Try to follow this if you can:
Antarctic sea ice has hit its second all-time record maximum this week. The new record is 2.112 million square kilometers above normal. Until the weekend just past, the previous record had been 1.840 million square kilometers above normal, a mark hit on December 20, 2007. Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, responded to e-mail questions and also spoke by telephone about the new record sea ice growth in the Southern Hemisphere, indicating that, somewhat counter-intuitively, the sea ice growth was specifically due to global warming.
“The primary reason for this is the nature of the circulation of the Southern Ocean – water heated in high southern latitudes is carried equatorward, to be replaced by colder waters upwelling from below, which inhibits ice loss,” Serreze wrote in an e-mail. “Upon this natural oceanic thermostat, one will see the effects of natural climate variations, [the rise] appears to be best explained by shifts in atmospheric circulation although a number of other factors are also likely involved.”
“What we’re talking about is water that is 60 degrees south and more southerly than that, and so the basic thing is you have got surrounding the Antarctic continent a band of fairly strong and somewhat steady west-east winds, which they call the Roaring 40s, but then you’ve got this thing called the coriolis force, which wants to turn things to the left. What happens is that water at the high latitudes, what happens is that as we heat that water, you set up what’s called an Ekman drift, which at the surface transports that water from the high southern latitudes toward the equator.
What happens is you have to set up a continuity that has to occur so that what happens is that there’s an upwelling of cold waters from below, there’s a whole circulation loop where water sinks in the lower southern latitudes, then there’s a return flow that brings the same amount of mass to the higher latitudes.
Basically, what happens is that in the Arctic you can warm that surface water up and it doesn’t get transported away. It stays there, and it helps melt more ice, but in the Antarctic, the water gets carried away. “
——————————————————————————————-
I think I experienced an Ekman drift while reading this. Maybe we need to force half the worlds population to move to the south latitudes and pollute more so we can balance this thing out….or, um, oh, never mind.
Pages: 1 2
Of course. Everything is because of global warming. Including record cold winters.
This is the same guy who declared ‘The Arctic is screaming.’ in a prediction that the Arctic would become nearly ice-free by 2012.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html
followed up in 2008 by
The ice is in a “death spiral” and may disappear in the summers within a couple of decades, according to Mark Serreze, an Arctic climate expert at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.
Took him until 2012 to say maybe he overhyped it.
It wasn’t the same guy that made the prediction.
……….and I thought the Arctic was now navigatable in the summer time what with Russia trying to grab the oil rights and all because now they can drill.
Crowing and preening to show off one’s own ignorance.
You do know the Arctic is the North Pole and the record setting ice of the OP is the South Pole? And while not my first guess, once its explained, it makes sense to me: “Its Complicated.”
Simple people want simple answers. Its why they settle so easily on lies.
Sad.
Says the guy who previously declared land at the North Pole.
>Crowing and preening to show off one’s own ignorance.
That about sums it up.
>Simple people want simple answers. Its why they settle so easily on lies.
That too.
I read too fast. It is the same guy.
Getting science critiques from a blog will cause that.
What don’t you two understand about “averages” of highly variable data?
……………..and just why “should” any of us understand the issues?
What makes you think the SCIENCE of climate change should be immediately comprehended by people who have never studied the subject?
Silly Hoomans.
NSIDC was behind the scare of the Wilkins ice shelf collapse. Now the record sea ice is also due to global warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/the-antarctic-wilkins-ice-shelf-collapse-media-recycles-photos-and-storylines-from-previous-years/
SCIENCE===>stumbling towards the truth.
All too many want a simple truth out of the gate that doesn’t change no matter what the evidence is.
……………. and the sea level keeps rising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
Silly Hoomans.
SAY NFS===on what informed basis do you form any opinion at all on Climate Science?
I trust Science to get it right. Bumps and stumbles along the way, but eventually. Fraudsters confusing the public…. but eventually.
Who has the best record of explaining the world? Of predicting the future? Yes….. “eventually” with great variation always based on what is known at the time.
The Hubris of the Silly Hooman: to have an opinion on a subject that is brand new to them.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.
So what makes you think the current statements are correct? You just blindly follow the current declarations, then when they correct themselves, you blindly follow that? All the while echoing sea level rise without realizing that has it’s own complicated answers?
As I stated NFS==SCIENCE has a pretty good record…. why shouldn’t I follow it, blindly or otherwise? If SCIENCE were a Vegas Crap Shoot, it would be the house. You can bet against SCIENCE and win from time to time, but stay in the game and eventually you lose.
But I’m not blindly following the 97% of qualified scientists and 100% of organized scientific groups that support AGW. My common sense says if you pump a green house gas into the air, that eventually the air will heat up.
What MAGIC are you relying on for the opposite stupidity?
Mark Perkel said the same thing. Yet he isn’t blindly following what is obviously some deceptive practices.
He might have at least used the catch all term Climate Change instead of Global Warming.
A rhetorical flourish to emphasize that in fact it is the average global warming that is causing increasing ice at the South Pole.
I like it. Change is just a generic description. AGW gives it causation/threats/solutions.
Perhaps it is global cooling that is causing the sea level to rise.
There is no global cooling.
Where ya been?
Actually it’s called Gorebull warm/cooling now.
At least 32,000 scientist disagree with AGW.
http://petitionproject.org/index.php
those ‘scientists’ just want to drive cars and let people in africa have washing machines without titwringers — presumably, to take the Dole naked native championships on NatGeo out of the *medical oddities* catigory…
Here is another explanation of the phenomenon that is easier to understand and gives more info. Its been going on for years now.
Ocean/Antarctic is in fact warming.
I experienced the same thing years ago when getting my first serving of deep fried ice cream. Boggles the mind.
http://skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm
my favorite comment from the informed readership of that site:
“” As the westerly winds increase, increasing the push on the sea ice, it increases the speed with which the ice is moving clockwise around the Antarctic. In the southern hemisphere, moving objects veer to the left. In a clockwise rotating system, left is away from the centre. This may be part of the explanation of why the ice is spreading outwards.
I like that idea, all i know is, first thing i did when i got to aussie, was, fill a hand basin and pull the plug to see which way water spiral, spend the next couple of months looking wrong direction for the arc of the sun. might explain why we irish swaggies are always looking down at the ground. otherwise we would blind our silly selfs
Ha! Sidney sure does look bright this evening… No, wait… I don’t think it really works that way…
About the water going down the plughole backwards. Nope. It’s pretty much random which way it will get going as the scale for most bath tubs is much too small for coriolis effects to be of consequense. It depends on initial conditions. *IF* perfectly still water {as in sat undisturbed for several days} with no convection and residual eddies of any scale *THEN MAYBE* the coriolis contribution will give you more lefties than righties…
Interestingly (to me, anyways) is that this is also fundamentally true of tornadoes that the scale is too small for coriolis deflection. There can be tornadoes spun both ways in both hemispheres but the overwhelming influence is the twist of the winds they are born out of which see the effect due to the humongous scale.
Applying that to sea ice is probably as applicable as applying the centrifugal force where the ice then expands like kittens being flung off a roundabout.
“”overwhelming influence is the twist of the winds they are born out of which see the effect due to the humongous scale.
^^ sloppy of me.
That’s equally misleading. *overwhelming influence is wind shear…* — there. fixed it for me.
Our warm/moist surface winds come from the south. the cold/dry higher up comes from the northwest and this shear in the vertical yeilds cyclonic rotation — reverse it for the southern hemisphere for anticyclonic rotation.
As for the ‘rolling’ column of wind from *speed shear* that gets picked up by the updraft and tornadoized — I don’t know…
“””…When the vertical shear of the environmental wind is large, updrafts rotate cyclonically and downdrafts anticyclonically when the storm-relative winds veer with height in the lowest 3 km.”
http://weather.cod.edu/sirvatka/hodo.html
I for one am fed up with the weather constantly assaulting mankind. Time for a little shock and awe Al Gore style with Savior Carbon Credits. Because ….
A more wealthy Al Gore will save us from the weather.
True Fact.
>Speaking of ocean currents, wait for that Atlantic thermoclime
According to the latest IPCC report, WG1, Chapter 12.5.5, Table 12-4
Very unlikely that the AMOC will undergo a rapid transition (high confidence)
Look at the table, along with hurricanes and other disasters, they have basically walked back all the alarmist rhetoric that gets used so much.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/10/coverage-of-extreme-events-in-ipcc-ar5.html
Looks like the raw data is showing that the Antarctic is cooling, while it is reanalysis papers that claim warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/02/another-antarctic-sea-ice-record-set-but-excuses-abound/
Regardless of the excuses being given by the alarmists, the idea that global warming will lead to more ice in Antarctica is not ridiculous. It is simply too cold for Antarctica to be significantly affected by global warming. The ice will not melt, and the claims of sea level rise because of melting in Antarctica are bogus.
Sea level rise is predicted based on the thermal expansion of water, not melting ice.
So why more ice with global warming? Well the water gets warmer, leading to more evaporation, which can then fall as ice and snow on the continent.
BASIC science….. you lack.
Do you also think evolution can’t be proven because all changes are only of a type?
Do you also think every sperm is a human being?
Ha, ha. I got to admit the looming destruction of our civilization and population collapse does have its “humorous” aspects.
……………..whoa!
http://wunderground.com/climate/SeaLevelRise.asp
You know NFS===you do post as a total idiot.
You will say that co2 is a green house gas, but conclude adding it to the atmosphere will have no effect.
You will say that glaciers are melting, but conclude that it has no effect on sea level rise.
What do you feed your unicorn?
Your reading comprehension skills are failing you again. Why don’t you try looking up the temperatures in Antarctica, then add in how much global warming you expect to see. Then tell me how much it will melt.
I don’t “know” anything.
…………………..and neither do you.
ON the subject of AGW.
But the link I’ve given says the Antarctic IS WARMING. The anomaly of ocean water stratifying so as to inhibit for a time the ice melting is sadly only a temporary condition.
There is legitimate debate/questions at the frontier AND CERTAINLY about what human response to this challenge should be==>but you dolts deny the BASIC SCIENCE of the subject in order to maintain your group identity.
Its what makes you:
Silly Hoomans.
man, wrongly-insured dude; You just need to skin it back and look a little closer… before you fucking die.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tick_paralysis#Treatment
I was just googling 450ppm to see what would happen at that co2 concentration and I fell across the Thames Barrier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Barrier
In operation since 1982!!! I would have guessed it was on the drawing boards. How have I missed that rising ocean/flood control device?
You deniers are quite the knuckle dragging crowd. Read anything about AGW and invariably the dire predictions are revealed as being too conservative. SAME with the 450 ppm limit/tipping point. Its way too generous a target laying down for the Science deniers. Hansen is probably right that disaster will occur if we don’t get back down to 350 ppm. ……. “as if…..”
I’ve read it before, but the 400/450/500 levels only consider the co2 component leaving out METHANE for good reasons initially, but like so much, as we understand the science better, its could well be the double hammer of co2 and methane that destroys our culture at levels much lower than we fantasize.
Hell===we can’t even get agreement on a subject that science is settled on. The disputes that exist are totally on the margin.
Yes, the majority of Americans are…… something worse than stupid. Fantacists. Science Deniers.
I do seriously weep for my kiddies. They will see it. The edge of it. Grandkiddies will directly suffer from it.
Damn. In a perfectly designed world, we would shit ice cream ….. instead of poison. Why god?
Table 12-4 disagrees with you.
This is particularly lame as an example of what’s being done to ‘combat’ sea level rise.
“”A combination of a high spring tide and a severe European windstorm over the North Sea caused a storm tide of the North Sea; the combination of wind, high tide, and low pressure led to a water level of more than 5.6 metres (18.4 ft) above mean sea level in some locations.
“”The report of Sir Hermann Bondi on the North Sea flood of 1953 affecting parts of the Thames Estuary and parts of London[1] was instrumental in the building of the barrier.
18 ft, hu? I suppose one could put that in the neighborhood of a few inches in a hundred years — if his nom de plume is bobbo.
Skeptical guide to global warming.
http://climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html
We’re all here with nothing to do and cyber beer only goes so far:
To the Dodge Boys: is co2 a greenhouse gas?
Go===========>
Don’t confuse your tiny brain with such details. Wait till the science comes in, courtesy of big-brained Tim.
You see, there is your problem right there: you aren’t Aflie stupid off quoting the bible. You DO accept that co2 is a greenhouse gas.
Its called cognitive dissonance… trying to keep conflicting ideas in your mind without ever resolving what that conflict means.
Ain’t reality a bitch?
Crowing and preening to show off one’s own ignorance.
“Its Complicated.”
Simple people want simple answers. Its why they settle so easily on lies.
Yep. You are chewing on it. Thats good.
It is a challenge to listen to what your own brain tells you and to overcome the emotions that are screaming at you in the opposite direction.
Big Brain—-Lizard Emotions.
Your thoughts/ideas form concrete objects that you can evaluate. Don’t let a good idea pass thru the vacuum of self awareness. Grab it. Understand it.
Pop Quiz: Is co2 a greenhouse gas?
You are not capable of grading any quizzes.
Mark Perkel has already answered.
Well, bringing the baby all the way home:
I don’t have to be able to grade a quiz in order to offer it.
I don’t have to be able to grade a quiz for you to take it.
I don’t have to be able to grade a quiz to tell you did not take it.
Marc expressly said he was kidding.
I say I am very much NOT kidding: we will suck the last drop from the prosperity goblet, our kiddies will suffer, and our grandkiddies will DIE.
All because too many Big Brained Lizards refused to think.
“”Pop Quiz: Is co2 a greenhouse gas?
Well, it doesn’t appear to be a very good driver of climate change under our current profile of temperature and pressure stratification throughout the atmosphere {and your little oceans above and below 60N and 60S, to} at the present time. In other words, ‘the temperature, sea ice, and sea level don’t give a shit about co2 yet or very much since.’
so, ‘no’??
Ohh look what they lie about now…
“”as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.http://forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/
http://forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/
Because of AGW, we’re .4 c colder since 2005. I guess maybe Argentina or something will get 1000 c hotter to make it all work out…because the policy was already written down somewhere.
Somebody needs to lay off the tigerblood for just a little while.
Gee thx, NFS. But why does something about the way you say that make me feel like a Spice Navigator?
Who are the Dodge boys?
Anyway, yes C02 is a gas. The properties of this natural gas lets sunlight radiation thru the earths atmosphere. The same gas will not let the radiation bouncing off the earth pass thru the earth atmosphere. Shortwave coming from the sun, long wave bouncing back to space will mostly be kept in our atmosphere to give our planet a temperature to create life. C02 is a necessary gas. Methane and others, including C02 in excess whether naturally created or by man will warm or cool the earth.
You people don’t get it!
In the northern hemisphere water freezes when it gets cold. In the southern hemisphere water freezes when it gets hot. That’s because the earth is spinning in the opposite direction.
(you do know i’m joking … )
God and The Heavens are inside us. We live on the inner surface of a hollow shell. There is Ice at the south pole because that’s the evaporator side of the sun {it’s a heat pump}.
http://wired.com/2014/07/fantastically-wrong-hollow-earth/
{you do know I’m so high right now, right?}
Physicist was hired to design an enclosure for his 100 sheep. Physicist designs an excellent enclosure for 1 sheep and tells the farmer to build 100 of them. Too expensive, so the farmer hires the engineer. Engineer designs an enclosure for all 100 sheep, not as good as the physicist’s but much cheaper. Farmer then hires the mathematician. He tells the farmer to build a one sheep pen around yourself and think of yourself as being on the outside.
I don’t find dimensionally transcendental jokes funny mostly because I don’t understand them.
what is grosser than a pile of dead babies with one live one on the bottom eating its’ way up? I can turn my whole body inside out with the sticky bits smeared along the outside and the entire universe within… you really don’t want to know what I mean by ‘shut up’… or, do you?
What else are transcendental jokes but a kind of tangent jumping?
I also don’t find them “funny” but I find them thought worthy.
This one afterall is about math: the language of god/universe. And even this example demonstrates a central characteristic of math: does it actually describe the Universe as if it was the basis for its construction, OR–is it entirely an artificial construct of no existential meaning?
The live baby at the bottom could be eating its way to the top thru live babies?
Whats different between a truck full of dead babies and one filled with bowling balls? The dead babies are easier to off load with pitchforks. Laugh or not…doesn’t make you think like the joke based on set theory.
Ha, ha…… I crack myself up.
But, if the babies were frozen then i’d preferre the bowling balls {unless the babies had their eyes and soft-spot poked out before stiffining up and dusted with cornstarch so as not to stick together}.
“”The Fourth Doctor once explained the principle to Leela by using the analogy of how a larger cube might appear to be able to fit inside a smaller one were the larger cube further away, yet immediately accessible at the same time.
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Dimensional_transcendentalism
i smoked a shitton of ‘gafistan back then…
Why is global science so difficult for some folks? Peering beyond the tips of your steel-toed motorcycle boots doesn’t require much more than focus and clarity.
Shake your head and let the smoke and mirrors of ideology drop away from your brain. Does your life really depend on religion to keep away your fears?
There are lots of benefits to a sensored society. Security or freedom from crime, early medical intervention, regulation of traffic flows for more productivity and less stress…etc.
Hoomans are variable. Some prefer whatever you got, just as others don’t. Sweet spot is in the middle.
Your hypo is a good one, but misses what I think is really at issue: not your own privacy/lack of observability but rather the gubments respect for it…. ie, what does/will the gubment do once they have observed you?
Or is that too fine a cut?
Russia has about 140 MM people or 10% the pop of China.
Russia does have tech expertise in a few areas, so few, I can’t think of them while china is tech leading in many fields. They steal most of it from the West, but they actually build the stuff so props for that.
They aren’t behind as that implies movement. They are in fact stuck in the past, their future stolen by the theftocrats who reveal what bidness will do when given their full laissez faire.
So……………we ask: “Why should America stop polluting the world when it won’t make any difference as China and India are building a coal fired electricity plant every week?”
And the answer is: to show them the way.
Yea, verily—although it is already too late and we are all doomed. Its nice to know why though.
That is pretty stupid. You would be showing them more poverty, as more jobs get exported to them. I think they’ll take the cheap energy.
NFS—is co2 a greenhouse gas?
But of course. So you think you need to shut off coal and oil in the US to get China to realize that?
So global warming is why my ice cube trays are empty?
no, global warming is why the level-lever froze up last night and now the icecubes are all over the floor.
“fashionable worries” /// better stick w kiddie literature.
That is rather an esoteric, elitist fuckbag^2 kind of thing to enunciate all over someone else’s comment, is it not?
“”We’re old so we are supposed to be doomed. These cowards have doomed the kids.
So sad, to. You could still do something to help the kids, though. Go through Dvorak Uncensored and pick out the comments with a devotional or uplifting thought-for-the-day kind of bent and then have a leaflet drop with lovely bilingual words depicting that elusive ‘hope’ and ‘way’ and ‘exceptional’ and ‘obama’ as those thoughts are lovingly beamed from the keyboards of real americans to then gently carpet their lawns in the morning like a miracle-fall of manna from Heaven.
A good ol’ leaflet drop to let them know you still care. You’ll find just gobs of them in Tikrit and scattered north, south, east, and west of there somewhat. It’s probably a good idea to hit bagdad to — lots of kids there.
Shower the little brown boners with DU! Bless their hearts.
In light of this ‘new’ observation, I’m going to have to readjust how I present my worldview…
http://rt.com/news/iraq-depleted-uranium-health-394/
nevermind.
“In a three-week period of conflict in Iraq during 2003 it was estimated that over 1000 tons of depleted uranium munitions were used.”
From Wikipedia.
The US is not alone using DU. Believe it or not DU is also used as armor on Abrams.
Reactive armor. Yes. but the radioactivity of it tears up the functionality of the active camoflage nanocoatings.
BBC staff ordered to stop giving equal air time to climate deniers.
Know why?
BECAUSE YOU ARE FRIGGIN NUTS…….thats why.
http://salon.com/2014/07/06/bbc_staff_ordered_to_stop_giving_equal_air_time_to_climate_deniers/
They previously silenced Winston Churchill when he was talking of appeasement.
And people thought Churchill was nuts too.
SCIENCE…..nfs….. Its not religion, its not superstition, its not what you were first told and you can’t change your mind, its not a catchy phrase on a bumper sticker, its not what you wish for, its SCIENCE: what you can test for and people who disagree have to change their minds because they have no better explanation.
In other words, comparing SCIENCE to Politics is something only a politician with no SCIENCE to back them up would do.
That’s terrific. By decree, we get all our science off official government news outlets.
Touting ‘97%’ and ‘consensus’ is particularly silly.
That 97% that have ‘95% certainty’ is akin to saying *4 out of 5 dentists surveyed agree* … In other words, “we paid 4 ignorant government speak spouting dentists to say burning up your pineal is good and we gave the 5’th a house to pretend to be a malpracticing outlier and to just shut up about it…
I guess there are more climate scientists than dentists because dentistry is so hard and relies on just as much good science.
We used to bat around the term ‘consensus’ when working with raw data from a remote sensor. It was used as more of an ‘average’. The thing about it was that if you compaired the consensus with any of the instantaneous raw moments then it rarely agreed. Futher still — You’ll still get a consensus, sometimes useable, out of damn near nothing but noise; However, the value obtained is heavily prone to subjective piddling and was sometimes reversed in sign if the instrument was not perfectly level to start with.
Oh Timmmmmy: and advertising campaign to sell gum is not the same sourcing as an actual association of scientist gathered to report on the evidence of GW as best as can be determined.
Your argument demonstrates the absence of any credible position. heh, heh.
You got nothing.
NFS won’t even answer, you give gibberish, both here an above: c’mon boys: is co2 a greenhouse gas?
BASIC SCIENCE is what you have to deny to maintain your nits and picks as if they refuted anything except the money your parents wasted on your education.
Silly Hoomans.
“”is co2 a greenhouse gas?
I already answered ‘no’.
I already pointed out that it does not appear to be a driver of climate change at this time {at our current temp, pressure, vapor pressure of various other constituants, concentration,… stuff you wouldn’t understand,..). “sea level, global temperature, sea ice (both north and south), tropical storms, morning dew, and shingles {Bubba’s purple throbbers} don’t seem to respond to the current influx of co2.
Again, the models will have to change because the policy was already written down somewhere.
ain’t that something?
But Timmy: co2 IS a green house gas meaning the more of it there is, the hotter an atmosphere will become.
Its BASIC SCIENCE.
And thats why you and your ilk have no credibility, no alternative theory very akin to the God in the Gaps type of flat earth thinking.
sucks to be you. I’ll put you down as Devo.
With your skills at tangential thinking, I bet all you have to do is jump 2-3 contacts over and allow the notion that when you change the conditions of a complex interactive system by adding more chemicals to it that “something” will change as a consequence.
boy, that is piss poor word craft….. but I’ll let it stand: you don’t have an alternative theory and all you do is poke holes in the theory that is now universally accepted by all but the crazies and the paid. You aren’t be paid, so I worry for you.
NONE of us are qualified to form independent valid scientific opinions on climate science. We know about the weather in our own areas and that is no where near the same subject.
Such Hubris……. silly hoomans. Making gas while Rome burns.
“”universally accepted by all but the crazies and the paid.
I’d go as far as to call that a lie.
I’m not the one clammouring for enslavement and waving around a chicken-little *theory* which is scant on exhibit A’s and the ones it presents tend to clear the client.
It is not for me to come up with an alternative. That would be like being on trial for smoking a joint and when things aren’t going the way the prosecutor, Mr. Stompyfeet, expects then he switches context to whether I murdered the dealer or not — leaving it up to me to prove that he’s not dead.
“”In recent days a new scandal over the integrity of temperature data has emerged, this time in America, where it has been revealed as much as 40 per cent of temperature data there are not real thermometer readings.
“”Many temperature stations have closed, but rather than stop recording data from these posts, the authorities have taken the remarkable step of ‘estimating’ temperatures based on the records of surrounding stations.
“”But the relentless focus by activist scientists on the Arctic decline does suggest a political imperative rather than a scientific one
“”…the effect of all these changes is to produce a warmer present and a colder past,…
opps
http://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681812/Its-politics-not-science-driving-climate-change-mania-UN-predictions-subject-ridicule-stunning-failure.html
Yea….. except thats a lie: the sea level keeps rising.
Lie is probably too strong… I’d have to study the article which I have no interest it doing.
Think red herring instead. Even if true: its irrelevant.
Tim off the tangent and addressing the issue directly says:
7/7/2014 at 11:10 pm
“”universally accepted by all but the crazies and the paid.
I’d go as far as to call that a lie. /// Well, that is the basis for the action taken by the BBC. The anti-AGW is just not founded in science but rather anything other than. What did the link report…”marginalized interests” or whatever….. and so it is. co2 is a green house gas. You pirouette around that unavoidable fact. I sincerely wish you were right….. but my god is reality and reality is best understood by science…. and science says we are cooking ourselves in our own shit.
I’m not the one clammouring for enslavement /// Straw Man–I am clammoring … but not for enslavement but rather life and liberty…. there is no liberty without life…
and waving around a chicken-little *theory* /// chicken little applies only when the warning is for something false… not the truth which can be called false only in that the warning is 75 years early so that the consequences can be avoided.
which is scant on exhibit A’s //// air and sea temps going up “on average” , seal level steadily rising on average, glaciers in Northern latitude disappearing, islands and deltas disappearing, hottest days on record one after another, ocean acidifying, permafrost melting with release of methane, artic ice diminishing to the point that a Northern Passage is established….and on and on like a Mountain of Evidence, Exhibits A thru Z. I’d go so far as to call that a lie.
and the ones it presents tend to clear the client. //// As well as I can follow that…. just the opposite as stated just above: the evidence showing AGW is overwhelming.
It is not for me to come up with an alternative. //// Thats true, you just lack credibility in such failure.
That would be like being on trial for smoking a joint and when things aren’t going the way the prosecutor, Mr. Stompyfeet, expects then he switches context to whether I murdered the dealer or not — leaving it up to me to prove that he’s not dead. //// Good example of your argument/thought process because thats exactly what does not happen. Heh, heh. Off tangent, and still not making any sense.
Time will tell.
>NONE of us are qualified to form independent valid scientific opinions on climate science.
More like everyone but you.
Pop Quiz: what do you call someone who negates basic scientific facts and principles?
A statist.
Well….. you got that wrong too…… but I see the humor.
Basic science tells us that 3<4. But for climate scientists, they feel free to declare the opposite.
that’s quite mundane. Don’t I know you from somewhere??
I wish you boys would engage your brains rather than in isolation only your mouths.
When you hold positions you cannot defend, you should at least return to a neutral position.
When you defend your positions by using incorrect basic science facts, you should at least recognize your argument is specious.
Both of you are basically arguing that co2 is NOT a green house gas. But it is. NO ONE DISAGREES about that. Your arguments are those of children playing with their own shit. You got no toys.
To argue that AGW is based on 3 is more than 4 is just down right brain rotted out STUPID. To flat out state that co2 is not a green house gas is just objectively wrong in a flat earth sort of mentality.
IE====both of you can and do think better than this but “something” regarding this subject is blocking you. Scientific theories are built on facts. Facts upon facts until you have a theory. Arrange the facts correctly, the often the theory will jump out at you.
Start with co2 is a green house gas: it heats the atmosphere. The atmosphere heats the ocean. The warmer the ocean the less ice there is. co2 was in “Gaea Balance” the kept all natural sources of co2 in balance with fairly steady climate norms.
Now take that status quo and change any of the variables. Remove some of the atmosphere. Add more water vapor, increase the temp of the sun or have us orbit closer, have aerosols in the air, introduce heavy particulates. Will that climate system stay the same or will the balance point move?
And of course… it depends on what the variable is and how much the change is.
So….. just take co2 and burn coal and petroleum for 100 years putting trillions of tons of co2 into the atmosphere changing its concentration just a tiny bit from 350ppm to 400ppm. Incredibly small change…. but the best science says that will raise the average global temp by 2 Degree Centigrade. Another very tiny change……….but its enough to melt Greenland in 150-200 years thereby raising sea level by 30-60 feet (I forget).
To argue that there was/is fraud in some set of numbers changes only dithering details at the edge of things. Its a distraction. Poking holes in data does not disprove a theory or a fact.
This is how you think. Your own brain is doing this but you don’t accept the conclusions of your own consciousness. Thats emotions. Denial. Bias.
In this case: it is severe. I actually envy you two. Eventually you will see the light and you will have the opportunity to consider how you got something so basic so wrong.
I did it on this very subject. Its true===all right here on DU. It is I suspect most of the reason that Pedro calls me wishy washy.
Quite a dither. I’ll tell you mine, if you tell me yours……. your choice but at the least, you should tell yourself.
Stop being wrong about basic science.
tl;dr
“”Eventually you will see the light and you will have the opportunity to consider how you got something so basic so wrong.
o.k. Co2 is a greenhouse gas — how could I have been misled for so long??
It’s like your first joint — you didn’t really die and go to driving school, you didn’t chop up your mommy, you didn’t grow tits {well, don’t blame that on the pot}, and you didn’t get any stupider. You’re gonna spend your life in jail {true, more often than not, unfortunately}.
^^ Those things were lies, weren’t they? Who told you those? It turned out not to be so detrimental. I’m gonna smoke my joint. I don’t want to be rehabbed off marijuana. You should stay in church — there’s some likeminded assholes here:
http://scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=postlist&Board=6&page=1
Timmy—you just engage in the same defective arguments by analogy that you have made before.
The IPCC is uniquely different from the Gubment trying to enforce the law and favor tobacco interests by keeping MJ illegal and its different from BigBiz trying to sell bubblegum.
IT SCIENCE.====Knock, knock…… is anybody home?
Regarding your example, start with the first proposition: is MJ harmful or addictive in the same way Heroin is? And throughout the fiasco and stupidity of our drug wars you would find a great many scientists saying no. See how that works?
Endlessly fascinating how the brain works…… and doesn’t work.
Now that you accept co2 is a greenhouse gas: STEO TWO===what will eventually happen if you keep adding a greenhouse gas to an atmosphere?
Go===============> Follow what your own reason and intellect will tell you.
((((Nice website your link to…. I might peruse but as you link to it===what particular argument/thread did you find persuasive?—or is it just a collection of defective arguments such as you have presented so far?))))
>and you didn’t get any stupider.
YOU didn’t.
Funny it has changed from 350 to 400 ppm, and it is not 2C warmer.
“”Facts upon facts until you have a theory
Theory?? These people don’t even support a valid hypothesis yet… You’re one of those that grew up with Schoolhouse Rock thinking ‘bills’ went through congress and shit, are you not?
Personally, I hanker for a hunk of cheeze. to go with my joint. that i grew with co2. the earth made humans so there could be more co2 and plastic delivery mechanisms so that little timmy could smoke more dope.
silly doomans
Don’t be fooled by news of the Americans JUST looking for new life forms. Russia dropped a flag pole into the N. pole.
“On August 2, 2007, a Russian expedition called Arktika 2007, composed of six explorers led by Artur Chilingarov, employing MIR submersibles, for the first time in history descended to the seabed at the North Pole. There they planted the Russian flag and took water and soil samples for analysis, continuing a mission to provide additional evidence related to the Russian claim to the mineral riches of the Arctic.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_the_Arctic#The_Russian_Federation
Oops my comment is on the opposite pole. I didn’t read the complete comment.