Ice

[kallend 1,672]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10900235

nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,463]

Tow that thing over to LA. It will get it out of the way and they can use the water.

[mnealtx 0]

From your own link:
"Cool, stormy weather this July has made it less likely that the upcoming 2010 sea ice minimum will set a new record. It would take a very unusual set of conditions in August to create a new record low."

I also note that the ice is back above the 2007 line - so you're really saying that ice conditions are BETTER than the last time you posted about it in May, then?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

From your own link:
"Cool, stormy weather this July has made it less likely that the upcoming 2010 sea ice minimum will set a new record. It would take a very unusual set of conditions in August to create a new record low."

I also note that the ice is back above the 2007 line - so you're really saying that ice conditions are BETTER than the last time you posted about it in May, then?

If it soothes your conscience to think that. We know the Earth started cooling in 1998, after all; rushmc told us.

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/28/global-temperatures-2010-record

Messenger shooting anticipated.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/...eratures-2010-record

I have a quote for you: "Weather isn't climate"

Unless it's WARM weather, of course, then it's proof of AGW!!!

As of last year, 948 surface temperature stations in North America have been surveyed. Of those, 863 of them have siting issues resulting in measurement errors of more than 1 degree C.

Here's another quote: "Garbage in, garbage out"

Quote

Messenger shooting anticipated.

Whining confirmed.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/...eratures-2010-record

I have a quote for you: "Weather isn't climate"

Unless it's WARM weather, of course, then it's proof of AGW!!!

As of last year, 948 surface temperature stations in North America have been surveyed. Of those, 863 of them have siting issues resulting in measurement errors of more than 1 degree C.

Here's another quote: "Garbage in, garbage out"

Quote

Messenger shooting anticipated.

Whining confirmed.

1. North America isn't the Earth.

2. Learn statistics (you have confessed ignorance previously and nothing you've ever posted suggests you've remedied that).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

[. North America isn't the Earth.

Quote

That'll come as a big surprise to a lot of folks - it's all they know ... or care about

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

[. North America isn't the Earth.

Quote

That'll come as a big surprise to a lot of folks - it's all they know ... or care about

The middle part between Canukian land and Messico - You know, where Kallend Lives . . . is all that ever SHOULD matter.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[hwt 0]

Here is an article from January 2010.
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013. sorry to rain on your parade Kallend.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0vxjNpmGo

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

Here is an article from January 2010.
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013. sorry to rain on your parade Kallend.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0vxjNpmGo

The Daily Mail makes predictions of the future on a regular basis. I suspect they may be even more accurate than its prediction of the climate in 2013.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[hwt 0]

Quote

Quote

Here is an article from January 2010.
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013. sorry to rain on your parade Kallend.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0vxjNpmGo

The Daily Mail makes predictions of the future on a regular basis. I suspect they may be even more accurate than its prediction of the climate in 2013.

____________________________________________
they weren't the ones to make that prediction.
The National geographic did.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Here is an article from January 2010.
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013. sorry to rain on your parade Kallend.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0vxjNpmGo

The Daily Mail makes predictions of the future on a regular basis. I suspect they may be even more accurate than its prediction of the climate in 2013.

____________________________________________
they weren't the ones to make that prediction.
The National geographic did.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html

I'll see your National Geographic prediction and raise you a NOAA measurement.

news.discovery.com/earth/heat-record-climate-change.html

And Arctic sea ice continues to decline at 6.4% per decade, MEASURED.

And we just saw the largest iceberg break off Greenland since 1962.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

A few things....
(1) Glaciers don't cleave if they are receding because they'll melt before they have the chance.
(2) The old ice that melted was formed in 2005 or later. Winds pushed it to warmer water. This is why Arctic ice (which floats) is so dependent on wind.
(3) Along with it, this old ice melting means it's being formed in other places. Sure, more people are dying now globally than died in 1900. But more people are being born.
(4) The Arctic climate is as localized as North America. To point to occurrences in the Arctic while minimizing the relevance of events in North America is disingenuous.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

We're in an El Nino year. Abnormal warmth was predicted and expected. 1.22 degrees FAJRENHEIT over the 20th century average seems to put it below the expected and predicted temperature growth. We should be seeing in excess of .20 degree C per decade. We're seeing less than .2 Fahrenheit per decade.

Which supports the notion that the earth is warming but such warming will be modest since 1860. A high rate of temperature change happens with an ENSO event.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/...eratures-2010-record

I have a quote for you: "Weather isn't climate"

Unless it's WARM weather, of course, then it's proof of AGW!!!

As of last year, 948 surface temperature stations in North America have been surveyed. Of those, 863 of them have siting issues resulting in measurement errors of more than 1 degree C.

Here's another quote: "Garbage in, garbage out"

Quote

Messenger shooting anticipated.

Whining confirmed.

The siting issue has been studied
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
When you look at the data trend for the unadjusted data from the sites, the poorly sited stations (biased high) show less warming than the well sited station. When the data are adjusted to correct for siting differences, there is little difference between stations.

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

Quote

Here is an article from January 2010.
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013. sorry to rain on your parade Kallend.

The eminent climate scientist quoted in the article takes issue with the spin put on his words:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif

1) he refers to natural variability due to ocean effects superimposed on a warming trend

2) the "decades" he refers to are 2000-2010 and 2005-2015 and are compared to the decade from 1994-2004, which is the decade centered on the warmest year on record (i.e the effect has 5 years left to run)

3) he states that his work does not challenge the predicted long term trend

[lawrocket 3]

There is much debate over prediction of near-term climate change. Hadley Center has attempted (in very public ways, as is Hadley's hallmark) to make predictions over the near term. Many believe it is foolish at this point. Others see some scientific merit. I see it as merited because they can see what went right and wrong, etc., and get a better understanding for each iteration.

In that sense, I see near-term climate prediction advancing much more rapidly because a climate prediction is a hypothesis. With GCM we still have 80 years left on many of these experiments to validate the hypotheses. By the time just one iteration of long-term climate prediction experiment occurs there can be ten iterations of near-term climate prediction.

That being said - the near term predictions I find no less valid that long-term. We don't know if the long-term models are valid until 2080 at least. No, near term lack of warming does not cancel out long-term warming. But - level of warming will be less in the long-run (models don't predict there to be a rebound effect).

So this guy's words were spun. Yes. To suggest that a 30 year pause in warming won't have any effect on the level of warming in 80 years is folly under our present understanding.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,463]

>To suggest that a 30 year pause in warming won't have any effect on the \
>level of warming in 80 years is folly under our present understanding.

I agree; but then again, it's folly to claim that _any_ change in the near future climate will not have an effect in the longer term future. Consider what someone in the 1970's might have said about climate change (see graph below.) If he had predicted "the current cooling trend will affect future climates" he'd be correct. If he'd predicted "the current cooling trend means that we won't return to warming for many decades" he would have been wrong.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.guardian.co.uk/...eratures-2010-record

I have a quote for you: "Weather isn't climate"

Unless it's WARM weather, of course, then it's proof of AGW!!!

As of last year, 948 surface temperature stations in North America have been surveyed. Of those, 863 of them have siting issues resulting in measurement errors of more than 1 degree C.

Here's another quote: "Garbage in, garbage out"

Quote

Messenger shooting anticipated.

Whining confirmed.

1. North America isn't the Earth.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Unfortunately (for you), however, both NOAA and GISS (those stalwart defenders of AGW noted in your article) use the USHCN information as part of their data - said data being, as shown, NON-reliable.

GHCN stations have decreased from a high of over 12000 to around 5000. Of course, many of these have the same siting issues as USHCN stations.

Then there's the 'massaging' of the data - amazing how the 30's keep getting cooler and cooler the more that Hansen and his crew keep 'adding value' to the data, not to mention pulling rural stations UP to meet urban stations rather than the reverse.

And on top of that, even WITH the CO2 level rising every year, the temperature anomaly is falling.

I say again - "Garbage in, garbage out."

Quote

2. Learn statistics (you have confessed ignorance previously and nothing you've ever posted suggests you've remedied that).

Shooting the messenger, perfesser, after all your whining about it in the other thread? How (typically) hypocritical of you.

So, given your expertise in statistics, why don't you explain to us how you can accurately say there's been 1 degree C of warming when the gross majority of the measuring stations have measurement errors of 1 degree C or more?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[turtlespeed 212]

So basically, with a lot of up and down and up and down, the fluxuations have now been determined to have returned to zero . . . OK

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

Quote

2. Learn statistics (you have confessed ignorance previously and nothing you've ever posted suggests you've remedied that).

Shooting the messenger, perfesser, after all your whining about it in the other thread? How (typically) hypocritical of you.

When the messenger has already admitted to having no credibility in that subject, then the message is indeed suspect.

Quote

So, given your expertise in statistics, why don't you explain to us how you can accurately say there's been 1 degree C of warming when the gross majority of the measuring stations have measurement errors of 1 degree C or more?

www.experiment-resources.com/random-error.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

2. Learn statistics (you have confessed ignorance previously and nothing you've ever posted suggests you've remedied that).

Shooting the messenger, perfesser, after all your whining about it in the other thread? How (typically) hypocritical of you.

When the messenger has already admitted to having no credibility in that subject, then the message is indeed suspect.

So, you're claiming to be an expert on politics and the economy, as well? Wow .... John Kallend, ladies and gentlemen - is there ANYTHING he doesn't think he's an expert on?

I don't have to know run the statistical proofs myself to determine if the numbers make sense or not - sorry.

Quote

Quote

So, given your expertise in statistics, why don't you explain to us how you can accurately say there's been 1 degree C of warming when the gross majority of the measuring stations have measurement errors of 1 degree C or more?

www.experiment-resources.com/random-error.html

Now, you just have to prove that the siting errors produce random errors in the measurements - so far, the errors all seem to bias toward 'warm' rather than cold.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

2. Learn statistics (you have confessed ignorance previously and nothing you've ever posted suggests you've remedied that).

Shooting the messenger, perfesser, after all your whining about it in the other thread? How (typically) hypocritical of you.

When the messenger has already admitted to having no credibility in that subject, then the message is indeed suspect.

So, you're claiming to be an expert on politics and the economy, as well? Wow .... John Kallend, ladies and gentlemen - is there ANYTHING he doesn't think he's an expert on?

I don't have to know run the statistical proofs myself to determine if the numbers make sense or not - sorry.

Quote

Quote

So, given your expertise in statistics, why don't you explain to us how you can accurately say there's been 1 degree C of warming when the gross majority of the measuring stations have measurement errors of 1 degree C or more?

www.experiment-resources.com/random-error.html

Now, you just have to prove that the siting errors produce random errors in the measurements - so far, the errors all seem to bias toward 'warm' rather than cold.

Known systematic errors are trivial to correct.

You really ought to learn something about the things you pontificate about.

Next.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

2. Learn statistics (you have confessed ignorance previously and nothing you've ever posted suggests you've remedied that).

Shooting the messenger, perfesser, after all your whining about it in the other thread? How (typically) hypocritical of you.

When the messenger has already admitted to having no credibility in that subject, then the message is indeed suspect.

So, you're claiming to be an expert on politics and the economy, as well? Wow .... John Kallend, ladies and gentlemen - is there ANYTHING he doesn't think he's an expert on?

I don't have to know run the statistical proofs myself to determine if the numbers make sense or not - sorry.

Quote

Quote

So, given your expertise in statistics, why don't you explain to us how you can accurately say there's been 1 degree C of warming when the gross majority of the measuring stations have measurement errors of 1 degree C or more?

www.experiment-resources.com/random-error.html

Now, you just have to prove that the siting errors produce random errors in the measurements - so far, the errors all seem to bias toward 'warm' rather than cold.

Known systematic errors are trivial to correct.

Darwin Zero - converted from a -0.7C/century trend to a +1.2C/century trend.

That's some 'trivial correction', all right!

Quote

You really ought to learn something about the things you pontificate about.

Bet I've done more reading on the subject recently than you have, John.

Quote

Next.

Like usual - you can't refute the ice data.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,672]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

2. Learn statistics (you have confessed ignorance previously and nothing you've ever posted suggests you've remedied that).

Shooting the messenger, perfesser, after all your whining about it in the other thread? How (typically) hypocritical of you.

When the messenger has already admitted to having no credibility in that subject, then the message is indeed suspect.

So, you're claiming to be an expert on politics and the economy, as well? Wow .... John Kallend, ladies and gentlemen - is there ANYTHING he doesn't think he's an expert on?

I don't have to know run the statistical proofs myself to determine if the numbers make sense or not - sorry.

Quote

Quote

So, given your expertise in statistics, why don't you explain to us how you can accurately say there's been 1 degree C of warming when the gross majority of the measuring stations have measurement errors of 1 degree C or more?

www.experiment-resources.com/random-error.html

Now, you just have to prove that the siting errors produce random errors in the measurements - so far, the errors all seem to bias toward 'warm' rather than cold.

Known systematic errors are trivial to correct.

Darwin Zero - converted from a -0.7C/century trend to a +1.2C/century trend.

That's some 'trivial correction', all right!

.

So now you can't tell the difference between the infinitive of a verb, and a noun.

Try again.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.