|
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:05 GMT, "CRM" wrote:
I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Interesting. I wonder if it'll make the news on NBC. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote:
I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. :-) |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 2:12*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. If, but, could... bottom line is that no one has proven that GW even exists. Many of the so-called indicators are vanishing as the weather and climate follow their natural cycles. More and more scientist are coming out against the IPCC report and the idea of GW at all. Including a large number that were used by name in the IPCC report that now say they disagree with it's findings. GW was (and is) a very successful money-making scheme. Algore is laughing all the way to the bank in his monster house and private jet. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 2:26*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:12*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. If, but, could... *bottom line is that no one has proven that GW even exists. *Many of the so-called indicators are vanishing as the weather and climate follow their natural cycles. *More and more scientist are coming out against the IPCC report and the idea of GW at all. Including a large number that were used by name in the IPCC report that now say they disagree with it's findings. GW was (and is) a very successful money-making scheme. *Algore is laughing all the way to the bank in his monster house and private jet.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The number of scientists who think that global warming IS occuring is massive compared to the number who don't believe it. It's plain and simple. Let's say you have a bomb sitting in your yard. A few scientists tell you that it's okay to go hit it with a shovel, nothing will happen, it's inert, those damned liberals think everything is dangerous. Another much, much larger group of scientists tell you that if you hit the bomb with a shovel, it will kill you, and everyone else in town. Which do you do? And here's quite a simple question. Do you think that all of the millions of pounds of pollutants poured into the air every day, including green house gases, poisons, etc. is good for the environment and good for your children to breath? |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 2:55*pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. Loogy, how would you define 'cyclical' when we're talking millions of years. Hell, Gore's stuff was only for the past couple hundred. *That* is cyclical in the big scheme of things. No?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Going up steadily corresponding to the industrial revolution isn't a cycle. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 3:05*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:26*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 2:12*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. If, but, could... *bottom line is that no one has proven that GW even exists. *Many of the so-called indicators are vanishing as the weather and climate follow their natural cycles. *More and more scientist are coming out against the IPCC report and the idea of GW at all. Including a large number that were used by name in the IPCC report that now say they disagree with it's findings. GW was (and is) a very successful money-making scheme. *Algore is laughing all the way to the bank in his monster house and private jet.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The number of scientists who think that global warming IS occuring is massive compared to the number who don't believe it. That is very debatable, and what quality scientists are we talking about. NASA and NOAA, two pretty credible orginazations of scientists do not adhere to Global Taxing... It's plain and simple. Let's say you have a bomb sitting in your yard. A few scientists tell you that it's okay to go hit it with a shovel, nothing will happen, it's inert, those damned liberals think everything is dangerous. Another much, much larger group of scientists tell you that if you hit the bomb with a shovel, it will kill you, and everyone else in town. Which do you do? And here's quite a simple question. Do you think that all of the millions of pounds of pollutants poured into the air every day, including green house gases, poisons, etc. is good for the environment and good for your children to breath?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
"John H" wrote in message ... On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:05 GMT, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Interesting. I wonder if it'll make the news on NBC. It doesn't sell, does not generate hysteria for profit. All the greenies are asking for what do they pick on next. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
wrote in message ... On Jan 5, 12:27 pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. ------- Nature has a way of compensating that fruit fly specialists and politicians have no clue off. In fact, they are hype for sale clueless. Some of knew this all along. FUD - Fear and Uncertainty Deivers! (Profits). |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 3:27*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 3:05*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 2:26*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 2:12*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming.. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. If, but, could... *bottom line is that no one has proven that GW even exists. *Many of the so-called indicators are vanishing as the weather and climate follow their natural cycles. *More and more scientist are coming out against the IPCC report and the idea of GW at all. Including a large number that were used by name in the IPCC report that now say they disagree with it's findings. GW was (and is) a very successful money-making scheme. *Algore is laughing all the way to the bank in his monster house and private jet..- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The number of scientists who think that global warming IS occuring is massive compared to the number who don't believe it. That is very debatable, and what quality scientists are we talking about. NASA and NOAA, two pretty credible orginazations of scientists do not adhere to Global Taxing... It's plain and simple. Let's say you have a bomb sitting in your yard. A few scientists tell you that it's okay to go hit it with a shovel, nothing will happen, it's inert, those damned liberals think everything is dangerous. Another much, much larger group of scientists tell you that if you hit the bomb with a shovel, it will kill you, and everyone else in town. Which do you do? And here's quite a simple question. Do you think that all of the millions of pounds of pollutants poured into the air every day, including green house gases, poisons, etc. is good for the environment and good for your children to breath?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Uh, no. Here's NOAA's take: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/home.html http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303239,00.html And then NASA's http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global...worldbook.html |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:55 pm, John H wrote: On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 5, 2:02 pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32 pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27 pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. :-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. Loogy, how would you define 'cyclical' when we're talking millions of years. Hell, Gore's stuff was only for the past couple hundred. *That* is cyclical in the big scheme of things. No?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Going up steadily corresponding to the industrial revolution isn't a cycle. No, it is coincidental. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
BAR wrote:
wrote: On Jan 5, 2:55 pm, John H wrote: On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 5, 2:02 pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32 pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27 pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. :-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. Loogy, how would you define 'cyclical' when we're talking millions of years. Hell, Gore's stuff was only for the past couple hundred. *That* is cyclical in the big scheme of things. No?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Going up steadily corresponding to the industrial revolution isn't a cycle. No, it is coincidental. You have no cred to make such a statement. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
hk wrote:
BAR wrote: wrote: On Jan 5, 2:55 pm, John H wrote: On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 5, 2:02 pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32 pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27 pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. :-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. Loogy, how would you define 'cyclical' when we're talking millions of years. Hell, Gore's stuff was only for the past couple hundred. *That* is cyclical in the big scheme of things. No?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Going up steadily corresponding to the industrial revolution isn't a cycle. No, it is coincidental. You have no cred to make such a statement. You have no "cred" to refute my statement. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
"CRM" wrote in
: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ce.area.withtr end.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6 strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 4:24*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 3:27*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 3:05*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 2:26*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 2:12*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. If, but, could... *bottom line is that no one has proven that GW even exists. *Many of the so-called indicators are vanishing as the weather and climate follow their natural cycles. *More and more scientist are coming out against the IPCC report and the idea of GW at all. Including a large number that were used by name in the IPCC report that now say they disagree with it's findings. GW was (and is) a very successful money-making scheme. *Algore is laughing all the way to the bank in his monster house and private jet.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The number of scientists who think that global warming IS occuring is massive compared to the number who don't believe it. That is very debatable, and what quality scientists are we talking about. NASA and NOAA, two pretty credible orginazations of scientists do not adhere to Global Taxing... It's plain and simple. Let's say you have a bomb sitting in your yard. A few scientists tell you that it's okay to go hit it with a shovel, nothing will happen, it's inert, those damned liberals think everything is dangerous. Another much, much larger group of scientists tell you that if you hit the bomb with a shovel, it will kill you, and everyone else in town. Which do you do? And here's quite a simple question. Do you think that all of the millions of pounds of pollutants poured into the air every day, including green house gases, poisons, etc. is good for the environment and good for your children to breath?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Uh, no. Here's NOAA's take:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...303239,00.html And then NASA'shttp://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html Much of your data is dated. Taken from another forum: "NOAA scientist say warming concesus a scandal" Global Warming Rope-a-Dope By Walter Williams FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, December 29, 2008 Americans have been rope-a-doped into believing that global warming is going to destroy our planet. Scientists who have been skeptical about manmade global warming have been called traitors or handmaidens of big oil. The Washington Post asserted on May 28, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of manmade climate fears. Bill Blakemore on Aug. 30, 2006 said, “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such (scientific) debate on global warming.” U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming. U.N. special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate “over” and added “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the U.N.’s scientific “consensus.” In July 23, 2007, CNN’s Miles O’Brien said, “The scientific debate is over.” Earlier he said that scientific skeptics of manmade catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” The global warming scare has provided a field day for politicians and others who wish to control our lives. After all, only the imagination limits the kind of laws and restrictions that can be written in the name of saving the planet. Recently, more and more scientists are summoning up the courage to speak out and present evidence against the global warming rope-a-dope. Atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said, “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” Dr. Goldenberg has the company of at least 650 noted scientists documented in the recently released U.S. Senate Minority Report: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims: Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008.” The scientists, not environmental activists, include Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics, who said, “I am a skeptic … Global warming has become a new religion.” Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an environmental physical chemist, said warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history … When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” “So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming,” said Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member. Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, said, “Many (scientists) are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” The fact of the matter is an increasing amount of climate research suggests a possibility of global cooling. Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University says, “Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.” Geologist Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, currently at Uppsala University in Sweden asks, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” and this: As we've noted, 2008 has been a year of records for cold and snowfall and may indeed be the coldest year of the 21st century thus far. In the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month of October. Global thermometers stopped rising after 1998, and have plummeted in the last two years by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius. The 2007-2008 temperature drop was not predicted by global climate models. But it was predictable by a decline in sunspot activity since 2000. When the sun is active, it's not uncommon to see sunspot numbers of 100 or more in a single month. Every 11 years, activity slows, and numbers briefly drop near zero. Normally sunspots return very quickly, as a new cycle begins. But this year, the start of a new cycle, the sun has been eerily quiet. The first seven months averaged a sunspot count of only three and in August there were no sunspots at all — zero — something that has not occurred since 1913. According to the publication Daily Tech, in the past 1,000 years, three previous such events — what are called the Dalton, Maunder and Sporer Minimums — have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough to be called the Little Ice Age (1500-1750). R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa- Carleton Geoscience Centre of Canada's Carleton University, says: "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet." Indeed, a look at a graph of solar irradiance from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows little solar activity during the Little Ice Age and significant activity during recent times. I like this one: From the London Times 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph. By Christopher Booker Last Updated: 10:59AM The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day". Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects. First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century. Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise. Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade). Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions. Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times. Suddenly it has become rather less appealing that we should divert trillions of dollars, pounds and euros into the fantasy that we could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent. All those grandiose projects for "emissions trading", "carbon capture", building tens of thousands more useless wind turbines, switching vast areas of farmland from producing food to "biofuels", are being exposed as no more than enormously damaging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we no longer possess. As 2009 dawns, it is time we in Britain faced up to the genuine crisis now fast approaching from the fact that – unless we get on very soon with building enough proper power stations to fill our looming "energy gap" - within a few years our lights will go out and what remains of our economy will judder to a halt. After years of infantile displacement activity, it is high time our politicians – along with those of the EU and President Obama's US – were brought back with a mighty jolt into contact with the real world. Heh... this farce called man-made GW is coming to an end. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:09 -0500, hk wrote:
BAR wrote: wrote: On Jan 5, 2:55 pm, John H wrote: On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 5, 2:02 pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32 pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27 pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. :-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. Loogy, how would you define 'cyclical' when we're talking millions of years. Hell, Gore's stuff was only for the past couple hundred. *That* is cyclical in the big scheme of things. No?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Going up steadily corresponding to the industrial revolution isn't a cycle. No, it is coincidental. You have no cred to make such a statement. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold..._b_154982.html "One of the last, desperate canards proposed by climate alarmists is that of the polar ice caps. Look at the "terrible," "unprecedented" melting in the Arctic in the summer of 2007, they say. Well, the ice in the Arctic basin has always melted and refrozen, and always will. Any researcher who wants to find a single molecule of ice that has been there longer than 30 years is going to have a hard job, because the ice has always been melted from above (by the midnight Sun of summer) and below (by relatively warm ocean currents, possibly amplified by volcanic venting) -- and on the sides, again by warm currents. Scientists in the alarmist camp have taken to referring to "old ice," but, again, this is a misrepresentation of what takes place in the Arctic." -- "An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." H.L. Mencken |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 6:36*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 4:24*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 3:27*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 3:05*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 2:26*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 2:12*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier.. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. If, but, could... *bottom line is that no one has proven that GW even exists. *Many of the so-called indicators are vanishing as the weather and climate follow their natural cycles. *More and more scientist are coming out against the IPCC report and the idea of GW at all. Including a large number that were used by name in the IPCC report that now say they disagree with it's findings. GW was (and is) a very successful money-making scheme. *Algore is laughing all the way to the bank in his monster house and private jet.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The number of scientists who think that global warming IS occuring is massive compared to the number who don't believe it. That is very debatable, and what quality scientists are we talking about. NASA and NOAA, two pretty credible orginazations of scientists do not adhere to Global Taxing... It's plain and simple. Let's say you have a bomb sitting in your yard. A few scientists tell you that it's okay to go hit it with a shovel, nothing will happen, it's inert, those damned liberals think everything is dangerous. Another much, much larger group of scientists tell you that if you hit the bomb with a shovel, it will kill you, and everyone else in town. Which do you do? And here's quite a simple question. Do you think that all of the millions of pounds of pollutants poured into the air every day, including green house gases, poisons, etc. is good for the environment and good for your children to breath?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Uh, no. Here's NOAA's take:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa...ttp://lwf.ncdc... And then NASA'shttp://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html Much of your data is dated. *Taken from another forum: "NOAA scientist say warming concesus a scandal" Global Warming Rope-a-Dope By Walter Williams FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, December 29, 2008 Americans have been rope-a-doped into believing that global warming is going to destroy our planet. Scientists who have been skeptical about manmade global warming have been called traitors or handmaidens of big oil. The Washington Post asserted on May 28, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of manmade climate fears. Bill Blakemore on Aug. 30, 2006 said, “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such (scientific) debate on global warming.” U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said it was “criminally irresponsible” to ignore the urgency of global warming. U.N. special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate “over” and added “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the U.N.’s scientific “consensus.” In July 23, 2007, CNN’s Miles O’Brien said, “The scientific debate is over.” Earlier he said that scientific skeptics of manmade catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” The global warming scare has provided a field day for politicians and others who wish to control our lives. After all, only the imagination limits the kind of laws and restrictions that can be written in the name of saving the planet. Recently, more and more scientists are summoning up the courage to speak out and present evidence against the global warming rope-a-dope. Atmospheric scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said, “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” Dr. Goldenberg has the company of at least 650 noted scientists documented in the recently released U.S. Senate Minority Report: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims: Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008.” The scientists, not environmental activists, include Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in physics, who said, “I am a skeptic … Global warming has become a new religion.” Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an environmental physical chemist, said warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history … When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” “So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming,” said Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member. Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, said, “Many (scientists) are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” The fact of the matter is an increasing amount of climate research suggests a possibility of global cooling. Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University says, “Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.” Geologist Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress, currently at Uppsala University in Sweden asks, “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” and this: As we've noted, 2008 has been a year of records for cold and snowfall and may indeed be the coldest year of the 21st century thus far. In the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month of October. Global thermometers stopped rising after 1998, and have plummeted in the last two years by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius. The 2007-2008 temperature drop was not predicted by global climate models. But it was predictable by a decline in sunspot activity since 2000. When the sun is active, it's not uncommon to see sunspot numbers of 100 or more in a single month. Every 11 years, activity slows, and numbers briefly drop near zero. Normally sunspots return very quickly, as a new cycle begins. But this year, the start of a new cycle, the sun has been eerily quiet. The first seven months averaged a sunspot count of only three and in August there were no sunspots at all — zero — something that has not occurred since 1913. According to the publication Daily Tech, in the past 1,000 years, three previous such events — what are called the Dalton, Maunder and Sporer Minimums — have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough to be called the Little Ice Age (1500-1750). R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa- Carleton Geoscience Centre of Canada's Carleton University, says: "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet." Indeed, a look at a graph of solar irradiance from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows little solar activity during the Little Ice Age and significant activity during recent times. I like this one: From the London Times 2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph. By Christopher Booker Last Updated: 10:59AM The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day". Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects. First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century. Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise. Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade). Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions. Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times. Suddenly it has become rather less appealing that we should divert trillions of dollars, pounds and euros into the fantasy that we could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent. All those grandiose projects for "emissions trading", "carbon capture", building tens of thousands more useless wind turbines, switching vast areas of farmland from producing food to "biofuels", are being exposed as no more than enormously damaging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we no longer possess. As 2009 dawns, it is time we in Britain faced up to the genuine crisis now fast approaching from the fact that – unless we get on very soon with building enough proper power stations to fill our looming "energy gap" - within a few years our lights will go out and what remains of our economy will judder to a halt. After years of infantile displacement activity, it is high time our politicians – along with those of the EU and President Obama's US – were brought back with a mighty jolt into contact with the real world. Heh... this farce called man-made GW is coming to an end. Amen.... So, we should not hear the "concencus" myth, the Ice Cap myth, or the Polar Bear myth anymore.. Furthermore, I hope we don't hear the documented cooling, directly related to Sun activity, called "warming" anymore.. snerk Fact is, the computer bubble was a result of the Y2K hoax and made a lot of people real rich before the whole ponzi scheme fell down.. Now we are seeing the Global Taxing scheme which came about during the same administration, with many of the same players come apart too.. Hopefully this time before whole industries are gutted, it may be too late for the American Auto industry, but maybe not. Either way, remember, Al Gore has reportedly made nearly 100 million dollars on this scam so far while living the high life and asking everyone else to sacrifice.... Fat pig, maybe we should go back to burning whale blubber...;) Yes, the Y2K hoax sold everybody on earth a new computer in a 9 month period, the stocks went frekin' nuts.. Smart folks figured out that if everyone bought new computers in 1999, most would not need another new one till late 2002 or longer.. Of course the industry crashed in 01, no one needed a new computer, the smart ones dumped their stock before the crash. Even I saw it coming and a good friend that plays the market thanked me dearly when he got out of the e-stocks in time to save his ass...Duh! |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote: "CRM" wrote in : I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ce.area.withtr end.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6 strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned. You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it was first published. Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in sea ice based on statistical average. 35,000 square miles to be exact. :) This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point. -- "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." H. L. Mencken |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote: "CRM" wrote in : I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ce.area.withtr end.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6 strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned. Well said. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
: On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: "CRM" wrote in : I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ly.ice.area.wi thtr end.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6 strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned. You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it was first published. Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in sea ice based on statistical average. 35,000 square miles to be exact. :) This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point. No, I didn't realize that. Do you have a reference? |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:30:30 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in : On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: "CRM" wrote in : I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ly.ice.area.wi thtr end.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6 strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned. You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it was first published. Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in sea ice based on statistical average. 35,000 square miles to be exact. :) This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point. No, I didn't realize that. Do you have a reference? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/1...ars-overnight/ -- "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." H. L. Mencken |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
: On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: "CRM" wrote in : I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ly.ice.area.wi thtr end.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6 strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned. You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it was first published. Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in sea ice based on statistical average. 35,000 square miles to be exact. :) This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point. -- "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." H. L. Mencken Um, 35,000 square miles is about 95,600 square kilometers. The units in that graph are in millions of square kilometers - the annual variation during 2008 looks like it was on the order of 6 million square kilometers. Thus, the difference of 35,000 square miles is less than two percent of the annual variation last year. Indeed, it looks like the average annual area of sea ice since 2005 is between one and one and a half million square kilometers below the 1979-2000 average, which means a difference of 35,000 square miles one way or the other really doesn't make a whole lot of difference in the conclusion that the average area of sea ice in 2008 was significantly lower than the 1979- 2000 baseline, and further that the trend over the last decade suggests a steady loss of sea ice. In order to disregard the graph as politically driven, you need to find half a million square miles of ice that was 'adjusted' away each year for the last five years at least. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
: On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:30:30 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in m: On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: "CRM" wrote in : I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ly.ice.area.wi thtr end.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6 strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned. You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it was first published. Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in sea ice based on statistical average. 35,000 square miles to be exact. :) This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point. No, I didn't realize that. Do you have a reference? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/1...ten-in-norway- 500 000-sq-km-of-sea-ice-disappears-overnight/ But that is not the data provided in the U.of Illinois graph. Different research group, probably different data reduction protocols, possibly different data sources, certainly different baseline. Apples and oranges. Granted, the response given by the research group does not explain why the correction was made, but I kinda suspect there is a legitimate reason - the blogger does not report the wording of his question to the research group, so it is difficult to judge why a technical explanation was not given, but it is quite possible that he did not ask for a technical explanation for the correction. Anyhow, as far as I can see your objection does not apply to the graph in the OP's reference. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:39:17 -0600, Jim Willemin
wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in : On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:30:30 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in : On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: "CRM" wrote in t: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ly.ice.area.wi thtr end.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6 strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned. You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it was first published. Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in sea ice based on statistical average. 35,000 square miles to be exact. :) This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point. No, I didn't realize that. Do you have a reference? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/1...ten-in-norway- 500 000-sq-km-of-sea-ice-disappears-overnight/ But that is not the data provided in the U.of Illinois graph. Different research group, probably different data reduction protocols, possibly different data sources, certainly different baseline. Apples and oranges. Granted, the response given by the research group does not explain why the correction was made, but I kinda suspect there is a legitimate reason - the blogger does not report the wording of his question to the research group, so it is difficult to judge why a technical explanation was not given, but it is quite possible that he did not ask for a technical explanation for the correction. Anyhow, as far as I can see your objection does not apply to the graph in the OP's reference. Well, then how about this? http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+End...ticle13834.htm Good enough for you? |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in
: On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:39:17 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in m: On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:30:30 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: Tom Francis - SWSports wrote in m: On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:23:51 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote: "CRM" wrote in : I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 I suppose I'll regret this, but I'm afraid the data available at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...ly.ice.area.wi thtr end.jpg or http://tinyurl.com/2nv9n6 strongly suggests that indeed, global sea ice area over the last couple of years is significantly below the 20 year average for 1979-2000, and further, the recent trend is for continuing reduction in sea ice area. In fact, that very figure is presented in the article you reference - you might want to take a closer look at it before you reject the idea that something is happening with respect to global sea ice area. I daresay if that graph were of your bank account, rather than sea ice, you'd be a lot more concerned. You do realise that the graph you reference was "adjusted" after it was first published. Seems like the data showed an increase in sea ice, verified by observational data, then somehow "adjusted" to show a decrease in sea ice based on statistical average. 35,000 square miles to be exact. :) This is "hockey stick" graphing taken to extremes to prove a point. No, I didn't realize that. Do you have a reference? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/1...ten-in-norway- 500 000-sq-km-of-sea-ice-disappears-overnight/ But that is not the data provided in the U.of Illinois graph. Different research group, probably different data reduction protocols, possibly different data sources, certainly different baseline. Apples and oranges. Granted, the response given by the research group does not explain why the correction was made, but I kinda suspect there is a legitimate reason - the blogger does not report the wording of his question to the research group, so it is difficult to judge why a technical explanation was not given, but it is quite possible that he did not ask for a technical explanation for the correction. Anyhow, as far as I can see your objection does not apply to the graph in the OP's reference. Well, then how about this? http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+End...Same+Level+as+ 1979/articl e13834.htm Good enough for you? That is the article that started this whole thing, and what I thought was the original poster's misinterpretation of the data. It doesn't have anything to do with the accuracy of the data, or political manipulation thereof. The graph shown on the upper right in that article is the graph of global sea ice area from 1979-present available from the University of Illinois cryosphere website (link posted above). Take a good look at the graph (you can click on it to enlarge it in the dailytech article). The upper dark blue line is the total area of sea ice on the planet (daily data); the upper light blue line is the daily average sea ice cover calculated for the 21 year period 1979-2000 (the baseline); the lower red line is just the difference between the daily value and the baseline value. Now, as I read the graph, it is true that on 1 January, 1980, and 1 January, 2009 the total sea ice area on Earth was the same, give or take a few thousand square miles. In fact, the sea ice area was above average for the early part of 2008. I am not arguing that. But take a look at the lower red line, and look at the trend over the last five years. Heck, take a look at the dark blue line (the raw data) - notice the maximum sea ice extent. Between 1979 and 2000 the annual maximum sea ice extent was over 22 million square kilometers each year, sometimes by a million square kilometers, while in five of the last eight years the annual maximum was less than 22 million square kilometers, and only just barely above 22 million for the other three. To me, this suggests that something is happening to reduce the area of sea ice over the last ten years - not all at once, and not every day, but certainly on average it seems to me that something is going on. Just look at the data. The world isn't going to end tomorrow, nor yet next week. Alarmism is stupid. But I think it is equally silly to ignore what appears to be a significant trend because alarmists overstate the case, or because of a few outlier data points. (Note: I have no vested interest in this topic - I no skin in the game whatsoever. I just have a purely intellectual interest in what is going on, and I like data. I'd also like to know how to fit and install a breasthook and whether I should use thole pins or oarlocks for the skiff that is taking shape in the garage, and what weeks of sub-freezing temperatures will do to the cure of PL Premium polyurethane adhesive and its subsequent bond strength...) |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 5, 5:41*pm, BAR wrote:
wrote: On Jan 5, 2:55 pm, John H wrote: On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 5, 2:02 pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32 pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27 pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. Loogy, how would you define 'cyclical' when we're talking millions of years. Hell, Gore's stuff was only for the past couple hundred. *That* is cyclical in the big scheme of things. No?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Going up steadily corresponding to the industrial revolution isn't a cycle. No, it is coincidental.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Prove that to me. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
On Jan 6, 7:22*am, Jim Willemin wrote:
Just look at the data. *The world isn't going to end tomorrow, nor yet next week. *Alarmism is stupid. *But I think it is equally silly to ignore what appears to be a significant trend because alarmists overstate the case, or because of a few outlier data points. Looking at, and presenting, the data in the absence of scientific understanding of surrounding factors is what got us into this mess in the first place. There has been a warming trend with increased sunspot activity, which is the primary driver of the increase of temps and loss of ice. Sunspot activity is now at it's 11 year low cycle, and we see an increase in ice formation. Many scientist have tried to point this out, only to get shouted down by the alarmists. But I can certainly see how looking at just one data point could lead some to jump to a conclusion, especially when that conclusion is driven by monetary or political factors. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
wrote in news:5328feb2-ad9a-432c-b740-
: On Jan 6, 7:22*am, Jim Willemin wrote: Just look at the data. *The world isn't going to end tomorrow, nor yet next week. *Alarmism is stupid. *But I think it is equally silly to ignore what appears to be a significant trend because alarmists overstate the case, or because of a few outlier data points. Looking at, and presenting, the data in the absence of scientific understanding of surrounding factors is what got us into this mess in the first place. There has been a warming trend with increased sunspot activity, which is the primary driver of the increase of temps and loss of ice. Sunspot activity is now at it's 11 year low cycle, and we see an increase in ice formation. Many scientist have tried to point this out, only to get shouted down by the alarmists. But I can certainly see how looking at just one data point could lead some to jump to a conclusion, especially when that conclusion is driven by monetary or political factors. As you say, considering raw data without an understanding of what else is happening leads to misunderstanding, and the 11 year sunspot cycle does affect the amount of solar energy reaching Earth. On the other hand, the problem is not simple; for example, the sea ice data do not show much of an 11-year cycle. There were solar output minima in 1985, 1996, and 2007 (from the graph of solar irradiance at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation) and each of those years had a slightly below-average sea ice cover (to well below-average, in the case of 2007) (from the graph on the UI cryosphere site), which is exactly opposite to what one might expect. Indeed, looking at the graph on Wikipedia, the solar output appears to vary by about a tenth of a percent from sunspot low to sunspot high (that is, by a little over one watt/square meter) which doesn't seem like a whole lot. It is indeed something of a conundrum, which I suppose is why there is controversy. |
Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:41 pm, BAR wrote: wrote: On Jan 5, 2:55 pm, John H wrote: On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Jan 5, 2:02 pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 1:32 pm, wrote: On Jan 5, 12:27 pm, "CRM" wrote: I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this BS here. Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical levels? http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834 Did you see the reason why?: Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly be because of global warming. Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition, it has nothing to do with GW. :-)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming. BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have something to do with global warming. Loogy, how would you define 'cyclical' when we're talking millions of years. Hell, Gore's stuff was only for the past couple hundred. *That* is cyclical in the big scheme of things. No?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Going up steadily corresponding to the industrial revolution isn't a cycle. No, it is coincidental.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Prove that to me. You are looking at a 200 year period of time in a 4.5 billion year period of time. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com