# Arctic sea ice BACK to Normal!



## ScienceRocks (Mar 31, 2012)

Nearly back to Normal! http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stdev_timeseries.png


----------



## Douger (Mar 31, 2012)

How about the glaciers in Chile (the country, not the pepper) ?


----------



## code1211 (Mar 31, 2012)

Hmmmmm...

Shouldn't there already be a post with the link to the research of Svante Arrhenius in this thread?

Oh Hell!

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

In 1896 Svante Arrhenius calculated the effect of a doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide to be an increase in surface temperatures of 5-6 degrees Celsius.

You are obviously mistaken.  When confronted by a departure of reality from model, we know that we are to ignore reality and stick with the models.

Don't you know anything about science?


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 31, 2012)

Been posting this up lots lately on the POLICTICS forum and here.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 31, 2012)

lmao........the k00ks are staying well clear of this thread!!!


----------



## daveman (Apr 1, 2012)

But...but...cute little polar bears are dying!

Please -- won't somebody think of the polar bears?!


----------



## rdean (Apr 1, 2012)

Matthew said:


> Nearly back to Normal! http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stdev_timeseries.png



Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

On March 18, 2012, Arctic sea ice extent reached its annual maximum extent, marking the beginning of the melt season for Northern Hemisphere sea ice. *This year&#8217;s maximum extent was the ninth lowest in the satellite record.*

Fucking tard.  This was from the link where you got your picture.  Do you know how to read?  Did you think we wouldn't look?  Dumbass.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 1, 2012)

rdean said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Nearly back to Normal! http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stdev_timeseries.png
> ...



*A Lot better *then you! I've spent the last 20 years watching Meterology and other things to do with our planet. Seriously as I've spent my life on those boards...Of course I can read the maps. I also understand the context!. Theres a big difference in the *regimes* between the 1990's and early 2000's and the sprial from hell post 2005...We're now back to the 1990's to early 2000's. Big difference...The last few years have been so utterly close that getting 9th isn't hard with the short period of records.

This is a pretty big deal as this ice will now start to reinforce its self. The death sprial very likely has stopped.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 1, 2012)

rdean said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Nearly back to Normal! http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stdev_timeseries.png
> ...





I know that only 6% of scientists are Republicans.

Every time I read one of your posts I wonder what % of Democrats are rude, inconsiderate ignoramuses with no concept of rational thought or courteous discourse.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2012)

This is a good recovery of sea ice extant this year. Unfortunately, it is only single year ice. This extent of the ice melt this summer will determine if we have actually seen any recovery of ice. But even this little is a good thing. 

We will see what the melt is this summer, and what the clathrates do off the East Siberian Artic Shelf. We need a low melt, and a much lower outgassing than last year. We get a high melt, and an increase in that outgassing, then this winters freeze simply was an anolomy from a double La Nina.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Hmmmmm...
> 
> Shouldn't there already be a post with the link to the research of Svante Arrhenius in this thread?
> 
> ...



Obviously you do not.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 1, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmmmm...
> ...




Well, CO2 is almost doubled since the year 0 and the increase in the climate's temp has risen by 0.7 degrees.  What has happened to the 5-6 degrees Celcius?

Am I to believe the actual data or the models?


----------



## waltky (Apr 1, 2012)

Dat's good to know...

... possum was `fraid it would all melt...

... an' den Santa Claus would drown inna ocean.


----------



## daveman (Apr 1, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


In case of a discrepancy between reality and the models -- reality is wrong.

Right, Roxy?


----------



## rdean (Apr 1, 2012)

code1211 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Just the fact you list "liberal logic" and then write some zany nonsense only a fool would believe proves you are both a dumbass and a tard.  Too stupid to even know it's YOU who's rude.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 1, 2012)

rdean said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...





Do you deny that Liberals today assert that the price of gas is beyond the control or influence of any human being and also assert that the climate is a system that is both understood and can me controlled by Man?


----------



## MaryL (Apr 1, 2012)

That is wonderful that Artic Ice is "normal".   With all do respect:  from a layperson's point of view, I find this information a bit...questionable. But, I am glad to hear it's "NORMAL" somewere. It has been  75 to 80  degrees and bone dry in  the midwest for months. This IS the very definition of "Global Warming". Color me a tad sceptical.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Hmmmmm...
> 
> Shouldn't there already be a post with the link to the research of Svante Arrhenius in this thread?
> 
> ...



Yes, in 1896, Arrhenius made that prediciton with the understanding of the science of that time. Now we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% and the average temperature by 0.7 C. 

We have also put a lot of aerosols into the atmosphere, which helps cool things a bit. And the modern estimate for the doubling of CO2 is more like 3 C. Which you would have known had you read the whole article. But that is written by real scientists and they don't work for large energy corps that do not want to be held accountable for what their activities are causing. 

Interestingly, while the temps have not gone up as fast as the models predicted, the affect have been far greater than anyone's models for this temperature increase. From the melting of glaciers, continental ice caps, and Arctic sea ice, all have exceeded even the alarmists predictions.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 1, 2012)

MaryL said:


> That is wonderful that Artic Ice is "normal".   With all do respect:  from a layperson's point of view, I find this information a bit...questionable. But, I am glad to hear it's "NORMAL" somewere. It has been  75 to 80  degrees and bone dry in  the midwest for months. This IS the very definition of "Global Warming". Color me a tad sceptical.



The present large, as compared to the last few years, freezeup is there. But it is only single year ice, and it will have to survive the summer, and add a couple more years of like temperatures before the Arctic Sea Ice Pack is anything like normal.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 1, 2012)

Seems like an accurate model would have foreseen this...


----------



## rdean (Apr 1, 2012)

code1211 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



No, you fucking idiot.  The climate can be made worse by man.  Look at that rotten cesspool you live in.  Would it be there without you making it?  But it can't be "controlled", only "influenced".

The price of gas is controlled by the "world market".  If we could control it, when why don't we?  After all, gas is our number one export.  We have so much gas, it's our number one export.  Did you even know that?

How can you argue a point, when you start off with delusions, made up bullshit and a lack of understanding ANYTHING?  Explain that!


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 2, 2012)

Far left guys..........amazing ability to just ferret out info that doesnt conform to the belief system.

All should consider working for ServePro........."like it never even happened!!"


----------



## Two Thumbs (Apr 2, 2012)

Matthew said:


> Nearly back to Normal! http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stdev_timeseries.png



So you're saying that CA won't become a swamp?



this is horrible, horrible news.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 2, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> This is a good recovery of sea ice extant this year. Unfortunately, it is only single year ice. This extent of the ice melt this summer will determine if we have actually seen any recovery of ice. But even this little is a good thing.
> 
> We will see what the melt is this summer, and what the clathrates do off the East Siberian Artic Shelf. We need a low melt, and a much lower outgassing than last year. We get a high melt, and an increase in that outgassing, then this winters freeze simply was an anolomy from a double La Nina.



We're still waiting for:

1. A repeatable lab experiment that show how a .01% change in atmospheric composition by adding a homeopathic amount of CO2 does ANY of the things you suggest, and

2. A coherent explanation as to how CO2 is both decreasing in the "warming" oceans in a "Feedback Loop" and increasing in the oceans turning them "Acidic" because the two concepts are mutually exclusive.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 2, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > That is wonderful that Artic Ice is "normal".   With all do respect:  from a layperson's point of view, I find this information a bit...questionable. But, I am glad to hear it's "NORMAL" somewere. It has been  75 to 80  degrees and bone dry in  the midwest for months. This IS the very definition of "Global Warming". Color me a tad sceptical.
> ...



What the fuck is "Normal"?

We live on a planet spinning in space and our main sources of heat is a pile of plasma, how do you define "Normal" so tightly under those conditions?


----------



## code1211 (Apr 2, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmmmm...
> ...






I know, I know...

All of the iced is melting and the sea level rate of rise has increased from 2mm/year to 3mm/year.

The problem with this is that the previous rate of 2 mm/year wasn't happening.   The shorelines are all exactly where they were and the ocean levels that you say have risen dramatically as measured by satellites are actually further away from land marks like the boat houses of Herculaneum where hundreds perished 2000 years ago.

Both their refuge and their skeletons are buried under the ash, but are still well away from the shore line.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 2, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > That is wonderful that Artic Ice is "normal".   With all do respect:  from a layperson's point of view, I find this information a bit...questionable. But, I am glad to hear it's "NORMAL" somewere. It has been  75 to 80  degrees and bone dry in  the midwest for months. This IS the very definition of "Global Warming". Color me a tad sceptical.
> ...





But all of the most recent years show recovery, not just this year.  Since 2006-7, all of the Ice extent measures are up and all have been in the range of standard deviation.

The trouble with facts, that is, facts before Dr. Hansen replaces them with more preferred facts, is that they are so factual.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 2, 2012)

rdean said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...






Seem to have touched a nerve.

I was only quoting the Liberals in our political system who say that we can control the climate and have no influence whatsoever on the price of Gas.

Let's see...  Which Liberal was it who said that...  Oh, i know!  It was the Big 0, your Messiah.

I would have thought you'd have recognized the words of the man who is making the sea level drop.

What a guy!


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...




Really, Code, do you expect to tell a lie like that and get away with it? 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

One can easily see from the graph that the last five years have all been low. Low on bottom, low on top.

1979, high point over 15 million square miles, since 2005, max extent has been under 14 million every year.

1979, low point over 5 million square miles, 2007, and 2011 under 3 million square miles. All years since 2007 have been under 3.5 million square miles. 

We are at about this years high point and still under 14 million square miles.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 2, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



And?

What's the point of that graph?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So what happened to your "Wider and wider swings" Theory?  Where are they in the chart?


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 3, 2012)

Has anyone truly established what normal is for Arctic ice?  Man's history is rather short.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 3, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Has anyone truly established what normal is for Arctic ice?  Man's history is rather short.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 3, 2012)

I'm going to need a large ice scraper.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 3, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Has anyone truly established what normal is for Arctic ice?  Man's history is rather short.



Normal is everything that happened before the publication of the peer reviewed "Earth in the Balance"


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 3, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Since you had to ask, you wouldn't be capable of understanding the answer.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 3, 2012)

The point of the graph seems to be that the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice has been relatively stable since 1979.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Let me guess, prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine, there was never any variation in the graph, right?

Also, where's that one repeatable experiment that shows us how a .01% change in atmospheric composition by adding a wisp of CO2 causes "Global Warming"

You're such a fucking lying scumbag --and an idiot to boot and you insult me?

LOL


----------



## code1211 (Apr 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





So, to be clear, I read the graph and reported exactly what it said and you have reviewed it and have called the accurate reporting of the fact that all of the years since 2006-7 show more ice than that winter is not the truth?

Cue the circus music.


----------



## westwall (Apr 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> This is a good recovery of sea ice extant this year. Unfortunately, it is only single year ice. This extent of the ice melt this summer will determine if we have actually seen any recovery of ice. But even this little is a good thing.
> 
> We will see what the melt is this summer, and what the clathrates do off the East Siberian Artic Shelf. We need a low melt, and a much lower outgassing than last year. We get a high melt, and an increase in that outgassing, then this winters freeze simply was an anolomy from a double La Nina.








Geee, I wonder what it was like way back in 1959????  Why, looky here!  Here is a recollection from a sailor on the USS Skate which surfaced at the North Pole on multiple occasions from 1958 to 1959.



the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet.

- Hester, James E., Personal email communication, December 2000"


NASA and multi-year Arctic ice and historical context | .....Aaron's EnvironMental Corner.....


----------



## westwall (Apr 3, 2012)

MaryL said:


> That is wonderful that Artic Ice is "normal".   With all do respect:  from a layperson's point of view, I find this information a bit...questionable. But, I am glad to hear it's "NORMAL" somewere. It has been  75 to 80  degrees and bone dry in  the midwest for months. This IS the very definition of "Global Warming". Color me a tad sceptical.







And Europe has been gripped in record breaking cold.  You are ceertainly correct to be sceptical, but please look at the whole planet, not just your little corner of it.


----------



## sparky (Apr 3, 2012)

you do realize global warming is a grand misnomer, don't you?  ~S~


----------



## code1211 (Apr 3, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > This is a good recovery of sea ice extant this year. Unfortunately, it is only single year ice. This extent of the ice melt this summer will determine if we have actually seen any recovery of ice. But even this little is a good thing.
> ...





Actual eye witness reports as opposed to fear mongered denial of reality?

This can't stand.


----------



## sparky (Apr 3, 2012)

It does if one has an agenda.....~S~


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmmmm...
> ...


I thought cons didn't believe in science.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

Matthew said:


> Nearly back to Normal! http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stdev_timeseries.png



How is that back to normal?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

code1211 said:


> When confronted by a departure of reality from model, we know that we are to ignore reality and stick with the models.
> 
> Don't you know anything about science?



Science works in the opposite way. The models we have now Arrhenius could not have eben conceived of.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

code1211 said:


> I know that only 6% of scientists are Republicans.



That's as surprising as the fact that 0% of Jews are Catholics.

Why would someone who distrusts science and whose number one pursuit in life is making money want to become a scientist? Its not the road to riches.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



You shouldn't be using 100+ year old analytic toy models when more recent ones are available, no. That's just plain fucking stupid


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...








I believe he WAS talking about the current models.  They are remarkable only for their colossal lack of accuracy.


----------



## daveman (Apr 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > When confronted by a departure of reality from model, we know that we are to ignore reality and stick with the models.
> ...


Climate science works that way.

Real science doesn't.


----------



## daveman (Apr 4, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...


On the contrary:  They fit the leftist agenda 100% of the time.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2012)

daveman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Dumb fuck. The cryosphere does not respond to anyones political agenda. It responds to the physical laws that control our universe. Laws that you people continue to deny.

The models have done reasonably well on the temperatures, but have failed completely on the results of those temperature increases. The results have been far more serious than even the worst of the 'alarmist' predictions.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home


----------



## IanC (Apr 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





too bad the cryosphere and the rest of the planet arent complying with your CAGW predictions. how many times do you guys have to be wrong before you recognise that you arent 'the smartest guy in the room'? and your moral high ground seems to be in a bad neighbourhood too.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Where are those "Wider and wider swings" in the graph?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 4, 2012)

IanC said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...








Ahhh, Spin the Wheel of Climate Change, you buzzkill


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 4, 2012)

Oh noes carbon dioxide!  Oh noes methane!  Oh noes humans!

Never mind water vapor and natural cycles.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Oh noes carbon dioxide!  Oh noes methane!  Oh noes humans!
> 
> Never mind water vapor and natural cycles.



Wow. Water vapor and natural cycles. You've just discovered something that scientists had no idea even existed. Please, publish your findings! I'll help you write the abstract:



Water vapour and natural cycles. natural. hockeysticks al gore. agw stupid, plants crave electrolytes.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 4, 2012)

waltky said:


> Dat's good to know...
> 
> ... possum was `fraid it would all melt...
> 
> ... an' den Santa Claus would drown inna ocean.


And what would we do with all that Gin left over with no ice?


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








  The models havn't come close on ANYTHING you boob.  And what catastrophic effects?  The world is humming along just fine.  Your religion is failing, but the world is doing fine.  So sad for you.


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Oh noes carbon dioxide!  Oh noes methane!  Oh noes humans!
> ...








Your scientists sure as hell don't.  Funny how it is we sceptics who have been claiming all along that this is natural variability and only now after three decades of abject failure you clowns begin to attempt to claim you were all about cycles all along.

What utterly worthless individuals you all are.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 4, 2012)

...wider and wider swings????

really???

Where are they?


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 4, 2012)

Faithers won't be happy until NYC is under three feet of water (ice whatever).

Everybody flush at once.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Yes, of course. Climate scientists had no clue that natural climate cycles existed. This is why this new discovery must be published immediately!


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







Oh no.  I'll grant you they_ knew_ of them.  They just chose to IGNORE them in their pursuit of wealth and power.

You are very poor at this.  I suggest you stick with astrophysics.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



yes.On the road to becoming hundred thousandaires, the world's elite climate scientists and graduate students, living in the lap of luxury, ignored something that only smart people like you can figure out.



> You are very poor at this.  I suggest you stick with astrophysics.



Poor at what?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


_
Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming
_
Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming


_
Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability_
Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability : Abstract : Nature
Letters to Nature


_
Signature of recent climate change in frequencies of natural atmospheric circulation regimes_
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6730/full/398799a0.html?free=2


Shall I continue?*

I'm guessing your definition of "ignore" isn't the same one everyone else uses.*


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...








Hundred thousandaires?   I suggest you look at the $900,000 Mann recieved for ONE grant.  Or how about that $200,000 PER YEAR (for over 15 years) that Phil Jones recieved from the US DOE alone?  Or how about the $1.2 MILLION that Hansen recieved for one speaking gig.  

Dude, if you want any kind of credibility you had better get your damned facts straight.

Every time you write something you make yourself out to be a bigger fool.


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







Didn't read the abstracts did you?  No, I thought not.  I would expect more from an astrophysicist...I really would.  Oh yeah, one more thing.  EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE "studies" IS A COMPUTER MODEL.

Climatology is STILL the only "science" that prefers computer simulation to the traditional observations of the real world.  And as we have found, now that the numbers are finally coming in and they don't match the models...it's the numbers that are being changed to conform to the models.

IN OTHER WORDS DEAR BOY.  THEY ARE ALTERING THE FACTUAL DATA THAT IS BEING OBTAINED FROM REAL WORLD OBSERVATIONS TO CONFORM TO THEIR FICTIONAL CREATIONS IN  THE MODELS.

And you claim that is science.

What a complete and utter failure as a scientist.  People like you disgust me.  You pervert science for a few bucks.

"Assuming that the model is realistic, these results suggest that the observed trend is not a natural feature of the interaction between the atmosphere and oceans. Instead, it may have been induced by a sustained change in the thermal forcing, such as that resulting from changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and aerosol loading."

"If misleading assessments ofand inappropriate adaptation strategies toclimate-change impacts are to be avoided, future studies should consider the impacts of natural multi-decadal climate variability alongside those of human-induced climate change."

"Conversely, the fact that observed climate change projects onto natural patterns cannot be used as evidence of no anthropogenic effect on climate. These results may help explain possible differences between trends in surface temperature and satellite-based temperature in the free atmosphere4,5,6."


----------



## freedombecki (Apr 4, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 
 Yes, altering the data to agree with their "fact" is why they should be banished from the circle of scientists who deal honestly with figures, whatever is true.

However, in the world today, journalists change details or omit them to make a rabid case. Now scientists are, and there should be some way to prevent them from ever calling themselves a scientist again, once they start loading bullshit into their reports and labeling it "the truth".


----------



## code1211 (Apr 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > When confronted by a departure of reality from model, we know that we are to ignore reality and stick with the models.
> ...





What is your point?


----------



## code1211 (Apr 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > I know that only 6% of scientists are Republicans.
> ...





And this is germane to what?


----------



## code1211 (Apr 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





This is the link presented by old Rocks countless times.

Want a different more recent wrong prediction?  Try this one.  Dr. James Hansen who is plying his hobby during the working day while accepting his salary from the government as an astronomer at NASA makes about 4 times as much spreading Climate panic than he makes as a government employee.

He, to, is wrong and used the combined assets of NASA and the GISS to come to the wrong conclusion.

Go figure.

Is Jim Hansen&#8217;s Global Temperature Skillful? | Watts Up With That?


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 4, 2012)

But we can see the rabbit's ears in the hat Old Rocks.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Oh noes carbon dioxide!  Oh noes methane!  Oh noes humans!
> ...






You seem pretty sure why those who think are wrong are wrong.

Care to prove why those who you think are right are right?

After all, that is the central point to the argument.  Those who doubt doubt that one particular thing is the key.  The true believers, like you, assert that there is one particular cause of climate change and that all of the others are inconsequential.

Prove your case.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



 That has got to be the dumbest statement you've ever made.  Grant money isn't paid into scientists' personal checking accounts you fucking dolt, its paid to cover their research expenses.



> How abouOr how about the $1.2 MILLION that Hansen recieved for one speaking gig



I suppose all climate scientists are as filthy rich as the most famous ones - we can only assume this - no data needed.


Jeez - Carl Sagan made a ton of money - I'm an astrophysicist - so by your logic I must be loaded with cash. I also got a grant of 2.5 MILLION service units on LONI computing clusters - man I've been livin it up with those SU's!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You said the scientists were ignoring natural causes.

Clearly, as I have shown with my links - they not only do not ignore them, they write papers about them. 

So its quite obvious you were wrong.

Why can't you accept that?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2012)

code1211 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



LOL   Here we go again. We present articles from peer reviewed scientific journals, and you present articles from the blog site of an undegreed ex-TV weatherman, known for his lies.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

code1211 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



That science works in the opposite way than you suggested, and that the models we have now are far more sophisticated than the toy model of Arrhenius.

Can you read?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Because they create their own reality. They live in alternative universes where the laws of physics do not apply. 

Some even claim to be scientists, then procede to denigrate all the working scientists. Real low life assholes.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> The point of the graph seems to be that the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice has been relatively stable since 1979.



Yep, you are truly that stupid.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

code1211 said:


> This is the link presented by old Rocks countless times.



Like I give a fuck.



> Want a different more recent wrong prediction?  Try this one.  Dr. James Hansen who is plying his hobby during the working day while accepting his salary from the government as an astronomer at NASA makes about 4 times as much spreading Climate panic than he makes as a government employee.


 And Les Miles draws a $300,000 salary from the state of Louisiana and a $3,750,000 salary from TAF that is paid to his corporation in Texas so he can avoid Louisiana income tax - what's your fucking point?



> He, to, is wrong and used the combined assets of NASA and the GISS to come to the wrong conclusion.
> 
> Go figure.
> 
> Is Jim Hansen&#8217;s Global Temperature Skillful? | Watts Up With That?



Why are you so obsessed with climate science celebrities?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2012)

*A predicted effect now being observed.*

AGW Observer

Evidence for changes in tundra vegetation

Satellite-based evidence for shrub and graminoid tundra expansion in northern Quebec from 1986-2010 &#8211; McManus et al. (2012)

Abstract: &#8220;Global vegetation models predict rapid poleward migration of tundra and boreal forest vegetation in response to climate warming. Local plot and air-photo studies have documented recent changes in high-latitude vegetation composition and structure, consistent with warming trends. To bridge these two scales of inference, we analyzed a 24-year (1986-2010) Landsat time series in a latitudinal transect across the boreal forest-tundra biome boundary in northern Quebec province, Canada. This region has experienced rapid warming during both winter and summer months during the last forty years. Using a per-pixel (30 m) trend analysis, 30% of the observable (cloud-free) land area experienced a significant (p < 0.05) positive trend in the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). However, greening trends were not evenly split among cover types. Low shrub and graminoid tundra contributed preferentially to the greening trend, while forested areas were less likely to show significant trends in NDVI. These trends reflect increasing leaf area, rather than an increase in growing season length, because Landsat data were restricted to peak-summer conditions. The average NDVI trend (0.007/yr) corresponds to a leaf-area index (LAI) increase of ~0.6 based on the regional relationship between LAI and NDVI from the Moderate Resolution Spectroradiometer (MODIS). Across the entire transect, the area-averaged LAI increase was ~0.2 during 1986-2010. A higher area-averaged LAI change (~0.3) within the shrub-tundra portion of the transect represents a 20-60% relative increase in LAI during the last two decades. Our Landsat-based analysis subdivides the overall high-latitude greening trend into changes in peak-summer greenness by cover type. Different responses within and among shrub, graminoid, and tree-dominated cover types in this study indicate important fine-scale heterogeneity in vegetation growth. Although our findings are consistent with community shifts in low-biomass vegetation types over multi-decadal time scales, the response in tundra and forest ecosystems to recent warming was not uniform.&#8221;

Citation: K.M. McManus, D.C. Morton, J.G. Masek, D. Wang, J.O. Sexton, J. Nagol, P. Ropars, S. Boudreau, Global Change Biology, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02708.x.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







I'd have to sink pretty low to get to your level of stupidity.  Take a look at their sources of income nimrod.  They get millions of dollars in grants every year.  They also get at least 200,000 per year as a tenured professor.  Some get 400,000 plus.

Just go away spidey tooberpoopeydoo.  How many other names do you have?


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...






Scientists are supposed to OBSERVE the natural world.  These "scientists" write fiction about the real world and fools like you eat it up.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...






So do we.  the difference is ours are based on actual observation.  Yours are fiction made up in the depths of a shitty computer program.


----------



## daveman (Apr 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








If you had science on your side, you wouldn't have to rely on fear-mongering.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 5, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > The point of the graph seems to be that the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice has been relatively stable since 1979.
> ...



We don't see the "wider and wider swings" predicted by your model


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 5, 2012)

Now I get it.  Global Warming is code for enviromentalist meltdown.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Once more Walleyes demonstrates his stupidity. Tyndall's observations of the absorption bands of GHGs was a shitty computer program? The observations of the melting of the permafrost, the worldwide retreat of alpine glaciers, the melting of the Arctic Sea Ice, and the melting, by the tens of gigatons, on the continental ice sheets. Is that a shitty computer program? How about the weirding of the weather, and the increase in the number and severity of extreme weather events? Are they shitty computer programs?

We have fruitloops on this board telling us nothing is happening, that it is all dirty data, and a hoax. Then we have all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities telling us that AGW is real, and already creating problems. And then the two major re-insurance companies in the world, Munich Re and Swiss Re are flat stating that there has been a very strong increase in the  severity and number of extreme climate events, and the cause is the present warming. 

Ah yes, who to believe.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 5, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...





Then this challenge should be an easy one to answer.

Produce the model that accurately predicts the climate since 1980 or 1990 or 2000.  This demands that the model you present was created before the date at which the predicted period starts.

I'll wait here.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 5, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > This is the link presented by old Rocks countless times.
> ...





Please, feel free to produce a model that accurately predicts climate across a 30 year period.

Dr. Hansen at least tried.  He failed, but he tried.

You claim you've got the goods.  Present them


----------



## Intense (Apr 5, 2012)

Douger said:


> How about the glaciers in Chile (the country, not the pepper) ?



Fooled me.... You are too smart for your own good. I thought Genetic Engineering and going Vaccination Crazy caused Global Warming. Playing with yourself, and Gay Sex does too.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> *A predicted effect now being observed.*
> 
> AGW Observer
> 
> ...






All natural responses to warming are natural and predictable if the warming occurs.

The debate pivots on the cause of the warming.  The Anthropogenic crowd asserts that the cause is Anthropogenic.  The doubters assert that there are many causes and any of them in concert with any others can and has caused warming in the past.

As the proponent as the single cause theory, it is your job to prove the Anthropogenic cause.  Proving warming is like proving a murder has occurred when everyone knows there has been a murder and is asking "who done it?".

Proving the dead guy is dead proves nothing regarding "who done it".


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


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



Not your model which predicts "wider and wider swings" and is not supported by the graph


----------



## freedombecki (Apr 5, 2012)

Matthew said:


> Nearly back to Normal! http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stdev_timeseries.png


Yeah. Global Warming was just a buncha hot air, melted those ice caps right down to the wire there.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


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







Yes, all of those observed effects began with the end of the LIA.  Your priests haven't addressed that little fact.  They ignore it.  Amazingly enough the CO2 levels back then were much lower and STILL THE ICE WAS MELTING.

Ruh roh.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2012)

code1211 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...







Hell, let them use a model created yesterday.  They're all equally useless at prediction.  Hell, they can't recreate what we KNOW occured.....yesterday!


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 5, 2012)

I'd sooner believe gremlins were the root cause.  Probably a more accurate model too.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 6, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> I'd sooner believe gremlins were the root cause.  Probably a more accurate model too.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbJx-FJS5Rc]Bugs Bunny - Falling Hare - YouTube[/ame]


SHHHHH!!!!!


----------



## code1211 (Apr 6, 2012)

westwall said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...





That's not true.  There are various models that can predict the preceding 30 years.  When the models are applied to future, they seem to weaken a tad.


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2012)

code1211 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...






Really?  Do tell.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Grants are not income for scientists moron, they go to cover research costs. In my field they cover the cost of publishing, the cost of graduate students and post-doctoral researchers, and computing equipment. Some grants allow professors to buy out their _summer_ teaching duties with part of the money so they can have more time for research. It doesn't increase the professors salary - the money goes to hire an instructor to take his place.
Any questions or will you insist on ignorance?



> They also get at least 200,000 per year as a tenured professor.


At least? Really? 
My professor makes $140,00 a year. He been working for 30 years and is near retirement and is the director of one of the Universities most prestigious research departments - and he still hasn't gotten to your "at least 200k" figure. Seriously - did you make that shit up?




> Some get 400,000 plus.



400k? seriously? I know for a fact there isn't a single professor at a state school in Louisiana making that, because the highest paid state employee in Louisiana is Les Miles and his state salary is 300k per year.


I WISH I would make "at least" 200k if I could be a professor. Unfortunately the average pay for a starting assistant prof is barely more than 50k! 



> Just go away spidey tooberpoopeydoo.  How many other names do you have?



Professors at most state institutions have their salaries publicly available. For instance, LSU:

LSU Salary Database - Misc - The Daily Reveille - Louisiana State University

I'm certain that if profs made "at least" 200k a year - you'd be able to find the evidence.

But you can't. 

So better to just make shit up.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Clearly, as I have shown with my links - they not only do not ignore natural causes, they write papers about them. 

So its quite obvious you were wrong.

Why can't you accept that?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 7, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Please, feel free to produce a model that accurately predicts climate across a 30 year period.


Please, feel free to produce a model that accounts for recent warming trends without including anthropogenic effects.




> You claim you've got the goods.


Where?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 7, 2012)

westwall said:


> I'd have to sink pretty low to get to your level of stupidity.  Take a look at their sources of income nimrod.  They get millions of dollars in grants every year.  They also get at least 200,000 per year as a tenured professor.  Some get 400,000 plus.



Senior Climate Scientist Salary in Berkeley, CA | Indeed.com


> Senior Climate Scientist in Berkeley, CA
> $129,000



Is your understanding of "at least" different from mine?


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2012)

I dont know how much climate scientists make, either in public universities, public institutions or the private sector. but I do know that bringing in grant money and publishing papers is how they sort out their status and earn the extra perks. 

CAGW has been a boon for funding if you support the idea even in a tangential way. and it has lead to a lot of papers that are rubbish. trying to publish papers that are critical of the 'consensus position' has been very difficult and hazardous to your career path, and very often draws harsh criticisms that make it obvious that there is a double standard when it comes to being accepted into the big name publications. if you dont believe that then you havent read the climategate emails with any comprehension.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 7, 2012)

IanC said:


> I dont know how much climate scientists make, either in public universities, public institutions or the private sector. but I do know that bringing in grant money and publishing papers is how they sort out their status and earn the extra perks.



Its odd that you'd have detailed knowledge of how they get their job perks but have no clue about how much they make. 


> CAGW has been a boon for funding if you support the idea even in a tangential way. and it has lead to a lot of papers that are rubbish.


I'm sure you're planning on presenting evidence.........



> trying to publish papers that are critical of the 'consensus position' has been very difficult and hazardous to your career path, and very often draws harsh criticisms that make it obvious that there is a double standard when it comes to being accepted into the big name publications. if you dont believe that then you havent read the climategate emails with any comprehension.



I've never tried to publish such papers, it hasn't been a hazard to me. Are you talking about anyone in particular or have you just invented some hypothetical person - thus abdicating you of the responsibility to base you argument on verifiable reality?


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2012)

hahahaha. would it make the slightest difference to you if I linked to anything? I used to waste my time putting up sources but it doesnt change anyone's mind and I am sure it wont change yours. 

what is your opinion on the Soon/Baliunas affair? do you think it was reasonable to force de Freitas out because he published their paper?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 7, 2012)

IanC said:


> hahahaha. would it make the slightest difference to you if I linked to anything?


Yes. 


> I used to waste my time putting up sources but it doesnt change anyone's mind and I am sure it wont change yours.


So because evidence is so hard for you to produce - you no longer need it for your arguments to be correct. Got it. I'm sorry that at one time the burden of proving your arguments was actually on you.



> what is your opinion on the Soon/Baliunas affair? do you think it was reasonable to force de Freitas out because he published their paper?


Decide what my opinion is for me if you don't mind. You don't need evidence for any of your arguments, so you may as well just make up my thoughts for me while you're at it. I'm sure you haven't actually read the paper in question - and neither have I - so its hard to imagine how either of us has business making an opinion out of it.


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2012)

so you dont have an opinion on that case. how about the ODonnell paper refuting Steig's Nature cover study? know anything about that?


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2012)

do you read any blogs? do you keep up with climate science? Real Climate, or SkepticalScience perhaps? Climate Etc or Bishop Hill or even the dreaded Watts Up With That? where do you get your information from?


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2012)

here is the Soon/Baliunas paper that the Hockey Team went ballistic over. http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf 
'even if we have to redefine what peer review is' fame. not really very controversial to cite 100 previous papers that support the existence of the MWP and LIA. certainly not worthy of getting the editor fired. why was there no furor over Mann using the upside-down Tiljander proxies? no one was fired over that. no removal of an obviously flawed paper either.


or how about the  mathematicians Loehle McCulloch paper? they took 18 non-treering series off the shelf and just averaged them, which basically reproduced Lamb's graph from the early IPCC reports before the infamous 'Hockey Stick Graph'. they were properly chastised (from both sides) that they didnt put in the uncertainty bars, and they immediately remedied the problems. and publically linked the data and methodology. unlike soooooooo many consensus climate scientists, Mann for instance.


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2012)

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Loehle_McC_E&E_2008.pdf

its not that I can't link to papers, I would just rather talk to people who have already done their own research so they dont think I am trying to "oohpoopahdoo- Decide what my opinion is for me if you don't mind"


----------



## code1211 (Apr 7, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Please, feel free to produce a model that accurately predicts climate across a 30 year period.
> ...





Oh...

You're right.  you never did make that claim.

So you have no proof to support your assertion?

As far as proof to prove a negative, you are kidding i hope.  However, if you are seeking proof that there have been warmer climates on this planet in the past absent Anthropogenic forcings, refer to the link below.

From the article linked is the reference to the start of the cycle of Ice Ages which followed and were probably caused by the closure of the Isthmus of Panama.

King Knute or the Big 0 can change the sea level, but i haven't heard of the person that move a continent.  

It's not up to a guy who doubts your proof to disprove your case.  It's up to you to prove it.  So far, you have not.  You are asking me to believe that what yuou say is true and are refusing to provide the proof.  While you apparently now are saying that you have never said you have any proof, it might be nice to see some.

Would you care to present some proof in the near future?

File:65 Myr Climate Change Rev.png - Global Warming Art

Significant growth of ice sheets did not begin in Greenland and North America until approximately 3 million years ago, following the formation of the Isthmus of Panama by continental drift. This ushered in an era of rapidly cycling glacials and interglacials (see figure at upper right).


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2012)

and just to get back on topic-






sea ice is not back to 'average' but it is certainly well within one standard deviation of the mean (intervals not shown on this graph). ice extent cycles. satellite measurements only really got going in '79 during the cool phase between two warm periods. are we headed towards another cooling phase? who knows?


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2012)

code1211 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



I read an interesting book 10 or 15 years ago that linked the closing of panama with climate change in Africa that then led to the evolution of humans. interesting, and reasonable, but hardly proof positive.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 7, 2012)

IanC said:


> do you read any blogs? do you keep up with climate science? Real Climate, or SkepticalScience perhaps? Climate Etc or Bishop Hill or even the dreaded Watts Up With That? where do you get your information from?



Of course one can also read real peer reviewed science here;



AGW Observer

rather than what someone thinks concerning the articles.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 7, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > hahahaha. would it make the slightest difference to you if I linked to anything?
> ...


Evidence is easy to produce.

Fools are hard to convince.

I don't blame Ian for not wanting to bother.  I wouldn't either.

Oh BTW.  Does your data on university professor earnings include benefits and profits from publishing, speaking and extra curricular activities and research they are in charge of?

I'm just curious.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 7, 2012)

code1211 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Strawman. Nobody here, least of all those that have a bit of knowledge in science, have ever claimed that there have not been warmer periods. As you well know. You are playing to the ignorant again, Code.

There have been warmer and colder periods in the geological history of this planet. It is not whether we are warming or cooling, it is the rate of change. And the rate of change for the last 150 years has been very fast, and is accelerating. In the past, when the rate of change was anywhere near what we are seeing today, there was a period of extinction. A period during which life was hard for the organisms on this planet. 

Now we have over 7 billion people on this planet, dependent on an agriculture that is dependent on reasonably predictable weather. And that weather has been less predictable over the last few years. Droughts in Russia and Texas, floods in Australia and the US have all had effects on food supply and prices. The cost of infrastructure damage is also taking it's toll on governments that are already struggling with debt. And we are just barely into the period of consequences.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...





C'mon, Man!

You know that's at best inaccurate.  The warming trend that we are enjoying right now has continued with an interruption for the Little ice Age pretty much for 2000 years.

The total warming in 2000 years has been about 0.7 degrees and the warming in the first millennium outpaced that of the second millennium.

What you are saying is accurate, but misrepresents the truth of the situation by its limited scope of review.

In order to explain the current warming, you must first explain the previous cooling.  Whatever caused the previous cooling ended in about 1600 and that pre-dates the cause you cite for the warming that followed it.  Logic dictates that the future cannot cause the past and yet this is what you assert.

You always ignore this as it does not fit into your tidy little box of causation.

If you cannot account for the real world in your argument, then your argument needs some work.


----------



## IanC (Apr 7, 2012)

what has the _rate of change_ been over the last 10 or 15 years? are you sure it is accelerating? I thought there was a controversy whether it was warming at all, and now you are saying it is changing faster than before? hmmmmmmm


----------



## daveman (Apr 7, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I'd have to sink pretty low to get to your level of stupidity.  Take a look at their sources of income nimrod.  They get millions of dollars in grants every year.  They also get at least 200,000 per year as a tenured professor.  Some get 400,000 plus.
> ...



NASA Scientist Accused Of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups To Enrich Himself | Fox News
The NASA scientist who once claimed the Bush administration tried to "silence" his global warming claims is now accused of receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, D.C., a group claims NASA is withholding documents that show James Hansen failed to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding substantial compensation he earned outside his $180,000 taxpayer-paid position as director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.​


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 7, 2012)

daveman said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Wow. So I guess all Professors make at east $200,000 a year. In spite of factual evidence to the contrary. You responded by saying something about James Hansen, so obviously that proves me wrong - every Professor in the nation just got a raise to at least 200k thanks to your altering of reality based on a non-sequitor outlier!


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 7, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...





"Profits" from publishing? 

When do I get those? *LOL!* That's hilarious. 

I'm sorry but in the real world where I live, at the university I work for, if a professor receives a fee for speaking about his work - the university gets the money.

But by all means I think you should continue to base your argument on the assumption that every single UNiversity professor is compensated in exactly the same manner as James Hansen, that makes plenty of logical sense. Then you can ignore the rest of reality and concentrate on that one evil scientist you hate.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 7, 2012)

code1211 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...




I didn't ask you to prove a negative.


I asked you to provide a climate model that accounts for recent warming without the input of anthropogenic effects.

Can you?


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 7, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


So you also have no benefit package?  Do those benefits have a cash value?  Do I think all professors make half a million dollars?  Fuck no.  My parents were educators at the public school and university levels.  I know they're mostly not rich.  But I do know some can be incredibly well off depending on field and their contracts.

I'm surprised about not getting any money for speaking engagements.  I knew some who did.  And I know music professors often get to be paid for their performances and whatnot they do outside the university setting.  

I didn't realize your University owned you.  Of course I assume you're telling the truth, because anyone can claim anything.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 7, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...






How do you feel about CERN?  They seem to think that the warming can be explained by, and this is bolt from the blue, the Sun.  When the Sun is more active, it reduces the cosmic rays from hitting Earth and when it is less active, more cosmic rays "seed" clouds in the upper atmosphere creating a cooling feed back loop.

Can you say Little ice Age?

This is a reasonable and provable hypothesis that the Journal nature has run an article explaining.  As i understand it, the 8000 scientists from 60 nations are pretty smart and they seem to think there is a plausible alternative explanation.

Now, back to you.  It is you who seem to be endorsing the AGW theory.  What do you have for proof?

Did CLOUD Just Rain on the Global Warming Parade? - Forbes

<snip>
Global warming advocates have responded, in turn, that while the sun has indeed been more active in the last half of the century, the actual percentage change in solar irradiance is tiny, and hardly seems large enough to explain measured increases in temperatures and ocean heat content.

And thus the debate stood, until a Danish scientist named Henrik Svensmark suggested something outrageous &#8212; that cosmic rays might seed cloud formation.  The implications, if true, had potentially enormous implications for the debate about natural causes of warming.

When the sun is very active, it can be thought of as pushing away cosmic rays from the Earth, reducing their incidence.  When the sun is less active, we see more cosmic rays.  This is fairly well understood.  But if Svensmark was correct, it would mean that periods of high solar output should coincide with reduced cloud formation (due to reduced cosmic ray incidence), which in turn would have a warming effect on the Earth, since less sunlight would be reflected back into space by clouds.  
<snip>


----------



## daveman (Apr 7, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


You go out of your way to be dumb, don't you?

I showed that climate scientists make lots of extra money on the side.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 7, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Once again you are playing to the ignorant, Code. The Maunder Minimum is well known to any interested in climate science. And the worldwide rise in temperatures in the MWP was only + 0.2, not the + o.7 we have already reached.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 7, 2012)

daveman said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Not at all. What you have shown is that those at the top of the field made a lot of extra money writing and lecturing. Very few evoluntionary biologists make the money that Ernst Meyr and Stephen Jay Gould did. Very few have that kind of writing talent.


----------



## daveman (Apr 7, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


There is far more money available to the AGW cult than there is to skeptics.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





The way I read this graph, we rose about 0.4 degrees in the fist millennium and about 0.3 degrees in the second.

What if the two increases were exactly equal, though?  What does that do to your belief in AGW?

If the rise in the climate's temperature is exactly the same across two consecutive millennia and one of them is cursed by the increase of Anthropogenic CO2 while the other is free of same, you theory seems empty.

The effects would be identical but one of them does not have the only cause you say could produce it.

What's an alarmist to do?

File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art


----------



## IanC (Apr 8, 2012)

using the 'idiosyncratic' spagetti graph, no less. Mann would be proud. lol


----------



## code1211 (Apr 8, 2012)

IanC said:


> using the 'idiosyncratic' spagetti graph, no less. Mann would be proud. lol




We use what is available.


----------



## westwall (Apr 8, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Not true.  The temp rise varied depending on where you were.  Here in the Sierra Nevada mountains the rise was around 2.5C.  In the Antarctic it was around .2-.5C.  In Europe it was significantly warmer.  Probably closer to 3C.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 9, 2012)

I see Old Rocks is using circular reasoning again.  Trot out the same tired, disproved graphs over and over again.  Causation doesn't exist without false data and poor science.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 9, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



The University I work for owns my research.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 9, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...


Boy did YOU choose poorly then.  I didn't realize that even speaking about the research you made for them was their property too.

Must suck big.

No wonder you don't think anyone else can or should fare better by making smarter decisions.  Or you're one heck of a bitter altruist.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 9, 2012)

code1211 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



That's funny I didn't think CERN published in Forbes.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 9, 2012)

daveman said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




You've demonstrated no general rule, only provided a few anecdotes.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 9, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



My research is funded by federal and local government, the people own it. I fail to see the problem with that.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 9, 2012)

code1211 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...




The actual paper;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10343.html

The paper's lead author:*
at the moment (the research) actually says nothing about the effect of comsic rays on clouds and thus climate, but it is an important first step.*
CERN - Saying Nothing About Cosmic Ray Effects on Climate


----------



## code1211 (Apr 9, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...





As referenced above, Forbes reported on the research published in the journal Nature.

I'm glad you find this to be funny.  Are you laughing at CERN, the 8000 scientists from around the world who work there, the 60 countries they come from or just because laughter helps in pursuing a healthy life style?

You asked for an alternative explanation for the warming that did not use Anthropogenic forcings.  CERN gives you one.  What say you?


----------



## code1211 (Apr 9, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...





You asked for an alternate and now you have one.

Thjere are also about a dozen other factors from cloud cover to ocean currents that impact climate and they all seem to reduce CO2 to a weak sister of any forcing at all.  

By the standard your source used to undermine the CERN work applies just as well to the CO2 boogie man.  While CO2 rises with constancy, the temperature rises,  falls, stalls and in general ignores the impact that CO2 should be having.

The question was posed and answered.  How do you feel about CERN as the source of your any other cause to explain the warming?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 9, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



These people do not read actual science articles. They only repeat what an obese junkie on the radio says the articles stated. I have repeatedly posted paragraphs from articles they stated were proof that AGW was wrong, where the author had stated exactly the opposite. Walleyes is particularly egrerious in doing this. 

They have used this article this way before, and others, as well as I, have published what the article itself said, just as you did. But in another month, you will see them repeating exactly the same thing.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 9, 2012)

code1211 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Total BS, Code. In the long term, there are only two factors that matter. The amount of energy recieved from the sun, and the amount the Earth retains. One we cannot change, and one we have changed. A 40% increase in CO2, 150+% in CH4, and a number of industrial gases that have no natural analog, and are thousands of times as effective of a GHG as CO2. For the last ten years the Total Solar Irradiance has declined slightly. But the warming has continued, and the cryosphere has shrunk significantly.

In real life observations, there is no link at all between cosmic rays and warming.

What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change?


----------



## westwall (Apr 9, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







Nor should you.  Just like Mann, Jones, and All the others work is paid for by the taxpayers.  I wonder why they refuse to release their raw data?  What are they hiding?


----------



## westwall (Apr 9, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







So, you're an astro physicist.  Tell us what this part of the abstract means.

"Model calculations suggest that almost half of the global cloud condensation nuclei in the atmospheric boundary layer may originate from the nucleation of aerosols from trace condensable vapours4, although the sensitivity of the number of cloud condensation nuclei to changes of nucleation rate may be small5, 6. Despite extensive research, fundamental questions remain about the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles and the mechanisms responsible, including the roles of galactic cosmic rays and other chemical species such as ammonia7. Here we present the first results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN. We find that atmospherically relevant ammonia mixing ratios of 100 parts per trillion by volume, or less, increase the nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles more than 1001,000-fold."


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 9, 2012)

Let's see. There have been over a dozen independent studies that confirm Mann's graph. Now I suppose you are going to state that all these people are hiding all their data.  Walleyes, you are a hoot.


----------



## westwall (Apr 9, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...







Neither do you!  I have shown repeatedly the papers you posted that didn't support your dogma.  What's your excuse?


----------



## westwall (Apr 9, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Let's see. There have been over a dozen independent studies that confirm Mann's graph. Now I suppose you are going to state that all these people are hiding all their data.  Walleyes, you are a hoot.






There have been over a dozen that also showed that no matter what number you punch into his model it allways crerates a hockey stick.  In the real world that is called FAILURE.

And more importantly the NAS concluded it was a faulty graph.  Funny how you don't reference them and their scathing review of it and his work.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 9, 2012)

Sure you have. From Anthony Watts, versus Nature, Science, and Journal of Geophysics.

For someone that claims to be a member of the Royal Society and the AGU, you certainly denigrate the scientists in these organizations. But you never present your views at the podium in one of their meetings.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 9, 2012)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see. There have been over a dozen independent studies that confirm Mann's graph. Now I suppose you are going to state that all these people are hiding all their data.  Walleyes, you are a hoot.
> ...



*Scathing review? Really?  OK, why don't we go to the source.*

National-Academies.org | Newsroom

Read Full Report

Date:  June 22, 2006
Contacts:  Bill Kearney, Director of Media Relations
Megan Petty, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail <news@nas.edu>


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


'High Confidence' That Planet Is Warmest in 400 Years; 
Less Confidence in Temperature Reconstructions Prior to 1600


WASHINGTON -- There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council.  Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900.  Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added.


Scientists rely on proxies to reconstruct paleoclimatic surface temperatures because geographically widespread records of temperatures measured with instruments date back only about 150 years.  Other proxies include corals, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, cave deposits, and documentary sources, such as historic drawings of glaciers.  The globally averaged warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) that instruments have recorded during the last century is also reflected in proxy data for that time period, the committee noted.


The report was requested by Congress after a controversy arose last year over surface temperature reconstructions published by climatologist Michael Mann and his colleagues in the late 1990s.  The researchers concluded that the warming of the Northern Hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past thousand years.  In particular, they concluded that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year.  Their graph depicting a rise in temperatures at the end of a long era became known as the "hockey stick."


The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then.  Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular.


The committee noted that scientists' reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for the past thousand years are generally consistent.  The reconstructions show relatively warm conditions centered around the year 1000, and a relatively cold period, or "Little Ice Age," from roughly 1500 to 1850.  The exact timing of warm episodes in the medieval period may have varied by region, and the magnitude and geographical extent of the warmth is uncertain, the committee said.  None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades, the committee added.


The scarcity of precisely dated proxy evidence for temperatures before 1600, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, is the main reason there is less confidence in global reconstructions dating back further than that.  Other factors that limit confidence include the short length of the instrumental record, which is used to calibrate and validate reconstructions, and the possibility that the relationship between proxy data and local surface temperatures may have varied over time.  It also is difficult to estimate a mean global temperature using data from a limited number of sites.  On the other hand, confidence in large-scale reconstructions is boosted by the fact that the proxies on which they are based generally exhibit strong correlations with local environmental conditions.  Confidence increases further when multiple independent lines of evidence point to the same general phenomenon, such as the Little Ice Age.

*You see, Walleyes, some of us have actually read the articles.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 9, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Let's see. There have been over a dozen independent studies that confirm Mann's graph. Now I suppose you are going to state that all these people are hiding all their data.  Walleyes, you are a hoot.








See the Global Warming? It's under my pinkie


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 9, 2012)

code1211 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



The* lead author *on the paper says we don't.
*
But hey, I guess you and Forbes are better experts on the paper than the lead author*


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 9, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...




"Their" raw data isn't actually owned by them, genius.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 9, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...




1) It means exactly what it says.

2) It means CLOSE to the following: the role of cosmic rays in the formation of clouds is poorly understand, and here we present the first results from an experiment designed to investigate this. The addition of ammonia causes an increase in the formation of cloud seeds, and.....


Its cut off at the end because you picked a weird place to cut the abstract.


----------



## IanC (Apr 10, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Let's see. There have been over a dozen independent studies that confirm Mann's graph. Now I suppose you are going to state that all these people are hiding all their data.  Walleyes, you are a hoot.





Old Rocks just doesnt get it. there are hundreds or thousands of proxy data sets available. many come in different versions because they are updated by adding additional measurements, or conversely by taking some data points out. Mann has a habit of using specific proxies that have a favourable shape, using eccentric methodologies that empasize outliers, and then padding the whole thing with normal proxy sets that just add noise but leave the shape alone.

one proxy in particular really annoys me. a sediment core taken in Tiljander was specifically labelled as unsuitable for use in temperature reconstructions by the author because of known disruptions in recent times. not only does Mann continue to use it but he ignores the fact that his methodology _actually turns the proxy upside-down_ as a better fit!

NAS specifically stated that bristlecone pines were unsuitable for temperature reconstructions, yet they then turned around and said there must be some truth in Mann's work because other people had reproduced somewhat similar shaped graphs. but they all used bristlecones!!! the Wegman report demolished Mann's methodology in several ways, and a further study said they came to the same conclusions as Wegman. but no one has recinded MBH98 or 99 as the worse than useless pieces of shit that they are.

the unseen damage is that other papers use Mann's work as a basis for their studies. the poison spreads. arguing with the Hockey Team is bad for your career and that is why these travesties keep getting past peer review.


----------



## Vidi (Apr 10, 2012)

It is not clear why the maximum ice extent would happen later, given that in general, ice extent is decreasing. One possibility is that the lower winter ice extents might make it easier for ice to continue growing later in the season. With lower winter extents, a late cold snap or northerly wind could spread ice southward over ocean that would normally be ice-covered at that point. Researchers do not expect the late maximum ice extent to strongly influence summer melt. *The ice that grew late this winter is quite thin, and will melt rapidly as the sun rises higher in the sky and the air and water get warmer.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 10, 2012)

Vidi said:


> It is not clear why the maximum ice extent would happen later, given that in general, ice extent is decreasing. One possibility is that the lower winter ice extents might make it easier for ice to continue growing later in the season. With lower winter extents, a late cold snap or northerly wind could spread ice southward over ocean that would normally be ice-covered at that point. Researchers do not expect the late maximum ice extent to strongly influence summer melt. *The ice that grew late this winter is quite thin, and will melt rapidly as the sun rises higher in the sky and the air and water get warmer.*



Can you turn your amazing predicative abilities on the Aurora Borealis and tell us why type of Borealis season we're on for this year?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 10, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > It is not clear why the maximum ice extent would happen later, given that in general, ice extent is decreasing. One possibility is that the lower winter ice extents might make it easier for ice to continue growing later in the season. With lower winter extents, a late cold snap or northerly wind could spread ice southward over ocean that would normally be ice-covered at that point. Researchers do not expect the late maximum ice extent to strongly influence summer melt. *The ice that grew late this winter is quite thin, and will melt rapidly as the sun rises higher in the sky and the air and water get warmer.*
> ...



Dumbass. Active sunspot season, Aurora will be more common.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 10, 2012)

I see the dimwits have totally missed the Sun and water vapor as primary factors in ice melts.  Faking weather data in support of bad climate theories is clearly understood and rejected people.


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 10, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> I see the dimwits have totally missed the Sun and water vapor as primary factors in ice melts.  Faking weather data in support of bad climate theories is clearly understood and rejected people.


Wait... melting ice can increase water vapor???? NO WAYYYYY!!!!!


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 10, 2012)

Way.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 10, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Do you have graphs and charts?


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 10, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


that's right, without links and computer models, it won't happen.  After all, reality obeys US.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 10, 2012)

Aurora Forecast | Geophysical Institute


----------



## westwall (Apr 10, 2012)

Vidi said:


> It is not clear why the maximum ice extent would happen later, given that in general, ice extent is decreasing. One possibility is that the lower winter ice extents might make it easier for ice to continue growing later in the season. With lower winter extents, a late cold snap or northerly wind could spread ice southward over ocean that would normally be ice-covered at that point. Researchers do not expect the late maximum ice extent to strongly influence summer melt. *The ice that grew late this winter is quite thin, and will melt rapidly as the sun rises higher in the sky and the air and water get warmer.*







Ice extent is what it turns out to be.  If it were truly decreasing i would expect to see less of it.  Why is that not happening?  You keep telling us that the extent is getting ever less and ever thinner, and yet it is more extensive then it was during most of the 1980's.  

Multi year ice is also increasing despite your claims.  Are you just uninformed, or are you prevaricating?


----------



## Vidi (Apr 10, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...




Actually I was simply quoting the article from the original post. So all of you who jumped on me have proven 

1) You dont agree with the original post 

2) You didnt bother to read his link

3) Your mind is made up before any evidence is presented

4) Your opinion is irrelevant

Happy Tuesday!


----------



## Vidi (Apr 10, 2012)

westwall said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > It is not clear why the maximum ice extent would happen later, given that in general, ice extent is decreasing. One possibility is that the lower winter ice extents might make it easier for ice to continue growing later in the season. With lower winter extents, a late cold snap or northerly wind could spread ice southward over ocean that would normally be ice-covered at that point. Researchers do not expect the late maximum ice extent to strongly influence summer melt. *The ice that grew late this winter is quite thin, and will melt rapidly as the sun rises higher in the sky and the air and water get warmer.*
> ...



I keep telling you?

"Keep telling" requires multiple tells. I posted ONCE in this thread.


----------



## westwall (Apr 10, 2012)

Vidi said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...







I was speaking figuratively for all of the warmers who keep claiming that the Arctic ice is disappearing.  All the while ignoring the fact that it is in fact increasing, and getting thicker.

How do they do that?  Not tell the truth I mean.


----------



## Vidi (Apr 10, 2012)

westwall said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Well, the same way you do it it I suppose. The article posted to begin this thread clearly states that the ice is thin and will most likely melt again, which is what I posted and you took issue with.

_Essentially, I chose to read the entire article then posted the part of the OPs link that debunks the OPs point. _

After all, if someone is going to link an article to back up their point, it should actually back up their point, dont you think?


----------



## code1211 (Apr 10, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...





Ahhhh...

Brothers in propaganda.

Unlike the AGW ass clowns that take the cherry picked points of favorable data and create tortured conclusions that are blasted to an unknowing populace, the Scientists at CERN present actual science and refrain from propaganda driven statements of agenda driven drivel.

You don't see this as science because it's not agenda driven propaganda and that is what you have come to believe science to be.

This is sad for you.

What the CERN research actually said:

CERN Experiment Confirms Cosmic Rays Influence Clouds - Global Warming Next?

CERNs director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists "to present the results clearly but not interpret them". Readers can judge whether CLOUDs lead physicist Jasper Kirkby has followed his bosss warning.

"Ion-induced nucleation will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere."

Kirkby is quoted in the accompanying CERN press release:

"Weve found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, weve found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations  even with the enhancement of cosmic rays."


The team used the Proton Synchotron accelerator (pictured here with Kirkby) to examine the nucleation using combinations of trace gasses at various temperatures, with precision. These first results confirm that cosmic rays increase the formation of cloud-nuclei by a factor of 10 in the troposphere, but additional trace gasses are needed nearer the surface.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 10, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...





In one post you talk about the Maunder Minimum and then immediately say that the energy received from the Sun cannot change.

Again, warming is not the issue.  The cause is the issue.  You need to prove that CO2 is the cause of warming.  Right now, the warming has stalled for about the same amount of time as you say the Sun's radiation has decreased.

CO2's getting pushed around again, huh.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 10, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...






If this poorly understood, then it is the prefect alternative theory to CO2 causing warming which is also poorly understood.

If the effects of CO2 were understood completely or even well, then the predictions would be accurate.  They are not.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 10, 2012)

Vidi said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...





The AGW accepted line of thinking is that the warming will cause Arctic ice Extent to decrease every year and to cause a complete disappearance of the Polar Ice Cap by about 2050.  

However, the annual decrease is turning out to be an annual increase.

In the topsy turvy world of AGW dogmatic mantra, anything, even direct proof to the opposite, is support of the case.  It's a wonderful way to argue.


----------



## Vidi (Apr 10, 2012)

code1211 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Im not commenting if global climate change is true or not. Im commenting on the fact the OP posted a link and a title nothing else. And the link does not support the title he chose.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 10, 2012)

westwall said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Really? Extant increasing and getting thicker, also? Perhaps you can post some links to real scientists that are stating that?

Because here is what the real scientists are stating from actual observations.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

Note that the high points were running 14 to 15 million square kilometers from 1979 to 1989. From 1990 to 2004, they were running mid 13 to mid 14 million square kilometers for a high. Since 2005, the high points have never reached 14 million square kilometers.

The lows were running mid 4 to mid 5 million square kilometers from 1979 to 1997. From 1998 to 2006 they ran mostly just over 4 million square kilometers, since then, they have mostly been right at 3 million square kilometers for a low. Just how the hell do you get increasing in extant out of that, Walleyes?

PIOMAS, from the University of Washington has been keeping track of ice volume.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordp...olumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?<?php echo time() ?

Now just how do you fit that in with your claim of increasing ice volume?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 10, 2012)

code1211 said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Wow. You really do think you understand the paper better than its lead author. Must be hard to walk around being smarter than everyone at everything all the time.


----------



## westwall (Apr 11, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...










See that red line there?


----------



## IanC (Apr 11, 2012)

the thing about most of the stuff writen by global warming alarmists is that you have to check for 'adjustments' or 'cherry picking' or 'unfounded conclusions'.

starting about 1970, satellites were being used to photograph the world in a systematic method (earlier for the military). we also had pretty good radar tracking and harbour records for ice extent. 

I realise that 1979 was the beginning of measuring temperatures by satellite microwave readings but is it reasonable to start the ice extent historical record there? even though there were satellite records earlier, and pretty good observations even earlier than that? inquiring minds want to know.

was there anything special about the 70's? yes, because of the Arctic Ocillation weather patterns the ice went from a drastic low in about 1975 to an unprecedented high in 1979. interesting eh? I try not to conjure up conspiracies, and I dont think this is one, but it certainly was an auspicious place to start the record if you wanted to exaggerate the ice loss.

for those who always cry for a link you can go to figure 7.20, page 224 of the first IPCC report to see for yourselves.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf



> Sea-ice conditions are now reported regularly in marine
> synoptic observations, as well as by special reconnaissance
> flights, and coastal radar. Especially importantly, satellite
> observations have been used to map sea-ice extent
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 11, 2012)

westwall said:


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



A much better view here;

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

Note that it never got up to the normal high. Not only that, but now is descending faster than the mean line. The maximum extent never got to 14 million square kilometers, and is now descending rapidly. 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

So, you have failed to demonstrate any increase in extent, compared to the prior records, care to try for volume?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 11, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


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



It looks like variations in a normal range.

One thing for sure I don't see "wider and wider swings"


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 11, 2012)

Actual observations?  Now that's funny.  Try satellite images "interpreted" by people working on government contracts.  Were you aware that those results are reviewed before being accepted by the government?  That the "findings" are sent back for more "analysis" when they don't show what the agency wants?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 11, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



Can you quantify that statement?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 11, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> actual observations?  Now that's funny.  Try satellite images "interpreted" by people working on government contracts.  Were you aware that those results are reviewed before being accepted by the government?  That the "findings" are sent back for more "analysis" when they don't show what the agency wants?



how do you know?


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 11, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > actual observations?  Now that's funny.  Try satellite images "interpreted" by people working on government contracts.  Were you aware that those results are reviewed before being accepted by the government?  That the "findings" are sent back for more "analysis" when they don't show what the agency wants?
> ...



One of my customers volunteered the information during conversation about a year ago.  It was one of the reasons he left the company.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 11, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...





I'm not sure what you're saying.  I observed that the CERN results are poorly understood.  Is it your assertion that the lead author is saying that the results are completely understood?

That's not how I read the reports on this experiment.  

Can you show the part of his statement in which he says that the experiment's data are all completely understood?


----------



## Vidi (Apr 11, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



So you "know a guy"?

Yeah, thats as credible as a chain email.


----------



## MaryL (Apr 11, 2012)

Global warming seems to be the new "Normal". This has been the warmest March on record. We are having forest fires in New York state , brush fires on the EAST coast. Destructive tornadoes in the west in March. This is disturbing. Someone here wants to imply the weather is somehow, NORMAL? Not buying it, buddy. Something is wrong with that evaluation based on first hand experience. I add, a tornado alert has gone off near my house, ironically. We have never had that THIS happen this early in the year...


----------



## westwall (Apr 11, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







How about you quantify yours first.  You have made the claim.  YOU must set the parameters and then defend it.  Good luck, you'll need it.  All empirical data is against you.


----------



## westwall (Apr 11, 2012)

MaryL said:


> Global warming seems to be the new "Normal". This has been the warmest March on record. We are having forest fires in New York state , brush fires on the EAST coast. Destructive tornadoes in the west in March. This is disturbing. Someone here wants to imply the weather is somehow, NORMAL? Not buying it, buddy. Something is wrong with that evaluation based on first hand experience. I add, a tornado alert has gone off near my house, ironically. We have never had that THIS happen this early in the year...







Go back and read some history then.  NOTHING that is happening now is new.  It's only new to YOU.  Your life span is an instant compared to the planet.  Go back and look up climate cycles and you'll see that everything is within normal variability.  Better yet, look up the weather reports from your local newspaper from 50 and 100 years ago.  You'll be amazed at what you find.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 11, 2012)

MaryL said:


> Global warming seems to be the new "Normal". This has been the warmest March on record. We are having forest fires in New York state , brush fires on the EAST coast. Destructive tornadoes in the west in March. This is disturbing. Someone here wants to imply the weather is somehow, NORMAL? Not buying it, buddy. Something is wrong with that evaluation based on first hand experience. I add, a tornado alert has gone off near my house, ironically. We have never had that THIS happen this early in the year...





Last year in Indiana, the Winter arrived early and then hung on late into spring.  This year is a nice break and it is quite warm in the US.  However, it's not so warm elsewhere, like Europe.

Even where i grew up, though in Northern minnesota they say it was a soft winter which is to say that the skiing was not so good.

Personnally I love this.  The March heat wave ended around here and it's suddenly quite seasonal again and I wish it was warmer.


----------



## Vidi (Apr 11, 2012)

MaryL said:


> Global warming seems to be the new "Normal". This has been the warmest March on record. We are having forest fires in New York state , brush fires on the EAST coast. Destructive tornadoes in the west in March. This is disturbing. Someone here wants to imply the weather is somehow, NORMAL? Not buying it, buddy. Something is wrong with that evaluation based on first hand experience. I add, a tornado alert has gone off near my house, ironically. We have never had that THIS happen this early in the year...



Once is an anomoly

Twice is a coincidence

Three times is a pattern

This last winter certainly has people talking about climate change and while its very possible this winter was a sign of things to come, until we see three years like that its not a pattern.

OH and for those that say its IMPOSSIBLE for us to effect our climate:


Dust Bowl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> During early European and American exploration of the Great Plains, the region in which the Dust Bowl occurred was thought unsuitable for European-style agriculture; the region was known as the Great American Desert. The lack of surface water and timber made the region less attractive than other areas for pioneer settlement and agriculture. Following the Civil War, settlement was encouraged by the Homestead Act, the transcontinental railroad, and waves of new immigrants, and cultivation increased.[3][4] An unusually wet period in the Great Plains mistakenly led settlers and the federal government to believe that "rain follows the plow" (a popular phrase among real estate promoters) and that the climate of the region had changed permanently.[5] The initial agricultural endeavors were primarily cattle ranching, with some cultivation; however, a series of harsh winters beginning in 1886, coupled with overgrazing followed by a short drought in 1890, led to an expansion of land under cultivation.
> 
> Continued waves of immigration from Europe brought settlers to the plains at the beginning of the 20th century. A return of unusually wet weather confirmed a previously held opinion that the "formerly" semiarid area could support large-scale agriculture. Technological improvements led to increase of mechanized plowing, which allowed for cultivation on a greater scale. World War I increased agricultural prices, which also encouraged farmers to dramatically increase cultivation. In the Llano Estacado, the area of farmland doubled between 1900 and 1920, and land under cultivation more than tripled between 1925 and 1930.[6] Finally,* farmers did not use appropriate practices for the environment, but agricultural methods that allowed erosion.[1] For example, cotton farmers left fields bare over winter months, when winds in the High Plains are highest, and burned the stubble (as a form of weeding prior to planting), both depriving the soil of organic nutrients and increasing exposure to erosion.*
> 
> *The increased exposure to erosion was revealed when severe drought struck the Great Plains through the 1930s. The native grasses that once covered the prairie lands for centuries, holding the soil in place and maintaining its moisture, had been eliminated by the intensively increased plowing. The drought conditions caused the topsoil to grow dry and friable, and was carried away by the wind.*



Its time to wake up. Global Warming may or may not be happening, but its entirely possible that we ARE having an effect as we have had an effect before. Less than a hundred years ago in fact.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 11, 2012)

One of the coldest winters for England in a long time.  You understand there's weather and then there's climate right?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 11, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> oohpoopahdoo said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



lol!

BTW - I witnessed the Martin shooting.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 11, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




I can't quantity the statement "Can you quantify that statement?", sorry.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 11, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Sure.

Old Rocks claims that AGW causes "wider and wider swings" and so far none of the graphs posted have shown any evidence of that


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 11, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



OK. When are you going to quantity the statement that the variations are in the normal range? You just said you'd do it, but then made another qualitative statement instead.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 11, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Um, no. 

Old Rocks stated that AGW causes "wider and wider swings" I made the observation that it looks like normal variations


----------



## westwall (Apr 11, 2012)

Vidi said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming seems to be the new "Normal". This has been the warmest March on record. We are having forest fires in New York state , brush fires on the EAST coast. Destructive tornadoes in the west in March. This is disturbing. Someone here wants to imply the weather is somehow, NORMAL? Not buying it, buddy. Something is wrong with that evaluation based on first hand experience. I add, a tornado alert has gone off near my house, ironically. We have never had that THIS happen this early in the year...
> ...








Nothing in the article shows man affecting the CLIMATE.   The top soil erosion was exacerbated by poor farming techniques.  But the drought was natural.  And more to the point was within normal cyclic variability.  Try reading about the farmers in the 1800's and how they struggled with drought.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 11, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


And I asked you to quantify that statement. Will you or will you not? Can you make that statement using NUMBERS or are we to rely on your qualitative assessment that they "look normal" ? Define "normal" using NUMBERS and, using NUMBERS, show us that its in the normal range.


----------



## westwall (Apr 11, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...








He allready did.  Nothing happening today is any different than what happened 50 or 100 years ago.  It's all cyclic.  Nothing is out of the ordinary.  The warmists claim it is.  They have yet to show anything exceptional.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 11, 2012)

westwall said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



The drought was worsened by the poor farming techniques. Less vegetation leads to lower water retention by the soil - which leads to less vegetation. A nasty feedback cycle worsened by man.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 11, 2012)

oohpoopahdoo said:


> crusaderfrank said:
> 
> 
> > oohpoopahdoo said:
> ...



7, 12, 34.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 11, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> oohpoopahdoo said:
> 
> 
> > crusaderfrank said:
> ...



If you don't want to be taken seriously that's fine.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > oohpoopahdoo said:
> ...



They all appear to be withing in a band of .75miles of ice which is about 5%.

Could you not figure that out until I said it?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 12, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



5% of what?


> Could you not figure that out until I said it?



I have to give a talk to a bunch of scientists next week in England. I think I'll try your method. I'll just put up a few plots and say "See?"


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



What are you talking to these "scientists" about?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 12, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Our latest astrophysical simulations.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Are you simulating that you can do basic math or have a lick of common sense?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 12, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



We're modeling the set of 1st order hyperbolic PDE's that describe inviscid fluid flows. The initial conditions are that of a sychronously rotating pair of polytropic stars at the verge of Roche lobe overflow.

If my math skills were any good I would have been a mathematician instead of a physicist.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Wow.

Sounds arcane and I'm not impressed.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Have you modeled what would happen to the binary system if you added 200PPM of CO2?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 12, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Most star systems are binary star systems and most binary star systems undergo a phase of mass transfer during their evolutions - so far from arcane, I'm actually studying one of the most common things in the universe.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 12, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Molecules generally do not exist in stars except in their very upper atmospheres, its too hot.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



...it's too hot, because of Global Warming right?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 12, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




You truly are not at all interested in a serious debate, are you?


----------



## Vidi (Apr 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...




His name is CrusaderFrank...which is hillbilly for Jihadist Akmed...do you think Jihadists can be reasoned with? 

These translations from lunatic fringe to equivilent lunatic fringe get confusing sometimes, so your error is quite common.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Most of the time I am, but there are times when I feel it's just better to mock ideas that are just too dumb to be taken seriously, like say the notion that a .01% change in the Earth atmosphere causes Cat 5 hurricanes, acidifies the oceans and causes "global warming".

I'm trying to get you as a scientist to see how totally absurd the proposition is.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

Vidi said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Find a grown up to read you what I post in the "environment" section.

Most of the time I'm asking them to provide a repeatable lab experiment that gives ANY much less ALL of the results they propose.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2012)

Ol' dumb fuck Frankie has been supplied with many repeatable experiments, by myself and many others. He simply ignores the fact and keeps right on posting his nonsense. Not a person to be taken seriously on any subject whatsoever.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Ol' dumb fuck Frankie has been supplied with many repeatable experiments, by myself and many others. He simply ignores the fact and keeps right on posting his nonsense. Not a person to be taken seriously on any subject whatsoever.



Show us the experiment that shows how a .01% change in Earth atmosphere causes global warming.

I must have missed it.

Was this it?


----------



## westwall (Apr 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...








What a fucking joke of a scientist you are.  No, it didn't.  It was no worse than any other major drought witnessed by that area in fact it was milder than some.  The loss of top soil was catastrophic to the farmers but that in no way made the drought worse.  My gosh.  You call yourself a scientist and you trot this shit out.


----------



## westwall (Apr 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Ol' dumb fuck Frankie has been supplied with many repeatable experiments, by myself and many others. He simply ignores the fact and keeps right on posting his nonsense. Not a person to be taken seriously on any subject whatsoever.







No, he hasn't.  You have provided some fairly poor "experiments" thast actually demonstrated the IDEAL GAS LAW fairly well.  Had NOTHING to do with CO2 raising the temperature however.  Funny how you never seem capable of addressing that simple fact.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 12, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Well do you want to talk about notions or about science?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 12, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The loss of topsoil didn't contribute to the dust.

Got it.


Amplification of the North American




> The Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s was highly unusual for North America, deviating from the typical pattern forced by La Nina with the maximum drying in the central and northern Plains, warm temperature anomalies across almost the entire continent, and widespread dust storms. General circulation models (GCMs), forced by sea surface temperatures (SSTs) from the 1930s, produce a drought, but one that is centered in southwestern North America and without the warming centered in the middle of the continent. *Here, we show that the inclusion of forcing from human land degradation during the period, in addition to the anomalous SSTs, is necessary to reproduce the anomalous features of the Dust Bowl droug*ht. The degradation over the Great Plains is represented in the GCM as a reduction in vegetation cover and the addition of a soil dust aerosol source, both consequences of crop failure. As a result of land surface feedbacks, the simulation of the drought is much improved when the new dust aerosol and vegetation boundary conditions are included. Vegetation reductions explain the high temperature anomaly over the northern U.S., and the dust aerosols intensify the drought and move it northward of the purely ocean-forced drought pattern. When both factors are included in the model simulations, the precipitation and temperature anomalies are of similar magnitude and in a similar location compared with the observations.* Human-induced land degradation is likely to have not only contributed to the dust storms of the 1930s but also amplified the drought*, and these together turned a modest SST-forced drought into one of the worst environmental disasters the U.S. has experienced.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Apr 12, 2012)

rdean said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



you are correct liberal and logic, should NEVER be used in the same sentance. Oh do you walk to work like a good little liberal?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So says someone that considers himself a scientist, then denigrates the mojority of scientists in the world. Everything that I have read does state that loss of vegatation increases the loss of soil moisture. But then I tend to read peer reviewed articles, not lies by the like of Anthony Watt, and the fake English Lord.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Oh, science talk gets me all nipply, let's try that!

That means we can't talk about AGW, right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Ol' dumb fuck Frankie has been supplied with many repeatable experiments, by myself and many others. He simply ignores the fact and keeps right on posting his nonsense. Not a person to be taken seriously on any subject whatsoever.



er, did I miss where you posted the experiment that conclusively eliminates all variables save for a .01% change in atmospheric composition by adding CO2?


----------



## code1211 (Apr 12, 2012)

Vidi said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming seems to be the new "Normal". This has been the warmest March on record. We are having forest fires in New York state , brush fires on the EAST coast. Destructive tornadoes in the west in March. This is disturbing. Someone here wants to imply the weather is somehow, NORMAL? Not buying it, buddy. Something is wrong with that evaluation based on first hand experience. I add, a tornado alert has gone off near my house, ironically. We have never had that THIS happen this early in the year...
> ...





Not sure you've got a valid correlation there.  Erosion = global warming?


----------



## westwall (Apr 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







No, dumbass, I denigrate the majority of CLIMATOLOGISTS.  They are not the majority of scientists in the world.  They are however, a significant majority of the scientists committing academic fraud.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 12, 2012)

westwall said:


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



Bullshit. American Geophysical Union, Geological Society of America, and the Royal Society are not made up exclusively of climatologists. In fact, the majority of the scientists in those organizatons are from other disciplines. Yet all have rather strong statements on AGW.

As for the fraud charge, look in the mirror.


----------



## westwall (Apr 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


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







Bullshit right back atcha buckwheat.  All of those organizations are headed by people wholly dependent on taxpayer largesse to fund themselves.  Funny how you are all over the practice when it's the Military Industrial Complex, but when it's the Acedemic Industrial Complex you're blind as a myopic bat.

Here are 49 current and former NASA scientists and what they have to say about the "science" of global warming...or is it climate change this week?

And here's another clue....when you are reduced to changing the name three times in two years in order to try and drum up public support and falsify data across the board like Hansen is doing....THAT is academic fraud nimrod.  The very ESSENCE of it.


March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
 NASA Administrator
 NASA Headquarters
 Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASAs history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASAs advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASAs current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack  JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell  JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard  JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick  JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman  JSC, Scientist  astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox  JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham  JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry  JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day  Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr.  JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich  JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron  JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke  JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany  JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson  JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon  JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin  JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs  JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath  JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr.  JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree  JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones  JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin  JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight  JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft  JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer  JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger  JSC, Asst. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell  JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen  JSC, Project Engineer  Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser  Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller  Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock  JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland  JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers  JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum  JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt  JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows  JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit  JSC, Asst Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson  JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer  Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine  JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried  JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

/s/ George Weisskopf  JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

/s/ Al Worden  JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller  JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 12, 2012)

westwall said:


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


pffft... buncha know-nothing nobodies by the Chicken Little standards.

Is that letter posted anywhere?  I've some people I'd love to share it with.  They're just starting to wake up.


----------



## bripat9643 (Apr 12, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, dumbass, I denigrate the majority of CLIMATOLOGISTS.  They are not the majority of scientists in the world.  They are however, a significant majority of the scientists committing academic fraud.
> ...



No they don't, turd.  The leadership of these organizations is one thing.  The rank and file is another.  the leadership is a gang of political hacks who are desperately seeking to curry favor with the bureaucrats who dispense research grants.  They aren't going to say anything that would piss them off.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 13, 2012)

Now Pattycake, you are such a dumb fuck that you will just accept what anyone tells you without checking the facts. There, indeed, has been one Scientific Society that has been forced to change it's stance on AGW by the membership. That is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

American Association of Petroleum Geologists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2007 AAPG revised position

Acknowledging that the association's previous policy statement on Climate Change was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members",[9] AAPG's formal stance was reviewed and changed in July 2007.

The new statement formally accepts human activity as at least one contributor to carbon dioxide increase, but does not confirm its link to climate change, saying its members are "divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has" on climate. AAPG also stated support for "research to narrow probabilistic ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate."[10]

AAPG also withdrew its earlier criticism of other scientific organizations and research stating, "Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models."


----------



## westwall (Apr 13, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Now Pattycake, you are such a dumb fuck that you will just accept what anyone tells you without checking the facts. There, indeed, has been one Scientific Society that has been forced to change it's stance on AGW by the membership. That is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
> 
> American Association of Petroleum Geologists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...







Of course they have.   Remember ENRON?  They figured out that making money from dupes like you for doing nothing but shuffling paper is a pretty good deal so the oil companies have jumped all over the "green energy" hype.  

Look who's the shill for the oil companies!  It's you dipshit!


----------



## westwall (Apr 13, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


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








It's here

50 Top Astronauts, Scientists, Engineers Sign Letter Claiming Extremist GISS Is Turning NASA Into A Laughing Stock!

And at WUWT and as host of other sceptic sites.  A few news agencies are now publishing it as well.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 13, 2012)

AGW Departments are the Ghostbusters of Colleges and Universities


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 13, 2012)

westwall said:


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



Which of the people on the above list, making the scientific claim:


> We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.


are active research scientists publishing climate related papers?

Any? Looks like half of them are astronauts - since when does being an astronaut make you an expert on climate?


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 13, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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





clearly the astronauts are being paid off by big oil to make this pronouncement.


----------



## westwall (Apr 13, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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







Who cares.  Your claim is that there is widespread consensus among scientists.  That is completely FALSE.  As proved here with these NASA scientists who between them have hundreds of years of scientific experience.

Climatology is a farce now.  They have screamed wolf too many times so no one pays them a bit of attention now.  Well, no one except you dupes and shills for the banking and oil firms who will make trillions of dollars off of the backs of the poor and downtrodden.

You clowns will spew your BS to the heavens trying to get the fraud through to its fruition.


----------



## IanC (Apr 16, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



I am pretty sure that being an astronaut means that you are an extremely talented and intelligent individual with an outstanding education, and a penchant for thinking things through by merit rather than hype.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 16, 2012)

AGW Ghostbusters: We're ready to believe Global Warming!


----------



## wirebender (Apr 16, 2012)

The fact that only retirees speak out regarding nasa's "climate science" says a great deal about the climate within nasa when it comes to the scientific method.


----------



## IanC (Apr 17, 2012)

we all have heard the old joke about our parents having to walk 5 miles to school, uphill both ways.

isnt the whole Arctic ice death spiral cut from the same cloth? we have constantly heard reports of doom from the media over the last decade about how the ice is just about gone but.......the ice is at the 1979-2000 average right now. did I miss the articles about how the ice has made a remarkable comeback?


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 17, 2012)

Seems like an astronaut observes weather, not climate.


----------



## westwall (Apr 17, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Seems like an astronaut observes weather, not climate.







An astronaut is a SCIENTIST.  Who also happens to OBSERVE the natural world.  Unlike climatologists who make up the world in their poor computer models while sitting at a desk in a nice little office lit by fossil fuels.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 20, 2012)

Getting closer to the 1979-2000 avg...This period is far above the 2004-2011 "short" term avg too. 

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

It may cross the avg line within the next month...


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 20, 2012)

Or it may take a dive, still only one year or less ice.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 20, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Or it may take a dive, still only one year or less ice.



You're supposed to say, "That's exactly what the models predict!  Wider and wider swings...derp derp derp, etc"


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 20, 2012)

westwall said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like an astronaut observes weather, not climate.
> ...



LOL.   So says an ersatz internet scientist. Most of these scientists have done extensive field work. Like Dr. Alley studying high latitude glaciers and sea ice. Like Dr. Hansen who did most of the studies on the atmosphere physics of Venus. 

And this modeling, that you so ignorantly demean, enabled us to predict the last tornado outbreak with enough accuracy that people were told 24 hours ahead of time that they were in danger. And that resulted in a death toll of only 6, in spite of the high number of tornados that afternoon and night.

You state you are a scientist and constantly denigrate the efforts of scientists. I see you as only a political shill, nothing more.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 20, 2012)

So Komrade Rocks how is CO2 both lingering in the atmosphere for "hundreds of years" and entering the ocean turning them "acidic"?

You never explained that


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 20, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So Komrade Rocks how is CO2 both lingering in the atmosphere for "hundreds of years" and entering the ocean turning them "acidic"?
> 
> You never explained that


It fluctuates based on political expediency.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 20, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So Komrade Rocks how is CO2 both lingering in the atmosphere for "hundreds of years" and entering the ocean turning them "acidic"?
> ...



My models predicted Rocks wouldn't answer


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 20, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



He's a cycle.  DOn't worry, he'll post a bunch of nonsense soon.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 20, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So Komrade Rocks how is CO2 both lingering in the atmosphere for "hundreds of years" and entering the ocean turning them "acidic"?
> 
> You never explained that



Are you seriously asking someone to prove that CO2 can turn a solution acidic?

WTF? That's basic high school science.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 20, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So Komrade Rocks how is CO2 both lingering in the atmosphere for "hundreds of years" and entering the ocean turning them "acidic"?
> ...



Yes, Dear. Are you saying there is a measurable increase in carbolic acid? 

How is CO2 both being forced out of the ocean in an imaginary CO2 driven "feedback Loop" and simultaneously increasing in the ocean turning it "acidic"

That's common sense and you and Komrade  Rocks are Epic Fails


----------



## wirebender (Apr 20, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL.   So says an ersatz internet scientist. Most of these scientists have done extensive field work. Like Dr. Alley studying high latitude glaciers and sea ice. Like Dr. Hansen who did most of the studies on the atmosphere physics of Venus.



So hansen has done field work on venus huh?  That I believe.  Perhaps was captured and replaced with a venusian agent and sent back here with the mission of destroying the earth's economy.



Old Rocks said:


> And this modeling, that you so ignorantly demean, enabled us to predict the last tornado outbreak with enough accuracy that people were told 24 hours ahead of time that they were in danger.



No rocks, not the same modeling at all.  There is a fundamental and profound difference between predicting an outbreak of tornadoes when a low pressure system already in place in conjunction with very strong upper level winds crashes head on into very warm moist air and predicting what the global climate will do over the next 6 months, much less the next 100 years.  And 24 hours?  You believe that is an achievement of some sort?  Geez we predicted that tornadoes would spawn from ideal tornado conditions a whole 24 hours in advance?  Whoop teee do.  If the models were anything like you imagine them to be, we should have seen that senario at least a week or two before hand.  After all, you believe them to be able to predict the climate years in advance.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 20, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...





You're crossing your wires between climate and weather again.

Our weather prediction is really pretty accurate up to about 5 days out.  To me, this is still pretty amazing.

Beyond 5 days the accuracy seems to disintegrate.

Beyond a month and there's nothing of any value at all that could not be read about in the Farmer's Almanac.


----------



## westwall (Apr 21, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So Komrade Rocks how is CO2 both lingering in the atmosphere for "hundreds of years" and entering the ocean turning them "acidic"?
> ...







Dodging the underlying question is a poor tactic to use bucko.


----------



## westwall (Apr 21, 2012)

code1211 said:


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






Metoerologists will only claim accuracy to 1.5 days with high confidence.  Three days out and they drop to around 50% accuracy.  5 days out and it drops to around 15% in this area.  Other areas can give better ideas of coming weather because they are in more stable regions.


----------



## westwall (Apr 21, 2012)

UH OH Spaghetti O!

Looks like the Arctic ice is now one standard deviation above normal (well darned close to it anyhow).  And the Antarctic ice has been above average for the whole year!  Looks like it might be time to reassess those claims of arctic ice death spirals eh!


----------



## code1211 (Apr 21, 2012)

westwall said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





Well, then, they don't give themselves enough credit.

I don't bet my life on the 5-day forecast, but more often than not, it's a decent guide.


----------



## westwall (Apr 21, 2012)

code1211 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...






Yes, if you live in one of the stable regions you can rely on the five day forcast pretty well.  here in the mountanous areas the orographic effects cause all sorts of problems for the computer models.  It is very common for them to predict sunny days in the morning and by noon we have snow.


----------



## code1211 (Apr 21, 2012)

westwall said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...





I'm in Indiana and that might be the difference.  Every morning i check the Hour by hour to see if/when the rain might fall.  They even hit that pretty well.

Maybe i'm just easily impressed...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 21, 2012)

westwall said:


> UH OH Spaghetti O!
> 
> Looks like the Arctic ice is now one standard deviation above normal (well darned close to it anyhow).  And the Antarctic ice has been above average for the whole year!  Looks like it might be time to reassess those claims of arctic ice death spirals eh!



AGW is a bigger fraud than the peppered moth and Piltdown Man combined


----------



## westwall (Apr 21, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > UH OH Spaghetti O!
> ...







That is for sure.  What is sad is it has been sustained for so long.  Corruption is endemic within academia now.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 24, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




More CO2 is going into the ocean than out of it. That's why its pH has been decreasing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 24, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Um, ok, so there's no "feedback loop" of CO2 leaching out of the oceans then, right?

Do you have any numbers on the increases in oceanic carbolic acid?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 24, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




Let me google that for you


----------



## westwall (Apr 24, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







So, let's do a quick calculation, you should be able to do that I'm sure...right?  Calculate what the absolute lowest level of pH will be if we burned EVERY carbon bearing rock on this planet.  What would the pH be then?

Oh, looky here....it's allready been done for you.  The current pH of the oceans is 8.1.  If we put every bit of C into the oceans we could it would drop to....wait for it.....8.

So tell me Mr. astrophysicist.....exactly how acidic is that?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 24, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



Wait, so there's a negative Feedback Loop? The oceans are net absorbers not emitters of CO2?

Are you sure that what your theory states?


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 24, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


as someone who has taken only basic high school chemistry... I can say from my expertise a ph of 8 is normal to very slightly BASIC.

Do I win a cookie?


----------



## westwall (Apr 24, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







Suger or chocolate chip?


----------



## Big Fitz (Apr 24, 2012)

westwall said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








CHOKKOCHIIIIIIIP!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 24, 2012)

westwall said:


> UH OH Spaghetti O!
> 
> Looks like the Arctic ice is now one standard deviation above normal (well darned close to it anyhow).  And the Antarctic ice has been above average for the whole year!  Looks like it might be time to reassess those claims of arctic ice death spirals eh!



Are all three of you that fucking stupid? You cannot even read simple graphs? Yee Gods and little fishes, what a trio of stupes. 

Present Arctic Ice level anamoly is -0.074 below the average since 1979. That is the highest it has been since 2005. The analomy has not been positive since 2005.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

The Anarctic Sea Ice has, indeed, been above the average for 2012, thus far.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

While there has been a slight gain in sea ice around Antarctica, the continent of Antarctica is still losing billions of tons of ice on a yearly basis.

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.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 24, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Really? Pulled that number out of your ass, didn't you. The change in acidity is allready affecting sea life.

Local News | Acidity in ocean killed NW oysters, new study says | Seattle Times Newspaper

It's been eight years since baby oysters started dying by the billions at an Oregon hatchery and in Washington's Willapa Bay.

In 2009, top scientists drew global attention when they said evidence suggested the culprit might be changing ocean chemistry from the same greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. They just couldn't prove it  until now.

Researchers said Wednesday they can definitively show that ocean acidification is at least partly responsible for massive oyster die-offs at the hatchery in Netarts Bay, Ore.

It's the first concrete finding in North America that carbon dioxide being taken up by the oceans already is helping kill marine species.

"This is the smoking gun for oyster larvae," said Richard Feely, an oceanographer and leading marine-chemistry researcher with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Seattle and one of the paper's authors.

Said Alan Barton, another of the paper's authors: "It's now an incontrovertible fact that ocean chemistry is affecting our larvae."


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 24, 2012)

westwall said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



It seems you omitted some of your calculations. Actually all of them. You may as well have pulled that number out your ass, i see no justification for it.


----------



## westwall (Apr 24, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







I would appreciate a link to the paper if you don't mind.


----------



## westwall (Apr 24, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...







Then run the numbers for yourself and post them here so we can check your math.


----------



## westwall (Apr 24, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > UH OH Spaghetti O!
> ...







I hate to inform you but skeptical science is not a credible source.  They are the equivalent of wiki with a serious case of bias and intellectual dishonesty thrown in for good measure.

And yes i can read graphs quite well.   Clearly they are beyond you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 24, 2012)

Walleyes, you are getting increasingly senile. That is the global sea ice graph, not the Arctic or Antarctic. 

And you stated that the Arctic Sea Ice is at now above one standard deviation above normal. By this graph, it is still in minus territory.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

Also, if you look at this graph;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png

You see that the ice high point was under 13 million square kilometers this year, most of the years since 1979 have been above 14 million square kilometers. Prior to 2004, there were only two years with less than 14 million square kilometers of ice at the maximum. Since 2004, there has not been a year that reached 13 million square kilometers. This year the ice has a slow start to the melt. However, the ice is still in the negative territory compared to the average from 1979 to present.


----------



## westwall (Apr 25, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> Walleyes, you are getting increasingly senile. That is the global sea ice graph, not the Arctic or Antarctic.
> 
> And you stated that the Arctic Sea Ice is at now above one standard deviation above normal. By this graph, it is still in minus territory.
> 
> ...









  Really, you need to read what you just wrote.  It's priceless!  I'm saving it for posterity.  BTW, where exactly is the sea ice located?


----------

