# 2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2012)

*A blog, but many links to reputable sources. Such as the US Navy.*

Arctic News

In conclusion, it looks like there will be no sea ice from August 2015 through to October 2015, while a further three months look set to reach zero in 2017, 2018 and 2019 (respectively July, November and June). Before the start of the year 2020, in other words, there will be zero sea ice for the six months from June through to November. 

And, events may unfold even more rapidly, as discussed earlier at Getting the picture.


The image below, from the Naval Research Laboratory, shows the dramatic decline of sea ice thickness over the last 30 days.


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 5, 2012)

and?


Is there a point to this thread?


Actually, what we have here is somebody advocating for this to be the future of shipbuilding on earth......................


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 5, 2012)

http://marine.rutgers.edu/~francis/pres/Francis_Vavrus_2012GL051000_pub.pdf

3. Conclusions
[14] In summary, the observational analysis presented in this study provides evidence supporting two hypothesized mechanisms by which Arctic amplification &#8211; enhanced Arctic warming relative to that in mid-latitudes &#8211; may cause more persistent weather patterns in mid-latitudes that can lead to
extreme weather. One effect is a reduced poleward gradient in 1000-500 hPa thicknesses, which weakens the zonal upper-level flow. According to Rossby wave theory, a weaker flow slows the eastward wave progression and tends to follow a higher amplitude trajectory, resulting in slower
moving circulation systems. More prolonged weather conditions enhance the probability for extreme weather due to drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves. The second effect is a northward elongation of ridge peaks in 500 hPa waves, which amplifies the flow trajectory and further
exacerbates the increased probability of slow-moving weather patterns. While Arctic amplification during autumn and winter is largely driven by sea-ice loss and the subsequent transfer of additional energy from the ocean into the high-latitude atmosphere, the increasing tendency for highamplitude
patterns in summer is consistent with enhanced warming over high-latitude land caused by earlier snow melt and drying of the soil. Enhanced 500-hPa ridging observed over the eastern N. Atlantic is consistent with more persistent high surface pressure over western Europe. This effect has been implicated as contributing to record heat waves in Europe during recent summers [Jaeger and Seneviratne, 2011].

[15] Can the persistent weather conditions associated with recent severe events such as the snowy winters of 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 in the eastern U.S. and Europe, the historic drought and heat-wave in Texas during summer 2011, or record-breaking rains in the northeast U.S. of summer 2011
be attributed to enhanced high-latitude warming? Particular causes are difficult to implicate, but these sorts of occurrences are consistent with the analysis and mechanism presented in this study. As the Arctic sea-ice cover continues to disappear and the snow cover melts ever earlier over vast regions of Eurasia and North America [Brown et al., 2010], it is expected that large-scale circulation patterns throughout the northern hemisphere will become increasingly influenced by Arctic Amplification. Gradual warming of the globe may not be noticed by most, but everyone &#8211; either directly or indirectly &#8211; will be affected to some degree by changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Further research will elucidate the types, locations, timing, and character of the weather changes, which will provide valuable guidance to decision-makers in vulnerable regions.


----------



## Dubya (Jan 31, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> *A blog, but many links to reputable sources. Such as the US Navy.*
> 
> Arctic News
> 
> ...



2015 is also the year I and many others predict the arctic will essentially be ice free during the summer melt, though I don't think the sea ice free time period will expand that rapidly. Others on the Arctic Sea Ice Blog hold similar views.

Arctic Sea Ice

I'm also predicting another massive Greenland melt and exceptional weather over the next 3 years that will get the attention of the world. Maybe it's wishful thinking that the world will become aware of the need to prevent an ice free arctic. I believe with all the Northern Hemisphere June snow cover losses, we have about 3 years to save the arctic sea ice or situation will become irreversible.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2013)

Do you people never get out of panic mode?

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds worst-case scenario is ice-free Arctic by year 2400



> A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds that even under the most exaggerated "strongest" forcing scenario simulated by climate models, the Arctic "becomes summer ice-free by the end of the 21st century and year-round ice-free by the end of the 23rd century."



Implications of Arctic sea ice changes for NorthAtlantic deep convection and the meridionaloverturning circulation in CCSM4-CMIP5simulations - Jahn - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

And in the "its nothing new...or unprecedented" department....

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: More evidence of alarmist bias at Wikipedia: Review paper finds periods of ice-free summers in Arctic during early Holocene



> A paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews reviews several studies of Arctic sea ice during the Holocene [the past 12,000 years] and finds,
> 
> "Arctic sea ice cover was strongly reduced during most of the early Holocene; there appears even to have been periods of ice free summers in large parts of the central Arctic Ocean (Fig. 2)."



ScienceDirect.com - Quaternary Science Reviews - New insights on Arctic Quaternary climate variability from palaeo-records and numerical modelling


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 4, 2013)

Implications of Arctic sea ice changes for NorthAtlantic deep convection and the meridionaloverturning circulation in CCSM4-CMIP5simulations - Jahn - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Abstract


[1] Using CCSM4 climate simulations for 1850&#8211;2300 with four different future forcing scenarios, we show that the maximum strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (MOC) decreases proportionally to the applied CO2 forcing. This weakening of the overturning is caused by a reduction or shut down of North Atlantic (NA) deep convection due to a surface freshening. In the Labrador Sea, the surface freshening is caused by strongly increased liquid freshwater exports from the Arctic, which are largely due to the decrease in the Arctic sea ice cover. In the strongest forcing scenario (RCP8.5), the Arctic becomes summer ice-free by the end of the 21st century and year-round ice-free by the end of the 23rd century. As a result of the associated freshening, all NA deep convection ceases by 2145, which leads to a 72% (18&#8201;Sv) decrease of the MOC strength by the end of the simulation in 2300.

*Well, that is definately better than 2015, however, by the last few years of melt, I find that projection to be rather optimistic. Indeed, by the estimates of the people at PIOMAS, 2015 to 2020, looks to be more realistic.*

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/Chiloe/12_Climate/sea_ice_PIOMAS_min.png

*At the turn of the century, had someone stated that the Arctic Sea Ice would be where it is today, I would have considered them to be unduly alarmist. *


----------



## SSDD (Feb 4, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Implications of Arctic sea ice changes for NorthAtlantic deep convection and the meridionaloverturning circulation in CCSM4-CMIP5simulations - Jahn - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
> 
> Abstract
> 
> ...



That is under the most exagerated strongest forcing senario predicted by climate models....as we know, reality and models aren't exactly compatable.  Expect ice free summers in the arctic about the time hell freezes over.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> http://marine.rutgers.edu/~francis/pres/Francis_Vavrus_2012GL051000_pub.pdf
> 
> 3. Conclusions
> [14] In summary, the observational analysis presented in this study provides evidence supporting two hypothesized mechanisms by which Arctic amplification  enhanced Arctic warming relative to that in mid-latitudes  may cause more persistent weather patterns in mid-latitudes that can lead to
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2013)




----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2013)




----------



## Saigon (Feb 4, 2013)

SSDD - 

This is another one of those topics that an intelligent, honest sceptic would do some real research on rather than simply rejecting it out of hand. 

While the dates are debatable - the fact that the Arctic is experiencing unprecedented melting is a simple, known, established scientific fact. One you can check. 

This is the position of the generally excellent Arctic Council:

In 2004, the intergovernmental Arctic Council and the non-governmental International Arctic Science Committee released the synthesis report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment:[18]

    Climate conditions in the past provide evidence that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are associated with rising global temperatures. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Politico (Feb 5, 2013)

Cool. I'd like to go back there and not freeze my ass off.


----------



## yidnar (Feb 5, 2013)

Dubya said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *A blog, but many links to reputable sources. Such as the US Navy.*
> ...


 so instead of driving or taking the bus you should be a good libb and help cut down on carbon emissions  by walking your lazy ass to the food stamp office .


----------



## waltky (Feb 5, 2013)

possum wonderin'...

... where Santa gonna live?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> While the dates are debatable - the fact that the Arctic is experiencing unprecedented melting is a simple, known, established scientific fact. One you can check.



I have done the checking and find that once again, you don't have a clue?  Unprecedented?  Really?  The arctic has never been ice free?  Even though the holocene maximum raised the arctic temperatures at least 8 degrees higher than the present, the ice didn't melt?...is that what you are saying?  Do you believe the ice didn't melt during the roman warm period or the medieval warm period?  Do you think those farmers in greenland were chopping ice to get to the ground?

To claim that the melting we are presently seeing is unprecedented is a bald faced lie.  You really should broaden your research database....you are woefully uninformed.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Arctic has still not received the memo on AGW



> Arctic temperatures stable since 1958
> From the Copenhagen Centre for Ocean and Ice of the Danish Meteorological Institute, which has maintained daily mean temperatures (untouched by Phil Jones & CRU) for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel since 1958, the critical summer temperatures (the peak in the middle of the graphs) shows that the summer arctic temperatures were stable to considerably less for the summer of 2009 compared to the summer of 1959 (& 1958 and indeed most years in the record).



COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut


THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Arctic Temperatures 2-3C higher only 1000 years ago



> A paper presented at the American Geophysical Union meeting this week finds that Ellesmere Island in the Canadian High Arctic experienced a "dramatic" Medieval Warming Period from 800-1200 AD with temperatures 2 to 3 degrees C higher than the mean temperature of the past 100 years. Ellesmere Island was also in the news this week due to a discovery of a mummified forest where "no trees now grow" due to its "current frigid state."



A 5,000 year alkenone-based temperature record from Lower Murray Lake reveals a


THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds deep Arctic Ocean from 50,000 to 11,000 years ago was 1?2°C warmer than modern temperatures



> A new paper published in Nature Geoscience finds "From about 50,000 to 11,000 years ago, the central Arctic Basin from 1,000 to 2,500 meters deep was ... 12°C warmer than modern Arctic Intermediate Water." This finding is particularly surprising because it occurred during the last major ice age.



http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n9/full/ngeo1557.html


THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Current Arctic Sea Ice is More Extensive than Most of the past 9000 Years

[/quote]A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that western Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that the western Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since. [/quote]

http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf


THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper shows Arctic temps have been much warmer than the present during 8 periods over the past 2.8 million years



> A new paper published in Science examined sediment records from the Russian Arctic and finds at least 8 "super interglacials" [each lasting several thousand years] with "extreme warm conditions" up to 5C warmer than the present occurred over the past 2.8 million years. Furthermore, the paper states, "Climate [model] simulations show these extreme warm conditions are difficult to explain with greenhouse gas [CO2] and astronomical forcing [solar insolation] alone." The paper also finds the Arctic warming occurred simultaneously with Antarctic warming, indicating an interconnected, global phenomenon. Implications of the paper include: 1) The globe has been much warmer without human influence during multiple periods over the past 2.8 million years, 2) IPCC climate models are incapable of reproducing past temps and therefore unable to project future temps, and 3) global warming far exceeding alarmist IPCC projections has occurred several times in the past without triggering any "tipping points."



2.8 Million Years of Arctic Climate Change from Lake El?gygytgyn, NE Russia



And I could go on and on with peer reviewed papers stating explicitly that what we are seeing in the arctic is in no way unusual or unprecedented even in recent geological history.  Your hysterics are nothing more than that....hysterics unfounded in fact.




Saigon said:


> This is the position of the generally excellent Arctic Council:
> 
> In 2004, the intergovernmental Arctic Council and the non-governmental International Arctic Science Committee released the synthesis report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment:[18]



Do you think that they really don't know that the arctic has been warmer in recent geological past and probably ice free....do you think that they don't know that for most of earth history, there has been no ice at one or both of the poles?  Do you really believe they aren't aware of the mountains of peer reviewed research that contradicts their position?  Of course they know these things, but money talks...and if you are in a branch of science where money has always been scarce and suddenly there are yachts full of it just for the taking...it talks real loud.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Implications of Arctic sea ice changes for NorthAtlantic deep convection and the meridionaloverturning circulation in CCSM4-CMIP5simulations - Jahn - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
> ...



Prediction noted. We will get back to you on that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 5, 2013)

http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf

Conclusion
The Holocene record from site HLY0501-05 illustrates
the sensitivity of hydrographical conditions in the western
Arctic Ocean. The data show a long-term warming that is
opposite to what is reconstructed for the eastern Arctic and
point to a bipolar behavior of the Arctic Ocean at the timescale
of the Holocene. The millennial-scale variability in the
eastern Chukchi Sea is characterized by quasi-cyclic periods
of high SSS, high SST, and reduced sea-ice cover, which
most probably reflects variations in the stratification of the
upper water column. Such changes maybe related to tidal
forcing and (or) large-scale mechanisms, such as AO/NAOlike
oscillations. It is important to note that the amplitude of
these millennial-scale changes in sea-surface conditions far
exceed those observed at the end of the 20th century.

*So, by the paper, one side was losing ice in a major way while the other side was not, in the Holocene. And it happened on a millenial scale. Whereas today, the whole of the Arctic is losing ice, and it has happened in a period of less than 100 years. So we match the old melt in a period of seven more years, then what do the skeptics say?

As for your other referances, if the blog refers to a scientific paper, then present the papes, as you did, without the nonsense in the blog.*


----------



## tjvh (Feb 5, 2013)

2015, the beginning of ice free arctic? Great News... A new trade route *free of pirates.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 5, 2013)

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking | Watts Up With That?


----------



## PredFan (Feb 5, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> *A blog, but many links to reputable sources. Such as the US Navy.*
> 
> Arctic News
> 
> ...



Excellent! Let's go fishing!


----------



## Saigon (Feb 5, 2013)

tjvh said:


> 2015, the beginning of ice free arctic? Great News... A new trade route *free of pirates.*



But already full of Russian exploration teams. 

It seems Russia is better prepared to take advantage of climate change than the US, Canada or Norway are right now, and are already exploring the sea bed for mining opportunities which may now be viable options.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 5, 2013)

More on this....


Arctic sea ice shrinks to smallest extent ever recorded

Rate of summer ice melt smashes two previous record lows and prompts warnings of accelerated climate change

Sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk to its smallest extent ever recorded, smashing the previous record minimum and prompting warnings of accelerated climate change.

Satellite images show that the rapid summer melt has reduced the area of frozen sea to less than 3.5 million square kilometres this week &#8211; less than half the area typically occupied four decades ago.

Arctic sea ice cover has been shrinking since the 1970s when it averaged around 8m sq km a year, but such a dramatic collapse in ice cover in one year is highly unusual.

A record low in 2007 of 4.17m sq km was broken on 27 August 2012; further melting has since amounted to more than 500,000 sq km.

The record, which is based on a five-day average, is expected to be officially declared in the next few days by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado. The NSIDC's data shows the sea ice extent is bumping along the bottom, with a new low of 3.421m sq km on Tuesday, which rose very slightly to 3.429m sq km on Wednesday and 3.45m sq km on Thursday.

Arctic sea ice shrinks to smallest extent ever recorded | Environment | guardian.co.uk


----------



## SSDD (Feb 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> More on this....
> 
> 
> Arctic sea ice shrinks to smallest extent ever recorded



While at the same time antarctic sea ice is far above normal.  Square that with the GLOBAL warming hypothesis.



Saigon said:


> Rate of summer ice melt smashes two previous record lows and prompts warnings of accelerated climate change



Records since when...some point in the past less than an eyeblink in geological time?



Saigon said:


> Satellite images show that the rapid summer melt has reduced the area of frozen sea to less than 3.5 million square kilometres this week  less than half the area typically occupied four decades ago.



Satellites have shown themselves unable to differentiate between open ocean and a couple of mm of melt water on the surface of the ice.



Saigon said:


> Arctic sea ice cover has been shrinking since the 1970s when it averaged around 8m sq km a year, but such a dramatic collapse in ice cover in one year is highly unusual.



Really?  Based on what?  That very short reference period?

What you have to do in order to be taken as anything more than a hysterical old granny like rocks siagon, is show that what is happening in the arctic is unprecedented in history, not since satellites went up, or even since the invention of the internal combustion engine.

The fact, siagon, is that for most of earth history, there hasn't been any ice at all in either the arctic, the antarctic or both.  There is ice there now because the earth is still in an ice age that it is going to eventualy come out of no matter how much climate alarmists kick and scream.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 6, 2013)

> While at the same time antarctic sea ice is far above normal. Square that with the GLOBAL warming hypothesis.



And where does antractic sea ice come from, genius?

Once again - IF you read about this topic, you'll almost certainly come to understand it.

This is the 2nd time today that you have completely refused to look at science that you very clearly do not understand. And yet on other threads you claim to be looking for evidence....?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 6, 2013)

Arctic Sea ice loss will cause ?pronounced? future melt, study finds | EurActiv

The paper by scientists at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Germany discovered that solar radiation through &#8216;first year ice&#8217; was three times greater and allowed 50% more energy absorption than was with the case with &#8216;multi-year ice&#8217;.

This in turn could change the face of the Arctic. 

&#8220;Ice melt and less sea ice cover will [themselves] make it more likely that more ice will melt in the next years ahead,&#8221; Marcel Nicolaus, one of the report&#8217;s authors, told EurActiv. &#8220;We see that light transmission through sea ice will increase in the future.&#8221;

While previous studies had indicated that solar radiation was melting sea ice at the surface, and a warmer ocean was melting it at the bottom, the new paper found that Arctic ice sheets were increasingly melting from within too.

&#8220;We showed here that the older multi-year ice is covered with fewer ponds at the surface, while the newer, younger ice has more ponds,&#8221; Nicolaus said.

&#8220;This albedo radiation transfer effect will be more pronounced in the future,&#8221; he added. 

Increased Arctic light transmission will also affect sea life in the Arctic ocean, although more research is needed to understand how.


----------



## westwall (Feb 6, 2013)

So, what are you all going to say when the Arctic is packed with ice in 2015?


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Feb 6, 2013)

Does this mean all those coastal liberal Democrat loonies are going to move inland...?

.......


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> And where does antractic sea ice come from, genius?



The claim is GLOBAL warming genius.  Explain record ice expansion in the antarctic in the presence of GLOBAL warming.



Saigon said:


> This is the 2nd time today that you have completely refused to look at science that you very clearly do not understand. And yet on other threads you claim to be looking for evidence....?



Again, you aren't showing any science.  This may come as a surprise to you, but simply stating a thing doesn't make it science.  I guess your claim that shrinking arctic ice is hard proof that man is changing the global climate but your claim doesn't square with growing ice in the antarctic where most of the ice in the world is located.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 7, 2013)

SSDD - 

This is very simple stuff, and I am more than happy to explain this, but only if you are willing to commit to actually reading what is posted, and commenting accordingly. As in - that you actually start reading the science, as opposed to just denying it. 

The science on how increased humidity can cause increased snowing has been posted - no surprise that you aren't able to comment sensibly on it OR admit your mistake.


----------



## editec (Feb 7, 2013)

I have very little confidnce that_ anybody _can predict the outcome of a system as complex as our climate.

I defintinely DO think that global *weirding* is happening, but as to what outcomes we can predict from that?

Nope!


----------



## Votto (Feb 7, 2013)

editec said:


> I have very little confidnce that_ anybody _can predict the outcome of a system as complex as our climate.
> 
> I defintinely DO think that global *weirding* is happening, but as to what outcomes we can predict from that?
> 
> Nope!



At the heart of the issue is cap and trade.  Unfortunately, it essentially does nothing of significance to reduce carbon emissions, even if they are destroying the world.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> This is very simple stuff, and I am more than happy to explain this, but only if you are willing to commit to actually reading what is posted, and commenting accordingly. As in - that you actually start reading the science, as opposed to just denying it.
> 
> The science on how increased humidity can cause increased snowing has been posted - no surprise that you aren't able to comment sensibly on it OR admit your mistake.



This is what you are calling science?  An article from a left wing newspaper?  


> Arctic sea ice shrinks to smallest extent ever recorded | Environment | guardian.co.uk



And you wonder why I haven't acknowledged the "science" you have been posting?  I repeat, you aren't posting science.  That isn't any more science than a recipe for chicken soup. 

"could be"...."possible climate impacts"......"model projections"....

Is that what passes for science in your world?  You claimed unequivocal proof that man is the primary cause for global climate change and you believe statements from a lefty newspaper chock full of could be's and might happens, and possibles, and model projections equal unequivocal proof?

You are far more clueless than even I thought and I never gave you credit for having a clue in the first place.  Clearly, you don't know what science is...  Here, have a gander at some actual science....

Here is a paper recently published in the Geophysical Research Letters (as opposed to the guardian) which finds that using even the most outrageously exagerated forcing senarios of the current climate models, the arctic will be ice free during the summer at the end of the 21'st century.

Implications of Arctic sea ice changes for NorthAtlantic deep convection and the meridionaloverturning circulation in CCSM4-CMIP5simulations - Jahn - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

No need to admit the lie regarding the unequivocal proof that man is the primary driver of global climate change....I understand now...you know so little that an alarmist report by a left wing newspaper equals science to you....how could you possibly know anything even resembling the truth regarding actual science.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 7, 2013)

SSDD - 

You see? I knew you weren't really interested. 

And I also knew you wouldn't be able to admit that you were wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> You see? I knew you weren't really interested.
> 
> And I also knew you wouldn't be able to admit that you were wrong.



You are absolutely rediculous...."you see?  I knew you weren't really interested?"  What a laugh.  A newspaper article from the guardian passes as science for you while you ignore a peer reviewed paper published in the Geophysical Research Letters which says explicitly that your guardian article is alarmist claptrap.  

Who is it that is really not interested in science siagon?  What you are interested in is an agenda, not science.

It is you who is unable to admit that you are wrong and it very well might be that you are just to stupid, or perhaps ignorant to know that you are wrong.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 7, 2013)

Less Pirates = More Global Warming


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...



AGW is a Cult, don't you see that yet?


----------



## Saigon (Feb 7, 2013)

At one point SSDD will figure out that the article from the Guardian isn't what I was referring to. 

I was referring to the science that explained why more snow forms in warmer, more humid temperatures. 

I do love these threads!


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2013)

climate science was wrong in their prediction for arctic sea ice loss- underestimated.

climate science was wrong with their prediction for antarctic sea ice loss- no loss, highest ever (whatever that means, since we have been measuring I presume).

temperature predictions- wrong, grossly over estimated

climate sensitivity- wrong grossly over estimated

when they changed gears and called it climate change and blamed Hurricane Katrina on CO2, the hurricanes stopped

droughts and floods? still happening like always but at a lower level than normal.

etc, etc


----------



## Saigon (Feb 7, 2013)

" In the strongest forcing scenario (RCP8.5), the Arctic becomes summer ice-free by the end of the 21st century and year-round ice-free by the end of the 23rd century." 

Well, this is interesting....this is from the abstract from SSDD's link. 

The article itself is not available. Which makes me wonder if SSDD has read it....?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 7, 2013)

Is there a single shred of experimental evidence that shows how reducing CO2 in the atmosphere (to the extent that's even humanly possible) will reduces this "Climate change" phenomenon?


----------



## IanC (Feb 7, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Is there a single shred of experimental evidence that shows how reducing CO2 in the atmosphere (to the extent that's even humanly possible) will reduces this "Climate change" phenomenon?



while the case being made is very weak that CO2 is disrupting the climate in a disadvantageous way, the case for spending billions and trillions of dollars to stop it is non existent.


----------



## Zander (Feb 7, 2013)

We'd better call Al Gore !  Only He can save us!! 

Can't he?  

NO!!! It's too late....... gasp....

If only we'd have listened to him........


----------



## Zander (Feb 7, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Is there a single shred of experimental evidence that shows how reducing CO2 in the atmosphere (to the extent that's even humanly possible) will reduces this "Climate change" phenomenon?



It really depends upon one's definition of "evidence"....


----------



## Saigon (Feb 7, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Is there a single shred of experimental evidence that shows how reducing CO2 in the atmosphere (to the extent that's even humanly possible) will reduces this "Climate change" phenomenon?



Yes - but you won't read it. You won't even look at it. 

And I am willing to make a bet on this.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> At one point SSDD will figure out that the article from the Guardian isn't what I was referring to.
> 
> I was referring to the science that explained why more snow forms in warmer, more humid temperatures.
> 
> I do love these threads!



Here is what climate science had to say regarding snow not very long ago....



> Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6Â°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
> 
> *However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event.
> 
> Children just arent going to know what snow is, he said*.



And that was the consensus opinion till snow started falling in record amounts...then the consensus opinion was that global warming causes more snow.....You people are a sad, pathetic joke.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a single shred of experimental evidence that shows how reducing CO2 in the atmosphere (to the extent that's even humanly possible) will reduces this "Climate change" phenomenon?
> ...



You claimed unequivocal evidence exists that man is the primary driver of climate change in the 20th century...when asked for that evidence, you didn't provide it...when asked again, you began a song and dance pretending that we wouldn't read it even if you provided it...

I promise to read it if you post it.....lets see it or at least get an apology from you for spreading alarmist lies about non existent evidence.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Ah yes....the "_non existent evidence_" that has managed to convince the entire world scientific community. LOL. It's really a shame that you're sooooo retarded.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w9SGw75pVas]What We Know about Climate Change - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## anotherlife (Feb 7, 2013)

I thought it was proven that the modern ice ages were started by the closing of the land bridge between the Americas, and thus altering sea currents. 

It would be interesting to know if the resulting new water temperature profile is only oscillatory, as observed, or also gradually shifting upwards in its baseline.  

If yes, then the ice ages must get progressively milder and the last one may have been the last one with actual ice in it.


----------



## westwall (Feb 7, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> You see? I knew you weren't really interested.
> 
> And I also knew you wouldn't be able to admit that you were wrong.







No, stupid.  We're very interested in SCIENCE.  You post propaganda and there is a huge difference.  You are no doubt a firm disciple of Goebbels....This is the mantra of Saigon and all the other left wing nutjobs/corporate rapists, who are pushing this scam on the world.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.


----------



## westwall (Feb 7, 2013)

anotherlife said:


> I thought it was proven that the modern ice ages were started by the closing of the land bridge between the Americas, and thus altering sea currents.
> 
> It would be interesting to know if the resulting new water temperature profile is only oscillatory, as observed, or also gradually shifting upwards in its baseline.
> 
> If yes, then the ice ages must get progressively milder and the last one may have been the last one with actual ice in it.








Nothing is "proven".  There is some evidence to support the hypothesis, but there is also some that doesn't.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 7, 2013)

> We're very interested in SCIENCE



Seriously, dude, I think it's a little late for you to start pretending that.

If that were true, you wouldn't simply run away from threads where you are proven wrong. When you recommended a source like Der Speigel or the Innut people, you wouldn't then be forced to back track when you found they also accept climate change science. You would accept that 97% of glaciers are melting, that ocean levels are rising and that the Arctic is melting. Those are all facts, all proven by hard science. 

People who are interested in science want facts. When faced with facts which contradict your beliefs, you run away.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 7, 2013)

SSDD said:


> You claimed unequivocal evidence exists that man is the primary driver of climate change in the 20th century...when asked for that evidence, you didn't provide it...when asked again, you began a song and dance pretending that we wouldn't read it even if you provided it...
> 
> I promise to read it if you post it.....lets see it or at least get an apology from you for spreading alarmist lies about non existent evidence.



Well, actually that isn't what I said, but the key here is that you do commit to reading what is posted. 

In my experience neither you, nor Frank nor Westwall will ever take a serious look at anything posted - regardless of the source, rendering the entire basis for discussion pointless. 

The specific point we were discussing was Arctic vs Antarctic ice, so I'll post that for you on a new thread in the next day or two.

Just to clarify what I did say, perhaps go back and check. I said there was unequivocal evidence that we are experiencing unprecedented climate change, and that overwhelming scientific evidence exists of that. Feel free to post my original quote if you need clarification.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Ah yes....the "_non existent evidence_" that has managed to convince the entire world scientific community. LOL. It's really a shame that you're sooooo retarded.



Billions in grant money is what convinced the political heads of scientific organizations....the bodies of those organizations are not onboard the sinking ship AGW and the big rats are positioning themselves for an exit while they still have some credibility left.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > We're very interested in SCIENCE
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thus far siagon, the only thing that you have mangaed to prove is that you will believe anything so long as it is in line with your political leanings.

By the way, the output of computer models is not fact and certainly not hard science.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Well, actually that isn't what I said, but the key here is that you do commit to reading what is posted.



Of course that is what you said when you posted the statement from the Meteorological society as evidence in support of your position.



Saigon said:


> In my experience neither you, nor Frank nor Westwall will ever take a serious look at anything posted - regardless of the source, rendering the entire basis for discussion pointless.



Of course we take a serious look...that is how it is so easly torn to pieces.  For every newspaper article you post, one of us posts some peer reviewed, published science contradicting it.  It is you who is failing to read our posts.



Saigon said:


> The specific point we were discussing was Arctic vs Antarctic ice, so I'll post that for you on a new thread in the next day or two.



Actually, the specific point was a claimed ice free arctic in 2 years.  The antarctic tangent only serves to prove that you are operating from an unfalsifible, and therefore false hypothesis.  Today you claim that growing antarctic ice doesn't disprove global warming, but not so long ago, climate science expressed high confidence that increasing global temperatures would melt the antarctic faster than expected and increase sea level at "unprecedented" rates.   That was the consensus till it failed to happen at which time the consensus opinion was that global warming wouldn't cause the antarctic to melt.

You people are pathetic.  The antarctic tangent only brings another failed prediction into play.

Arctic, Antarctic Melting May Raise Sea Levels Faster than Expected - News Release

Uh-oh. Greenland and Antarctica melting faster than expected | Ars Technica

Nature: Antarctica Is Melting From Below, Which 'May Already Have Triggered A Period of Unstable Glacier Retreat' | ThinkProgress

https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/medi...ctic+Ice+Sheet+would+influence+global+climate



Saigon said:


> Just to clarify what I did say, perhaps go back and check. I said there was unequivocal evidence that we are experiencing unprecedented climate change, and that overwhelming scientific evidence exists of that. Feel free to post my original quote if you need clarification.



Here are the first two sentences of your quote:  (emphasis: mine)



> "There is unequivocal evidence that Earth&#8217;s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; sea level is rising; and snow cover, mountain glaciers, and Arctic sea ice are shrinking. *The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities.*


 

You posted it here.

So lets see the large body of evidence that proves that man is the dominant cause of warming since the 1950's.  Hell, lets see even a single shred of hard, unequivocal evidence that man is even a minor player in the movement of the global climate.

So waffle on your statement all you like, the fact remains that you can't produce a single piece of hard, unequivocal evidence proving that man is even in part responsible for changes in the global climate.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 8, 2013)

> Of course that is what you said



Actually, no, it isn't. At least - not unless I am now the American Meterological Society.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Of course that is what you said
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no, it isn't. At least - not unless I am now the American Meterological Society.



Guess you never actually participated in a debate either.  There is so much that you don't know.  When you make an appeal to authority, you implicitly make that authority's position your position.  They say that there is unequivocal proof that man is the dominant driver of the climate since 1960...you post their statement as support for your positon...you make their position yours.


Lets see the unequivocal evidence or an admission that their statment and by default, your statement is a lie.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 8, 2013)

SSDD - 

No, not really. I quoted the American Meterological Association and consider their position worthwhile and based on solid science. That doesn't mean I would necessarily choose the same words myself. 

I broadly support their position, but elsewhere I posted my own thoughts in my own words, and I'd prefer to be quoted on that. 

Either way, I'll wait and see what you have to say on the Antarctic material.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 8, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> No, not really. I quoted the American Meterological Association and consider their position worthwhile and based on solid science. That doesn't mean I would necessarily choose the same words myself.



Solid science that you don't seem to be able to produce even when asked repeatedly.  Which solid science is that?....blog entrys?....self published web pages?.....newspaper articles?



Saigon said:


> I broadly support their position, but elsewhere I posted my own thoughts in my own words, and I'd prefer to be quoted on that.



You rather obviously don't have any of your own thoughts.



Saigon said:


> Either way, I'll wait and see what you have to say on the Antarctic material.



Which material?  The blog entry?  The self published web page?  The possibly peer reviewed paper which is nothing more than the output of a computer model?  What do you want me to say?  You get a big old donkey laugh for posting that drivel up and claiming it to be unequivocal proof that man is the primary driver of the climate since 1950?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 8, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...



On the
Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere
and
Interplanetary Space
Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans.pdf

The Bakerian Lecture: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction

John Tyndall

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

XXXI. On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. By
Prof. Svante Arrhenius *.

http://www.math.umn.edu/~mcgehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/references/Arrhenius1896-ocr.pdf


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 8, 2013)

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Warming-Papers-Scientific-Foundation-Forecast/dp/1405196165]The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation for the Climate Change Forecast: David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert: 9781405196161: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]


----------



## SSDD (Feb 9, 2013)

To save me the trouble of reading all that disproved 19th century sciecne again rocks, how about you simply tell me where, in any of it, is the proof that man is the primary driver of the climate.

Watch this siagon.  Rocks, like you claims such evidence exists, and he posts "stuff" that I suppose he believes constitues such proof.  But like you, when asked where the proof is, he has no answer.  He will not answer my request to point out the proof in any of the posts above, because, like you, he knows that no such proof exists, but has drunk to much koolaid to actually admit it....so like you, he keeps posting stuff but no proof.....alas.....no proof....nothing even close to proof.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 9, 2013)

Lordy, lordy. Fucking dumb there, SSDD. Do you have the faintest idea what absorption spectrum means?


----------



## westwall (Feb 9, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Lordy, lordy. Fucking dumb there, SSDD. Do you have the faintest idea what absorption spectrum means?








I would say far better than you olfraud.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 10, 2013)

SSDD said:


> To save me the trouble of reading all that disproved 19th century sciecne again rocks, how about you simply tell me where, in any of it, is the proof that man is the primary driver of the climate.
> 
> Watch this siagon.  Rocks, like you claims such evidence exists, and he posts "stuff" that I suppose he believes constitues such proof.  But like you, when asked where the proof is, he has no answer.  He will not answer my request to point out the proof in any of the posts above, because, like you, he knows that no such proof exists, but has drunk to much koolaid to actually admit it....so like you, he keeps posting stuff but no proof.....alas.....no proof....nothing even close to proof.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 10, 2013)

AGWCult always plays the "yer Rly Dumb, no rly!!" Card.


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 10, 2013)

deniers still in high gear. Why?  WHY?!!!


----------



## Saigon (Feb 10, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> AGWCult always plays the "yer Rly Dumb, no rly!!" Card.



Do you think this might have anythingto do with the fact that posters such as yourself and Skooks can't read, and both SSDD and Westwall have apparently taken a solemn vow not to?


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > AGWCult always plays the "yer Rly Dumb, no rly!!" Card.
> ...





The only thing that matters in terms of reading s0n............











Because its all that matters to the policy makers. So sorry if you have the political IQ of a small soap dish!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 10, 2013)

Why do people call the warmists bubble dwellars that live in a green fantasy?

I'll tell you why.........

Because when they debate this stuff, the only critical question to be answered at the end of the day is.....even if we *all *concur that global warming is "man-made", what next? To the committed hysterical OC's who want to go NO FOSSIL FUELS, they are not at all concerned with the only two questions that really, really matter.......

1) At what cost?

and

2) As compared to what?


*Reasonable people *KNOW these questions must be answered before we collectively decide to return to the early 1800's in terms of our lifestyle.


Which guess what???


Its not fucking happening......like.......ever!!!!


So the science matters???


Really??!!!!!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > AGWCult always plays the "yer Rly Dumb, no rly!!" Card.
> ...



It's *BECAUSE* we read and understand what you post that we know you're totally full of crap, you fucking moron.

Can you show us how CO2 _Forces_ the climate, because *ALL* the evidence runs contrary to that stupid notion?

Can you show us a single lab experiment on how these rounding error increases of CO2 affect "Warming" and "Climate change"?

Can you show us a single lab experiment how reducing this wisp of CO2 will end "Climate change" as we know it, AGWCult?


----------



## Saigon (Feb 10, 2013)

Frank - 

Right. So it's just a coincidence that Skooks can't read or write, that you have never posted an on-topic sentence in your life, and that Wailing Wall and SSDD flat out refuse to read science on the Antartic ice. 

Personally, I don't think it is.

If you read so much science - why have you never posted a single sentence about what you've read? Why will you never, ever debate a topic without running away?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> Right. So it's just a coincidence that Skooks can't read or write, that you have never posted an on-topic sentence in your life, and that Wailing Wall and SSDD flat out refuse to read science of the Antartic ice.
> 
> ...



I posted that we replicated black holes in a lab, how could you forget that so quickly?


----------



## Saigon (Feb 10, 2013)

Frank - 

Exactly. Nowhere on this board have you ever, or will you ever, enter into a debate about climate change. 

Topics like farting and what to do with a gram of smack I dare say you're more likely to discuss at length.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 10, 2013)

Being mental cases, the k00ks believe message board forums are public pissing contests. Thats cool I suppose but doesnt work for me.

I couldnt give a shit about trying to wage war with a mental case about science that is not proveable one way or another. But I can sure get right to the crux of the bigger issue like a laser guided MOAB.......which is that debating temperatures/ice/storms and drought  is nothing more than a circle jerk session for social invalids. Carbon reduction efforts are in the shitter because the legislators arent at all impressed with the consensus shit......which makes it 100% certain that the science doesnt matter for dick.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 10, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> *A blog, but many links to reputable sources. Such as the US Navy.*
> 
> Arctic News
> 
> ...



"*2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?"*
So why the question mark ? It is indicative of  scaremongering 
"December 2012, the end of the world *?*" 
"Will Iran nuke Israel *?*"
"Will Israel nuke Iran *?*"
"Will Syria use Chemical weapons *?*"

REAL science does not publish in *that* format. "Science" is defined as "the knowledge of" and not speculation like "*2015, the beginning of ice free arctic ?"*
...and if the question mark was Your idea that would indicate that You have some doubts !  
Anyway I`ve read the article which is for the most a speculation if rising methane levels could cause arctic ice to melt...and it goes without saying that mankind is ("of course") responsible for Methane levels to rise.
Then there is the usual "data"....as a "graphed average" and "trend extrapolated"....like always *no mention *of the variance, margin of error, standard deviation, correlation, or the coefficient of determination  etc, ...just the usual media/blog propaganda crap + the "?"
Looking at this publication,...it avoids only by a hair of deserving to be called a total cheat and only so in a legal sense because it has been left up to You to make the final assumption....without knowing the degree of accuracy of the prediction..
None of us "deniers" is supposed to notice that all these "climatology" graphs which are supposed to show a correlation between "climate" and CO2 never disclose any of the variance, such as the correlation R, or R^2..the coefficient of determination.
It`s not as if nobody knew how shitty this correlation is...:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Solar_Changes_and_the_Climate.pdf



> Solar Changes and the Climate
> Two other recent studies that have drawn clear connections between solar changes and the Earth&#8217;s climate are Soon (2005) and Kärner (2004). Soon (2005 GRL) showed how the arctic temperatures (the arctic of course has no urbanization contamination) correlated with solar irradiance far better than with the greenhouse gases over the last century (see Figure 3). For the 10 year running mean of total solar irradiance (TSI) vs Arctic-wide air
> temperature anomalies (Polyokov), he found a *strong correlation of (r-squared of 0.79)* *compared to a correlation vs greenhouse gases of just 0.22.*
> Figure


Just so You know how shitty a 0.22 r^2 is..
A r=1 is a perfect correlation, a r=0 is *no correlation at all*...and &#8730;(.22) means that *only 47 % of the data fits what you are preaching and the other 53% show that the thesis is total crap..!!!
*So if I were a Global warming preacher I would not mention any variance data either..
But as an engineer I would like to point out that there is a* 89 % correlation* between solar activity and temperature.
So, if not all cylinders are firing an engineer would check the spark plugs...but a dip stick climatologist would blame it on the oil and continue  with only half of his cylinders firing

Now about  *who* is ignoring REALITY...:


> The IPCC AR4 discussed at length the varied research on the direct solar irradiance variance and the uncertainties related to indirect solar influences through variance through the solar cycles of ultraviolet and solar wind/geomagnetic activity. They admit that ultraviolet radiation by warming through ozone chemistry and geomagnetic activity through the reduction of cosmic rays and through that low clouds could have an effect on climate* but in the end chose to ignore the indirect effect
> *
> 
> *For the total solar forcing, in the end the AR4 chose to ignore the considerable recent peer review in favor of Wang et al. (2005) who used an untested flux transport model *with variable meridional flow hypothesis and reduced the net long term variance of direct solar irradiance since the mini-ice age around 1750 _*by up to a factor of 7*_. *This may ultimately prove to be AR4&#8217;s version of the AR3&#8217;s &#8220;hockey stick&#8221; debacle.*


The IPCC is using an *untested flux* model to *downplay *the effect of solar irradiance by a *factor of 7 *...

...is using a data set where more than half the data points to the contrary.
And *overstates* CO2 "radiative forcing" by a *factor of 80 *..:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact





[FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79*[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]*10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11*[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]*10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]



*[FONT=Arial, Geneva]  Conclusions[/FONT]*
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]It is hardly to be expected that for CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]The *radiative forcing for doubling* can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] *[SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE]* over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band as observed from satellite measurements *[SIZE=-1](Hanel et al., 1971)[/SIZE]* and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] - and not 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE].[/FONT]
*[FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.[/FONT]*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> Exactly. Nowhere on this board have you ever, or will you ever, enter into a debate about climate change.
> 
> Topics like farting and what to do with a gram of smack I dare say you're more likely to discuss at length.



Debate? How do you debate a Cult?


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> Right. So it's just a coincidence that Skooks can't read or write, that you have never posted an on-topic sentence in your life, and that Wailing Wall and SSDD flat out refuse to read science on the Antartic ice.
> 
> ...







A more uniformed "journalist" would be hard to find.  Frank posts on scientific matter all the time.  It's not his fault you're a complete fool who can't, or won't read.

For someone who claims to be a journalist, your research capabilities are worse than my 6 year old daughters.


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> Exactly. Nowhere on this board have you ever, or will you ever, enter into a debate about climate change.
> 
> Topics like farting and what to do with a gram of smack I dare say you're more likely to discuss at length.









  That's because you clowns don't "debate".  You don't know how to.  Your scientific ignorance is astounding.   Frankly I'm surprised you can wipe yourself.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 10, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Frank -
> ...




OK West.....I just spit my late night coffee right onto my monitor screen.....LMAO.....I love this forum!!!


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


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







Glad to be of service!


----------



## Saigon (Feb 10, 2013)

> Frank posts on scientific matter all the time.



Link? 

This I can't wait to see....!

Nowhere on this board will you see post and discuss scientific material.


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Frank posts on scientific matter all the time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Do your own research you lazy bum.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 10, 2013)

Wailing Wall -

Right - you also know Frank doesn't post and discuss science. Thanks for that. 

Very few Fundamentalists are prepared to get into a free and open discussion about any real scientific evidence, because they know they will end up backing positions that are simly untenable. It's as simple as that. 

Why do you think SSDD refused to read and comment on the British Antractic Survery data?

Because if he had done, he'd have had to admit that he was wrong - simple as that.


----------



## westwall (Feb 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Wailing Wall -
> 
> Right - you also know Frank doesn't post and discuss science. Thanks for that.
> 
> ...







You claim to be a journalist so research is what you do.  _If_ you were indeed a journalist.  Other than that, you have never discussed science.  You have been a simple cut and paste drone.  In other words you are a simple internet troll and as such you deserve none of my time other than what you can provide for me as entertainment...and you are doing piss poor at that. 

Resorting to grade school recess statements might make you feel good about yourself but it merely exposes you for the simpleton that you indeed are.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 11, 2013)

Wailing Wall - 

Actually if had you looked at the thread on Antractic ice, you'd have seen much of it was in my own words - and also described as such. 

It's just unfortunate that of the handful of scpetics left here, Ian C is the only one who is both literate and willing to read and discuss the topic sensibly.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Lordy, lordy. Fucking dumb there, SSDD. Do you have the faintest idea what absorption spectrum means?



The absorption spectrum doesn't prove that man is driving the climate rocks.  The emission spectrum effectively kills that bit of misinformation.

When I ask for proof, what I mean is actual proof...not the slight of hand that fools people like you.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > AGWCult always plays the "yer Rly Dumb, no rly!!" Card.
> ...



Why do you lie so siagon? All one need do is go back through the posts and see that I have read your driven and critiqued it...it is you who has been unable to defend your own posts.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> Exactly. Nowhere on this board have you ever, or will you ever, enter into a debate about climate change.
> 
> Topics like farting and what to do with a gram of smack I dare say you're more likely to discuss at length.



For the umpteenth time Mr. Straw Man Siagon, the debate isn't whether the climate is changing.  The debate is whether man is responsible.  Posting observations that the climate is changing isn't what is necessary here.  I don't think you will find anyone who is arguing that the climate should be static except for you guys.  What is needd from your side is evidence that man is responsible for the current changing climate.

You seem to be congenitally dishonest.


----------



## IanC (Feb 11, 2013)

there is an old quote out there about how 'reasonable men can weigh the evidence and come to different conclusions'.

saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD. 

Feynman remains my hero. his comments on the Challenger disaster have a parellel to climate science. he told the space scientists that their faulty lowering of the flight risk assessment after each successful trip was wishful thinking. CO2 theory of Global warming received a huge boost when everything in the 90's went according to plan, even though the plan excluded many, many factors both known and unknown. climate scientists talked themselves into fixed position that they are having a hard time backing away from now that the evidence is wrecking thier theory. just like the space scientists ignored the problems with the O-rings and went with _we know it's safe_, now the climate scientists are ignoring (and worse, fudging the data) temperature data and saying _we know it's CO2_.

if the CO2 theory of global warming were just being introduced today it wouldnt get laughed at but there would be no rush to spend trillions of dollars on possible repercusions decades down the road. science is about always questioning the data and conclusions. climate science seems to be about 'we made up our minds and formed a consensus' and we are going to stick with it no matter what.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Wailing Wall -
> 
> Right - you also know Frank doesn't post and discuss science. Thanks for that.
> 
> ...



Ok...to prove that it is you who are the fundamentalist, lets debate the science.  I say that a trace gas in the atmosphere can not recycle more energy to the surface of the earth than the surface of the earth receives from the sun.  A situation like that would be a violation of both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.  The present energy budget in use claims this is happening due to an incorrect use of the SB black body equations.

Show me the actual science that says I am wrong.  Show me the observed, experimental evidence that proves that the energy budget upon which present climate models are based is correct.

So lets talk science of shut the hell up.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.



In my own defense, I do read the contrary evidence....I just don't find it particularly convincing....especially in light of recent hypotheses, models, and actual confirming experiments that demonstrate pretty convincingly that climate science based on trenberth's model simply is not, and never will be correct.


----------



## IanC (Feb 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.
> ...




you know, i didnt really mean to do more than just show that you two are only at opposite ends of the spectrum. perhaps one of you is 'right'. but we cannot determine that by the available information.

what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> you know, i didnt really mean to do more than just show that you two are only at opposite ends of the spectrum. perhaps one of you is 'right'. but we cannot determine that by the available information.
> 
> what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.



Till I see some actual evidence that points in the direction of my position being wrong, exactly why should I express doubt?  The warmist position is nothing but evidence upon evidence upon evidence that their position IS wrong.  Their models are wrong, their predictions are wrong, their sciecne is wrong because it is based on a flawed interpretation of physical laws beginning with the very foundation of their claims...that being the trenberth energy budget and model.

Even as a luke warmist you don't believe that model is correct do you?


----------



## IanC (Feb 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > you know, i didnt really mean to do more than just show that you two are only at opposite ends of the spectrum. perhaps one of you is 'right'. but we cannot determine that by the available information.
> ...




I have never said that I believe in any of the climate models. that does not mean that there is no purpose in developing them. they just shouldnt be used to make dire predictions about the future because they are all wrong, to a greater or lesser degree.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 11, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> Exactly. Nowhere on this board have you ever, or will you ever, enter into a debate about climate change.
> 
> Topics like farting and what to do with a gram of smack I dare say you're more likely to discuss at length.








Try debating this guy on his beliefs, you cant nobody can. It's the same way with you AGWCultists, there's no reasoning with you.

You have your beliefs and hold them as dearly as Applegate held his.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


There is a whole lot that *can and has been determined *and none of it has anything to to with beliefs.
Examples are that only 43% of the IPCC data correlates and the other 53 % show that there is no correlation at all...
That the IPCC continues to bend the truth,...first the ARP3 hockey stick and now with IPCC`s ARP 4 where  the IPCC chose to ignore a study conducted by  a large body of scientists which showed that there is an 89% correlation with the so far *OBSERVED* global temperatures and the *OBSERVED* solar irradiance.
That the IPCC appoints global warming activists as "experts" who then get to "peer review" their own statements.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/WSJ_June12.pdf


> THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
> A major deception on 'global warming'
> Seitz, Frederick;
> 
> ...


About Global Warming, United Nations Doubles Down On Ignorance - Forbes



> *About Global Warming, United Nations Doubles Down On Ignorance*
> 
> 
> Although IPCC claims it only appoints scientists at the very top of  their profession to oversee its reports, it appointed several people  without Ph.D.s, or even Masters Degrees, as Lead Authors for its 2007  Fourth Assessment Report. IPCC also appointed scientists affiliated with  environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace, Environmental  Defense, and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to steer the direction of the  Report. Indeed, Laframboise documented formal connections between at  least 78 IPCC scientists and the World Wildlife Fund environmental  activist group.
> ...


IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke « Climate Audit

Articles: IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk



> On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement  saying it had "complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of  recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC),  the group created by the world's science academies to provide advice to  international bodies."
> 
> 
> The  IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ...  to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide  detailed written responses to the most significant review issues  identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing]  review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22).   In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
> The  IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for  selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many  respondents" (p. 18).


This much *we do know for certain* and all the above *can and has been verified* and with very little trouble *You *can verify that Yourself. Or perhaps You prefer not to..???


> but we cannot determine that by the available information.
> what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing  to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your  beliefs.


  Others have said here already...:
"You can`t debate with an occult"...and they may be right


----------



## mamooth (Feb 11, 2013)

IanC said:


> saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.



Phony equivalence bullshit. It's like declaring a round-earther is just "inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence" as a flat-earther. Might be true, but it's because the round-earther is FREAKIN' CORRECT.

SSDD and all the denialists suck hard at the science. They don't have a clue about the physics, statistics, logic, history, chemistry, geology, anything. The get it all wrong. Yes, we are inflexible in pointing out how awful they are, and that's a good thing.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 11, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Ah yes....the "_non existent evidence_" that has managed to convince the entire world scientific community. LOL. It's really a shame that you're sooooo retarded.
> ...



Your retarded myths are hilarious. Your little cult of reality denial is dying and you are grasping at straws. Really retarded straws at that.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 11, 2013)

Ian - 

SSDD has REFUSED to read the scientific studies on the Antarctic - despite having actually promised to do so.

Perhaps start by acknolweding that before pretending that this establishes my inflexibility!




> what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.



I have never understood why any poster would have any reluctance to be proven wrong, admit that they were wrong, or express doubt about whatever topic is under discussion. Sure, it's never easy to admit that we are wrong, but it is not only a sign of basic honesty, but I also find other posters respect it more than the usual lying and running away!

Where doubt exists, let's by all means discuss that, but for my money the only aspects of climate change science that I would say are not proven beyond any reasonable doubt are ocean pH levels, and the role played by solar acitivity.


----------



## westwall (Feb 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian -
> 
> SSDD has REFUSED to read the scientific studies on the Antarctic - despite having actually promised to do so.
> 
> ...








You mean like this one that shows the Antarctic has cooled 2 degrees over the last 7,000 years?


Abstract. The West Antarctic ice sheet is particularly sensitive to global warming and its evolution and impact on global climate over the next few decades remains difficult to predict. In this context, investigating past sea ice conditions around Antarctica is of primary importance. Here, we document changes in sea ice presence, upper water column temperatures (0200 m) and primary productivity over the last 9000 yr BP (before present) in the western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) margin from a sedimentary core collected in the Palmer Deep basin. Employing a multi-proxy approach, we derived new Holocene records of sea ice conditions and upper water column temperatures, based on the combination of two biomarkers proxies (highly branched isoprenoid (HBI) alkenes for sea ice and TEXL86 for temperature) and micropaleontological data (diatom assemblages). The early Holocene (90007000 yr BP) was characterized by a cooling phase with a short sea ice season. During the mid-Holocene (~ 70003000 yr BP), local climate evolved towards slightly colder conditions and a prominent extension of the sea ice season occurred, promoting a favorable environment for intensive diatom growth. The late Holocene (the last ~ 3000 yr) was characterized by more variable temperatures and increased sea ice presence, accompanied by reduced local primary productivity likely in response to a shorter growing season compared to the early or mid-Holocene. The stepwise increase in annual sea ice duration over the last 7000 yr might have been influenced by decreasing mean annual and spring insolation despite an increasing summer insolation. We postulate that in addition to precessional changes in insolation, seasonal variability, via changes in the strength of the circumpolar Westerlies and upwelling activity, was further amplified by the increasing frequency/amplitude of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). However, between 4000 and 2100 yr BP, the lack of correlation between ENSO and climate variability in the WAP suggests that other climatic factors might have been more important in controlling WAP climate at this time.

CPD - Abstract - Holocene climate variations in the western Antarctic Peninsula: evidence for sea ice extent predominantly controlled by insolation and ENSO variability changes


----------



## IanC (Feb 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian -
> 
> SSDD has REFUSED to read the scientific studies on the Antarctic - despite having actually promised to do so.
> 
> ...





I may be mistaken but I believe SSDD said he read the articles and was left unconvinced. why do you keep accusing him of something you have no proof of, and can never prove?

and as far as basic honesty, you are a poster child for _ad hom_ and dishonesty. I am still pissed off at this whopper of a slimy attack that you leveled at me.

saigon said- 





> Ian -
> 
> Quote:
> I am a conspiracy theorist for being concerned that there are very few temp stations in northern canada.
> Indeed.



which was a sentence fragment from my response to edthecynic who called me a conspiracy theorist.

IanC said- 





> and yet you think I am a conspiracy theorist for being concerned that there are very few temp stations in northern canada. there is obviously no opportunity for bias and shading with so many northern thermometers, right?




if you, saigon, can so easily twist a direct quote of me, and then refuse to acknowledge it as deceptive, what else are you willing to misrepresent? your ethical lapse was bad enough when you quoted me out of context wildly. but then you even refused to admit it when it was pointed out to you, which is surely worse. 

saigon said-  





> Ian -
> 
> I didn't adjust your statement at all - anyone can go back and read your original comment. I merely took one sentence from it because that was the sentence I was replying to.
> 
> However, this seems to be a conveniant way of you avoiding addressing the point.



obviously you have been taking lessons from Mann and Gleick. just brazen it out because the people who like you wont notice or care unless it is jammed down their throat. personally I think you are a scumbag. and you have the nerve to act as if you are preaching from the high moral ground.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2013)

mamooth said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.
> ...



It is because I have a grasp of the science that I don't buy the pseudoscience that climate science is pushing.  It is laughable that you would say that anyone, warmer or skeptic does or doesn't understand the science because you have proven again and again that you have no grip whatsoever on the science and your position is one of belief, not any sort of inherent knowledge.

If you would like to prove otherwise, then by all means, lets talk about the science.  You might start by providing some hard evidnece that trenberth's energy budget is spot on correct because that energy budget, and resulting model is the basis for the entire field of climate science as it stands today.  If that budget is off by any amount whatsoever, it calls all of climate science into question.  Do tell me how an energy budget and resulting model that portrays the earth as a flat disk, that doesn't rotate, has no day / night cycle, and is bathed in a weak twilight 24 hours a day might possibly accurately represent the earth as it exists in reality?

My bet is that you didn't even know what sort of earth the present crop of climate models represent since it is clear that you really don't have any sort of grasp at all on the science.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian -
> 
> SSDD has REFUSED to read the scientific studies on the Antarctic - despite having actually promised to do so.



You are a bald faced liar siagon. You have proven that beyond question in your behavior with both me and Ian.  I read what was posted and described why it was unconvincing and why it was completely innefective at pointing the finger at man.  If you won't even make an attempt at honesty in the discussion, then I am not interested.  It is one thing to be misled, and another thing entirely to be a liar.


----------



## IanC (Feb 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ian -
> ...




I concur.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 12, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ian -
> ...



Why yes. The Earth had started the descent into another ice age, normal Milankovic Cycle. However, by the massive infusion of GHGs from the use of fossil fuels, we have altered that pattern, and probably have prevented the next ice age completely.

Nice of you to post the peer reviewed article demonstrating what Traker and I have stated here many times, however.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Why yes. The Earth had started the descent into another ice age, normal Milankovic Cycle. However, by the massive infusion of GHGs from the use of fossil fuels, we have altered that pattern, and probably have prevented the next ice age completely.
> 
> Nice of you to post the peer reviewed article demonstrating what Traker and I have stated here many times, however.



Proof?  Or is this just some pap you picked up from someone willing to spoon feed koolaid to the members of the church of AGW?  I mean, there are some glaringly obvious problems with that claim.  The earth decended into a hard ice age half way through the ordovician period with atmospheric CO2 levels over 4000ppm.  Another decent into an ice age began half way through the denovial period when atmospheric CO2 levels were about 3000ppm.  Then there was the ice age that began half way through the tertiary period with atmospheric CO2 levels at about 500ppm.  Doesn't it strike you as odd that ice ages could begin with atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 4000ppm while you claim that the 100ppm that we have theoretically added to the atmosphere is enough to curtail a cooling period?  Somehow your claim doesn't seem to jibe with the facts....what a surprise.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> In my own defense, I do read the contrary evidence....I just don't find it particularly convincing.....



I did laugh at this....if you were smarter it could have been meant is irony!!!

I love how you read, for instance, the research conducted by the British Aantarctic Survey!!!


----------



## Saigon (Feb 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ian -
> ...



No, you scoffed at the source. 

At no point did you fault the material, the research methodolgy, the data, nor the results or conclusions. 

At no point did you describe why it was "unconvicing" scientifically. 

I very strongly doubt you read any of the scientific material posted. There were three academic studies there, after all.

Or perhaps, for instance, you can explain why you reject the British Antarctic Survey as a source?


----------



## Saigon (Feb 12, 2013)

> I may be mistaken but I believe SSDD said he read the articles and was left unconvinced. why do you keep accusing him of something you have no proof of, and can never prove?



Because I anyone - and I mean anyone - actually read the three scientific studies posted, they would be able to discuss them sensibly and openly. They might not agree, but they would be able to discuss the conclusions sensibly. 

Posting "that isn't science!" is not an adult review of a peer-reviewed academic paper written by a group of very highly regarded and highly qualified scientists.

It is a child's response on finding himself trapped - no more, no less. 

btw. I have never attacked you for anything. I have addressed this issue before, honestly and openly. I get that you do not accept this, but I won't address this topic again.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 12, 2013)

> It is because I have a grasp of the science that I don't buy the pseudoscience that climate science is pushing.



Really?

And yet you questioned why the Antarctic would have a different experience of climate change to the Arctic. 

One is a continent, one is ocean. 

That is an odd mistake for someone familiar with science to make. 

You also ridiculed the idea that warmer, wetter weather could mean more snow in Russia.

Another strange error for someone from a science background to make. 

Or was this irony as well?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > In my own defense, I do read the contrary evidence....I just don't find it particularly convincing.....
> ...



You claimed it was a first class paper...it was not.  In short, you lied.....again.

You know siagon, the only thing that you have ever, or will ever have that is inherently your own, is your integrity.  Why would you so willingly damage such a precious thing lying on an internet board?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I very strongly doubt you read any of the scientific material posted. There were three academic studies there, after all.



No there weren't...there weren't any academic studies.  Clearly you don't even know what constitutes an academic study.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> And yet you questioned why the Antarctic would have a different experience of climate change to the Arctic.



No I didn't.  Are you ever able to be honest?  I simply pointed out that cliamte science claimed the antarctic was going to rapidly melt till it didn't at which time it claimed that a cooling antarctic was proof of global warming.  Why do you find it necessary to lie about every single thing?  Are you that unsure of your position that you must constantly lie about your opponents?

Building straw men to lie about is just stupid....is that really the best you can do?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> btw. I have never attacked you for anything. I have addressed this issue before, honestly and openly. I get that you do not accept this, but I won't address this topic again.



To date, you haven't discussed anything honestly.  I don't believe honesty still holds a place in your poor wasted character.  You have repeatedly lied, altered quotes, and mischaracterized the materials you have presented.  Don't even try to claim that you have been honest at any time.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > I very strongly doubt you read any of the scientific material posted. There were three academic studies there, after all.
> ...



Actually, yes, there were three. 

Honestly - you have to laugh, don't you?


----------



## Saigon (Feb 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > And yet you questioned why the Antarctic would have a different experience of climate change to the Arctic.
> ...



Yes, you did - and I am willing to provide the full and exact quote for you if you like. It is the quote that inspired the Arctic vs Antarctic thread, and may even appear in the OP of that thread if I remember rightly. 

And here it is, on a thread about Arctic ice:



> While at the same time antarctic sea ice is far above normal. Square that with the GLOBAL warming hypothesis.



Agauin - if you are familiar with science, why do you compare the climate of a continent with that of the ocean? Why would you expect the Arctic and Antarctic to behave the same way?


----------



## Saigon (Feb 12, 2013)

SSDD said:


> You claimed it was a first class paper...it was not.  In short, you lied.....again.
> 
> You know siagon, the only thing that you have ever, or will ever have that is inherently your own, is your integrity.  Why would you so willingly damage such a precious thing lying on an internet board?



Wonderful posting, SSDD - absolutely first class!! I really did laugh out loud at that - again!!

Unfortunately, the British Antarctic Survey do terrific work, and have an excellent reputation. It is run by very highly trained professionals with amazing careers.

If you had read the report, you'd know that of course. 

As it is, you have absloutely no idea at all WHY you deny it, do you?!


----------



## Saigon (Feb 12, 2013)

British Antarctic Survey:

British Antarctic Survey (BAS) is a component of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). Based in Cambridge, United Kingdom, it has, for over 60 years, undertaken the majority of Britain's scientific research on and around the Antarctic continent. It now shares that continent with scientists from over thirty countries.

BAS employs over 400 staff, and supports three stations in the Antarctic, at Rothera, Halley and Signy, and two stations on South Georgia, at King Edward Point and Bird Island. The Antarctic operations and science programmes are executed and managed from Cambridge, and rely on a wide-ranging team of professional staff. 


    Professor Alan Rodger, Interim Director & BAS Board Member, Science Strategy - Chair
    Mrs Gill Alexander, Science Support Office - Secretary
    Dr Alistair Crame, PSPE Science Leader
    Dr John King, PSPE Science Leader
    Dr Michael Meredith, PSPE Science Leader
    Professor Eugene Murphy, PSPE Science Leader
    Professor David Vaughan, PSPE Science Leader
    Dr Eric Wolff, PSPE Science Leader
    Mr Mike Pinnock, BAS Board Member, Science Delivery
    Professor John Shepherd, Independent BAS Board Member

Science Board - British Antarctic Survey

I count 4 Professors and 4 PhD's on that list. so yes, I'd call their work 'academic' and no, I wouldn't call it an "opinion piece"!!!


----------



## Saigon (Feb 12, 2013)

> .there weren't any academic studies. Clearly you don't even know what constitutes an academic study.




GSAC comprises eight programmes totalling 19 projects. Its components are highly interconnected so that the sum will be greater than the parts. The content makes full use of the BAS Antarctic infrastructure and builds on the successes of previous BAS research, survey and monitoring while shifting our focus to exciting new areas. The quality of the programme&#8217;s content was assured through competition and by* independent, rigorous, international peer review*. Carrying it out involves over *120 national and international collaborations*. As opportunities arise, new scientific and technical knowledge will be transferred to the private sector for the commercial benefit of the UK. Getting the public interested and engaging them in discourse will be a major priority.

Science disciplines

Scientists in the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) work across many scientific disciplines, including:

    Chemistry
    Physics
    Biology (including ecology and evolutionary biology)
    Earth Sciences (including atmospheric science, geology, geophysics, glaciology and oceanography)

http://www.bas.ac.uk/about_bas/our_organisation/directorate/index.php

So....how is this NOT an academic study exactly?

I mean - you read it, right? So you must know why it isn't academic....?


----------



## Rozman (Feb 12, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > http://marine.rutgers.edu/~francis/pres/Francis_Vavrus_2012GL051000_pub.pdf
> ...







> *Dems love Big Government like Rihanna loves Chris Brown, beat them, destroy their families, drive them to dependency -- all out of love*



RiRi was photographed this past weekend partying with Chris Brown....
I thought it was a bad thing to beat the crap outta women....
Looks like Rihanna doesn't have a problem with it....

So how is a it a bad thing then ?.... 
Chicks seem to dig it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 12, 2013)

Can anyone show us how removing a wisp of CO2 from the atmosphere (to the extent that's even possible) will end "Climate Change" (aka: Global Warming)


----------



## Rozman (Feb 12, 2013)

All I see id the left breaking the United States balls on this Global warming thing.
Lets see Al Gore go to China and get in their face.
How about big tuff guy Al go over to Russia and do the same.

The Russians would take him out.
Al would be found in a seedy hotel with a heroin needle sticking in his arm and gay porn on the TV.
The Russian Mafia would make quick work of him.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 12, 2013)

This thread is so fucking stupid..........

Arctic ice is expanding faster than it has in over 100 years.........

The Toronto Post: Arctic Ice Growth Blows Away All Records


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > While at the same time antarctic sea ice is far above normal. Square that with the GLOBAL warming hypothesis.
> 
> 
> 
> Agauin - if you are familiar with science, why do you compare the climate of a continent with that of the ocean? Why would you expect the Arctic and Antarctic to behave the same way?



Again, the comparison was a reference to the undeniable fact that climate science, as recently as 2011 claimed that global warming would result in rapid melting of the antarctic....it didn't happen so now, according to climate science, colder temperatures in the antarctic are proof of global warming.  

In addition to being a liar, a misquoter, a misrepresenter of material, you also have a problem with context.  You have whored your integrity for a grand total of nothing on an internet board, and you lost the argument to boot.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > You claimed it was a first class paper...it was not.  In short, you lied.....again.
> ...



So in which journal was that "paper" published?  I looked but couldn't find any reference to a journal.  You claim to be a journalist...do you know what self published means?   That is what that "first class" paper was....self published.  And exactly which part of it do you believe represents proof of anything.  I didn't see anything more than speculation there.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I count 4 Professors and 4 PhD's on that list. so yes, I'd call their work 'academic' and no, I wouldn't call it an "opinion piece"!!!



Again, in which journal was it published?  None is the answer to that question....therefore it was a self published opinion piece.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 12, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I mean - you read it, right? So you must know why it isn't academic....?



Q:  Published where?

A: Self published.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > While at the same time antarctic sea ice is far above normal. Square that with the GLOBAL warming hypothesis.
> ...



Um....no....you asked why the Arctic would be behaving differently to the Antarctic. 

Again - one is a land mass, and one is an ocean. 

Again - for someone with a science background, that seems like an odd thing not to be aware of. 

Also, if you HAD read the British Antarctic Survey, you might have noticed that net temperatures in the Antarctic are rising.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > I count 4 Professors and 4 PhD's on that list. so yes, I'd call their work 'academic' and no, I wouldn't call it an "opinion piece"!!!
> ...



There are days I very geninely sorry for Ian C having to read this stuff and not being able to disagree!! 

Who knew - one of the world's foremost science academies produces "opinion pieces"!

And you wonder why I think you've conceded the debate?!


----------



## IanC (Feb 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...




Ok, if you want to drag me into this fight then you will have to 1. quote the relevent portion of the article 2. give a link to the article 3. explain in your own words what point you think you are making.

in the recent past you made a comment with plagiarized sentences from wikipedia. when I presented evidence against it you then claimed that the words were not your own but a direct quote, even though they were not in quotation marks or in the quote function. so perhaps the first thing you should do is familiarize yourself with how to properly quote and attribute sources.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Who knew - one of the world's foremost science academies produces "opinion pieces"!



British Antarctic Survey?  One of the worlds foremost science academies?  Is there anything that you don't lie about or mischaracterize?  The British Antarctic Survey is no more an academy, much less one of the "worlds foremost" academies than the Betty Crocker kitchens.

The British Antarctic Survey is, according to them, a component of the Natural Environment Research Council which according to the Natural Environment Research Council is a "non departmental public body" which receives funding from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. 

Your so called "world's foremost science academy" is little more than a component of a clearing house for grants and funds...not an academy at all....and certainly not one of the world's foremost academies.

Either you are just to stupid to actually understand what you are posting, or are mistaken in your belief that you are the smartest guy in the room and believe no one else can understand what you are posting.  All you are accomplishing here is painting yourself even more inextricably into a corner that you can't get out of.

As to your so called first class science I will echo Ian's request to 1) quote the relevant portion of the article and 2) explain in your own words what point you think you are making.


----------



## IanC (Feb 13, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Who knew - one of the world's foremost science academies produces "opinion pieces"!
> ...





at one time when I first came here I thought Old Rocks was a fairly reasonable and informed fellow, and that if I could just show him that I was too that he would answer reasonable questions and exchange ideas. except for rare and unpredictible exceptions that never happened and he always ducked the hard questions. I dont expect anything different from saigon although I certainly tried to give him the benefit of the doubt when he first arrived.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 13, 2013)

SSDD - 

I have to say, for sheer humour value, this must be one of the best threads ever produced. 

I would never have guessed that any one poster could have come up with quite so many reasons - most of them laugh-out-loud silly - for not reading a piece of research. 

I'm also delighted to see that the criteria you have developed render most of your own sources and links obsolete - so that will save time in future! 


The funniest thing is, if you had just read the research with an open mind, you'd probably have found a lot you could agree with, and you'd certainly have learned a lot about Antarctica. But no....you wouldn't want to risk that, would you?


----------



## Saigon (Feb 13, 2013)

Ian C - 

The issue here is (still) SSDD's refusal to read the research from the British Antarctic Survey. 

Apparently, the research is not academic - surprising given the team included 4 professor's and 4 other Phd's. 

Now, it seems research can only be considered research if it was originally published by a scientific journal. This research has been covered widely by the media, but apparently that means it can not be considered science. 

I recommend going through the thread if you're in need of a laugh.




> in the recent past you made a comment with plagiarized sentences from wikipedia. when I presented evidence against it you then claimed that the words were not your own but a direct quote, even though they were not in quotation marks or in the quote function. so perhaps the first thing you should do is familiarize yourself with how to properly quote and attribute sources.



Seriously? In all honesty, man, you do push the limits with some of this faux-outrage. The quote in question appeared in a separate paragraph from my own text, and immediately above a clearly marked link.

I have really tried to be patient with these red herrings, but they are not the most convincing means of deflection I've seen!


----------



## Saigon (Feb 13, 2013)

> a component of a clearing house for grants and funds.



BANG! 

Just when I think you can't post any sillier - here you go again!!! Magical posting, SSDD!!

British Antarctic Survey (BAS) has a long and distinguished history of carrying out research and surveys in the Antarctic and surrounding regions, undertaking most of the British research on the frozen continent. The close linking of our science programmes with essential logistics support makes us very effective in carrying out the complicated and sophisticated scientific field programmes that are necessary today.

As a major research centre of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), we:

    Provide a national capability for Antarctic science and logistics
    Carry out scientific research, long-term observations and surveys that cannot be done by anyone else in the UK 
    Provide a focus for international co-operation and programme co-ordination
    Concentrate on issues fundamental to NERC&#8217;s science strategy and conservation of the Antarctic environment.

Scientists in the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) work across many scientific disciplines, including:

    Chemistry
    Physics
    Biology (including ecology and evolutionary biology)
    Earth Sciences (including atmospheric science, geology, geophysics, glaciology and oceanography)

The current BAS Science Research Strategy, Polar Science for Planet Earth (PSPE), comprises six science programmes. A total of 25 projects are distributed across the science programmes, and BAS scientists may work on one or more of these projects. 

Science - British Antarctic Survey


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> The issue here is (still) SSDD's refusal to read the research from the British Antarctic Survey.
> 
> ...



4 professor's and 4 other Phd's, and still not one single repeatable laboratory experiment

That's some track record


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> I have to say, for sheer humour value, this must be one of the best threads ever produced.
> 
> ...



You never stop lying do you?  Even when caught dead to rights.   I have read your so called science, told you why it is not convincing and explained why it isn't the first class scientific paper produced by one of the "worlds foremost scientific academies) (heavy sarcasm) and you still maintain the lie.  Pathetic.

Perhaps you might bring forward whatever bit of the paper you beleive makes an unequivocal point and you might describe what that point is as has been requested by both myself and Ian.

When asked secifically to discuss the science and describe what point you are trying to make you still engage in the song and dance and seemingly neverending string of lies.  You are getting very boring very quickly.


----------



## Spoonman (Feb 13, 2013)

how long before we are fighting over mineral rights with russia


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 13, 2013)

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf

There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has
been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes
in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature
increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still
subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes
are substantial. It is important that decision makers have access to climate science of
the highest quality, and can take account of its findings in formulating appropriate
responses.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
 Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system&#8212;including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons&#8212;are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956&#8211;2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change&#8212;an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade&#8212;is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and&#8212;if sustained over centuries&#8212;melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections. 

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 13, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ian C -
> ...



Nearly 40 thousand posts, and not a sign of intellect yet.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 13, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



26,000 posts and never once have we seen a single repeatable lab experiment showing how a wisp of CO2 causes "Global warming" much less "Climate Change" 

And so, we will never in all eternity be treated to a video that shows the experiment that proves how decreasing the wisp of CO2 will reverse Warming and climate change


----------



## SSDD (Feb 13, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has
> been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes
> in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.



What form does this "strong evidence" take?  Is it observable?  Repeatable?  Measurable?

How about you show us some of this "strong evidence", and before you post a link to some dogma which is going to prompt me to ask you which part you consider to be evidence of anything, why not simply admit that no such evidence actually exists and the above statment is issued entirely for the benefit of the duped.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 13, 2013)

> What form does this "strong evidence" take? Is it observable? Repeatable? Measurable?



Observable - yes, without question, and I actually already posted material on this, but you refused to look at it. 

Measurable - yes, of course. This would not be considered scientific fact if it were not measurable. 

Repeatable - probably not. The world and climate are simply too complex a system to build in a lab - but then so are many other scientific phenomena which you accept as fact. 

Do keep in mind that because we have proven for a measurable, repeatable and observable fact that you will not read any science. However, here is everything you need to know. Pease note that a dozen studies are linked from this site - hence the actual research is available if you wish to...um....see it. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 13, 2013)

SSDD - 

We know for a fact that nowhere did you comment on the science, the results, methdology or approach taken by the British Antarctic Survey, nor the two other papers linked. 

You rebutted nothing, and did not attempt to. Providing a raft of alternative sources is NOT a rebuttal. 

Therefore, it is safe to assume you did not read any of the actual studies. 

The only lying on these threads has been your constant claim to be interested in facts, when you very clearly are interested only in denial.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Observable - yes, without question, and I actually already posted material on this, but you refused to look at it.



There isn't a shred of actual evidence that man is causing global climate change.  If there is, by all means, post it.



Saigon said:


> Measurable - yes, of course. This would not be considered scientific fact if it were not measurable.



Again, measurable evidence of climate change....no measurable evidence that man is the cause.  If you think there is, again, post it.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> We know for a fact that nowhere did you comment on the science, the results, methdology or approach taken by the British Antarctic Survey, nor the two other papers linked.
> 
> ...



I have asked you what you believe is there that represents proof of whatever point you were trying to make.  You seem to be unable to answer the question.  I didn't see anything there that appeared to be proof of anything and certainly nothing that even begun to state what brought about the 180 degree turnaround in the previous consensus view.


----------



## Sarah G (Feb 14, 2013)

It's so warm in Antarctica the year's Sports Illustrated cover model went for a bikini shoot there.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Observable - yes, without question, and I actually already posted material on this, but you refused to look at it.
> ...



I just did. 

You ignored it.

Just as you ignored all of the scientific material on the Antarctic. It is what you do, and at some point you may come to realise that yourself.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 14, 2013)

Sarah G said:


> It's so warm in Antarctica the year's Sports Illustrated cover model went for a bikini shoot there.



It is getting warmer, but I think it's a few steps away from becoming the next Tahiti!

The mean annual temperature of the interior is &#8722;57°C (&#8722;70°F). The coast is warmer. Monthly means at McMurdo Station range from &#8722;28°C (&#8722;18.4°F) in August to &#8722;3°C (26.6°F) in January. At the South Pole, the highest temperature ever recorded was &#8722;12.3°C (9.9°F) on December 25, 2011

Climate of Antarctica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > What form does this "strong evidence" take? Is it observable? Repeatable? Measurable?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




"The world and climate are simply too complex a system to build in a lab"

If it's too complex to build in a lab how can you possibly say with such confidence (unless you're a Cult) that CO2 is doing any, much less all the things you say it does?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 14, 2013)

Notice how Old Rocks still has not posted the experiment


----------



## Saigon (Feb 14, 2013)

Frank - 

Can you explain what you get out of spamming threads?

You never discuss issues, and concede defeat at any sign of a response...what's the point?

The proof of CO2 as the main agent of climate change has been posted. I would post the actual research documents, but we both know you aren't interested.


----------



## IanC (Feb 14, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Observable - yes, without question, and I actually already posted material on this, but you refused to look at it.
> ...





there is all sorts of evidence and data but it doesnt prove one side or the other right. 

both sides pluck out the pieces they like and try to ignore the leftovers that dont fit.

because the AGW side is the one making claims that the null hypothesis should be flipped to human causes then they should perhaps get their affairs in order by explaining why the hotspot is missing and why the Antarctic doesnt seem to be getting the CO2 multiplied effect because it is cold and dry down there.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 14, 2013)

Ian C - 

I would certainly agree that on this board both sides "pluck out the pieces they like" - it is rather the nature of discussion forums.

But it is not the role of science to do so, and I don't believe most respected scientists or scientific organisations do do so. 

I also agree that given AGW climate change is the accepted scientific position, it is incumbunt upon those scientists to prove their case more than it is for sceptics. (I think that has been done, but unfortunately the science is extremely complex, and I don't pretend to have understood all I've read on the issue.) 

That said, the fact that most scpetics can't think of any credible alternative theory does undermine their efforts tremendously.


----------



## IanC (Feb 14, 2013)

saigon- Im sorry but I think the skeptical case that nature is the prime driver of climate, just like it always has been, is a pretty strong alternate theory.

your theory says the hotspot should be there and it is not, Santer's wind shear is ridiculous. the missing heat is not there, Trenberth's deep sea sequestration is ridiculous. 

the poles are not behaving according to plan, the Artic too hot, the Antarctic too cold.

the models exaggerate the expected warming and natural events like volcanoes arent anything like what the models predict.

at every turn the details are simply wrong, and yet we are expected to believe the CO2 hypothesis.

you guys need to 'get your game up' if you want to convince people who dont have a personal investment in your fairy tale.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 14, 2013)

Ian C - 

I read a huge amount on the Antarctic last week when I was making the thread for SSDD to ignore, and I think the problem is more the complexity of the issues, rather than any lack of scientific conclusions. There are factors, such as ozone, which influence the Antarctic much more than they do any other part of the globe. 

I haven't heard any theory about nature being the prime driver of climate - at least not one that would qualify as a theory. I'd need to see that laid about point by point before I could consider at a theory. 

I don't know what you mean by needing to convince people - research shows that around the world the overwhelming majority of people believe that the climate is changing and that human beings play a role in that. I made a thread on this a couple of weeks back. Globally, around 2/3 people believe human activity influences the climate. I think that's a good number, all things considered.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> Can you explain what you get out of spamming threads?
> 
> ...









NO, it hasn't.  You have posted "studies" that merely show correlational support, but they show nothing that deals with other possible causes of that correlation.

They are laughable.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> I would certainly agree that on this board both sides "pluck out the pieces they like" - it is rather the nature of discussion forums.
> 
> ...








The credible alternative theory is it is all natural variability that has been going on since time began.  You can't point to anything that is happening now that hasn't happened in the past and more frequently and more violently in the past.  This has been a remarkably stable period of history which exposes your assertions for the fraud they are.


----------



## westwall (Feb 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> I read a huge amount on the Antarctic last week when I was making the thread for SSDD to ignore, and I think the problem is more the complexity of the issues, rather than any lack of scientific conclusions. There are factors, such as ozone, which influence the Antarctic much more than they do any other part of the globe.
> 
> ...









You certainly hope so.  Sadly for you the reality is it is around 25% and dropping in any unbiased survey.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 14, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ian C -
> ...



Sadly for you, walleyed, you poor old doddering retard, you live in a denier cult fantasy world that has no connection to reality.

*Climate Change Belief On The Rise In America, New Poll Reveals*
02/13/2013
(excerpts)
*The percentage of Americans who believe the climate is changing has grown, and the majority of Americans support new regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a study from Duke University. The survey found that 50 percent of Americans "are convinced the climate is changing" and another 34 percent believe it "is probably changing." Duke said this is the highest level of belief in climate change since 2007. By way of comparison, a Gallup poll released in March 2012 found that 30 percent of Americans worried about global warming "a great deal" and another 25 percent worried about it a "fair amount." The new Duke survey also found that 54 percent of respondents felt that climate change is primarily the result of human activity and that 64 percent either strongly or somewhat favored new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, factories and cars. The respondents also supported requiring utilities to source more of their power from technologies that emit less carbon, including wind, solar, natural gas and nuclear energy.
*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 14, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Frank -
> 
> Can you explain what you get out of spamming threads?
> 
> ...



Vostok Ice Cores say you're totally wrong: CO2 is incidental to, and lags temperature

Which is it: is the system too complex or have you successfully reduced all the variables except for a wisp of CO2, if so, how come you can't demonstrate the same in a lab?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 14, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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



You need to "Believe" the "Climate is changing"?  That's "Science"?  LOLz


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 14, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> You need to "Believe" the "Climate is changing"?  That's "Science"?  LOLz



You apparently "_need_" to believe that the Earth isn't warming and its climate patterns aren't changing, in spite of all of the scientific evidence and direct observations. That's '*Retardation*'!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 14, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > You need to "Believe" the "Climate is changing"?  That's "Science"?  LOLz
> ...



Computer models based on a tree ring and altered data is not scientific evidence


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> I just did.
> 
> You ignored it.
> 
> Just as you ignored all of the scientific material on the Antarctic. It is what you do, and at some point you may come to realise that yourself.



Feel free to post any particular section that you believe constitutes proof or sit there and stew in your lies.

I read your materials which is why I can sit here in supreme confident that you will not surprise me by posting something that actually does constitue proof of anythng, much less man's responsiblility for the changing global climate.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Fra
> 
> The proof of CO2 as the main agent of climate change has been posted. I would post the actual research documents, but we both know you aren't interested.



No it hasn't and you couldn't post any such research documents if your life depended on it.  No such documents exist.

Why lie?  You are a bald faced liar siagon and I tripple dog dare you to repost your claimed proof that CO2 is the main agent of climate change in response to this post and slap me down in public with it.  You might want to highlight in red the actual passages you believe constitute proof.

You have lied, dodged, misrepresented, etc for days and days and show no signs of chaging.  Bring out your proof and put me in my place or don't and further cement your reputation as a liar.  My bet is that your dishonest nature will be further reinforced.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 15, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



Nobody but you and the other retards imagines that climate science rests on those things.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 15, 2013)

I pay attention so I noticed how they switched from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" right after Phil Jones said there is no warming.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 15, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I pay attention so I noticed how they switched from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" right after Phil Jones said there is no warming.



And they tend to try and keep the conversation to climate change and not man made climate change.  When you ask for evidence the evidence that they are forever claiming exists that man is causing global climate change, it never seems to appear.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 15, 2013)

SSDD, since you discount what scientists, past and present have stated and are stating, there is no evidence that can convince you. In other words, all your objections are that you don't like the present reality, therefore, it is not real. That is about a three year old's level of reasoning, and that is exactly the type of reasoning we have seen from you.

A23A

C24A


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 15, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD, since you discount what scientists, past and present have stated and are stating, there is no evidence that can convince you. In other words, all your objections are that you don't like the present reality, therefore, it is not real. That is about a three year old's level of reasoning, and that is exactly the type of reasoning we have seen from you.
> 
> A23A
> 
> C24A



LOL

Still no proof, just more spewage from the AGWCult


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 15, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD, since you discount what scientists, past and present have stated and are stating, there is no evidence that can convince you. In other words, all your objections are that you don't like the present reality, therefore, it is not real. That is about a three year old's level of reasoning, and that is exactly the type of reasoning we have seen from you.
> ...



And the old CrazyFruitcake is still showing no signs of intelligence. Just more retarded denier cult dogmas.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 15, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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



Fetch me a YouTube video of a science experiment that shows how reducing CO2 back to 280PPM will stop "Climate Change"

Take your time


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 15, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



Nope. I'm through playing your retard games, CrazyFruitcake. You're far too brainwashed and utterly retarded to bother trying to educate you. I'll debunk your BS occasionally and poke fun at you for being such a delusional nitwit but I give up on trying to provide you with evidence. You've been shown the evidence for AGW many times but you always ignore it so why bother. You're a hopeless imbecile and nothing anyone can say will penetrate the vacuum inside your skull.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 15, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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



You bore me


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 15, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



Considering how often in your life you must have had people telling you that you are an ignorant retard, I can understand how "_boring_" it must be to have one more person pointing out how extremely retarded you are. Tough. At this point, I'm kind of hoping to induce _terminal_ boredom in you. At least we'd all be free from your idiotic, meaningless drivel.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 16, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD, since you discount what scientists, past and present have stated and are stating, there is no evidence that can convince you. In other words, all your objections are that you don't like the present reality, therefore, it is not real. That is about a three year old's level of reasoning, and that is exactly the type of reasoning we have seen from you.
> 
> A23A
> 
> C24A



Exactly that. 

And this is also the same tactic used in Holocaust denial; all history is biased. All history is recorded by Jews. All evidence is faked by Jews. Thus there can be no proof of a Holocaust.

While deniers might find this kind of thinking comforting, it is the logic of a child, and is hardly likely to gain adherents amongst people who are open minded and literate.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 16, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Nope. I'm through playing your retard games, CrazyFruitcake. You're far too brainwashed and utterly retarded to bother trying to educate you. I'll debunk your BS occasionally and poke fun at you for being such a delusional nitwit but I give up on trying to provide you with evidence. You've been shown the evidence for AGW many times but you always ignore it so why bother. You're a hopeless imbecile and nothing anyone can say will penetrate the vacuum inside your skull.



You're absolutely right. 

Frank has never once participated in a sensible debate here and never will. That suggests to me that he knows what would happen if he ever did. 

He is too smart to get into a debate he knows he would lose - but not smart enough to change his views accordingly.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 16, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


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



No, you're truly boring. 

You have nothing to offer: no insights, no thought, just insults and "Amen" to anything set forth by your AGWCult


----------



## Saigon (Feb 16, 2013)

> no insights, no thought



And you can link to where you have ever posted anything even vaguely resembling either of those, can you?

Because I have never seen you post anything other than mindless spam.


----------



## IanC (Feb 16, 2013)

Frank and skooks mostly care about the political side of the climate wars. they understand and applaud the ground swell of public opinion that most of the money being put into ameliorating 'climate change' is just being pissed away. they are not all that interested in the science except to see how it is falling apart for the AGW alarmists.

I dont particularly care about the politics except where the dysfunctional ethics of the AGW alarmists shoot themselves in the foot.

and what of the 'useful idiots' that prosthelytize for AGW? they accept whatever is told to them, and go out and preach it. first, the Antarctic is warming up and the ice will cause 70 meters of sea level rise. then the Antarctic isnt warming up but the peninsula is and the ice melt will still cause meters of SLR. then the Antarctic is being protected by the Ozone Hole caused by UV from the sun (but werent we told that the sun cannot impact the climate?). every new failure of AGW theory is met with a new 'explanation' and the faithful preach on, never wavering in the least because they are *certain* that there side is right.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 16, 2013)

Well now, I really thought you were a bit more well read than that, Ian. However, since you wish to repeat the wingnut nonsense, you are revealing that you have not read what the scientists have stated at all. All you have apparently read is what the wingnuts state the scientists said.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 16, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > no insights, no thought
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Show me how decreasing CO2 will stop climate change


----------



## Dante (Feb 16, 2013)

Partly...

What is it deniers fail to hear?


> *Researchers suspect that loss of Arctic sea ice may be caused partly by global warming and partly by changing atmospheric pressure and wind patterns over the Arctic* that move sea ice around, which also help to warm Arctic temperatures. Changes in air pressure and wind patterns may likewise be a result of greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere.
> 
> &#8220;The warming we see is another indication that climate is now changing, and in ways that may not have been experienced in several million years,&#8221; says David Rind, a senior researcher at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.


Dwindling Arctic Ice : Feature Articles

and 


http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


----------



## IanC (Feb 16, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Well now, I really thought you were a bit more well read than that, Ian. However, since you wish to repeat the wingnut nonsense, you are revealing that you have not read what the scientists have stated at all. All you have apparently read is what the wingnuts state the scientists said.




hahahaha. I believe my simplifications are more accurate than your misrepresentations of the skeptical case.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 16, 2013)

> Frank and skooks mostly care about the political side of the climate wars. they understand and applaud the ground swell of public opinion that most of the money being put into ameliorating 'climate change' is just being pissed away. they are not all that interested in the science except to see how it is falling apart for the AGW alarmists.



Actually, no, they just post spam. 

You'd be far better off abandoning these half-wits rather than defending them, you know.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 17, 2013)

AGWCult is still a cult


----------



## IanC (Feb 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > Frank and skooks mostly care about the political side of the climate wars. they understand and applaud the ground swell of public opinion that most of the money being put into ameliorating 'climate change' is just being pissed away. they are not all that interested in the science except to see how it is falling apart for the AGW alarmists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




they have a point of view, the same as you do. I dont have to agree with everything or anything they say to be willing to acknowledge that. I would agree with some of the things you say if you would be willing to admit to the large uncertainties that are inherent in them. but you dont have doubts do you? hahahaha


----------



## Saigon (Feb 17, 2013)

Ian C - 

The level of doubt depends on the topic. 

As I've said before, I think there is a lack of scientific proof about some aspects of climate change (i.e. the impact of solar activity, ocean pH) but very little doubt about most other aspects.


----------



## IanC (Feb 17, 2013)

some warming since the little ice age, and increased CO2 from burning fossil fuels. what else do you consider beyond doubt? glaciers were melting long before we started spewing large amounts of CO2. increased CO2 doesnt seem to be affecting temps like predicted, does it?

go ahead, tell me what 'convinced you'. your own words and dont bother with links unless it is something new and unusual.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 17, 2013)

Ian C - 

Not surprisingly, I can't explain what convinced me about climate change in 2 or 3 sentences. I didn't have any great interest or feelings about climate change for a couple of years from when I first heard about it. It took a couple of years of reading different articles, and perhaps more importantly, talking to people in countries like Chile, Australia, Spain, Bangladesh and Holland. 

In so many countries everyone can see the impacts of climate change for themselves, and research shows that in those countries often some 90% of people believe human activity is to blame. That is a coincidence. 

As for the CO2 element - I've never seen another credible theory presented. Saying 'Oh, the climate has always changed' hardly explains why glaciers in the Andes have declined by half since 1970. 

As Old Rocks pointed out the other day, of the half dozen most active sceptics here, almost all of them hold quite extreme right wing attitudes, and I don't find that very convincing either. (I'm not incuding you in this, btw).


----------



## westwall (Feb 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> Not surprisingly, I can't explain what convinced me about climate change in 2 or 3 sentences. I didn't have any great interest or feelings about climate change for a couple of years from when I first heard about it. It took a couple of years of reading different articles, and perhaps more importantly, talking to people in countries like Chile, Australia, Spain, Bangladesh and Holland.
> 
> ...








Explain then, how they shrank much further in the period between 1870 and 1900.  Anecdotal evidence is cute, but it's not science.  Over 100 peer reviewed papers show the temperature was greater during the MWP than the current day and was global in nature.

Why do you ignore hard scientific evidence?


----------



## Saigon (Feb 17, 2013)

Westwall - 

Global warming, photography, pictures, photos, climate change, impact, science, weather, arctic, antarctica, climate zones, glacier, arctic warming, antarctica warming, documentation, effects, effects of climate change, paleoclimate, mountain glacier

The chart is there on the front page, and explains things fairly clearly, I think.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 17, 2013)

How will decreasing CO2 prevent climate change? Is there any experimental evidence?

Why does the AGWCult ignore the Vostock Ice Core data set showing that CO2 is incidental to temperature?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD, since you discount what scientists, past and present have stated and are stating, there is no evidence that can convince you. In other words, all your objections are that you don't like the present reality, therefore, it is not real. That is about a three year old's level of reasoning, and that is exactly the type of reasoning we have seen from you.
> 
> A23A
> 
> C24A



What sort of proof do you think is there rocks?  Where is the hard evidence.  Simply give me the time stamp where you believe hard proof is presented.  I have watched both videos and see nothing there that rises to the level of proof.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD, since you discount what scientists, past and present have stated and are stating, there is no evidence that can convince you. In other words, all your objections are that you don't like the present reality, therefore, it is not real. That is about a three year old's level of reasoning, and that is exactly the type of reasoning we have seen from you.
> ...



Obviously rocks can't point to any part of either of those videos that represents proof of anything more than is gullibility.  Can you?  I watched them and saw nothing there that could possibly be construed as proof of anything.


----------



## ima (Feb 17, 2013)

Why does anyone care that the earth is getting warmer? Like, so fucking what? So there'll be less snow and less cold areas of the world. So why does that matter so much? People just like to get freaked out? Need a crisis in their lives?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2013)

ima said:


> Why does anyone care that the earth is getting warmer? Like, so fucking what? So there'll be less snow and less cold areas of the world. So why does that matter so much? People just like to get freaked out? Need a crisis in their lives?



Because climate change is a vast source of money.  It is a means of income redistribution untill such time as the wheels completely fall off the wagon and the crappy science is exposed....at which time, some other cause will be forthcoming to continue the agenda of income redistribution.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 17, 2013)

SSDD - 

You know, if I thought you believed half of the nonsense you post, I'd be worried for you. 

But I don't. 

I have already explained to you a couple of times that the overwhelming majority of science conducted on climate science is not tagged to specific units of funding. Universities in most of the developed world are bulk funded - they do not apply for funding for specific projects. 

Your "theory" is simply a nonsense, and I think we can be fairly sure you know that too.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> You know, if I thought you believed half of the nonsense you post, I'd be worried for you.
> 
> ...



Then it is obvious that you have never taken the time to follow the money.  Not suprising since it is obvious that you have an intravenious drip of the kool aid going at all times.  If your claim of bulk funding vs specific grants is true, then the opportunity for corruption increases by orders of magnitude as there is no accountablity for individual projects and therefore no accountablity for expenditures.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 17, 2013)

SSDD - 

Right. So universities just decide to fake all of their own research....because....because.....because faking research is so much fun?

ANY research that was caught faking science would be castigated and humiliated. Staff would be fired, and no students would want to go there any more. 

Universities rely on the quality of their research to attract high calibre students and staff, and the idea they would risk that out of some twisted political loyalty is just bizarre. 

Do you ever step back from the stuff and actually ask youself why it sounds so laughable silly?


----------



## ima (Feb 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Right. So universities just decide to fake all of their own research....because....because.....because faking research is so much fun?
> 
> ...



Research into global warming is a TOTAL waste of time, money and brainpower. So what if the planet is warming? Move away from the coast, that's ALL there is to it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Right. So universities just decide to fake all of their own research....because....because.....because faking research is so much fun?
> 
> ...



"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the worlds wealth by climate policy." -- IPCC


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Right. So universities just decide to fake all of their own research....because....because.....because faking research is so much fun?
> 
> ...



They fake the research for the Benjamins


----------



## SSDD (Feb 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Right. So universities just decide to fake all of their own research....because....because.....because faking research is so much fun?



Once again because you are obviously too stupid to have understood the last half a dozen times I explained to you that a grand conspiracy is not necessary....I know it is a leap for you and difficult to actually learn something new, but consider the principle of an error cascade.  Poor data in the beginnings of a field of research which is taken as factual when in fact it is not.  Each and every bit of research that takes that poor data as fact is then rendered flawed and each bit of research after that assumes prior reseach was correct is then flawed by the initial poor data...and on and on till you have what we are looking at in climate science today.

I have asked you several times to provide some hard evidence that the Trenberth energy budget and resulting model is correct since every bit of climate science and all models that we have today simply assumes it is correct.  IT IS NOT correct and therefore every shred of research which has assumed that it was correct is flawed, which amounts to all of it.

When you build a whole branch of science on flawed initial data, you get models making predictions that don't happen and a never ending cycle of tweaking the models to reflect current conditions.



Saigon said:


> ANY research that was caught faking science would be castigated and humiliated. Staff would be fired, and no students would want to go there any more.



In a system in which money didn't rule all, you would be right.  Such is not the case.  NASA, GISS, NOAA, NCDC, CRU, and others have been caught red handed altering data....who has castigated them?  You and yours won't even acknowledge inarguable evidence of tampering.  You refuse to see the proof of data fabrication and go right on telling the same old lies.  That is the nature of your side of the argument.  




Saigon said:


> Universities rely on the quality of their research to attract high calibre students and staff, and the idea they would risk that out of some twisted political loyalty is just bizarre.



Universities rely on money and if there is enough of it, then they aren't so shy about compromizing principles...just look at how much money penn state has spent keeping data paid for by the public from public eyes....ditto for CRU, NOAA, NASA and GISS.



Saigon said:


> Do you ever step back from the stuff and actually ask youself why it sounds so laughable silly?



No, because I am able to look at it for what it is.  You on the other hand deny incontrovertable data and continue with your same old tired lies.  You can't face the truth that you and yours have been wrong in every prediction and have fabricated data in an attempt to hide the errors.


----------



## westwall (Feb 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Westwall -
> 
> Global warming, photography, pictures, photos, climate change, impact, science, weather, arctic, antarctica, climate zones, glacier, arctic warming, antarctica warming, documentation, effects, effects of climate change, paleoclimate, mountain glacier
> 
> The chart is there on the front page, and explains things fairly clearly, I think.







This is an area of Alaska where we have been able to generate an excellent geologic record of glacial retreat, they are doing the same in other areas, and the results are looking to be very similar.

Amazingly enough, whenever one of your claims is actually tested it fails.  They have all failed.  How do you explain that?


----------



## westwall (Feb 17, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Right. So universities just decide to fake all of their own research....because....because.....because faking research is so much fun?
> 
> ...







So....where is Phil Jones raw data that has supported the grant writings of the CRU for the last 20 years?


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 17, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall -
> ...



How do you explain claiming to be a geologist and posting such stupidity?

Glacier Retreat in Alaska

AOL Search

AOL Search


----------



## Saigon (Feb 18, 2013)

Westwall - 

I suggest you do a little research on glaciers and try to come up with something more meaningful to offer. At the moment you simpy aren't posting anything intelligent enough to warrant a response.

Again - 97% of glaciers in the world are retreating. Claiming you know one which isn't is simply disingenuous.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 18, 2013)

SSDD - 



> Universities rely on money and if there is enough of it, then they aren't so shy about compromizing principles...just look at how much money penn state has spent keeping data paid for by the public from public eyes....ditto for CRU, NOAA, NASA and GISS.



Again, you simply can not possibly believe this nonsense. 

If you want to be a scpetic, then go with that, but at least try and come up with some kind of reason to deny science which isn't just that every university in the world is part of some giant conspiracy. And yes - it would be a giant conspiracy and not an "error cascade". 

If every developed country in the world monitors its own climate independently - and we know they do - how could there be an "error cascade"?

You need to try to think this stuff through, rather than just flail away with whatever excuse springs to mind first.


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> 
> 
> ...








  This post from the very person who started a thread complaining about illiterates and their opinions.

Oh the irony....


----------



## Saigon (Feb 18, 2013)

Westwall - 

I am not saying SSDD is illiterate. He is just a person with extremely blinkered thinking. As are you, of course.

In both cases I'd say both of you also seem to be severely hampered by an almost biological inability to admit error.


----------



## ima (Feb 18, 2013)

westwall said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Westwall -
> ...


Ok, but so what if the glaciers are retreating? Why should I care? The earth has been even warmer than this several times throughout its history. Why should I give a fuck now?


----------



## IanC (Feb 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Iceland has very good temperature records. why have the global temperature datasets changed them without explanation and contrary to actual physical historical evidence?


----------



## Saigon (Feb 18, 2013)

Ian C - 

In an age where there are literally dozens of sets of data and hundreds of monitoring stations, it makes little sense to me to obsess about the one that may have been altered for any one of a dozen perfectly good reasons.


----------



## IanC (Feb 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> In an age where there are literally dozens of sets of data and hundreds of monitoring stations, it makes little sense to me to obsess about the one that may have been altered for any one of a dozen perfectly good reasons.



the problem is that it is not just _one!_ there are no perfectly good reasons being put forth either, although they have been asked for. just a generic "look at our methodology" which does not explain the changes. most skeptics are strictly volunteer and most of the organizations involved are very chary of releasing any of the actual inner workings of their methodologies which do not seem to apply to many of the problem cases pointed out to them.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 18, 2013)

Ian C - 

It might be worth questioning your own sources. 

It wouldn't surprise me at all if some sceptic out there is "confused" about the temperature record adjustments. It has happened before, after all.


----------



## IanC (Feb 18, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> It might be worth questioning your own sources.
> 
> It wouldn't surprise me at all if some sceptic out there is "confused" about the temperature record adjustments. It has happened before, after all.



the Icelandic Met Office is confused as to why their measurements are being 'corrected' because they ahve already made the appropriate adjustments for existing station moves etc.

while I agree that corrections for time of measurement bias and other reasons are necessary but sometimes misunderstood, I also think that the methodology exaggerates the trend in particular. other corrections like for the UHI effect seem to be confused or ignored which also seem to exaggerate the trend towards warming.

I wish that a dedicated accounting firm would clean up the obvious mistakes in identification instead of the scientific organizations which are seemingly not interested in doing the grunt work of having good basic data to put into their prized computer programs.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 18, 2013)

IanC said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ian C -
> ...



It seems to come to the fact that you and the other denier cultists are too ignorant about science to know what you're talking about. You don't understand why climate scientists are working with the data in some way so you assume that they must be wrong or deliberately altering the data to achieve a certain result. LOL. It's your ignorance, not the scientific methodology that is the problem. Too bad you're too brainwashed to recognize that fact.


----------



## IanC (Feb 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> In an age where there are literally dozens of sets of data and hundreds of monitoring stations, it makes little sense to me to obsess about the one that may have been altered for any one of a dozen perfectly good reasons.

















> I&#8217;ll leave the final words to Trausti Jonsson, one of the most experienced and respected scientists at the Iceland Met Office :-
> 
> In 1965 there was a real and very sudden climatic change in Iceland (deterioration). It was larger in the north than in the south and affected both the agriculture and fishing &#8211; and therefore also the whole of society with soaring unemployment rates and a 50% devaluation of the local currency.  It is very sad if this significant climatic change is being interpreted as an observation error and adjusted out of existence.





I think you must agree that this is a rather dramatic change! the GHCN was contacted over a year ago for a fuller explanation than just being pointed to this website (sorry the link no longer goes through. it appears that they have joined GISS in making large areas of their work inaccessible). no answer was forthcoming.


it is amazing that almost everytime you look closely at some aspect of climate science it turns out to be either shoddy or distorted.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> It seems to come to the fact that you and the other denier cultists are too ignorant about science to know what you're talking about. You don't understand why climate scientists are working with the data in some way so you assume that they must be wrong or deliberately altering the data to achieve a certain result. LOL. It's your ignorance, not the scientific methodology that is the problem. Too bad you're too brainwashed to recognize that fact.



So your claim is apparently that you aren't to ignorant to know why the numbers are being manipulated.  Personally, I don't believe you when you claim to not be ignorant as you are completely unable to discuss the topic and endlessly cut and paste instead.

Give me in your own words (if you actually have any of your own words)  a rational, scientific reason why since 2008,  739 months prior to 1960 have been cooled and 570 months since 1958 have been  warmed.  What rational, and honest reason could there be for cooling the temperature record from 50 years ago.

If you, as you claim, actually understand the science, then you should be able to give a lucid and interesting reason for this data manipulation in your own words.  If you are just a cut and paste drone, as I suspect, then nothing more will be forthcoming from you than your usual impotent name calling.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 19, 2013)

> it is amazing that almost everytime you look closely at some aspect of climate science it turns out to be either shoddy or distorted.



Is it?

I think it's more amazing that there are probably close to a hundreds services collecting information on our climate, and of those you have found one major anomaly, and that in Iceland in 1965. 

Even then, you have no reason to suggest that there was any foul play involved. 

I call that clutching at straws.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 19, 2013)

SSDD - 

Insisting other people to explain your own paranoid and largely fictional theories doesn't strike me as being particularly useful to the debate.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 19, 2013)

IanC said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ian C -
> ...



There you have it!

They alter the data to fit their preconceived conclusions, that's not how science is done.


----------



## IanC (Feb 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> 
> 
> ...




do you ever actually look into skeptic's claims?

Penn State was one of the climategate inquiries, or should I say whitewashes, that gave a clean bill of health to climate science. PS only asked Mann whether he deleted emails or caused others to delete emails ( I cannot remember the other four main points offhand). when he denied it they simply accepted his word. there was no IT inspection to see if the emails were deleted, or deleted and put back later. there was no questioning of Wahl to see if he got the email from Mann and deleted the AR4 emails (he did). Penn State has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars protecting Mann from releasing those AR4 emails, in contrast to the one month it took to release Wegman's emails from Carnegie Mellon.

I could go on and on, especially about Mann. 

do you remember the NAS panel that investigated the science behind the Hockey Stick Graph? who was worse? the panel for dropping the subject of the r2 validation statistics (even though they had been informed that they were very close to zero) after Mann said he didnt calculate them. or Mann for lying about calculating the r2 stats? when he finally released his computer methodology it had a built-in subprogram just for doing the r2s. is it conceivable that he didnt run them? or did he just ignore them once he found out he would be laughed at if he showed them to anyone? how could he lie so easily and why did they let him lie so easily?

saigon you think climate science is pristeen but in reality it is a stinking mess and there have been a lot of ethical lapses by more than a few scientists.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 19, 2013)

Ian C - 

I am sure there have been real cases of poor science. In any field which involves a thousand scientists, there will be one or two bad apples. And I have no problem accepting that there may have been some serious errors made somewhere along the line and, who knows, maybe even a whitewash. 

But these are straws in a haybarn. Of the last 1,000 papers published on various aspects of climate change, perhaps 2 will contain some bad science. 

Perhaps the charts for Iceland were wongly tampered with. Another hundred charts in other countries were not. 

I just think the bigger picture is more important. 

I have looked also into a few of the points sceptics have raised on this board, and I have to say that the intellectual standard has not been much higher than that of Holocaust denial. 

Oddball posted a list of scpetical scientistific organisations the other day - one was funded by the automotive industry, two by coal and one by the Moonist Church. 

He then posted a petition signed by 58 million-odd people. It then turns out most were tricked into signing, and few would sign the petition again. Names like 'I.C.Ewe' also appeared on the list if signatories. 

At the time I see sceptics dealing with this kind of thing, perhaps I'll look into more valid lines on enquiry.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> I am sure there have been real cases of poor science. In any field which involves a thousand scientists, there will be one or two bad apples. And I have no problem accepting that there may have been some serious errors made somewhere along the line and, who knows, maybe even a whitewash.
> 
> But these are straws in a haybarn. Of the last 1,000 papers published on various aspects of climate change, perhaps 2 will contain some bad science.



How many papers accept mann's data and use it as if it were fact?  Error cascade siagon.  WHen poor data is accepted as fact and in turn used by others as if it were fact.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 19, 2013)

SSDD - 

So you mean like when sceptics use "scientific" papers as sources, and then Oddball lists details of sceptical scientific organisations, and it turns out that those sources were funded by the coal industry, the automotive industry or the Reverand Sun Myung Moon?

One thing I think any honest poster will agree on - scepticism is riddled with some of the most junk science ever presented in any field. 

Until that is cleaned up, I doubt scepticism will ever have much impact.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 19, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> So you mean like when sceptics use "scientific" papers as sources, and then Oddball lists details of sceptical scientific organisations, and it turns out that those sources were funded by the coal industry, the automotive industry or the Reverand Sun Myung Moon?



Not at all.  I have asked you repeatedly to provide one shred of hard proof that trenberth's energy budget and resulting model are correct.  If they aren't then every bit of climate science today is in error as all models and projections are based upon that energy budget and model.

The claims that model makes are pure fantasy... it claims that the surface of the earth receives more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it does from the sun.

As to the impact of skepticism...considering that the AGW hoax is funded at a rate of more than 1000 to 1 when compared to the skeptics...the fact that the argument remains is testament to the strength of the skeptic's argument.  Weasly liars such as yourself really don't do much in the way of arguing against skeptics because you can't argue the science.  If you would like to prove me wrong, then lets talk about trenberth's energy budget.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 19, 2013)

SSDD - 

Why would you "repeatedly" ask me for proof about a topic I've never mentioned?

Seriously, dude, at least try and present solid, coherent arguments, otherwise no debate is possible at all.


----------



## IanC (Feb 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> I am sure there have been real cases of poor science. In any field which involves a thousand scientists, there will be one or two bad apples. And I have no problem accepting that there may have been some serious errors made somewhere along the line and, who knows, maybe even a whitewash.
> 
> ...




Saigon- perhaps I am not getting my point across clearly enough.

the adjustments made to Iceland's temperature records are not only happening there. it is happening in a substantial portion of all temperature stations, perhaps the majority. a few months ago I googled GISS temp graphs, and for everyone I could find I then went to the GISS website and compared the old graph with the up-to-date graph. about 80% of the examples showed either cooling of the past, warming of the present, or both. the changes made to Iceland are neither extreme nor uncommon. if you consider the changes in Iceland to be ill-considered, then there are hundreds or even thousands of other stations that need to be examined.

you say that only 2 of 1000 climate science papers contain 'bad science'. perhaps that is true for some areas but paleo reconstructions are almost all flawed with bad data and worse methodology. I feel sorry for the honest researchers who use reconstructions from someone like Mann. they have tainted their work through no fault of their own because peer review has failed so many times in the past, and the climate science community cannot find the fortitude to publically criticize past egregious errors.

last spring Gergis _et al_ passed peer review but was demolished in web review. their failing? they published a good methodology but then failed to follow it, which lead to retraction. if they has simply described the usual cherry-picking then the skeptics would have complained but nothing would have happened and Gergis2012 would have a prominent place in AR5.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Why would you "repeatedly" ask me for proof about a topic I've never mentioned?
> 
> Seriously, dude, at least try and present solid, coherent arguments, otherwise no debate is possible at all.



You mention it de facto every time you claim that climate science is good science.  It is all based on trenberth's energy budget...ergo, if that budget is wrong, then all climate science which is based upon it is wrong.  You don't seem to be able to grasp the concept of an error cascade.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> you say that only 2 of 1000 climate science papers contain 'bad science'. perhaps that is true for some areas but paleo reconstructions are almost all flawed with bad data and worse methodology. I feel sorry for the honest researchers who use reconstructions from someone like Mann. they have tainted their work through no fault of their own because peer review has failed so many times in the past, and the climate science community cannot find the fortitude to publically criticize past egregious errors.
> .



He doesn't seem to be able to understand that it only takes a couple of papers early on that are considered to be important (like trenberth's energy budget and mann's hockey stick) to corrupt an entire field of science as so much of the present state of the science is built upon them.  If they are flawed, then every paper after which took their conclusions at face value is also flawed.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 20, 2013)

SSDD 

How does one 'de facto mention' something, without ever mentioning it?

Try and post on topic, coherent points.

Time and again on these threads you seem to keep banging on about some nonsensical red herring that no one else as the slightest interest in.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 20, 2013)

Ian C - 

The story about Iceland is interesting, but without any real evidence, it's hard to know what to make of it. 

It could be the sign of poor science - it could be the sign of good science. 

Without hearing from a reliable source who knows the details, I wouldn't want to say more.


----------



## ima (Feb 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Why would you "repeatedly" ask me for proof about a topic I've never mentioned?
> 
> Seriously, dude, at least try and present solid, coherent arguments, otherwise no debate is possible at all.



"97% of climate researchers most active in the field accept the concept of climate change"

The earth's climate is ALWAYS in constant change. Do the other 3% think that it isn't?

So if the earth's climate changes constantly, why should I care now that it's changing? I don't get it.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 20, 2013)

IanC said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > Ian C -
> ...



The changes made to the Iceland records were no exception.
The entire record collection had to be revised after "ignorant skeptics" pointed out the flaws  & methodology:





Now the "corrected" version of  of CRUTEM3 and HADCRUT3 have replaced the flawed data of the last 10 years. But the only thing that has been "corrected" was the standard deviation.
The root of the problem remains the same and has not been addressed:
Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets



> In the latest update of CRUTEM3 we have made a number of corrections to  the station level data on which the gridded product is based. The map  below shows the locations of station data (grey dots) and highlights  those that have been changed (coloured dots). Any subsequent changes  will be similarly documented and we continue to welcome feedback.



The vast majority of the land based stations are still in densely populated urban heat islands within 45 deg. latitude of the equator and for the rest of the globe the distribution is still as poor as it`s been since the data collection started. The number of sampling points out in the oceans, the land mass north of 50N and south of 50S are still as sparse as they have been before this "correction" .


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD
> 
> How does one 'de facto mention' something, without ever mentioning it?



Sorry, I didn't realise that I was talking over your head.  When you make the cliaim that climate science is good science, you, by default, are making the claim that the underpinnings of climate science is good science.  Obviously, you can provide no evidence whatsoever that said underpinnings in fact are good science.



Saigon said:


> Try and post on topic, coherent points.



Try to focus enough to see coherent points when they are given to you.  If I must speak at a grammar school level in order for you to understand, then just say so.



Saigon said:


> Time and again on these threads you seem to keep banging on about some nonsensical red herring that no one else as the slightest interest in.



Sadly siagon, you are the only one who is crying red herring.  Those who are interested in seeing you actually defend your position are simply waiting for you to do it.  No rational defense seems to be forthcoming.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 20, 2013)

polarbear said:


> The vast majority of the land based stations are still in densely populated urban heat islands within 45 deg. latitude of the equator and for the rest of the globe the distribution is still as poor as it`s been since the data collection started. The number of sampling points out in the oceans, the land mass north of 50N and south of 50S are still as sparse as they have been before this "correction" .



He doesn't seem to be able to think deeply enough to grasp the fact that the temperature record in those sparcely covered areas (most of the globe) are simple fabrications and have about as much actual meaning as the output of flawed computer models.  It would be far to much to ask of him to actually notice that some of the areas of the globe that are claimed to have the most remarkable warming are oddly enough areas of the globe with the least instrumental coverage.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 20, 2013)

SSDD said:


> polarbear said:
> 
> 
> > The vast majority of the land based stations are still in densely populated urban heat islands within 45 deg. latitude of the equator and for the rest of the globe the distribution is still as poor as it`s been since the data collection started. The number of sampling points out in the oceans, the land mass north of 50N and south of 50S are still as sparse as they have been before this "correction" .
> ...



Forget it SSDD...trying to discuss science with this pretend journalist who turns out to be a hippie, pretending  to live in Finland is as futile as trying to discuss science with a fence post.
It`s way over his dope head capacity, that almost all these Met stations are in urban environments and that the "average temperature" that these "climatologists" are publishing for the mass media are just  simple arithmetic mean averages.
Which is in no way a valid representation of an "average global temperature" as in these milk maid math graphs they continue to publish.
Here is the problem:
Instrumental temperature record - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> *Calculating the global temperature*
> 
> 
> The calculation needs to filter out the changes that have occurred over time that are not climate related (e.g. urban heat islands),  then interpolate across regions where instrument data has historically  been sparse (e.g. in the southern hemisphere and at sea), before an  average can be taken.
> There are three main datasets showing analyses of global temperatures, all developed since the late 1970s: the HadCRUT analysis is compiled in a collaboration between the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit and the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research


And as we all know the U of east Anglia could no longer show that there was an  "average temperature" increase for the last 10 years after skeptics pointed out the flaws in their stats math and forced these corrections.
But  even after all these  CRUTEM3 and  HADCRUT3 "corrections" their math still remains severely flawed.
It`s simply not valid to apply a simple arithmetic average to a data set which has a spacial distribution as ridiculous as shown on the station maps.
Their geometric mean corrections are also entirely incorrect because that applies only to positive numbers.
That`s what happens when "climatologists" are trying to do the math which is a prerequisite for real science. Anyone schooled in real science had no problem to spot the flaws in their stats calculations but it`s way over the heads of the IPCC "peer review". Most of them are, as the latest audits revealed  just a bunch of loud mouths consensus enviro- activists who got caught falsifying documents .


----------



## Saigon (Feb 20, 2013)

Comparison of global temperatures from raw and adjusted Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) v3 data, 1880&#8211;2010 (analysis by Zeke Hausfather)


----------



## Saigon (Feb 20, 2013)

So actually, when we compare 5 entirely different sets of data analysis - the results are very similar.

There are some minor differences of 'opinion', but all-in-all the basic trend is EXTREMELY clear. 

Polar Bear - 

I now have you on ignore mode for the same reason some of your posts were deleted by mods. This means I do not see any of your posts.


----------



## polarbear (Feb 20, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Comparison of global temperatures from raw and adjusted Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) v3 data, 1880&#8211;2010 (analysis by Zeke Hausfather)



You are beyond help and I pity any teacher who is or was supposed to educate You.
I`ve been posting official CRUTEM3 and HADCRUT3 data and You come back here to "refute" these with a picture from oh my God the world is doomed "skeptical science" nut case favorite web site
a right click on your picture shows the source link:
{Home Page.skepticalscience.com/pics/GHCN_RawvAdj.jpg}...your favorite source of "information"...and it is an "analysis" by none other than the grand daddy of global warmist bloggers  *Zeke Hausfather*.

He knows better than what the official CRUTEM & HADCRUT3 analysis concluded after some of their error "corrections"..:






Mind You it`s still a hockey stick despite all the evidence that was exposed how they fabricated it..but in contrast to your Zeke nut-house-daddy "analysis" it shows a sharp decline after 2005. Let`s wait and see how the official CRUTEM & HADCRUT will show once they finally get around to publish what it looks like from 2005 to date. It`s no wonder they are delaying it, probably hoping for a few volcanic eruptions that can be used to "explain" the decline.
If we were talking stock market instead of a temp-trend the above graph would have triggered a massive sell off .
It`s a valid analogy, because "climatology" is as much as a junk-science as the junk-bonds that caused the crash we are still paying for
The sad irony is that Zeke Hausfather who did this "analysis" is also in the midst of selling junk bonds for Tom Siebel`s "C3".
A company that has raised over $ 100 million from the same public that already forgot how they have been shafted by Enron.

B.t.w. You said that there is evidence of "global warming" right outside your window..The thermometer outside my kitchen window had it at -33 C this morning.
What is it outside your window in "Finland" today ? Upload a picture for us, will`ya..? I would love to see that "evidence" You are talking about...Oh, so sorry I forgot,..for you that would be almost as much trouble  as running a finger across a PC keyboard that`s been sold for use in Finland.
I know it`s hard to fake it because You have no idea in what sequence the Å, ä, and so on are generated if you would or could do it.
Helsinki is a balmy -5 C...how come it`s not snowing like crazy?
I`ve been reading an article in the "Åbo Underrättelser"
http://www.abounderrattelser.fi/news/




I`m curious.
"kvällen"  the phonetics are almost the same as "Quellen" is pronounced in German...does it mean "sources"...? 
*brandhärdar* som *flammar* upp *och* som måste släckas.[/quote]
German...:"*Brandherde* Flammen *flammen* so h*och* wie Mäste"....or is that all in Swedish ?
Sounds like Swedish to me...!!! It`s not very hard for Germans to understand Swedish

"E-*postadressen* publiceras inte. Obligatoriska fält är märkta * . *OBS!* ÅU publicerar inte kommentarer under signatur!"
*postadressen...*German : Post Addressen
*Obligatoriska*...English bligatory
"*fält* är märkta "....*Now that sounds 100% Swedish to me*! They pronounce that word "fält" exactly the same as "Feld" is pronounced in German, meaning "field" in English.
How come most of the text in Fin newspapers is printed in Swedish ?

Aaha...finally found an article that`s published in Your native tongue..
Would You be so kind and translate that for me?


> Etelän koulujen hiihtolomaviikolla auringonpaistetta tulee vuoroin etelään, vuoroin pohjoiseen.
> Torstaina etelässä on aamulla vielä kova yli kymmenen asteen  pakkanen. Ilma lämpenee päivän mittaan muutamaan pakkasasteeseen.  Auringonvalostakin pääsee nauttimaan, mutta aurinko paistaa pilvien  välistä.
> Pohjoisessa on suhteellisen lauhaa ilmaa, mutta pilvistä. Lumisade tulee pohjoiseen pohjoisesta alkaen.
> Perjantaina pilvistä säätä tulee myös  etelään, mutta Pohjois-Suomessa puolestaan on upea hiihtosää. Pakkasta  on siellä hieman tavallista enemmän.
> ...


Gee...it`s only -7 C in Helsinki and they act as if it was 40 below or something:

*Helsinki sai torstaina lumipeitteen.*





*@  -7 C... Canadians  head to the closest  golf course






Because more than 6 months of hockey is a drag:







and @ -20 C the downtown hookers already wear mini-skirts..but I guess they don`t have any female hookers in gay Finland, so these women in Helsinki must be housewives, not wanting to make any "Carbon footprints" so they  walk to get their groceries..?*
Another thing I could not help but notice...here we are in Helsinki..@ an intersection, traffic lights and the whole 9 yards of a typical downtown area...*yet not a single car in sight..amazing*!!!

In Canada we drive, doesn`t fucking matter how much snow there is:












> Polar Bear -
> 
> I now have you on ignore mode for the same reason some of your posts  were deleted by mods. This means I do not see any of your posts.


You love to exaggerate...my posts were deleted ?...posts as in plural
The only post that was deleted was that 3 liner with the Java script where Your IP showed up...
I got the e-mail..it was deleted "for security reasons"...after You shit Your pants and complained to the moderator

How can you put *me *in "*ignore mode*" ?
That`s the mode You have been in since birth...not me !

*You meant "ignore list"...
I`m sure I`m in good company there, with almost every scientist there has been since the printing press has been invented*

So now you are off the hook to answer the Greenland snow question and running Your thumb across a keyboard anyone who lives in Finland has.
I know where you are , but posting that for everyone else here to read, that would be a legitimate reason to get me banned from this forum...*which is what you demanded after I found you out *
*Man You are a prime example of a phoney baloney  internet  personality faker...*
If You are an educated  journalist in Finland then I`m Swedish, blond, 20 years old, and a single millionaire.. and not  an old married & retired engineer, raising my grand children


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Comparison of global temperatures from raw and adjusted Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) v3 data, 18802010 (analysis by Zeke Hausfather)



You are thinking that perhaps GHCN is not a database that has been "adjusted" (tampered with)?  Think again.











ANd that is just one example...GHCN has been tampered with to the point that it is meaningless.


----------



## PredFan (Feb 24, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> *A blog, but many links to reputable sources. Such as the US Navy.*
> 
> Arctic News
> 
> ...



Oh, it's 2015 now is it? They keep pushing that date back i see.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 24, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *A blog, but many links to reputable sources. Such as the US Navy.*
> ...



LOLOLOLOL...."_pushing it bac_k"???? LOLOL.....actually the predictions for an ice free Arctic have been drastically '*pulled forward*' over the last decade.

*In 2007 the IPCC reported that "the projected reduction [in global sea ice cover] is accelerated in the Arctic, where some models project summer sea ice cover to disappear entirely in the high-emission A2 scenario in the latter part of the 21st century.&#8243;[11] There is currently no scientific evidence that a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean existed anytime in the last 700,000 years.

The rate of the decline in entire arctic ice coverage is accelerating. From 19791996, the average per decade decline in entire ice coverage was a 2.2% decline in ice extent (i.e., area with at least 15% sea ice coverage) and a 3% decline in ice area. For the decade ending 2008, these values have risen to 10.1% and 10.7%, respectively. These are comparable to the September to September loss rates in year-round ice (i.e., perennial ice, which survives throughout the year), which averaged a retreat of 10.2% and 11.4% per decade, respectively, for the period 19792007.[36] This is consistent with ICESat measurements indicating decreased thickness in arctic ice and a decline in multi-year ice. For the period 20052008, multi-year ice decreased 42% in coverage and 40% in volume, a loss of ~6300 km3.[37] While the Arctic Ice Coverage showed an accelerating downward trend, recent reports on the Arctic Ice Volume showed an even sharper decline then the Ice coverage. Since 1979, the ice volume has shrunk by 80% and in just the past decade the volume declined by 36% in the Autumn and 9% in the winter.[38]*
(source: *Climate change in the Arctic* - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


----------



## SSDD (Feb 24, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOL...."_pushing it bac_k"???? LOLOL.....actually the predictions for an ice free Arctic have been drastically '*pulled forward*' over the last decade.




Right...you cut and paste drones believe whatever you are spoon fed....don't you.  That's the big problem with being stupid.  Since you don't know, you are forced to pick sides and just believe your side is right.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

The Arctic could be ice-free by 2016 | Grist

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?

Arctic summer ice could vanish by 2013: expert | Reuters

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

North Pole Could Be Ice Free in 2008 - ABC News

The big problem with the internet for you guys is that your idiot predictions don't go away.  They are lying around everywhere so your attempts at rewriting history are always doomed to failure.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 24, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > LOLOLOLOL...."_pushing it bac_k"???? LOLOL.....actually the predictions for an ice free Arctic have been drastically '*pulled forward*' over the last decade.
> ...


Ahhh, SSooooDDuuumb, you are talking to yourself again.....your fossil fuel industry puppet masters "_spoon feed_" you their lies, misinformation and propaganda and you parrot it here, like a good little braindead dupe.







SSDD said:


> That's the big problem with being stupid.


Yup. A problem that you must be very well acquainted with, after having had such a fierce and unsuccessful lifelong struggle with it....too bad there's no cure for stupid....





SSDD said:


> Since you don't know


Ah, but I do know. I know, for example that you are a clueless retard acting as a 'useful idiot' foot soldier for the fossil fuel industry. 

I also know that climate scientists were predicting an ice free summer Arctic to happen decades in the future until just recently when the pace of the observed melting started to far exceed the climate model predictions. This is a fact that is easily verifiable. The topic of this thread involves a prediction that the Arctic may be ice free in summer by 2015. One to the other denier cult nutjobs claimed that a 2015 prediction was "pushing it back" and I told him that it was actually the reverse. You post some articles from 2008, after the big record ice melt in 2007, that talk about a possible summer melt-off by 2013 but, as usual for you, you either don't actually read the articles you cite or you're just too stupid to understand what is being said. Let's look at whether the articles you posted support my position that climate scientists have previously been predicting later dates than 2015 or your position that they all thought the meltdown would happen this year. The second article you cited - *The Arctic could be ice-free by 2016 | Grist* - is actually talking about a meltoff date of 2016, which is after 2015, the date cited in the OP, you poor confused cretin. All the rest of your articles except one are about the same bit of research predicting a summer ice free Arctic by 2013. LOLOLOLOL. When I provide a list of sources to support my position, they are all, each one, about different studies by different researchers. You're apparently far too stupid to understand that listing multiple reports about the same study does not actually reinforce the information presented in that study. The one article with a headline that seems to be predicting a meltoff in 2008 does not actually predict that. Instead it is talking about an ice free North Pole only. Here's some excerpts from that article: 
*North Pole Could Be Ice Free in 2008 - ABC News* 
April 27, 2008 
*You know when climate change is biting hard when instead of a vast expanse of snow the North Pole is a vast expanse of water. This year, for the first time, Arctic scientists are preparing for that possibility. "There is this thin first-year ice even at the North Pole at the moment", says Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). "This raises the spectre &#8211; the possibility that you could become ice free at the North Pole this year". Despite its news value in the media, the North Pole being ice free is not in itself significant. To scientists, Serreze points out, "this is just another point on the globe". What is worrying, though, is the fact that multi-year ice &#8211; the stuff that doesn't melt in the summer &#8211; is not piling up as fast as Arctic ice generally is melting.*


 Now let's look at one of these articles you cited and see whether it agrees with your position.

*BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'*
12 December 2007
(excerpts)
*Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times. Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams. These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100. "My claim is that the global climate models underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice by oceanic advection," Professor Maslowski said. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN-led body which assesses the state of the Earth's climate system, uses an averaged group of models to forecast ice loss in the Arctic. But it is has become apparent in recent years that the real, observed rate of summer ice melting is now starting to run well ahead of the models. The US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) research scientist Dr Mark Serreze was asked to give one of the main lectures here at this year's AGU Fall Meeting. Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate. My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of." And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: "I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years". *


----------



## Saigon (Feb 24, 2013)

SSDD - 

If you had actyally looked at what I posted, you miht have noticed that the graphs contain data from a half dozen entirely different sources. 

They all draw similar conclusions. 

No doubt this will now have to be deemed 'a lie' or 'a fraud' or some other nonsense. Right?


----------



## ima (Feb 25, 2013)

Global warming is good, ice free arctic is also good. Warm is basically good. Freezing cold isn't so good. Move away from the coast. 

Did I miss anything?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> If you had actyally looked at what I posted, you miht have noticed that the graphs contain data from a half dozen entirely different sources.
> 
> ...



That should tell you something siagon...when your supposedly pristine sources jibe with known altered sources you should be clued into the fact that your pristine sources..aren't.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 25, 2013)

SSDD - 

Perhaps just look at the graphs and given them a bit of thought. 

Again - we have a half dozen entirely independent sources, with some variation between the graphs. And all showing the same trends, and the same conclusions.

I'd have thought that for most scpetics with any interest in science, this was fairly much the end of the road.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 25, 2013)

ima said:


> Global warming is good, ice free arctic is also good. Warm is basically good. Freezing cold isn't so good. Move away from the coast.
> 
> Did I miss anything?



Yeah, you missed the fact that you're a clueless retard who has no idea what people are talking about.


----------



## ima (Feb 25, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming is good, ice free arctic is also good. Warm is basically good. Freezing cold isn't so good. Move away from the coast.
> ...



They're arguing over whose scientists are the most full of crap. Global warming is our friend. Embrace it. Might as well, because we can't stop it.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming is good, ice free arctic is also good. Warm is basically good. Freezing cold isn't so good. Move away from the coast.
> ...



What sort of evidence do you have that the earth is presently at the optimum temperature for life?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 25, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Perhaps just look at the graphs and given them a bit of thought.
> 
> ...



GHCN=NOAA...known to tamper with temperature records...known to have cooled 754 months since 2008 with 98% of those months being prior to 1960 and 223 of those months having been cooled more than -0.05 degrees and known to have warmed 793 months since 2008 with 72% of those months being after 1959 and the warming of 70 of those months was greater than 0.05 degrees.

You actually believe anything that NOAA puts out or anything that jibes with NOAA's temperatures?  

How much more gullible could you possibly be?  All you are telling me is that the rest of those people's temperature records closely match the known tampering that has been going on at NOAA.  GISTEMP and HADCRU are also known tamperers.  So the known tamperers temperature records agree?  So what?....they are known and proven tamperers.

As to zeke hausfather and nick stokes....which one of them actually has a world wide temperature gathering network?  If they don't own one, where do they get their data?  We both know that they get it from at least one of the known tamperers since known tamperers are the only ones with worldwide gathering networks.  Is it surprising then, that the data they get from known tamperers matches the data produced by known tamperers?


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



SSoooDDuuumb, your questions are always very stupid. I guess that's because you're so retarded. 

There is no "_optimum temperature for life_", dumbass. There are however the temperature ranges, rainfall patterns and general climate conditions that the human race's agricultural systems are designed for and depend on. Higher temperatures and changing rainfall timing and patterns will adversely affect agricultural production all around the world and will very probably result in mass starvation at some point. Higher temperatures are also seriously shrinking the world's mountain glaciers, which normally play a vitally important role in the summer water supplies for drinking and agriculture for hundreds of million of people. As these glaciers disappear, water supplies will vanish and great suffering and starvation will result.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 25, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...



Your denier cult myths and fantasies about temperature record "_tampering_" are as crackpot insane as the rest of your moronic myths. You silly wankers are just more conspiracy theory nutjobs and your particular conspiracy theory involving tens of thousands  of scientists all around the world is an especially idiotic and insane one at that.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 25, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




Well s0n.....then I'd suggest you start stocking up on supplies starting now. Too, if you want to play it safe, look into making your own personal ark. Some are already doing it..........








Sittting around worryng all your life about a tragic world is gay.  A waste of time......the days are ticking by. Assholes like you have been preaching doomsday for decades. Nobody cares.


Now...........get to work...........sitting around here posting up stuff about glaciers isnt going to accomplish dick.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 25, 2013)

SSDD -

Again, look at the graphs and try and post a little sensibly. 

The charts show not one - not two - but SIX entirely independent sources of data. All confirm warming temperatures. 

Running away from posts like this does not make you look cool.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Your denier cult myths and fantasies about temperature record "_tampering_" are as crackpot insane as the rest of your moronic myths. You silly wankers are just more conspiracy theory nutjobs and your particular conspiracy theory involving tens of thousands  of scientists all around the world is an especially idiotic and insane one at that.



I suppose in your koolaid stupor, you missed the news that undeniable proof exists in abundance for data tampering on the part of those mentioned above.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Again, look at the graphs and try and post a little sensibly.
> 
> ...



Your graph show 5 sources...3 who have been caught repeatedly altering data and two who get their numbers from at least one of the sources that have been caught repeatedly altering data.  

You grow very boring.....very boring indeed.  skeptical science...temp records from people who have been caught multiple times tampering with the records...if that is where you get your information, it is no wonder that you are so terribly misinformed.  

What isn't clear is why you are such a liar.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 26, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> There is no "_optimum temperature for life_", dumbass. There are however the temperature ranges, rainfall patterns and general climate conditions that the human race's agricultural systems are designed for and depend on. Higher temperatures and changing rainfall timing and patterns will adversely affect agricultural production all around the world and will very probably result in mass starvation at some point. Higher temperatures are also seriously shrinking the world's mountain glaciers, which normally play a vitally important role in the summer water supplies for drinking and agriculture for hundreds of million of people. As these glaciers disappear, water supplies will vanish and great suffering and starvation will result.



Humans aren't designed for any climate idiot.  We have lived in deep ice ages and in climate optimums that were a great deal warmer than present.  We flourished under the warmer temperatures.

Research has shown that a warmer world will enhance our agriculture...cold is what you should worry about if you must worry about the inevetable.


----------



## ima (Feb 26, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



The world is overpopulated as it is. This will do a lot of good for the planet.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 26, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Your graph show 5 sources...3 who have been caught repeatedly altering data and two who get their numbers from at least one of the sources that have been caught repeatedly altering data.
> 
> You grow very boring.....very boring indeed.  skeptical science...temp records from people who have been caught multiple times tampering with the records...if that is where you get your information, it is no wonder that you are so terribly misinformed.
> 
> What isn't clear is why you are such a liar.



Ha! Wonderful stuff, SSDD - you rarely fail to make me laugh out loud.

So just to be clear here - there are FIVE major independent sources of climate data.

You ignore all five of them.

Is that correct?


----------



## IanC (Feb 26, 2013)

Saigon said:


> SSDD -
> 
> Again, look at the graphs and try and post a little sensibly.
> 
> ...




there are data from temperature stations, and there are organizations that collect collate adjust and homogenize that data. just because the various organizations have their own methods of massaging the data to give 'a global temp' doesnt mean they are entirely independent sources of data.

what are some of the problems with producing 'global temp'? the world is unevenly measured with wildly different quality. eg the US has thousands of good records that are complete and go back over a hundred years. unfortunately these good records that show a very small temp increase (at least until strange things started to happen in 2000) are dwarfed by the shoddy, incomplete and short temp records in Africa. Africa is 4 times as large as the contUS and has 4 times the grid cells. the large uncertainty bars in Africa  dont matter!

how about oceans? sparse measurements and questionable adjustments for measurement type made pre-ARGO  data somewhat suspect, at least for uncertainty. yet they often report it in hundredths of a degree! ARGO measurements are much better and more comprehensive but even they are not worthy of claiming 0.01C accuracy.

it goes on and on.....given free choice of many stations in a grid, everytime a change in methodology happens the trend goes up! coincidence or cherry picking? the change in adjustments since the new millenium amounts to over 20% of the total increase! ( I am speaking of the US here because old data is hard to find for the rest of the world)

New Zealand and Austrailia are interesting to investigate because they are western countries with good, long standing records but dont have an overwhelming number of stations. the controversies in the last 5 years are numerous and enlightening for exposing the weaknesses in the temperature collection business.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 26, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Your denier cult myths and fantasies about temperature record "_tampering_" are as crackpot insane as the rest of your moronic myths. You silly wankers are just more conspiracy theory nutjobs and your particular conspiracy theory involving tens of thousands  of scientists all around the world is an especially idiotic and insane one at that.
> ...



I missed that because it doesn't exist except in the myths, lies, and fantasies that rattle around in your little denier cult bizarro-world echo chamber. Your "_abundance of undeniable proof_" is a fantasy that you can't produce or show us.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 26, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...



You're the liar here, SSoooDDuuumb, and a rotten one at that. You're a scientifically ignorant retard parroting the myths and lies the fossil fuel industry propagandists have spooned into your little pea-brain. Your denial of reality is just pathetic.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Feb 26, 2013)

Looking at global temperature data over the past few years-- I'd assume that the decreasing ice is 90% of any rise in global temperature. Very little warming outside of the arctic. 

I'm not going to disagree with this paper as it is happening.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 26, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > There is no "_optimum temperature for life_", dumbass. There are however the temperature ranges, rainfall patterns and general climate conditions that the human race's agricultural systems are designed for and depend on. Higher temperatures and changing rainfall timing and patterns will adversely affect agricultural production all around the world and will very probably result in mass starvation at some point. Higher temperatures are also seriously shrinking the world's mountain glaciers, which normally play a vitally important role in the summer water supplies for drinking and agriculture for hundreds of million of people. As these glaciers disappear, water supplies will vanish and great suffering and starvation will result.
> ...


The earliest fossil evidence for anatomically modern Homo sapiens dates back only about 200,000 years. We have evolved to be suited to the climatic conditions that have prevailed over that time. The Earth has been in a Great Ice Age for the last 2.5 million years. The human race has never experienced the very different climate ranges that occurred before the Ice Age. Climate conditions not seen in millions of years that the excess CO2 we've dumped into the atmosphere are going to recreate, BTW.





SSDD said:


> We have lived in deep ice ages and in climate optimums that were a great deal warmer than present.  We flourished under the warmer temperatures.


The human race has never lived in a world where global average temperatures were 8 or 10 degrees hotter than present. The more important point that you're trying to ignore, is that when the human race lived during glacial periods, there weren't 7 billion of us to feed.






SSDD said:


> Research has shown that a warmer world will enhance our agriculture...cold is what you should worry about if you must worry about the inevetable(sic).



Another lie. A warmer world will not enhance our agriculture. Moreover we're not just talking about a warmer world, we looking at the climate changes brought about by that warming. Climate changes that will alter rainfall patterns, affect monsoons, create droughts and flooding, eliminate summer water supplies by making mountain glaciers vanish, produce more weather extremes, and adversely affect agriculture in many places. Warming and climate changes will probably affect food crops in other ways too, like increasing the spread of plant diseases and pests, and negatively affecting bees and other pollinators.

*How will climate change affect food production?*
The Guardian
By the Grantham Research Institute and Duncan Clark
19 September 2012 07
(excerpts)
*Food is one of society's key sensitivities to climate. A year of not enough or too much rainfall, a hot spell or cold snap at the wrong time, or extremes, like flooding and storms, can have a significant effect on local crop yields and livestock production. While modern farming technologies and techniques have helped to reduce this vulnerability and boost production, the impact of recent droughts in the USA, China and Russia on global cereal production highlight a glaring potential future vulnerability. There is some evidence that climate change is already having a measurable affect on the quality and quantity of food produced globally. But this is small when compared with the significant increase in global food production that has been achieved over the past few decades. Isolating the influence of climatic change from all the other trends is difficult, but one recent Stanford University study found that increases in global production of maize and wheat since 1980 would have been about 5% higher were it not for climate change. 

All else being equal, rising carbon dioxide concentrations  the main driver of climate change  could increase production of some crops, such as rice, soybean and wheat. However, the changing climate would affect the length and quality of the growing season and farmers could experience increasing damage to their crops, caused by a rising intensity of droughts, flooding or fires. The latest IPCC report predicted improving conditions for food production in the mid to high latitudes over the next few decades, including in the northern USA, Canada, northern Europe and Russia. Conversely, parts of the subtropics, such as the Mediterranean region and parts of Australia, and the low latitudes, could experience declining conditions. For example, across Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could decline by as much as 50% by 2020. Beyond this, if global temperatures rise by more than about 13°C, declining conditions could be experienced over a much larger area. *


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 26, 2013)

ima said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



That has got to be one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on this forum, and given how extremely retarded some of the denier cultists are, that is really saying something. Are you insane or just braindead? You actually think that "_great suffering and starvation_" and the death by starvation and water deprivation of a significant percentage of the human population "_will do a lot of good for the planet_"? Is the rest of your name "*ima shithead*"? If climate conditions get so bad as to kill off a big chunk of the human race, what do you think is going to happen to the rest of the Earth's biosphere, dumbass?


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 26, 2013)

IanC said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...



Denier cult nitpicking nonsense from someone who isn't educated enough to understand the science involved and who is definitely too scientifically ignorant to competently analyze the research techniques. If the actual professional scientists can't see the supposed errors and inaccuracies you claim to see, then, IMO, you're just spreading anti-science propaganda created by the fossil fuel industry sponsored denial groups.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 26, 2013)

Matthew said:


> Looking at global temperature data over the past few years-- I'd assume that the decreasing ice is 90% of any rise in global temperature. Very little warming outside of the arctic.
> 
> I'm not going to disagree with this paper as it is happening.



"_*Very little warming outside the arctic*_"?????  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......

*Heat Wave: 2012 Labeled Hottest Year on Record*
by Tim Profeta of Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University
National Geographic
January 10, 2013 
(excerpts)
*Its official. Last year was the warmest year in history for the contiguous United States with at least 356 record high temperatures tied or broken, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Average temperatures in 2012 were above the 20th century average by more than 3 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures also beat a previous record set in 1998 by a full degree, even though 2012 was not an El Niño year. Well, 1998s heat was attributed to a strong El Niño, said Meteorologist Matt Mosteiko. For 2012, there wasnt one main factor that led to warm temps.*


*Australia Is So Hot They Had To Add a New Color to the Weather Map*
Slate
By Will Oremus
Jan. 8, 2013
(excerpts)
*The last four months of 2012 were the hottest on record in Australia. But January is shaping up to be even hotter. Between Jan. 3 and Jan. 6, an amazing 18 different weather stations recorded all-time temperature highs, according to a special climate statement from the countrys Bureau of Meteorology. Those included a mark of 118 degrees in Eucla, Western Australia, and an unheard-of 107 in Hobart, Tasmania, which bills itself as the gateway to Antarctica. But the bureaus forecasters believe the worst is yet to comewhich is why theyve added a new color to their official weather maps, for temperatures up to 54 degrees Celsius (129 Fahrenheit). In other words, they believe the countrys all-time high temperature of 123 degrees, set in 1960, is about to go down, and hard.

Earlier today, the Sydney Morning Herald grabbed a screenshot of an official weather prediction map that showed a splotch of shocking purple over South Australia, the brand-new indicator for temperatures in excess of 50 Celsius (122 Fahrenheit). It appears the bureau has since eased its predictions for Monday, as the purple has receded for the time being. But the new color lives on in the temperature index to the right of the maps, reflecting a new climate reality in which a 129-degree day would no longer be off the charts. Meanwhile, the countrys fire danger levels have been elevated to catastrophic, with over 100 blazes already burning in its most populous state, New South Wales.*


*Death rate doubles in Moscow as heatwave continues*
BBC News
9 August 2010
(excerpts)
*Moscow's health chief has confirmed the mortality rate has doubled as a heatwave and wildfire smog continue to grip the Russian capital. Meanwhile, a state of emergency has been declared around a nuclear reprocessing plant in the southern Urals because of nearby wildfires. And there was a new warning over shortfalls in Russia's grain harvest. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said this year's harvest, hit by fire and drought, would be worse than previously forecast.

As of Monday morning, 557 wildfires continued to burn in Russia, 25 of them peat fires, the emergencies ministry said. While 239 fires were extinguished on Sunday, 247 new ones were discovered. The head of the state weather service, Alexander Frolov, said on Monday that the heatwave of 2010 was the worst in 1,000 years of recorded Russian history. "It's an absolutely unique phenomenon - nothing like it can be seen in the archives," he was quoted by Interfax news agency as saying.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 26, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 26, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at global temperature data over the past few years-- I'd assume that the decreasing ice is 90% of any rise in global temperature. Very little warming outside of the arctic.
> ...





Ohhh......lookey what I found??


Russian cold toll hits 123 amid bitter winter weather - What's On Tianjin









*O o o o o p s*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 26, 2013)

It's hot = global warming

It's cold = climate change


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 26, 2013)

wider and wilder, with an overall warming


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 26, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> wider and wilder, with an overall warming



Why is it that none of the charts you've ever posted shows that?


----------



## Saigon (Feb 26, 2013)

Ian C - 

I am not really sure how many sources of weather data you think we need.

Personally, I think 5 is adequate - even if 1 or 2 of them are not using entirely their own data. Given both you and SSDD can find reasons to reject all 5, I can't imagine adding a 6th or a 7th would make any difference. 

We have also seen the data collected by individual countries has been rejected out of hand, so in all I think what we are seeing is Denier refusing to consider something in the region of 40 completely distinct and independent sets of data. 

I call that silly, myself.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 27, 2013)

No amount of evidence is going to convince those that have made up their mind to ignore reality.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 27, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > wider and wilder, with an overall warming
> ...



Why is it that you ask, when you know full well you won't look at the answer?

I can post charts that prove this point very clearly - will you commit to looking at them and discussing them sensibly?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> No amount of evidence is going to convince those that have made up their mind to ignore reality.



The fact that warming has stalled for going on 2 decades now in spite of steadily increasing atmospheric CO2 is reality and tells thinking people that CO2 is not the control knob for the climate.  Warmers, as you note, dismiss all evidence to the contrary and continue to beleve that CO2 is causing climate change and no amount of observable evidence around you is going to alter your belief.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ha! Wonderful stuff, SSDD - you rarely fail to make me laugh out loud.
> 
> So just to be clear here - there are FIVE major independent sources of climate data.
> 
> ...



The two individuals are NOT major independent sources for anything.  The fact that you believe they are and represent them as such is further indication of your dishonesty.

The three that are left have all been caught red handed blatantly tampering with temperature records.  Why would you believe anything coming from agencies that have been caught  altering data?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> I missed that because it doesn't exist except in the myths, lies, and fantasies that rattle around in your little denier cult bizarro-world echo chamber. Your "_abundance of undeniable proof_" is a fantasy that you can't produce or show us.



In your koolaid stupor, you are evidently unable to differentiate between observable reality and myth.  Multiple examples of data tampering have been posted here on this board, you have commented on them, and yet, believe they are a myth.  You grow more detatched from reality every day.  Stop drinking the koolaid.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> You're the liar here, SSoooDDuuumb, and a rotten one at that. You're a scientifically ignorant retard parroting the myths and lies the fossil fuel industry propagandists have spooned into your little pea-brain. Your denial of reality is just pathetic.



No thunder, you are the liar...or duped beyond belief.  As to parrotting, you make me laugh considering that you remain completely unable to actually discuss any scientific topic on your own and are constrained to cut and paste parrotting of the material you are spoonfed by your high priests.

The only words of your own you have, as evidenced by this post are impotent name calling that smacks of inferiority and desperation.


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> The earliest fossil evidence for anatomically modern Homo sapiens dates back only about 200,000 years. We have evolved to be suited to the climatic conditions that have prevailed over that time. The Earth has been in a Great Ice Age for the last 2.5 million years. The human race has never experienced the very different climate ranges that occurred before the Ice Age. Climate conditions not seen in millions of years that the excess CO2 we've dumped into the atmosphere are going to recreate, BTW.



The people who spoon feed you your information are obivously keeping you in the dark regarding the temperature swings that have happened over the past couple of hundred thousand years.  It has been a great deal warmer than present within the past 200,000 years without increased atmospheric CO2.  That should tell you something if you weren't in a continuous koolaid stupor.




RollingThunder said:


> The human race has never lived in a world where global average temperatures were 8 or 10 degrees hotter than present. The more important point that you're trying to ignore, is that when the human race lived during glacial periods, there weren't 7 billion of us to feed.



8 to 10 degrees warmer?  Who is predicting that within the next million years.  Even the most wacko crackpots aren't predicting that much temperature rise.  But the paleorecord tells us that the bulk of earth history has been that much warmer and that life, both land and marine, both animal and plant have not only survived, but flourished.

We have lived in temperatures considerably warmer than the present within the past couple of hundred thousand years.  This paper:

A probabilistic assessment of sea level variations within the last interglacial stage

Published in Geophysical Journal International finds that during the last interglacial, 115 to 130 thousand years ago, temperatures were higher and sea level rose at a much higher rate.  In fact it found that sea level rose 8 meters higher than present northern hemisphere temperatures peaked at about 5 degrees warmer than present (again, warmer than even the crackpot warmists are predicting) and southern hemisphere temperatures peaked at 3 to 5 degrees warmer than present.



*How will climate change affect food production?*
The Guardian
By the Grantham Research Institute and Duncan Clark
19 September 2012 07
[/quote]

The grantham institute?  Are you kidding? You believe science coming out of a school of economics and political science and ignore actual science being published in actual scientific journals?  Stop drinking the koolaid, it is adversely affecting your ability to distinguis reality from cartoons.  Here is a hint.....Foghorn Leghorn is not a real person.


----------



## Saigon (Feb 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> The three that are left have all been caught red handed blatantly tampering with temperature records.  Why would you believe anything coming from agencies that have been caught  altering data?



Firstly, because I have never seen any solid evidence that an records have been "tampered with". 

Secondly, because I have never seen any solid evidence that any "tampering" was not done for good scientific reasons.

Thirdly, because there are numerous independent sources for data - perhaps 40 or 50 - and they all show roughly similar results. 

You ignore all of them. Of course.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > No amount of evidence is going to convince those that have made up their mind to ignore reality.
> ...



My, my, still repeating this old lie. So, lets see how it has been 'stalled'.

Warmest years on record, NOAA;

1.   2010
2.   2005
3.   1998
4.   2003
5.   2002
6.   2006
      2009
      2007
9.   2004
10. 2012

How soon until we see the next big jump, like we saw in 1998? And then the last decade will look cool.


----------



## IanC (Feb 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> I am not really sure how many sources of weather data you think we need.
> 
> ...




I presume you mean temperature not weather.

as usual you are distorting my position into a strawman that you can easily mock while totally ignoring the difficult questions that I pose.

all of the organizations draw from the same pool of known temperature collection stations therefore they are not _independent._

all of the organizations adjust the individual station series for various forms of bias that could introduce error into the readings.

there is ongoing controversy over the adjustments and the infilling of empty grid cells where no measurements exist.

it seems like a rather extraordinary coincidence that every new 'improvement' leads to either increasing recent temps, lowering historical temps, or both.

I have shown you examples. the shape of Iceland's temperature graph was 'corrected' to remove a cold period that was a well known cause of economic hardship, and the Icelandic Met Office was concerned that their data was being changed even though it was thoroughly documented. I gave another example of how GISS added ~0.1C to contUS recent data and subtracted ~0.1C to contUS data to pre-WWII. and that was just from the 2007 data compared to the 2012 data. has there been some breakthrough in thermometer technology that necessitates such changes? no, but there has certainly been 'improvements' in temperature computer modelling.

I understand your preference to believe that scientists like Hansen are impartial and would only make legitimate changes. unfortunately when you actually examine the _large and numerous_ changes in the last 15 years it is difficult to accept that there is not at least a subconscious bias to get the results that he wants.


----------



## IanC (Feb 27, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I wont go over my oft repeated comment that you dont understand the difference between warm and warming because you seem unable or unwilling to grasp the concept.

I also wonder if the method of calculating global temps used in, say, 1998 would still give the same order of warmest years.


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 27, 2013)

There is a natural variation imposed on the warming. We have had several La Ninas since 1998, and a low Solar TSI. But it has not cooled. Even by Dr. Spencer's chart, the years since 1998 have been very warm.

UAH Global Temperature Update for January, 2013: +0.51 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Note on his graph the differance before 1998, and after. When the next jump occurs, then reflects natural variantion, and levels a bit, you will once more be claiming the warming has leveled off. Even as the following decade establishes new records, you will be claiming that it is not warming.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > I missed that because it doesn't exist except in the myths, lies, and fantasies that rattle around in your little denier cult bizarro-world echo chamber. Your "_abundance of undeniable proof_" is a fantasy that you can't produce or show us.
> ...



With denier cultists, when you challenge them to show you their supposed "_abundance of undeniable proof_", it is always either "_I already showed you that_" or "_I can show you that_", but it is never "*here it is right now*". LOLOLOLOL....and we all know why....


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You are aware that NOAA has been caught repeatedly altering temperature records aren't you?  In fact , they have cooled 754months since 2008 with 98% of those months being prior to 1960 and they have warmed 793 months since 2008 with 72% of those months being after 1959.  How can you possibly expect anyone to believe their claims are accurate?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Firstly, because I have never seen any solid evidence that an records have been "tampered with".



Liar.



Saigon said:


> Secondly, because I have never seen any solid evidence that any "tampering" was not done for good scientific reasons.



Liar



Saigon said:


> Thirdly, because there are numerous independent sources for data - perhaps 40 or 50 - and they all show roughly similar results.



Liar


----------



## SSDD (Feb 27, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> With denier cultists, when you challenge them to show you their supposed "_abundance of undeniable proof_", it is always either "_I already showed you that_" or "_I can show you that_", but it is never "*here it is right now*". LOLOLOLOL....and we all know why....



Here...right now.  Just for you, although they have been provided to you more than once.  The koolaid must be having an adverse effect on your memory as well as your perception of reality.


































If you want more, just ask.  Examples abound.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 27, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > With denier cultists, when you challenge them to show you their supposed "_abundance of undeniable proof_", it is always either "_I already showed you that_" or "_I can show you that_", but it is never "*here it is right now*". LOLOLOLOL....and we all know why....
> ...


Oh, SSoooDDuuumb, my "_perception of reality_" is just fine, unlike yours, you delusional nitwit. Too bad about your retardation; must be a bummer for you. You would have to be retarded to imagine that this denier cult blog dreck somehow constitutes "_undeniable proof_" that the world's temperature records have all been tampered with by a huge conspiracy of scientists working for many different governments, scientific agencies, universities and other scientific institutions. Which is basically your insane claim.

The surface temperature records were collected with a variety of different instruments, at differently sited locations in the city or the country, at different altitudes, and with changing technology over the years. The fact that scientists have gone back and analyzed a lot of the old data and made some corrections to compensate for all of those differences in order to produce a more globally comparable data set is neither surprising nor evidence of some dastardly conspiracy by all of those thousands of scientists to distort the record for nefarious purposes. It is only conspiracy theory nutjobs like you who fall for that nonsense.

Of course this whole line of nonsense is one of the denier cults standard propaganda memes. Here's a good explanation.

*The temperature record is unreliableBut temperature trends are clear and widely corroborated*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 27, 2013)

If the AGWCult was active in the 1930's they would have said the Arctic would be ice free by 1940


----------



## Old Rocks (Feb 27, 2013)

SSDD

Here...right now. Just for you, although they have been provided to you more than once. The koolaid must be having an adverse effect on your memory as well as your perception of reality
.........................................................................................................................................

Well dumb fuck, that first graph is the temperature for the lower 48 in the US, less than 2% of the worlds surface. Not only that, 2012 exceed 1934.

2012 Was the Hottest Year in U.S. History. And Yes ? It?s Climate Change | TIME.com

It&#8217;s official: 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental U.S. &#8212; and it wasn&#8217;t even close. Last year beat the previous record holder &#8212; 1998, the summer of which I spent broiling to death as a New York intern &#8212; by a full 1ºF (0.56ºC). That&#8217;s a landslide, by meteorological standards. That&#8217;s Alabama beating Notre Dame to a bloody Irish pulp last night for the college football championship. It was really, really hot last year.

I could cite more statistics to prove the point, but I think this map from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration does it better than anything else:



Read more: 2012 Was the Hottest Year in U.S. History. And Yes ? It?s Climate Change | TIME.com


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 27, 2013)

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming... so who are the 'deniers' now? | Mail Online


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 28, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming... so who are the 'deniers' now? | Mail Online



Too bad you're soooooo retarded and desperate that you have to keep repeating your long since debunked denier cult myths like that. The Met Office repudiated that lying article by the denier cult reporter David Rose in the Daily Mail.

*Met Office Refutes Rose*


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> The surface temperature records were collected with a variety of different instruments, at differently sited locations in the city or the country, at different altitudes, and with changing technology over the years. The fact that scientists have gone back and analyzed a lot of the old data and made some corrections to compensate for all of those differences in order to produce a more globally comparable data set is neither surprising nor evidence of some dastardly conspiracy by all of those thousands of scientists to distort the record for nefarious purposes. It is only conspiracy theory nutjobs like you who fall for that nonsense.



You are so predictable.  That is because you aren't very bright and as such, have a very limited number of reactions to any given situation.  It this one, your only option is to spew without any real thought since thinking obviously isn't one of your best things.

Describe for me a reasonable and scientifically sound reason for altering any temperature record prior to 1960.....or 1970 for that matter. I am really interested to hear the reasoning you accept for changes to records from the 1930's and 1920's, and 1910's, and even back into the 1800's.   What is the basis for the changes...What new information prompted the change? What specific information would require altering the record as far back as the 1800's?   Is the change based on observation or the output of questionable computer models?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> It&#8217;s official: 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental U.S. &#8212; and it wasn&#8217;t even close.



Based on which altered record rocks?  Based on what modification to the present data?  CRN, the high dollar, state of the art, meticiulously placed temperature gathering network that requires no modification to its record doesn't say 2012 was the warmest year.  You don't hear much about CRN these days.  It was put in place to prove global warming to skeptics beyond a doubt.  What it proves is that the skeptics have a valid argument and that the data tampering we accuse climate science of is quite real.


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 28, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming stopped 16 years ago, Met Office report reveals: MoS got it right about warming... so who are the 'deniers' now? | Mail Online
> ...





Thats right......the deniers are the retards!!!!!


*Green fatigue sets in: the world cools on global warming* 
*Worldwide concerns about climate change have dropped dramatically since 2009*

Sam Masters Thursday 28 February 2013 


Public concern about environmental issues including climate change has slumped to a 20-year low since the financial crisis, a global study reveals.

Fewer people now consider issues such as CO2 emissions, air and water pollution, animal species loss, and water shortages to be very serious than at any time in the last two decades, according to the poll of 22,812 people in 22 countries including Britain and the US.

Despite years of studies showing the impact of global warming on the planet, only 49 per cent 

Green fatigue sets in: the world cools on global warming - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent






LOL......fringe mofu's FTMFL!!!!


----------



## ima (Feb 28, 2013)

I love the fact that the earth is getter warmer. What's there not to like?


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 28, 2013)

ima said:


> I love the fact that the earth is getter warmer. What's there not to like?



I suppose it might look that way if you're an ignorant retard who hasn't even looked at the scientific warnings about the consequences of AGW.

*Top 10 Worst Effects of Global Warming*


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 28, 2013)

Meanwhile, back to the thread topic....






*Monthly November ice extent for 1979 to 2013 shows a decline of -3.2% per decade.
Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

The average sea ice extent for January 2013 was 13.78 million square kilometers (5.32 million square miles). This is 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for the month, and is the sixth-lowest January extent in the satellite record. The last ten years (2004 to 2013) have seen the ten lowest January extents in the satellite record.

As has been the case throughout this winter, ice extent in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic Ocean remained far below average.*
(NSIDC)


----------



## ima (Feb 28, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > I love the fact that the earth is getter warmer. What's there not to like?
> ...



10. Rising sea levels. I live in the mountains, so I don't care.
9. Shrinking glaciers. Don't care.
8. Heat waves. See 10.
7. Storms and floods. See 10.
6. Drought. I have a natural spring on my land. So don't care.
5. Disease. Not around here.
4. Economic consequences. I already have too much money.
3. Conflicts and war. Not here. Don't care about foreign wars.
2. Loss of biodiversity. Don't need global warming for that, it's been happening for millenia.
1. Destruction of ecosystems. Again, that happens all the time and throughout history. Some ecosystems will die, some will grow. It's just a fact of life. Some stars die, and some are born...

Got anything else I should care about?


----------



## SSDD (Feb 28, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> [
> 
> I suppose it might look that way if you're an ignorant retard who hasn't even looked at the scientific warnings about the consequences of AGW.
> 
> *Top 10 Worst Effects of Global Warming*



Discovery.com?  Really?  Not a very well thought out list of possible terrors...and nothing there that seems particularly scary if one looks at climate in the context of history.

10.  Rising sea level - research has shown that sea level was at least 8 meters higher during the last interglacial period.  What exactly makes you think it should be any lower during this one?

9.  Shrinking Glaciers - so what?  You don't think that glaciers shrunk during past warm periods?  Do you just like looking at the pretty blue ice?  Glaciers come and go.  Nothing to be afraid of there.

8. Heat Waves - There have never been heat waves before?  Back when atmospheric CO2 was "safe" there were heat waves.  What's your point?

7.  Storms and floods -  again, what's your point.  There have always been storms and floods and a look at the records shows us that storms and floods happen more often during cooler periods, not warmer.

6.  Drought -  That one makes no sense at all.  It flies in the face of what your warmist priests predict.  They say that warming will result in more water vapor in the atmosphere....more water vapor in the atmosphere is not compatible with drought.  Drought is the result of less water vapor in the atmosphere.  

5.  Disease -  more people die of disease during cold periods than during warm ones.  

4.  Economic Consequences -  history has shown us that human kind flourishes during warm periods.

3.  Conflicts and War -  again, cold is more likely to bring about war than warm.

2.  Loss of biodiversity -  bullshit.  Warm causes life to flourish everywhere.  It is cold that is the threat to life.  

1.  Destruction of Ecosystems - Not a shred of evidence exists for that claim.  Again, warm is good for life...cold is the destroyer of ecosystems.


----------



## RollingThunder (Feb 28, 2013)

ima said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



You should definitely worry about the fact that you're an ignorant clueless retard.

Also the fact that you don't care at all about anybody of anything else in the world but yourself indicates that you're a worthless piece of shit, lacking not just intelligence but also heart, compassion and empathy.


----------



## IanC (Mar 1, 2013)

IanC said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD -
> ...




the BBC produced a show called 'Africa' where David Attenborough claimed "that part of the continent has warmed by 3.5C over the past 20 years". it is this sort of nonsense that drives people crazy and loses respect for climate science (at least to people who think).

I wont go over the whole story but I would like to point out a graph of the area in Africa that was being discussed.






it is obvious that the land-based measurements are at odds with the satellite measurements. it is also obvious that the land-based measurements are incomplete. this is rather typical of the african records between north african countries and south Africa. it all goes into the 'global temp', with a larger influence than the better measured but smaller sized American temps.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 1, 2013)

> 10. Rising sea level - research has shown that sea level was at least 8 meters higher during the last interglacial period. What exactly makes you think it should be any lower during this one?



It's hard to imagine she sheer, utter infantile stupidity of this statement. 

Sea levels may "only" rise eight metres, we are told, enough to swamp much of New York, Chicago, Miami, New Orleans and San Francisco in all likeliheood. 

So what? Says SSDD - they were higher in the last ice age. Relax.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 1, 2013)

> 6. Drought - That one makes no sense at all. It flies in the face of what your warmist priests predict. They say that warming will result in more water vapor in the atmosphere....more water vapor in the atmosphere is not compatible with drought. Drought is the result of less water vapor in the atmosphere.



And then you go on to prove that you have not listened to A THING scientists have been predicting. 

Really - after all this time and all these threads and you STILL don't understand the basic concept of climate change?

Drought is VERY much a factor. For Spain, Australia and parts of Africa and South America, drought may be the single largest factor people experience in their day-to-day lives.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 2, 2013)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Saigon said:
> ...



More of your confused drivel. Just to take one example, you say....
"_the BBC produced a show called 'Africa' where David Attenborough claimed "that part of the continent has warmed by 3.5C over the past 20 years". it is this sort of nonsense that drives people crazy and loses respect for climate science (at least to people who think).
I wont go over the whole story but I would like to point out a graph of the area in Africa that was being discussed.
www.warwickhughes.com/agri/kenyabbcc.jpg_"
....but when Attenborough says "*that part of the continent*", he is not referring to just little Kenya and your graph is (supposedly) a graph of the temperatures in just Kenya. The continent of Africa spans 11.7 million square miles and Kenya covers only about 224 thousand square miles. I said 'supposedly' there because the chart is of questionable accuracy since it comes from the website of a notorious AGW denier who claims to be a scientists but, curiously, has never published anything in a peer-reviewed science journal, but he is associated with several fossil fuel industry sponsored organizations. Even if the chart turned out to be completely accurate, it would mean very little in that context since the area of coverage is so small compared to the whole eastern "_part of the continent_" that Attenborough was referring to. You are trying to be deliberately deceptive.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 2, 2013)

> New Zealand and Austrailia are interesting to investigate because they are western countries with good, long standing records but dont have an overwhelming number of stations. the controversies in the last 5 years are numerous and enlightening for exposing the weaknesses in the temperature collection business.



This is an odd claim. NIWA have done examplary work over many years, and I wouldn't have thought they lacked for data. Much of the work is peer-reviewed, and they seem to be very transparent. 

I guess you are referring to some denier who sued them for some reason - and lost. 






Review | NIWA

I'd be interested to hear why you think NZ data is not reliable, given the two major recent 'seven station' and 'eleven station' studies.

It's interesting to see that this is yet ANOTHER independent source of excellent, peer-reviewed science that is being attacked purely and simply because they confirm what everyone already knows - temperatures are rising in New Zealand, and climate change is evident in the New Zealand environment. Glaciers suh as Fox and Franz Joseph are melting, there are more floods occuring, and stonger storm cycles - such as the two tornados to hit Albany recently (the only two recorded torandos in NZ history, I believe.)


----------



## ima (Mar 2, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



People are their own worst enemies. Maybe if humans weren't so busy overpopulating the planet and destroying the ecosystems, this wouldn't be happening. You're here arguing over which scientist is less full of shit them the others. Aside from that, which is pitifully pointless with regards to what's happening, you're doing what exactly to help out mankind? I'm a vegetarian, meaning I have respect for the environment and other sentient being. What about you?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 2, 2013)

ima said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...


Another sign of just how clueless and retarded you are is that you imagine that that is what I'm "_here arguing about_". The climate scientists who are warning mankind about the dangers and consequences of anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes are not "_full of shit_", you anti-science denier cult fool.





ima said:


> Aside from that, which is pitifully pointless with regards to what's happening, you're doing what exactly to help out mankind? I'm a vegetarian, meaning I have respect for the environment and other sentient being. What about you?


*You are a liar*. You say here that you "_have respect for the environment and other sentient beings_" but you just got through saying repeatedly that you "_*don't care*_" about the environment or all of the people and animals on Earth.
Climate scientists predict that rising sea levels caused by AGW threaten the well being and safety of the literally billions of humans beings who live near the coastlines and also threaten to destroy the trillions of dollars in human investment in all of coastal cities and other coastal infrastructure, and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists predict that shrinking mountain glaciers all around the world threaten the summer water supplies for drinking, washing, agriculture, etc., for hundreds of millions of people and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists say that increasingly severe and numerous heat waves have already killed tens, or perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people and will kill many more in the future, and caused wildfires and billions of dollars in damages and crop losses, and you say you don't care. 
Climate scientists predict that extreme storms and floods will cause increasing amounts of damage and loss of life and you say you don't care.
Climate scientists predict an increase in regional droughts, like in the American southwest, ruining crop lands and forcing people to become refugees and you say that you have a spring so *you don't care about everybody else on the planet*.
Climate scientists predict an increase in tropical diseases as the zones where they can spread pushes farther away from the equator due to AGW and you don't care because you foolishly imagine that it can't affect you.
You don't care about the economic consequences of warming and climate changes on everybody else on Earth because you say you already have enough money. You poor delusional retard.
Pentagon studies warn us that AGW will probably eventually cause wars over water and other resources and you just don't care.
You claim you have "_respect for the environment_" but you aren't concerned about the "_loss of biodiversity_" and the "_destruction of ecosystems_" that climate scientists predict will result from AGW. You are a liar and a fool.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 2, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





nobody cares s0n........two decades from now, this guy will still be screaming at members in some forum in the internet nethersphere and what will have changed?

DICK

Renewables will still be less than 10% of our energy sources.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 3, 2013)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



We can always count on the kookster for meaningless drivel.....as he rattles around in the vacuum of his own skull.....


----------



## IanC (Mar 3, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > New Zealand and Austrailia are interesting to investigate because they are western countries with good, long standing records but dont have an overwhelming number of stations. the controversies in the last 5 years are numerous and enlightening for exposing the weaknesses in the temperature collection business.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




hahahaha, your post reminds me of Old Rocks who insisted that climategate didnt matter because 3 (or 5) panels found those being investigated to be 'unguilty'. or that Mann's hockey stick graph could still be a realistic view of the last 1000 years even though the data and methodology had been shown to be seriously flawed.

I am interested to know if you actually have followed any of the New Zealand background story. Salinger and his adjustments that got 'lost'. (he was a student of Phil Jones so I guess that isnt too surprising). the NIWA simply quit, gave up, rather than explain themselves to the NZ govt.

since then the Aussies gave begrudging support for the method but not the numbers behind the new seven-station-temp-series. when independent replication found that the numbers did not match the supposed methodology, court action dismissed statisticians' testimony because they were not 'climatology experts'. the NIWA (now a private company not a govt agency) was declared able to use any method they chose because the courts were not in the business of deciding which type of science was 'correct'.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 3, 2013)

Ian - 

Accusations do not constitute a case. 

NIWA have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure their research material is available online, and perhaps most compellingly, went back to square one with the 'seven stations' research to ensure the results were verifiable. They were verified, and you can compare the data on the NIWA website. 

As I mentioned earlier - New Zealand shows many of the classic signs of climate change seen around the world - substantial glacial melt, warmer and more humid weather, unprecedented storms and raising sea levels. 

At some point, it might be worth your while to pay attention to that rather than to trawl the internet for conspiracy theories from kiwi bloggers.

What NIWA's research has to do with Australia I have no idea.


----------



## IanC (Mar 3, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian -
> 
> Accusations do not constitute a case.
> 
> ...




???

I thought you said that you were familiar with NZ's temperature data set fiasco?

ohhhhh.... you googled, and the first hit supported your worldview so you left it at that.

what is your position on Salinger?


----------



## Politico (Mar 3, 2013)

Are we frozen over yet?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 3, 2013)

Ian - 

I am not seeing a coherent response there.


----------



## IanC (Mar 3, 2013)

> Crisis in New Zealand climatology
> by Barry Brill
> 
> May 15, 2010
> ...



Quadrant Online - Crisis in New Zealand climatology


this was the run up to the NIWA collapsing because they wouldnt (and couldnt) answer the questions put forth to them by the govt. 

like a phoenix rising from its own ashes, the newly minted private NIWA sent its new methodology to the Australian BOM for peer review. the methodology passed but the aussies pointedly refused to comment on the actual results produced. an independent audit of the NIWA results found large discrepancies, roughly only 1/3 of the warming. when the matter was taken to court, the court decided that they were not capable of deciding what was correct scientifically and sided with the climatologists rather than the statistitians.

notch up another victory for Michael Mann's favourite ploy of 'brazen it out'.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 3, 2013)

> this was the run up to the NIWA collapsing because they wouldnt (and couldnt) answer the questions put forth to them by the govt.



What on EARTH are you talking about?

You do realise this didn't actually happen, right?

And using a discredited right-wing politician as a source? Brill was one of Rob's Mob, wasn't he?!


----------



## Saigon (Mar 3, 2013)

Really, Ian, it just amazes me that you guys just grab at ANYTHING at all that you find online, spin into some big saga, and present it as proof. 

NIWA sprang into existance after the Quango-hunting that took place under the Lange/Prebble administration- along with a dozen other units related to Ag & Fish and DOC. It has existed ever since, and seems to do a fairly good job. 

Here you choose a right-wing policitian who is not a qualified scientist as your source. Why? Because he says what you want him to say - there is no other reason.

Ask any kiwi what is going on in NZ climate and the big issues will be the tornadoes that hit Albany; the later, warmer and more humid summers, the reteating glaciers at Fox and Franz Joseph, and the increasing nomber of Antarctic penguins reaching NZ courtesy of warmer waters. Oh, and rising sea levels causing flooding from time to time on the Hauraki Plains.

NIWA have been very open about their data, providing all details just to show that there is no conspiracy. 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10623169


----------



## ima (Mar 3, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



I care about my environment with regards to things that I can effect personally, like not eating meat, which saves forests, ground water, animal welfare... Also, I own over 50 acres of wooden forest in my backyard which means that I take out more pollution from the atmosphere than I put in. As well, I have a natural water spring on my land so I don't use chemically treated water. Plus, I had only 2 children, which would solve the world's eco-problems if everyone stuck to that. Like I said, what are YOU doing?
Things that I can't control I don't care about because they are out of my control. Anyways, everything on that top 10 list is due to OVERPOPULATION, which is mentioned NOWHERE!!!!!! So we can't fix a problem if we're unable to properly identify the source of the problem.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 3, 2013)

ima said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



Everything on the top 10 list is actually due to global warming brought on by human caused changes in atmospheric composition (40% increase in CO2 levels). Your claim that all of those things on the list are "_due to OVERPOPULATION_" is just another sign of how extremely retarded and clueless you are. Actually to say, as you just did, that rising sea levels, shrinking mountain glaciers, killer heat waves, extreme weather events, droughts and floods are all caused by 'overpopulation' is a clear indication of *outright insanity*. Crawl back in your hole, you poor confused cretin.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > 10. Rising sea level - research has shown that sea level was at least 8 meters higher during the last interglacial period. What exactly makes you think it should be any lower during this one?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In addition to lying every time you post...you can't read either.

I would ask you to go back and re read, but the chances of that are pretty slim.  I said that duing the last interglacial, sea level rose 8 meters higher than during this one...What precisely makes you believe that sea level during this one should not rise as much as during the last?  I didn't say that I don't care, but when people chose to live near the ocean, or in a flood plain, or on an earthquake fault, or in a region in which wildfire is simply part of the ecology, they do get what they get.  The claimate can't be expected to take their troubles into consideration.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 3, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > 6. Drought - That one makes no sense at all. It flies in the face of what your warmist priests predict. They say that warming will result in more water vapor in the atmosphere....more water vapor in the atmosphere is not compatible with drought. Drought is the result of less water vapor in the atmosphere.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Drought will not be a factor in a warmer, wetter world...Of course, all of those predictions are speculation based on the output of terribly flawed computer models.  May as well argue about how many angels can dance on a pinhead like you.


----------



## ima (Mar 3, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


"*Everything on the top 10 list is actually due to global warming brought on by human caused changes*"

Too many humans spewing too much gas and shit into the environment. Less humans=less pollution. More humans=more pollution. It really is a simple concept, what don't you get?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 3, 2013)

ima said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



The amounts of the various kinds of pollution, mostly industrial, that are poisoning our only planet,  and, more importantly the amount of CO2 mankind is pumping into the atmosphere, are not in a direct relationship to the number of humans on Earth, as you so idiotically assume. We could have just as many people here and have way less pollution if the greed of the few didn't overpower the wisdom of the knowledgeable. There could easily be less people on Earth and more pollution than now, if people were even more stupid about fouling our own nests. We can have a modern industrial civilization that uses renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels. The levels of pollution and CO2 emissions are not directly correlated with the population numbers. You seem to be way too simple minded to grasp this, you poor little dimwitted confused fruitcake.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 3, 2013)

Climate "Science" 101

Warming = caused by manmade global warming

Climate change = everything not covered in "Warming"


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 3, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Climate "Science" 101
> 
> Warming = caused by manmade global warming
> 
> Climate change = everything not covered in "Warming"



I guess you just proved that you're sooooo retarded that you failed 'climate science 101'.

Try again, little retard.

The current abrupt warming trend that is pushing temperature outside the range of natural variability - caused by mankind's carbon emissions and deforestation practices.

Climate changes - the inevitable result of that human caused abrupt warming trend.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 3, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > > 6. Drought - That one makes no sense at all. It flies in the face of what your warmist priests predict. They say that warming will result in more water vapor in the atmosphere....more water vapor in the atmosphere is not compatible with drought. Drought is the result of less water vapor in the atmosphere.
> ...


Drought is already a "_factor_" and a result of AGW, and it is being directly observed by people in a number of places. People who aren't hampered, as you are, by being unable to see what is in front of them, and of course, that's because their heads aren't jammed up their asses like you have your head jammed immovably up your ass. 






SSDD said:


> Of course, all of those predictions are speculation based on the output of terribly flawed computer models.



Of course, all of your posts are clueless drivel based on the output of a terribly flawed brain.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> Drought is already a "_factor_" and a result of AGW, and it is being directly observed by people in a number of places. People who aren't hampered, as you are, by being unable to see what is in front of them, and of course, that's because their heads aren't jammed up their asses like you have your head jammed immovably up your ass.



Prove two things thunder and you can change my mind.  First prove that the climate is changing due to the activities of man.  Keep in mind that output from computer models isn't proof of anything but how easily you are duped if you believe them.

Second, prove that the drought being seen in the world today is any worse than previous drought and caused by a different set of factors.

We both know that you will be able to prove neither and will make a false claim that such proof has already been presented rather than simply post it.  In short, you fail to prove my points and tell yet another lie in an attempt to cover up your failure.


----------



## IanC (Mar 4, 2013)

IanC said:


> > Crisis in New Zealand climatology
> > by Barry Brill
> >
> > May 15, 2010
> ...




I cannot believe you _neg repped_ me for this post Saigon. you are one pompous asshole, that's for sure!

I may even have some of the story wrong, 2010 is a long time ago but I didnt hear you or the NIWA explain how Salinger put up a data set that took raw figures with no increasing trend, and turned them into an increasing trend that was higher than most of the world and multiples of the southern hemisphere average.

when the NIWA were asked to provide documentation for the SevenStationSeries, did they or did they not throw up their hands and confess that they did not have the methodology, and in fact did not know how Salinger derived it or even why it was publically released?

I wish I had the time to look back but there was a thread here on the same subject.

in the mean time, I hope you reap what you have sown. Im sure that there are lots of people here that are looking for a place to use their rep to show their displeasure at typical alarmist behaviour.


----------



## ima (Mar 4, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



There's no way mankind can keep adding more people and reduce pollution at the same time. We are not that technologically or sociologically advanced. You live in a fantasy world.
Btw, do you call me fruitcake because you're afraid that you might be one?


----------



## polarbear (Mar 4, 2013)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > > Crisis in New Zealand climatology
> ...



I never neg-repped anybody no matter what but I think I`ll make an exception after I`ve been reading here today and follow your advice just as soon as I post this.
Here is something more interesting than Saigon`s & cohorts usual garbage
I noticed for the past few weeks that the Manitoba Highways department is installing huge concrete culverts all along the Transcanada and on the roads in the Assiniboine and Red River valley....because we have been dumped on all winter long and it`s not tapering off:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oest2WFuoOo&feature=youtu.be"]March4_2013 - YouTube[/ame]

It`s not really "abnormal" but the problem is compounded because we had cold snaps below -35 C that lasted very long. River and Lake ice is way thicker than it has been and it won`t be easy to drain all that melt water into the Nelson River and out into the arctic ocean as it normally is.
Which means our friends south of us in Minnesota and the Dakotas will get flooded when all that water backs up. We got huge Floodwater bypass channels and won`t have a problem except maybe what to do with all the hydro-power we generate with it. But south of us across the border they don`t have this vital infra structure which would connect with our flood-way-channels. U.S. Enviro-activists  blocked  that and rather gloat when Fargo and other cities get flooded...which then is "evidence of global warming"...EVERY TIME IT HAPPENS.

I think it`s high time Americans kick some ass just like my friends do back in my home town in Germany. "Moped jousting" is a Spring time ritual:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhtTBDZKQLE&feature=youtu.be"]Moped jousting - YouTube[/ame]

You leave your Audi or Porsche in your garage, put on a full face cover helmet, get out your moped and kick over all the radar traps in your neighborhood. My friend told me that the new stands are way harder to kick over and he almost crashed on this pass.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 4, 2013)

polarbear said:


> I never neg-repped anybody no matter what but I think I`ll make an exception after I`ve been reading here today and follow your advice just as soon as I post this.



Ditto.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 5, 2013)

Ian - 

I negged rep you because you were bluffing and because you had not checked your facts. This statement is simply false - and any one of a dozen sites would have confirmed that if you had checked.




> this was the run up to the NIWA collapsing because they wouldnt (and couldnt) answer the questions put forth to them by the govt.



Seizing on a topic from a blog and presenting it is evidence of some massive conspiracy - and working on the assumption that no one will know the real story - does not show great integrity. 

Your source - and how many times do we see this here - is a right wing politician with no training in science, and a discredited politician at that. If you knew anything about ACT or Muldoon or Richard Prebble or Rodney Hyde, you would NOT be championing their view of science. It is based purely and simply on politics, just as everything ACT stands for. 


Don't take the neg rep personaly, because it was not meant personally. I have also pos repped you in the past. Here your posting was very poor, and you probably realise that yourself.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 5, 2013)

> when the NIWA were asked to provide documentation for the SevenStationSeries, did they or did they not throw up their hands and confess that they did not have the methodology, and in fact did not know how Salinger derived it or even why it was publically released?



What Niwa did was this: 

- Released all of their data.

- Went back to square one and performed the entire research over again, and released the new sets of results. 

- Explained exactly why weather stations had been moved and what impact that had had on their raw data.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> What Niwa did was this:
> 
> - Released all of their data.
> 
> ...



You left out the first thing Niwa did....Before they did anything, they reinvinted themselves as a private organization.  That is an important step, don't you think in so far as political accountability goes?  The rest was just so much whitewashing that still hasn't adequately answered the questions that prompted the change from government to private in the first place.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 5, 2013)

> You left out the first thing Niwa did....Before they did anything, they reinvinted themselves as a private organization.



Absolute nonsense. 

NIWA were a spin-off from the "Quango-hunting" of the Lange-Prebble administration, and along with a dozen other units connected with various ministries, were semi-privatised in around 1992. I can list the other units semi-privatised at the same time if you wish. It is now a CRI, actually - NOT a "private orgaisation". 

In no case did the privatisation have anything to do with scandal, or indeed with anything political, nor did it occur in the same decade.

Can you admit that you were wrong?


----------



## IanC (Mar 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > when the NIWA were asked to provide documentation for the SevenStationSeries, did they or did they not throw up their hands and confess that they did not have the methodology, and in fact did not know how Salinger derived it or even why it was publically released?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



who is bluffing now? you are!



> - Released all of their data.



the NIWA couldnt supply the methodology behind the 7SS. that is what started the whole thing off! Salinger's pet project just appeared on the official site, and when it was finally questioned they had to admit it was a mystery and that it couldnt be reproduced because the methodology and data had 'disappeared'.

rather than gut it out the NIWA declared that they werent an 'official' source of climate information, and then promised to redo their work from scratch. they sent their new methodology to the Australian BOM for peer review and got this back.
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/docs/bom-peer-review-ltr-on-niwa-7ss.pdf

damned by faint praise if you ask me.


this is all very reminiscent of the Mann hockey stick fiasco. first it was right. then it was mathematically wrong but could still have given the right answer. then it was old news and no one wanted to talk about it anymore.


raw temps-






turned into MANMADE warming-






homogenization is an awkward thing. while I agree that certain adjustments must be made  to correct for certain things I am also concerned that obviously good records, like those in Iceland, seem to be automatically distorted into warming trends that arent realistically present. New Zealand seems like another case in point where the warming is almost totally comprised of 'adjustments'. if long standing and well documented sites are being manipulated in this fashion what can be said about the poorly documented and chopped up histories of the rest of the non-western world?


----------



## IanC (Mar 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian -
> 
> I negged rep you because you were bluffing and because you had not checked your facts. This statement is simply false - and any one of a dozen sites would have confirmed that if you had checked.
> 
> ...





I cannot help but notice that while you dismiss anyone from the 'right wing' you never have anything to say about 'left wing' activists and those with strong ties to environmental organizations. but you do seem to think that the paltry few millions supporting the skeptical side obviously leads to corruption whereas the billions of dollars floating around the warmist side has no ill effect.


----------



## ima (Mar 5, 2013)

I can't wait for all the ice to melt, it should be really warm. I like warm!


----------



## Saigon (Mar 5, 2013)

> you never have anything to say about 'left wing' activists and those with strong ties to environmental organizations.



I don't use them as sources. 

Not only do you use a right-wing politian as a source, but I think it is fairly clearly that you did not know who he was, or what party he represents, at the time you chose him as a source. 

I'm really delighted this topic came up, because it really proves both quite how gullible Deniers are, and also how willing you are you snatch at anything and present it as proof of some mystical conspiracy - even when none exists.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 5, 2013)

Ian - 

I missed the part where you acknowledged that you were wrong to claim NIWA had ceased to function, had been privatised as a result of scandals etc etc etc. 

And no, I am not bluffing. 

NiWA very nicely conducted the Seven Stations research again from scratch, and have released all of that raw data on their site. Your own link confirms the accuracy of the rsearch. It's all here, including explanations on why adjustments were made:

http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temp-record/review/changes/seven-station-series-temperature-data

btw. All of the original data is also available.


----------



## IanC (Mar 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > you never have anything to say about 'left wing' activists and those with strong ties to environmental organizations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you dont like right wing politicians even if they happened to be a former Minister of Science and Technology, and think they should be dismissed out of hand. do I get to dismiss anyone with ties to environmental organizations? or left wing politics? would there be anyone left?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 5, 2013)

Ian C - 

Your source NOW belongs to a political party (he changed party from National to ACT) I would consider both populist and bordering on the extremist. He has no background in sciences, and no training in sciences. His previous association with the Muldoon administration you might consider more a condemnation than a recommendation, I'd have thought. 

I don't think any politician is a reliable source, which is why I never use them as sources.


----------



## IanC (Mar 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian -
> 
> I missed the part where you acknowledged that you were wrong to claim NIWA had ceased to function, had been privatised as a result of scandals etc etc etc.
> 
> ...





one of the saying from the skeptical side is "you have to watch the pea under the thimble".

I looked at the NIWA web site and it states-


> The 'seven-station' series was originally constructed by Dr Jim Salinger as part of his Ph.D. His thesis is held by Victoria University of Wellington, and the reference is:
> 
> Salinger, M.J., 1981. New Zealand Climate: The instrumental record. Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Victoria University of Wellington, January 1981.


'held' and yet it was not released, and the data was 'lost'.

the raw data when when adjusted by Salinger and Rhodes1993 methodology does not match the results published. according to statisticians brought in from outside the results  do not match now either.

you want me to 'admit' that NIWA was privatized long before the current scandal. I do not know when it was privatized. I assumed it was recently but I easily could be wrong.

are you willing to 'admit' that NIWA proclaimed that their service was not official or meant for international consumption when they were pressed to defend their results?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 5, 2013)

Ian C - 

It seems that you got taken for a ride on the whole 'privatisation' thing, which took place in 1992 - around 25 years before this "scandal" erupted. Now were they ever closed down, as you claimed. 

It might worth questioning your sources a little more deeply when they are so clearly unreliable. 

It is abundantly clear why the data was changed, and where and how. It just isn't a mystery. It's just another example of you guys seizing the wrong end of the stick.


----------



## IanC (Mar 5, 2013)

Saigon said:


> Ian C -
> 
> It seems that you got taken for a ride on the whole 'privatisation' thing, which took place in 1992 - around 25 years before this "scandal" erupted. Now were they ever closed down, as you claimed.
> 
> ...





privatization is a red herring that has little to nothing to do with the fiasco of NIWA. I am interested in the nuts and bolts of the New Zealand temperature records and methodologies. you only seem to be interested in claiming that right wing politicians are cranks, so everything they say can be ignored. the incompetence of NIWA climate science is astounding and should be a clear warning to every country in the world to examine their own temperature records.

I have noticed that you are totally staying clear of Salinger.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 5, 2013)

To get back on topic....


----------



## ima (Mar 5, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> To get back on topic....



Ya, so what?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 5, 2013)

ima said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > To get back on topic....
> ...



It has to do with the topic of this thread, you clueless retard.

*2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?*


----------



## Saigon (Mar 5, 2013)

> privatization is a red herring that has little to nothing to do with the fiasco of NIWA.



Except that much of the "fiasco" is entirely contrived. 

As I said earlier - you grab these things off blogs like they were gifts from god, don't check the facts, and then find out that most of the facts are false. 

And yet at no point do you actually admit or even apparently realise that you have been conned by your sources. the most amazing thing is - you will be conned against next week. You'll learn nothing from this experience.

And this is what it all really comes down to on these threads - we have posters who will not even look at research by the British Antarctic Survey - but will swallow anything they read on investors.com without a second thought. 

Staggering. 

btw. If you had read NIWA's only pages - and what kind of person would attack them without doing so? - you've have learned that the adjustments were only made because some stations had been moved over the years, and the data needed to be corrected for wind and altitude. The differences are absolutely infinitesimal.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



This thread is just one more thing to bookmark and trot out in 2015 to remind you guys just how wrong you are and to show you why you are rapidly losing influence in the world.  You can only cry wolf so many times before people stop listening...and you can only be wrong so many times before people stop taking you seriously.  There are a string of failed predictions coming from you guys going back to the 70's.  This is just one more example.

The refreeze this year in the arctic has blown away all previous records and there is more ice up there now than there has been in a very long time.  The models that predict an ice free arctic in 2015 didn't predict the sort of refreeze that has happened this winter.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> As I said earlier - you grab these things off blogs like they were gifts from god, don't check the facts, and then find out that most of the facts are false.



Look whose talking mr "world's foremost science academy" when in reality that "academy" was little more than a component of a clearing house for grants and funds...posting self published opinion pieces that reference no actual science and calling it science...


----------



## johndoe (Mar 6, 2013)

will allow exploring with out ice in the way.. never know what may be found.


----------



## ima (Mar 6, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



An ice free arctic will mean easier shipping, more oil, and most of all more warmth to the planet. YAY!!!


----------



## Saigon (Mar 6, 2013)

SSDD said:


> Saigon said:
> 
> 
> > As I said earlier - you grab these things off blogs like they were gifts from god, don't check the facts, and then find out that most of the facts are false.
> ...



SSDD - 

You are a child. 

The British Antarctic Survey is one of the most respected institutions in its field, and pretending otherwise only establishes that your interest in science is 0. 

If you want to post honetly - go back and admit that your claims about NIWA were nonsense.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> If you want to post honetly - go back and admit that your claims about NIWA were nonsense.



Sure...just as soon as you admit that your so called science....wasn't.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 6, 2013)

SSDD - 

As I said - you are a child. And not an honest one, at that.


----------



## IanC (Mar 6, 2013)

Saigon said:


> > privatization is a red herring that has little to nothing to do with the fiasco of NIWA.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




sources? you seem to be very confused as to the power of 'sources'. you consider all of mine to be corrupt and dirty while you are sure that yours are all pristine and clean. personally I look at everyone as having a slant in the debate because they are going to promote the evidence in their favour and ignore the evidence against. but that does not change the evidence. 

in the case of New Zealand the raw temperature data show almost no warming for the last 150 years. up until the last 35 years no one had any reason to screw around with the readings but there have been changes in thermometers, changes in station location, changes in urbanization and land use. so some adjustments do need to be made.

I personally have problems with the homogenization process and the urbanization correction. in NZ the trend is almost completely from adjustments. in Iceland the automated adjustments make no sense and no explanations have been forthcoming. in the US temps have gone up a couple of tenths of a degree (C) in the last few years and down a couple of tenths in pre-WWII readings. why such a huge change in the last dozen years? did we not know how to read a thermometer before 2000? or 2007? 

I think _you_ are the one being duped! do you not find it the least bit suspicious that the temperature record keeps changing, seemingly every year and all the way back to the beginning? do you not find it suspicious that UHI is found to be insignificant? (negative even, in Muller's case.)

I dont believe either side. I just keep adding more information and evidence to the piles. like most mainline skeptics I believe there has been some warming and that CO2 has had a small effect. I also believe that CO2 theory is fundementally wrong in thinking that CO2 is the control knob, and the preposterous predictions coming from climate computer models are wrong (even if they were right it would be a lucky guess rather than from skill).


many times in the past, especially in physics, refinements in measurements were delayed because a celebrated and respected scientist had made a poor first attempt, and those that followed would shade their new measurements to match up more closely to the poor one. I see this happening in climate science. Mann's hockey stick would get laughed at if it wwere submitted today. the NIWA chose adjustment methods that were almost completely different than Salinger's but were designed to get the same result. Jones' deeply flawed UHI paper in 1990 has influenced thinking on the subject ever since. to the point that Muller and his merry band actually found a way to show that it cooled cities. ahhh, sometimes it takes a very smart person to believe something stupid.

anyways Saigon, I will leave you to thinking that anyone who is conservative is trying to destroy the world and you can leave me to thinking climate science has painted themselves into a corner that they cannot get out of without losing face.


----------



## IanC (Mar 6, 2013)

> As I said earlier - you grab these things off blogs like they were gifts from god, don't check the facts, and then find out that most of the facts are false.



I will admit to having misremembered  ancilliary facts like my incorrect personal conclusion that the NIWA was privatized after their meltdown when summoned to explain their methods. will you admit that the NIWA was gobsmacked when they found that they couldnt explain their work?


----------



## Saigon (Mar 6, 2013)

Ian C - 

Good sources are easy to find. I don't accept that it is difficult at all. Anyone can tell the difference between a genuine media source (e.g. BBC or FT) a scientific survey and the endless blogs and gossip sheets of cyberspace. The problem sceptics have is that so few genuine sources back your case - hence you are left with the gossip sheets. 



> in the case of New Zealand the raw temperature data show almost no warming for the last 150 years



How many Kiwis would agree with this?

I suspect somewhere between none and very few. The evidence of climate change in New Zealand is extroardinary - in particular that a country which had never had a tornado 5 years ago has now had 2, with both causing fatalities. The two glaciers are both melting, and the country stricken with floods in some areas (West Coast, Otago) and droughts (Marlborough) in others. And yes, warmer, later summers year-after-year. 

I don't think conservatives are trying to destroy the world. Almost all conservatives accept AGW after all. Hence your comment doesn't make much sense to me.


----------



## Saigon (Mar 6, 2013)

IanC said:


> > As I said earlier - you grab these things off blogs like they were gifts from god, don't check the facts, and then find out that most of the facts are false.
> 
> 
> 
> I will admit to having misremembered  ancilliary facts like my incorrect personal conclusion that the NIWA was privatized after their meltdown when summoned to explain their methods. will you admit that the NIWA was gobsmacked when they found that they couldnt explain their work?



Were they gobsmacked?

I have no idea...but I wouldn't have thought so. I think it was good that they were challenged, excellent that external consultants passed their work, and terrific that they could produce the 'Seven Stations' material again from scratch.

I appreciate your honesty here, anyway.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 6, 2013)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



As usual, you make it obvious that you're just making up this crap as you go along.

The predictions of the climate scientists have, in reality, proved to be pretty accurate. It is a denier cult myth that there have been "_a string of failed predictions_".

*New Study: Scientists' Early Climate Predictions Prove Accurate
As politicians continue to neglect challenge, scientific work on global warming increasingly vindicated*
December 10, 2012

*Contrary To Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate*
Jan 3, 2013

*Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming
Scientific American*
December 6, 2012


The Arctic ice is still much smaller in extent and volume than it was just a few years ago.

*Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
National Snow and Ice Data Center*
February 5, 2013
(excerpt)
*The average sea ice extent for January 2013 was 13.78 million square kilometers (5.32 million square miles). This is 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for the month, and is the sixth-lowest January extent in the satellite record. The last ten years (2004 to 2013) have seen the ten lowest January extents in the satellite record.*

*New Satellite Shows Precise Extent Of The Arctic Sea Ice Loss*
Maritime Security
February 20, 2013
(excerpts)
*Current measurements of the ESA ice thickness satellite CryoSat-2 have shown that the total mass of the Arctic sea ice was 36 per cent smaller last autumn than during the same period in the years 2003 to 2008. Five years ago the autumn ice volumes averaged 11900 km3. But in the second quarter of 2012 they had declined to 7600 km3. This conclusion is reached by an international research team after comparing the CryoSat data of the past two years with measurements of a former NASA satellite and with the results of sea ice investigations of the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research. The study is published in the online issue of the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters and for the first time shows how precisely scientists can observe the development of the Arctic sea ice using CryoSat-2. When the Arctic sea ice melted so far in the late summer of last year that a new negative record was set up, sea ice physicist Stefan Hendricks could not have been closer to the course of events  in the Central Arctic. He and colleagues set out with helicopters from the research vessel POLARSTERN to survey the thickness of the remaining ice with a sea ice sensor; and this over an area of more than 3500 kilometres. Stefan Hendricks and colleagues use such datasets to check the measurement method and the measurement results of the CryoSat-2 ice satellite which the ESA (European Space Agency) launched into space on 8 April 2010.

The satellite has a radar altimeter which measures the height of the ice surface above the sea beneath. CryoSat-2 circles the Earth on an orbit which brings it closer to the North Pole than any of its predecessors. Its 1000 metre wide radar beam travels almost once over the entire Arctic within one month, collects high resolution data and, unlike its predecessor ICESat, also penetrates cloud cover. This is exciting technology which is helping scientists to learn more: We now know that the CryoSat measurement method functions well. With the assistance of the satellite we have been able for the first time to prepare a virtually complete ice thickness map of the Arctic, says sea ice physicist and co-author Stefan Hendricks from the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Association for Polar and Marine Research (AWI). AWI sea ice experts have been measuring the thickness of the sea ice since 2003 in an ESA project. The CryoSat data from the past two years prove that the ice cover in the Arctic was some 36 per cent smaller in the autumn of 2012 and around 9 per cent smaller in the winter than in the same two periods in the years from 2003 to 2008. Whilst the autumn volume of the ice averaged 11900 km3 up to five years ago, it shrank in the fourth quarter of 2012 to 7600 km3  representing a decrease of 4300 km3. By contrast, the winter volume dropped from 16300 km3 (2003-2008) to 14800 km3 (2010-2012), a loss totalling 1500 km3. The scientists primarily attribute these losses to the decline in the three to four metre thick, multiyear ice. CryoSat data prove that this thick sea ice in a region to the north of Greenland, for example, at the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and also to the north east of Spitsbergen has disappeared, says co-author Dr. Katharine Giles from University College London.*


----------



## ima (Mar 6, 2013)

When the arctic becomes ice free, I'm going for a swim with the narwals.


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 6, 2013)

ima said:


> When the arctic becomes ice free, I'm going for a swim with the narwals.



From the quality of your posts, I'd say it is far more likely that when the Arctic becomes ice free, you'll be in a mental hospital, assuming that you aren't already in one.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 6, 2013)

ima said:


> When the arctic becomes ice free, I'm going for a swim with the narwals.





winning

These environmental nutters dont get it bro. They sit around this forum posting up the same shithole links over, and over, and over and over. This meathead Rolling Thunder has posted up those links above ( a couple of posts up) about 4,000 times in the past two years alone!!! And he calls everybody else a mental case!!!


Anyway......welcome into this forum bro......fun place to go and watch the environmental nutters get publically humiliated every day.

They never have a response to any of my stuff.............like THIS >>>>










































And then there is this MOAB I dropped on the fuckkers last week............



*Green fatigue sets in: the world cools on global warming *
*Worldwide concerns about climate change have dropped dramatically since 2009*

Green fatigue sets in: the world cools on global warming - Climate Change - Environment - The Independent


These k00ks hate my ass.......and I wear it as a badge of honor.

I keep telling these meatheads that nobody cares about the science and then back it up with tons of evidence. Still, they keep on posting up the same nonsense crap. Most people learn that round pegs dont fit in square holes pretty early on. Not these OC's..........this is a religion we got here with these cheesedicks, but I cant complain. I get laughter by the boatloads in the forum.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 6, 2013)

Price of residential energy. The most compelling graph I have seen for the installation of solar in one's home where ever practical.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 7, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Price of residential energy. The most compelling graph I have seen for the installation of solar in one's home where ever practical.



It is a compelling graph if one wants to highlight the economic damage being done by the AGW hoax.  There is more energy available than ever and it is costing more than ever as a result of regulations and taxes founded on a flawed hypothesis being driven by agenda driven politics.


----------



## ima (Mar 7, 2013)

RollingThunder said:


> ima said:
> 
> 
> > When the arctic becomes ice free, I'm going for a swim with the narwals.
> ...



You're the one freaking out over some melting snow and ice, not me. I'm looking forward to it. Hopefully, it'll kill half the world's population, and humans will regain a natural balance with their environment. Mother Nature takes care of us, didn't you know?


----------



## RollingThunder (Mar 7, 2013)

ima said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > ima said:
> ...



So you "_hope_" for the death of "_half the world's population_", eh? Please go first.

And BTW, you couldn't have done a better job of confirming my point about you being quite insane if you had wanted to.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 24, 2020)

Whatever happened to the ICE in the Arctic?  Its still there.....

I love going back in time to these threads and review the predicitons of doom and gloom...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Oct 24, 2020)

Billy_Bob said:


> Whatever happened to the ICE in the Arctic?  Its still there.....
> 
> I love going back in time to these threads and review the predicitons of doom and gloom...



Yeah those Polar Bears have obstinately failed to leave the region, must be the flies..........


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 24, 2020)

Old Rocks said:


> *A blog, but many links to reputable sources. Such as the US Navy.*
> 
> Arctic News
> 
> ...



Good Call!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 24, 2020)

Old Rocks said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Yup! Time to get to him


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 30, 2020)

LOL........Old Rocks has been posting up for well over 10 years that ice all over the planet is hours away from disappearing from the face of the planet. He really believes it too no matter the reality. Ten years ago, he also predicted that virtually all Americans would be driving electric cars by 2020.( hardly anybody is  ). Also predicted that solar and wind would be dominating for providing America with electricity ( still only provides about 7.5% combined ).

Oh and his best prediction.........said in 2015 that the 2016 election would be decided by the issue of climate change.............


----------



## Sunsettommy (Oct 31, 2020)

skookerasbil said:


> LOL........Old Rocks has been posting up for well over 10 years that ice all over the planet is hours away from disappearing from the face of the planet. He really believes it too no matter the reality. Ten years ago, he also predicted that virtually all Americans would be driving electric cars by 2020.( hardly anybody is  ). Also predicted that solar and wind would be dominating for providing America with electricity ( still only provides about 7.5% combined ).
> 
> Oh and his best prediction.........said in 2015 that the 2016 election would be decided by the issue of climate change.............



Meanwhile he like so many easily weepy warmist/alarmists, ignore the reverse in the Antarctica sea ice cover, where it is going back up these days.

Now we have a new thread showing that todays Arctic sea ice levels is in the normal range of 50-85% of the Holocene time frame.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 2, 2020)

Projecting five years ahead so you don't have to defend all the junk predictions in the past. Another slick trick. Early snow in the Northeast in November. Where did the cold air come from, Mexico? How is it possible to freeze in the lower 48 and melt ice in the Arctic? The short answer is "you gotta have faith".


----------



## mamooth (Nov 2, 2020)

Sunsettommy said:


> Meanwhile he like so many easily weepy warmist/alarmists, ignore the reverse in the Antarctica sea ice cover, where it is going back up these days.



Um, no.

2016-2019 all saw Antarctic ice levels below average.

2020 is showing slightly above average. 

One year is not a trend.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Nov 3, 2020)

mamooth said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Meanwhile he like so many easily weepy warmist/alarmists, ignore the reverse in the Antarctica sea ice cover, where it is going back up these days.
> ...



Another misleading claim you make since I didn't say anything about it being above or below average, I stated it is going back up:

"Meanwhile he like so many easily weepy warmist/alarmists, *ignore the reverse in the Antarctica sea ice cover, where it is going back up these days*. "

It has been going back up THREE YEARS in a row, after it reached the 2017 low. The NOAA backs me up:






I wonder how you fail to read so poorly....., you do that over and over.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 4, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> *A blog, but many links to reputable sources. Such as the US Navy.*
> 
> Arctic News
> 
> ...


Guam tipped over too


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Feb 4, 2021)




----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Feb 4, 2021)

skookerasbil said:


> LOL........Old Rocks has been posting up for well over 10 years that ice all over the planet is hours away from disappearing from the face of the planet. He really believes it too no matter the reality. Ten years ago, he also predicted that virtually all Americans would be driving electric cars by 2020.( hardly anybody is  ). Also predicted that solar and wind would be dominating for providing America with electricity ( still only provides about 7.5% combined ).
> 
> Oh and his best prediction.........said in 2015 that the 2016 election would be decided by the issue of climate change.............



*URGENT BREAKING NEWS*

SEA LEVELS RISING FAST !!!

*Latest Trends*
Rich Democrats buying up unprecedented numbers of Coastline Mansions


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 8, 2021)

C'mon now.......the climate crusaders have been screaming about an ice free Arctic for a dogs age.......d0y.


----------

