What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Jimbo1490]

See this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...c_ice_mystery/

And again I put the question to the "True Believers"(And you know who you are ):

If the reality of AGW is such a 'no-brainer' THEN WHY DO THEY NEED TO PROP IT UP WITH BULL$HIT!!??

You must read the entire article, and when you do you will begin to admire the sheer cleverness and wile of the ********ters; these are neither simple lies nor sloppy science or even innocent misunderstandings, but rather well thought-out deceptions designed to beguile the skimmers and scanners of scientific data, the people that listen to sound-bites, but never dig deeper. But since it is still basically wrong, it can be debunked.

Jimbo

[bntii]

"The author asserts that NSIDC's estimate of a 10% increase in sea ice compared to the same time as last year is wrong. Mr. Goddard does his own analysis, based on images from the University of Illinois' Cryosphere Today web site, and comes up with a number of ~30%, three times larger than NSIDC's estimate. He appears to derive his estimate by simply counting pixels in an image. He recognizes that this results in an error due to the distortion by the map projection, but does so anyway. Such an approach is simply not valid."

"Besides this significant error, the rest of the article consists almost entirely of misleading, irrelevant, or erroneous information about Arctic sea ice that add nothing to the understanding of the significant long-term decline that is being observed."


Jimbo- we need to quit our day jobs so we can make a proper throw at debating this mess..



"Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season."

From:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[mr curious]

scientists.... x 3.14

[masalai]

I don't know about the climate, but the weather seems to be changing - feels like rain soon from the office with a view.... (good to be "home again?")

[bntii]

Thawing Permafrost Likely To Boost Global Warming, New Assessment Concludes

ScienceDaily (Sep. 2, 2008) — A new assessment more than doubles previous estimates of the amount of carbon stored in permafrost, and indicates that carbon dioxide emissions from microbial decomposition of organic carbon in thawing permafrost could amount to roughly half those resulting from global land-use change during this century.

Cited study:

Edward A. G. Schuur et al. Vulnerability of Permafrost Carbon to Climate Change: Implications for the Global Carbon Cycle. BioScience, September 2008 / Vol. 58 No. 8

[masalai]

If you have a lisp it is rude to spell with a lisp - what sort of saw is being used to saw the permafrost?

[Jimbo1490]

Note that the erstwhile Thomas has clipped out the following sentence, :

"The absolute numbers differ between the UI and NSIDC plots because UI is calculating ice area, while NSIDC is calculating ice extent, two different but related indicators of the state of the ice cover. However, both yield a consistent change between Aug. 12, 2007 and Aug. 11, 2008 – about a 10% increase." (italic mine)

After all, the same fellow said it and it was the conclusion he was expecting the reader to draw. And it just happened to fall right between the first and the second sentence in your C & P. Was this just sloppiness, ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead on your part? A 10 % INCREASE in sea ice doesn't sound too scary, now does it?

Jimbo

[masalai]

Statistically insignificant? (one sentence as opposed to lots?)

[safewalrus]

Originally Posted by bntii

"Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season."

Oh! Ain't that what the 'summer melt season' is for? melting ice

[masalai]

Yes numpty, but no ice is melting to fill it up 'cause there ain't none to melt and caviare is kaputnik

[bntii]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

See this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08...c_ice_mystery/

You must read the entire article, and when you do you will begin to admire the sheer cleverness and wile of the ********ters; these are neither simple lies nor sloppy science or even innocent misunderstandings, but rather well thought-out deceptions designed to beguile the skimmers and scanners of scientific data.....
Jimbo

"The author asserts that NSIDC's estimate of a 10% increase in sea ice compared to the same time as last year is wrong. Mr. Goddard does his own analysis, based on images from the University of Illinois' Cryosphere Today web site, and comes up with a number of ~30%, three times larger than NSIDC's estimate. He appears to derive his estimate by simply counting pixels in an image. He recognizes that this results in an error due to the distortion by the map projection, but does so anyway. Such an approach is simply not valid."

"Besides this significant error, the rest of the article consists almost entirely of misleading, irrelevant, or erroneous information about Arctic sea ice that add nothing to the understanding of the significant long-term decline that is being observed."

As stated above your authors position is weak- his deception is calling a 10% increase 30%.
His apparent point being that there is not change in arctic sea ice. I believe he is even trying to present:

"Look everyone- the ice is 30% thicker than last year- the 'scientists' are full of it."

Even this false claim is meaningless, as the trend of decline in sea ice ameliorates even a 30% increase from the record low of 2007.

Your statement quoted above has a certain irony, no?

BTW- look at my post again-

The correct assertion by NSIDC's scientists about a 10% increase is in the very first sentence I cited.

Look at the data- a 10% increase is from the record low of 2007 and does not in fact reflect any increase at all. The sea ice is in decline- a fully documented trend.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....1900-2007.jpg

[juiceclark]

In 2012, our solar system will pass through the median plane of the Universe as it does about every 25,000 years. Some speculate that is when the Earth experiences polarity shifts. Others say otherwise. But there are SO many interesting things to discuss and study at this time, shouldn't we look away from the contrived bogeyman of AGW for awhile?

Here's some things to contemplate whilst forming your next silly AGW argument: A thousand years ago, the Mayans said the sun would become very quiet just before becoming very active. They wrote the high level of solar activity around 2012 would create horrific hardship and death on Earth. Small coincidence, the sun is totally devoid of spot right activity now and NASA is predicting bad solar storms at the peak of the 11 year cycle in 2012.
Now -
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com...l-quiet-alert/

"Cycle 24", as scientists call it, may do more than knock out satellites, cell phones and other communication during its active phase. Can someone discuss something REAL, like this, instead of the goofy money and power grab by America's lawyer party via carbon taxes and other BS?

http://www.solarcycle24.com/

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com...n-of-cycle-24/

[juiceclark]

Here's a bit more if you'd like:

... It also heats the Earth's outer atmosphere so that spacecraft are exposed to more atmospheric drag and to greater erosion by atomic oxygen.

We even have tantalizing hints that the Earth's climate may be linked to sunspots. The "Little Ice Age" corresponded with a 70-year period, 1645-1715, when sunspots were sparse in number, the Maunder minimum. Also, there are strong statistical associations linking current trends in climate (surface temperatures) to trends in solar activity, as outlined in another paper by Wilson for the Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres).

Still, with almost 250 years of observations - of which only the last 150 years are considered truly reliable- predictions are akin to the Farmer's Almanac, Hathaway said.

"There's no real physics involved," he explained. "It's all statistical inferences."

This is from 10 years ago - buried by AGW nuts:
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome...t13apr98_1.htm

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by safewalrus

and when we do cut out all this CO2 what are your really 'green' things (the plants and trees) going to breath?

and if we want to destroy all industrial life why not do the job properly - with a sodding great Atom Bomb?

end of world, QED

Safie, the plants need light to use CO2 to convert to O2 aand... hmmm.... Gottathink there..... But in night time, plants are only slightly better than us again....

Bomb?
"If there's gonna be a war, it will be a short interesting one, which starts on tuesday, and ends on thursday, so that we all can go home for the weekend..." (freely quoted from Herodes Falsk).

btw.... I thought I had explained the sea temperature, rising pretty clearly over the last decades, and the amount of energy needed to do that....is frightening. There's far to many scientists agreeing to that fact, that it can be said to be an untrue statement (the fact that so many scientists can agree to something, should in itself be a disturbing thing...).

Well; the reason for the rise in the sea temperature...? Ok, water need an input of energy for the temperature to rise, no Einstein is needed to see that fact, try to make your coffee without.... Can be normal variations, can be our own act? at least partly? Should we suspect that we do have a possibility to put our mark on the weather (tiny or not?), would it then sound like a safe (as in "a little more safe") idea to try to reduce the added affect our way of living may cause on ehh... exactly our way of living...?

Increased seatemperatures will give more evaporation, more evaporation, will give more winds, more winds will...... Well some folks out there really enjoy weather like "Gustav".... It's us whimps and pussys that should be worried, not these........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z12pEG2aAeA

[the1much]

FREAKS!!! hehe