# Remember how the Arctic Ice Cap is shrinking?



## westwall (Sep 25, 2012)

Weeeeeeeeeellllllll, maybe not.  Seems that NASA has a new video that shows the sea ice breakup was actually do to a storm....whoops.   Looks like it wasn't due to warming after all.

Doesn't it just suck when science prooves you wrong...yet again?



"A powerful storm wreaked havoc on the Arctic sea ice cover in August 2012. This visualization shows the strength and direction of the winds and their impact on the ice: the red vectors represent the fastest winds, while blue vectors stand for slower winds."

NASA - Multimedia - Video Gallery


----------



## Oddball (Sep 25, 2012)

High winds = More proof of Goebbels warming!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2012)

Well, er, um, but the storm was caused by Global Warming, yeah yeah, that's the ticket!


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 25, 2012)

In a month or so we'll hear all about how the Arctic Ice cap is growing at the fastest rate in history but the Antarctice ice is melting.  Global warming.   They got it covered coming and going.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2012)

This is why I don't "do" ice.. That and the pillaging of the Arctic historical temp. records by NASA GISS.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 25, 2012)

Ocean acidification was eating the ice...what else could explain it?


----------



## mamooth (Sep 25, 2012)

So the massive record-setting Arctic Sea Ice melt didn't really mean anything, because there was a storm! One storm melted all the ice! None of it would have happened without the storm, even if the melt was on a record setting pace even before the storm!

That concludes today's lesson in "idiot denialist logic". Denialists seem to spend their days thinking up endless new ways to prove how 'effin stupid they are.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2012)

mamooth said:


> So the massive record-setting Arctic Sea Ice melt didn't really mean anything, because there was a storm! One storm melted all the ice! None of it would have happened without the storm, even if the melt was on a record setting pace even before the storm!
> 
> That concludes today's lesson in "idiot denialist logic". Denialists seem to spend their days thinking up endless new ways to prove how 'effin stupid they are.



How long did this storm last Mamooth? Did you watch the NASA video? Or are you just on "Auto-Reply".. Not an "out of the office" memo... More like an "out of your mind" memo.


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2012)

mamooth said:


> So the massive record-setting Arctic Sea Ice melt didn't really mean anything, because there was a storm! One storm melted all the ice! None of it would have happened without the storm, even if the melt was on a record setting pace even before the storm!
> 
> That concludes today's lesson in "idiot denialist logic". Denialists seem to spend their days thinking up endless new ways to prove how 'effin stupid they are.








  No dingleberry(or should I call you trollingblunderspideytoobertrakarfraud?), what they're saying is there was NO big melt.  I understand that science is a difficult subject for you but what they are stating was there was no big melt the ice broke up because of a storm...it was still there it was just scattered and GISS and the others don't calculate broken up ice, only that which is connected.

Got it?  

Yeah, I didn't think you would....as I said, science is not your strong point.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 25, 2012)




----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2012)

Considering they count 20% coverage of surface ice as TOTALLY ICED.. 

How much do you "lose" if you compress all that empty volume out of the floes.??? 

Quickly class.          Bueller?? Bueller???


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 25, 2012)

mamooth said:


> So the massive record-setting Arctic Sea Ice melt didn't really mean anything, because there was a storm! One storm melted all the ice! None of it would have happened without the storm, even if the melt was on a record setting pace even before the storm!
> 
> That concludes today's lesson in "idiot denialist logic". Denialists seem to spend their days thinking up endless new ways to prove how 'effin stupid they are.





Hmmm.....but then how come the "idiot denilists" are winning? And the radical alarmist k00ks.......are, ummmmmmm.........not.


Nobody cares about the science anymore sweetie..........a fact.............and meanwhile, the k00k dream of Cap and Trade is deaD.


But the denislists are the "idiots".


----------



## mamooth (Sep 25, 2012)

westwall said:


> what they're saying is there was NO big melt.



So they're totally delusional? This is your brilliant new strategy, a complete denial of the observed reality?



> I understand that science is a difficult subject for you but what they are stating was there was no big melt the ice broke up because of a storm...it was still there it was just scattered and GISS and the others don't calculate broken up ice, only that which is connected.



Completely wrong, as is expected from you. Measurements certainly measure and account for scattered ice. The different organizations add up the scattered ice in different ways, which accounts for the different measurements of ice extent. However, no matter how the area was calculated, every single one of them agreed that a new record low ice extent ws set, shattering the old record.



			
				flacaltenn said:
			
		

> Considering they count 20% coverage of surface ice as TOTALLY ICED..



Which would mean measured ice levels were much bigger than actual ice levels, due to all that spread out ice being counted as totally iced. Flac, you've just proven the actual melt was far worse than we thought! Great job!


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 25, 2012)

westwall said:


> Weeeeeeeeeellllllll, maybe not.  Seems that NASA has a new video that shows the sea ice breakup was actually do to a storm....whoops.   Looks like it wasn't due to warming after all.


That's just your usual retarded misinterpretation, walleyedretard, *NOT* what NASA is saying at all.

The facts:

*Arctic Sea Ice Hits Smallest Extent In Satellite Era
NASA*
09.19.12
(government publication - free to reproduce)





*Satellite data reveal how the new record low Arctic sea ice extent, from Sept. 16, 2012, compares to the average minimum extent over the past 30 years (in yellow). Sea ice extent maps are derived from data captured by the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer aboard NASA's Nimbus-7 satellite and the Special Sensor Microwave Imager on multiple satellites from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program. Credit: NASA/Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio 

The frozen cap of the Arctic Ocean appears to have reached its annual summertime minimum extent and broken a new record low on Sept. 16, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has reported. Analysis of satellite data by NASA and the NASA-supported NSIDC at the University of Colorado in Boulder showed that the sea ice extent shrunk to 1.32 million square miles (3.41 million square kilometers).

The new record minimum measures almost 300,000 square miles less than the previous lowest extent in the satellite record, set in mid-September 2007, of 1.61 million square miles (4.17 million square kilometers). For comparison, the state of Texas measures around 268,600 square miles.

NSIDC cautioned that, although Sept. 16 seems to be the annual minimum, there's still time for winds to change and compact the ice floes, potentially reducing the sea ice extent further. NASA and NSIDC will release a complete analysis of the 2012 melt season next month, once all data for September are available.

Arctic sea ice cover naturally grows during the dark Arctic winters and retreats when the sun re-appears in the spring. But the sea ice minimum summertime extent, which is normally reached in September, has been decreasing over the last three decades as Arctic ocean and air temperatures have increased. This year's minimum extent is approximately half the size of the average extent from 1979 to 2000. This year's minimum extent also marks the first time Arctic sea ice has dipped below 4 million square kilometers.

"Climate models have predicted a retreat of the Arctic sea ice; but the actual retreat has proven to be much more rapid than the predictions," said Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "There continues to be considerable inter-annual variability in the sea ice cover, but the long-term retreat is quite apparent."

The thickness of the ice cover is also in decline.

"The core of the ice cap is the perennial ice, which normally survived the summer because it was so thick", said Joey Comiso, senior scientist with NASA Goddard. "But because it's been thinning year after year, it has now become vulnerable to melt".

The disappearing older ice gets replaced in winter with thinner seasonal ice that usually melts completely in the summer.

This year, a powerful cyclone formed off the coast of Alaska and moved on Aug. 5 to the center of the Arctic Ocean, where it churned the weakened ice cover for several days. The storm cut off a large section of sea ice north of the Chukchi Sea and pushed it south to warmer waters that made it melt entirely. It also broke vast extensions of ice into smaller pieces more likely to melt.

"The storm definitely seems to have played a role in this year's unusually large retreat of the ice", Parkinson said. "But that exact same storm, had it occurred decades ago when the ice was thicker and more extensive, likely wouldn't have had as prominent an impact, because the ice wasn't as vulnerable then as it is now."*








westwall said:


> Doesn't it just suck when science prooves(sic) you wrong...yet again?


You would definitely be the expert on that feeling, walleyed.


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Weeeeeeeeeellllllll, maybe not.  Seems that NASA has a new video that shows the sea ice breakup was actually do to a storm....whoops.   Looks like it wasn't due to warming after all.
> ...









Blunder!  So nice of you to drop in and demonstrate a classic case of cognitive impairment for everyone!


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 25, 2012)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > what they're saying is there was NO big melt.
> ...



Your logic (and that 20% methodology) are both lacking here for that big conclusion.. What you were watching is not solid ice melt. But little ice cubes in BIG VOLUMES of open water disappear.. AS THO --- that was total sea ice coverage. Never was -- except in someone's computer algorithm. 

Thus it's easy to see that with that much SPACE around these little floes ---  persistent winds and storms can EASILY show a 20 to 50% variation in SIExtent EVEN WITHOUT melting...  That NASA video doesn't PROVE how much ice got compacted.. 

But it sure points out that the very scary melt numbers that fascinate you little lemmings actually have MUCH LESS REAL MEANING in the real world than you think..  

Poor dears...

Now if you'll excuse me --- I'll go back to IGNORING ice censuses and tree rings like I always have..


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 25, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Walleyedretard! You've already amply and definitively demonstrated massive cognitive impairment many, many times for everyone's amusement. This incredibly retarded thread is only the latest example of your confusion and idiocy.


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...








Blunder! So nice of you to drop in and demonstrate a classic case of cognitive impairment for everyone!


----------



## Oddball (Sep 25, 2012)

mamooth said:


> So the massive record-setting Arctic Sea Ice melt didn't really mean anything, because there was a storm! One storm melted all the ice! None of it would have happened without the storm, even if the melt was on a record setting pace even before the storm!
> 
> That concludes today's lesson in "idiot denialist logic". Denialists seem to spend their days thinking up endless new ways to prove how 'effin stupid they are.


A big storm broke up the ice into chunks, leaving much more surface area for the seawater to melt it.

This concludes today's lesson in "the dynamics of melting ice for dumbshits".


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So the massive record-setting Arctic Sea Ice melt didn't really mean anything, because there was a storm! One storm melted all the ice! None of it would have happened without the storm, even if the melt was on a record setting pace even before the storm!
> ...






Shit.......laugh my balls off.........Oddball bro.......you gotta stop in here more often to join the party.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > So the massive record-setting Arctic Sea Ice melt didn't really mean anything, because there was a storm! One storm melted all the ice! None of it would have happened without the storm, even if the melt was on a record setting pace even before the storm!
> ...


And of course, there have never been any "big storms" in the Arctic before now, right Screwball. 'Cause if there had been, they would have produced the same ice loss as we're seeing now, if your 'theory' is correct.

*"The storm definitely seems to have played a role in this year's unusually large retreat of the ice", Parkinson (a climate scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center) said. "But that exact same storm, had it occurred decades ago when the ice was thicker and more extensive, likely wouldn't have had as prominent an impact, because the ice wasn't as vulnerable then as it is now."

*









Oddball said:


> This concludes today's lesson in "the dynamics of melting ice for dumbshits".


Your post concludes today's example of "*dumbshit nonsense from clueless denier cult retards*". Thanks for contributing such an excellent example, Screwball.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 25, 2012)

Right...No matter what happens, it's proof of Goebbels warming.


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...






Vulnerable?  It's _still_ there nimrod!  Just not in one sheet....though it is allready beginning to freeze back together.  Look for massive and record breraking ice sheet coalition.

Also look for the warmists to ignore it.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 25, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Are you once again incapable of comprehending simple English, walleyed? I know big words are hard for you so let me help you out here....

_*Vulnerable - adj.
1. 	capable of being physically wounded or hurt
2. 	liable or exposed to disaster *_







westwall said:


> It's _still_ there nimrod!  Just not in one sheet....though it is allready(sic) beginning to freeze back together.  Look for massive and record breraking(sic) ice sheet coalition. Also look for the warmists to ignore it.


What do you imagine is "_still there_", walleyedretard? The ice? Sorry, no, you poor confused cretin, the ice melted. It's not "_there_" anymore. Look for you to be wrong about this like you are about everything else you blovate about.


----------



## westwall (Sep 25, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...









  So, are you just simply batshit crazy or are you reeeeeaaallly this stupid?  Enquiring minds (unlike yours) wish to know.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 25, 2012)

Still trolling..Still blundering...


----------



## Noah_raffi (Sep 26, 2012)

It is indeed.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 26, 2012)

Well, one can easily see that the ice was at a record low for known history. Now the question is what the consequences of that much open water in the Arctic as winter sets in will be. 

After the freezeup is well started, then we will find out if the outgassing of the clathrates we saw last year was an anolamy or another feedback that is increasing. 

The ENSO is still neutral, although most are stating that it will start into an El Nino soon. Going to be interesting to see how the weather reacts this winter.


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, one can easily see that the ice was at a record low for known history. Now the question is what the consequences of that much open water in the Arctic as winter sets in will be.
> 
> After the freezeup is well started, then we will find out if the outgassing of the clathrates we saw last year was an anolamy or another feedback that is increasing.
> 
> The ENSO is still neutral, although most are stating that it will start into an El Nino soon. Going to be interesting to see how the weather reacts this winter.








Looks like normal.  The ice is allready freezing back together.  Look how quick it's rising allready and it's only a few days into Fall.  Methane outgassing?  It go's on all the time.  It weas a storm that broke the edges off the sheet so once that happens you guys ignore the ice.  It's still there you guys just choose to ignore it.  Well guess what, it's allready growing back together and even with your corrupt data handling the ice sheet will be bigger and thicker than last year.

So sad for you.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 26, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, one can easily see that the ice was at a record low for known history. Now the question is what the consequences of that much open water in the Arctic as winter sets in will be.
> 
> After the freezeup is well started, then we will find out if the outgassing of the clathrates we saw last year was an anolamy or another feedback that is increasing.
> 
> The ENSO is still neutral, although most are stating that it will start into an El Nino soon. Going to be interesting to see how the weather reacts this winter.



No -- "one clearly see" that *SIExtent since 1979 *when we had the capability to apply these definitions to satellite measurements "was at a record low".. It's not clear what SIE was in 1938 or in earlier warming spikes. 

The waters that were 20% sea ice, 40% sea ice and COUNTED as fully iced in the imagery you were watching "melt" -- were mostly "open water".. Keep your knickers on ...


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 26, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....so, walleyedretard, how's life in your little fantasy world? It must be nice to just make up any old reality you can imagine and pretend it's real. Too bad you're so batshit crazy and reeeeaaallly stupid, little dude. 

Now, back to reality.

*Arctic sea ice extent settles at record seasonal minimum
National Snow and Ice Data Center*
September 19, 2012
(excerpts)
*On September 16, 2012 sea ice extent dropped to 3.41 million square kilometers (1.32 million square miles). This years minimum was 760,000 square kilometers (293,000 square miles) below the previous record minimum extent in the satellite record, which occurred on September 18, 2007.  This is an area about the size of the state of Texas. The September 2012 minimum was in turn 3.29 million square kilometers (1.27 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average minimum, representing an area nearly twice the size of the state of Alaska. This years minimum is 18% below 2007 and 49% below the 1979 to 2000 average. Overall there was a loss of 11.83 million square kilometers (4.57 million square miles) of ice since the maximum extent occurred on March 20, 2012, which is the largest summer ice extent loss in the satellite record, more than one million square kilometers greater than in any previous year.

Conditions in context

The six lowest seasonal minimum ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012). In contrast to 2007, when climatic conditions (winds, clouds, air temperatures) favored summer ice loss, this years conditions were not as extreme. Summer temperatures across the Arctic were warmer than average, but cooler than in 2007. The most notable event was a very strong storm centered over the central Arctic Ocean in early August. It is likely that the primary reason for the large loss of ice this summer is that the ice cover has continued to thin and become more dominated by seasonal ice. This thinner ice was more prone to be broken up and melted by weather events, such as the strong low pressure system just mentioned. The storm sped up the loss of the thin ice that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely.*

_(*Use and Copyright* - You may download and use any imagery or text from our Web site, unless it is specifically stated that the information has limitations for its use. Please credit the National Snow and Ice Data Center.)_


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 26, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







but nobody cares s0n........except the internet alarmist nutters.


This is the same old crap the k00ks have been touting for decades now........and it isnt mattering for shit.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 27, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I suppose nobody does care about this where you live - deep inside Exxon's rectum.

In the real world, most people with more than half a brain do care quite a bit about anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes. Shortly, as the climate change catastrophes mount and crop failures raise food prices, almost everyone will care more than a retard like you can imagine.


----------



## IanC (Sep 27, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well, one can easily see that the ice was at a record low for known history. Now the question is what the consequences of that much open water in the Arctic as winter sets in will be.
> ...



flac- did you see the article on the methane release that Old Rocks is so worried about? naturally occuring. 

on of the turning points in my opinion on climate science was when I read a newspaper account of the sea ice melting around Svaldsburg (sp?) in the early 20's. I checked it out and it was also reported in an american weather report. the water was many degrees warmer, at least 3C, and so much ice had disappeared that sailors couldnt recognize the landscape and fisherman were catching different types of fish. wow, I though, thats got to leave a big mark in the official sea temp history! but when I checked there was nothing.

so were the newspapers wrong? the sailors and fishermen wrong? or was the temperature dataset simply adjusted to 'correct' the obviously 'wrong' temperature readings from the past?

it is still happening. every new algorithm for correcting and splicing temperature readings from the past wipes out a few more 'inconsistencies' and leads to a smoother and higher trend in rising temperatures.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2012)

Links, Ian, links. Otherwise just regarded as flapyap.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 27, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...







Assessment fAiL...............wake up and smell the maple nut crunch s0n.

The half-brains are winning in epic fashion >>>>>>>>











*Ummmmm...........maybe I'm missing it, but does anybody else see "climate change" on that graph?????*




*OOOooooops!!!*








You fringe alarmists have been knocking yourselves out for two decades with the bomb throwing.....and it hasnt gotten you dick. Nobody cares about this shit anymore and what do the k00ks do? They stick to PLAN A



Almost one year ago now, I asked any of the alarmist bozo's to come up with *one single link *displaying for the rest of us where they are winning. Almost 12 months later...........still cant put up DICK. Pardon me, but I cant stop laughing.............












Oh.......but wait..........the alarmist nutters are going to change the whole country from this nether-region on the internet!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 27, 2012)

As Ive said on here with 100% certainty I might add.........when the k00ks can post up pictures of central Alaska in mid-January like this >>>>>>>>>







..........then somebody might start listening to their crap..............and not a moment sooner. Think about it...........in the real world, nobody gives a flying fuck about their sink that drips once every 10 seconds. Except of course, the mental case.


So there ya go...............


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 27, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Links, Ian, links. Otherwise just regarded as flapyap.



OldieRocks.... 

A few days ago -- I posted a whole slew of Arctic temp manipulations. And showed the sum total effect.. Which was to LOWER the 1930s Arctic temps and RAISE the Arctic in the 60s and 70s.. I'm sure you just skipped over it.. So I'm not concerned about "serving you" when you deem it convienient. 

IanC is on solid ground with that assertion.. Too many people with access to open data to try and HIDE the blatant manipulations that are going on.. 

IanC.... 



> flac- did you see the article on the methane release that Old Rocks is so worried about? naturally occuring.



   I've always ASSUMED that releases of permafrost GHGs would be "natural". And I've seen monitoring graphs with high one or two day spikes in them that literally looks likes a moose took a dump on the station. But no -- I haven't seen an assertion about the pattern "being naturally occuring".


----------



## IanC (Sep 27, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Links, Ian, links. Otherwise just regarded as flapyap.



you have a long history of ignoring inconvenient threads and comments at the time they are posted. even when they are specifically directed at you. deal with it in a timely fashion or not at all because I am not wasting my time going back to dredge up info that you will simply ignore again.

I am not here to endlessly redo ideas and comments (unlike you), I am here just to discuss affairs in the ongoing climate wars. I am interested in collecting information for myself not disseminating it because I realize I am not going to change anyone's opinion here.

as to the methane story....even the original story declared that the methane release was due to conditions that developed in the last few _hundred _ years. the latest developement is that they took a sub down to the sea bed and found deposits that show the methane has been seeping out feeding organisms for a long time.



> At numerous emergences we found deposits that might already be hundreds of years old. This estimation is indeed only based on the size of the samples and empirical values as to how fast such deposits grow. On any account, the methane sources must be older says Professor Berndt. The exact age of the carbonates will be determined from samples in GEOMARs laboratories.



there is a quote, find it yourself


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2012)

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/alaska.pdf

Over the past 50 years, Alaska has warmed at more than twice the rate of the rest of the United States&#8217; average. Its annual average temperature has increased 3.4°F, while winters have warmed
even more, by 6.3°F.501 As a result, climate change impacts are much more pronounced than in other
regions of the United States. The higher temperatures are already contributing to earlier spring snowmelt, reduced sea ice, widespread glacier retreat, and permafrost warming.220,501 These observed changes are consistent with climate model projections of greater warming over Alaska, especially in winter, as compared to the rest of the country.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 27, 2012)

The models that don't account for the sun or that they are off a whole order of magnitude in estimating oceanic absorption of CO2 say so

LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 27, 2012)

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Arctic Sea Ice - Methane Release - Planetary Emergency

AMEG Declaration of Emergency (revised Sep 2012)

AMEG declares there now exists an extremely high international security risk* of acute climate disruption followed potentially by runaway global warming. The collapse of Arctic sea ice will change the reflective properties of the Arctic from 90% reflection of the sun&#8217;s rays to a 90% absorber of the sun&#8217;s energy. A vicious cycle of Arctic warming started between twenty and thirty years ago, when currents from the Atlantic and Pacific, warmed by greenhouse gases, carried their extra heat into the Arctic to initiate an accelerating decline in sea ice and increase in Arctic temperatures.

Extra heat has gone into the shallow seas over the continental shelf, warming it all the way to the seabed, thus melting frozen methane hydrates and causing vast quantities of methane to be emitted to the atmosphere, greatly enhancing global warming.

Rapid warming of the Arctic has already lead to a disruption in the normal weather of the Northern Hemisphere, leading to widespread crop failures and societal disruptions which now threaten the existence of our civilization. This existential threat demands of us that we cooperate on an immediate emergency-scale response in order to cool the Arctic and save the sea ice. There was a dramatic collapse of the sea ice this summer, and without action this collapse will be complete in one to three years (by 2015).

The immediacy of this risk is underlined by the discovery that vast areas of the continental shelf are already in critical condition as a result of the warming of the Arctic Ocean seabed. Increasingly large quantities of methane are being emitted. Moreover, there is the possibility of methane held as hydrates or under thawing permafrost being suddenly released in very large quantities due to a disturbance such as an earthquake. The quantities of methane in the continental shelf are so vast that a release of only one or two percent of this methane could lead to the release of the remaining methane in an unstoppable chain reaction. Global warming would spiral upward beyond the 2 degrees which many scientists consider the safety limit.


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Arctic Sea Ice - Methane Release - Planetary Emergency
> 
> AMEG Declaration of Emergency (revised Sep 2012)
> 
> ...








Yet another religious group (notice how all the religious whackos are allways warning us about the end of the world?) warning us what has been going on for thousands of years and begging for money.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 28, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Arctic Sea Ice - Methane Release - Planetary Emergency
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....ahhhh, still spewing your insane drivel, eh walleyedretard.....are you off your meds again.....or just on drugs???

It's really funny how what you call "_religious groups_" the rest of the world calls 'scientists', but then you're an insane retard so what can we expect.

Here's some other "_religious groups_" for you to scoff at in your usual halfwitted way.

*As Permafrost Melts, Methane-Munching Soil Bacteria Come to Life*
Discover Magazine
November 7th, 2011


*Study finds permafrost thaw, glacier melt releasing methane*
Reuters News Service
May 21, 2012
(excerpts)
*(Reuters) - Methane from underground reservoirs is streaming from thawing permafrost and receding glaciers, contributing to the greenhouse gas load in the atmosphere, a study led by scientists at the University of Alaska Fairbanks has found. The study, published online on Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, is the first to document leakage of deep geologic methane from warming permafrost and receding glaciers, said its lead author, Katey Walter Anthony. Release of methane into the atmosphere from any source is troubling because methane has far more potent greenhouse powers than carbon dioxide, climate scientists say. Methane has more than 20 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide, University of Alaska Fairbanks researchers said.

Scientists have speculated about such methane releases and modeling has predicted that it would happen as the cryosphere - the earth's layer of ice and frozen ground - softens and melts, Walter Anthony said in a telephone news conference on Monday. "But no one had ever shown that it was occurring or that it was a widespread phenomenon," she said. "This paper really is the first time that we see with field evidence that this type of geologic methane is escaping as the cryosphere retreats." Ultimately, researchers confirmed that underground methane was venting from two types of sources in Alaska - one of them being 50 lakes in the northernmost region, and the other being along the edges of rapidly receding glaciers in southern Alaska. In Greenland, they found methane streaming out of areas where the ice sheet had retreated over the past 150 years, Walter Anthony said.*


*Methane unleashed from 150,000 'seeps' in Alaska and Greenland could have huge impact on world's climate*
The Daily Mail
By Rob Waugh
21 May 2012
(excerpts)
*Retreating glaciers and thawing permafrost are unleashing 'seeps' of methane which could have a massive impact on global warming. Using ground-based measurements and aerial surveys, researchers found 150,000 'methane seeps' - mostly along boundaries where glaciers and permafrost are melting. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas - and this effect makes the climate puzzle even more complex, says the report in Nature Geoscience. As more glaciers and permafrost melt, the effect could become even MORE severe. 'Perennially-frozen ground and glaciers of the Arctic trap methane leaking from hydrocarbon reservoirs, restricting the flow to the atmosphere,' say the researchers.

It's already known that methane is being released into the atmosphere - both from the Siberian permafrost, and, as more recently discovered by survey ships, from the sea bed. A Russian research ship recently made a terrifying discovery - huge plumes of methane bubbles rising to the surface from the seabed. 'We found more than 100 fountains, some more than a kilometre across,' said Dr Igor Semiletov, 'These are methane fields on a scale not seen before. The emissions went directly into the atmosphere.' Earlier research conducted by Semiletov's team had concluded that the amount of methane currently coming out of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is comparable to the amount coming out of the entire world&#8217;s oceans. Now Semiletov thinks that could be an underestimate. The melting of the arctic shelf is melting 'permafrost' under the sea, which is releasing methane stored  in the seabed as methane gas. These releases can be larger and more abrupt than any land-based release. The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is a methane-rich area that encompasses more than 2 million square kilometers of seafloor in the Arctic Ocean.

'Earlier we found torch or fountain-like structures like this,' Semiletov told the Independent. 'This is the first time that we've found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1,000 metres in diameter. It's amazing. Over a relatively small area, we found more than 100, but over a wider area, there should be thousands of them.' Scientists estimate that the methane trapped under the ice shelf could lead to extremely rapid climate change. Current average methane concentrations in the Arctic average about 1.85 parts per million, the highest in 400,000 years. Concentrations above the East Siberian Arctic Shelf are even higher.*


*Arctic permafrost leaking methane at record levels, figures show
Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame*
The Guardian  
David Adam, environment correspondent
14 January 2010
(excerpts)
*Scientists have recorded a massive spike in the amount of a powerful greenhouse gas seeping from Arctic permafrost, in a discovery that highlights the risks of a dangerous climate tipping point. Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame. The discovery follows a string of reports from the region in recent years that previously frozen boggy soils are melting and releasing methane in greater quantities. Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leading some scientists to describe melting permafrost as a ticking time bomb that could overwhelm efforts to tackle climate change. They fear the warming caused by increased methane emissions will itself release yet more methane and lock the region into a destructive cycle that forces temperatures to rise faster than predicted.

Global warming is occuring twice as fast in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth. Some regions have already warmed by 2.5C, and temperatures there are projected to increase by more than 10C by 2100 if carbon emissions continue to rise at current rates. The change in the Arctic is enough to explain a recent increase in global methane levels in the atmosphere, he said. Global levels have risen steadily since 2007, after a decade or so holding steady. The new study, published in the journal Science, shows that methane emissions from the Arctic increased by 31% from 2003-07. While carbon dioxide gets most of the attention in the global warming debate, methane is pound-for-pound a more potent greenhouse gas, capable of trapping some 20 times more heat than CO2. Although methane is present in much lower quantities in the atmosphere, its potency makes it responsible for about one-fifth of man-made warming.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 28, 2012)

Methane levels???  


Yuk.........yuk...........how many people are waking up across America today and sitting at their breakfast table sayiing, "Geee......did you see that report about the teeny weenie bit of methane release in the Arctic Sea? Shit.......I better call my representative today!!!"


Ummm..........about 359 s0n!!!!


You and 358 other mental cases.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 28, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Methane levels???


'Methane levels? We don got to show you no stinking methane levels'.

LOLOLOL.

And another empty post from kookiepukie, the un-comprehending resident retard.


----------



## westwall (Sep 28, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Methane levels???
> ...


----------



## TNHarley (Sep 28, 2012)

This is what, the fifth time the ice has melted? It happens folks. Its called mother nature. We just happen to be here, this time around


----------



## Qantrill (Sep 28, 2012)

I love this thread. 

Now would some...any...just one of you chicken littleshits explain to us global warming doubters just why this GD ice melted (see YouTube below), then refroze, then melted again...twice in the last 100,000 years (last time 25,000 years ago) when there were NO AIRPLANES, NO AUTOMOBILES, NO SMOKE BELCHING FACTORIES, NO SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE, NO FARTING DINOSAURS, NO WORLD WARS AND NO PRIEUSes running around on top of the icecap?

OH YEAH...NO OIL COMPANIES.

Your attention to this matter will be the object of much derision. Thank You!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USIAcXfv39k&feature=player_detailpage]The Last Ice Age (120 000 years ago to Modern) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 28, 2012)

Quantrill FTMFW!!!


Then we have the other genius on this page.....................


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 28, 2012)

Qantrill said:


> I love this thread.
> 
> Now would some...any...just one of you chicken littleshits explain to us global warming doubters just why this GD ice melted (see YouTube below), then refroze, then melted again...twice in the last 100,000 years (last time 25,000 years ago) when there were NO AIRPLANES, NO AUTOMOBILES, NO SMOKE BELCHING FACTORIES, NO SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE, NO FARTING DINOSAURS, NO WORLD WARS AND NO PRIEUSes running around on top of the icecap?
> 
> ...



If you weren't such an ignorant half-wit, you'd know how to find such information for yourself, Quanto. But hey, always glad to help out the ignorant and confused with some solid facts. Natural factors, mostly orbital cycles, caused the previous cycles of glaciation and inter-glacial warm periods. Un-natural, human caused factors (burning fossil fuels, deforestation) are causing the current abrupt warming trend.

*Quaternary glaciation*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(excerpts)

*Causes

The cause of glaciation may be related to several simultaneously occurring factors, such as astronomical cycles, atmospheric composition, plate tectonics, and ocean currents.[4]

Astronomical cycles

The role of Earth's orbital changes in controlling climate was first advanced by James Croll in the late 19th century.[5] Later, Milutin Milankovi&#263;, a Serbian geophysicist, elaborated on the theory and calculated these irregularities in Earth's orbit could cause the climatic cycles known as Milankovitch cycles.[6] They are the result of the additive behavior of several types of cyclical changes in Earth's orbital properties. Changes in the orbital eccentricity of Earth occur on a cycle of about 100,000 years.[7] The inclination, or tilt, of Earth's axis varies periodically between 22° and 24.5°.[7] (The tilt of Earth's axis is responsible for the seasons; the greater the tilt, the greater the contrast between summer and winter temperatures.) Changes in the tilt occur in a cycle 41,000 years long.[7] Precession of the equinoxes, or wobbles on Earth's spin axis, complete every 21,700 years. According to the Milankovitch theory, these factors cause a periodic cooling of Earth, with the coldest part in the cycle occurring about every 40,000 years. The main effect of the Milankovitch cycles is to change the contrast between the seasons, not the amount of solar heat Earth receives. These cycles within cycles predict that during maximum glacial advances, winter and summer temperatures are lower. The result is less ice melting than accumulating, and glaciers build up. Milankovitch worked out the ideas of climatic cycles in the 1920s and 1930s, but it was not until the 1970s that sufficiently long and detailed chronology of the Quaternary temperature changes was worked out to test the theory adequately.[8] Studies of deep-sea cores, and the fossils contained in them indicate that the fluctuation of climate during the last few hundred thousand years is remarkably close to that predicted by Milankovitch.

A problem with the theory is that the astronomical cycles have been in existence for billions of years, but glaciation is a rare occurrence. Actually, astronomical cycles perfectly explain glacial and interglacial periods, and their transitions, inside an ice age. Other factors such as the position of continents and the effects this has on the earth's oceanic currents, or long term fluctuations inside the core of the sun must also be involved that caused Earth's temperature to drop below a critical threshold and thus initiate the ice age in the first place. Once that occurs, Milankovitch cycles will act to force the planet in and out of glacial periods. One theory holds that decreases in atmospheric CO2, an important greenhouse gas, started the long-term cooling trend that eventually led to glaciation. Recent studies of the CO2 content of gas bubbles preserved in the Greenland ice cores lend support to this idea. CO2 levels also play an important role in the transitions between interglacials and glacials. High CO2 contents correspond to warm interglacial periods, and low CO2 to glacial periods. However, studies indicate that CO2 may not be the primary cause of the interglacial-glacial transitions, but instead acts as a feedback.[10] *


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Qantrill said:
> 
> 
> > I love this thread.
> ...





Opinions of irrelevant assholes in the nether-regions of the internet galaxy are gay. Who is really ingnorant and confused here?

I could go out this morning, strip down naked and walk down the middle of Main Street shaking a bannana at people and say, "Were into an abrupt warming trend.....wake the fuck up!!!". Only mental cases like Rolling Thunder think that a host of people are going to line up, grab a bananna and march in lock step!!

The mental cases think people are sitting home all angst about this shit............but guess what........nobody gives a flying fuck. Its beyond being off the reservation.............its as k00k fringe as k00k fringe gets. Not a single k00k on here can come up with one single link showing us their shit is having ANY impact on the public consciousness.


*not one s0ns!!!*













Meanwhile...............in the real world..................


*Coal makes a comeback in Europe *

While regulation limits coal power in the US, Hunt writes that the energy source is on the rise in Europe.
 By Gary Hunt / September 26, 2012 


*A funny thing is happening on the way to the clean energy future.  While the US government wages a regulatory war on coal fired generation, in Europe, the land of the oh so politically correct the drive for greenhouse gas emissions reduction is meeting a new competitor&#8212;reality!*

Coal makes a comeback in Europe - CSMonitor.com


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 29, 2012)

In other words... Perfectly good explanation that glaciation and the Ices Ages were a NATURAL event with the CO2 levels being a SECONDARY effect..  A combination of Earth orbital dynamics and fundamental changes in the Sun's radiation.. 

 Good Job princess..  But of course NOW --- that evil CO2 has learned to become a PRIMARY cause of warming.. 

Now lets' do AMO, PDO and SOI ---  All of which interact to force approx 60 year temperature cycles on the earth's surface temp..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> In other words... Perfectly good explanation that glaciation and the Ices Ages were a NATURAL event with the CO2 levels being a SECONDARY effect..  A combination of Earth orbital dynamics and fundamental changes in the Sun's radiation..
> 
> Good Job princess..  But of course NOW --- that evil CO2 has learned to become a PRIMARY cause of warming..
> 
> Now lets' do AMO, PDO and SOI ---  All of which interact to force approx 60 year temperature cycles on the earth's surface temp..



Warmers are a Cult. I hope they throw themselves into the ocean


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> In other words... Perfectly good explanation that glaciation and the Ices Ages were a NATURAL event with the CO2 levels being a SECONDARY effect..  A combination of Earth orbital dynamics and fundamental changes in the Sun's radiation..
> Good Job..  But of course NOW --- that evil CO2 has learned to become a PRIMARY cause of warming..


It was a good explanation. Too bad you're too retarded to understand it very well. "_CO2 levels_" are not so much a "_SECONDARY_" effect as they are a primary cause of the subsequent warming that is initially triggered by changes in orbital dynamics.

*Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost
Nature* 484, 87&#8211;91 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10929
Published online 04 April 2012
Robert M. DeConto, Simone Galeotti, Mark Pagani, David Tracy, Kevin Schaefer, Tingjun Zhang, David Pollard & David J. Beerling
(abstract) 

*Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the Palaeocene&#8211;Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5&#8201;°C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climate&#8211;ecosystem&#8211;soil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. This massive carbon reservoir had the potential to repeatedly release thousands of petagrams (1015 grams) of carbon to the atmosphere&#8211;ocean system, once a long-term warming threshold had been reached just before the PETM. Replenishment of permafrost soil carbon stocks following peak warming probably contributed to the rapid recovery from each event9, while providing a sensitive carbon reservoir for the next hyperthermal10. As background temperatures continued to rise following the PETM, the areal extent of permafrost steadily declined, resulting in an incrementally smaller available carbon pool and smaller hyperthermals at each successive orbital forcing maximum. A mechanism linking Earth&#8217;s orbital properties with release of soil carbon from permafrost provides a unifying model accounting for the salient features of the hyperthermals.*


*Study suggests rising CO2 in the past caused global warming
A paper in Nature shows how increased CO2 in the atmosphere led to warming &#8211; rather than the other way round*


*Research breakthrough: CO2 rises caused warming that ended last ice age*
By Tierney Smith
4 April 2012
(excerpts)
*Compelling new evidence suggests that rising CO2 caused much of the global warming responsible for ending the last ice age. The study, published in Nature, confirms what scientists have believed for sometime, and further supports the view that current rises in human-driven CO2 will lead to more global warming. &#8220;CO2 was a big part of bringing the world out of the last Ice Age and it took about 10,000 years to do it,&#8221; said Jeremy Shakun from Harvard University and lead-author of the report. &#8220;Now CO2 levels are rising again, but this time an equivalent increase of CO2 has occurred in only about 200 years, and there are clear signs that the planet is already beginning to respond. While many of the details of future climate change remain to be figured out, our study bolsters the consensus view that rising CO2 will lead to more global warming.&#8221;

While previous studies only compared carbon dioxide levels to local temperatures in Antarctica, the current study aimed to reconstruct global average temperature changes, using 80 core samples from around the world. Looking only at local temperatures in Antarctica, warming appears to precede rising CO2, an argument often adopted by sceptics to disprove carbon dioxide&#8217;s role in global warming. Shakun however, says this is leaving a huge gap in the research. Putting all these records together into a reconstruction of global temperature shows "a beautiful correlation with rising CO2 at the end of the Ice Age,&#8221; said Shakun. &#8220;Even more interesting, while CO2 trails Antarctica warming, it actually precedes global temperature change, which is what you would expect if CO2 is causing warming.&#8221;
*


*Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Nature* 484, 49&#8211;54 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu,  Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
Published online 04 April 2012 
(Abstract)

*The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 29, 2012)

CO2 is the 98 pound weakling, the Sun kicks sands its face and walks off with the ice caps


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 29, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> CO2 is the 98 pound weakling, the Sun kicks sands its face and walks off with the ice caps



Still spewing mindless nonsense, eh CrazyFruitcake? It's really too bad your head managed to get so irremovably wedged up your asshole like that.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 29, 2012)

Just a unscientific observation, did it ever occur to our pro AGW advocates that if the ice does not melt or retreat some of the time, and if it otherwise continues to get thicker and more expansive all of the time, that we would eventually all be up to our hoo has in ice over both the northern and southern hemispheres?   We haven't been tracking arctic ice for all that long because we have only had the capability to do so for 34 years.   Thirty four years is but a teensy tick in the history of the arctic ice, so we honestly don't know how many times the arctic ice has significantly retreated and advanced over open water in the billions of years it has existed.

Certainly 34 years is not sufficient to merit massive mandatory social changes.


----------



## Qantrill (Sep 29, 2012)

I'm pretty sure RollingThunder missed the lightening that preceded the thunder and took a direct bolt right between his eyes.  Or maybe up his ass.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 29, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Just a unscientific observation, did it ever occur to our pro AGW advocates that if the ice does not melt or retreat some of the time, and if it otherwise continues to get thicker and more expansive all of the time, that we would eventually all be up to our hoo has in ice over both the northern and southern hemispheres?


As an "_unscientific_" observer, operating in complete ignorance of all of the scientific research that has been done on this matter, you should just assume right off the bat that everything that "_occurs_" to your uninformed little mind (or that is spooned into it by the fossil fuel industry propagandists) has already been studied and analyzed by the highly educated and experienced scientists who have studied this subject full time for decades.

Over the last two and a half millions years, due to natural factors, polar ice has repeatedly (about 7 times) expanded enormously to cover most of North America during periods that are called "glaciations", and it has repeatedly shrunk back to something like its present extent during periods that are called "inter-glacials". The Earth is currently in one of those inter-glacial periods that has now lasted for about the last ten thousand years. The natural cycle of things caused by orbital dynamics would see the Earth in a gradually cooling phase now, leading up to another period of intense glaciation tens of thousands of years from now. What has happened instead is that mankind's activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, have reversed the natural trend and substituted an un-natural abrupt warming trend that is pushing the Earth's climate systems towards temperature extremes not seen in millions of years. 








Foxfyre said:


> We haven't been tracking arctic ice for all that long because we have only had the capability to do so for 34 years.


Your knowledge of both this issue and science in general seems miniscule and very incomplete.






Foxfyre said:


> Thirty four years is but a teensy tick in the history of the arctic ice, so we honestly don't know how many times the arctic ice has significantly retreated and advanced over open water in the billions of years it has existed.


You base your conclusions on your own ignorance, not reality. We don't need to have billions of years of data to understand what is happening. Scientists actually have hundreds of thousands of years of good proxie data on past climate conditions that fits together in a pretty coherent picture of the forces and factors at play in past climate changes. The experts are not as ignorant about this as your own ignorance projects them to be. Scientists have analyzed the various things involved in all of these past climate shifts and those things are not happening now. The only thing consistent with the laws of physics that can explain the current abrupt warming is the rapid 40% (and still rising fast) increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that human activities has created.

*Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years
NATURE*
Published:  23 November 2011
Abstract (excerpts)
*Arctic sea ice extent is now more than two million square kilometres less than it was in the late twentieth century, with important consequences for the climate, the ocean and traditional lifestyles in the Arctic(1, 2). Although observations show a more or less continuous decline for the past four or five decades(3, 4), there are few long-term records with which to assess natural sea ice variability. Until now, the question of whether or not current trends are potentially anomalous(5) has therefore remained unanswerable. Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that&#8212;although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century&#8212;both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.*







Foxfyre said:


> Certainly 34 years is not sufficient to merit massive mandatory social changes.


And here you reveal that because you are ignorant of (and probably uninterested in) the actual scientific facts that indicate that our world is facing a severe crisis, you really base your objections to the scientific conclusions about the Arctic ice loss on your political fears, whipped up by some clever propaganda, that you might be faced with some (very necessary) changes to our energy infrastructure and possibly your current way of doing things. Or in other words, you've been fooled into being a stooge for the continued profits of the fossil fuel industry.

Just a suggestion, little dudette - try learning more about this subject from good sources of accurate scientific information instead of the rightwingnut media echo chamber and astro-turfed blogs before you make a fool of yourself on here again.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Just a unscientific observation, did it ever occur to our pro AGW advocates that if the ice does not melt or retreat some of the time, and if it otherwise continues to get thicker and more expansive all of the time, that we would eventually all be up to our hoo has in ice over both the northern and southern hemispheres?
> ...



Well BIG DUDE, since you seem to think I have not studied the subject sufficiently, and you have no clue what I have or have not studied, but you have nothing more to contradict my take on it other than a string of juvenile personal insults, I'll just thank you for your opinion (of me) and say this before moving on:


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 is the 98 pound weakling, the Sun kicks sands its face and walks off with the ice caps
> ...



Do you have a "CO2 rocks the Ice Caps!" T-shirt?

Warmers are a cult

"Sometimes, they are afraid to know the truth --
They fear that their world will fall apart if they stop believing certain things, or admit the truth of other things. That is one of the beliefs with which they got programmed &#8212; the idea that if they don't believe the right things, they will go to Hell, or they will lose their ticket to Heaven, or something else really bad will happen to them. One of the things that cults do is implant phobias about leaving the cult, or learning the truth about the cult."

How To Deprogram Your Own Mind


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 29, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Oh CrazyFruitcake, as usual you've got it ass backwards. The real story here is that you ignorant and retarded AGW deniers are a sort of ad hoc cult, astro-turfed and sponsored by the fossil fuel industry. This quote you pulled up totally applies to you and your fellow dupes and stooges in the AGW denial cult.

*"Sometimes, they are afraid to know the truth --
They fear that their world will fall apart if they stop believing certain things, or admit the truth of other things. That is one of the beliefs with which they got programmed  the idea that if they don't believe the right things, they will go to Hell, or they will lose their ticket to Heaven, or something else really bad will happen to them. One of the things that cults do is implant phobias about leaving the cult, or learning the truth about the cult."*


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 29, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


You really are hard core crazy, aren't you? Of course everybody has a clue as to what you have studied and that clue is the abject ignorance displayed in your posts. You can't fake it, little idiot. 






Foxfyre said:


> but you have nothing more to contradict my take on it other than a string of juvenile personal insults,


So.....you can't even comprehend what you read, eh. I explained the errors in your assumptions and posted some excerpts from a scientific study that demolishes your ignorant belief that scientists have only "_34 years_" worth of data about the polar ice to work with. 

As I said, Fauxfyre, try educating yourself with some actual scientific information about the subject or you will always, as you are now, come off as a completely ignorant shithead who is only arguing because of his/her politics and his/her stupidity.


----------



## Qantrill (Sep 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



No we were here first asshole...the global warming bullshit started with the inventor of the internet...AlGore...you know that crazy bastard that had eletric bills totalling about $30,000 to $40K per year just to run his household down in Tennessee, about the same time he made that fairy tale movie? And then he started up his "new carbon credits business" to dupe dumbshits like yourself into paying him money for dumping too much carbon dioxide into the air. What a scammer that sorry SoB is. We anti-global warming believers were already around. We looked just like you except we weren't retarded.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 29, 2012)

Qantrill said:


> I love this thread.
> 
> Now would some...any...just one of you chicken littleshits explain to us global warming doubters just why this GD ice melted (see YouTube below), then refroze, then melted again...twice in the last 100,000 years (last time 25,000 years ago) when there were NO AIRPLANES, NO AUTOMOBILES, NO SMOKE BELCHING FACTORIES, NO SEVEN BILLION PEOPLE, NO FARTING DINOSAURS, NO WORLD WARS AND NO PRIEUSes running around on top of the icecap?
> 
> ...



Where have you been for the last 50 years, boy? In some deep and dark hollow? Try using that thing you are typing your abysmal ignorance on, and google Milankovic.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 29, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Just a unscientific observation, did it ever occur to our pro AGW advocates that if the ice does not melt or retreat some of the time, and if it otherwise continues to get thicker and more expansive all of the time, that we would eventually all be up to our hoo has in ice over both the northern and southern hemispheres?   We haven't been tracking arctic ice for all that long because we have only had the capability to do so for 34 years.   Thirty four years is but a teensy tick in the history of the arctic ice, so we honestly don't know how many times the arctic ice has significantly retreated and advanced over open water in the billions of years it has existed.
> 
> Certainly 34 years is not sufficient to merit massive mandatory social changes.



We have, through proxy data, one hell of a lot more than 34 years worth of data. And by the time the consequences are bad enough for those of you in denial to advocate action, that action is going to be useless. And the social changes you are squaling about will seem mighty pale in comparison with the ones we are going to have to make to deal with the consequences of the willfull ignorance of our society.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 29, 2012)

Qantrill said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Lordy, lordy. The more they come, the stupider they get. 

Look, you flap yap ignoramous, the physics of global warming was establishe by Tyndall in 1858. In 1896, Arrhenious did the first quantative analysis of the effect of CO2, and came up with numbers very similiar to those that we get today with far more complete data.

All Al Gore did was to put what the scientists have been trying to tell us for many decades into layman's terms. And a very good job he did.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 29, 2012)

Qantrill said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOL. Just more ignorant denier cult drivel and bullshit, you poor confused and deluded retard.

I know that you are very probably far too brainwashed and retarded to understand this material and you probably have the attention span of a fruit-fly so reading something this long and complicated may well be totally beyond your capacities but I'll offer it anyway since it would cure a good part of your ignorance if you did manage to understand it.

*The Discovery of Global Warming 
A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand what people are doing to cause climate change. *
  December 2011


----------



## Qantrill (Sep 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Qantrill said:
> 
> 
> > I love this thread.
> ...



I've been living right here in the St. Louis area for 61 of my 70 years junior. I have absolutely no interest in googling Milankovic or any proponent of global warming. So if you have something to say, spit it out sonny boy. Meanwhile, what your trying to tell me is that you don't believe that gw bullshit either...and you can take your abysmal egghead intelligence and shove it up your abysmal egghead ass...side ways, you sorry bastard.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 29, 2012)

Qantrill said:


> I've been living right here in the St. Louis area for 61 of my 70 years junior. I have absolutely no interest in googling Milankovic or any proponent of global warming. So if you have something to say, spit it out sonny boy. Meanwhile, what your trying to tell me is that you don't believe that gw bullshit either...and you can take your abysmal egghead intelligence and shove it up your abysmal egghead ass...side ways, you sorry bastard.



So, in other words, you're not only severely retarded, Quantumofstupidity, you're also very jealous of your intellectual superiors (which would be just about everybody). Too bad you're such a retard but that is not our fault. Blame your parents for your genes or for maybe dropping you on your head so much when you were a baby.


----------



## Qantrill (Sep 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Just a unscientific observation, did it ever occur to our pro AGW advocates that if the ice does not melt or retreat some of the time, and if it otherwise continues to get thicker and more expansive all of the time, that we would eventually all be up to our hoo has in ice over both the northern and southern hemispheres?   We haven't been tracking arctic ice for all that long because we have only had the capability to do so for 34 years.   Thirty four years is but a teensy tick in the history of the arctic ice, so we honestly don't know how many times the arctic ice has significantly retreated and advanced over open water in the billions of years it has existed.
> ...



Is this the new world order asshole? Sounds like damned threat to me. You might have those willfully ignorant people kicking your asses global warming boy.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 29, 2012)

Qantrill said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Qantrill said:
> ...



See Qantrill -- The warmers CAN'T muck with Ice Age data. So they ADMIT all that was natural causes (both earth orbital dynamics and solar increase). And the CO2 levels were amazingly in sync with the Ice Ages temperatures. One prob tho.. The fluctuating CO2 FOLLOWED the temperature as much as coincided with the temp changes. 

So when OldieRocks quotes Milankovic cycles -- he's basically tossing in the towel and saying that all that Climate history was perfectly natural before man started to burn fossil fuels.. Including the periods where the CO2 concentrations were 10 times higher than they are today --- and there is no evidence of oceans boiling off or dinosaurs being pestered by killer hurricanes and devastation. 

Far as I can tell --- you should be able to take him.. But be aware his nurses want him back in his room by 7PM..


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Just a unscientific observation, did it ever occur to our pro AGW advocates that if the ice does not melt or retreat some of the time, and if it otherwise continues to get thicker and more expansive all of the time, that we would eventually all be up to our hoo has in ice over both the northern and southern hemispheres?   We haven't been tracking arctic ice for all that long because we have only had the capability to do so for 34 years.   Thirty four years is but a teensy tick in the history of the arctic ice, so we honestly don't know how many times the arctic ice has significantly retreated and advanced over open water in the billions of years it has existed.
> ...



We have had satellite imaging for only 34 years.  Anarctica is easier to research because there are permanent ice cores there to pull out and test.  There is no such permanency to ice floating on ocean and it leaves no tracks or permanent record.   And while we can detect periods of warming and cooling in general by studying vegetation and permafrost, prior to 1978 there was insufficient human activity on the arctic ice to know what was happening in all areas of it as satellites can now observe.  So we don't know how often there was new and thinner ice subject to dismantling by the savage arctic storms.  The Bering Sea is famous for its strong winds and tumultous seas--watch "Deadliest Catch" sometimes on the Discovery Channel.  Hurricane conditions are not unheard of and the ice pack is constantly moving and can drag their crab pots long distances if they get too close to it. 

Since we have had roads across the Arctic ice which dates back to the 1930's and 40's and 50's, the truckers who haul supplies across the ice know that there is a fairly short season that the ice is thick enough to support the weight of fully loaded semis.    Other ice roads are restricted to lighter loads as the ice is never dependable to be strong enough to support heavier weights.

There is no doubt that recent summer ice melt in the arctic is greater now than when they first started observing it.  But again, we've only been observing that for 34 years.  At the same time we are observing no such dramatic melt off in Anarctica.  There some ice is generally receding while other is advancing with no overall loss of mass.   No doubt the day is coming when the Arctic region will be colder for longer periods and the ice will thicken up and become more permanent and probably we will observe more melt in Anarctica which will no doubt trigger panic in some scientific communities.

But there's also a pretty good chance that these cycles have been going on for millions and millions of years.  Thirty four years isn't even as much as an eye blink within the larger picture.


----------



## Qantrill (Sep 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Qantrill said:
> 
> 
> > I've been living right here in the St. Louis area for 61 of my 70 years junior. I have absolutely no interest in googling Milankovic or any proponent of global warming. So if you have something to say, spit it out sonny boy. Meanwhile, what your trying to tell me is that you don't believe that gw bullshit either...and you can take your abysmal egghead intelligence and shove it up your abysmal egghead ass...side ways, you sorry bastard.
> ...



So in other words I'm really not interested in what Dr. Frankenstein has to say. If this planet explodes tomorrow or in another billion years neither one of you geniuses will be around to  say I told you so. So why get your edumacated bowels locked up over it. The fact remains that what happens every 25,000 years or so will continue to happen NO MATTER WHAT YOU TWO BRAINIACS think you know. SCREW YOU.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> See Qantrill -- The warmers CAN'T muck with Ice Age data. So they ADMIT all that was natural causes (both earth orbital dynamics and solar increase). And the CO2 levels were amazingly in sync with the Ice Ages temperatures. One prob tho.. The fluctuating CO2 FOLLOWED the temperature as much as coincided with the temp changes.


You are such a hypocritical retard, fecalhead. Your denier cult myths get debunked and you just keep on repeating them. I already dealt with this particular nonsense in post #55 of this thread.



RollingThunder said:


> *Research breakthrough: CO2 rises caused warming that ended last ice age*
> By Tierney Smith
> 4 April 2012
> (excerpts)
> ...











flacaltenn said:


> So when OldieRocks quotes Milankovic cycles -- he's basically tossing in the towel


In your dreams, you pitiful delusional retard.







flacaltenn said:


> and saying that all that Climate history was perfectly natural before man started to burn fossil fuels.. Including the periods where the CO2 concentrations were 10 times higher than they are today --- and there is no evidence of oceans boiling off or dinosaurs being pestered by killer hurricanes and devastation.


If you weren't such an ignorant asshole, fecalhead, you might be aware of the fact that when CO2 concentrations were that much higher, the sun's energy output was somewhat lower, so it balanced out. But that would require you to actually know something about the subject instead of just parroting denier cult drivel and pseudo-science off of denier cult blogs and fossil fuel industry front group websites.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 29, 2012)

Qantrill said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Qantrill said:
> ...



Lordy, what a stupid fuck you have shown yourself to be. OK, boy, I was born in '43. Done 40 years as an industrial millwright, and ten years on other things, that include a dd214 that says Honorable. And have taken Univesity courses over the years, in fact, still taking them. Three of the last four years, I have just barely cracked six figures on income. And am still working as a millwright in a steel mill. Upper middle class earner, blue collar liberal, and I research before posting. 

The fact that you are too lazy to do the same says all one has to know concerning your intellect and honesty.


----------



## Qantrill (Sep 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Qantrill said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



All Al Gore did was start the unnecessary hysteria. And people such as you (elitest egghead, look at me type assholes) proliferate the bullshit on any and all forums. You people aren't GOD...I know, I know there is no GOD to you SoBs. You are the smartest SOBs walking upright...you think. Good luck with that.


----------



## Qantrill (Sep 29, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Qantrill said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Hey asshole...I cracked that six figure barrier back in the mid 90s as a CFO. So take your industrial millwright/other things background and shove up where the sun doesn't shine you self-anointed genius. I still want to know why that ice-cap that reached northern Missouri 25,000 years ago melted and YOU obviously don't know, pissant. Neither did Malancovic or Al Gore.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 29, 2012)

Qantrill said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Qantrill said:
> ...



And I wonder what caused the glaciers that were advancing and retreating and advancing and retreating here in New Mexico as recently as 10,000 years ago?  We sure don't have any now.   They were long gone before anybody but a few primitive Indian tribes occupied this area.  But too recently to blame it on dinosaur farts or something like that?

Is it possible that the Earth has been experiencing massive climate shifts for as long as it has been here?


----------



## Qantrill (Sep 29, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Qantrill said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Absolutely true. But these self anointed genius democrats think they can bully/insult the intelligence of the rest of the country into seeing things THEIR WAY. Or bad things will happen to those that don't cooperate. Idiots. Screw them very much.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 29, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > In other words... Perfectly good explanation that glaciation and the Ices Ages were a NATURAL event with the CO2 levels being a SECONDARY effect..  A combination of Earth orbital dynamics and fundamental changes in the Sun's radiation..
> ...



I thought CO2 was "Global"?  When you say "we've increased CO2 40% (or whatever)" did you mean in every place besides the Antarctic?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 29, 2012)

The Vostok ice cores showed CO2 lagging temperature, so they went to find "data" that "confirms" their theory.

LOL

That's real science


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 29, 2012)

Global only means global when it's convenient.

So what was different about Vostok CO2?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 29, 2012)

"however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature...."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

So, the Antarctic CO2 was "Local" for 10,000 year...hmmmmkay?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 30, 2012)

Seems like TinkerBelle can't keep the story straight.. The fairy dust that's getting sprinkled makes no sense.. 

Just a few posts ago -- tinkerbelle sprinkled this highly technical Wikipedia piece on us stating.... 



> http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...rctic-ice-cap-is-shrinking-4.html#post6075003
> 
> The main effect of the Milankovitch cycles is to change the contrast between the seasons, not the amount of solar heat Earth receives. These cycles within cycles predict that during maximum glacial advances, winter and summer temperatures are lower. The result is less ice melting than accumulating, and glaciers build up. Milankovitch worked out the ideas of climatic cycles in the 1920s and 1930s, but it was not until the 1970s that sufficiently long and detailed chronology of the Quaternary temperature changes was worked out to test the theory adequately.[8] Studies of deep-sea cores, and the fossils contained in them indicate that the fluctuation of climate during the last few hundred thousand years is remarkably close to that predicted by Milankovitch.
> 
> A problem with the theory is that the astronomical cycles have been in existence for billions of years, but glaciation is a rare occurrence. *Actually, astronomical cycles perfectly explain glacial and interglacial periods, and their transitions, inside an ice age. Other factors such as the position of continents and the effects this has on the earth's oceanic currents, or long term fluctuations inside the core of the sun must also be involved that caused Earth's temperature to drop below a critical threshold and thus initiate the ice age in the first place. Once that occurs, Milankovitch cycles will act to force the planet in and out of glacial periods. *One theory holds that decreases in atmospheric CO2, an important greenhouse gas, started the long-term cooling trend that eventually led to glaciation. Recent studies of the CO2 content of gas bubbles preserved in the Greenland ice cores lend support to this idea. CO2 levels also play an important role in the transitions between interglacials and glacials. High CO2 contents correspond to warm interglacial periods, and low CO2 to glacial periods. *However, studies indicate that CO2 may not be the primary cause of the interglacial-glacial transitions, but instead acts as a feedback*.[10]



And then the fairy finds the Shakun2012 study that studied just the VERY LAST climate transistion edge in the Vostok Ice cores.. And flings THAT turd into the punchbowl.. 

Well here is the Shakun data for temp. proxies superimposed on the CO2 reconstruction for that ONE CLIMATE transistion... 








80 or so temperature proxies with an uncertainty of SEVERAL THOUSAND YEARS from various spots around the globe.. These proxies peak sometimes a couple THOUSAND YEARS APART, but the press release for this study claims 100 yr certainty.. 

And should we BELIEVE that there are 10,000 yr lags in the effect of CO2 on temperature? Takes that long to "homogenize" 100 ppm of CO2?


This is why I don't do tree rings or ice.. And certainly, that graph ain't gonna have me running to Al Gore for absolution anytime soon. Nor apologizing to TinkerBelle for my "skepticism".. 

Besides the fact that even the AUTHOR ADMITS that natural events TRIGGERED the initial release of the CO2 from an ice-bound planet ---- there are numerous problems to this LEAP of faith in crappy data.

1) It does not account for the SEVEN OTHER EDGES of climate transistion in the Antarctic cores. Some of which show 1000 yr lag in CO2 versus temp.

2) The final proxy "global average" is taken from data series that don't align to within 1000 years.

3) The amount of warming observed in the reconstruction doesn't correspond solely to a CO2 forcing being about 3 times what it should be. 

4) There is no real explanation for the SOURCE of the CO2 if it is the leading factor in that last deglaciating transistion. An ICE BOUND planet is not gonna spew generous amounts of CO2 BEFORE the ice melts or the oceans warm. 

So the circus continues.. And Tinkerbelle resorts to larger and more colorful fonts. And posts CONFLICTING explanations on the same page of the thread..


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 30, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> And I wonder what caused the glaciers that were advancing and retreating and advancing and retreating here in New Mexico as recently as 10,000 years ago?  We sure don't have any now.   They were long gone before anybody but a few primitive Indian tribes occupied this area.  But too recently to blame it on dinosaur farts or something like that?
> 
> Is it possible that the Earth has been experiencing massive climate shifts for as long as it has been here?



Yeah, Fauxfyre, it is "_possible_" that the Earth has experienced climate changes many times in the past due to natural mechanisms. Actually, as you would _know_ if you weren't so ignorant, it is more than a possibility, it is a fact. Sometimes there are long periods of relative climate stability and sometimes the climate changes very slowly and sometimes there are abrupt changes, all due to natural causes. 

*SO WHAT???*......*SO WHAT???*......*SO WHAT???*......*SO WHAT???*......*SO WHAT???*

Just because the Earth's climate patterns have changed before in the past due to natural causes does not mean that it can't change now due to manmade causes, any more than the fact that forest fires started naturally for as long as there have been forests means that no forest fires happening now could possibly have been caused by humans.

Scientists have studied the causes of past climate shifts and those causes are not what is causing the current abrupt warming trend and its associated climate changes. There is only one factor that is rapidly changing that could be producing the current rapid changes in world average temperatures and that factor is the rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels produce by the burning of millions of years of ancient sequestered carbon from prehistoric plant life that comes down to us in the form of oil, coal and natural gas.

If you really want to know what caused the glaciers in New Mexico to disappear ten thousand years ago, try actually reading the explanations that have been shown to you here or just go google it and read some scientific explanations on the internet. If instead, you want to remain ignorant so you can argue about this for political reasons, untroubled by any pesky facts that might contradict your pre-packaged political prejudices on this subject, then fuck you, you brainless asswipe.


----------



## Saigon (Sep 30, 2012)

westwall said:


> Weeeeeeeeeellllllll, maybe not.  Seems that NASA has a new video that shows the sea ice breakup was actually do to a storm....whoops.   Looks like it wasn't due to warming after all.
> 
> Doesn't it just suck when science prooves you wrong...yet again?
> 
> ...



My word....what an embarassing thread!

Poor old Westwall!


It's funny - everytime you think the debate has moved on and people have started to become better informed, you see a thread like this and realise that for some people this issue is 100% political. No amount of science makes a jot of difference.


----------



## Dot Com (Sep 30, 2012)

Study finds that ocean acidification is accelerated in nutrient-rich areas


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 30, 2012)

Well the longer the thread progresses, the more frantic, insulting, and childish they get along with making the type bigger and more psychadelic.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 30, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Well the longer the thread progresses, the more frantic, insulting, and childish they get along with making the type bigger and more psychadelic(sic).



LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......

Wellllllll...the longer the thread progresses, the more ignorant, puerile and idiotic the denier cultists get as they try to hide the fact that their arguments are all politically based and have no connection to the real world of scientific facts.


----------



## IanC (Sep 30, 2012)

I think it is funny that guys like Old Rocks and rollingthunder stay away from threads that discuss the obvious insufficiencies of the studies they cite over and over again. Shakur2012 was demolished and the data was shown not to support the conclusions of the report, and the curtailed CO2 proxy was similar to Mann's 'hide the decline'. Yet rt keeps linking it as if it was gospel.


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 30, 2012)

IanC said:


> I think it is funny that guys like Old Rocks and rollingthunder stay away from threads that discuss the obvious insufficiencies of the studies they cite over and over again. Shakur2012 was demolished and the data was shown not to support the conclusions of the report, and the curtailed CO2 proxy was similar to Mann's 'hide the decline'. Yet rt keeps linking it as if it was gospel.



Well, when folks post the same stuff over and over--using ever bigger, bolder, more colorful text--while refusing to look at, much less consider, anything different, and insulting those who are consulting many sources as stupid, ignorant, uneducated, and worse, you gotta figure they've got nothing.  Children debate that way.  Adults don't.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Well the longer the thread progresses, the more frantic, insulting, and childish they get along with making the type bigger and more psychadelic.



When you deal with real scientists you don't get the hysterics and profanity in reply; the Warmers are a Cult and asking them to question their beliefs shakes them to their core


----------



## Foxfyre (Sep 30, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Well the longer the thread progresses, the more frantic, insulting, and childish they get along with making the type bigger and more psychadelic.
> ...



I know, though I don't claim to be a scientist.  I have been looking at this stuff pretty closely for about 10 years now though, and I find a lot of fault with the AGW religionists, and some problems with those who are just as committed deniers.   I come down on the side of those who don't know for sure what is happening, and who want the research to continue but I want the research done by those who want the truth rather than those willing to report only what will keep their funding pouring in.

At this time I see insufficient evidence for AGW being any kind of problem that merits government taking away our rights, choices, options, and opportunities to satisfy what is likely flawed science.  And I simply don't understand those willing to give government power to do anything it wants in deference to the AGW religion.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 30, 2012)

IanC said:


> I think it is funny that guys like Old Rocks and rollingthunder stay away from threads that discuss the obvious insufficiencies of the studies they cite over and over again. Shakur2012 was demolished and the data was shown not to support the conclusions of the report, and the curtailed CO2 proxy was similar to Mann's 'hide the decline'. Yet rt keeps linking it as if it was gospel.



It's actually pretty funny that you take the nonsense and drivel pumped by an uneducated ex-weather reader like Watts as significant or meaningful. It is only on Watts' blog or other denier cult sites that Shakun's paper is criticized or supposedly "_demolished_". In the real world of peer-reviewed scientific literature, it is doing just fine. And who wrote that article on Watts' blog that, in your brainwashed little mind, 'demolishes' Shakun's paper? Why it is some guy named Willis Eschenbach who is also completely uneducated and unqualified in climate science. Big surprise. Here's Eschenbach's credentials:

    California Massage Certificate, Aames School of Massage, Oakland, CA. (1974).
    B.A., Psychology, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA. (1975).

He has never published a paper on any aspect of the climate in any peer reviewed science journal. Ever! Just another politically motivated rightwingnut suffering from the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Here's a good rundown of the issue from someone who actually knows something about the science.

*Unlocking the secrets to ending an Ice Age*


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 30, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is funny that guys like Old Rocks and rollingthunder stay away from threads that discuss the obvious insufficiencies of the studies they cite over and over again. Shakur2012 was demolished and the data was shown not to support the conclusions of the report, and the curtailed CO2 proxy was similar to Mann's 'hide the decline'. Yet rt keeps linking it as if it was gospel.
> ...



You should check the credentials of YOUR BLOG sources.. They stink.. You are FOS... 

Loehle, Craig, and Willis Eschenbach. 2011. Historical bird and terrestrial mammal extinction rates and causes.
Diversity and Distributions. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00856.x

One of 3 peer reviewed papers that Eschenbach has his name on... 

Don't matter.. Anyone can access the data for the Shakun paper and see how much magic was applied to get to a preferred conclusion.. The graph I posted showing the WIDE UNCERTAINTY in that global temp data SHOULD HAVE BEEN in that paper. But it took only one marginally enrolled skeptic to point out the folly..


----------



## Qantrill (Sep 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> S
> 
> So the circus continues.. And *Tinkerbelle** resorts to larger and more colorful fonts. And posts CONFLICTING explanations on the same page of the thread..*



This ^^^^^^ is just BEAUTIFUL. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


So you're having reading comprehension problems again, eh fecalhead. Look back and notice that I said that ol' Willis "has never published a paper *on any aspect of the climate* in any peer reviewed science journal". The paper you mention is not about climate science and the science journal it was published in is not a climate science journal. So you are wrong again, as usual.







flacaltenn said:


> Don't matter.. Anyone can access the data for the Shakun paper and see how much magic was applied to get to a preferred conclusion.. The graph I posted showing the WIDE UNCERTAINTY in that global temp data SHOULD HAVE BEEN in that paper. But it took only one marginally enrolled skeptic to point out the folly..


Anyone can access the data for the Shakun paper and many competent climate scientists have done that without finding any errors, but it seems that only dimwitted denier cultists pushing their own brand of pseudo-science see what you do. Of course, for you dingbats, that's just more evidence of the 'big conspiracy'. LOLOLOL....you imbeciles are soooo pathetic.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 30, 2012)

Still waiting for our RESIDENT dingbat princess to comment on ANY OF THE TECHNICAL issues I posted about her Shakun paper... Evidently -- the princess doesn't want to discuss the actual CONTENT of that study and would rather blather on about credentials of those who have commented..


----------



## westwall (Sep 30, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Weeeeeeeeeellllllll, maybe not.  Seems that NASA has a new video that shows the sea ice breakup was actually do to a storm....whoops.   Looks like it wasn't due to warming after all.
> ...







On the contrary, it has been an excellent thread, it's shown the world what complete idiots you all are for believeing in something that has no physical evidence whatsoever.  You and your socks (well, personally I think you, trolling blunder and what's his nose are all olfraud socks...but who cares) have demonstrated beyond question that you have no clue how real science is done, that you are merely political operatives and that your cause is lost...you're just too stupid to figure it out.

But that's OK, you all provide a wealth of entertainment for those of us who are capable of rubbing more than two brain cells together...and for that we thank you!


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 30, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Not for you, dumbass, you're just too retarded to remember that your idiotic OP got debunked in post #14 of this moronic thread. Let me refresh your faulty memory there, walleyedretard.

*Arctic Sea Ice Hits Smallest Extent In Satellite Era
NASA*
09.19.12
(government publication - free to reproduce)





*Satellite data reveal how the new record low Arctic sea ice extent, from Sept. 16, 2012, compares to the average minimum extent over the past 30 years (in yellow). Sea ice extent maps are derived from data captured by the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer aboard NASA's Nimbus-7 satellite and the Special Sensor Microwave Imager on multiple satellites from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program. Credit: NASA/Goddard Scientific Visualization Studio 

The frozen cap of the Arctic Ocean appears to have reached its annual summertime minimum extent and broken a new record low on Sept. 16, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has reported. Analysis of satellite data by NASA and the NASA-supported NSIDC at the University of Colorado in Boulder showed that the sea ice extent shrunk to 1.32 million square miles (3.41 million square kilometers).

The new record minimum measures almost 300,000 square miles less than the previous lowest extent in the satellite record, set in mid-September 2007, of 1.61 million square miles (4.17 million square kilometers). For comparison, the state of Texas measures around 268,600 square miles.

NSIDC cautioned that, although Sept. 16 seems to be the annual minimum, there's still time for winds to change and compact the ice floes, potentially reducing the sea ice extent further. NASA and NSIDC will release a complete analysis of the 2012 melt season next month, once all data for September are available.

Arctic sea ice cover naturally grows during the dark Arctic winters and retreats when the sun re-appears in the spring. But the sea ice minimum summertime extent, which is normally reached in September, has been decreasing over the last three decades as Arctic ocean and air temperatures have increased. This year's minimum extent is approximately half the size of the average extent from 1979 to 2000. This year's minimum extent also marks the first time Arctic sea ice has dipped below 4 million square kilometers.

"Climate models have predicted a retreat of the Arctic sea ice; but the actual retreat has proven to be much more rapid than the predictions," said Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "There continues to be considerable inter-annual variability in the sea ice cover, but the long-term retreat is quite apparent."

The thickness of the ice cover is also in decline.

"The core of the ice cap is the perennial ice, which normally survived the summer because it was so thick", said Joey Comiso, senior scientist with NASA Goddard. "But because it's been thinning year after year, it has now become vulnerable to melt".

The disappearing older ice gets replaced in winter with thinner seasonal ice that usually melts completely in the summer.

This year, a powerful cyclone formed off the coast of Alaska and moved on Aug. 5 to the center of the Arctic Ocean, where it churned the weakened ice cover for several days. The storm cut off a large section of sea ice north of the Chukchi Sea and pushed it south to warmer waters that made it melt entirely. It also broke vast extensions of ice into smaller pieces more likely to melt.

"The storm definitely seems to have played a role in this year's unusually large retreat of the ice", Parkinson said. "But that exact same storm, had it occurred decades ago when the ice was thicker and more extensive, likely wouldn't have had as prominent an impact, because the ice wasn't as vulnerable then as it is now."*


***


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Still waiting for our RESIDENT dingbat princess to comment on ANY OF THE TECHNICAL issues I posted about her Shakun paper... Evidently -- the princess doesn't want to discuss the actual CONTENT of that study and would rather blather on about credentials of those who have commented..



Oh fecalhead, I'd be happy to comment....here you go.....the issues you imagine you are raising are just ignorant nonsense that you only think mean something because you're a clueless retard with no knowledge of this subject that doesn't come from a denier cult pseudo-science blog. You've long since demonstrated your almost total ignorance of actual science and scientific principles so arguing with you over stuff you can't understand in the first place is just pointless.

Shakun's paper just came out this year and if there are any problems with the science, they will be addressed by other peer reviewed papers by real climate scientists. So far, no actual climate scientists have found fault with it, just the usual crop of uneducated and unqualified paid deniers and stooges that you're always quoting. How about if you just hold your breath until some real climate scientists refute Shakun's findings. Let me know when that happens; until then you're just blowing smoke and pushing your usual pseudo-scientific BS.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 30, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for our RESIDENT dingbat princess to comment on ANY OF THE TECHNICAL issues I posted about her Shakun paper... Evidently -- the princess doesn't want to discuss the actual CONTENT of that study and would rather blather on about credentials of those who have commented..
> ...



IOWs --- no ORIGINAL thought, no ORIGINAL opinion and this is just a variant of Fantasy Football to you (MY scientists gonna whip  YOUR lame cult deniers NEXT WEEK) and an opportunity to use words your mommy don't approve of... 

That's a waste of my time..  In fact, other than Trakar and Old Rocks, your whole Fantasy Science League is completely vapid, and illogical endevour.


----------



## RollingThunder (Sep 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



How ironic and amusing coming from someone like you who just parrots verbatim the 'opinions' and 'thoughts' you scrape off of your denier cult blogs.





flacaltenn said:


> ...MY scientists gonna whip YOUR lame cult deniers...


Well you got that right (sort of). Actual working climate scientists debunk the pseudo-science drivel of your denier cult spokesmen every time but you are too brainwashed and retarded to comprehend that fact.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 30, 2012)

Dot Com said:


> Study finds that ocean acidification is accelerated in nutrient-rich areas



Can you walk me through one more time this concept of ocean "Acidification"?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 30, 2012)

Dot Com said:


> Study finds that ocean acidification is accelerated in nutrient-rich areas



...........And this is scientific news ---- WHY? That algae blooms cause CO2 release when they decay? That this effect is 2 to 12 MORE significant that the acidification caused by man-made CO2? (if indeed all of the ocean acidification being measured is DUE to increases in anthro CO2).

Which part of this news blurb was news to you? Or is a general yelp in the dark about killing the planet.


----------



## Saigon (Oct 1, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Study finds that ocean acidification is accelerated in nutrient-rich areas
> ...



Not so fast there, Frank - 

If someone 'walks you through' this topic, will you commit to actually reading the evidence and commenting sensibly on it?

Yes or no?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2012)

No, he will not. Trakar walked him through it with a rather elegant explanation, and ol' Frankie Boy just ignored the whole thing, came right back with this bullshit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Well the longer the thread progresses, the more frantic, insulting, and childish they get along with making the type bigger and more psychadelic.
> ...



Well, here is a source of papers in peer reviewed scientific journals from around the world from real scientists.

AGW Observer


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2012)

Saigon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Sure. 

But know that I "talk sensibly" even when your inability to grasp basic concepts prevents you from understading


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2012)

Qantrill said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Qantrill said:
> ...



LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A CFO? Damn, you just confirmed my deepest suspicions about the mental capabilities of upper management


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> No, he will not. Trakar walked him through it with a rather elegant explanation, and ol' Frankie Boy just ignored the whole thing, came right back with this bullshit.




As I remember it -- Trakar attempted to baffle us with mathematical intimidation which I reduced to the absurb claim that "30% more acidic"  actually was.. 

And you guys have convieniently skipped MY cogent comments above.. Is it because you're only here to brawl and NOT DISCUSS any of the technical details and issues?? Or that you don't understand the content of the link on algae blooms and CO2?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> No, he will not. Trakar walked him through it with a rather elegant explanation, and ol' Frankie Boy just ignored the whole thing, came right back with this bullshit.



The Bullshit is trying to convince people that CO2 is turning the oceans "Acidic"

First, ocean absorption of CO2 knock the props out of your atmospheric feedback scam.

Second, even when you discover that the ocean absorbs CO2 at TWICE the rate in your model, your models do not make any adjustments. It's like double the tax on an investment and still showing the same net after tax return, it's a scam, a fraud.

Third, there is no "Ocean acidification" the carbonic acid molecule disassociates when hitting the water so there is no build up of acid

Finally, there is no "Average Ocean pH" it's an accounting fiction

Go shuck an Oregon oyster


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



I go there, but only because Larson stopped publishing "the Far Side". Your site is good for a laugh






I'd change it to "School for Global Warming Studies"


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 1, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > No, he will not. Trakar walked him through it with a rather elegant explanation, and ol' Frankie Boy just ignored the whole thing, came right back with this bullshit.
> ...



This has been my frustration.  There are those of us who really are interested in this topic and there are more than a few, including me, who want to really learn about the real dynamics.  Not the politically correct dynamics.  Not the politioeconomic dynamics.  And certainly not the dynamics of those who have so little intelligence, they are unable to even pretend they are adults, much less civil ones.  Do people really think they are persuasive when all they have to offer is profanity and insulting people?  Evenmoreso when it is obvious they have never read anything really objective on this topic and they don't even understand the stuff they post?

So of course they don't want to even look at the content of effect on algae blooms on CO2, or consider whether the current conditions have occurred in the past in the same way, or consider the motives of those offering all those pretty charts and graphs and scientific looking data.  And they become increasingly juvenile and frantic and insulting and profane if anybody presumes to challenge them.

The OP presented an excellent opportunity to really rethink the conclusions of those who are all in a dither they think there was excessive melt of the arctic ice cap this summer.  Real time reported evidence is presented to give us a chance to see and understand that differently.   It is too bad that we don't have more who are interested in the science who would find that interesting rather than those who treat it as politically incorrect to even bring it up.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



This thread is an EXCELLENT example of the lack of willingness to discuss the technical content in a cogent scientific manner. All you have to do to be accosted as a "clueless, cult denier" is to remind those panicked souls watching the "ice melt" that they are not really looking at solid sea ice shrinking -- but they were watching a "image enhanced" statistic of sea ice "get rearranged". Since the sea ice coverage is defined as low as 20% coverage of the ocean surface.. 

Merely pointing out how those floating cubes are influenced by currents and storms is enough to bring this thread down to the Flame Zone. With warmers hanging on to phrases like "the ice was made vulnerable" by previous melts. OK --- but you were NOT WATCHING what you THINK you watching.. 

Tune in next week..  Since the world IS warming -- there is likely to be more ice melting in the Arctic..


----------



## mamooth (Oct 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> and they become increasingly juvenile and frantic and insulting and profane if anybody presumes to challenge them.



Look us in the eye and say you think Skook, Frank, Oddball or Quantrill are behaving like grownups. Just which rationalist is behaving anywhere as badly as that group? None of us are picture-spamming and screaming insults with zero content. Your notable absence of criticism there makes your calls for civility look quite hypocritical.

Flac and Westwall are a bit better, but they go heavy on the handwaving and declaring that anyone who doesn't accept their bizarre logic and unsupported conspiracy theories has to be stupid or dishonest. These are your role models?

Flac says scattered ice isn't measured, which is a just a strange claim. Not being morons, of course scientists measure and account for scattered ice.

Westwall's "it was just a storm, not warming!" is equally senseless, because there have been storms before. A storm wouldn't have gotten that big without mucho open warmer water to feed it, and wouldn't have torn up and melted the ice so much unless the ice was already mostly gone, and unless the water was so unusually warm.

And who on the rational side is trying to hide discussion of algae blooms and ocean acidification, or refusing to look at the past, as you just bizarrely claimed? You lying about us doesn't make us wrong, it just makes you look like a liar.

Lose your "I'm so independent!" charade. You're a right-wing political cultist, and you stink at hiding it. You run from any discussion that threatens your cult's dogma, then you hide behind a childish "Waah! You're all so mean!" sulking act. The grownups are going to call you out when you talk nonsense, and we don't care if that makes you cry about how mean we are.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > and they become increasingly juvenile and frantic and insulting and profane if anybody presumes to challenge them.
> ...



Childish "waah"????? You didn't even quote me correctly.. So the only germane technical point you tried to make was totally mangled.* My ENTIRE POST to Foxy was that much of that sea ice IS scattered AND IS measured as tho it's solid, even tho most the space is water.*, not as it appears on those charts of "melting".. With MUCH OF THAT AREA already existing as open ocean.. You blew the entire point of the thread right there -- by demonstrating how little you focus on the science/debate and how much you focus on personalities and "scoring". 

I'm very proud of folks who have invested in understanding the issues of Climate change. Not so impressed tho with that would rather badger and belittle. If you think that strategy is gonna make me or Frank or Wally or Todd or Skooks or Ian or ANY of the dissenters on the CO2 theory change their position. You're wasting time here... 

BTW: SO FAR -- I'm pretty sure I'm the ONLY ONE here who made comments and assertions about that "Duh" study of algae blooms.. 
Didn't even get a courtesy reply from Dot Com answering WHY he thought that study was important.
You disagree with my comments, READ THEM, then post.. Meanwhile --- Stop the theatrical grandstanding.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > and they become increasingly juvenile and frantic and insulting and profane if anybody presumes to challenge them.
> ...



If it makes you feel better to insult and judge people rather than discuss a topic, you must feel really good Mamooth.   I am not interested in pointing fingers and joining in the food fight here, thank you very much.  Some enjoy that sort of thing.  It is frustrating to me on a thread that merits a more constructive approach.

Westwall offered an excellent opportunity to be objective here.  When you can go to pro-AGW after pro-AGW website all wringing their hands over the 'excessive ice melt' and hollering SEE????   MORE PROOF of devastating anthropological globa warming!!!!!, I find it very interesting to think there might be a different explanation for the 'excessive' reduction in ice cover in the arctic this summer.  And if there is, I want to know the truth about it, and not the politically correct version.

Of course there is global warming.  The Earth has been warming in various degrees since the last ice age and, because we know it has been considerably warmer in the past than it currently is, there is little reason to believe that trend won't continue until such time as we enter the next inevitable ice age.  Humans survived those warmer periods in the past and survived the last ice age and there is no reason to believe we won't continue to survive unless we get hit by a mega asteroid or some such.  (Now coming up with an advance warning system and means to destroy or deflect such asteroid--also probably inevitable in our future--would be something I could really get behind and support.)

So for me it is important to know whether humans are significantly changing the global climate or whether what we are experiencing is a naturally occurring climate trend.  Certainly the climate models are interesting, but so far not one of them has been able to take known recorded data from the past and produce the existing conditions now.  Those of us who are reading all the data know that.  And we are not willing to so easily hand over our freedom, choices, opportunities, and options to people who likely have motives not in our best interest and who may be using questionable science to scare us into submission.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 1, 2012)

If it turns out that humans have little or no ability to control the global climate, shouldn't the money and research be channeled into helping people be able to adapt to the inevitable rather than continue in an exercise of futility?


----------



## westwall (Oct 1, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...









  Ummmm, no, it wasn't.  But feel free to rant and rave and carry on like a spoiled child (you do that real good!) the fact remains that the low sea ice level is an artifice of a storm and nothing more.  The ice is ALLREADY freezing back at a record rate and this year will have an even greater sea ice coverage than the last.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 1, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> My ENTIRE POST to Foxy was that much of that sea ice IS scattered AND IS measured as tho it's solid, even tho most the space is water.



Who can ever tell what your conspiracy theories are about? I make a best guess, but it's painful to decipher your rambling. I rarely expend the effort, because I've learned it's probably not going to be worth it.

And everyone, please learn how to edit. It's usually not necessary to repeat every word of the preceeding post, and it's never necessary to repeat the idiot pictures. If you want people to read your posts, you need to make them easy to read. People don't want to wade through the crap, so cut out the crap, then quickly state a clear point.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You are a liar. That's not an 'insult', that's a fact. Here's the proof. And BTW, you are very obviously not "_reading all the data_", you lying smarmy halfwit (now, that's an insult and one you richly deserve).

*Climate Models: How Good Are They?*
By Lisa Moore - scientist in the Climate and Air Program| Bio 
Published: July 18, 2007
(excerpts)
*...Which brings me to how we know the models are credible. What if the model inputs were actual observations from a time period in the past where we have full climate measurements? If the model is any good, it should accurately "hindcast" what we know the climate conditions were. In fact, hindcasting is the technique scientists use to evaluate models. If a model can accurately hindcast, we can have some confidence in its forecasts of the future. In the graph below, the yellow lines show 58 temperature hindcasts from 14 different climate models. The thick red line is the average of all the hindcasts; the black line shows actual global temperature over the past century. Note how close the hindcast average is to actual temperatures. The models do a very good job of predicting 20th century climate.
*






*Are the Models Untestable?*
(excerpts)
*Some global warming deniers assert that the global climate models (GCMs) used to analyze and predict climate change can be ignored because they are "untestable" or "have no predictive ability." Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let's review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

    * That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
    * That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
    * That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
    * That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
    * Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
    * That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
    * The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
    * They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
     * They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
    * The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
    * The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
    * The expansion of the Hadley cells.
    * The poleward movement of storm tracks.
    * The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
    * The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
    * The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
    * That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

Seventeen correct predictions? Looks like a pretty good track record to me.

References for Predictions and Confirming Observations* - (see site)


----------



## mamooth (Oct 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> If it makes you feel better to insult and judge people rather than discuss a topic, you must feel really good Mamooth.



Spare me the martyr act. Your passive-aggressive thing is as bad as what anyone else here is doing.



> It is frustrating to me on a thread that merits a more constructive approach.



Yet you're not frustrated at all with the insult-spammers. You only get frustrated when people dare disagree with you or your "side", no matter how civil they are about it.



> Westwall offered an excellent opportunity to be objective here.



Why were water temperatures so high?

Why was the ice so thin before the storm, already on a record melt pace?

Why was there so much open warm water to feed the storm?

Why didn't big storms in previous years melt the ice?

Both Westwall and you don't want to discuss such things, and the problems it presents for the "but ... it was just one storm!" theory. I would think that such noble truth seekers would be more interested in discussion.



> The Earth has been warming in various degrees since the last ice age



No, it hasn't. That's just plain wrong. The earth warmed fast for the first thousand years after the ice age, then it entered a very slow cooling trend. That's how the orbital factors push the climate. We were still in that slow cooling trend, and we should have still been in that slow cooling trend for thousands of years. Instead, we flipflopped recently to some fast warming.



> So for me it is important to know whether humans are significantly changing the global climate or whether what we are experiencing is a naturally occurring climate trend.



Then you should be very interested in exploring why the natural cycle of slow cooling suddenly flipflopped to fast warming. If you look into it, you'll find no natural process can explain it. AGW theory is the only theory out there that explains the observed data.



> Certainly the climate models are interesting, but so far not one of them has been able to take known recorded data from the past and produce the existing conditions now.



Incorrect. As the previous post talked about, the models do an excellent job of hindcasting. Not being idiots, scientists know a model doesn't have credibility for futurecasting if it can't hindcast.



> And we are not willing to so easily hand over our freedom, choices, opportunities, and options to people who likely have motives not in our best interest and who may be using questionable science to scare us into submission.



That's political conspiracy nonsense. You don't see the AGW side here making political rants.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2012)

A 600,000 year data set showing CO2 lagging temperature is discarded for a computer model covering 100 years...hmmmkay


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 1, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> A 600,000 year data set showing CO2 lagging temperature is discarded for a computer model covering 100 years...hmmmkay



Well, actually.....no, that's not what happened, but unfortunately you, CrazyFruitcake, are just too brainwashed, ignorant and retarded to comprehend the facts.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > A 600,000 year data set showing CO2 lagging temperature is discarded for a computer model covering 100 years...hmmmkay
> ...



So a 600,000 year data set is not a fact?

Really?


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 1, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



No, not really, you're just confused about the point because you're so fricking retarded.

The Vostok ice cores are one data set but no one "_discarded_" them for "_a computer model_". That's just your ignorance and stupidity talking. That Vostok data set was supplemented by other, more global data sets. Like these, that you've seen before on this thread but ignored because they contradict your cherished denier cult myths.

*Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost
Nature* 484, 8791 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10929
Published online 04 April 2012
Robert M. DeConto, Simone Galeotti, Mark Pagani, David Tracy, Kevin Schaefer, Tingjun Zhang, David Pollard & David J. Beerling
(abstract) 

*Between about 55.5 and 52 million years ago, Earth experienced a series of sudden and extreme global warming events (hyperthermals) superimposed on a long-term warming trend1. The first and largest of these events, the PalaeoceneEocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), is characterized by a massive input of carbon, ocean acidification2 and an increase in global temperature of about 5&#8201;°C within a few thousand years3. Although various explanations for the PETM have been proposed4, 5, 6, a satisfactory model that accounts for the source, magnitude and timing of carbon release at the PETM and successive hyperthermals remains elusive. Here we use a new astronomically calibrated cyclostratigraphic record from central Italy7 to show that the Early Eocene hyperthermals occurred during orbits with a combination of high eccentricity and high obliquity. Corresponding climateecosystemsoil simulations accounting for rising concentrations of background greenhouse gases8 and orbital forcing show that the magnitude and timing of the PETM and subsequent hyperthermals can be explained by the orbitally triggered decomposition of soil organic carbon in circum-Arctic and Antarctic terrestrial permafrost. This massive carbon reservoir had the potential to repeatedly release thousands of petagrams (1015 grams) of carbon to the atmosphereocean system, once a long-term warming threshold had been reached just before the PETM. Replenishment of permafrost soil carbon stocks following peak warming probably contributed to the rapid recovery from each event9, while providing a sensitive carbon reservoir for the next hyperthermal10. As background temperatures continued to rise following the PETM, the areal extent of permafrost steadily declined, resulting in an incrementally smaller available carbon pool and smaller hyperthermals at each successive orbital forcing maximum. A mechanism linking Earths orbital properties with release of soil carbon from permafrost provides a unifying model accounting for the salient features of the hyperthermals.*


*Study suggests rising CO2 in the past caused global warming
A paper in Nature shows how increased CO2 in the atmosphere led to warming  rather than the other way round*


*Research breakthrough: CO2 rises caused warming that ended last ice age*
By Tierney Smith
4 April 2012
(excerpts)
*Compelling new evidence suggests that rising CO2 caused much of the global warming responsible for ending the last ice age. The study, published in Nature, confirms what scientists have believed for sometime, and further supports the view that current rises in human-driven CO2 will lead to more global warming. CO2 was a big part of bringing the world out of the last Ice Age and it took about 10,000 years to do it, said Jeremy Shakun from Harvard University and lead-author of the report. Now CO2 levels are rising again, but this time an equivalent increase of CO2 has occurred in only about 200 years, and there are clear signs that the planet is already beginning to respond. While many of the details of future climate change remain to be figured out, our study bolsters the consensus view that rising CO2 will lead to more global warming.

While previous studies only compared carbon dioxide levels to local temperatures in Antarctica, the current study aimed to reconstruct global average temperature changes, using 80 core samples from around the world. Looking only at local temperatures in Antarctica, warming appears to precede rising CO2, an argument often adopted by sceptics to disprove carbon dioxides role in global warming. Shakun however, says this is leaving a huge gap in the research. Putting all these records together into a reconstruction of global temperature shows "a beautiful correlation with rising CO2 at the end of the Ice Age, said Shakun. Even more interesting, while CO2 trails Antarctica warming, it actually precedes global temperature change, which is what you would expect if CO2 is causing warming.
*


*Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Nature* 484, 4954 (05 April 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10915
Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu,  Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
Published online 04 April 2012 
(Abstract)

*The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



From what I read in the nature article, it looks like Shakun is totally full of shit and dug around to find "Temperature proxies" (Mann tree rings) to show CO2 leading temperature everywhere else in the world except in Antarctica.

To me, that's a joke.

The data set shows a 600,000 years of CO2 lagging temperature but because that falsifies the AGW theory it is discarded for more tree rings.

AGW is a fraud


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > If it makes you feel better to insult and judge people rather than discuss a topic, you must feel really good Mamooth.
> ...



Sorry, but I took 7th grade science.   And have had some coursework since then too.  And at least I learned that climate science is evaluated over eons and not in a few dozen or even a few hundred years.  Certainly there have been intermittant eras of heating and cooling.  If every day or every year was hotter than the last, or every year was cooler than the last, the temperatures everywhere on Earth would quickly be unable to sustain life as we know it.   Yet in virtually every single day, there is record cold AND record heat reported somewhere on Earth, and more often than not here in the USA.   And yet that isn't so remarkable when you calculate how short a time we have been recording temperatures on Earth.  Certain the satellite record of arctic ice--a record that is only 34 years old--is hardly a conclusive record of arctic ice melt and formation over much longer periods.

NASA freely admits that the unusual ice melt of this summer was at least mostly due to a savage arctic cyclone.  These occur fairly frequently in the grand scheme of things, so with so short a satellite record, we don't know how often that has happened in the past.   Put a solid chunk of ice into a bucket and it will take much longer to melt than if you break that same chunk into ice cubes.  Those ice cubes will melt even faster if you stir them, and much faster yet if you move them into warmer water.  And unlike Anarctica ice, Arctic ice is floating on open water and, when the conditions are conducive, can float into warmer water.

But we sure have reports of severe arctic ice melt in the past.



> As for the headline &#8220;Arctic ice shrinks to all time low&#8230;.&#8221;, it&#8217;s an all time low if you start counting in 1979, the modern satellite era. But, as I&#8217;ve shown in another post, Ice Follies and Hiding the Decline, a 1990 report from the IPCC records earlier  data which show that in 1974 Arctic sea ice melt was as great or greater than it is this year.
> 
> As for the headline &#8220;Global warming cited as cause&#8221; we see that when the Arctic reaches a minimum sea ice extent, the Antarctic reaches a maximum extent. There is a seesaw effect. That is shown most dramatically this year and in 2007 when the Arctic reached the previous &#8220;record&#8221; low, and the Antarctic sea ice reached a &#8220;record&#8221; maximum high extent.
> 
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Oct 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I'm sure that you do see my comments as offensive.  Most AGW religionists do. But I'll live with that.



I have no problem with insults. I give them, I get them, it's all fine. I have problems with people who throw insults and then squeal because they get some back. That offends my sense of fair play.



> And yet that isn't so remarkable when you calculate how short a time we have been recording temperatures on Earth.



You're invoking the UnkownNaturalCyclesFairy. That's not a theory, that's an evasion. Theories give actual reasons for things that happen, and don't just wave their hands around and say "well, you haven't absolutely positively ruled out any possible natural cycle, so your theory must be wrong!". That's nonsense.

Moreover, it's contradicted by the observed data. We directly measure the infrared heat flux out of the atmosphere, and see it decreasing in the C02 absorption bands. Global warming theory predicted that, and it happened. How does the Natural Cycles Theory explain it? 



> Certain the satellite record of arctic ice--a record that is only 34 years old--is hardly a conclusive record of arcitc ice melt and formation.



Good thing then that careful eyewitness docs go back to the 30s, and sediment core records for some millions of years. Nothing like this has happened for around 400,000 years or so. Just a coincidence that some 400,000 year natural cycle is suddenly taking off now, I suppose.



> NASA freely admits that the unusual ice melt of this summer was due to a savage arctic cyclone.



Er, no. NASA said the cyclone helped, but was one factor of many.

Ice levels are going to keep crashing. Next year, when it's worse, even without a cyclone, it will be even tougher to come up with a way to deny the obvious. Air and water temperatures keep rising, and that's melting the ice.



> Meanwhile, both continental and sea ice are increasing in Antarctica.



No. The GRACE gravity measurements, and the recent radar measurements, two completely independent systems, both agree land ice is declining all over Antarctica. You're using obsolete data.

As far as sea ice goes, we're seeing a 1%/decade increase in Antarctic sea ice, compared to a 15%/decade decrease in Arctic sea ice. There is no comparison.



> It seems that Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent can be explained by natural cycles.



Logically, that doesn't follow. For example, ozone is a greenhouse gas, we destroyed the ozone over antarctica, so that has a cooling effect on Antarctica. It's not a natural cycle. You can't just assume "natural cycle" because you don't know what's going on.



> Those invoking global warming must explain why warming causes Antarctic ice to increase and Arctic ice to decrease.



Which has been done. AGW theory explains the observed data, and has successfully predicted many of the changes, which is why it has credibility.



> As for the low sea ice in the Arctic this year, it has happened before:



Anecdotes from whaling vessels don't count as data. We know that winds occasionally open up the ice in funny ways. That doesn't mean all the ice melted.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 1, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure that you do see my comments as offensive.  Most AGW religionists do. But I'll live with that.
> ...



So conditions reported by  whalers on their boats as to what they saw with their own eyes doesn't count, but speculation by people whose funding requires them to create alarm about arctic ice melt does?   Have you read the NASA statements?   Or are you amending them to fit your own particular beliefs?

Your post suggests you not only do not read your own links, you aren't reading anybody else's posts or links either.  But okay.  Carry on.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2012)

Here we go again. Last year the deniers posted on how the arctic ice was going to increase this year. Look at how accurate they were. 

Now, once again, they are stating that next year the ice will increase dramatically. But give absolutely no reason why this should be so.

Until now, we seem to have a five year step pattern in the decrease of the arctic ice as far as the extant is concerned. However, the volume has been a steady decrease. This latest minimum will put an end that the five year step pattern, because the volume will no longer be able to make up for the single year ice that will melt rapidly as the heat of summer progresses. Between 2015 and 2020, the melt will eleminate the Arctic Ice for part of the summer. Barring a major volcanic eruption. That is the only thing that will change that trajectory.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Show us a link to a credible source that states the Arctic Ice was anywhere near the minimum we are seeing now in the 1930's. You cannot because no such information exists.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



If you have been reading my posts, you had one for 1922.  Is that close enough?


----------



## Qantrill (Oct 1, 2012)

I've never seen such hot-headed cultists trying to convince non-believers of their global warming claims, as there are in this thread. They throw out all this b.s. "scientific" data trying like hell to persuade people to buy into their ponzi scheme of weather predictions and then get so GD pissed off when someone ask them to explain the melt of that glacier that covered half of the United States, all of Canada and was damn near part of the arctic ice cap a 100,000 years ago, if indeed, it wasn't. When there were no humans around to muck up the enviornment. You throw that out there and then get called every name in the book and told how "fucking stupid" you are because you won't bite on their pyramid scheme. Old Rocks...I'll be returning the favor to your reputation tomorrow, you little baby.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 1, 2012)

Let's see.. Ship captain logs from whaling vessels, or grad students counting bug parts in mud sediments. WHICH is "more anecdotal" when it comes to Arctic sea ice?

If NASA GISS hadn't been so busy manipulating the Arctic temp record so that they can make the claim of "unprecedented" ice melts, we'd still have thermometer measurements from the late 30s showing Arctic temp increases similiar to today...


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 1, 2012)

Qantrill said:


> I've never seen such hot-headed cultists trying to convince non-believers of their global warming claims, as there are in this thread. They throw out all this b.s. "scientific" data trying like hell to persuade people to buy into their ponzi scheme of weather predictions and then get so GD pissed off when someone ask them to explain the melt of that glacier that covered half of the United States, all of Canada and was damn near part of the arctic ice cap a 100,000 years ago, if indeed, it wasn't. When there were no humans around to muck up the enviornment. You throw that out there and then get called every name in the book and told how "fucking stupid" you are because you won't bite on their pyramid scheme. Old Rocks...I'll be returning the favor to your reputation tomorrow, you little baby.



I'll have to admit that it does closely parallel a religious cult when you have people that simply won't even look at or consider anything that doesn't fit their set-in-granite beliefs.  Most especially when they pronounce any of us who even question their doctrines as heretics or infidels surely headed straight for hell and worthy of every uncomplimentary adjective they can heap on us.  Most religious fundamentalists and Atheists are equally dogmatic in their beliefs and become similarly agitated and often hateful when you show any evidence or proposition that might challenge those beliefs.

Certainty and probable are very large words for any scientist worth his or her salt, and you would think people who are truly interested in science and in truth would welcome a possibility that the doomsdayers were incorrect in their calculations.

But there is one certainty.  A mind that is closed is damn hard to teach.   But calling people names and punishment for their beliefs generally is not going to be persuasive either.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Here we go again. Last year the deniers posted on how the arctic ice was going to increase this year. Look at how accurate they were.
> 
> Now, once again, they are stating that next year the ice will increase dramatically. But give absolutely no reason why this should be so.
> 
> Until now, we seem to have a five year step pattern in the decrease of the arctic ice as far as the extant is concerned. However, the volume has been a steady decrease. This latest minimum will put an end that the five year step pattern, because the volume will no longer be able to make up for the single year ice that will melt rapidly as the heat of summer progresses. Between 2015 and 2020, the melt will eleminate the Arctic Ice for part of the summer. Barring a major volcanic eruption. That is the only thing that will change that trajectory.



Yes, a 5 year step pattern > 600,000 years of data.

You rock!


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2012)

Ah yes, Anthony Watts. Hitherto unknown deposits of coal discovered in 1922 on the east side of Advent Bay. LOL. What absolute fucking suckers you nincompoops are. 

You ask, I provide. November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt. | Watts Up With That?

Those previously unkown deposites had been mined since 1906;

Longyearbyen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Longyearbyen is the largest settlement and the administrative center of Svalbard, Norway. As of 2008, the town had a population of 2,040. Longyearbyen is located in the valley of Longyeardalen and on the shore of Adventfjorden, a bay of Isfjorden located on the west coast of Spitsbergen. Since 2002, Longyearbyen Community Council has had many of the same responsibilities of a municipality, including utilities, education, cultural facilities, fire department, roads and ports. The town is also the seat of the Governor of Svalbard and is the world's northernmost town.

Known as Longyear City until 1926, the town was established by and named after John Munroe Longyear, whose Arctic Coal Company started coal mining operations in 1906. Operations were taken over by Store Norske Spitsbergen Kulkompani (SNSK) in 1916, which still conducts mining. The town was almost completely destroyed by the German Kriegsmarine on 8 August 1943, but was rebuilt after the Second World War. Traditionally, Longyearbyen was a company town, but most mining operations have moved to Sveagruva since the 1990s, while the town has seen a large increase in tourism and research. This has seen the arrival of institutions such as the University Centre in Svalbard, the Svalbard Global Seed Vault and Svalbard Satellite Station. The community is served by Svalbard Airport, Longyear and Svalbard Church.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2012)

Qantrill said:


> I've never seen such hot-headed cultists trying to convince non-believers of their global warming claims, as there are in this thread. They throw out all this b.s. "scientific" data trying like hell to persuade people to buy into their ponzi scheme of weather predictions and then get so GD pissed off when someone ask them to explain the melt of that glacier that covered half of the United States, all of Canada and was damn near part of the arctic ice cap a 100,000 years ago, if indeed, it wasn't. When there were no humans around to muck up the enviornment. You throw that out there and then get called every name in the book and told how "fucking stupid" you are because you won't bite on their pyramid scheme. Old Rocks...I'll be returning the favor to your reputation tomorrow, you little baby.



LOL. I don't suffer fools gladly. 

By the way, my great-grandfather served in the 11th Illinois Infantry during the Civil War. Kicked traitorious rebel butt from Forth Donaldson to New Orleans.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 1, 2012)

Qantrill said:


> I've never seen such hot-headed cultists trying to convince non-believers of their global warming claims, as there are in this thread. They throw out all this b.s. "scientific" data trying like hell to persuade people to buy into their ponzi scheme of weather predictions and then get so GD pissed off when someone ask them to explain the melt of that glacier that covered half of the United States, all of Canada and was damn near part of the arctic ice cap a 100,000 years ago, if indeed, it wasn't. When there were no humans around to muck up the enviornment. You throw that out there and then get called every name in the book and told how "fucking stupid" you are because you won't bite on their pyramid scheme. Old Rocks...I'll be returning the favor to your reputation tomorrow, you little baby.



Arlington. Home of the heros that served this Union well.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 1, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Yeah, we know....too bad you obviously never went any further.  











Foxfyre said:


> And at least I learned that climate science is evaluated over eons and not in a few dozen or even a few hundred years.


Retarded drivel with no relation to reality. You just reveal how completely ignorant about science you are.







Foxfyre said:


> Certaintly(sic) there have been intermittant(sic) eras of heating and cooling.  If every day or every year was hotter than the last, the temperatures everywhere on Earth would quickly be unable to sustain life as we know it.


Well, duh!!! You have a talent for stating the obvious as if nobody had ever thought of it before. The mark of a true retard.








Foxfyre said:


> Yet in virtually every single day, there is record cold AND record heat reported somewhere on Earth, and more often than not here in the USA.


If the world wasn't warming rapidly, the number of record hot days would be approximately equal to the number of record cold days, statistically.

Instead....

*Record high temperatures far outpace record lows across U.S.*
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
November 12, 2009
(excerpts)
*BOULDERSpurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb. "Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States," says Gerald Meehl, the lead author and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting." If temperatures were not warming, the number of record daily highs and lows being set each year would be approximately even. Instead, for the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows, as the country experienced unusually mild winter weather and intense summer heat waves. A record daily high means that temperatures were warmer on a given day than on that same date throughout a weather station's history. The authors used a quality control process to ensure the reliability of data from thousands of weather stations across the country, while looking at data over the past six decades to capture longer-term trends.







The study also found that the two-to-one ratio across the country as a whole could be attributed more to a comparatively small number of record lows than to a large number of record highs. This indicates that much of the nation's warming is occurring at night, when temperatures are dipping less often to record lows. This finding is consistent with years of climate model research showing that higher overnight lows should be expected with climate change. "If the climate weren't changing, you would expect the number of temperature records to diminish significantly over time," says Claudia Tebaldi, a statistician with Climate Central who is one of the paper's co-authors. "As you measure the high and low daily temperatures each year, it normally becomes more difficult to break a record after a number of years. But as the average temperatures continue to rise this century, we will keep setting more record highs." The study team focused on weather stations that have been operating since 1950. They found that the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures slightly exceeded one to one in the 1950s, dipped below that level in the 1960s and 1970s, and has risen since the 1980s. The results reflect changes in U.S. average temperatures, which rose in the 1950s, stabilized in the 1960s, and then began a warming trend in the late 1970s. Even in the first nine months of this year, when the United States cooled somewhat after a string of unusually warm years, the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures was more than three to two*

















Foxfyre said:


> And yet that isn't so remarkable when you calculate how short a time we have been recording temperatures on Earth.  Certain the satellite record of arctic ice--a record that is only 34 years old--is hardly a conclusive record of arcitc ice melt and formation.


Good thing the climate scientists use far more data than just the (actually quite adequate) satellite observations. Data that you are apparently far too ignorant to know about.









Foxfyre said:


> NASA freely admits that the unusual ice melt of this summer was due to a savage arctic cyclone.


LIAR! No they don't. That storm only lasted a few days and the only reason it moved so much ice is that the ice was already thin and on the verge of melting anyway. Here's what the scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center have to say about it.

*Arctic sea ice extent settles at record seasonal minimum
NSIDC*
September 19, 2012
(excerpts)
*The six lowest seasonal minimum ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012). In contrast to 2007, when climatic conditions (winds, clouds, air temperatures) favored summer ice loss, this years conditions were not as extreme. Summer temperatures across the Arctic were warmer than average, but cooler than in 2007. The most notable event was a very strong storm centered over the central Arctic Ocean in early August. It is likely that the primary reason for the large loss of ice this summer is that the ice cover has continued to thin and become more dominated by seasonal ice. This thinner ice was more prone to be broken up and melted by weather events, such as the strong low pressure system just mentioned. The storm sped up the loss of the thin ice that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely.
*







Foxfyre said:


> These occur fairly frequently in the grand scheme of things, so with so short a satellite record, we don't know how often that has happened in the past.


You mean you don't know how often but that is because you are an ignorant and very clueless retard. Scientists have a lot of data on the history of the polar ice and they know a lot more than you imagine that they do. 






Foxfyre said:


> But we sure have reports of severe arctic ice melt in the past.


There is no evidence indicating that there have been any melt downs as severe as the current one for at least the last 6000 years and that one happened very, very slowly.

But of course, instead of looking at the actual scientific studies, denier cult nutjobs like you always choose to go with the error filled rants of some non-climate scientist and professional denier writing an opinion piece in a small newpaper. LOLOLOL......sooooo retarded....

Just for fun I'll also debunk the lies and misinformation in your little denier cult propaganda piece.



Foxfyre said:


> As for the headline Arctic ice shrinks to all time low., its an all time low if you start counting in 1979, the modern satellite era. But, as Ive shown in another post, Ice Follies and Hiding the Decline, a 1990 report from the IPCC records earlier  data which show that in 1974 Arctic sea ice melt was as great or greater than it is this year.


This moron hasn't "_shown_" diddlysquat, torture. I'd tell him to quit quoting nonsense and pseudo-science from denier cult blogs or books that only impresses retards like yourself. Besides which, it wouldn't matter at all to the theory of anthropogenic global warming if there had been a bigger melt in 1974 than 1979. Global warming has been happening for over a century and really strongly since the 1970's, you clueless imbecile.







Foxfyre said:


> As for the headline Global warming cited as cause we see that when the Arctic reaches a minimum sea ice extent, the Antarctic reaches a maximum extent. There is a seesaw effect. That is shown most dramatically this year and in 2007 when the Arctic reached the previous record low, and the Antarctic sea ice reached a record maximum high extent.


Ah, not too surprisingly for a denier cult retard like you, you've latched onto the latest denier cult myth, just as phony as the rest of them. There is no "_seesaw effect_". The Arctic has lost over half the sea ice extent that was there in the 1980's and the rate of sea ice extent loss is over 15% per decade and the rate of ice volume loss is even higher, while over the same time frame Antarctica has seen a slightly growing maximum sea ice extent that is happening at a rate of only 1% per decade. Antarctic sea ice melts back to almost zero every southern hemisphere summer and reforms every winter. This years Antarctic sea ice extent was also not a record at the time Taylor's article appeared in Forbes (except for that one particular day). Overall sea ice extent there has been higher over 8 times in the last dozen years. It is definitely not in some kind of mystical balance with the north polar ice. Also, as the sea ice around Antarctica grows very, very slightly, the land based ice sheets on Antarctica are losing ice mass at an accelerating rate. The volume of sea ice is a miniscule fraction of the volume of the ice in the Antarctic ice sheets and ice shelves.










Foxfyre said:


> As I reported in the post referenced below: the National Snow & Ice Data Center said of this years Arctic melt: Sea ice extent dropped rapidly between August 4 and August 8. While this drop coincided with an intense storm over the central Arctic Ocean, it is unclear if the storm prompted the rapid ice loss. NSIDC called the storm The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012&#8243; and noted the storm caused mechanical break up of the ice and increased melting by strong winds and wave action during the storm. Nothing to do with global warming.


Another lie. The scientists say the Arctic ice loss is mainly being driven by global warming.

This denier dufus is quoting the NSIDC as if they support his nonsense. How about looking at the rest of the article he's quoting.

*A summer storm in the Arctic
NSIDC*
August 14, 2012
(free to reproduce - see copyright and use statement at end)
*Arctic sea ice extent during the first two weeks of August continued to track below 2007 record low daily ice extents. As of August 13, ice extent was already among the four lowest summer minimum extents in the satellite record, with about five weeks still remaining in the melt season. Sea ice extent dropped rapidly between August 4 and August 8. While this drop coincided with an intense storm over the central Arctic Ocean, it is unclear if the storm prompted the rapid ice loss. Overall, weather patterns in the Arctic Ocean through the summer of 2012 have been a mixed bag, with no consistent pattern.

Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent on August 13 was 5.09 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles). This is 2.69 million square kilometers (1.04 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent for the date, and is 483,000 square kilometers (186,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the date, which occurred in 2007. Low extent for the Arctic as a whole is driven by extensive open water on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, the Beaufort Sea, anddue to rapid ice loss over the past two weeksthe East Siberian Sea. Ice is near its normal (1979 to 2000) extent only off the northeastern Greenland coast. Ice near the coast in eastern Siberia continues to block sections of the Northern Sea Route. The western entrance to the Northwest Passage via McClure Strait remains blocked.

Conditions in context

The average pace of ice loss since late June has been rapid at just over 100,000 square kilometers (38,000 square miles) per day. However, this pace nearly doubled for a few days in early August during a major Arctic cyclonic storm, discussed below. Unlike the summer of 2007 when a persistent pattern of high pressure was present over the central Arctic Ocean and a pattern of low pressure was over the northern Eurasian coast, the summer of 2012 has been characteried by variable conditions. Air tempertures at the 925 hPa level (about 3000 feet above the ocean surface) of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 1981 to 2012 average have been the rule from central Greenland, northern Canada, and Alaska northward into the central Arctic Ocean. Cooler than average conditions (1 to 2 degrees Celsius or 1.8 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) were observed in a small region of eastern Siberia extending into the East Siberian Sea, helping explain the persistence of low concentration ice in this region through early August.

The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012

A low pressure system entered the Arctic Ocean from the eastern Siberian coast on August 4 and then strengthened rapidly over the central Arctic Ocean. On August 6 the central pressure of the cyclone reached 964 hPa, an extremely low value for this region. It persisted over the central Arctic Ocean over the next several days, and slowly dissipated. The storm initially brought warm and very windy conditions to the Chukchi and East Siberian seas (August 5), but low temperatures prevailed later.

Low pressure systems over the Arctic Ocean tend to cause the ice to diverge or spread out and cover a larger area. These storms often bring cool conditions and even snowfall. In contrast, high pressure systems over the Arctic cause the sea ice to converge. Summers dominated by low pressure systems over the central Arctic Ocean tend to end up with greater ice extent than summers dominated by high pressure systems.

However, the effects of an individual strong storm, like that observed in early August, can be complex. While much of the region influenced by the August cyclone experienced a sudden drop in temperature, areas influenced by winds from the south experienced a rise in temperature. Coincident with the storm, a large area of low concentration ice in the East Siberian Sea (concentrations typically below 50%) rapidly melted out. On three consecutive days (August 7, 8, and 9), sea ice extent dropped by nearly 200,000 square kilometers (77,220 square miles). This could be due to mechanical break up of the ice and increased melting by strong winds and wave action during the storm. However, it may be simply a coincidence of timing, given that the low concentration ice in the region was already poised to rapidly melt out.*

_*Use and Copyright* - You may download and use any imagery or text from our Web site, unless it is specifically stated that the information has limitations for its use. Please credit the National Snow and Ice Data Center._






Foxfyre said:


> Meanwhile, both continental and sea ice are increasing in Antarctica. Satellite radar altimetry measurements indicate that the East Antarctic ice sheet interior north of 81.6-S increased in mass by 45±7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. (Source) And a new paper says in part: Antarctic Peninsula ice core records indicate significant accumulation increase since 1855 (Source).


Bullshit. 

*Is Antarctica Melting?*
NASA
01.12.10




_Graph of Antartic Mass Variation since 2002The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002._

*There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states theres less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that theres no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002.*

*Polar Ice Loss Is Accelerating, Scientists Say*
The New York Times
March 11, 2011
(excerpts)
*On Wednesday, a research team led by a NASA scientist unveiled a new study that is sure to stir debate on the topic. The paper concludes that ice loss from both Greenland and Antarctica is accelerating, and that the ice sheets impact on the rise in sea levels in the first half of the 21st century will be substantially higher than previous studies had projected. The increasing ice loss means that, for the first time, Greenland and Antarctica appear to be adding more to sea-level rise than the worlds other reserves of ice  primarily mountain glaciers, which are also melting because of rising temperatures. In 2006 alone, the study estimated that the two ice sheets lost roughly 475 billion metric tons of ice. If the rates of melting observed in the study were to continue, the ice sheets could add nearly six inches to the rise in global sea levels in the next forty years  a far larger contribution than the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international scientific body, has projected.

The studys findings that ice loss in Greenland has accelerated strikingly over the last two decades are largely in line with the conclusions of other researchers. But the estimate that Antarctica is also rapidly shedding ice was challenged by other scientists, who believe the continents ice sheet remains largely in balance. We think that their estimate of the loss from Antarctica is much too large, said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center. Dr. Rignot said he stood by his conclusions about Antarctica, which were derived from data from two independent measurement techniques dating back 20 years.*






Foxfyre said:


> According to NASAs Earth Observatory, total Antarctic sea ice has increased by about 1% per decade since the start of the satellite record..


This is about the only honest thing this denier cult dingbat says in his article. Too bad it debunks his claim of a Arctic/Antarctic 'see-saw effect'. The Arctic is losing sea ice extent at a rate of about fifteen and a half percent per decade and Antarctica is gaining sea ice extent at a rate of only 1% per decade. LOL. What a retarded liar.








Foxfyre said:


> It seems that Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent can be explained by natural cycles.


Another lie, entirely unsupported by the facts. But it is a popular denier cult myth.







Foxfyre said:


> Those invoking global warming must explain why warming causes Antarctic ice to increase and Arctic ice to decrease.


*They have* but this guy is too brainwashed and politically motivated to bother checking and finding out.

Here is a very good article that discusses this issue of Antarctic sea ice and it has some specific info to answer this denier cultist's question.

*Forget the Melting Arctic, Sea Ice in Antarctica is Growing!*
Published: September 30th, 2012
(excerpts)




*Trends in Antarctic sea ice cover. Credit: Cryosphere Today.

Still, if the planet is warming, how can the sea ice be expanding in the waters surrounding Antarctica in the first place? Keeping in mind that it isnt expanding by much, scientists offer several possible explanations. One is that theres been more precipitation in recent decades (which itself could well be due to global warming). That puts a cap of relatively fresh water atop the denser, saltier water below, and in winter, when that top layer cools, it stays on top rather than mixing with the warmer water underneath, thus encouraging the growth of ice. Another factor may be the ozone hole that opens up at this time every year over the South Pole. Ozone loss tends to cool the upper atmosphere  an effect that percolates down to the surface. Still another factor is purely natural climate variation, which is still happening even though manmade global warming has a growing influence on every aspect of the Earths climate system with every passing decade. 

In any case, climate scientists have long expected that the Arctic would warm up faster than the Antarctic. After all, the former is an ocean surrounded by land, while the latter is land surrounded by ocean. Wind patterns, weather systems and ocean currents behave differently at the two poles. And because the coldest part of the Antarctic is land, the ice there has been able to accumulate into a giant ice cube the size of a continent and up to two miles thick  which tends to hold back local warming considerably. By the second half of the century, however, climatologists say that the human warming signal will become more apparent, and Antarctic sea ice will begin to follow its Arctic cousin in a downward spiral. That, in turn, could speed up melting of the all-important Antarctic land ice, thereby raising global sea levels.*






Foxfyre said:


> As for the low sea ice in the Arctic this year, it has happened before:


Anecdotal rubbish. There is a great deal of solid scientific evidence indicating that the Arctic sea ice extent and volume have not been this low in the last 6000 years. 






Foxfyre said:


> UPDATE: NASA now admits that the storm caused most of the melt: This year, a powerful cyclone formed off the coast of Alaska and moved on Aug. 5 to the center of the Arctic Ocean, where it churned the weakened ice cover for several days. The storm cut off a large section of sea ice north of the Chukchi Sea and pushed it south to warmer waters that made it melt entirely. It also broke vast extensions of ice into smaller pieces more likely to melt. See statement and video animation here.
> ttp://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/09/24/the-arctic-antarctic-seesaw/]The Arctic-Antarctic seesaw - Wry Heat


Another lie. NASA did not "_admit that the storm caused most of the melt_". Here's the NASA article that this denier cult propagandist cites in his newspaper opinion piece and here's what NASA actually said about the storm. The Arctic ice was melting at an unusually high rate all summer and the sea ice extent was already lower than the 2007 low when this storm formed. The storm only lasted for 4 or 5 days. Scientist say that the storm "played a role" in the unusually high level of ice loss this year but they don't "admit" that it was the main cause as this liar claims. He must be used to fooling people who are too lazy and stupid to check up on his fraudulent claims.

*Arctic Sea Ice Hits Smallest Extent In Satellite Era
NASA*Arctic Sea Ice Hits Smallest Extent... of the Arctic sea ice on September 16, 2012.
09.19.12
*This year, a powerful cyclone formed off the coast of Alaska and moved on Aug. 5 to the center of the Arctic Ocean, where it churned the weakened ice cover for several days. The storm cut off a large section of sea ice north of the Chukchi Sea and pushed it south to warmer waters that made it melt entirely. It also broke vast extensions of ice into smaller pieces more likely to melt.

"The storm definitely seems to have played a role in this year's unusually large retreat of the ice", Parkinson said. "But that exact same storm, had it occurred decades ago when the ice was thicker and more extensive, likely wouldn't have had as prominent an impact, because the ice wasn't as vulnerable then as it is now."
*


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 2, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




s0n........I dont think there is enough information in this post here!!!


LOL.......who cant love the bitter alarmists going to greater and greater lengths...........falling all over themselves actually.............to present their case.

But guess what?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 2, 2012)




----------



## konradv (Oct 2, 2012)

Qantrill said:


> I've never seen such hot-headed cultists trying to convince non-believers of their global warming claims, as there are in this thread. They throw out all this b.s. "scientific" data trying like hell to persuade people to buy into their ponzi scheme of weather predictions and then get so GD pissed off when someone ask them to explain the melt of that glacier that covered half of the United States, all of Canada and was damn near part of the arctic ice cap a 100,000 years ago, if indeed, it wasn't. When there were no humans around to muck up the enviornment. You throw that out there and then get called every name in the book and told how "fucking stupid" you are because you won't bite on their pyramid scheme. Old Rocks...I'll be returning the favor to your reputation tomorrow, you little baby.



No one's saying there haven't been climate swings in the past.  The point you seem to be missing is the time course of this one.  Instead of thousands to tens of thousands of years, we're talking hundreds.  I wish the skeptics would explain that one.


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 2, 2012)




----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 2, 2012)

Qantrill said:


> I've never seen such hot-headed cultists trying to convince non-believers of their global warming claims, as there are in this thread. They throw out all this b.s. "scientific" data trying like hell to persuade people to buy into their ponzi scheme of weather predictions and then get so GD pissed off when someone ask them to explain the melt of that glacier that covered half of the United States, all of Canada and was damn near part of the arctic ice cap a 100,000 years ago, if indeed, it wasn't. When there were no humans around to muck up the enviornment. You throw that out there and then get called every name in the book and told how "fucking stupid" you are because you won't bite on their pyramid scheme. Old Rocks...I'll be returning the favor to your reputation tomorrow, you little baby.


You can always spot a hard core denier cult crazy. They ask some ignorant question that they imagine to be challenging to the facts about AGW and then after the question is answered and their misconceptions are debunked, they turn right around and repeat the exact same bullshit all over again. Quantumofstupidity made these same claims earlier in this thread and got debunked then in post #51 so now he is back repeating it again.



RollingThunder said:


> Qantrill said:
> 
> 
> > I love this thread.
> ...


----------



## Qantrill (Oct 2, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Qantrill said:
> 
> 
> > I've never seen such hot-headed cultists trying to convince non-believers of their global warming claims, as there are in this thread. They throw out all this b.s. "scientific" data trying like hell to persuade people to buy into their ponzi scheme of weather predictions and then get so GD pissed off when someone ask them to explain the melt of that glacier that covered half of the United States, all of Canada and was damn near part of the arctic ice cap a 100,000 years ago, if indeed, it wasn't. When there were no humans around to muck up the enviornment. You throw that out there and then get called every name in the book and told how "fucking stupid" you are because you won't bite on their pyramid scheme. Old Rocks...I'll be returning the favor to your reputation tomorrow, you little baby.
> ...



A weather based PONZI SCHEME...and good for your great grandfather. You should be proud of him. Did he survive?...by the way I was born in Illinois. Southern half is rather nice...the closer one gets to Chicago the more intense the stench. As for suffering fools...

The whole problem with the world is that *fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves* and *wiser people so full of doubt*.
&#8213; Leah Wilson, The Girl Who Was on Fire: Your Favorite Authors on Suzanne Collins' Hunger Games Trilogy

I know I'm a doubter...which one are you?


----------



## Qantrill (Oct 2, 2012)

konradv said:


> Qantrill said:
> 
> 
> > I've never seen such hot-headed cultists trying to convince non-believers of their global warming claims, as there are in this thread. They throw out all this b.s. "scientific" data trying like hell to persuade people to buy into their ponzi scheme of weather predictions and then get so GD pissed off when someone ask them to explain the melt of that glacier that covered half of the United States, all of Canada and was damn near part of the arctic ice cap a 100,000 years ago, if indeed, it wasn't. When there were no humans around to muck up the enviornment. You throw that out there and then get called every name in the book and told how "fucking stupid" you are because you won't bite on their pyramid scheme. Old Rocks...I'll be returning the favor to your reputation tomorrow, you little baby.
> ...



Having lived 70 of the last 100 years, I haven't noticed a great deal of difference. Except the highest temperature here in the St. Louis area THIS year was 108° compared to the hottest on record...1954 at 115° and we didn't even have a window fan...much less air conditioning. Many people went to Forest Park and slept under the trees. Of course one would be taking their lives in their hands doing that in 2012. 

I bet those 100 year increments are going to be ALL OVER THE GRAPH. What cha going to do when the USA and Canada ice over again in another 25/26 thousand years?


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 2, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah yes, Anthony Watts. Hitherto unknown deposits of coal discovered in 1922 on the east side of Advent Bay. LOL. What absolute fucking suckers you nincompoops are.
> 
> You ask, I provide. November 2nd, 1922. Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt. | Watts Up With That?
> 
> ...



Your reading comprehension sucks OldieRocks.. Here's the press report.. 







Dr. Hoel, who has just returned, reports the location of HITHERTO UNKNOWN coal deposits on the eastern shores of Advent Bay -- deposits of VAST extent AND SUPERIOR QUALITY. This is regarded of first importance, AS SO FAR MOST OF THE COAL MINED by the Norwegians companies on those islands has not been of the BEST QUALITY.. 

You've debunked NOTHING there. And there is AMPLE evidence that Arctic melts in the 20s --- 1940 were comparable to what we are seeing right now. I'll sure take ship captain logs and explorer reports over bugs, mud, and tree rings.. 


THIS --- is AFTER a dozen "fiddles" to lower the 30s temps and raise the 60s temps.. 






It was damn balmy up there in the 30s.....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 2, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ah yes, Anthony Watts. Hitherto unknown deposits of coal discovered in 1922 on the east side of Advent Bay. LOL. What absolute fucking suckers you nincompoops are.
> ...



So, if the bizzaro notion that CO2 drives the climate were correct when the ice melted in the 20's it should have stayed melted and then melted even more. There should be no ice at all by now.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 2, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



WOWIE ZOWIE !!! YA think???     Actually -- ironically, the warmers have to call the warming in the 30s "NATURAL" -- because not enough CO2 has been spewed by then to create that kind of warming.. That's why NASA GISS is so frantic to alter the historical Arctic temp records and PURGE any instance of previous warming (MedWPeriod)  from the whole human experience.

This whole concept of getting your panties tangled over a single STUPID number like "Annual Mean Surface temperature" is truly weird and random.. ONE NUMBER doesn't tell you much about climate.. But YET -- a problem this complex --- reduced to ONE NUMBER --- is what the cult Priests need to convert the masses..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 2, 2012)

But they discard 600,000 consecutive years of data showing CO2 is a lazy, laggard cousin to changes in temperature.... temperature drags CO2 behind it like a dog on a leash


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 2, 2012)

Qantrill said:


> Having lived 70 of the last 100 years, I haven't noticed a great deal of difference. Except the highest temperature here in the St. Louis area THIS year was 108° compared to the hottest on record...1954 at 115°


Yessireebob, that is quite a refutation of over a century of world temperature records there, Quanto. You haven't felt it get any warmer where you are standing.....

LOLOLOLOLOL......you are sooooo funny.

Since they started keeping organized temperature records in the 1860's, there has been one day hotter than this 108° record set this last June and that day was in July, a month that is traditionally hotter than June.

*Historic heat wave continues in St. Louis area

KMOV* - St. Louis
June 28, 2012
(excerpts)
*The 4Warn Storm Team says Thursday afternoon the high temperature reached 108 degrees!  More than just the initial Wow! factor, that number holds some historical importance. The hottest June 28 temperature ever recorded in St. Louis before Thursday was 104 degrees, which was set in 1952.  Even more impressive is the fact that St. Louis had never topped 105 degrees in June, which means Thursday is the hottest June day in recorded St. Louis history.

The 108-degree high was also the hottest day in St. Louis since July, 1954.

*














Qantrill said:


> I bet those 100 year increments are going to be ALL OVER THE GRAPH. What cha going to do when the USA and Canada ice over again in another 25/26 thousand years?


Ignorant twaddle. You quite obviously have no clue as to what is going to happen in the next hundred years and nobody in their right mind is worrying about "_what cha going to do_" in "_another 25/26 thousand years_". 

What are you going to do, bozo, when, in the next decade or so, global warming/climate change created crop failures around the globe drive up food prices to three or four times what they are now?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 2, 2012)

Warmers are a cult, see above.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 2, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> And there is AMPLE evidence that Arctic melts in the 20s --- 1940 were comparable to what we are seeing right now. I'll sure take ship captain logs and explorer reports over bugs, mud, and tree rings..


Just more of your ignorant denier cult myths, fecalhead. The actual evidence indicates that there haven't been any melt backs like this for the last 6 to 8 thousand years. 

You'll take any scrap of whatever you can find that supports your pre-formed and unmovable position that is based only on the lies and misinformation that you have been fed by the fossil fuel industry propagandists, not on any actual scientific evidence. 

*Arctic Sea Ice Hits a New Record Low* 
Popular Mechanics
August 27, 2012 
(excerpts)

*Scientists have several ways to puzzle out an extended history of Arctic Sea ice before 1979. They can use limited satellite data from the 1960s, along with operational ice charts created to support shipping. These date back to the early 1950s for the entire Arctic, and to the 1920s and 30s for Canadian and Russian waters.

To look still further back in time, researchers consult historical surface temperature readings, written records, and a growing collection of sediment cores taken from the seafloor. During the Medieval Warming Period of the 10th to 12th centuries, the North Atlantic was nearly as warm as it is today. According to NSIDC scientist Walt Meier, however, scientists estimate that Arctic Sea ice last reached the current low level during the Holocene Thermal Maximum, 8000 to 10,000 years ago, when temperatures rose sharply after the end of the most recent ice age.

*


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 2, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



HOLY COW.. Did I just "quote" myself? Of course I did --- because TinkerBelle obviously didn't SEE the actual temp chart from 65Deg N showing how the temps in the 30s compare to today.. I've got 5 or 7 more if you like. And a ships captain log is a lot better thermometer and ice spotter than a dead bug part in a mud sediment..

And you got ------- "Popular Mechanics"?????      
Great if you want to make an impromptu lift for replacing the engine on your old Impala... 
At least we got an admission that the N. Atlantic temps were comparably warm to today during the MWPeriod that you deny.. But hell no --- no ice melted then either..


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 2, 2012)

Here's some actual facts on this topic.

*Modern Day Climate Change*
(excerpts)
*Kauffman et al. (2009) also shows that the Arctic was experiencing long-term cooling in the past 2000 years according to Milankovitch cycles until very recently. Figure 7.6 reveals this trend shift:




Figure 7.6: Recent warming reverses long-term arctic cooling (Kaufmann et al. modified by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research)

Kaufmann et al. summarizes their study:

The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60 oN covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.​




Figure 7.8: Current Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent from satellite measurements

Sea ice extent is just part of the picture. Sea ice thickness has also been measured by submarine and ICESat satellite measurement.

Figure 7.9 (Rothrock, et al., 1999) shows sea ice thickness has substantially declined. Using data from submarine cruises, Rothrock and collaborators determined that the mean ice draft at the end of the melt season in the Arctic has decreased by about 1.3 meters between the 1950s and the 1990s. 





Figure 7.9: Mean sea ice draft: Decrease in Arctic sea ice draft for 1958 to 1997.

Since 2004 and there has been a dramatic decrease in thickness according to NASA's press release, NASA Satellite Reveals Dramatic Arctic Ice Thinning dated July, 2009. Some excerpts:

Using ICESat measurements, scientists found that overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 0.17 meters (7 inches) a year, for a total of 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) over four winters. The total area covered by the thicker, older "multi-year" ice that has survived one or more summers shrank by 42 percent.

    In recent years, the amount of ice replaced in the winter has not been sufficient to offset summer ice losses. The result is more open water in summer, which then absorbs more heat, warming the ocean and further melting the ice. Between 2004 and 2008, multi-year ice cover shrank 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) -- nearly the size of Alaska's land area.

    During the study period, the relative contributions of the two ice types to the total volume of the Arctic's ice cover were reversed. In 2003, 62 percent of the Arctic's total ice volume was stored in multi-year ice, with 38 percent stored in first-year seasonal ice. By 2008, 68 percent of the total ice volume was first-year ice, with 32 percent multi-year ice.​*
_(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)_


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...










Oh yes, how good are they?  Turns out they are significantly WORSE than RANDOM GUESSING!  Yeppers, your models are so good a psychic can do much better than your precious models.

What a joke....

"A 2011 study in the Journal of Forecasting took the same data set and compared model predictions against a random walk alternative, consisting simply of using the last periods value in each location as the forecast for the next periods value in that location. The test measures the sum of errors relative to the random walk. A perfect model gets a score of zero, meaning it made no errors. A model that does no better than a random walk gets a score of 1. A model receiving a score above 1 did worse than uninformed guesses. Simple statistical forecast models that have no climatology or physics in them typically got scores between 0.8 and 1, indicating slight improvements on the random walk, though in some cases their scores went as high as 1.8."





Junk Science Week: Climate models fail reality test


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...








How about the 1980's???/  Fat chance of doing this today.....


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Here's some actual facts on this topic.
> 
> *Modern Day Climate Change*
> (excerpts)
> ...








kaufman et al????


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 2, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


What was that, little retard? I can't hear you over all of the laughter in the room.

*Nuclear Submarines Surface in Arctic
British and Americans Rendezvous at Pole*
(excerpts)
*The Arctic was a little less tranquil on April 19, 2004 when the American fast-attack submarine USS Hampton and the Royal Navy submarine HMS Tireless popped up at the "top of the world". They surfaced at the North Pole through two naturally occurring leads or "gaps" in the ice about 1/2 mile / .8 km from each other.





USS Hampton at the North Pole.

When the British and American crews met, they hoped to play a game of soccer on the ice cap, but the game was called off due to too much snow on the playing field. The crew of the USS Hampton did, however, make a sign reading "North Pole" and posted it on the ice.

Scientists were also on board to monitor global warming effects on the polar cap and take measurements of the thickness of the ice underwater. The permanent ice pack at the North Pole has retreated 100 miles / 160 km north in recent years and can thin in the summer to as little as 6 ft / 1.8 meters. Overall, ice in the Arctic has diminished by about 40% in the past 20 years, according to research.*


----------



## westwall (Oct 2, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Ummm, I said today NIMROD.  The ice is supposedly gone TODAY idiot....thus a comparison with 8 YEARS AGO is pointless.....kind of like you...


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 2, 2012)

Can't even call those pictures a draw --- can we Tinkerbelle? Talking about dueling submarines.. 

Wasn't that 1999 "submarine" study 



> Figure 7.9 (Rothrock, et al., 1999) shows sea ice thickness has substantially declined. Using data from submarine cruises, Rothrock and collaborators determined that the mean ice draft at the end of the melt season in the Arctic has decreased by about 1.3 meters between the 1950s and the 1990s.



the one that got diced because they were surveying the same geographic coordinates, but the ICE WAS IN CONSTANT drift all those years?


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 3, 2012)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOLOL......wooooeeee, sometimes you manage to startle me, walleyed, when I momentarily forget just how incredibly retarded you actually are....is it really possible that you imagine that there were holes in the polar ice eight years ago but now "_today_" it is all solid with no holes? LOLOLOLOL....too funny, dude. You've been using that picture of some submarines surfaced at the north pole for years now on many threads and you always claim that that pic somehow proves that the ice was thinner back then. I and others have pointed out to you many times that no, studies conducted by submarines plus other data sources show that the ice is much thinner now than it was before. You always try to claim that the subs could surface up there then but can't now, so it can't really be warming up. You ignore all of the times you've been informed that open water spots in the ice called 'leads' or 'polynas' have always been opening up and closing as the winds and deep ocean currents push the ice around. BTW, there are actually more of them now and they are getting bigger. The polar ice is thinner now than it was even eight years ago and it just set a new record by a large margin for the smallest ice extent on record and probably the smallest in 7 or 8 thousand years. The thick multi-year ice has dwindled enormously.

*Polynya*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*A polynya (common US spelling) or polynia (common UK spelling) is an area of open water surrounded by sea ice. It is now used as geographical term for an area of unfrozen sea within the ice pack. It is a loanword from Russian: &#1087;&#1086;&#1083;&#1099;&#1085;&#1100;&#1103;, which means a natural ice hole, and was adopted in the 19th century...*


*Arctic Facts*
(excerpts)
*One might think that with the extremely low temperatures near the North Pole, the ice must be hard, thick and smooth - making travel over the Arctic Ocean quite easy. Not so! The ocean is up to 3 miles / 4.8 km deep in some places, and currents cause constant movement and changes on the surface ice. This movement pulls sections of the ice cap apart, creating open lanes of water called "leads". For anyone travelling across the ice, a stretch of deep open water in -40° temperatures (C or F - take your pick) is a formidable obstacle. Anyone slipping into a lead could drown, or quickly freeze to death.These channels can open suddenly and without warning, so much so that some early Arctic explorers would not sleep in sleeping bags for fear of drowning if a lead opened up while they slept.*


*David Barber: Arctic Sea Ice in a Changing Climate*
Science Poles - the science website of the International Polar Foundation
21 Mar 2011 - Interviews
(excerpts)
*David Barber is a sea ice specialist as well as a Professor of Environment and Geography and Canada Research Chair in Arctic System Science at the Centre for Earth Observation Science (CEOS) at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg. During his career, which has so far spanned three decades, Professor Barber has been examining sea ice, climate change and physical-biological coupling in the Arctic marine system. He also heads the Circumpolar Flaw Lead (CFL) system study, an ongoing project which began during the recent International Polar Year (IPY) 2007-08 examining how physical changes such as rising temperatures and sea ice melt in the Arctic affect biological processes within flaw leads (areas of open water between pack ice and land fast ice).

What happened in 2007 was that we had the minimum recorded sea ice extent in the Arctic on record that year. Then we had a slight recovery in ice extent in 2008, 2009 and 2010. But the recovery hasnt been in multiyear sea ice. The slight recovery in the total extent of the sea ice just means theres more first year sea ice that survives in a particular year. The old, thick multiyear sea ice that we used to have in the High Arctic all throughout the Arctic Basin has been declining since 2007. Just to give you an idea, when I began my career in 1981, about 80% of the Arctic Basin was covered with thick, multiyear sea ice more than five years old. As of 2009, only 18% of the Arctic Basin was covered with multiyear sea ice. Weve been doing quite a bit of research on whats causing that, and why were seeing such a dramatic drop in the amount of the perennial ice and the replacement of that with annual ice, so weve got a pretty good understanding now of whats going on and whats causing these changes to occur.

Thirty years ago, the Arctic Ocean would freeze up into a fairly continuous ice cover that remained mobile throughout the year. There would be a few openings in the ice cover called polynas or leads. They recur because of different kinds of ocean currents or atmospheric forcing of the ocean surface. Weve been noticing more recently that these polyna areas have been opening up earlier and larger than they did before. Were also finding that there are openings now that never occurred before that are occurring now because of the retreating sea ice. These areas provide an interesting glimpse into what the future of the Arctic will look like because theyre areas that are already open early and stay open longer.  They mimic conditions we expect to find in the future. There are already a number of research groups around the world that study these features as an analogue of what the future will hold. From a climate perspective, these open areas are interesting because in the very simplest sense, they have a much lower albedo than the sea ice. When you have ice cover, the surface is highly reflective, reflecting most radiation back to space. When you have open ocean, the albedo drops significantly and shortwave energy is absorbed by the ocean. When this energy gets into the ocean, it has to go somewhere. It moves around, it affects the bottom melt of other sea ice, and provoke a number of other feedbacks in the system.​​*​


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2012)

http://www.micropress.org/stratigraphy/papers/Stratigraphy_6_4_265-275.pdf

ABSTRACT: The most recent geologic interval characterized by warm temperatures similar to those projected for the end of this century occurred about 3.3 to 3.0 Ma, during the mid-Piacenzian Age of the Pliocene Epoch. Climate reconstructions of this warm period are integral to both understanding past warm climate equilibria and to predicting responses to today&#8217;s transient climate. The Arctic Ocean is of particular interest because in this region climate proxies are rare, and climate models
struggle to predict climate sensitivity and the response of sea ice. In order to provide the first quantitative climate data from this region during this interval, sea surface temperatures (SST) were estimated from Ocean Drilling Program Sites 907 and 909 in the Nordic Seas and from Site 911 in the Arctic Ocean based on Mg/Ca of Neogloboquadrina pachyderma (sin) and alkenone unsaturation indices. Evidence of much warmer than modern conditions in the Arctic Ocean during the mid-Piacenzian with temperatures as high as 18°C is presented. In addition, SST anomalies (mid-Piacenzian minus modern) increase with latitude across the North Atlantic and into the Arctic, extending and confirming a reduced mid-Piacenzian pole-to-equator temperature gradient. The agreement between proxies and with previously documented qualitative assessments of intense warming in this region corroborate a poleward transport of heat and an at least seasonally ice-free Arctic,
conditions that may serve as a possible analog to future climate if the current rate of Arctic sea-ice reduction continues.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 3, 2012)

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and speculate that our more passionate warmer religionists here are talking the talk, and not one of them is walking the walk.  (Certainly Al Gore and none of those big name AGW promoting scientists are.)

Do they drive electric cars and/or restrict driving and/or flying to an absolute minimum?  Live in 100% eco friendly houses?   Have their own wind chargers and eskew use of all fossil fuels or power produced through use of fossil fuels?   Wear everything out and recycle everything?  Eat only products that contribute in no way to global warming?  Put absolutely nothing in land fills or into the water system that requires power to remove?  Compost everything biodegradable including human and pet or other animal waste?  In fact use nothing that is not biodegradable and uses no fossil fuel power to make?

And are they 100% convinced that if everybody in the world started living that way today, that AGW would be arrested in its tracks and cease to be a problem within a short time?

But since they aren't living that way, how 'terrified' or 'concerned' are they?   And why are they so willing to hand over power to the government to take away the rights, choices, options,and opportunities from the rest of us?


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I'm going to go way out on a limb here and speculate that our more passionate warmer religionists here are talking the talk, and not one of them is walking the walk.  (Certainly Al Gore and none of those big name AGW promoting scientists are.)
> 
> Do they drive electric cars and/or restrict driving and/or flying to an absolute minimum?  Live in 100% eco friendly houses?   Have their own wind chargers and eskew use of all fossil fuels or power produced through use of fossil fuels?   Wear everything out and recycle everything?  Eat only products that contribute in no way to global warming?  Put absolutely nothing in land fills or into the water system that requires power to remove?  Compost everything biodegradable including human and pet or other animal waste?  In fact use nothing that is not biodegradable and uses no fossil fuel power to make?
> 
> ...



Your "_speculations_" are idiotic and based only on your profound ignorance and deep stupidity.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 3, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to go way out on a limb here and speculate that our more passionate warmer religionists here are talking the talk, and not one of them is walking the walk.  (Certainly Al Gore and none of those big name AGW promoting scientists are.)
> ...



Well we are assuming you are doing everything absolutely perfectly RollingThunder.  So you are exempt from consideration of course.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


"_we_"??? You mean you and your fleas?






Foxfyre said:


> are assuming you are doing everything absolutely perfectly RollingThunder.  So you are exempt from consideration of course.


Well, everybody else is making the apparently quite correct assumption that you are a clueless rightwingnut retard who knows nothing about AGW except what he's heard from Rush or scraped off of some denier cult blog.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 3, 2012)

Doesn't matter what happens...It's all the fault of Goebbels warming, to wackaloons like Trolling Blunder.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 3, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Doesn't matter what happens...It's all the fault of Goebbels warming, to wackaloons like Trolling Blunder.



Well I've given up trying to refute the nonsense that he posts and most obviously hasn't even read, much less understands.

Sort of goes along with what my grandma taught me that only an idiot argues with an. . . .


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 3, 2012)

The Arctic Sea ice will almost be gone in part of the summer by the 2020's. Glacier National Park will have no more glaciers. By then, most of the alpine glaciers will be greatly reduced on all continents. There will be significant melting of the continental glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.

We will be seeing more extreme weather worldwide, with more significant impacts on the cost of food and maintenance of infrastructure.

And the flap yaps will still be claiming nothing is happening.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> The Arctic Sea ice will almost be gone in part of the summer by the 2020's. Glacier National Park will have no more glaciers. By then, most of the alpine glaciers will be greatly reduced on all continents. There will be significant melting of the continental glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.
> 
> We will be seeing more extreme weather worldwide, with more significant impacts on the cost of food and maintenance of infrastructure.
> 
> And the flap yaps will still be claiming nothing is happening.



It isn't a matter of whether it is happening.  There has never been a time in the history of the Earth (or probably on any other heavenly body with an atmosphere), that climate conditions remain permanently constant or stable.   Cyclical climate shifts have been occuring with predictable regularity for billions of years and that certainly has not changed in the very VERY short period that humans have been studying climate.   So nobody but the AGW religionists are saying with certainty what is happening.  And the rest of us are certainly not saying that nothing is happening.  Of course it is.

But why?  That is what we need to keep an open mind about.  Certainly human activity may be having some impact, at least in some places, but is it sufficient impact to give up our freedoms, choices, options, opportunities to people who most likely won't have our best interests at heart and who won't be able to reverse the situation?

Are you willing to unilaterally stop all activity that is reported (by some) to be causing global warming.   Do you honestly think punishing Americans and limiting their choices and opportunities will have a significant impact when developing countries with many times over more population than we have are exempt from the same limitations?

Maybe instead of fanaticism and dogmatic mindset, there is a different and more constructive way to look at all of this.


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> The Arctic Sea ice will almost be gone in part of the summer by the 2020's. Glacier National Park will have no more glaciers. By then, most of the alpine glaciers will be greatly reduced on all continents. There will be significant melting of the continental glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.
> 
> We will be seeing more extreme weather worldwide, with more significant impacts on the cost of food and maintenance of infrastructure.
> 
> And the flap yaps will still be claiming nothing is happening.



Thought we were going to all be under water before then?  Just how are we going to maintain infrastructure, when that is the cause of your made up issue?


----------



## Oddball (Oct 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't matter what happens...It's all the fault of Goebbels warming, to wackaloons like Trolling Blunder.
> ...


It's all of them...Doesn't matter what happens...

*A complete list of things caused by global warming*


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 3, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



LOL, ain't itthe truth?  That is a wonderful list.  And probably needs frequent updating.  

But like all other religious fanatics, whether it is fanaticism about diet or treatment of animals or church/mosque/temple/synagogue teachings or socioeconomic policy, the AGW religionists have their minds made up and the rest of us are nothing but infidels, heretics, and/or idiots and we're all going straight to hell.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > The Arctic Sea ice will almost be gone in part of the summer by the 2020's. Glacier National Park will have no more glaciers. By then, most of the alpine glaciers will be greatly reduced on all continents. There will be significant melting of the continental glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.
> ...



Every one of your posts just demonstrates further that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, you poor clueless bamboozled retard.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 3, 2012)

Hmmm.  Anybody want to take a bet on whether RollingThunder is a sock?   He sure approaches debate in the same manner as a certain other individual.


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Hmmm.  Anybody want to take a bet on whether RollingThunder is a sock?   He sure approaches debate in the same manner as a certain other individual.



Denier cultists = conspiracy theory nutjobs


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Ohhh, I dunno.  She makes you look like a monkey on a regular basis without resorting to 3rd grade insults.  Your total vocabulary consists of those and really big words that you will never understand no matter how long you live.  You're intellectually crippled.

I almost feel sorry for you...almost...


----------



## westwall (Oct 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Hmmm.  Anybody want to take a bet on whether RollingThunder is a sock?   He sure approaches debate in the same manner as a certain other individual.







Oh, I'm with you there Foxy.  I don't call them olmamoothtrollingblundertrakarsaigonspideypooperfraud for nothing!


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 3, 2012)

I like socks...

...winter is coming.

(any bets on whether its a cold one?)


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> The Arctic Sea ice will almost be gone in part of the summer by the 2020's. Glacier National Park will have no more glaciers. By then, most of the alpine glaciers will be greatly reduced on all continents. There will be significant melting of the continental glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.
> 
> We will be seeing more extreme weather worldwide, with more significant impacts on the cost of food and maintenance of infrastructure.
> 
> And the flap yaps will still be claiming nothing is happening.



Google: yogi berra predictions future


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 3, 2012)

Nny





Old Rocks said:


> The Arctic Sea ice will almost be gone in part of the summer by the 2020's. Glacier National Park will have no more glaciers. By then, most of the alpine glaciers will be greatly reduced on all continents. There will be significant melting of the continental glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.
> 
> We will be seeing more extreme weather worldwide, with more significant impacts on the cost of food and maintenance of infrastructure.
> 
> And the flap yaps will still be claiming nothing is happening.



You still don't see how funny it is that if you were writing about this when the ice melted in the 1930's your warning would have called for an ice free Arctic by 1940?


----------



## RollingThunder (Oct 3, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Nny
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You mostly only say these kind of things because you have no idea what is going on. Also, of course, you're a retard. The ice didn't melt in the 30's. Now there is valid scientific evidence that the Arctic sea ice is in a death spiral.


----------



## Dot Com (Oct 3, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm.  Anybody want to take a bet on whether RollingThunder is a sock?   He sure approaches debate in the same manner as a certain other individual.
> ...



EXACTLY. FoxFyre is a status quo conservative so she toes the fox news anti-AGW (AKA- Denier) line


----------



## Qantrill (Oct 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I'm going to go way out on a limb here and speculate that our more passionate warmer religionists here are talking the talk, and not one of them is walking the walk.  (Certainly Al Gore and none of those big name AGW promoting scientists are.)
> 
> Do they drive electric cars and/or restrict driving and/or flying to an absolute minimum?  Live in 100% eco friendly houses?   Have their own wind chargers and eskew use of all fossil fuels or power produced through use of fossil fuels?   Wear everything out and recycle everything?  Eat only products that contribute in no way to global warming?  Put absolutely nothing in land fills or into the water system that requires power to remove?  Compost everything biodegradable including human and pet or other animal waste?  In fact use nothing that is not biodegradable and uses no fossil fuel power to make?
> 
> ...



You know damn well they would lie through their teeth answering your questions. Why wouldn't they? They lie about everything else.


----------



## Qantrill (Oct 3, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to go way out on a limb here and speculate that our more passionate warmer religionists here are talking the talk, and not one of them is walking the walk.  (Certainly Al Gore and none of those big name AGW promoting scientists are.)
> ...



Okay, so the answer is NO!


----------



## Qantrill (Oct 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't matter what happens...It's all the fault of Goebbels warming, to wackaloons like Trolling Blunder.
> ...



Let me finish that for you...bullshitter.


----------



## Qantrill (Oct 3, 2012)

Dot Com said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



FOXNews is the ONLY place one can get a truthful news story about anything. Of course there is always this idiot...


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 3, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I'm going to go way out on a limb here and speculate that our more passionate warmer religionists here are talking the talk, and not one of them is walking the walk.  (Certainly Al Gore and none of those big name AGW promoting scientists are.)
> 
> Do they drive electric cars and/or restrict driving and/or flying to an absolute minimum?  Live in 100% eco friendly houses?   Have their own wind chargers and eskew use of all fossil fuels or power produced through use of fossil fuels?   Wear everything out and recycle everything?  Eat only products that contribute in no way to global warming?  Put absolutely nothing in land fills or into the water system that requires power to remove?  Compost everything biodegradable including human and pet or other animal waste?  In fact use nothing that is not biodegradable and uses no fossil fuel power to make?
> 
> ...



Perfectly put.. You can actually measure how genuine that "fear factor" about AGW is by asking these econauts ---- 

*Which are you more afraid of ---- Global Warming? Or 250 brand new Nuclear Power plants that would END the USA contribution to CO2 emissions?*

If you succeed in getting an intelligient, considered answer to that question --- please PM me and let me know.. Because my personal experience tells me -- they;'re not worried ENOUGH about Global Warming to even consider fixing it with tools already at our disposal.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 4, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to go way out on a limb here and speculate that our more passionate warmer religionists here are talking the talk, and not one of them is walking the walk.  (Certainly Al Gore and none of those big name AGW promoting scientists are.)
> ...



Or even to buy a Chevy Volt.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 4, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Nny
> ...



I say these things because I'm not a member of your AGW Cult. 

There is a 600,000 year data set, unaltered by Phil Jones, that show CO2 lagging temperature

There is a second 14,000 year data set that shows the ice sheet covering North American and Canada in a "Death spiral". Was that a bad thing? Was that caused by burning fossil fuels?

The ice did melt in the 30's

If the Arctic ice really is on a "Death spiral" (you people are as hysterical and dramatic as drag queens) maybe you should leave your freezer open.


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 4, 2012)

Faithers don't NEED history, they got melting glaciers...


----------



## mamooth (Oct 4, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> I'm going to go way out on a limb here and speculate that our more passionate warmer religionists here are talking the talk, and not one of them is walking the walk.



We'll take that colossal logical blunder on your part seriously when _you_ devote 100% to each and every one of your pet causes.

What's that? You don't devote 100% to every one of your beliefs? You're just being a particularly flagrant hypocrite by only demanding that standard from the other side? Well, imagine that. A hypocrite denialist. Hey, we've never seen that before. Oh wait, we have.

Look, we know why you denialists all run from the actual issues. You suck at discussing the actual issues. You suck at the physics, the statistics, the logic, the history, the politics, everything, so your only choice is to run from all actual discussion. Your retard political cult gives you some cultist talking points to repeat, and you're helpless if you have to go off point. Yes, it really is that obvious. What an earth makes you think you're fooling anyone?


----------



## Oddball (Oct 4, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to go way out on a limb here and speculate that our more passionate warmer religionists here are talking the talk, and not one of them is walking the walk.
> ...



*2a. Freudian Projection*

The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called Freudian Projection.


 "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."

  "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect others of being homosexual."

  "Attributing one's own undesirable traits to other people or agencies, e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."

  "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."

  "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."

    "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for having thoughts that we really have."


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 4, 2012)

Rants do not support any scientific study Mamooth.  It does make you entertaining however.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 4, 2012)

What do the last 2 whinefest evasion posts have to do with me showing the hypocrisy of the denialist political cultists? If they could address the issue, they wouldn't have to run from it like they do.

It's the denialists here who universally declare that one must devote 100% to any belief, if one actually believes it. 

Yet denialists do not devote 100% to any of their causes. 

Therefore, either of these conclusions must be true:

A. Denialists are lying about every single thing they claim to believe.
or
B. Denialists are sleazy hypocrites. They only think the other side has to devote 100%, and apply a different standard to themselves.

Denialists, you may now explain whether "A"  or "B" is the correct conclusion. My money is on "B". Y'all  are just hypocrites.


----------



## westwall (Oct 4, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to go way out on a limb here and speculate that our more passionate warmer religionists here are talking the talk, and not one of them is walking the walk.
> ...






I think she's pointing out that you don't devote 10% to your avowed clause.  The mere fact that you post on a computer shows you to be the hypocrite we all know you to be.  

But that's OK, you have a high amusement factor so we put up with you.


----------



## westwall (Oct 4, 2012)

mamooth said:


> What do the last 2 whinefest evasion posts have to do with me showing the hypocrisy of the denialist political cultists? If they could address the issue, they wouldn't have to run from it like they do.
> 
> It's the denialists here who universally declare that one must devote 100% to any belief, if one actually believes it.
> 
> ...






I'm an avowed sceptic yet I have a huge compost pile, a solar array (now in need of replacement after 25 years), a geothermal heating system for my house and a gravity fed water system powering my various outside lights and other systems.

Whatchyou got buster?


----------



## westwall (Oct 4, 2012)

mamooth said:


> What do the last 2 whinefest evasion posts have to do with me showing the hypocrisy of the denialist political cultists? If they could address the issue, they wouldn't have to run from it like they do.
> 
> It's the denialists here who universally declare that one must devote 100% to any belief, if one actually believes it.
> 
> ...









  The only whiner is you and yours buckwheat, we're laughing....mainly at you!


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 4, 2012)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



That is of course assuming that the computer is not built of all renewable and biodegradable and recyclable materials without benefit of any fossil inputs or any fossil fuels, and is powered strictly by a wind turbine built all with eco friendly materials.   And this assumes that the AGW religionists are practicing everything they preach and doing everything humanly possible to eliminate all green house gas producing activity from their daily lives and are pumping every spare dime they have into causes that will save the planet.

Until they do that, how scared are they?  How serious do they see this global warming thing to be?  And how much authority should they have to dictate to the rest of us how we are expected to live our lives?

And just how certain are they that if we will all do this at the same time, the arctic ice will freeze up thick, solid, and permanent again, and the polar bears will be ecstatically happy, and all will be wonderful?


----------



## westwall (Oct 4, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...









*EXACTLY!*

I put it in bold to let trolling blunder know when it is proper to do so!


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 4, 2012)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > What do the last 2 whinefest evasion posts have to do with me showing the hypocrisy of the denialist political cultists? If they could address the issue, they wouldn't have to run from it like they do.
> ...



Yes, we too do what we can to be gentle to the environment and the creatures that live in it.  We conserve energy whenever it is practical to do so, drive fuel efficient cars until they are literally beginning to fall apart, use things up, wear things out, and recycle what we can while contributing as little as possible to the local landfill.  Be careful with that compost pile though.  It is producing more greenhouse gasses than your average decaying vegetation.  

And I am nowhere near convinced that AGW is a sufficiently settled science to justify taking away people's freedom, choices, options, and opportunities.  Or that even if it shown to be a factor, taking more and more freedoms away from people who are living the most ecofriendly lives while allowing the worst polluters to continue to pollute with impunity is just nuts.


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 4, 2012)

mamooth said:


> What do the last 2 whinefest evasion posts have to do with me showing the hypocrisy of the denialist political cultists? If they could address the issue, they wouldn't have to run from it like they do.
> 
> It's the denialists here who universally declare that one must devote 100% to any belief, if one actually believes it.
> 
> ...



Stringing together a strawman to a false statement makes you a terrible debater.


----------



## westwall (Oct 4, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > What do the last 2 whinefest evasion posts have to do with me showing the hypocrisy of the denialist political cultists? If they could address the issue, they wouldn't have to run from it like they do.
> ...








Aren't they all....


----------



## polarbear (Oct 6, 2012)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > What do the last 2 whinefest evasion posts have to do with me showing the hypocrisy of the denialist political cultists? If they could address the issue, they wouldn't have to run from it like they do.
> ...


Hi,...I cut my "vacation" short before the riots start in oh so green Germany where energy prices have gone through the roof....and what greets me here? We had sub zero temps since middle of September and tonight 10 - 20 cm snow and -7C are forecast. The Geese knew better and have left us already in the first week during September.
Watch my neighbor from across the river discing his field at full throttle because he figures after tonight it`s likely not to thaw out till the end of May:...@ 10:12 in this video

Garmin GPS shortcuts Manitoba - YouTube

Good thing I got my birthday present early. I might need it sooner than later when our RCMP has to close the main roads. We chain up and take the back-roads but it`s pretty hard to spot these in a blizzard. I`m all set now and I could go home "IFR" if I have to  with my Van. That damn cheapo GPS is almost as good as what I had 12 years ago in my  Cessna 260. Last year it took till the end of October till the snow started flying and  my grand children sang Christmas songs...or I had to carry my snow chains. Every year this shit happens 1 or 2 weeks sooner and hangs in there later and later....and I thought we moved far enough south when we left the Yukon Territories. Must be nicer where You are..???
Sometimes I wonder if Canada is on the same planet that Al Gore is talking about..!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to go way out on a limb here and speculate that our more passionate warmer religionists here are talking the talk, and not one of them is walking the walk.
> ...






Ummm........but the hypocrite denialists that suck at explaning everything are winning. How do you explain that honey???


I couldnt give a flying rats ass who looks good on here. Form over function is always the gay play in life. Bottom line at the end of the day? For all the alarmist bomb throwing by the k00ks for the last decade, its been escalator down. All this "consensus science" hasnt translated into dick in terms of any significant carbon limits. And nothing else matters asshole............makes all this science debate nothing more than hobby discussions on the intanets As long as my electrcity bill is not doubling compliments of assholes like you, Im happy.


And you're losing!!!!


Senate Democrats Kill Ambitious Climate Legislation | Science and Space | TIME.com


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2012)




----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 6, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Faithers don't NEED history, they got melting glaciers...



Melting glaciers worldwide. Melting continental ice caps. Melting Arctic Sea Ice. An increase in extreme weather events over the last forty years by  a factor of at least 3. Outgassing clarthrates in the Arctic Ocean, outgassing from the permafrost. A very rapidly warming Arctic, both in Siberia and North America. 

But then, we also have history in the form of paleoclimatology.

USGS Arctic Paleoceanography

And all you denialists have are some idiots standing out in left field doing the neener-neener number.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

AGW Observer


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 6, 2012)

polarbear said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



*So, you are getting winter a bit early this year. But last year you really didn't have much of a winter. 

Yes, it is nicer where I am at. 48 degrees, headed for a high of 70+. But we have had so little rain this summer that the Coast Range is under Red Flag fire warnings.*

The Canadian winter that never was - Canada - Macleans.ca

Photograph by Tim Smith

Canada without winter is a foreign place. Not white, not cold, not snowy, like most of us have known it to be. Not conducive to carnivals across the country that attempt to celebrate this inhospitable but beautiful season. For 43 years, Winnipeg has hosted the Festival du Voyageur in Februarywhen winter has traditionally been most wintry. We have snow sculptures, the snow maze, the snow mountain, toffee [served] on snow, and the snow bar, explains spokesperson Emili Belle&#64258;eur. One would have to be hypothermic not to see the importance of snow.

So, when the city received nearly none from above this season, there was only one thing to do: fake it. More than 200 loads of man-made snow were delivered by a local company, which usually supplies ski resorts. It wasnt free; the bill totalled $10,000. And it wasnt ideal. We saw brown, rusty spots from the dump truck, and the texture wasnt as good. You could see chunks of ice, says Belle&#64258;eur. But it was real snow. Not Styrofoam or plastic. Or mud or dead grass. And in the winter, in Canada, that matters.

This is, after all, a country so de&#64257;ned by snow and cold that our money features outdoor ice skaters and hockey players (the $5 bill), polar bears (the toonie), snowy owls (old $50 bills) and icebreakers (new $50 bills). We boast corporate empires built around the sale of snow tires and shovels (Canadian Tire), cold medication (Shoppers Drug Mart), long johns (Stan&#64257;elds), down-&#64257;lled coats (Canada Goose), and even hot chocolate served at Christmas in paper cups decorated with snow&#64258;akes and, of course, outdoor ice skaters and hockey players (Tim Hortons). Among the most valuable paintings by two of our most famous artists (Paul Kane and Lawren Harris) are those of stunning snowy, icy settings. Our fermented frozen grapes are world-class, and no other country produces more or better maple syrup than us. Canada is, as we all have sung, the true North, thank you very much.



That our national identity, our culture and our economy are so tied to winter makes whats happened over the last few months all the more disconcerting. On average, Canada experienced temperatures 3.6° C higher than normal this winter, and 18 per cent less precipitation. This season was, in fact, the third warmest and the second driest in 65 years. Which might not sound so bad except that the last two times it was warmer, in 2009-10 and 2005-06, it was much snowier and wetter. And the last time it was drier, in 1956-57, it was colder. Until now, Canada has never had such hot days with so little snow. So in many ways, says David Phillips, senior climatologist at Environment Canada, this has truly been the year that winter was cancelled.

Even more unusual: this was the exact situation in every region, no matter how far north or south, east or west. In the second-largest country in the world, its hard to get the same story, explains Phillips, but Canadians from Goobies, N&#64258;d., to Yoho, B.C., to Kugluktuk, Nunavut, were all asking one question: Where is winter?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2012)

Ray........this is the Thames River last winter..............frozen solid for the first time in like 70 years.









People yawn a big yawn these days about the end of days due to warming. Theyve been hearing the alarmist death knell for decades and they're playing ice hockey on the Thames for weeks, some getting treatment for fucking frostbite!!! Time for Plan B...........whatever that is. Plenty of guys on your side are already talking about this..........


----------



## mamooth (Oct 6, 2012)

westwall said:


> I'm an avowed sceptic yet I have a huge compost pile, a solar array (now in need of replacement after 25 years), a geothermal heating system for my house and a gravity fed water system powering my various outside lights and other systems



Nice evasion, but it's not even close to addressing my point. I keep asking why you guys demand standards of others that you don't demand of yourselves, and none of you will address that issue. It would appear that you can't address it (because I'm right), and thus you're trying to evade in creative ways.

For example, if you're a Christian, why aren't you devoting 100% of your life to pushing Christianity? The fact that you're not devoting 100% proves you're just totally faking the Christianity. At least by the Foxfyre standards of "YOU MUST DEVOTE 100% TO EVERYTHING YOU BELIEVE!", that is. She has proved none of you can really be Christian.

Since y'all don't devote 100% to every belief you hold yourself, it is hypocritical to demand such absolute devotion from AGW rationalists. It's also stupid and dishonest, because none of us have ever demanded that people live in caves, but let's just stick with the hypocrisy of the denialist position for now. You guys going to back down from the hypocrisy, or dig yourselves deeper into the hypocrisy hole?


----------



## mamooth (Oct 6, 2012)

westwall said:


> I think she's pointing out that you don't devote 10% to your avowed clause.  The mere fact that you post on a computer shows you to be the hypocrite we all know you to be.



This is where we'll talk about the chronic dishonesty of the denialists.

Westwall, can you point to a single AGW rationalist who demands that no one be allowed to use electricity or computers?

Since we know you can't show us any such people, why are you pushing the outrageous lie that all AGW rationalists demand that?

In general, denialists can't debate without fabricating idiot stories about what the other side supposedly believes. They fail completely at discussing actually issues, so making it all up is the only choice they have.


----------



## westwall (Oct 6, 2012)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I'm an avowed sceptic yet I have a huge compost pile, a solar array (now in need of replacement after 25 years), a geothermal heating system for my house and a gravity fed water system powering my various outside lights and other systems
> ...









What the hell are you talking about?  Now you're just getting wierd.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 6, 2012)

That's an interesting avenue of retreat you've chosen, feigning incomprehension. Actually pretty smart. Don't worry, I won't pursue.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 6, 2012)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Well maybe a little wierd, but the point he is making is that he says that I insisted that he must devote 100% to what he believes about global warming.  And that according to what I posted, I would be a hypocrite if I didn't devote 100% to being a Christian.

Well he's right. If I am intentionally behaving in unChristian ways, I wouldn't be much of a Christian.  So yes, a believing Chrsitian will live his or her life much differently than a non-Chrsitian might live his/her life.  That doesn't, however, require one to be preaching or teaching or serving or tithing or reading one's Bible or actively praying every minute.  But it does mean that a Christian does not participate in those things that he or she believes to be evil or harmful or he or she is doing his/her darndest to straighten out those parts of his/her life that s/he knows are setting a bad example or are otherwise harmful.

And the pro-AGW religionist should be living his/her life as a pro-AGW religionist which means he or she gives up those things that he or she believes contribute to global warming.   And I don't see Al Gore or any of the those pro-AGW scientists or any of our friends leading the way or providing a good example in that.   In fact it seems that us skeptics might even be doing a better job of that than they are. It's hard to say.

So those who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. . . .how much do they really believe?  How much of a problem do they honestly believe it is?   And if the answer to both questions is "a lot", why isn't their lifestyle showing it?


----------



## Oddball (Oct 6, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> And the pro-AGW religionist should be living his/her life as a pro-AGW religionist which means he or she gives up those things that he or she believes contribute to global warming.   And I don't see Al Gore or any of the those pro-AGW scientists or any of our friends leading the way or providing a good example in that.   In fact it seems that us skeptics might even be doing a better job of that than they are. It's hard to say.
> 
> So those who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. . . .how much do they really believe?  How much of a problem do they honestly believe it is?   And if the answer to both questions is "a lot", why isn't their lifestyle showing it?


Heh...

I was working on the Montage in Deer Valley last fall/winter...One of the most opulent places you will encounter, which throws away more stuff in a couple of weeks than a Mormon family of 10 could use in a year.  

Anyways, one day there was a big celebrity ski event coming up, and who was one of the first people to come strolling in the door?...RFK jr, whose private jet had landed at Heber airport about 1/2 hour ago.

True story.


----------



## westwall (Oct 6, 2012)

mamooth said:


> That's an interesting avenue of retreat you've chosen, feigning incomprehension. Actually pretty smart. Don't worry, I won't pursue.







No retreat at all.  Just point out the extremist nature of you and your argument.  I find it amusing that the so called intelligentsia will denigrate those of a religious nature and yet here you are doing the exact same thing you accuse the religious fanatics of doing.

Thanks for falling into the trap.  Not that it was much of one.  You all make it way too easy.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 6, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > And the pro-AGW religionist should be living his/her life as a pro-AGW religionist which means he or she gives up those things that he or she believes contribute to global warming.   And I don't see Al Gore or any of the those pro-AGW scientists or any of our friends leading the way or providing a good example in that.   In fact it seems that us skeptics might even be doing a better job of that than they are. It's hard to say.
> ...



And I believe it.  I bet Al Gore's private jet emits more greenhouse gas than a small city every year, and I think he still has that very un-eco friendly Tennessee mansion that uses more energy than any dozen normal houses.  And awhile back they had a regional conference here with lots of big name scientists coming in to lecture on global warming.   And yep.  Most of them came via private jet.  (Probably paid for with our tax dollars.)  And I would bet a good steak dinner that not one of them does much recycling or lives in an eco friendly home.  Most big mansions just aren't.

I don't begrudge anybody their affluence (unless I am paying for it), but you look at these guys jetting all over the world to fancy places instead of doing teleconferencing that would be much more eco friendly, and you have to wonder if their lifestyle represents somebody who is really concerned about the environment or climate conditions.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 6, 2012)

People who can talk about the science, do.

People who can't, invent illogical conspiracies. That way, they can talk about anything except the science. 

What, you denialists actually thought someone didn't see through your charade?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 6, 2012)

mamooth said:


> People who can talk about the science, do.
> 
> People who can't, invent illogical conspiracies. That way, they can talk about anything except the science.
> 
> What, you denialists actually thought someone didn't see through your charade?



People who do real science work in a lab.

People who do Global Warming alter data and have "Consensus"


----------



## mamooth (Oct 6, 2012)

Ah, Frank finally admits his data-fudging denialist blogger buddies aren't real scientists. There may be hope for him.

Now, the AGW scientists work in labs. When they're not in the field. Like Frank says, real scientists.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 6, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Ah, Frank finally admits his data-fudging denialist blogger buddies aren't real scientists. There may be hope for him.
> 
> Now, the AGW scientists work in labs. When they're not in the field. Like Frank says, real scientists.



Mann's Nature trick

Hide the Decline

Let's put this Thermometer right near the exhaust port

The Medieval Warming period never happened


----------



## westwall (Oct 6, 2012)

mamooth said:


> People who can talk about the science, do.
> 
> People who can't, invent illogical conspiracies. That way, they can talk about anything except the science.
> 
> What, you denialists actually thought someone didn't see through your charade?








How much money has been given to "global warming scientists?"  Over 100 billion.  Don't need to be a genius to figure out their motivation now do you.


----------



## westwall (Oct 6, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Ah, Frank finally admits his data-fudging denialist blogger buddies aren't real scientists. There may be hope for him.
> 
> Now, the AGW scientists work in labs. When they're not in the field. Like Frank says, real scientists.







Actually, they work within the wonderful confines of the computer modeling world.  Entirely ficticious.  Kinda like you.


----------



## Saigon (Oct 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> How much money has been given to "global warming scientists?"  Over 100 billion.  Don't need to be a genius to figure out their motivation now do you.



Another day, anothr myth. 

And the thing is, Westwall - you KNOW this is a myth even as you post it. 

How much money has been poured into research by the nuclear, coal and oil industries?

Millions - and you and I both know that those industries dwarf the solar and wind industries. They also have farm ore lobbyists and a far longer history of political acitivity. 

It would be really refreshing to see you actually admit that rather than just present the same old tired myths next week.


----------



## westwall (Oct 7, 2012)

Saigon said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How much money has been given to "global warming scientists?"  Over 100 billion.  Don't need to be a genius to figure out their motivation now do you.
> ...









Oh, looky here the journalist is wrong yet again.  Tsk, tsk.  I hope you do better research for your story's.  Are you ever correct???  On anything?

"The onus is therefore on Penny Wong and her scientists to provide some &#8220;evidence otherwise&#8221;. To give a clue how hard that task is, note that since 1988 (when the IPCC was created) western nations have spent more than $100 billion, and employed thousands of scientists, in attempts to measure the human signal in the global temperature record. The search has failed. Though no scientist doubts that humans influence climate at local level - causing both warmings (urban heat island effect) and coolings (land-use changes) - no definitive evidence has yet been discovered that a human influence is measurable, let alone dangerous, at global level. Rather, the human signal is lost in the noise of natural climate variation."



Quadrant Online - The science of deceit


And then there's the promised future funds.....


"The other outstanding issue has been money, with Brazil and its allies arguing that by 2020, $200bn (£125bn) per year should be made available for biodiversity conservation."

BBC News - Nature talks heading for success, delegates say

And this is just one of the schemes.

The ultimate goal is of course global governance and the mass theft of the wealth of the first world nations.  But don't believe me...oh no, just read the UN's own report.  Then you can come back and bury yourself again.  You totalitarians never learn.

"Global governance capabilities need to be strengthened
The proposed reshaping of national development efforts and strengthened international
commitment in the areas of technological development and cooperation, external assistance,
investment finance and trade rules will require stronger mechanisms of global governance
and coordination. Within the next three to four decades, all of these efforts must
&#8220;add up&#8221; to achieving what today seems to be a set of almost unattainable targets, including
a reduction in per capita carbon emissions by almost three fourths and the eradication
of poverty, which will require an almost 10 times greater availability of modern energy
sources by those now counted as poor.
The Survey recognizes that the bulk of the efforts to carry out a technological
transformation must occur at the country level and build upon local conditions and
resources. The need for an effective global technology policymaking body has already been
indicated. If the overall global objectives are to be achieved, two critical conditions need
to be fulfilled. First, more effective monitoring and verification of performance on international
commitments are needed. As regards establishing the corresponding mechanisms
of common accountability, lessons can be drawn from existing modalities in other areas,
such as the trade policy review process of the World Trade Organization.
Second, much greater coherence will be required among the now noticeably
disjointed multilateral architectures for environment, technology transfer, trade, aid and
finance so as to facilitate coordination among what will likely be a diverse set of country
strategies for green growth and ensure that they add up to global targets for environmental
sustainability."


"A recent report of the United Nations Environment Programme (2011) estimates
that 2 per cent of current world gross product (WGP) would need to be invested
annually between now and 2050 in order to shift development onto a path of green growth
and thereby address the current broad range of environmental concerns. Utilizing modelbased
projections, the report determines that the green economy scenario would permit the
sustaining of higher&#8212;not lower&#8212;GDP growth than under the business-as-usual (BAU)
scenario. These required investment estimates may be at the lower end, however. The World
Economic and Social Survey 2009 (United Nations, 2009) and chapter II of the present
Survey, report that about 2.5 per cent of WGP (or about $1.6 trillion) per annum would
need to be invested to effect the energy transformation necessary to meet climate change
mitigation targets alone. This analysis further suggests that public investments would need
to be frontloaded in order to unleash private sector financing. Moreover, simulations using
the United Nations Global Policy Model showed that such a green investment scenario
would accelerate economic growth in developing countries (ibid.)."

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf


----------



## Saigon (Oct 7, 2012)

Westwall - 

This really is getting rather silly, isn't it? 

So now ALL government-funded research is biased and should be ignored?

Honestly, it really is just any excuse at all to ignore science, isn't it?


And if you can't admit that the nuclear, coal and oil industries have poured millions of dollars into research, then there really isn't much to discuss. 

It just shows one again that what Old Rocks said is completely true - your point of view here is purely and simply political.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Once again Walleyes posts from a political blog, totally lacking in credibility in any sphere of endevour. Walleyes claims to have been a working scientist, a geologist, yet never misses and oppertunity to denigrate real scientists. Now it just happens that I know a great many geologists. Some running their own geotechnical companies, some teaching and doing research. I have yet to meet one that displays the depth of ignorance that Walleyes displays.

Ah well, that is what you get on the internet.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 7, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Ray........this is the Thames River last winter..............frozen solid for the first time in like 70 years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Repost necessary to hit the reset button to Realville.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 7, 2012)

need a PLAN B s0ns!!!


----------



## IanC (Oct 7, 2012)

RollingThunder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...





rolling thunder ignores what NASA said only a few months ago, spoken by a dyed-in-the-wool alarmist, that the Antarctic land ice is increasing. add the large antarctic sea ice extent and you get a thorough rebuttal of some of his nonsense.

as I predicted a few years ago, the altimetry results for Antarctica ( and other areas) would be in for a large correction as all the slack in the computational had been used in the direction of warming predictions. the time is now. sea level rise, ice cap masses, etc, have all taken a downwards jump.

many of the scientists involved assumed what the results would be and simply did their best to accomodate the beliefs of their fellow scientists and the consensus of what climatology was saying. the exaggerations are becoming increasingly difficult to reconsile with the actual data coming in.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2012)

Ian, without links to specific articles, so we can see what was really said, you are just bullshitting.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2012)

We have almost lost all of the five year old ice in the Arctic Ocean. 

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

So how do the denialists greet this news? Wonderful news, the four year old ice has increased by 1000%!

1000% Increase In Four Year Old Arctic Ice | Real Science

What a lying assholes these people are. This is purposeful lying, no excuse, and Goddard should be shunned by the entire science community for it.


----------



## IanC (Oct 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Ian, without links to specific articles, so we can see what was really said, you are just bullshitting.



I have linked it before. maybe even in this thread. I could care less if you ignore my posts.

will you promise not to state that antarctica is losing ice mass if I show you the 2012 NASA statement? no, I thought not. as usual you will 'forget' anything that does not fit into your worldview of CAGW. just as you have on this very subject.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2012)

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (Figure 2) range from losing 100 Gt/year to over 300 Gt/year. Because 360 Gt/year represents an annual sea level rise of 1 mm/year, recent estimates indicate a contribution of between 0.27 mm/year and 0.83 mm/year coming from Antarctica. There is of course uncertainty in the estimations methods but multiple different types of measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly


----------



## IanC (Oct 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> We have almost lost all of the five year old ice in the Arctic Ocean.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
> 
> ...




this 'lying denialist asshole' declared that ice increase or decrease did not prove or disprove any AGW claim. and it does not.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2012)

NASA - Warm Ocean Currents Cause Majority of Ice Loss from Antarctica

WASHINGTON -- Warm ocean currents attacking the underside of ice shelves are the dominant cause of recent ice loss from Antarctica, a new study using measurements from NASA's Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) revealed.

An international team of scientists used a combination of satellite measurements and models to differentiate between the two known causes of melting ice shelves: warm ocean currents thawing the underbelly of the floating extensions of ice sheets and warm air melting them from above. The finding, published today in the journal Nature, brings scientists a step closer to providing reliable projections of future sea level rise.

The researchers concluded that 20 of the 54 ice shelves studied are being melted by warm ocean currents. Most of these are in West Antarctica, where inland glaciers flowing down to the coast and feeding into these thinning ice shelves have accelerated, draining more ice into the sea and contributing to sea-level rise. This ocean-driven thinning is responsible for the most widespread and rapid ice losses in West Antarctica, and for the majority of Antarctic ice sheet loss during the study period.


----------



## IanC (Oct 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
> 
> Estimates of recent changes in Antarctic land ice (Figure 2) range from losing 100 Gt/year to over 300 Gt/year. Because 360 Gt/year represents an annual sea level rise of 1 mm/year, recent estimates indicate a contribution of between 0.27 mm/year and 0.83 mm/year coming from Antarctica. There is of course uncertainty in the estimations methods but multiple different types of measurement techniques (explained here) all show the same thing, Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly



skepticalscience? I thought you were against political blog links.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2012)

NASA - NASA Mission Takes Stock of Earth's Melting Land Ice

Earth is losing a huge amount of ice to the ocean annually, and these new results will help us answer important questions in terms of both sea rise and how the planet's cold regions are responding to global change," said University of Colorado Boulder physics professor John Wahr, who helped lead the study. "The strength of GRACE is it sees all the mass in the system, even though its resolution is not high enough to allow us to determine separate contributions from each individual glacier." 

About a quarter of the average annual ice loss came from glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica (roughly 148 billion tons, or 39 cubic miles). Ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica and their peripheral ice caps and glaciers averaged 385 billion tons (100 cubic miles) a year. Results of the study will be published online Feb. 8 in the journal Nature.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzs_S1ijcjk]NASA: Antarctic Ice Sheet In Total Losing Mass (2006.03.02) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## IanC (Oct 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> NASA - Warm Ocean Currents Cause Majority of Ice Loss from Antarctica
> 
> WASHINGTON -- Warm ocean currents attacking the underside of ice shelves are the dominant cause of recent ice loss from Antarctica, a new study using measurements from NASA's Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) revealed.
> 
> ...



at least that is from NASA. it is funny how articles on melting get a lot of publicity but the articles going in the other direction get very little, and usually have a disclaimer at the end saying that any anomalous results are 'consistent with' AGW


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2012)

NASA - Is Antarctica Melting?

There has been lots of talk lately about Antarctica and whether or not the continent's giant ice sheet is melting. One new paper 1, which states there&#8217;s less surface melting recently than in past years, has been cited as "proof" that there&#8217;s no global warming. Other evidence that the amount of sea ice around Antarctica seems to be increasing slightly 2-4 is being used in the same way. But both of these data points are misleading. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too. How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2012)

What is funny, Ian, is that I found multiple articles concerning ice loss from the continental ice cap in Antarctica in a matter of minutes. But none stating that the continent was gaining ice.


----------



## IanC (Oct 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> What is funny, Ian, is that I found multiple articles concerning ice loss from the continental ice cap in Antarctica in a matter of minutes. But none stating that the continent was gaining ice.



exactly. that is my point. even if I give you the name Zwally, it doesnt come up on the first page of a google search.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2012)

So, you give me the name Zwally, and I google it. Exactly as you could have done. This is prior to the GRACE satellite, but confirms what the GRACE satellite found for Antarctica.



shelves and contributions to sea-level rise: 1992&#8211;2002

H. Jay ZWALLY,1 Mario B. GIOVINETTO,2 Jun LI,2 Helen G. CORNEJO,2
Matthew A. BECKLEY,2 Anita C. BRENNER,3 Jack L. SABA,2 Donghui YI2

1Cryospheric Sciences Branch, Code 614.1, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA
E-mail: zwally@icesat2.gsfc.nasa.gov
2SGT, Inc., Code 614.1, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA
3Science Systems and Application, Inc., 10210 Greenbelt Road, Suite 600, Lanham, Maryland 20706, USA

ABSTRACT. Changes in ice mass are estimated from elevation changes derived from 10.5 years
(Greenland) and 9 years (Antarctica) of satellite radar altimetry data from the European Remote-sensing Satellites ERS-1 and -2. For the first time, the dH/dt values are adjusted for changes in surface elevation resulting from temperature-driven variations in the rate of firn compaction. The Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins (&#8211;422Gt a&#8211;1 below the equilibrium-line altitude (ELA)) and growing inland (+532Gt a&#8211;1 above the ELA) with a small overall mass gain (+113Gt a&#8211;1; &#8211;0.03mma&#8211;1 SLE (sea-level equivalent)). The ice sheet inWest Antarctica (WA) is losing mass (&#8211;474Gt a&#8211;1) and the ice sheet in East Antarctica (EA) shows a small mass gain (+1611 Gt a&#8211;1) for a combined net change of &#8211;3112 Gt a&#8211;1 (+0.08mma&#8211;1 SLE). The contribution of the three ice sheets to sea level is +0.050.03mma&#8211;1. The
Antarctic ice shelves show corresponding mass changes of &#8211;9511 Gt a&#8211;1 in WA and +14210 Gt a&#8211;1
in EA. Thinning at the margins of the Greenland ice sheet and growth at higher elevations is an expected response to increasing temperatures and precipitation in a warming climate. The marked thinnings in the Pine Island and Thwaites Glacier basins of WA and the Totten Glacier basin in EA are probably icedynamic responses to long-term climate change and perhaps past removal of their adjacent ice shelves. The ice growth in the southern Antarctic Peninsula and parts of EA may be due to increasing precipitation during the last century.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2012)

A very good presentation from Dr. Zwally;

http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/May032006_Dr.H.JayZwally.pdf


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2012)

Hmmm........... Now here is a 2011 study that does, indeed, claim a postive net for the Antarctic Ice Cap.

http://www.waisworkshop.org/presentations/2011/Session4/Zwally.pdf


----------



## IanC (Oct 7, 2012)

I believe Zwallly was the scientist that predicted an ice free arctic for 2012.

he also said antarctic land ice was increasing, this year. I bet you havent found it by googling. why is that?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> NASA - Warm Ocean Currents Cause Majority of Ice Loss from Antarctica
> 
> WASHINGTON -- Warm ocean currents attacking the underside of ice shelves are the dominant cause of recent ice loss from Antarctica, a new study using measurements from NASA's Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) revealed.
> 
> ...



Warm, acidic oceans, no?


----------



## IanC (Oct 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Hmmm........... Now here is a 2011 study that does, indeed, claim a postive net for the Antarctic Ice Cap.
> 
> http://www.waisworkshop.org/presentations/2011/Session4/Zwally.pdf



that's not the one I was speaking about but good find.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2012)

And here is one from the same scientist that states a negative balance. But this report was published in 2012.

Recent Mass Balance Estimates of the Antarctic Ice Sheet

Striving to determine which set of observations is the most correct, Zwally and Giovinetto, as they describe it, "compare the various estimates, discuss the methodology used, and critically assess the results," while they also "modify the IOM estimate using (1) an alternate extrapolation to estimate the discharge from the non-observed 15% of the periphery, and (2) substitution of input from a field data compilation for input from an atmospheric model in 6% of the area."

The two U.S. researchers from the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center found that "the modified IOM and a GRACE-based estimate for observations within 1992-2005 lie in a narrowed range of +27 to -40 Gt/year, which is about 3% of the annual mass input and only 0.2 mm/year SLE." And they indicate that their preferred estimate for 1992-2001 is -47 Gt/year for West Antarctica, +16 Gt/year for East Antarctica, and -31 Gt/year overall.
In concluding their analysis, Zwally and Giovinetto state that "although recent reports of large and increasing rates of mass loss with time from GRACE-based studies cite agreement with IOM results," they say that their evaluation "does not support that conclusion." And with the great potential for extremely large errors in GRACE-based studies, which typically suggest overly large ice sheet losses -- see Ramillien et al. (2006), Velicogna and Whar (2006) and Quinn and Ponte (2010) -- it would appear that the result of Zwally and Giovinetto's analysis is probably as close to whatever the truth happens to be in this case than any of the analyses that rely heavily on GRACE data.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 7, 2012)

Is ocean acidity eating away the Antarctic ice?

Are there any models showing this?

CO2= Acid oceans eating Antarctic ice.

Can I get an "Amen"? (Peer review)


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2012)

IanC said:


> I believe Zwallly was the scientist that predicted an ice free arctic for 2012.
> 
> he also said antarctic land ice was increasing, this year. I bet you havent found it by googling. why is that?



The earliest prediction for an ice free Arctic Ocean that I have seen is 2015. From a credible source, that is. Most are for between 2015 and 2020. Which is quite incredible, as a decade ago we were 'alarmists' for speaking of an ice free Arctic Ocean by 2100.


----------



## polarbear (Oct 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Hi. I just read Your response and since You responded in a civil and polite manner I shall do the same.
First off an honest compliment, You are rather well informed about our customs here, but  I do have to point out that the festival is  not  purposely held on that day which may or may not be one of the coldest winter days in Manitoba and Yes as You said last year on that occasion they dumped the snow at the Winnipeg location with dump trucks. But what You may not be aware off is that from November on we only get snow only on warm & moist days when warm air moves in from the South West. It never snows here during these months when we sit under a dry & cold arctic high pressure system.
The same is the case where I was stationed at CFS Alert & Thule Greenland..matter of fact snowfalls during the same winter months are so rare up there and the yearly precip is  low enough, that the entire Ellesmere Island & Northern Greenland area is officially classified a "desert area".
So, You must not draw the conclusion as You did regarding the Winnipeg Voyageur Festival, relating the lack of snow due to a "warm  winter".
That may be the case where You live near the coast and most of the lower 49,...there the reverse is the case...when a cold front moves in and mixes with the warmer and moist air. I`m sure You did know that  50 relative  humidity  @  -30C and 50 % R.H. at  0C  is not the same, so I consider that point cleared up. In Canada we are not too happy when warm air blows in during the winter because then we get dumped on and in 2008 for example when that happened several times I had snow up to my waist in my driveway, snow  that was just days earlier  water in  the Pacific Ocean.
As far as the temperatures You may or may not have looked up somewhere on the Internet regarding Manitoba last Winter (2011)...I`m not saying You  made it up,...but I am certain that the website You got it from  did not display it *CORRECTLY* !!!!
It just so happens that I did make a Christmas 2011 video, and as a habit  I often  start out with  filming the thermometer  just outside my kitchen window.

Christmas 2011 - YouTube

It recorded a perfectly normal  -22 C, please also note how little snow we had in central Canada as a whole. But tons of it arrived a few months later when it was supposed to be spring. Seeing You did not call me any names this time regard Yourself as included when my daughter Renee said Christmas Greetings to all my friends..after all Manitoba is officially called "friendly Manitoba" on our license plates. From the video You commented on You now know from the GPS co-ordinates with 3 meter accuracy where my front door is, and should You decide to drop by next Christmas that`ld be alright with me & mine. You can if You want do that around February too and visit our Festival des Voyageurs in person...but don`t forget Your parka and warm socks, don`t go by the temps Internet web sites are showing !...check it out how "warm" it was on Christmas 2011...my neighbor Melvin laid out 2 electric blankets so his dog can "sun-bathe" and even installed an electric  heater in the dog house ...well his dog is a wimp and it was his first winter in Canada...Melvin says he got it from relatives in South Dakota.
Last but not least...You & others might find our flood-way system interesting...The Mayor of Fargo was here  and wants one just like it because they flood with  almost every spring melt. Our system goes right up to the border and we could hook them up any time Your Gov. extends the system further South. What You see in the Spring segment I spliced in was just the Assiniboine River, not the Red River which is way bigger...but all that water gets diverted from here to the 2 lakes North of  where I live and when they get too high we dump it down the Nelson River...and when the power-plant basins get a bit too full then we dump it into the Hudson Bay...and that`s when enviro-pavarazzis used to come and film "polar bears waiting for the ice to freeze"...which is back just within 24 hours after we finish the excess water dump....I wrote about that more than once and the next time I visit my relatives in Churchill MB I`l shoot a video for You...what the facts on the ground REALLY ARE...!...You ( or anyone else from here) that knows what common courtesy is, is quite welcome to come along . Long Plain First Nations is a very hospitable place!


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2012)

Yes, I do realize how big Canada is. Drove up to Yellowknife on a lark in the summer of '75. So the weather that may be very mild in one part can be rather daunting in another. 

Now most assume the weather that we get here in the Willimette Valley is typical of Oregon. Not so. The Blue Mountains of Eastern Oregon have some very cold areas. We were at 4000 feet there one winter when we had several nights in a row varying from -30 to -40. And the daytime highs were -20. When I worked for the Forest Service there in the late '60s, we worked out on the Middle Fork two days when the high temp was -30. Ran the drill one day, only got another 18", froze the water up in the hose the the pump. We were drilling to find the depth of bedrock for bridge footing. The next day, since we were going to be off Chrismas week, we moved the drill off the casing, and up to high ground. Good thing, Christmas day, we had a thaw, by New Years the ice on the river had broke up, and there was a stack of four layers of two foot deep ice where the casing had been. 

Yes, I know that the really cold days occur when it is crystal clear. At least that is the way it is in the Blue Mountains. And at times the air is just dead still. There was another house about a mile up the river from us, and when it was like that, and he was chopping wood, it sounded like he was in our front yard.

I hope someday to take another trip, only for many weeks, and cover a bit more of Canada. I really liked the people I met, and had a wonderful time in Yellowknife. Became aquinted with your mosquitoes and deer flies. People in the lower 48 have no idea what a real mosquito is.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 7, 2012)

Thank you for the video. Yes, very cold country. Eastern Oregon does get cold like that in some years, but only for 3 to 6 weeks at the most.

Here is some information on the coldest area of the country that I call home. 

Seneca Oregons Icebox

These are some pictures of my home town in that area;

Prairie City, Oregon (OR 97869) profile: population, maps, real estate, averages, homes, statistics, relocation, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools, crime, moving, houses, news, sex offenders


----------



## polarbear (Oct 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Thank you for the video. Yes, very cold country. Eastern Oregon does get cold like that in some years, but only for 3 to 6 weeks at the most.
> 
> Here is some information on the coldest area of the country that I call home.
> 
> ...


Hey thanks for sharing that. In my off duty time I trucked through Oregon often, and loved it:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4byFeFxFXpw&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=38&feature=plcp"]Oregon Roadfood.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

But for a change of pace, here is something totally un-scientific..
...feel free to laugh, because I used to laughed about it too,.. 40 years ago when I married my (American Indian ) wife. However after a few years I quit laughing...she is no fool !...and neither is the wildlife Indians observe.
It`s the most accurate (short term) climate model I`ve seen so far !

Animal Weather Instinct.wmv - YouTube

By the way, the invite is not a joke


----------



## polarbear (Oct 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Thank you for the video. Yes, very cold country. Eastern Oregon does get cold like that in some years, but only for 3 to 6 weeks at the most.
> 
> Here is some information on the coldest area of the country that I call home.
> 
> ...



Since we can agree to disagree on AGW while remaining civil I am telling You where the best fishing hole is on planet earth:





That bounty is from Lake Hazen
But it`s a long way even from the farthest northern point You have been in Canada...and I was actually quite impressed how far North You have been..But even this place is way way south from my favorite fishing hole..and is the closest civilian airport:





That`s where we always stop over on the way back home to AFB Trenton.
A few days ago I was stripping some old hard drives to salvage the (very powerful magnets) and just before I drilled out the rivets I thought I better check again what`s on there...and I got lucky..because a bunch of pictures which I had lost surfaced from the summer of 2004 at...:














That was a bit too close...so we chased him off with a warning shot...






none of us ever had to kill one and I hope it stays that way. After all that`s his home and we are the intruders. All the animals at the Northern tip of Ellesmere Island fear no man, You can walk right up to them and take close-ups...it`s a photographers paradise:











In the background that`s the grassland around Fort Conger..and that has been so since ages...but let`s leave that aside for now...
Here is a view from Ellesmere Island across the Nares Strait: 





This is a view from CFS Alert looking out at the Lincoln Sea during July 2004...





then 2 weeks later the winds picked up to > 150 kmh and all that ice was out of sight...it happens all the time..I never bothered to look up where July 2004 was on the trend graphs...because I was there in person and way way out there in our Hueys every other day...but again, lets agree to disagree.
I came back here to add one more picture which might help explain my "denial" attitude:





As You can see the Louis St.Laurent had no trouble making it through there all the way to this point...with Google maps You can simply enter these co-ordinates and pin point where that sign is..most of the main stream media does not want to hear about it, but it is in the (Canadian) history books


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 8, 2012)

I have really appreciated your contributions to this thread, PolarBear.  Some good stuff there.

The thing I wish could be discussed seriously and without triggering pages of interminable data posted over and over in lieu of any rational discussion on the whole topic of AGW or global warming in general is an objective and serious look at the probabilities.  As you have already pointed out, the lack of snow in your country is generally due to excessive cold rather than too much warmth, and that addresses at least one misconception.

Your experience also points out the effect of the wind on the ice, something the crab fishermen on the Bering Sea have known for a very long time, but that could definitely affect perceptions of those observing from the shore so to speak.   And also you have provided evidence that backs up other postings of ice conditions, or the lack thereof, posted by other ocean going vessels in the past.  Evidence that some of our friends here really don't want to consider.

The fact is, we have had satellite imaging for 34 years.   And observations and records within that 34 years are hardly likely to be conclusive of any long term trend, and to present it as 'evidence' of long term global warming simply defies all reasonable scientific basis.  Most especially when Anarctica ice coverage for the same period is at the maximum for the satellite image.

And if the theory of some is correct, when we start watching arctic ice advance again and regain the coverage seen in the late 70's, early 80's--the oldest arctic ice is what, five to nine years old?--that would suggest a lot of melting.  Conversely Anarctica ice, land bound or anchored to land, is much less susceptible to erosion by storms and gets very old.  Still some geologists believe as recently as three million years ago, Anarctica was mostly ice free and was forested.

If human are warming the climate, then so be it.  Like all other animals who leave their mark on the Earth, that could be a good thing or a bad thing for the long term.  It is unlikely with the Earth population increasing by millions every year, that we will stop being human engaged in human activities, and will be successful in reversing that.  If we can, we should.  If we can't, we shouldn't give up our liberty, choices, options, and opportunities to the AGW religion, but should be focused on helping everybody adapt to an inevitably changing climate.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Evidence that some of our friends here really don't want to consider.



Given how often we've refuted your awful logic, you ought to understand why we lose patience when you keep telling us we won't look at your awful logic.



> The fact is, we have had satellite imaging for 34 years. And observations and records within that 34 years are hardly likely to be conclusive of any long term trend, and to present it as 'evidence' of long term global warming simply defies all reasonable scientific basis.



We have hundreds of thousands of years of data from sediment cores. That's been pointed out before.

But hey, you might have an anecdote from a ship. Which everyone was already fully aware of. Which just shows the wind had pushed the ice out of the area at that time, not that the whole icecap melted.



> Most especially when Anarctica ice coverage for the same period is at the maximum for the satellite image.



No, less than last year. Antarctic sea ice has been rising at 1%/decade, Arctic sea ice crashing at -15%/decade. It's bizarre to equate the two as somehow similar. Especially since AGW theory predicted both cases ahead of time. According to you, AGW theory being proven right again somehow proves how AGW theory is wrong.



> And if the theory of some is correct, when we start watching arctic ice advance again.



Nobody except cranks are making such a prediction. Those same cranks predicted the arctic ice would advance this year. They were totally wrong. They are always totally wrong, while the AGW scientists keep getting it right. You reject the side which has an excellent history of making successful predictions, and take the side of the group which has a track record of near-perfect failure.



> If human are warming the climate, then so be it.



Terrible logic. Let's try some more examples of it.
"If humans are causing forest fires, so be it. We shouldn't put them out."
"If humans are dumping toxic waste, so be it. We shouldn't put a stop to it."



> Like all other animals who leave their mark on the Earth, that could be a good thing or a bad thing for the long term.



It's a demonstrably bad thing in even the short term, because human civilization grew up around the present climate. There is an ideal climate, the one we've had for the past few thousand years.



> If we can't, we shouldn't give up our liberty, choices, options, and opportunities



Conspiracy nonsense. But please, tell us of these horrible losses of liberty that you face. Be specific.



> AGW religion.



We look at denialists kind of like the way we look at any religious cult, being denialists and cult religions are both based on irrational wishful thinking.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 8, 2012)

polarbear said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for the video. Yes, very cold country. Eastern Oregon does get cold like that in some years, but only for 3 to 6 weeks at the most.
> ...



Thank you, and I mean that. I would love to go north again. But not to be for at least two years. I had planned on retiring last June, but my wife developed some major eye problems, torn retinas, and they are searching for the underlying cause. Going to be a long process. So, since I had already reduced my hours to 40 or 50 hours a week, I applied, and was accepted for re-entry to Portland State University. They even honored 96 prior credits from over 40 years ago. So, at the present rate, I will get a BS in about 2 to 3 years, depending on whether I retire in another year or two years.

So, if we are both up and about, I really would like to take a raincheck on that. 

As mentioned before, my wife of almost 40 years is part Lakota, Hunkpapa, Standing Rock Nation. We have, over the last twenty years visited all the Lakota reservaions, and became aquinted with many of her relitives. Oddly, she was raised a city girl, while I was raised in a very rural area. What you say about the animals ability to sense things we miss is so true. They still exceed any man made protocal for forecasting earthquakes in the short term. 

Fishing. Lordy, that is something I love to do, and something I really love to eat. My wife thought that she did not like fish. About 5 years after we were married, we camped south of Logan valley on edge of the Malhuer canyon. I went down and caught a few Montana Golden trout. Brought them back, and fried them up for her. Not only did she eat hers, she took mine! We had porcapine, antelope, deer, elk, and all kinds of birds in camp, which pleased her much. Until the bear came through. Then we left. Quickly. LOL.

Two years ago, I went back and fished the stretch of the John Day River that we lived on for a couple of years. Nothing more than a large creek that high in the mountains. When we were there, I was 12 through 14 years old. My brother, two years younger, and I constantly fished that little river. Every Friday, mom fried the result, and there was always enough that all eight of us had as much fish as we wanted. My wife had listened to all the stories and finally said, "why don't we go and fish that river?". We had been told that the river had been fished out. So, in an hour, I caught a 12 and 14 inch cutthrought, a 13, 15, and 18 inch dollyvarden, also known as bull trout, although it is really a char. Had to release the bull trout as they are endangered in the John Day. Looks like they are making a good comeback.

When I was working for the Forest Service, there was a herd of buffalo in Silvies Valley. One day we were going to Burns to do some augering to find out why a road kept going away. Saw the herd, and on the far end was the ugliest buffalo, from a distance, that I had ever seen. When we got closer, saw it was a Musk Ox. The fellow I was working with was from Kansas, and had never even heard of such an animal.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 8, 2012)

polarbear said:


> As You can see the Louis St.Laurent had no trouble making it through there all the way to this point...



CCGS Louis St. Laurent is one of the heaviest icebreakers in the world. I don't see how that supports denialism, because heavy icebreakers have always been able to navigate the Nares Straight in August. It would have had a much easier time of it this year.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 8, 2012)

Oh wow, Old Rocks.  You made my mouth water with those trout.  There is nothing quite like a fish pulled from the stream, cleaned, and going right into the pan even before it has been iced down.  Except around here we don't have golden trout but there is plenty of rainbow and cutthroat.

I have always had a passion for the environment, the aesthetic beauty of the Earth and all the creatures on it, and have had a lifelong passion for all manner of extremes of weather and climate.  If you really want to know where I do get my back up though, it is in the unconscionable dumping or inadvertant introduction of heavy metals into the oceans.  That is something that should never be allowed and something we are highly unlikely to find an anecdote for when it occurs.   I want the air clean of all but temporary pollutants; the water pure, the soil uncontaminated.

And I am all for finding ways to accomplish all that while allowing us to be as free as the other creatures.


----------



## polarbear (Oct 9, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Although we have a different opinion about AGW and had on occasion some spats, deep down I knew that You were not exactly how it appeared on the surface. The fact that You decided to re-enroll in a U is highly commendable. Many tears ago I worked in a lab in Winnipeg which was then a shared facility for Environment Canada and the RCMP forensic trace analysis. We had a guy working there, close to retirement age and his job was to wash our glass-ware. Then he become more and more interested in what we were doing...enrolled at the U of Winnipeg and studied Chemistry.
Right at exam-time he had a stroke...and suffered some memory lapses..despite that he went back again took a refresher and got a BSc in Chemistry. It floored all of us, and that`s the spirit I admire. "Ian" was his name and sometimes I wonder if "IanC" in our forum and this Ian is the same guy..nothing is impossible. North America is a huge continent, but shit happens and more often than not it turns out to be a small world.
Strange how many things in Your background and mine are so similar, right down to our spouses..!!! Please do take that rain-check and do bring her along...!!! I just told my wife about it and for all You or I know they might even be related.
@Foxfire
Thanks for Your reply. You touched on a few things that are not easily incorporated in climate modelling. Despite my often acid remarks about these computer models I also realize how difficult that job must be.
There are huge areas, not just in Canada, I`m sure that have their own unique climate. The area from Ellesmere Island, Northern Greenland and through the Nares Strait is such an area. And  @mamoth:


> CCGS Louis St. Laurent is one of the heaviest icebreakers in the world. I  don't see how that supports denialism, because heavy icebreakers have  always been able to navigate the Nares Straight in August


That`s not the only historical marker there, and this was definitely not an ice breaker:






And just before that Admiral Nares after whom the Strait is named. HMS Alert, after which our base at the northernmost tip of Ellesmere is named, because he camped there in 1875. This sign post honors the crew members of HMS Discovery who perished there.
Even today we still find artifacts from this and other expeditions because almost every expedition to the North Pole camped at this spot before venturing out into the Lincoln Sea.





It`s an awesome place. Imagine what it took to venture into this area when they did. It is humbling, when they did, there was no search & rescue or radio communication.
I think it should be compulsory school curriculum to read up also on Lt. Greely:
Adolphus Greely - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> In 1882, Greely sighted a mountain range during a dog sledding exploration to the interior of northern Ellesmere Island and named them the Conger Range. He also sighted the Innuitian Mountains from* Lake Hazen*.


And that`s where these fish were from:






Big deal, we rode there in a Huey and had modern fishing tackle + rods....unlike Greely and his men.





We got a fishing hut on that Lake and in all honesty I confess that what we catch isn`t always worth bragging about:






The other picture  was taken after we returned to our home base just outside our kitchen at CFS Alert.
Yes, sometimes we do get warm winds coming from Siberia during the summer, ...and when that happens it`s a disaster for us:





We have a very short (gravel) runway...it`s not a foot longer than the bare minimum, 











because we had to make the proper gravel aggregate ourselves on location, blasting rock and crushing it to gravel:







So every one of us "chosen frozen" who do our tours of duty up there remember when we have a warm day on Ellesmere Island, because when it warms up shit happens:







And Military engineers are a very closely knit bunch...we may retire, but we do stay in (almost daily) contact what`s going on where we serve or have served with those who are serving there right now:






If there is a warm day at AFB Thule (well Okay their runway is paved)...or at CFS Alert I hear about it within the hour...I`m still  "in the loop" and may even have to go up there again.
Yes 2008 we did have a warm summer, and because of it our Hercs had trouble landing...sounds strange...just like the lack of snow during very cold winters...but now You know why that is so. It`s not just the polar bears that like it frozen, it works out better for us too:






Because then we can land with max-loads and bring the fuel we need (from Thule) for our power plant.
I came back here for a quick edit to add one more picture...regarding the extreme winds that kick up :






That was during "day-time" in the winter and in the back ground You can see the ropes that we string between our buildings. When the winds kick up they are usually at near or at hurricane force and we have to hook our harness to these ropes...else we get swept away like a piece of paper.
Here is a short YouTube sample:...but it`s "only" @ 110 klicks


----------



## IanC (Oct 9, 2012)

OR- if we have at least two recent articles from a known alarmist which state that Antarctic land ice is increasing, does that affect your confidence in the claims of rapidly increasing rates of Antarctic ice melt? I'm not asking you about CAGW just this particular set of data. Would you still wager your life on the accuracy of massive net ice loss?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 10, 2012)

IanC said:


> OR- if we have at least two recent articles from a known alarmist which state that Antarctic land ice is increasing, does that affect your confidence in the claims of rapidly increasing rates of Antarctic ice melt? I'm not asking you about CAGW just this particular set of data. Would you still wager your life on the accuracy of massive net ice loss?



Ian, what are seeing is that a researcher is assessing each set of data that he is getting and seeing differant results. So, I would have to say the jury may be out on the ice losses on continental Antarctica. However, it is not out on the fact that the average temperature for the whole of the continent is warming, with the peninsula experiancing a warming like the much of the Arctic is. 

The GRACE data shows a definate ice loss. However, it is not from melting as the temperatures on the continent are not warm enough to melt the ice. The warmer ocean appears to be making inroads on the grounded ice sheets, and the glacial ice is now moving faster, thus removing ice from the continent. That, at present, is the hypothesis.

Your known "alarmist" is a bit over the top. Our 'alamists' have done an extremely poor job at being alarmists. The Arctic Sea Ice reduction this year is just one example of that. This was not supposed to occur until 2080. If the curve of this reduction continues as at present, the ice will be pretty much gone by 2020. Far too soon, and we have far too little knowledge about what that will mean in terms of weather and climate.

Dr. Jennifer Francis's lecture on ice, Rossby waves, and results, are at the present cutting edge of our knowledge. Note that what she is speaking about is what is already happening, not an extrapolation to decades, or even a decade, in the future. If the ice totally goes for a portion of the summer, I think we will see consequences that we did not anticipate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg]Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 10, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > OR- if we have at least two recent articles from a known alarmist which state that Antarctic land ice is increasing, does that affect your confidence in the claims of rapidly increasing rates of Antarctic ice melt? I'm not asking you about CAGW just this particular set of data. Would you still wager your life on the accuracy of massive net ice loss?
> ...



Rocks, consider your own reasoning here.  When you use phrases like "this was not supposed to occur until 2080", what are you basing that on?  You base it on what has been reported as scientific computer models, yes?   But none of those same computer models have been able to input known conditions from the modern era--i.e. mid 18th century when thermometers were first put into use to present--and produce the existing conditions we have today.   So why do you put faith in their data suggesting what should not occur until 2080?

I really am not a denialist.  But I am deeply suspicious of the motives of those who make their living promoting a specific point of view, and whose living could be in jeopardy if they are 100% honest in promoting a specific point of view.   And I think it is wise to pay attention when their 'scientific computer models' are not supported by observable phenomena reported by people who were there and who have absolutely no motive to describe things other than they are.  And I simply don't find credible those who are sounding the alarm and wringing their hands based on 34 years of satellite imaging.   Reporting it, yes.  That they should do.   Attaching some long range significance to it?  Nope.  That's not the scientific way.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 10, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> But none of those same computer models have been able to input known conditions from the modern era--i.e. mid 18th century when thermometers were first put into use to present--and produce the existing conditions we have today.



Sure they can. The models are darn good at hindcasting. Not being idiots, scientists know a good model has to be able to hindcast in order to be trustworthy for futurecasting.

Remember, the denialist web sites who fed you that bad info are feeding you bum info about everything. Once you understand that, all becomes clear. There's no AGW conspiracy, just a politically-driven conspiracy of pseudoscience to deny AGW.



> I really am not a denialist.



Which is why you should read more info from sources other than denialists.



> But I am deeply suspicious of the motives of those who make their living promoting a specific point of view,



Which is why you should be more suspicious of the denialists.



> and whose living could be in jeopardy if they are 100% honest in promoting a specific point of view.



Which is not AGW scientists, who would get the same pay no matter what they reported. Nobody gets fired or censored for not supporting AGW theory.

Now, if someone could disprove AGW theory, that would make them rich. So that's where the monetary incentive is.


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > But none of those same computer models have been able to input known conditions from the modern era--i.e. mid 18th century when thermometers were first put into use to present--and produce the existing conditions we have today.
> ...








Bullcrap.  No climate model ever developed is capable of hindcasting even ONE DAY.  We don't have to disprove AGW theory.  YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT!  That's how science works silly person.

You generate the hypothesis, gather data, publish results, start over when the data doesn't support your hypothesis.  But wait, AGW "theorists" don't follow the scientific method, they generated a hypothesis, they gathered data...aaaannndd when the data didn't fit with their pre-conceived ideas they _ALTERED_ the data to conform to their computer models.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Only in the twisted psyches of a devout religious fanatic is wholesale falsification of data considered OK.  Even the Catholic Church hasn't sunk that low...and they've sunk pretty low!




"HADCRUT4 &#8211; The Scammers Are Getting Shameless 

Filed under: HADCRUT,HADCRUT4,Mockery &#8212; sunshinehours1 @ 8:57 AM 
Tags: Climate Scam, HADCRUT4



HADCRUT4 is the new Met Office dataset designed to replaced HADCRUT3. Why do they need to replace HADCRUT3?

Because the trend for the last 15 years in HADCRUT3 is negative and therefore it must be exterminated &#8211; like the Medieval Warming Period.

The following graph compares HADCRUT4 to HADCRUT3. (Click for a larger version)

Take note of the following:

1) HADCRUT3 and HADCRUT4 overlaps until about 2002 with minor differences.

2) For some reason, after 2002, there appears to be corrections of .1 to .2C. Why was the data ok in 1997-2002 and suddenly it was so bad it had to be &#8220;corrected&#8221;.

3) What justifies a .2C adjustment up in 2007? Thats 40% higher!

4) Every place a red line is well above the blue they have adjusted up to make the the &#8220;new dataset&#8221;  hotter.

5) HADCRUT3 trend (the dashed line) was negative (-.016C/Decade). HADCRUT4 is positive (.033C/Decade)."



HADCRUT4 &#8211; The Scammers Are Getting Shameless « sunshine hours


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 10, 2012)

Totally laughable that the faithers have no problem with a large percentage of data stations in heat sink areas.  Seems like these "science-based thinkers" would be more critical of the data collection system and data correction schemes.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 10, 2012)

*The models are getting better. Problem is, we are changing the parameters because of feedbacks we do not yet fully understand. *

http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Lee_etal_Prediction.pdf

Evidence of Decadal Climate Prediction Skill Resulting from Changes in
Anthropogenic Forcing

TERRY C. K. LEE

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

FRANCIS W. ZWIERS

Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada, University of Victoria,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

XUEBIN ZHANG

Climate Monitoring and Data Interpretation Division, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada, Downsview,
Ontario, Canada

MIN TSAO

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
(Manuscript received 7 June 2005, in final form 17 February 2006)

ABSTRACT
It is argued that simulations of the twentieth century performed with coupled global climate models with
specified historical changes in external radiative forcing can be interpreted as climate hindcasts. A simple Bayesian method for postprocessing such simulations is described, which produces probabilistic hindcasts of interdecadal temperature changes on large spatial scales. Hindcasts produced for the last two decades of the twentieth century are shown to be skillful. The suggestion that skillful decadal forecasts can be produced on large regional scales by exploiting the response to anthropogenic forcing provides additional evidence that anthropogenic change in the composition of the atmosphere has influenced the climate. In the absence of large negative volcanic forcing on the climate system (which cannot presently be forecast), it is predicted that the global mean temperature for the decade 2000&#8211;09 will lie above the 1970&#8211;99 normal with a probability of 0.94. The global mean temperature anomaly for this decade relative to 1970&#8211;99 is predicted to be 0.35°C with a 5%&#8211;95% confidence range of 0.21°&#8211;0.48°C.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 10, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Naive Predictions of 2013 Sea Ice - Arctic Sea Ice

Naive Predictions of 2013 Sea Ice



These predictions are naive in the sense that they are not based on a physical model, nor other measurements apart from the 30-odd year history of the index in question. Moreover, they are made a year in advance as winter freeze-up is just starting. The predictions are simply If ... Then statements: If trends from the recent past continue ... Then we could expect this much ice next September. Those past trends appear reasonably well characterized by Gompertz curves, fit by nonlinear least squares to the data. Error bands in Figure 1 shade a range plus or minus twice the standard deviation of the residuals (observed variation around the curve).


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 11, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



See, this is what I mean.  You quote and link to a pro-AGW blog.  No information about the credentials or funding of the owners of the blog.  Just more charts and graphs that anybody could produce with a computer and that may or may not mean anything.  But no mention anywhere of the reporting we do have evidence for is that a lot of the diminished Arctic ice this year is due to an Arctic cyclone.   This immediately makes their conclusions suspect.

If you were a 'denier' and went to that site, those kinds of things you would see immediately.  What I look for when I visit any of these site whether pro-AGW or in the skeptic category are 1) the credentials of those managing the website  and 2) who funds them.   If that information is not available, I don't consider either one of them credible.


----------



## westwall (Oct 11, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> *The models are getting better. Problem is, we are changing the parameters because of feedbacks we do not yet fully understand. *
> 
> http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Lee_etal_Prediction.pdf
> 
> ...









The models are still SIGNIFICANTLY less accurate than random guessing.  You call that getting better, I call it ridiculous.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 11, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *The models are getting better. Problem is, we are changing the parameters because of feedbacks we do not yet fully understand. *
> ...



And the fact remains that if it is conclusively shown within the margins of probability that AGW is not an issue and there is nothing that humankind can reasonably do to alter naturally occuring climate change, then mega millions, even billions of government grant funding immediately dries up.   That provides powerful incentive to continue the 'concern' and keep the gravy train rolling along.   In my opinion, it is extremely naive to assume that those receiving big money to study the 'problem' are all exemplary individuals who would not possibly intentionally overlook data that doesn't support there being a a problem.

When the pro-AGW advocates can show me a consensus of climate scientists who do not receive funding specifically to promote AGW who come to the conclusion that AGW is real and is a significant problem for conditions on Earth, then I will become far more skeptical of the skeptics.  Currently almost all who are not paid by pro-AGW advocates are in the skeptic category.

Having a close family member in the oil refining business, I have learned that the oil companies are making out like bandits accommodating green industries.  This family member recently designed and constructed a massive biofuel producing system at the refinery where he works, and that was paid for with a whole lot of our taxpayer dollars.  Those subsidies to those eeeeeeeevul oil companies are going mostly for that purpose, which of course is why they continue.  So the oil companies who are contributing to scientific studies have as much incentive as any to keep AGW theories alive and well.

So, to me, the reasonable scientific position is to keep an open mind but follow the money.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 11, 2012)

NewDocumentary said:


> I implore you all to watch this new Global Warming Documentary FREE:
> 
> www[dot]TheBoyWhoCriedWarming[dot]com
> 
> It is masterfully done and proves that Climate Change is NOT our fault. Great graphics too!



Welcome to USMB NewDocumentary, and we hope you're having a good experience here.  But I have to hold you to the same standard I hold everybody else.  Who funded this video?  What 'proof' does it provide that is more than somebody's opinion?   Who is the "Global Warming Institute" who claims to have put out the video?  If such an organization exists--I have found no evidence that it does--who funds it?   Unless those questions are answered, it can be put into the propaganda class with most of the other stuff of this type.

And I say this as a bonafide AGW skeptic.

Certainly some facts are presented that should be included in the debate, but proof?  Nope.  I'm fraid not.  It doesn't even meet normal academic standards, much less scientific ones.

Here's the video in case anybody is curious:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyEm57NqERA]The Boy Who Cried Warming - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 11, 2012)

While the destruction of the environmental niche of any animal is not a good thing, I am not worried about polar bears. I am worried about the degradement of our living standard, and the outright threat to the survival of people in the third world from a rapidly changing climate. A climate that negatively impacts agricultural in a world containing 7 billion people.


----------



## westwall (Oct 11, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> While the destruction of the environmental niche of any animal is not a good thing, I am not worried about polar bears. I am worried about the degradement of our living standard, and the outright threat to the survival of people in the third world from a rapidly changing climate. A climate that negatively impacts agricultural in a world containing 7 billion people.







There is zero evidence that warmth harms living things(generally speaking).  On the other hand there is AMPLE historical and paleontological data that show warmth is exceptionally good for life.  Take a look at the biologic explosion that occured during the PETM as a most recent example of the benefits to the biosphere of the last time the planet was 8 to 10 degrees warmer than the present day.

On the other hand, cold kills.  Of that there is ZERO doubt.


----------



## Bigfoot (Oct 11, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > While the destruction of the environmental niche of any animal is not a good thing, I am not worried about polar bears. I am worried about the degradement of our living standard, and the outright threat to the survival of people in the third world from a rapidly changing climate. A climate that negatively impacts agricultural in a world containing 7 billion people.
> ...



As smart as he claims to be...why doesn't he know that already? Or is it part of his see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil if it doesn't support my agenda attitude. Never mind, I got it.


----------



## westwall (Oct 11, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






I believe it's called "religious dogma".


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 11, 2012)

AGW Observer

Accelerated thinning of Antarctic glaciers on the coast of the Amundsen Sea

Dynamic thinning of Antarctic glaciers from along-track repeat radar altimetry &#8211; Flament & Rémy (2012)

Abstract: &#8220;Since 2002, the Envisat radar altimeter has measured the elevation of the Antarctic ice sheet with a repeat cycle of 35 days. This long and regular time series is processed using an along-track algorithm to depict in detail the spatial and temporal pattern of elevation change for the whole ice sheet. We use this dataset to examine the spatial and temporal pattern of Pine Island Glacier (PIG) thinning and compare it to the neighbouring glaciers. We also examine additional areas, especially in East Antarctica whose mass balance is poorly known. One advantage of the finer along-track spacing of measurements is that it reveals places of dynamic thinning in regions of rapid ice flow. We observe the acceleration of thinning on PIG. Over the entire basin, the volume loss increased from 7 km3 a-1 during 2002-06 to &#8764;48 km3 a-1 during 2006-10. We also observe accelerated thinning on the lower tens of kilometres of Thwaites Glacier, with a mean thinning of 0.18 m a-1 over its entire basin during our observation period. We confirm the dynamic thinning of Totten Glacier but we do not detect significantly accelerated thinning on any glacier elsewhere than on the coast of the Amundsen Sea.&#8221;

Citation: Flament, Thomas; Rémy, Frédérique, Journal of Glaciology, Volume 58, Number 211, September 2012 , pp. 830-840(11), DOI: ingentaconnect Dynamic thinning of Antarctic glaciers from along-track repeat ra....


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 11, 2012)

AGW Observer

Accelerated thinning of Antarctic glaciers on the coast of the Amundsen Sea

Dynamic thinning of Antarctic glaciers from along-track repeat radar altimetry  Flament & Rémy (2012)

Abstract: Since 2002, the Envisat radar altimeter has measured the elevation of the Antarctic ice sheet with a repeat cycle of 35 days. This long and regular time series is processed using an along-track algorithm to depict in detail the spatial and temporal pattern of elevation change for the whole ice sheet. We use this dataset to examine the spatial and temporal pattern of Pine Island Glacier (PIG) thinning and compare it to the neighbouring glaciers. We also examine additional areas, especially in East Antarctica whose mass balance is poorly known. One advantage of the finer along-track spacing of measurements is that it reveals places of dynamic thinning in regions of rapid ice flow. We observe the acceleration of thinning on PIG. Over the entire basin, the volume loss increased from 7 km3 a-1 during 2002-06 to &#8764;48 km3 a-1 during 2006-10. We also observe accelerated thinning on the lower tens of kilometres of Thwaites Glacier, with a mean thinning of 0.18 m a-1 over its entire basin during our observation period. We confirm the dynamic thinning of Totten Glacier but we do not detect significantly accelerated thinning on any glacier elsewhere than on the coast of the Amundsen Sea.

Citation: Flament, Thomas; Rémy, Frédérique, Journal of Glaciology, Volume 58, Number 211, September 2012 , pp. 830-840(11), DOI: ingentaconnect Dynamic thinning of Antarctic glaciers from along-track repeat ra....


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 11, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > While the destruction of the environmental niche of any animal is not a good thing, I am not worried about polar bears. I am worried about the degradement of our living standard, and the outright threat to the survival of people in the third world from a rapidly changing climate. A climate that negatively impacts agricultural in a world containing 7 billion people.
> ...



Permian-Triassic Extinction Event.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 11, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



It was not heat that caused this, however, but the best scientific theory is that it was mostly massive volanic eruptions that severely depleted oxygen levels, denuded the land, and changed the chemistry of the oceans to the point that the recovery was far slower than in previous global catastrophes.  There is zero evidence that global warming caused the extinctions.

In fact the geological record points to geological eras in which global temperatures were much warmer than now, and animal life and vegetation was thriving just fine.


----------



## westwall (Oct 11, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








Extinction?  Only in your twisted little minds where the loss of a few species of foraminifera in very localised areas is suddenly a "extinction event".  Contrary to your tripe the reality is the PETM saw an explosion of biodiversity so profound that its effects are still seen today.  the majority of large mammals we enjoy in the hear and now arose during the PETM.

But don't let facts deter you from your hysterical religious dogma.  Thinking people on the other hand know better.  Even wiki knows better.



"Contrarily, planktonic foraminifera diversified, and dinoflagellates bloomed. Success was also enjoyed by the mammals, *who radiated profusely* around this time.

The deep-sea extinctions are difficult to explain, as many were regional in extent. General hypotheses such as a temperature-related reduction in oxygen availability, or increased corrosion due to carbonate undersaturated deep waters, are insufficient as explanations. The only factor global in extent was an increase in temperature. Regional extinctions in the North Atlantic can be attributed to increased deep-sea anoxia, which could be due to the slowdown of overturning ocean currents,[12] or the release and rapid oxidation of large amounts of methane.[20][verification needed]



Paleocene


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 11, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Getting senile there, old boy? Permian-Triassic is hardly the same as Paleocene.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 11, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



OK, Foxfyre, perhaps you are ignorant of the evidence concerning what happened during the P-T event.

Methane catastrophe


----------



## westwall (Oct 11, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Ahh you're correct my mistake.  But you're still wrong on the cause, warming is noted but it is by far the least likely cause as it is mentioned at the same time as the glaciation that occured.  Based on well documented effects of warming, cold is the only logical cause of the deaths if it's climate related.  Most likely cause though IMO, is the sudden drop in O2 content.  A 50% drop is severe.



"Many different geologic aspects of the extinction period have been documented recently:
 Salinity in the sea fell sharply during the Permian for the first time, changing oceanic physics to make deep water circulation more difficult.

The atmosphere went from very high oxygen content (30%) to very low (15%) during the Permian.

The evidence shows global warming AND glaciations near the P-Tr.

Extreme erosion of the land suggests that ground cover disappeared.

Dead organic matter from the land flooded the seas, pulling dissolved oxygen from the water and leaving it anoxic at all levels.

A geomagnetic reversal occurred near the P-Tr.

A series of great volcanic eruptions was building up a gigantic body of basalt called the Siberian Traps.





The Permian-Triassic Extinction - Volcanism and the Great Dying


----------



## westwall (Oct 11, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






The only evidence for this theory is computer models.  And we all know (well you don't) how crappy they are.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 11, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You are aware that methane is a major gas emitted in volcanic activity?  Most especailly by mud volanoes?

Can you at least consider that volcanic activity is not caused by global warming?  And that it WAS volanic activity that did most of the damage in this period?


----------



## polarbear (Oct 11, 2012)

I should have titled this video "Man Made Global Heart Warming" because it had that effect on me. It was a CD sent to me as a birthday greeting from
~ 60 of my ex neighbors  in Landsberg Germany where "Green Energy" has been around big time for quite some time.

My "hood" in Landsberg.wmv - YouTube

I think what You`ll see in my hometown Landsberg am Lech Bavaria will be an eye-opener in a non-confrontational sense.
First off  all the houses down the street where I come from are owned by the kind of people that many think the governemnt should tax the living shit  out of them...
Yet as You will see in the video these are  the only houses that have solar panel roofs despite the fact that e-prices in Germany are astronomical.
So astronomical  that  my friend Karl who owns a lot of land just north  of my old stomping ground decided to open  a saw mill, then clear cut his forests to make way for a  huge solar "farm"...he even  extended it where he once had very productive crop growing  farm fields. Karl and I are still good friends, but since then he hasn`t been so popular any more with the rest  of  the people in my home town who used to appreciate the odd deer walking out of these woods and grazing on the front lawns down "Jahnstrasse". Grant You, many of my ex- neighbors aren`t that popular any more either since "re-unification" and overnight half of the German electorate were Communist East Germans who hate free enterprise. Stephan, who is driving  that beautiful Ford Mustang is a Stockbroker  and likes to come over here when there are  vintage cars on auction. He collects them. That "White house" he drives by is just down the road . It was an ex- SS Officer Quarters...in ruins after the War. He bought  and restored it,...just like he likes to restore american vintage cars. Stephan invested a tidy sum in a huge "Wind energy farm" because he loves the tax breaks...which are way more than most of the people can earn who are supposed to feel guilty about the CO2 coming out of  the cars they can afford to buy. My neighbor Siegfried is retired and was the City Chief engineer. He drives Audi, never ever faster than 100 kmH to reduce his CO2 emissions and  loves to restore vintage small engines then  mount them on vintage bicycles. He is totally pro- enviro...  and anti oil...but we all are still the best of friends. Of course he is rooting for Obama in November  and as You can imagine I am not !!! ...and Siegfried knows that, because I am taunting him at least twice every day via e-mail. If I win my bet I`m getting brand new original Bavarian hand made Lederhosen + 2 cases of the best Paulaner beer, shipped air express  which will probably cost about 2 or 3 hundred Euros. "Pinky" in the back seat , also retired was a design engineer at the nearby Dornier plant and  at Daimler Aero-Space, Air bus devision. He loves the fact that we don`t have a speed limit in Germany and cares not about his "Carbon foot print". I guess to teach him a lesson,  Siegfried  sucked him in at the end of the video, betting  that he can "smoke him" any day with his vintage Rex Moped. Siegfried`s house is heated with a huge ground heat exchanger network and he wants to make the lowest Carbon footprint possible. His entire roof south side is solar...but almost every time there is a lightning storm his house gets hit frying out all the electrics in his house...and  after the 6th time he is pretty sure that lightning finds his house so attractive because of  the subterranian heat exchanger. I also noticed on the CD they sent me that despite the super high gasoline prices I could spot only 1 single electric car and that belonged to the caretaker at the "Jahn" football Stadium when Stephan drove that beautiful Mustang  "gas guzzler" towards his house.
I asked my friends in Germany and they do know their own country,...but they tell me these electro cars  simply don`t get any commercial traction, no matter how much Frau Merkel is trying to push them. Outside of Berlin and a few other ex- "commy towns" You simply don`t see any.
My sister Lore is so totally pro- Merkel and anti- Oil. She   hates my guts because I`m pro Oil and anti Al Gore...She hates me so much that  I`m thinking to take up the offer of  one of my friends,...a hot shot lawyer  who lives in the first house (left) in this video...to finally collect the  $ 0.7  Million  she owes me  for that house that we jointly inherited  but never paid me a penny. After that maybe I can buy new solar panels for my house in Long Plain First  Nations after my previous solar panels got totally trashed with golf ball sized hail..!!!
All I`m trying to say is I can understand "green" concerns etc,  but  the politics  that come with it, at least in Europe  caused more damage  than CO2 will ever cause.  It can even rip families apart. My sister Lore is not an exception..!!!!


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 11, 2012)

Yeah our own ChevyVolts aren't getting much market traction either.  The last figure I saw was that every one manufactured is costing the U.S. taxpayer something like $40k and the little buggers are very pricey to buy.  Plus the fossil fuel energy it takes to build one from the inside out is greater than all the emissions savings running one for its expected lifetime.

Some things just make me shake my head and wander off muttering.


----------



## westwall (Oct 11, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...







There are actually TWO statements in the post I made that allude to cold being a prime cause.  I wonder if olfraud can figure out the second one.


----------



## Qantrill (Oct 12, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Too bad most (probably all) of these global warming freaks won't be around when the Yellowstone Caldera erupts again and flattens everything within reach and wreaks total havoc with everything shown on this map of the U.S.






YELLOWSTONE SUPERVOLCANO GETTING READY TO BLOW ITS CORK


----------



## mamooth (Oct 12, 2012)

Why are denialists babbling about volcanoes?

Oh, that's right. They're deflecting again. Move along, nothing new to see.

There's nothing unusual happening in Yellowstone. Get a grip. Little earthquakes swarms come and go. Emphasis on the "go" right now, as they ain't happening. Cherrypicking from a couple years ago, so very impressive.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 12, 2012)

I know this is evil and wrong on my part but I hope that when Yellowstone erupts it's a major fucking eruption and buries a nearby Global Warming Convention


----------



## Qantrill (Oct 12, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I know this is evil and wrong on my part but I hope that when Yellowstone erupts it's a major fucking eruption and buries a nearby Global Warming Convention



It will be "warming heat" like those loony bastards never imagined. It will cook everything in sight for hundreds and hundreds of miles around.


----------



## westwall (Oct 12, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Why are denialists babbling about volcanoes?
> 
> Oh, that's right. They're deflecting again. Move along, nothing new to see.
> 
> There's nothing unusual happening in Yellowstone. Get a grip. Little earthquakes swarms come and go. Emphasis on the "go" right now, as they ain't happening. Cherrypicking from a couple years ago, so very impressive.








What are you denialists denying?  Oh right, you're denying the scientific method in its entirety.

Move along, religious dogma is the only thing alowed.  Move along.  *PERSECUTE THE HERETICS!*


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 13, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Why are denialists babbling about volcanoes?
> 
> Oh, that's right. They're deflecting again. Move along, nothing new to see.
> 
> There's nothing unusual happening in Yellowstone. Get a grip. Little earthquakes swarms come and go. Emphasis on the "go" right now, as they ain't happening. Cherrypicking from a couple years ago, so very impressive.



If you knew anything about science, it is obvious.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 13, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I know this is evil and wrong on my part but I hope that when Yellowstone erupts it's a major fucking eruption and buries a nearby Global Warming Convention




LOL.......actually, a couple of recent AGW conventions here in the US in the past few years took place as a blizzard hit town.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 13, 2012)

Some of the stuff they put out really does stretch all credibility.

Remember the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004) about a global super storm ushering in the next ice age......within days.....?    Setting aside all the real science problems with that movie--it was a pretty good sci-fi flick--it was based on the premise that the Antarctic ice was breaking up and melting to the extent that the oceans were desalinated and that shut down the Gulf Stream and that triggered a new ice age.  About the same time there was much continuing hullabaloo from the AGW promoting scientific community about dire predictions about Antartica and the terrible ramifications as the ice melted due to gloal warming.  This was continuing up through 2010 led by such great scientific minds (cough) as Al Gore who has made himself into a multi-millionaire many times over selling this stuff.

Well now, even the most fanatical AGW proponent has to admit that there is no evidence of global warming in the Antarctic and ice coverage has steadily increased over that entire time based on the satellite record.

So now what are they selling?   They predicted this.  The increased ice coverage over Antartica is caused by global warming as they knew would occur!!!!!   I kid you not.

And the sad thing is, that those who really want their belief in global warming to be validated will believe them, and will just sort of conveniently forget all they said before.


----------



## polarbear (Oct 13, 2012)

The American Dream
I just uploaded a short video and to stay on the "climate subject" I had to rub it in as usual how "warm" it is today where I live. My oldest friend Siegfried in Germany who could easily be "OldRocks" is used to my teasing over the years.
Ameircan Dream Catcher - YouTube

All my dreams have come true. When I was a little kid I closed my eyes and put my finger a couple of times on a globe my dad had on his desk.
It "landed" on the Yukon and Manitoba. Then I wanted to know from my dad "what`s up there" and he explained "The North Pole".
I`m not making this up, but that`s how it was and since then I`ve been and even lived in all these places. Now I`m living out my last few years on Long Plain First Nations which made me part for their tribal family. Just a few days ago I got the best birthday presents (video greetings) from my old friends and this morning some more from a brand new friend from right here in this forum,...the U.S. Message Board,...where I enjoy hanging out almost as much as where I live now.
Especially so since I got a heart-warming e-mail from somebody I argued with before.
It did not take long to realize that we are all human beings who share common values even though we don`t agree in politics and climate computer models. The internet is a great info-& meeting place but it can also dehumanize how we communicate with each other. As far as this forum is concerned that no longer applies in my view, since I`ve read the e-mail I got from one of my fiercest discussion opponents.
It`s not up to me to say who that is but he  is a good example to show how often the internet and reality diverge and former foes can become good friends, even if we have different opinions about a few subjects.But as I said, Long Plain First Nations is just a big family and no matter where You live we make You a part of it .
Not only will we send out greetings to You over www Rez Radio

Rez Radio LIVE

 ...but also tokens of our friendship such as what my daughter is making right now for Siegfried in Landsberg Germany. There is nothing stopping us to do the same right here in this forum yet still have a difference of opinion.
Greetings from Canada
P.S.: although I`m a Clint Eastwood fan  I`m going to change my signature avatar.
Where I live most of our traffic signs have bullet holes, but that was just for target practice. We don`t really shoot anybody..


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 15, 2012)

Not to worry, the "scientists" in charge of the satellites will just recalibrate them to show more melting...


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 15, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Not to worry, the "scientists" in charge of the satellites will just recalibrate them to show more melting...



Fortunately we still have a few--apparently a very few--scientists working with the satellites who are not willing to jury rig the photos. 

But if the arctic ice should start coming back with a vengeance, you can bet that they will introduce the meme that this was to be expected and is a byproduct of global warming.

They will keep milking the gravy train as long and as much as they possibly can.


----------



## depotoo (Oct 15, 2012)

Friday November 4, 2005

Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes brought on by global warming and the resulting climate changes. writes Larry West, About.coms Guide to Environmental Issues.








> According to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), NASA scientist and famous man-made global warming proponent James Hansen's well-known claims that 1998 was measured as the warmest year on record in the U.S. were the result of a serious mathematical error. NASA has now corrected that error, and 1934 is now known as the warmest year on record, with 1921 the third warmest year instead of 2006 as was also previously claimed.
> 
> Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980.
> 
> And perhaps most devastating of all to the man-made global warming backers, it is now admitted that six of the 10 hottest years on record occurred when only 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the last century were in the atmosphere.





> 1) At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.
> 
> 2) The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.  Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
> 
> ...


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 15, 2012)

Thanks depotoo, but the AGW proponents will request links for the quoted sections you posted.


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 15, 2012)

He must be so pissed we're not dead yet...

...is it warm in here?


----------



## depotoo (Oct 15, 2012)

Environmentalist's Wild Predictions
The CIA&#8217;s &#8216;global cooling&#8217; files » The Spectator
Another take on the history of Earth Day - Times-Standard Online
Kenneth Watt, Professor Emeritus, UC Davis | ZoomInfo.com
In eight years, quoth the prince - Washington Times
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
BBC NEWS | UK | PM warns of climate 'catastrophe'
A little known 20 40 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen &#8211; that failed will likely fail badly | Watts Up With That?
Global warming 'past the point of no return' - Science - News - The Independent
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.


----------



## Qantrill (Oct 15, 2012)

I love how these sky-is-falling global warming freaks, throw up all this "scientific data" (read that bullshit) trying to look all impressive and convincing and scare the living crap out of each other. Then depotoo throws up those FACTS about GW predictions and how wrong they've been so far and...get ready for Rolling Blunder and Old Rocks to return with a vengeance.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 18, 2012)

Is anybody following this new British study, funded by the U.K. government, that concludes that there has been zero global warming for the last 16 years?  Trying to find good information from reliable sources is like pulling teeth, but I'm going to keep digging.  Certainly the warmers and MSM are trying to squelch this story.  A few have said 16 years is too short a time to draw any conclusions, though they certainly have broadly advertised any seasonal anomallys that suggest increased global heat.

Global-Warming Hysteria Setback - By Wesley J. Smith - The Corner - National Review Online


----------



## westwall (Oct 18, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Is anybody following this new British study, funded by the U.K. government, that concludes that there has been zero global warming for the last 16 years?  Trying to find good information from reliable sources is like pulling teeth, but I'm going to keep digging.  Certainly the warmers and MSM are trying to squelch this story.  A few have said 16 years is too short a time to draw any conclusions, though they certainly have broadly advertised any seasonal anomallys that suggest increased global heat.
> 
> Global-Warming Hysteria Setback - By Wesley J. Smith - The Corner - National Review Online








I'm trying to get the study now.  It is difficult just paying for the study!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 18, 2012)

If the AGW Cult was active in the 1930's they would have said that Arctic would be totally ice free by 1940, 1945 tops


----------



## mamooth (Oct 18, 2012)

Cherry picking fallacy. Those of us capable of logical thinking -- that is, not the denialists -- spotted it immediately.

Now, let's go over Depotee's graph, as I love to watch denialists sputter. Why is Depotee's graph so dishonest? Because Hansen put out 3 scenarios, A-B-C. "A" was the worst case CO2 emissions case, "B" the middle, "C" the least. Since James Hansen does not control how much CO2 humans emit, he had to model the different possibilities.

An honest person would have seen how much CO2 was emitted and compared actual temps to the Hansen model for that case. The actual emissions were very close to "B". Depotee's liar source chose to use "A" instead, the much higher emissions case. Extremely dishonest of him.






So, the points:

1. Hansen's 1988 prediction was a little above the actual warming, but still pretty good. Still, one wonders why they focus so much on a 1988 prediction, since no one else does. We're not using a Macintosh SE with 4mb ram any longer. Models get better. Everyone has known for many years that one was a little high, which why no one uses that 24-year-old model any more.

2. None of the denialists could be bothered to do any independent research, such good little herdbeasts as they are. Me, first thing I do is independent research, which is why I'm not a denialist. They saw something that confirmed what they wanted to believe, so they instantly believed, declared it an absolute fact in their own mind, and saw no need to ever check out any other data.

3. Depotee's source is a liar, who deliberately tried to mislead by saying Hansen should have matched "A" instead of "B". And none of the denialists will call out that source for lying. He lied for their cause, therefore they love him and his lie. If any of them would like to prove me wrong, simply call out Larry West (the source) for lying, or Patrick Michaels, who lied to congress the same way.

(Bueller? Bueller? <crickets chirping>. No, I didn't expect any of them to break away from their herd by acting honesty. Herd identity is everything to a denialist.)


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 18, 2012)

Ahhh.. Quick glance says the "B" scenario is up to 0.28deg C wrong for the current years. And with the actual trend line being 0.19degC/dec that makes Hansen nearly 1.5 decades wrong... Pretty piss poor when your only forecasting over 2 decades.. 

Just because you can draw lines thru it -- don't mean it's useful... Hansen bet the farm that the rate would increase by 30% or so --- and it didn't.. In fact one would have to conclude that NO secondary feedbacks are obvious and none of that awful stuff is more likely now than was in 1988... 

Besides --- You see anything to PANIC ABOUT in those plots?????


----------



## westwall (Oct 18, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Cherry picking fallacy. Those of us capable of logical thinking -- that is, not the denialists -- spotted it immediately.
> 
> Now, let's go over Depotee's graph, as I love to watch denialists sputter. Why is Depotee's graph so dishonest? Because Hansen put out 3 scenarios, A-B-C. "A" was the worst case CO2 emissions case, "B" the middle, "C" the least. Since James Hansen does not control how much CO2 humans emit, he had to model the different possibilities.
> 
> ...








Only in the mind of a science denying AGW cultist could a 100% error be considered "good".


----------



## IanC (Oct 18, 2012)

arctic ice is reforming at unprecedented rates. is that good news?


----------



## mamooth (Oct 18, 2012)

It's called "winter arriving at the north pole". It's neither good or bad news. It's what's expected. When there are record amounts of open water, there will be record amounts of refreeze. Is there some denialist blog which is being stupid enough to push "record refreeze" as something unexpected?

Of course, it refreezes into thin first-year ice. Each winter, the ice refreezes in _area_ back to near normal levels, but _volume_ is lower each year. The summer comes, the new thin ice melts fast, and we see a new record low area in summer.

So, the poles will always refreeze in the winter. It's at peak melt, in September, that we'll soon start seeing an ice-free north pole, and then an arctic ocean almost totally ice-free in high summer.


----------



## Qantrill (Oct 18, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> While the destruction of the environmental niche of any animal is not a good thing, I am not worried about polar bears. I am worried about the degradement of our living standard, and the outright threat to the survival of people in the third world from a rapidly changing climate. A climate that negatively impacts agricultural in a *world containing 7 billion people.*



The weather won't be NEAR the problem that overpopulation of "3rd world" countries will be. But the United States is on the verge of becoming a second world nation...traveling the route to third world status. And an overabundance of either heat or freezing temperatures will have NOTHING to do with it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 18, 2012)

Qantrill said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > While the destruction of the environmental niche of any animal is not a good thing, I am not worried about polar bears. I am worried about the degradement of our living standard, and the outright threat to the survival of people in the third world from a rapidly changing climate. A climate that negatively impacts agricultural in a *world containing 7 billion people.*
> ...



That is true.  Climate change one way or another won't have anything to do with it; however unwise homage paid to the global warming 'gods' and the nations who wish to assume that role could certainly hasten that reality.


----------



## theHawk (Oct 19, 2012)

What did the polar caps look like 10,000 years ago?


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 19, 2012)

IanC said:


> arctic ice is reforming at unprecedented rates. is that good news?



But Ian, didn't you get the memo?

Arctic ice reforming at an unprecedented rate is due to global warming.
Arctic ice reforming at a slower than usual rate is due to global warming.
Decreased ice cover at either pole is due to global warming.
Increased ice cover at either pole is due to global warming.
An increase in ocean levels is due to global warming.
A decrease in ocean levels is due to global warming.
Increased rainfall/snowfall is due to global warming.
Decreased rainfall/snowfall is due to global warming.
A higher than normal year of hurricanes is evidence of global warming.
Lack of hurricanes is evidence of global warming.
Computer models that show global warming are to be taken seriously.
Computer models that do not show global warming are not to be taken seriously.
34 years of satellite imaging is sufficient to show that dangerous global warming is happening.
34 years of satellite imaging is insufficient to show that dangerous global warming isn't happening.
And restricting a whole lot of human technology and activity will fix it.

Now you study that and we'll give you a new test tomorrow.


----------



## Dante (Oct 19, 2012)

westwall said:


> Weeeeeeeeeellllllll, maybe not.  Seems that NASA has a new video that shows the sea ice breakup was actually do to a storm....whoops.   Looks like it wasn't due to warming after all.
> 
> Doesn't it just suck when science prooves you wrong...yet again?
> 
> ...



And from this one video, posted by NASA you conclude NASA is correct or incorrect in it's statements on the climate and ice melt?


[youtube]t7T7beACtQs[/youtube]


----------



## Dante (Oct 19, 2012)

psst, profit to be made. Let's get the shock troops, you know..the gullible and malleable conservative base all riled up over the cost of climate science

http://science.time.com/2012/09/11/arctic-sea-ice-vanishes-and-the-oil-rigs-move-in/


----------



## westwall (Oct 19, 2012)

Dante said:


> psst, profit to be made. Let's get the shock troops, you know..the gullible and malleable conservative base all riled up over the cost of climate science
> 
> As Arctic Sea Ice Melts Thanks to Climate Change, Drilling for Oil | Science and Space | TIME.com


----------



## mamooth (Oct 19, 2012)

Acceptance of AGW theory up to 70% in USA.

Americans&#8217; Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in September 2012 | *Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

Ruh-roh. The USA is the last bastion of denialist idiocy, but denialist propaganda isn't even working in the USA any longer. No wonder they're in such a panic.

(And I see Westwall still doesn't know what a "lead" is. That level of ignorance is required to sustain denailism. I mean, he actually thinks a crack in the ice is equivalent to all the ice melting.)


----------



## IanC (Oct 20, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Acceptance of AGW theory up to 70% in USA.
> 
> Americans Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in September 2012 | *Yale Project on Climate Change Communication
> 
> ...



ya know mamooth, that 'poll' would be a lot easier to believe if it had been done by a professional polling company rather than university project with a known agenda.

I dont know how many people here actually keep up with climate wars news, but there has been a rather interesting case developing over the last few months. an australian professor published a paper based on 'polls' that showed that 'deniers' were kooks who didnt believe in AGW because the moon landing was faked. of course the skeptical side pointed out all of his numerous errors, in poll design and statistics, etc. what really caught my eye was the ease in which Lewandowsky was able to switch the focus of his paper once the original project was passed by the ethics committee. 

"NASA faked the moon landing  Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science" by Lewandowsky et al is the name of the paper if anyone wants to google the paper or the stories about it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 20, 2012)

And I am still perplexed why the AGW proponents are so anxious and eager to believe?  Wouldn't those who want people to be more free, to have more choices, to have more opportunities, to have more options--wouldn't those who wanted that for themselves--be eager to see data that gave some hope and encouragement that maybe the scary AGW scenarios weren't so scary?  Why are they so opposed to looking at both sides being presented?


----------



## westwall (Oct 20, 2012)

mamooth said:


> Acceptance of AGW theory up to 70% in USA.
> 
> Americans&#8217; Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in September 2012 | *Yale Project on Climate Change Communication
> 
> ...







Um, yeah, a survey based on the responses from 1061 Americans is_ soooo_ compelling.  Only 400 had a college degree so that limits the scientific acumen as well.

All in all a pretty poor excuse for a survey.  And yes I do indeed know what a lead is, show us a lead at the north pole today silly person.  Show us a lead anywhere at the supposedly lowest sea ice level evah! where you could have a sub pop to the surface like occured back in 87.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 20, 2012)

Oh, and AGW is absolute total bullshit

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-old-redwood-chunk-found-in-diamond-mine.html


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 20, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Oh, and AGW is absolute total bullshit
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-old-redwood-chunk-found-in-diamond-mine.html



That I honestly don't know.  I think the objective scientific consensus is that the Earth does, in fits and starts but steadily overall, warm continuously after each ice age until it reaches an optimum peak at which time we begin the process of entering a new ice age.  So it is not only possible, but probable that the Earth is warming unless we have hit the maximum.

But we also have scientific evidence of times when the CO2 levels were much higher but the Earth was cooler than now; and we have scientific evidence when the Earth was much warmer than now.

So the argument now is whether we humans have anything at all to do with it, and, if we do, can we realistically change that?   And of course, if the evidence shows that we humans are pretty insignificant in the overall big picture re climate change, then I sure as heck don't want to hand over my freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities to governing powers who likely won't treat them in any way that I will like.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 20, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and AGW is absolute total bullshit
> ...



The AGW God is dead


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 20, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Well don't look now, but for some of our friends here, he doesn't know that and doesn't have the good sense to lay down.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 21, 2012)

polarbear said:


> The American Dream
> I just uploaded a short video and to stay on the "climate subject" I had to rub it in as usual how "warm" it is today where I live. My oldest friend Siegfried in Germany who could easily be "OldRocks" is used to my teasing over the years.
> Ameircan Dream Catcher - YouTube
> 
> ...



Thank you for your video from Germany. That country looks much like the Willemette Valley. 1200 years old. My, here in the Pacific Northwest, any place with a white history of over 150 years is considered old. However, there are Clovis artifacts found in the Steens Mountain area. So often we think here of history beginning with the coming of the European Americans. In fact, the Chinook culture had a trading route that ran from the Prince of Wales island to Baja California. Because of measles, less than 1 in 10 of these people were here when the settlers started arriving in the wagon trains.

I have been researching the Canadian Dakota on the net, and found some of the history of the Dakota wars in 1861. It was very informative of hearing it from the Dakota side, as my maternal family, on my grandmothers side, Dutch, all the way back to New Amsterdam, had a family member that served in the Union Army during that war. He was shot twice in a skirmish, and spent a couple of years recovering. Then emigrated to the Oregon Territory, and settled in the Prosser area of Washington State. Oral history in the family has him stating that were he in the Indians shoes, he would have gone to war with the whites.

Looked up Portage on the map. Much further south than I thought. Not that far from North Dakota. Looked it up on Google Earth, also. What rich farming land! And there is an odd linement that extends from north Manitoba all the way down to Nebraska. Going to have to research that. 

Just finished my first mid-term. Now finishing the next two weeks homework, as we are going into a week long shutdown, so I will have no time for homework for at least a week.


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > The American Dream
> ...







There are some excellent books out that cover the native American side of the battle.  Below is a list of some I found most useful.

Inkpadutaakota Leader by Paul Beck.
Crazy Horse a Lakota Life by Bray
Life and Adventures of Frank Grouard by DeBarthe
Indian Hero's and Great Cheiftains by Eastman
The Sacred Pipe;Black Elks Account of then i forget the rest, by Brown.
There's also an account of the actions of Moving Robe Woman that is good but I can't remember its name or author.


----------



## Foxfyre (Oct 22, 2012)

Moving Robe Woman I belief was Sioux and was in the Montana/Wyoming territory.  Legend has it that it was she who actually killed Custer, though most historians think that highly unlikely.


----------



## westwall (Oct 22, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Moving Robe Woman I belief was Sioux and was in the Montana/Wyoming territory.  Legend has it that it was she who actually killed Custer, though most historians think that highly unlikely.







The account I read claimed she only killed one soldier.  I can't remember his name but he was a black soldier if my memory serves.  And yes, she was Hunkpapa.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 22, 2012)

This was a differant war than the one you are refering to. That was in 1876, on the plains. The Dakota war was in 1861, in Minnisota. The Sioux were originally from Minnesota.


----------

