Global Warming Pie Chart

[JoeNormal]

But that peer review can't be the folks working in the same office with the guy who wrote the article. Most especially those who are going to need him to 'peer review' their article so they can keep the grant money rolling in.

You won't find anybody who is a more passionate or dedicated environmentalist than I am. I don't want dirty water, air, or polluted soil any more than anybody else does. I can't even bring myself to push a hook through an earthworm to try to catch that bass we need for dinner. It just seems too cruel. Imagine how much I love the beautiful birdss and magificent creatures and other glories of God's creation. I love aesthetic beauty and can be almost violently angry when somebody intentionally disrespects and spoils it.

But that does not extrapolate into me accepting the dictates of those who have everything to gain by promoting AGW when I and millions of others have so much to lose. Not when the peer reivew NEVER includes anybody who might challenge the conclusions or question the methods used. Not when the most virulent of the alarmists live lifestyles themselves that at best could be considered crass; at worst seriously hypocritical if they buy their own hype.

I simply am unwilling to give up my liberties, choices, options, and opportunities and/or condemn many millions of people to more generations of crushing poverty just to comply with what looks more and more likely to be bogus science.

There's no such thing as bogus science.

I can assure you there is. I, and friends and relatives, have served as research assistants in which we were apalled at the dishonest manipulation and interpretation of the data being used.

Now you can say that science itself is pure and is what it is.

You can't say that everything that is claimed as science is pure and is what it is.

Please elaborate. Was it University conducted research or was it something more like drug efficacy testing by a private firm? What were they researching?

 

[Foxfyre]

There's no such thing as bogus science.

I can assure you there is. I, and friends and relatives, have served as research assistants in which we were apalled at the dishonest manipulation and interpretation of the data being used.

Now you can say that science itself is pure and is what it is.

You can't say that everything that is claimed as science is pure and is what it is.

Please elaborate. Was it University conducted research or was it something more like drug efficacy testing by a private firm? What were they researching?

We were all studying different things, but all of a scientific nature, and yes, all associated with universities working with research grants. In this publish or perish world, the unethical and the opportunist may not be all that picky about the competence of their work but are concerned only that it be published as peer reviewed. And as there is only so much that looks new under the sun, I can assure you that some are rigging the studies.

It's sort of like in my senior chemistry class, one of our assignments was to accurately weigh the atomic weight of a substance and show the mathematical formula for how we arrived at it. I tried and tried to weigh the substance accurately on the mega sensitive scales in an environmentally sealed room, but could never quite get the right weight to come up on the scale. I finally rigged the weight so it would work with the mathematical formula. I figured I got the knowledge and no harm no foul. But that is how easily it can be done. And if some are presenting their 'scientific research' unethically, well, they figure its worth the risk just to get the project done and get the credit or compensation for it.

 

[JoeNormal]

I can assure you there is. I, and friends and relatives, have served as research assistants in which we were apalled at the dishonest manipulation and interpretation of the data being used.

Now you can say that science itself is pure and is what it is.

You can't say that everything that is claimed as science is pure and is what it is.

Please elaborate. Was it University conducted research or was it something more like drug efficacy testing by a private firm? What were they researching?

We were all studying different things, but all of a scientific nature, and yes, all associated with universities working with research grants. In this publish or perish world, the unethical and the opportunist may not be all that picky about the competence of their work but are concerned only that it be published as peer reviewed. And as there is only so much that looks new under the sun, I can assure you that some are rigging the studies.

It's sort of like in my senior chemistry class, one of our assignments was to accurately weigh the atomic weight of a substance and show the mathematical formula for how we arrived at it. I tried and tried to weigh the substance accurately on the mega sensitive scales in an environmentally sealed room, but could never quite get the right weight to come up on the scale. I finally rigged the weight so it would work with the mathematical formula. I figured I got the knowledge and no harm no foul. But that is how easily it can be done. And if some are presenting their 'scientific research' unethically, well, they figure its worth the risk just to get the project done and get the credit or compensation for it.

I think you should consider being a whistle blower. My experience with research, both in a University environment and within industry is way different than this. I put scientists in my highest integrity category and I think shining a light on whatever you've witnessed would be appreciated by the vast majority.

 

[westwall]

I guess the CIA thought the research was bogus too, huh?

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
Talking about the consequences of the cooling climate as was being predicted

Interesting disclaimer at the very beginning of the paper.

The truly shows the beginnings of the full scale evaluation and study of the Climate.

The prediction of doom is virtually the same. Famine, unrest, mass movement of people basic gloom and doom.

Their conclusion is far from a consensus on global cooling, but rather an acknowledgement that there is a need for further study.

Interesting that you bring up the disclaimer. Notice how every AGW paper uses the words "could", "might", "may", "seems to indicate" etc. etc. etc. What are those called again?

 

[westwall]

What does that mean exactly? Are you looking for an increase every year until it gets to boiling?

That's the claim made by you.

Is this directed towards me? It couldn't be because I never said or suggested that. Cant we discuss without lying

Yes, it's called SARCASM. All of your AGW revisionist claims are that the warming will kill billions and devestate the planet. Sound familiar? I'm poking fun at that little bit of tripe. All available evidence we have of when the planet was warmer shows it to have been nicer than now.

That tells me a lot about the claims of the revisionists.

 

[BlindBoo]

I guess the CIA thought the research was bogus too, huh?

http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf
Talking about the consequences of the cooling climate as was being predicted

Interesting disclaimer at the very beginning of the paper.

The truly shows the beginnings of the full scale evaluation and study of the Climate.

The prediction of doom is virtually the same. Famine, unrest, mass movement of people basic gloom and doom.

Their conclusion is far from a consensus on global cooling, but rather an acknowledgement that there is a need for further study.

Interesting that you bring up the disclaimer. Notice how every AGW paper uses the words "could", "might", "may", "seems to indicate" etc. etc. etc. What are those called again?

Why? Seems to me it means take the following information with a grain of salt. Any of the recent AGW papers use that type of disclaimer?

I call it hedging your bets. May also implies may not.

 

[westwall]

Interesting disclaimer at the very beginning of the paper.

The truly shows the beginnings of the full scale evaluation and study of the Climate.

The prediction of doom is virtually the same. Famine, unrest, mass movement of people basic gloom and doom.

Their conclusion is far from a consensus on global cooling, but rather an acknowledgement that there is a need for further study.

Interesting that you bring up the disclaimer. Notice how every AGW paper uses the words "could", "might", "may", "seems to indicate" etc. etc. etc. What are those called again?

Why? Seems to me it means take the following information with a grain of salt. Any of the recent AGW papers use that type of disclaimer?

I call it hedging your bets. May also implies may not.

EVERY AGW SUPPORTING paper use those terms. Every single one. Doesn't it bother you that no prediction they have made in the last 30 years has actually been correct?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Huh? I imported it myself a few years ago.

You imported Hansen's raw data?

I imported the raw Earth temperature data from the 6(?) stations that perform the measurements. I imagine that all kinds of other data is available if one were inclined to search for it.

Let me know when you get Hansen's data as well as the formula he used to massage it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

That's the claim made by you.

Is this directed towards me? It couldn't be because I never said or suggested that. Cant we discuss without lying

Yes, it's called SARCASM. All of your AGW revisionist claims are that the warming will kill billions and devestate the planet.

I guess this is your sarcasm again because no one has said or suggested that either

Sound familiar?

Yeah, sounds like what the right keeps saying OTHER PEOPLE are saying...but they cant seem to ever find that mysterious person. Link?

I'm poking fun at that little bit of tripe. All available evidence we have of when the planet was warmer shows it to have been nicer than now.

That tells me a lot about the claims of the revisionists.

Nicer is not a measurement...so you're lying. Show me the Niceometer and I'll believe you.

 

[Saigon]

EVERY AGW SUPPORTING paper use those terms. Every single one. Doesn't it bother you that no prediction they have made in the last 30 years has actually been correct?

It is true that some of the claims made by scientists have been much too conservative.

We know that with Arctic ice and glacial melt, the actual results have been much more severe that scientists originally predicted.

I would like to stress here the word "KNOW", because we do know what is happening to glaciers and the Arctic. Westwall kows too, but can't admit it.

 

[westwall]

EVERY AGW SUPPORTING paper use those terms. Every single one. Doesn't it bother you that no prediction they have made in the last 30 years has actually been correct?

It is true that some of the claims made by scientists have been much too conservative.

We know that with Arctic ice and glacial melt, the actual results have been much more severe that scientists originally predicted.

I would like to stress here the word "KNOW", because we do know what is happening to glaciers and the Arctic. Westwall kows too, but can't admit it.

Conservative If you consider overestimating everything they have predicted by orders of magnitude then what do you consider a good prediction to be?

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

You and I both know that predictions made about ice loss in the Arctic and on the collapse of global glaciers turned out to be much more conservative than what actually occured.

It's worth being honest about that.

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

You and I both know that predictions made about ice loss in the Arctic and on the collapse of global glaciers turned out to be much more conservative than what actually occured.

It's worth being honest about that.

No, they havn't been. In 2007 the revisionists were proclaiming an ice free arctic by 2013.
WHOOPS.... You see dear silly person with this wonderful thing called the internet we can go back and print up all the stupid halfwit claims made by the revisionists....so that revisionists like you can't revise history, and the historical record, to suit you.

Must suck to be so wrong so completely....all the gosh damned time.



Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

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.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly

Professor Peter Wadhams

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."



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


You know the law of averages says that you guys should have gotten one correct at some time. I find your abject failure on all counts to be quite remarkable in the annals of scientific fraud. And yet propagandists like you keep pushing the fraud to the full. So...do you do it because you hope to make bazillions of dollars from the fraud or are you the political operative side of the equation?

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

I hadn't really expected an honest answer, but you and I both know that many of the projections made about the Arctic and about glacial melt undercooked the severity of the problem by some distance. It in no way changes this that one or two other predictions may have overcooked the issue.

 

[Old Rocks]

I can assure you there is. I, and friends and relatives, have served as research assistants in which we were apalled at the dishonest manipulation and interpretation of the data being used.

Now you can say that science itself is pure and is what it is.

You can't say that everything that is claimed as science is pure and is what it is.

Please elaborate. Was it University conducted research or was it something more like drug efficacy testing by a private firm? What were they researching?

We were all studying different things, but all of a scientific nature, and yes, all associated with universities working with research grants. In this publish or perish world, the unethical and the opportunist may not be all that picky about the competence of their work but are concerned only that it be published as peer reviewed. And as there is only so much that looks new under the sun, I can assure you that some are rigging the studies.

It's sort of like in my senior chemistry class, one of our assignments was to accurately weigh the atomic weight of a substance and show the mathematical formula for how we arrived at it. I tried and tried to weigh the substance accurately on the mega sensitive scales in an environmentally sealed room, but could never quite get the right weight to come up on the scale. I finally rigged the weight so it would work with the mathematical formula. I figured I got the knowledge and no harm no foul. But that is how easily it can be done. And if some are presenting their 'scientific research' unethically, well, they figure its worth the risk just to get the project done and get the credit or compensation for it.

I see. So you present your own acedemic dishonesty as proof that everyone is doing it. OK.

 

[Old Rocks]

Interesting that you bring up the disclaimer. Notice how every AGW paper uses the words "could", "might", "may", "seems to indicate" etc. etc. etc. What are those called again?

Why? Seems to me it means take the following information with a grain of salt. Any of the recent AGW papers use that type of disclaimer?

I call it hedging your bets. May also implies may not.

EVERY AGW SUPPORTING paper use those terms. Every single one. Doesn't it bother you that no prediction they have made in the last 30 years has actually been correct?

Now Walleyes, doesn't it bother you to be such a liar?

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2009Q1/111/Readings/Hansen1981_CO2_Impact.pdf

"Potential effects on the climate in the 21st Century include creation of drought prone regions in North America and Central Asia as part of the shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet with a consequent rise in the worldwide sea level, and the opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

This is from the paper that Hansen, et al, published in 1981 in Science. The entire article is there for those that want to know exactly what was predicted at that time, and the science behind the predictions.

Will the Opening of the Northwest Passage Transform Global Shipping Anytime Soon?: Scientific American

But the northern route, which runs through the McClure Strait in a straight shot from Baffin Bay west of Greenland to the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska, is another story. "Everyone wants the McClure route because it's quicker, it saves money," he says.

The McClure route opened last year, and once before that, in 1998. The European Space Agency reported that the strait opened up this year—open water was visible from space—although it wasn't safe for ship crossings.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.cpom.org/research/aps-grl(31).pdf

Warm ocean is eroding West Antarctic Ice Sheet

[1] Satellite radar measurements show that ice shelves in Pine Island Bay have thinned by up to 5.5 m yr
1 over the past decade. The pattern of shelf thinning mirrors that of their grounded tributaries - the Pine Island, Thwaites and Smith glaciers - and ocean currents on average 0.5
C warmer than freezing appear to be the source. The synchronised imbalance of the inland glaciers is the result of reduced lateral and basal tractions at their termini, and the drawdown of grounded ice shows that Antarctica is more sensitive to changing climates than was previously considered. INDEX TERMS: 1640 Global Change: Remote sensing; 1827 Hydrology: Glaciology (1863); 1863 Hydrology: Snow and ice (1827); 4207 Oceanography: General: Arctic and Antarctic oceanography; 9310 Information Related to Geographic Region: Antarctica. Citation: Shepherd, A., D. Wingham, and
E. Rignot (2004), Warm ocean is eroding West Antarctic Ice Sheet, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L23402, doi:10.1029/2004GL021106.

Inland thinning of West Antarctic Ice Sheet steered along subglacial rifts : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

Current ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) accounts for about ten per cent of observed global sea-level rise1. Losses are dominated by dynamic thinning, in which forcings by oceanic or atmospheric perturbations to the ice margin lead to an accelerated thinning of ice along the coastline2, 3, 4, 5. Although central to improving projections of future ice-sheet contributions to global sea-level rise, the incorporation of dynamic thinning into models has been restricted by lack of knowledge of basal topography and subglacial geology so that the rate and ultimate extent of potential WAIS retreat remains difficult to quantify. Here we report the discovery of a subglacial basin under Ferrigno Ice Stream up to 1.5 kilometres deep that connects the ice-sheet interior to the Bellingshausen Sea margin, and whose existence profoundly affects ice loss. We use a suite of ice-penetrating radar, magnetic and gravity measurements to propose a rift origin for the basin in association with the wider development of the West Antarctic rift system. The Ferrigno rift, overdeepened by glacial erosion, is a conduit which fed a major palaeo-ice stream on the adjacent continental shelf during glacial maxima6. The palaeo-ice stream, in turn, eroded the ‘Belgica’ trough, which today routes warm open-ocean water back to the ice front7 to reinforce dynamic thinning. We show that dynamic thinning from both the Bellingshausen and Amundsen Sea region is being steered back to the ice-sheet interior along rift basins. We conclude that rift basins that cut across the WAIS margin can rapidly transmit coastally perturbed change inland, thereby promoting ice-sheet instability.

Now ol' Walleyes is very quick to call some of the best scientists in the world liars, and claim they have made no accurate predictions. Yet I just presented the original paper the predictions were made in 32 years ago, and the ongoing scientific reasearch that shows that Dr. Hansen's predictions were spot on.

 

[Old Rocks]

U.S. Drought Monitor | U.S. Drought Portal

Warm spring, continued drought predicted for US | Minnesota Public Radio News

Warm spring, continued drought predicted for US

March 21, 2013


WASHINGTON (AP) — Government forecasters say much of the United States can expect a warm spring and persistent drought.

The National Weather Service said Thursday above-normal temperatures are predicted across most of the Lower 48 states and northern Alaska. The forecast also calls for little relief for the drought-stricken Midwest and Southwest. Currently, half the country is experiencing moderate to exceptional drought.

Late snowmelt will bring a threat of river flooding along the upper Mississippi. North Dakota is at the most risk of flooding from the Red River.

A cooler spring is predicted for the Pacific Northwest and northern Great Plains. Drier-than-normal conditions are on tap for the West and Gulf Coast. Hawaii is expected to be cooler and drier than usual.

The spring outlook covers April, May and June.

 

[Old Rocks]

Global Drought

Global drought text/assessment for the month:
In January 2013, short-term global drought conditions were relatively constant across most locations. In North America, the intense drought in the Southern Plains of the U.S. eased slightly. In Europe, drought was again largely absent, with the exception of the region around northern Norway. In Asia, drought remained largely centered in central Russia while easing slightly in southern India. In South America, drought intensified slightly in the equatorial region. In Africa, drought eased again this month in northern Madagascar while intensifying along the southern tip of the continent. In Australia, drought eased in the northeastern part of the continent this month.

 

[BlindBoo]

Interesting that you bring up the disclaimer. Notice how every AGW paper uses the words "could", "might", "may", "seems to indicate" etc. etc. etc. What are those called again?

Why? Seems to me it means take the following information with a grain of salt. Any of the recent AGW papers use that type of disclaimer?

I call it hedging your bets. May also implies may not.

EVERY AGW SUPPORTING paper use those terms. Every single one. Doesn't it bother you that no prediction they have made in the last 30 years has actually been correct?

No it doesn't, because, as I stated earlier in this thread, there is no accuate model that can predict weather more week out much less the climate years from now. I'm not an alarmist. I think we will adapt to the new condition as they happen.