Oops, thank you EP, I will corrected the typo.

All it will take for right-wingers to come around on climate change is the eventual flooding and decimation of the continental US (mostly Florida, but only half of them are Good American Patriots anyways). Once that kicks in, they’ll say “there was no way to know”, and then use it as an excuse to invade someone.

Uhh…yeah. The man has studied climate change for twenty years.

Was that sarcastic interpolation supposed to suggest that twenty years of study is worthless?

Oh, I forgot. Knowledge and experience don’t count. Sorry.

ANy comments on the study itself or its implications lRC? Or is this tortured logic day for you?

The good of the global economy on the one hand…..life as we know it on the other hand…..its so hard to choose these days.

C’mon IrC…I really am interested in your opinions on this subject.

>ANy comments on the study itself or its implications lRC?

Yes. Because of what and where the ice is, it tends to implicate warmer temperatures in the surrounding water, not the atmosphere. Having a rough idea of the vast difference between the amount of heat retained by oceans (relatively very large) and atmosphere (relatively little), it seems likely that either the oceans have been taking up a much larger amount of solar radiation than anyone’s been speculating about to date, or there are other mechanisms in play.

You obviously don’t see the implications, but if your natural inclination is to disregard everything that doesn’t exactly fit your chosen narrative in a way you can clearly comprehend, I understand. If the oceans are that much warmer, it has to be explained before we can presume to do anything about it or even if we can do anything about it. Either something else (other than GHG-retained solar energy) is producing heat, or the oceans have been taking up and retaining heat due to GHG effects much faster than anyone seems to have anticipated, or at least much faster than any findings as such have been widely publicized. That would tend to reinforce the urgency of doing something about C02 emissions. I haven’t discarded any explanations yet; you seem to be willing to do so rather readily.

What does it mean, this “explained away”? The point of gathering data and forming hypotheses is to explain what is observed. Is the “away” part your method of indicating that you find the possibile explanations politically inconvenient?

Our household is, like, SO there.