The Arctic is already effectively ice free

[flacaltenn]

A whole bunch of real scientists that say there is, unlike certain poseurs on the internet.

Who are desperate for the cash that only flows so long as they write the crap their masters want them to. Truly olfraud, that is not a compelling argument.

Scientists in any field could make up lies to get grant money. Why is it only the climate scientists that you think do so? And why is it all of them?

We've been here before. And it's been explained to you before. It's not exactly lies. It's tailoring the research to fit the emergency or program that sponsors the grant. I have in the past sold the SAME research theme to 3 different government agencies with varying pots of money tailored for "special causes". As varied as "star wars", monitoring foreign missile launches, and maintenance on turbines. So you give the customer the Abstract that fits their concerns, write a conclusion they can pass along to THEIR funders (Congress) that can be used for socio-political-economic goals desired by that program pot of money..

What's happened in the young (and self-proclaimed immature) science of Climate Science is that these toss away "boilerplate" statements to please the sponsors got pretty shrill. And they were MISUSED and MISQUOTED by politicians, the media and activists without correction. Sometimes with the HELP of the unethical activist scientists like Hansen and Mann and Jones.

It's as simple as to stop using CO2 tonnage by weight in your reports and START to use Carbon equivalent tonnage by weight of CO2. Helps the EPA and Obama confuse the public between Global Warming and pollution.

See how easy that is?? Not a lie.. Just complicit in the deception...

 

[flacaltenn]

Arctic ice has been increasing since 2013.

Arctic ice has been decreasing since before we put up our first satellites (NSIDC and PIOMAS):

You are a chuckle in every post Bullwinkle.. When do you think that satellites were first used to measure Arctic Sea Ice??? My image analysis group in the 80s revised the 1st gen code and hardware for that task..

 

[Crick]

Projections aren't facts dude.

Of course they're facts. They just aren't observations of nature. But I never said they were. I DID say, and I'm STILL saying, they're the best way - the only way - to get an idea of what is going to happen in the future. If you think you can predict the future by looking at the past, you're more stupid than I'd ever imagined.

We KNOW that there have been MULTIPLE droughts in California that have lasted for over 200 years. All in the last 1200 years. In other words....and I'm going to make this as simple as I possibly can given your lack of comprehension and critical thinking ability.....it's NORMAL!

Yes, you heard me. This is NORMAL. There is nothing going on that is in ANYWAY different from that which has happened before. NOTHING!

Here is some historical data that supports your contention, though there is nothing here that refutes the contended association between this drought and global warming. Similarly, historical data supports the contention that the world has been hotter than it is now and CO2 has been higher. But what all three histories have in common, was that current human infrastructure and populations was not exposed to these situations.

And unless you have some projections that say otherwise, GCMs say that this drought is due to AGW and that how long it will continue depends almost entirely on how long AGW goes on.

 

[Crick]

I have in the past sold the SAME research theme to 3 different government agencies with varying pots of money tailored for "special causes". As varied as "star wars", monitoring foreign missile launches, and maintenance on turbines. So you give the customer the Abstract that fits their concerns, write a conclusion they can pass along to THEIR funders (Congress) that can be used for socio-political-economic goals desired by that program pot of money.

Are you now claiming to be a research scientist?

 

[Crick]

Arctic ice has been increasing since 2013.

Arctic ice has been decreasing since before we put up our first satellites (NSIDC and PIOMAS):

You are a chuckle in every post Bullwinkle.. When do you think that satellites were first used to measure Arctic Sea Ice??? My image analysis group in the 80s revised the 1st gen code and hardware for that task..

Who gives a shit? The data says what the data says and you've got nothing that says otherwise.

 

[westwall]

Projections aren't facts dude.

Of course they're facts. They just aren't observations of nature. But I never said they were. I DID say, and I'm STILL saying, they're the best way - the only way - to get an idea of what is going to happen in the future. If you think you can predict the future by looking at the past, you're more stupid than I'd ever imagined.

We KNOW that there have been MULTIPLE droughts in California that have lasted for over 200 years. All in the last 1200 years. In other words....and I'm going to make this as simple as I possibly can given your lack of comprehension and critical thinking ability.....it's NORMAL!

Yes, you heard me. This is NORMAL. There is nothing going on that is in ANYWAY different from that which has happened before. NOTHING!

Here is some historical data that supports your contention, though there is nothing here that refutes the contended association between this drought and global warming. Similarly, historical data supports the contention that the world has been hotter than it is now and CO2 has been higher. But what all three histories have in common, was that current human infrastructure and populations was not exposed to these situations.

And unless you have some projections that say otherwise, GCMs say that this drought is due to AGW and that how long it will continue depends almost entirely on how long AGW goes on.

No, they aren't you anti science hack. Projections are guesses. Facts are MEASURABLE! With every post you dig yourself deeper and deeper.

 

[Katzndogz]

The data has been fiddled with for years.

The scandal of fiddled global warming data - Telegraph

 

[westwall]

Arctic ice has been increasing since 2013.

Arctic ice has been decreasing since before we put up our first satellites (NSIDC and PIOMAS):

You are a chuckle in every post Bullwinkle.. When do you think that satellites were first used to measure Arctic Sea Ice??? My image analysis group in the 80s revised the 1st gen code and hardware for that task..

Who gives a shit? The data says what the data says and you've got nothing that says otherwise.

Feel free to show us some data then. So far all you have presented is some pretty boring science fiction.

 

[flacaltenn]

I have in the past sold the SAME research theme to 3 different government agencies with varying pots of money tailored for "special causes". As varied as "star wars", monitoring foreign missile launches, and maintenance on turbines. So you give the customer the Abstract that fits their concerns, write a conclusion they can pass along to THEIR funders (Congress) that can be used for socio-political-economic goals desired by that program pot of money.

Are you now claiming to be a research scientist?

Spent about 15 years in fundamental research. Areas related to image and signal processing. I was blessed to be in industry sponsored groups that allowed us to do as we pleased. One group was deep into classified work, the other was highly into medical, earth resources, and early work in biometrics. I have worked in more fields that most people EVER get to work in. And YES from the 80s to mid 90s -- I was publishing papers on neural networks, optical signal processing, earth resource image processing, and a couple on using the same advanced techniques for COMMERCIAL usage. In fact, several from my group ended up as principals at Pixar and Lucas/Skywalker ranch. Using some of the same stuff we developed for earth resources, and spying..

 

[westwall]

I have in the past sold the SAME research theme to 3 different government agencies with varying pots of money tailored for "special causes". As varied as "star wars", monitoring foreign missile launches, and maintenance on turbines. So you give the customer the Abstract that fits their concerns, write a conclusion they can pass along to THEIR funders (Congress) that can be used for socio-political-economic goals desired by that program pot of money.

Are you now claiming to be a research scientist?

Spent about 15 years in fundamental research. Areas related to image and signal processing. I was blessed to be in industry sponsored groups that allowed us to do as we pleased. One group was deep into classified work, the other was highly into medical, earth resources, and early work in biometrics. I have worked in more fields that most people EVER get to work in. And YES from the 80s to mid 90s -- I was publishing papers on neural networks, optical signal processing, earth resource image processing, and a couple on using the same advanced techniques for COMMERCIAL usage. In fact, several from my group ended up as principals at Pixar and Lucas/Skywalker ranch. Using some of the same stuff we developed for earth resources, and spying..

You ever work with a guy named Mitch Levitz? He worked at SBRC on the LANDSAT optical unit. He and I did some things together. he was a hell of a bike rider too! he absolutely smoked me going up hills.

 

[westwall]

Are you showing off you statistical incompetence?

You have to be a climatologist to master world class statistical incompetence.

 

[flacaltenn]

I have in the past sold the SAME research theme to 3 different government agencies with varying pots of money tailored for "special causes". As varied as "star wars", monitoring foreign missile launches, and maintenance on turbines. So you give the customer the Abstract that fits their concerns, write a conclusion they can pass along to THEIR funders (Congress) that can be used for socio-political-economic goals desired by that program pot of money.

Are you now claiming to be a research scientist?

Spent about 15 years in fundamental research. Areas related to image and signal processing. I was blessed to be in industry sponsored groups that allowed us to do as we pleased. One group was deep into classified work, the other was highly into medical, earth resources, and early work in biometrics. I have worked in more fields that most people EVER get to work in. And YES from the 80s to mid 90s -- I was publishing papers on neural networks, optical signal processing, earth resource image processing, and a couple on using the same advanced techniques for COMMERCIAL usage. In fact, several from my group ended up as principals at Pixar and Lucas/Skywalker ranch. Using some of the same stuff we developed for earth resources, and spying..

You ever work with a guy named Mitch Levitz? He worked at SBRC on the LANDSAT optical unit. He and I did some things together. he was a hell of a bike rider too! he absolutely smoked me going up hills.

Doesn't ring a bell.. Our deal was to put MANY people into the Landsat interpretation biz. And the company was happy to sell it's hardware and software as a Biz to Biz venture. But we did meet some on the operations side of satellite design and support including that SoCal group.. .

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't know why --- but it seems appropriate if the topic goes to "real Climate scientists". And I haven't posted this poll in a couple years and certainly AbrahamCrick has forgotten.. An ACTUAL survey of Climate Scientists from '08 with some ACTUAL meaningful questions about their field..


http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

A need to know more

Overall, only 5% describe the study of global climate change as a “fully mature” science, but 51% describe it as “fairly mature,” while 40% see it as still an “emerging” science. However, over two out of three (69%) believe there is at least a 50-50 chance that the debate over the role of human activity in global warming will be settled in the next 10 to 20 years.

Only 29% express a “great deal of confidence” that scientists understand the size and extent of anthropogenic [human] sources of greenhouse gases,” and only 32% are confident about our understanding of the archeological climate evidence.

Climate scientists are skeptical of the media

Only 1% of climate scientists rate either broadcast or cable television news about climate change as “very reliable.” Another 31% say broadcast news is “somewhat reliable,” compared to 25% for cable news. (The remainder rate TV news as “not very” or “not at all” reliable.) Local newspapers are rated as very reliable by 3% and somewhat reliable by 33% of scientists. Even the national press (New York Times, Wall St. Journal etc) is rated as very reliable by only 11%, although another 56% say it is at least somewhat reliable.


This public misconception that science requires SPECIALISTs is somewhat disturbing to me. As many physicists and EEs that I've worked with did their grad work in totally bizarre and esoteric specialities that never had ANY direct bearing on our jobs. IN FACT -- the folks I've most admired in my career have moved easily between different application disciplines and what they KNEW was valuable and bankable in any one of a dozen "specialties".. And here in this poll, you start to realize how NEW and unexploited "climate science" had been up to the beginning of the 21st century. Probably a dozen "specialty" disciplines involved in doing a paleo study and NO ONE CLIMATE scientist is formally trained in all of them.

 

[sakinago]

A whole bunch of real scientists that say there is, unlike certain poseurs on the internet.

Scientist funded by who?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Looking at the graph I can clearly see that the title of this thread doesn't match reality.

There's over 4.5 million sq km in extent on the means and yet you say it is ice free?

 

[jc456]

No, I've found a chart that shows the mass of ice at the Arctic descending towards zero.

Still don't see the problem. Why not tell us what that problem might be?

 

[jc456]

The theories of mainstream science; of the vast majority of climate scientists, do NOT fail. Yours do. If you don't like the insults, cease and desist on these idiotic fixations and at least expend enough mental energy to understand the positions you've decided to oppose.

Same old line same old line why don't you just once produce a factual piece of evidence to support what you talk about?

 

[jc456]

A whole bunch of real scientists that say there is, unlike certain poseurs on the internet.

No response, go figure!

 

[jc456]

Boy, for a group of warmers who complain all the time about wanting to talk about science, you'll never talk about science. You give names of people who talk about science but you don't want to talk about science. It's called the discussion a person asks a questionyou give an answer. You will never give an answer you spout nonsense.

 

[jc456]

Look everybody, a bunch of americans on a random internet board know more then scientists.

You must mean yourself right?