Ok, here's the IPCC third report published in 2001. You can compare the projections in it to current observations.
I'm not going to try again because I've already presented you with this peer reviewed paper that compares IPCC projections to observations for temperature and sea level rise. The fact that you won't accept the format I present it in just shows how you lack intellectual flexibility.
The science is what it is and you can't change that. But a pretty rigorous statistical analysis doesn't show any distinguishable slowdown in the warming trend.
It's amazing how so many people think one volcano under one lobe of an Antarctic glacier translates to volcanoes under ice all over the continent.
No the only Antarctic ice that is increasing some is the sea ice. Even with the increase in sea ice the continent as a whole is losing more ice than it's gaining and the rate of loss is accelerating. 300 km^3 is only talking about one small area in the southern Antarctic Peninsula.
I'm in the Philippines at the monent and its 40 degrees celsius plus and all the malls and everything else seems to be airconditioned down to 22 degrees celsius or so. Could someone crunch the numbers of the global heating caused by air conditioning starting with their power consumption and efficiency for example? I'm thinking that insulation might be a better investment to prevent climate change because otherwise, what we are doing is expending huge amounts of energy to cool small sections (and thereby heating everything else) on a massive and unprecedented scale...
The numbers have been crunched here. They show that the heat emitted by all human activities are about 1% of the heat from enhanced greenhouse warming so it's pretty much just at the rounding error level.
Being as it is the continent that encompasses the south pole, how do you define what is southern?
Antarctic is a big continent. The Antarctic Peninsula stretches out toward South America. The article specifically talks about the southern Antarctic Peninsula which is well north of the South Pole.
The GRACE satellites show that the Antarctic ice sheet is losing mass as a whole and the rate of loss is accelerating. So the ice loss is not being balanced by accumulation in the interior.
How about you look at the predictions made by the scientists rather than random pundits in the media.
I'd be happy to — could you post any? Being as "intellectually honest" as you are?
All you have to do to get the predictions made by scientists is to read the IPCC reports. Here's the latest one.
Yes, I would accept some of such. For example: "By 2015 Arctic will be ice-free" [telegraph.co.uk]. Do you have any?
The article you cite also has this line:
While the IPCC suggests the ice will remain in place until the 2030s, Dr Maslowski's study also takes into account the rate at which it is thinning and calculates that it will vanish much more quickly.
So Dr. Maslowski's prediction was at odds with the IPCC report that presents the general consensus of the field so it isn't a good example of a prediction.
I've had the same problem with mi. Apparently his mind is too simple to parse out the comparison in a single link and he rigidly requires responses be presented only in the format he wants.
In response to your post temperatures are still within the uncertainty range on the model projections so it's impossible to say they are wrong.
Have you ever visited a coal mining town that doesn't mine coal anymore? The end result is almost always a severely depressed area, rampant poverty, high unemployment and underemployment, high drug use and abuse, prostitution, etc.
The same thing has happened in a lot of timber towns in Oregon. But in the end things change, the world moves on and people have to accept reality and move on with it rather than clinging to a lifestyle that is no longer viable. Yes, we should assist them with the transition but they need to help themselves as well.
Why is this necessarily so? In many cases, we get the politicians who's team has the most money.
It's not only the politicians but the main stream media that is owned by powerful financial interests. The media is more interested in reporting the horse race and clashes between politicians than they are in substantial reporting on the issues. Media news reporting has largely become infotainment because that's what draws the eyes of much of the American public.
The question is, would he have done this even if not running for president?
As far as I can see he's always had a run for the presidency in mind, at least since I first heard about him.
I wouldn't say the RWP, MWP or LIA overrode Milankovitch Cycles but were the noise of natural variability on top of them. It's unlikely that the RWP or MWP were warmer than it is now and the increase in temperature leading into them was much slower than the current warming rate.
No one (with any sense) is talking about de-industrializing the West. Instead of spending money on building new fossil fuel power plants we spend it on renewable energy. They may cost a little more to build but they don't have ongoing fuel costs like FF energy. Solar PV is already inexpensive enough and continuing to get cheaper that at least one coal plant has been cancelled because they didn't think they could compete with PV once it was completed. I get called an alarmist but people saying responding to anthropogenic global warming will destroy economies and plunge millions into poverty are also alarmists.
The supposed pause in warming in undetectable when you rigorously analyze it statistically as Grant Foster, a professional statistician, did here. The warming has continued pretty much as expected and temperatures are still within the uncertainty range of IPCC projections.
I think there is plenty of existing evidence to take action right now. If we wait until it's slap you in the face obvious the damages will cost us a lot more than doing something about it.