguments is in fact correct. You failed to separate between scientific sources which normally do not need to be verified, and shady sources with climate denial agenda which must be verified and better yet should not be perused at all.

So: are the above two points true? If not, please explain.

And: are the above two points intentional? I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt, however if you read denier sites, and post denier material, you become a denier whether intending to or not. Your insistence of hiding the sources which you read and take material from, and checkered history on this site posting what is in essence denier material, not for the first time, IMHO point to the conclusion that you should be put under moderation and your posts verified by someone else before being approved.

To KiwiGriff: Many thanks for the heads up here. Best was also to "report to moderator" the post in question as I have not browsed that thread for a few days and even if I had I might have missed it anyway. Now I have caught up.

[Hefaistos]

...
I called  Hefaistos on supplying a doctored figure that is not what was in the paper he linked to.
When asked for the source of his appended figure he has still failed to provide it .T...

Sorry, Kiwigriff, but that is a lie.
In my first post, Reply #4002, I
1. gave the link to where the chart is from, and
2. I even provided the pdf file with the paper where the chart is.

The chart isn't 'doctored', it's appended with some additional, clarifying info along the time line.
Yes, it's cut out from a larger panel, but the rest of the panel isn't relevant to what's discussed.
Yes, I agree, I should have said the chart was annotated. But honestly, I think the annotated version is more readable.
I'm sorry about the years being wrong in the annotation, I didn't know that 1950 is used as a base year. However, I think this is not so much to be upset about, as we're talking about a chart that encompasses 10.000 years, and the 100 years at the end aren't too distinguashable anyway.

In my Reply #4011, I gave fiurther reference to where the chart is from, originally. I wrote: "The model that gave the data and the figure is originally from Larsen et al, "The response of the southern Greenland ice sheet to the Holocene thermal maximum", 2015, DOI: 10.1130/G36476.1" This was in reply to Gerontocrat, who wrongly asserted that there was no information on volume data.
I attached a figure with the relevant panel from that paper as well.

Then came S.Pansa in Reply #4014 and wrongly claimed that the figures weren't in the papers I linked to.
This is incredible, that some people here are unable to read what I wrote, unable to check the references I gave, and again, Kiwigriff repeats the same lie.

I give links, I give proper references, I attach charts, but to no avail. Because some people on this forum are much more interested to try to find errors in others, than to discuss the science.

In Reply #4021, Paolo put things straight.

[Hefaistos]

... All well known data we have is from an icehouse state world. When looking at paleo data you have some historic parameters which we use with our models.

We do not have proper snapshots of the transitions.

We know that the Holocene Climate Optimum had less ice then today. That was due to orbital forcing.

...

Attached is a figure with the Greenland ice sheet development, Briner et al 2016, fig 2. "The Greenland Ice Sheet retracted to its minimum extent between 5 and 3 ka /bp/"

Yes, there was a lot less ice in the Holocene optimum! That figure also puts the current ice losses at the GIS in some perspective...

Briner et al 2016, "Holocene climate change in Arctic Canada and Greenland"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379116300427

Now we get down to whether there were misleading annotations in the graph I originally posted.

And yet your latest follow-up post failed to address this specific question despite claiming to do so.
Posters here have explained that:
* The figure you posted was not included in the source you linked. Rather it was cut out of a larger figure, and annotated. You failed to provide the correct source for the annotated version, or to note that the figure is a processed version just based on the linked source. You failed to explain who did the annotation.
* The annotation claimed the line was up to 2015, while it was really up to 1950. You failed to provide accurate information, instead posted misleading information. You failed to double-check your sources as to whether information which seems controversial and helps you win arguments is in fact correct. You failed to separate between scientific sources which normally do not need to be verified, and shady sources with climate denial agenda which must be verified and better yet should not be perused at all.

So: are the above two points true? If not, please explain.

And: are the above two points intentional? I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt, however if you read denier sites, and post denier material, you become a denier whether intending to or not. Your insistence of hiding the sources which you read and take material from, and checkered history on this site posting what is in essence denier material, not for the first time, IMHO point to the conclusion that you should be put under moderation and your posts verified by someone else before being approved.

To KiwiGriff: Many thanks for the heads up here. Best was also to "report to moderator" the post in question as I have not browsed that thread for a few days and even if I had I might have missed it anyway. Now I have caught up.

Hi Oren.
I gave some input to your questions in my previous reply to Kiwigriff.
As to the annotation issue, it isn't even mentioned in the Briner paper what the year "0" means. At least I cannot find any kind of reference to that. I was unaware of the convention of using 1950=0.

You say that I show "insistence of hiding the sources which you read and take material from...". I'm trying to provide sources, to give links, to give references to scientific publications. In this case, I gave links, I even provided the pdf file of the paper.

Finally, we're talking about a chart that is totally uncontroversial, even in the annotated version (except for the years in red being a little bit off).

It's the alarmist conjectures regarding the GIS that are controversial, in my opinion. That is what my final post Reply #4028 is about. I quote myself: "My own conjecture is that there is nothing particular to be alarmed over regarding the small amount of melting of the GIS.
Thus, coming back to where this started, the annotations on the chart from Briner et al are perfectly relevant." I motivated this with the geologically speaking short time-frame of build-up of GHG, and the fast reverseal that we're most likely to see already in the coming decades.
This is not a denier point of view, it's a realistic assessment of various developments we're seeing now, and, as such, a perfectly valid point of view here on ASIF.

[KiwiGriff]

How fucking surprising.... As I foretold his appended figure came from a whacko denial site
Source for the altered figure is here.
 https://www.milieuzaken.org/Groenland.php
I will bet he did not read the paper he merely posted what he got from a fringe crank source and used their modified figure not knowing it was not true to the original .

[Hefaistos]

How fucking surprising.... As I foretold his appended figure came from a whacko denial site
Source for the altered figure is here.
 https://www.milieuzaken.org/Groenland.php
I will bet he did not read the paper he merely posted what he got from a fringe crank source and used their modified figure not knowing it was not true to the original .

Sorry, didn't know about that site! What's the whacko language anyway?

No, I found a direct link to the annotated chart on some discussion thread on some forum some time ago. Don't know which forum it was, as I'm browsing several of them. Thought it was interesting, and saved it on my computer. As i often do with interesting stuff.

Before I posted it here on ASIF, i checked the original chart in the paper and read about it.
Again, in my original post i gave both the link to paper where the chart is, as well as the pdf.
And again, the chart itself is totally uncontroversial, as well as the annotations (except for those years in read being a bit off scale).

What's maybe more telling, is that some members here think it's preferred to police other members, than to participate in the on topic discussions.

[sidd]

Re: annotated chart on some discussion thread on some forum some time ago

That's the issue, always link the original paper, please.

sidd

[HapHazard]

predictable
posting
patterns

[oren]

Hefaistos, for all that you pretend otherwise, an annotated chart is not the same as the original chart. Especially as it seems the annotation was created specifically to give some kind of false impression that all is well. This is what deniers do, they twist information so it appears to say something else.
You did provide a link to the paper but that was paywalled and the paper did not contain the annotated chart, therefore your link was not helpful but rather misleading. Someone clicking on the link might think, aha it is paywalled but I assume the poster did his due diligence. Well he didn't, he is reading denier forums and is affected by the twisted material there, and it finds itself creeping into the ASIF. I sure am glad some posters bothered to verify and discovered the discrepancy

[Hefaistos]

Hefaistos, for all that you pretend otherwise, an annotated chart is not the same as the original chart. Especially as it seems the annotation was created specifically to give some kind of false impression that all is well. This is what deniers do, they twist information so it appears to say something else.
You did provide a link to the paper but that was paywalled and the paper did not contain the annotated chart, therefore your link was not helpful but rather misleading. Someone clicking on the link might think, aha it is paywalled but I assume the poster did his due diligence. Well he didn't, he is reading denier forums and is affected by the twisted material there, and it finds itself creeping into the ASIF. I sure am glad some posters bothered to verify and discovered the discrepancy

1. My link provided in Reply #4002 was to the paper. Yes, it is paywalled. Thumbnails of the figures are available, though. To the left.

2. As the paper is paywalled I attached the pdf of it in my post.
"* briner2016(1).pdf (5356.1 kB - downloaded 37 times.)"
As of now, 37 ASIF users have seen it and downloaded it and probably been able to verify that the chart is there, as figure 14 on page 19.
Thus, if some ASIF user clicked on the link to the paywalled paper, and were put off by it being paywalled, they got the option to download the pdf directly. All this was in my very first post on this topic.

3. Further, you say that the "link was not helpful but rather misleading". What is it that is misleading with providing a correct link, and plus to that providing the paper itself as a pdf?

4. Annotations are totally neutral, just mentioning some factual major events on the timeline. The Holocene optimum, the MWP, the Neoglaciation, the LIA, and the current time (in red). You now claim that "the annotation was created specifically to give some kind of false impression that all is well".
Oren, please tell me, what is it in those annotations that "give some kind of false impression that all is well"?
Didn't the MWP, the Neoglaciation, the LIA, etc. happen at those times indicated? What is that gives the impression that 'all is well'?
Also, you claim that the information is "twisted".Again, please tell me what is it that is twisted in those annotations?

[kassy]

quote author=Hefaistos link=topic=1562.msg295876#msg295876 date=1608077218]
It's the alarmist conjectures regarding the GIS that are controversial, in my opinion. That is what my final post Reply #4028 is about. I quote myself: "My own conjecture is that there is nothing particular to be alarmed over regarding the small amount of melting of the GIS.
Thus, coming back to where this started, the annotations on the chart from Briner et al are perfectly relevant." I motivated this with the geologically speaking short time-frame of build-up of GHG, and the fast reverseal that we're most likely to see already in the coming decades.
This is not a denier point of view, it's a realistic assessment of various developments we're seeing now, and, as such, a perfectly valid point of view here on ASIF.
[/quote]

When is a GIS melt prediction an alarmist conjecture?
And what is a small amount of melting? 2019 was a record year. And it beat 2012. (And contributed 1,5 mm to global SL).

You picked the graph because you think it supports your view but that is not necessarily true.
The fast reversal has its limits etc but all these are indeed topics under discussion.
How fast will it be?
What will be the limits?
What will be the earth systems responses? (Which is what the thread is about)

Actually discussing the sub subjects is interesting.
Just throwing a graph at it without context is not. The article says exactly zero about predictions.

So in a nutshell climate change is a thing but not a big thing because you think we will work it out. That is not a scientific argument.

Objections are fine but it has to be on point.
Also if some one points out your argument is all wrong you should reply why it is actually right or admit it´s wrong and not just reuse it later (the thermal ocean inertia thing).


 

[Hefaistos]

quote author=Hefaistos link=topic=1562.msg295876#msg295876 date=1608077218]
It's the alarmist conjectures regarding the GIS that are controversial, in my opinion. That is what my final post Reply #4028 is about. I quote myself: "My own conjecture is that there is nothing particular to be alarmed over regarding the small amount of melting of the GIS.
Thus, coming back to where this started, the annotations on the chart from Briner et al are perfectly relevant." I motivated this with the geologically speaking short time-frame of build-up of GHG, and the fast reverseal that we're most likely to see already in the coming decades.
This is not a denier point of view, it's a realistic assessment of various developments we're seeing now, and, as such, a perfectly valid point of view here on ASIF.

When is a GIS melt prediction an alarmist conjecture?
And what is a small amount of melting? 2019 was a record year. And it beat 2012. (And contributed 1,5 mm to global SL).

You picked the graph because you think it supports your view but that is not necessarily true.
The fast reversal has its limits etc but all these are indeed topics under discussion.
How fast will it be?
What will be the limits?
What will be the earth systems responses? (Which is what the thread is about)

Actually discussing the sub subjects is interesting.
Just throwing a graph at it without context is not. The article says exactly zero about predictions.

So in a nutshell climate change is a thing but not a big thing because you think we will work it out. That is not a scientific argument.

Objections are fine but it has to be on point.
Also if some one points out your argument is all wrong you should reply why it is actually right or admit it´s wrong and not just reuse it later (the thermal ocean inertia thing).

Thanks kassy for your input.
I just want to correct two things.
1. You say "You picked the graph because you think it supports your view ". I attached the graph just to illustrate the point you made in your reply #3998 where you wrote: "We know that the Holocene Climate Optimum had less ice then today. That was due to orbital forcing."
Just to get an idea on
a. how big these changes are in the GIS,
b. how fast these changes can be expected to be.
The only scientific quantifications I know of are in those papers by Briner and Larsen that I cited.

2. You say: "Actually discussing the sub subjects is interesting. Just throwing a graph at it without context is not. The article says exactly zero about predictions."
It is you yourself who provided the context, kassy, in your reply #3998.
The articles indeed say nothing about predictions, but the graph is in itself a prediction as to the speed and magnitude of the processes involved.

Yes, indeed this is an interesting topic! I gave my point of view, that if the GIS now loses 0.01% of its mass each year, it's nothing to be alarmed about, given the fast reversal out of FF and GHG emissions we're seeing coming in the next several decades. Others are more alarmed, which is fine.

[KiwiGriff]

first
Thank you oren for your mention.
My iq is sufficient in this company.
but like many aspies my eq is not.

kassy
I feel I have let you down.
I made a comment to you a mod in the past but failed  to explain my concerns when you asked .

Hefaistos
I can but hope this is a learning experience for you.
They are lying to you.
often subtlety.
To misquote or modify the conclusions of a scientific paper is never except able...ever.

It is very hard to reexamine your world view.
I know I have already gone though  such an experience.
Your intelligence could be   asset on the side of reality if you do .

We are presently as warm or warmer than any time during the last ten thousand years.

Perhaps far longer .

This means not only Greenland  but all ice sheets  will continue to melt out for millennium to come..

The earth will continue to warm as long as we emit more CO2 than earth systems can adsorb.

There is no magic fix.
The future projections of the IPCC are based on magic thinking reliant on as yet unknown technology to save us .
There is  no easy way known for us to reduce atmospheric CO2 at that amounts we require to halt the warming.

We will be lucky to limit warming  to 3C... at that level even the Antarctic will fully melt out in time.

 In short Get real ...

[kassy]

Hefaistos
I can but hope this is a learning experience for you.
They are lying to you.
often subtlety.
To misquote or modify the conclusions of a scientific paper is never except able...ever.

I think this is a nice way to sum it up.

Hefaistos said:
The articles indeed say nothing about predictions, but the graph is in itself a prediction as to the speed and magnitude of the processes involved.

Is that so? It showed it was way bigger in the ice ages. Then it is smaller in modern day. We recovered from the HCO dip but we are now heading towards a pretty long committed period of warming.

given the fast reversal out of FF and GHG emissions we're seeing coming in the next several decades. Others are more alarmed, which is fine.

That is something you hope but not a fact. And then there are the earth responses that will happen in the meantime.

What we want to work out here is what happens to the planet not what various people belief will happen and a graph showing the historical background + the belief it will all just blow over is not actually discussing the issue.


 

[wili]

Navajo proverb: You can't wake someone up who is only pretending to be asleep

[vox_mundi]

Moat: It is hard to fill a cup that is already full.

Avatar - 2009

Similar to a enlightening conversation over tea between the scholar Tokusan and Zen Master Ryutan 1300 years ago.