What Do We Think About Climate Change

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

"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/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg

 

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/2007/10/15/all-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/2008/03/15/sun-still-blank-no-sign-of-cycle-24/

 

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/headlines/ast13apr98_1.htm

 

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

 

FREAKS!!! hehe

 

Well, hell, when you get a perfect surf you just got to use it!

'You want to surf or fight soldier' springs to mind!

what? " Charlie don't surf"

 

These news have to do with both the purpose of this thread and boats:

Ghost ship fleet could be a silver lining in clouds of climate change

"The concept involves vessels powered by a radical rotary-sail technology that could patrol selected areas of ocean, spraying tiny droplets of seawater into existing clouds. The droplets increase the surface area and so whiten the cloud, bouncing more radiation back into space and offsetting the warming caused by burning fossil fuels."

So, Flettner rotors are again in the news. See also: http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=24081

Cheers.

 

Thomas,

Actually glacial retreat IS a well-established trend, but even here, the details of the trend do not support the case presented by the AGW alarmists. The problem for the AGW alarmists is that glaciers have been in retreat since about the year 1850. Anthropogenic CO2 (climatologically significant) started around 1950. So unless some miracle of time travel could have transported mid 20th century CO2 back to the mid 19th century, then anthropogenic CO2 could not be the cause for this ~150 year old trend.

See my post #743 on this thread.

It's just another case of the AGW alarmists playing fast and loose with the facts to make things look scary. You'll often hear them say "Since the industrial revolution, the atmosphere has been warming, therefore...." implying that the industrial revolution coincided with anthropogenic CO2 releases, when we know this is not the case. So when they say stuff like this, who do YOU think their audience is? Scientists? No way; they know better. It's the general public who they know will not dig deeper and find that the details are wrong and that makes the whole thing false.



Jimbo

 

Will the Real Slim Shady Please Stand Up? Re-Mix.
by Steve McIntyre on September 12th, 2008

"There's an amusing little incident with the deleted "original" data set that was posted up for a few minutes at Mann's website - you know, the data set that was first demonstrably referenced by a CA reader in the early morning of Sep 5. (I'll reserve comment for now on issues relating to the timestamp of this data set and the Gavin Schmidt hyperlink to it, presently pointing to a data version that did not exist at the time that the hyperlink was supposedly created.)

Within a day, on the afternoon of Sep 5, the data set was deleted and replaced with another data set, again without notice, in a bewildering concatenation of replacements that is reminiscent of our experience with the Hansen's GISS data almost a year to the day ago. However, both myself and others took the precaution of downloading the Sep 4 version as soon as we saw it - just in case it disappeared. Not an imprudent precaution, given its almost immediate deletion.

I've now had an opportunity to forage through the deleted version. The deleted data had 1357 series, from which 148 series were deleted to yield the 1209 series that now appear in the "original" data. But surely the 1357 series is "more" original than the 1209 series? What criteria were used to winnow out the 148 removed series? Inquiring minds want to know. There's not a whisper on this topic in the paper or in the SI and, of course, all traces of the 148 series were ruthlessly scrubbed from Mann's website."



Read the rest here.

When you see the temp recon plot from the missing data sets, it's perfectly obvious WHY they were deleted; they're not very scary

Again the question arises: if the case for AGW is such a slam-dunk, then WHY ALL THE ********??

Jimbo

 

these guys arent going to be listening to any logical scientifically based arguments my friend
the essence of intelligence lies within a desire to find what is correct
finding, admitting and correcting error along the way
I think that horse you were referring to some one having in this race, is named ego
and its getting rode hard on this one

if you look back through this mess you will see that I had tried the scientific and logic approach much like yourself including graphs, reviewed articles, preponderance of evidence, the empirical method. Some people simply prefer to pick a belief, any belief, and go with it, doesn't seem to mater if it has any validity.

if 100 scientists independently come to a conclusion
and number 101, working for an interested party, comes to a different conclusion
there are always going to be those choice few who jump on 101's band wagon
and there will be no convincing them otherwise
belief, in the end, is a choice for some, kinda like religion
and not a logical conclusion

seems the overwhelming evidence to support the theory of rapid global climate change and that it can, and is being induced artificially by human activity is just a little to much for some folks
heads go in the sand
fingers in ears
la la la la la la la
is what there arguments amount to
so best of luck to you turning on any light bulbs for em
if you read back through this thing
Ive already pointed out much of what you are saying in no uncertain terms
they didn't get it then
there not likely to now
cheers
B

oh
you should take a look at the latest ice data
grim grim and more grim
the trophic cascade has begun and if those heads dont come out of the sand fast
they might as well bend all the way round and kiss there asses good bye