Arctic sea ice BACK to Normal!

[OohPooPahDoo]

It looks like variations in a normal range.

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

Can you quantify that statement?

Sure.

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you quantify that statement?

Sure.

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

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

Um, no.

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

 

[westwall]

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

Once is an anomoly

Twice is a coincidence

Three times is a pattern

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

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


Dust Bowl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During early European and American exploration of the Great Plains, the region in which the Dust Bowl occurred was thought unsuitable for European-style agriculture; the region was known as the Great American Desert. The lack of surface water and timber made the region less attractive than other areas for pioneer settlement and agriculture. Following the Civil War, settlement was encouraged by the Homestead Act, the transcontinental railroad, and waves of new immigrants, and cultivation increased.[3][4] An unusually wet period in the Great Plains mistakenly led settlers and the federal government to believe that "rain follows the plow" (a popular phrase among real estate promoters) and that the climate of the region had changed permanently.[5] The initial agricultural endeavors were primarily cattle ranching, with some cultivation; however, a series of harsh winters beginning in 1886, coupled with overgrazing followed by a short drought in 1890, led to an expansion of land under cultivation.

Continued waves of immigration from Europe brought settlers to the plains at the beginning of the 20th century. A return of unusually wet weather confirmed a previously held opinion that the "formerly" semiarid area could support large-scale agriculture. Technological improvements led to increase of mechanized plowing, which allowed for cultivation on a greater scale. World War I increased agricultural prices, which also encouraged farmers to dramatically increase cultivation. In the Llano Estacado, the area of farmland doubled between 1900 and 1920, and land under cultivation more than tripled between 1925 and 1930.[6] Finally, farmers did not use appropriate practices for the environment, but agricultural methods that allowed erosion.[1] For example, cotton farmers left fields bare over winter months, when winds in the High Plains are highest, and burned the stubble (as a form of weeding prior to planting), both depriving the soil of organic nutrients and increasing exposure to erosion.

The increased exposure to erosion was revealed when severe drought struck the Great Plains through the 1930s. The native grasses that once covered the prairie lands for centuries, holding the soil in place and maintaining its moisture, had been eliminated by the intensively increased plowing. The drought conditions caused the topsoil to grow dry and friable, and was carried away by the wind.

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

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

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Sure.

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

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

Um, no.

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

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

 

[westwall]

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

Um, no.

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

And I asked you to quantify that statement. Will you or will you not?

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

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

Once is an anomoly

Twice is a coincidence

Three times is a pattern

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

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


Dust Bowl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During early European and American exploration of the Great Plains, the region in which the Dust Bowl occurred was thought unsuitable for European-style agriculture; the region was known as the Great American Desert. The lack of surface water and timber made the region less attractive than other areas for pioneer settlement and agriculture. Following the Civil War, settlement was encouraged by the Homestead Act, the transcontinental railroad, and waves of new immigrants, and cultivation increased.[3][4] An unusually wet period in the Great Plains mistakenly led settlers and the federal government to believe that "rain follows the plow" (a popular phrase among real estate promoters) and that the climate of the region had changed permanently.[5] The initial agricultural endeavors were primarily cattle ranching, with some cultivation; however, a series of harsh winters beginning in 1886, coupled with overgrazing followed by a short drought in 1890, led to an expansion of land under cultivation.

Continued waves of immigration from Europe brought settlers to the plains at the beginning of the 20th century. A return of unusually wet weather confirmed a previously held opinion that the "formerly" semiarid area could support large-scale agriculture. Technological improvements led to increase of mechanized plowing, which allowed for cultivation on a greater scale. World War I increased agricultural prices, which also encouraged farmers to dramatically increase cultivation. In the Llano Estacado, the area of farmland doubled between 1900 and 1920, and land under cultivation more than tripled between 1925 and 1930.[6] Finally, farmers did not use appropriate practices for the environment, but agricultural methods that allowed erosion.[1] For example, cotton farmers left fields bare over winter months, when winds in the High Plains are highest, and burned the stubble (as a form of weeding prior to planting), both depriving the soil of organic nutrients and increasing exposure to erosion.

The increased exposure to erosion was revealed when severe drought struck the Great Plains through the 1930s. The native grasses that once covered the prairie lands for centuries, holding the soil in place and maintaining its moisture, had been eliminated by the intensively increased plowing. The drought conditions caused the topsoil to grow dry and friable, and was carried away by the wind.

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

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

um, no.

Old rocks stated that agw causes "wider and wider swings" i made the observation that it looks like normal variations

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

7, 12, 34.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

um, no.

Old rocks stated that agw causes "wider and wider swings" i made the observation that it looks like normal variations

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

7, 12, 34.

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

7, 12, 34.

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

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

Could you not figure that out until I said it?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

7, 12, 34.

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

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

5% of what?

Could you not figure that out until I said it?

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

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

5% of what?

Could you not figure that out until I said it?

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

What are you talking to these "scientists" about?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

5% of what?

Could you not figure that out until I said it?

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

What are you talking to these "scientists" about?

Our latest astrophysical simulations.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

5% of what?


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

What are you talking to these "scientists" about?

Our latest astrophysical simulations.

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

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What are you talking to these "scientists" about?

Our latest astrophysical simulations.

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

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Our latest astrophysical simulations.

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

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

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

Wow.

Sounds arcane and I'm not impressed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Our latest astrophysical simulations.

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

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

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

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

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

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

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

Wow.

Sounds arcane and I'm not impressed.

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

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

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

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

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