kallend 1,625 #51 September 25, 2012 QuoteQuote>From NOAA Yes, you are demonstrating my point once again. Any data that supports your point is defended no matter what it says; any data that does not support it is nitpicked any way you can. How about this data, again from NASA so it must be true. "Reuters news service filed a September 21 report based on NASA's video admission titled: “NASA says Arctic cyclone played 'key role' in record ice melt.” The news segment details how the Arctic sea ice was reduced due to “a powerful cyclone that scientists say 'wreaked havoc' on ice cover during the month of August.” (Reuters on “Arctic Cyclone” -- 0:47 second long segment -- Rob Muir reporting.) " So you're saying that the atmospheric conditions in the Arctic are becoming quite different from the way they used to be.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #52 September 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote>From NOAA Yes, you are demonstrating my point once again. Any data that supports your point is defended no matter what it says; any data that does not support it is nitpicked any way you can. How about this data, again from NASA so it must be true. "Reuters news service filed a September 21 report based on NASA's video admission titled: “NASA says Arctic cyclone played 'key role' in record ice melt.” The news segment details how the Arctic sea ice was reduced due to “a powerful cyclone that scientists say 'wreaked havoc' on ice cover during the month of August.” (Reuters on “Arctic Cyclone” -- 0:47 second long segment -- Rob Muir reporting.) " So you're saying that the atmospheric conditions in the Arctic are becoming quite different from the way they used to be. Exactly, just like the atmospheric conditions in State College, are quite different today than they were one week ago. Must be global warming. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #53 September 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>From NOAA Yes, you are demonstrating my point once again. Any data that supports your point is defended no matter what it says; any data that does not support it is nitpicked any way you can. How about this data, again from NASA so it must be true. "Reuters news service filed a September 21 report based on NASA's video admission titled: “NASA says Arctic cyclone played 'key role' in record ice melt.” The news segment details how the Arctic sea ice was reduced due to “a powerful cyclone that scientists say 'wreaked havoc' on ice cover during the month of August.” (Reuters on “Arctic Cyclone” -- 0:47 second long segment -- Rob Muir reporting.) " So you're saying that the atmospheric conditions in the Arctic are becoming quite different from the way they used to be. Exactly, just like the atmospheric conditions in State College, are quite different today than they were one week ago. Must be global warming. No, that's "weather". There is a difference.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #54 September 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>From NOAA Yes, you are demonstrating my point once again. Any data that supports your point is defended no matter what it says; any data that does not support it is nitpicked any way you can. How about this data, again from NASA so it must be true. "Reuters news service filed a September 21 report based on NASA's video admission titled: “NASA says Arctic cyclone played 'key role' in record ice melt.” The news segment details how the Arctic sea ice was reduced due to “a powerful cyclone that scientists say 'wreaked havoc' on ice cover during the month of August.” (Reuters on “Arctic Cyclone” -- 0:47 second long segment -- Rob Muir reporting.) " So you're saying that the atmospheric conditions in the Arctic are becoming quite different from the way they used to be. Exactly, just like the atmospheric conditions in State College, are quite different today than they were one week ago. Must be global warming. No, that's "weather". There is a difference. Last time I checked storm = weather event. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #55 September 26, 2012 >Last time I checked storm = weather event. Correct! But 1 storm does not equal decades of downward trends. That's because weather does not equal climate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #56 September 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote>From NOAA Yes, you are demonstrating my point once again. Any data that supports your point is defended no matter what it says; any data that does not support it is nitpicked any way you can. How about this data, again from NASA so it must be true. "Reuters news service filed a September 21 report based on NASA's video admission titled: “NASA says Arctic cyclone played 'key role' in record ice melt.” The news segment details how the Arctic sea ice was reduced due to “a powerful cyclone that scientists say 'wreaked havoc' on ice cover during the month of August.” (Reuters on “Arctic Cyclone” -- 0:47 second long segment -- Rob Muir reporting.) " So you're saying that the atmospheric conditions in the Arctic are becoming quite different from the way they used to be. Exactly, just like the atmospheric conditions in State College, are quite different today than they were one week ago. Must be global warming. No, that's "weather". There is a difference. Last time I checked storm = weather event. So you're saying a storm lasting 7 weeks (the amount of time the ice this year so far has been below any previous year's extent for the same date) is just business as usual?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #57 September 26, 2012 Quote>Last time I checked storm = weather event. Correct! But 1 storm does not equal decades of downward trends. That's because weather does not equal climate. Sorry I thought the thread was about: "27 August 2012 Media Advisory: Arctic sea ice breaks lowest extent on record" So, if a storm was the cause of the low ice extent,(and according to NASA it was) and a storm is a form of weather, then weather, not climate caused the low ice extent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #58 September 26, 2012 >So, if a storm was the cause of the low ice extent,(and according to NASA it >was) and a storm is a form of weather, then weather, not climate caused >the low ice extent. I guess if you feel that the lack of ice going into the season has nothing to do with the ice level at the end of the season, and that if a steady history of lower and lower ice extents every year has nothing to do with this year's ice extents, that reasoning might make sense. But to most reasonable people - probably not. There's really no future in Type I denial (i.e. "the climate isn't changing!") Too many people are seeing it firsthand. Here's a recent comment from someone living in the Yukon: ==================== The changes happening in the north Yukon were first brought to the attention of the Yukon Fish and Wildlife Management Board in 1989 if my memory serves. The elders of Old Crow were concerned by the observation that the muskrat swamps were drying up, the rivers and waterways were not freezing as early in the fall and the Porcupine Caribou herd was changing it's traditional migration route. They are people who live largely off the land and these changes were very seriously affecting them for most of their food and livelihood comes directly from nature. The people of traditional knowledge observed rapid and dramatic change that their oral history had never encountered before and they came to ask the scientists if they knew why this was happening and science, at that time, had no ready answers. In fact, they were not monitoring the north as closely as the people who lived there. Global weather change and technological change both taking place at a feverish pace. It is most disconcerting, for a fact. =================== Anyone telling them "it's your imagination, you loser liberal" is going to be laughed out of town. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #59 September 26, 2012 QuoteQuote>Last time I checked storm = weather event. Correct! But 1 storm does not equal decades of downward trends. That's because weather does not equal climate. Sorry I thought the thread was about: "27 August 2012 Media Advisory: Arctic sea ice breaks lowest extent on record" So, if a storm was the cause of the low ice extent,(and according to NASA it was) and a storm is a form of weather, then weather, not climate caused the low ice extent. There's a word for long term weather patterns. The word is "climate". And when weather patterns change over the long term, you have "climate change". Simple, really. Even a Texan could understand it if he weren't in deep denial.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #60 September 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote>Last time I checked storm = weather event. Correct! But 1 storm does not equal decades of downward trends. That's because weather does not equal climate. Sorry I thought the thread was about: "27 August 2012 Media Advisory: Arctic sea ice breaks lowest extent on record" So, if a storm was the cause of the low ice extent,(and according to NASA it was) and a storm is a form of weather, then weather, not climate caused the low ice extent. There's a word for long term weather patterns. The word is "climate". And when weather patterns change over the long term, you have "climate change". Simple, really. Even a Texan could understand it if he weren't in deep denial. You are conflating weather (like the storm that broke up the Arctic sea ice and the topic of your thread) with long term weather patterns (such as the naturally occurring la Nina and El Niño). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #61 September 26, 2012 Quote So you're saying a storm lasting 7 weeks (the amount of time the ice this year so far has been below any previous year's extent for the same date) is just business as usual? This from the guy who is talking about a month or two trend making "hottest summer in the US" since the 1930s. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #62 September 26, 2012 Quote Quote So you're saying a storm lasting 7 weeks (the amount of time the ice this year so far has been below any previous year's extent for the same date) is just business as usual? This from the guy who is talking about a month or two trend making "hottest summer in the US" since the 1930s. One "STORM" does not make a summer. Doesn't it occur to you that it may be more than coincidence that this so-called "storm" just happens to be consistent with a very clear decades-long trend in atmospheric change in the Arctic?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 383 #63 September 26, 2012 Quote Quote Quote So you're saying a storm lasting 7 weeks (the amount of time the ice this year so far has been below any previous year's extent for the same date) is just business as usual? This from the guy who is talking about a month or two trend making "hottest summer in the US" since the 1930s. One "STORM" does not make a summer. Doesn't it occur to you that it may be more than coincidence that this so-called "storm" just happens to be consistent with a very clear decades-long trend in atmospheric change in the Arctic? Hey this might make you feel less bad. [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/"> Quote Quote Quote So you're saying a storm lasting 7 weeks (the amount of time the ice this year so far has been below any previous year's extent for the same date) is just business as usual? This from the guy who is talking about a month or two trend making "hottest summer in the US" since the 1930s. One "STORM" does not make a summer. Doesn't it occur to you that it may be more than coincidence that this so-called "storm" just happens to be consistent with a very clear decades-long trend in atmospheric change in the Arctic? Hey this might make you feel less bad. [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/ This might make you feel better! http://bobmckerrow.blogspot.com/2008/10/ice-is-canary-in-coal-mine-for-global.html Remember when the "canary in the coal mine" was the antarctic? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #64 September 26, 2012 QuoteOne "STORM" does not make a summer. Tell that to Louisiana. Hell, tell that to alarmists who point to every tornado, blizzard, or rainfall as proof of extreme weather. Sweet Jesus, it's a wonder we're still alive. QuoteDoesn't it occur to you that it may be more than coincidence that this so-called "storm" just happens to be consistent with a very clear decades-long trend in atmospheric change in the Arctic? Yes, I think that when looking at a "decades-long" time period that one storm, indeed, can be considered coincidental. This was a storm rivaling the "Perfect Storm" in 1991 - another coincidence during the decades-long time period. And when a hurricane hits New England again, it will also be coincidental, just like the one in 1938 that hit as a category 3. Indeed, it's coincidental (i.e., not related to global warming) that we just had the first hurricane in four years hit US shores - the longest period recorded (note: "recorded" doesn't mean it hasn't happened before, we just didn't know about them). Quoteatmospheric change in the Arctic? Yep. Decades-long trend. Where will it be in 2030, John? I'll bring up oscillations again, which have not been ruled out (and incidentally CANNOT be ruled out right now - it'll take a while). I don’t like attribution. Attribution is ad hoc reasoning. A storm happened. Think the decades-long change in the Arctic isn’t responsible. Ad hoc reasoning has been the recent public face of climate change. Twenty years ago, we were told that snow would be a thing of the past by 2010. Ooops. The predictions were nor borne out (and scientifically, that’s not good when predictions are tested and don’t work). Polar amplification has been predicted. Ooops. Check out Antarctica. Didn’t see that coming. “Well, we failed to account for the effects of the ozone hole.” Post hoc reasoning that leads to the question that SHOULD be inevitable – “What else didn’t you account for? The ozone hole was climate crisis of the 1980’s. And you didn’t think about it? What about the less understood factors?” So the public face of climate change has shifted to ad hoc attribution. This leads to fine rhetoric that is even more susceptible to evidence and other discoveries undermining the belief. Ad hoc attribution says, “We will see an effect and give it a cause. We will then shift the null hypothesis to ‘we are right until proven wrong. We can’t be proven wrong.” It’s scientific puffery. Did you predict low Arctic ice extent? Yes. Did you predict this mechanism? No. Why not? Don’t have to. Everyone knows this doesn’t happen in absence of AGW. I’m ignorant. I identify the boundaries between known and unknown. But there is no shame in not knowing. Irrational thought and subjective spin to fit individual world views are filling the vacuum of knowledge. Because now people are ashamed not to have the answers. Instead of saying, “We don’t know what will happen” they end up saying, “Sea levels may increase 5 feet by 2100.” “May increase” is another way of saying, “I don’t know.” Find an unqualified prediction. You won’t. Tell me, John – what is wrong with saying, “We don’t know?” Really – is there a problem with that? You are a scientist and I have as much personal and intellectual respect for you as anybody I’ve met or haven’t. (And for those of you out there, kallend is a gentleman in every sense of the word and is as generous as they come. Yes, I like him a lot). But as a scientist, is there anything bad about not knowing? No. Not knowing is why scientists have jobs. Scientists exists on the boundary between known and unknown. They exist on the boundary of “what we think we know and what we don’t.” Scientific inquiry should not stop because a reasonable explanation has apparently been found (I re-read "A Brief History of Time" a few weeks ago and I'm amazed at how much in it is now obsolete in our understanding of the fundamental laws of physics. These same fundamental laws were programmed as code in GCMs of the 1990s and 2000s. Yes, physics is pretty important in climatology). “I don’t know” seems to be something that in modern times is viewed as unacceptable. I understand that the public demands conclusive explanations and the climate science community is hardcore in enabling them to go without hesitation to statements of certainty through their own ignorance. I know I’m ignorant. I know that I don’t have the answers. I do have questions that I cannot answer and nobody else can answer them, either. These questions cannot be answered. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #65 August 14, 2013 kallendQuoteAntarctic Sea Ice extent has never been as much on this date. How is the MASS of Antarctic ice doing?? Here John I will bet you can twist this QuoteThe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released its “State of the Climate in 2012” report, which states that “worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record.” But the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin. “To no one’s surprise, the report gives the reader the impression that warming is galloping ahead out of control,” writes Gosselin. “But their data shows just the opposite.” http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/what-global-warming-2012-data-confirms-earth-cooling-trend"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #66 August 14, 2013 rushmc***QuoteAntarctic Sea Ice extent has never been as much on this date. How is the MASS of Antarctic ice doing?? Here John I will bet you can twist this QuoteThe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released its “State of the Climate in 2012” report, which states that “worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record.” But the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin. “To no one’s surprise, the report gives the reader the impression that warming is galloping ahead out of control,” writes Gosselin. “But their data shows just the opposite.” http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/what-global-warming-2012-data-confirms-earth-cooling-trend Go read a book on regression analysis and report back when you know something about the subject.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #67 August 14, 2013 kallend ****** Quote Antarctic Sea Ice extent has never been as much on this date. How is the MASS of Antarctic ice doing?? Here John I will bet you can twist this Quote The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released its “State of the Climate in 2012” report, which states that “worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record.” But the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin. “To no one’s surprise, the report gives the reader the impression that warming is galloping ahead out of control,” writes Gosselin. “But their data shows just the opposite.” http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/what-global-warming-2012-data-confirms-earth-cooling-trend Go read a book on regression analysis and report back when you know something about the subject. right on que http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqVFJNcQ4X0"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lummy 4 #68 August 14, 2013 Who's doing the twisiting here? There's these little parts your article failed to mention from the NOAA report. QuoteAll of the top ten warmest years in the record have occurred since the last major El Niño event, in 1998 and Quote Since 1976, every year including 2012 has had an annual temperature above the long-term average. Including the 2012 temperature, the rate of warming is 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade since 1880 and a more rapid 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970, according to the 2012 annual report from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. so 2012 was one of the top 10 warmest years on record but is on the lower end of the hottest on record in the last decade. And that somehow confirms that there is no global warming?I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #69 August 14, 2013 QuoteBut the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin. “To no one’s surprise, the report gives the reader the impression that warming is galloping ahead out of control,” writes Gosselin. “But their data shows just the opposite.” -"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #70 August 14, 2013 Also, in the artilce I linked QuoteNOAA also reported that the “average lower strastospheric temperature, about six to ten miles above the Earth’s surface, for 2012 was record or near-record cold, depending on the dataset” even while the concentrations of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, continued to increase. "Even with all this data manipulation, the trend is down as shown by this Hadley global plot," writes Joseph D'Aleo, former director of meteorology at The Weather Channel. (See D'Aleo - Real Story About Temps.pdf) "Last year was the 8th warmest but 7th coldest since 1998. They explain it away with the predominance of La Ninas or a solar blip, but say it was the warmest decade nonetheless, so stop questioning us," he said. On August 7th, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten quoted Irish solar expert Ian Elliott predicting that lower levels of sunspot activity over the next few years “indicates that we may be on the path to a new little ice age.” “If you think scientists just couldn’t get any more incompetent, then think again. NOAA scientists even appear to believe that cold events are now signs of warming,” Gosselin points out. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #71 August 14, 2013 It's been a good year to be Arctic sea ice. Ice extent is at least 50% higher today than it was a year ago. The new ice is showing a youthful exuberance. There is a crew of 4 people who decided to row the NW Passage. One described it as the "worst" ice seen here in a decade. Ice is "good," though. The ice melt in Greenland has made less news this year, except for thhe publication of a study showing that ice is melting from below. But as melt hits its expected max in the coming weeks, I suspect there will be more focus on it. But some simple math shows not only that this has happened for thousand of years, but also that it needs to keep happening. Roughly a meter of precipitation falls on Greenland each year in the form of snow and ice. Due to gravity, that ice sheet goes downhill in the form on glaciers, where it hits warmer temperature and melts, hits the ocean and calves, or simply sublimates. What happens if the ice doesn't melt or go into the ocean? It builds higher and higher. In the span of 33 years, the ice will be 100 feet thicker. Is that good or bad? Neither. But it isn't really happening, now is it? Because the ice sheet's peak thickness is about 3 km. (Note, much more precipitation occurs lower down because at -40 degrees, the water vapor has been precipitated out. Hence, why atmospheric warming would result in a net increase in the Greenland icepack at higher elevations), In 1000 years, we'll add almost 2 miles of thickness to the ice sheet UNLESS that ice melts or is discharged as ice into the ocean. The same laws of nature apply in Antarctica. Sea ice and land ice form by different processes. Sea ice forms quite nicely in -40 air. Surface ice really can't. As a final note, boy is the Arctic cold. That melt pond that the webcam photographed a few weeks ago? The webcam is now south near the mouth of the Fram Strait. And it's presently -2.5 C. Over the last week, there's been a total of about 12 hours above freezing. Even more - the winds haven't been there. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lummy 4 #72 August 14, 2013 again, 2012 was one of the top 10 hottest since record keeping and all 10 occured in the last 12 years. Ok, I'll give you that each and every year is not hotter than the year prior for the last 10 years. However, the temperature is trending higher on average and 2012 was hotter than the 2 prior years. And are you really going to believe "climate blogger Pierre Gosselin" who has degrees in CIVIL and MECHANICAL engineering over NOAA scientists? That's like taking Quade's posts as gospel because he runs his own twitter feed. (No offfense Paul ;)I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #73 August 14, 2013 lummyagain, 2012 was one of the top 10 hottest since record keeping and all 10 occured in the last 12 years. Ok, I'll give you that each and every year is not hotter than the year prior for the last 10 years. However, the temperature is trending higher on average and 2012 was hotter than the 2 prior years. And are you really going to believe "climate blogger Pierre Gosselin" who has degrees in CIVIL and MECHANICAL engineering over NOAA scientists? That's like taking Quade's posts as gospel because he runs his own twitter feed. (No offfense Paul ;) I dont follow anyone on twitter I dont use facebook None of them The article points out the misleading claims There are many more Look at how many temp sights NOAA just shut down the reason is being argued but as always this science is not even close to being settled and there is nothing that gives the warmist a leg up"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites devildog 0 #74 August 14, 2013 lummyAnd are you really going to believe "climate blogger Pierre Gosselin" who has degrees in CIVIL and MECHANICAL engineering over NOAA scientists? When you continually make failed predictions, you are no longer practicing science. That's just a fact.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #75 August 14, 2013 lummyagain, 2012 was one of the top 10 hottest since record keeping and all 10 occured in the last 12 years. Ok, I'll give you that each and every year is not hotter than the year prior for the last 10 years. However, the temperature is trending higher on average and 2012 was hotter than the 2 prior years. It's unfortunate that I am at the point of questioning the data. When the past temperature is continuously adjusted downward and the present temperature is adjusted upward, it DOES cause some legitimate questions. [Quotw]And are you really going to believe "climate blogger Pierre Gosselin" who has degrees in CIVIL and MECHANICAL engineering over NOAA scientists? I'm not apt to believe any of them, anymore. It's like asking whether you are more apt to believe George Bush about the threat of WMDs in Iraq or some blogger saying it's only about oil. There's a definite "both have reasons to be less than forthright" situation. "We're climate scientists. You can trust us." No. I frankly don't see it that way. Turns out, a growing number of the population is reaching the same conclusions. 25 years of dire predictions unmet has the tendency to do that. No. The science isn't settled. No. The climate models aren't validated. No. Your predictions have been off. No. You can't explain it. Yes - the more a scientist advocates the more he or she becomes a politician and the less he or she becomes a scientist. And the less believeable thay person is. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 1,625 #66 August 14, 2013 rushmc***QuoteAntarctic Sea Ice extent has never been as much on this date. How is the MASS of Antarctic ice doing?? Here John I will bet you can twist this QuoteThe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released its “State of the Climate in 2012” report, which states that “worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record.” But the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin. “To no one’s surprise, the report gives the reader the impression that warming is galloping ahead out of control,” writes Gosselin. “But their data shows just the opposite.” http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/what-global-warming-2012-data-confirms-earth-cooling-trend Go read a book on regression analysis and report back when you know something about the subject.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #67 August 14, 2013 kallend ****** Quote Antarctic Sea Ice extent has never been as much on this date. How is the MASS of Antarctic ice doing?? Here John I will bet you can twist this Quote The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released its “State of the Climate in 2012” report, which states that “worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record.” But the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin. “To no one’s surprise, the report gives the reader the impression that warming is galloping ahead out of control,” writes Gosselin. “But their data shows just the opposite.” http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/what-global-warming-2012-data-confirms-earth-cooling-trend Go read a book on regression analysis and report back when you know something about the subject. right on que http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqVFJNcQ4X0"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lummy 4 #68 August 14, 2013 Who's doing the twisiting here? There's these little parts your article failed to mention from the NOAA report. QuoteAll of the top ten warmest years in the record have occurred since the last major El Niño event, in 1998 and Quote Since 1976, every year including 2012 has had an annual temperature above the long-term average. Including the 2012 temperature, the rate of warming is 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade since 1880 and a more rapid 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970, according to the 2012 annual report from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. so 2012 was one of the top 10 warmest years on record but is on the lower end of the hottest on record in the last decade. And that somehow confirms that there is no global warming?I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #69 August 14, 2013 QuoteBut the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin. “To no one’s surprise, the report gives the reader the impression that warming is galloping ahead out of control,” writes Gosselin. “But their data shows just the opposite.” -"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #70 August 14, 2013 Also, in the artilce I linked QuoteNOAA also reported that the “average lower strastospheric temperature, about six to ten miles above the Earth’s surface, for 2012 was record or near-record cold, depending on the dataset” even while the concentrations of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, continued to increase. "Even with all this data manipulation, the trend is down as shown by this Hadley global plot," writes Joseph D'Aleo, former director of meteorology at The Weather Channel. (See D'Aleo - Real Story About Temps.pdf) "Last year was the 8th warmest but 7th coldest since 1998. They explain it away with the predominance of La Ninas or a solar blip, but say it was the warmest decade nonetheless, so stop questioning us," he said. On August 7th, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten quoted Irish solar expert Ian Elliott predicting that lower levels of sunspot activity over the next few years “indicates that we may be on the path to a new little ice age.” “If you think scientists just couldn’t get any more incompetent, then think again. NOAA scientists even appear to believe that cold events are now signs of warming,” Gosselin points out. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #71 August 14, 2013 It's been a good year to be Arctic sea ice. Ice extent is at least 50% higher today than it was a year ago. The new ice is showing a youthful exuberance. There is a crew of 4 people who decided to row the NW Passage. One described it as the "worst" ice seen here in a decade. Ice is "good," though. The ice melt in Greenland has made less news this year, except for thhe publication of a study showing that ice is melting from below. But as melt hits its expected max in the coming weeks, I suspect there will be more focus on it. But some simple math shows not only that this has happened for thousand of years, but also that it needs to keep happening. Roughly a meter of precipitation falls on Greenland each year in the form of snow and ice. Due to gravity, that ice sheet goes downhill in the form on glaciers, where it hits warmer temperature and melts, hits the ocean and calves, or simply sublimates. What happens if the ice doesn't melt or go into the ocean? It builds higher and higher. In the span of 33 years, the ice will be 100 feet thicker. Is that good or bad? Neither. But it isn't really happening, now is it? Because the ice sheet's peak thickness is about 3 km. (Note, much more precipitation occurs lower down because at -40 degrees, the water vapor has been precipitated out. Hence, why atmospheric warming would result in a net increase in the Greenland icepack at higher elevations), In 1000 years, we'll add almost 2 miles of thickness to the ice sheet UNLESS that ice melts or is discharged as ice into the ocean. The same laws of nature apply in Antarctica. Sea ice and land ice form by different processes. Sea ice forms quite nicely in -40 air. Surface ice really can't. As a final note, boy is the Arctic cold. That melt pond that the webcam photographed a few weeks ago? The webcam is now south near the mouth of the Fram Strait. And it's presently -2.5 C. Over the last week, there's been a total of about 12 hours above freezing. Even more - the winds haven't been there. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lummy 4 #72 August 14, 2013 again, 2012 was one of the top 10 hottest since record keeping and all 10 occured in the last 12 years. Ok, I'll give you that each and every year is not hotter than the year prior for the last 10 years. However, the temperature is trending higher on average and 2012 was hotter than the 2 prior years. And are you really going to believe "climate blogger Pierre Gosselin" who has degrees in CIVIL and MECHANICAL engineering over NOAA scientists? That's like taking Quade's posts as gospel because he runs his own twitter feed. (No offfense Paul ;)I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 18 #73 August 14, 2013 lummyagain, 2012 was one of the top 10 hottest since record keeping and all 10 occured in the last 12 years. Ok, I'll give you that each and every year is not hotter than the year prior for the last 10 years. However, the temperature is trending higher on average and 2012 was hotter than the 2 prior years. And are you really going to believe "climate blogger Pierre Gosselin" who has degrees in CIVIL and MECHANICAL engineering over NOAA scientists? That's like taking Quade's posts as gospel because he runs his own twitter feed. (No offfense Paul ;) I dont follow anyone on twitter I dont use facebook None of them The article points out the misleading claims There are many more Look at how many temp sights NOAA just shut down the reason is being argued but as always this science is not even close to being settled and there is nothing that gives the warmist a leg up"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites devildog 0 #74 August 14, 2013 lummyAnd are you really going to believe "climate blogger Pierre Gosselin" who has degrees in CIVIL and MECHANICAL engineering over NOAA scientists? When you continually make failed predictions, you are no longer practicing science. That's just a fact.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #75 August 14, 2013 lummyagain, 2012 was one of the top 10 hottest since record keeping and all 10 occured in the last 12 years. Ok, I'll give you that each and every year is not hotter than the year prior for the last 10 years. However, the temperature is trending higher on average and 2012 was hotter than the 2 prior years. It's unfortunate that I am at the point of questioning the data. When the past temperature is continuously adjusted downward and the present temperature is adjusted upward, it DOES cause some legitimate questions. [Quotw]And are you really going to believe "climate blogger Pierre Gosselin" who has degrees in CIVIL and MECHANICAL engineering over NOAA scientists? I'm not apt to believe any of them, anymore. It's like asking whether you are more apt to believe George Bush about the threat of WMDs in Iraq or some blogger saying it's only about oil. There's a definite "both have reasons to be less than forthright" situation. "We're climate scientists. You can trust us." No. I frankly don't see it that way. Turns out, a growing number of the population is reaching the same conclusions. 25 years of dire predictions unmet has the tendency to do that. No. The science isn't settled. No. The climate models aren't validated. No. Your predictions have been off. No. You can't explain it. Yes - the more a scientist advocates the more he or she becomes a politician and the less he or she becomes a scientist. And the less believeable thay person is. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rushmc 18 #67 August 14, 2013 kallend ****** Quote Antarctic Sea Ice extent has never been as much on this date. How is the MASS of Antarctic ice doing?? Here John I will bet you can twist this Quote The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently released its “State of the Climate in 2012” report, which states that “worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record.” But the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin. “To no one’s surprise, the report gives the reader the impression that warming is galloping ahead out of control,” writes Gosselin. “But their data shows just the opposite.” http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/what-global-warming-2012-data-confirms-earth-cooling-trend Go read a book on regression analysis and report back when you know something about the subject. right on que http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqVFJNcQ4X0"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lummy 4 #68 August 14, 2013 Who's doing the twisiting here? There's these little parts your article failed to mention from the NOAA report. QuoteAll of the top ten warmest years in the record have occurred since the last major El Niño event, in 1998 and Quote Since 1976, every year including 2012 has had an annual temperature above the long-term average. Including the 2012 temperature, the rate of warming is 0.06°C (0.11°F) per decade since 1880 and a more rapid 0.16°C (0.28°F) per decade since 1970, according to the 2012 annual report from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. so 2012 was one of the top 10 warmest years on record but is on the lower end of the hottest on record in the last decade. And that somehow confirms that there is no global warming?I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #69 August 14, 2013 QuoteBut the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin. “To no one’s surprise, the report gives the reader the impression that warming is galloping ahead out of control,” writes Gosselin. “But their data shows just the opposite.” -"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #70 August 14, 2013 Also, in the artilce I linked QuoteNOAA also reported that the “average lower strastospheric temperature, about six to ten miles above the Earth’s surface, for 2012 was record or near-record cold, depending on the dataset” even while the concentrations of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, continued to increase. "Even with all this data manipulation, the trend is down as shown by this Hadley global plot," writes Joseph D'Aleo, former director of meteorology at The Weather Channel. (See D'Aleo - Real Story About Temps.pdf) "Last year was the 8th warmest but 7th coldest since 1998. They explain it away with the predominance of La Ninas or a solar blip, but say it was the warmest decade nonetheless, so stop questioning us," he said. On August 7th, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten quoted Irish solar expert Ian Elliott predicting that lower levels of sunspot activity over the next few years “indicates that we may be on the path to a new little ice age.” “If you think scientists just couldn’t get any more incompetent, then think again. NOAA scientists even appear to believe that cold events are now signs of warming,” Gosselin points out. "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #71 August 14, 2013 It's been a good year to be Arctic sea ice. Ice extent is at least 50% higher today than it was a year ago. The new ice is showing a youthful exuberance. There is a crew of 4 people who decided to row the NW Passage. One described it as the "worst" ice seen here in a decade. Ice is "good," though. The ice melt in Greenland has made less news this year, except for thhe publication of a study showing that ice is melting from below. But as melt hits its expected max in the coming weeks, I suspect there will be more focus on it. But some simple math shows not only that this has happened for thousand of years, but also that it needs to keep happening. Roughly a meter of precipitation falls on Greenland each year in the form of snow and ice. Due to gravity, that ice sheet goes downhill in the form on glaciers, where it hits warmer temperature and melts, hits the ocean and calves, or simply sublimates. What happens if the ice doesn't melt or go into the ocean? It builds higher and higher. In the span of 33 years, the ice will be 100 feet thicker. Is that good or bad? Neither. But it isn't really happening, now is it? Because the ice sheet's peak thickness is about 3 km. (Note, much more precipitation occurs lower down because at -40 degrees, the water vapor has been precipitated out. Hence, why atmospheric warming would result in a net increase in the Greenland icepack at higher elevations), In 1000 years, we'll add almost 2 miles of thickness to the ice sheet UNLESS that ice melts or is discharged as ice into the ocean. The same laws of nature apply in Antarctica. Sea ice and land ice form by different processes. Sea ice forms quite nicely in -40 air. Surface ice really can't. As a final note, boy is the Arctic cold. That melt pond that the webcam photographed a few weeks ago? The webcam is now south near the mouth of the Fram Strait. And it's presently -2.5 C. Over the last week, there's been a total of about 12 hours above freezing. Even more - the winds haven't been there. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lummy 4 #72 August 14, 2013 again, 2012 was one of the top 10 hottest since record keeping and all 10 occured in the last 12 years. Ok, I'll give you that each and every year is not hotter than the year prior for the last 10 years. However, the temperature is trending higher on average and 2012 was hotter than the 2 prior years. And are you really going to believe "climate blogger Pierre Gosselin" who has degrees in CIVIL and MECHANICAL engineering over NOAA scientists? That's like taking Quade's posts as gospel because he runs his own twitter feed. (No offfense Paul ;)I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #73 August 14, 2013 lummyagain, 2012 was one of the top 10 hottest since record keeping and all 10 occured in the last 12 years. Ok, I'll give you that each and every year is not hotter than the year prior for the last 10 years. However, the temperature is trending higher on average and 2012 was hotter than the 2 prior years. And are you really going to believe "climate blogger Pierre Gosselin" who has degrees in CIVIL and MECHANICAL engineering over NOAA scientists? That's like taking Quade's posts as gospel because he runs his own twitter feed. (No offfense Paul ;) I dont follow anyone on twitter I dont use facebook None of them The article points out the misleading claims There are many more Look at how many temp sights NOAA just shut down the reason is being argued but as always this science is not even close to being settled and there is nothing that gives the warmist a leg up"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
devildog 0 #74 August 14, 2013 lummyAnd are you really going to believe "climate blogger Pierre Gosselin" who has degrees in CIVIL and MECHANICAL engineering over NOAA scientists? When you continually make failed predictions, you are no longer practicing science. That's just a fact.You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #75 August 14, 2013 lummyagain, 2012 was one of the top 10 hottest since record keeping and all 10 occured in the last 12 years. Ok, I'll give you that each and every year is not hotter than the year prior for the last 10 years. However, the temperature is trending higher on average and 2012 was hotter than the 2 prior years. It's unfortunate that I am at the point of questioning the data. When the past temperature is continuously adjusted downward and the present temperature is adjusted upward, it DOES cause some legitimate questions. [Quotw]And are you really going to believe "climate blogger Pierre Gosselin" who has degrees in CIVIL and MECHANICAL engineering over NOAA scientists? I'm not apt to believe any of them, anymore. It's like asking whether you are more apt to believe George Bush about the threat of WMDs in Iraq or some blogger saying it's only about oil. There's a definite "both have reasons to be less than forthright" situation. "We're climate scientists. You can trust us." No. I frankly don't see it that way. Turns out, a growing number of the population is reaching the same conclusions. 25 years of dire predictions unmet has the tendency to do that. No. The science isn't settled. No. The climate models aren't validated. No. Your predictions have been off. No. You can't explain it. Yes - the more a scientist advocates the more he or she becomes a politician and the less he or she becomes a scientist. And the less believeable thay person is. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
