13
   

Polar ice advancing, global warming is dead

 
 
Ionus
 
  -2  
Tue 9 Jun, 2015 06:59 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
If these 200 most prolific writers happen to believe they each have one nose, it then follows that they account for the vast majority of papers published on the number of noses human beings have?
Is that funny in french because in english you just look like a moron .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -2  
Tue 9 Jun, 2015 07:08 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
You can't be a scientist and not publish nowadays. You have no idea what you're talking about.


Read the following:
Quote:
Using the entire Scopus database, we estimated that there are 15,153,100 publishing scientists (distinct author identifiers) in the period 1996–2011. However, only 150,608 (<1%) of them have published something in each and every year in this 16-year period (uninterrupted, continuous presence [UCP] in the literature).


Dont make stuff up, someone might call your bluff . Lets hear it for the cowardly lying french...they try hard .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -2  
Tue 9 Jun, 2015 07:11 pm
@parados,
Here we go again . Your argument is it doesnt matter how inaccurate the data is, we have to use it to prove GW .

Quote:
For the trend to not be accurate you would have to show that somehow the temperature has been progressively staying closer to the low temp as time has progressed.
What about staying closer to the high temp ? Do you think or just post ?
Ionus
 
  -1  
Tue 9 Jun, 2015 07:13 pm
@MontereyJack,
Gees, dont get sad . If you disagreed with the bullies here, you would get thumbed down all the time . There is no such thing as an innocuous post because they hate you, not the post .
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Tue 9 Jun, 2015 08:52 pm
Interesting bit of analyses resulting from The GRACE satellite data. The portion of "Ice increase" that gunga relies upon is the mass extent and changes of sea vs Land Ice on Antarctica. The Sea ice is increasing but the land ice is declining at a hugely greater rate .
The lan ice is that which will affect the freshening of the seawater and is responsiblle for the measurable sea level rise.
The land ice is, as it has been explaind, is mixing with the sea water and is freezing as a result of the higher freezing temp of fresh water.

See Skeptica SCientist Newsletter for the results of data from GRACE. Arctic seas are melting (no arguments there) and Antactic sea ice, while increasing a few percentage points, is not slowing down the overall decline of the total mass of ice in the ANtarctic.

All explainable by Global Warming.


The overall trend of ice mass change is but 7 years of record but shows a steady mass decrease . The Carbonate ion in this melting ice is also partly responsible for the acidification of the seas. This acidification is troubling because its a 200 year record that clearly shows the relationship between industrialization and the lowering of pH by almost 0.5 pH units.

THIS pH change is clearly human induced.
Ionus
 
  -3  
Tue 9 Jun, 2015 10:01 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
This acidification is troubling because its a 200 year record
You mean an estimate 200 yrs ago and when you say acidification you mean less alkaline .

Quote:
THIS pH change is clearly human induced.
What is the normal fluctuation of pH in sea water, including the last 100,000 yrs because that's how long it takes to change a climate . Dont know ? So you are guessing...not very scientific .

If the temp of the oceans rise they will exude CO2 thus becoming more alkaline . For the oceans to soak up CO2, the oceans will have to cool in order to become more acidic . The GW enthusiasts are saying both will occurr . The oceans will become more acidic AND warmer . Now that dont make a lick of sense .

Quote:
All explainable by Global Warming.
The new religion, and science is the new God .
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Tue 9 Jun, 2015 11:03 pm
http://www.truthandaction.org/telegraph-global-warming-biggest-science-scandal-time/
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Tue 9 Jun, 2015 11:10 pm
@Ionus,
You keep saying this, ionus, and it's simply not true. Fpr one thing, when you say 100,000 years, you're talking about the change between an ice age and an interglacial. That is NOT the only climate change that can occur--it's the most DRASTIC change, at least it has been for the last few million years, but smaller climate changes have happened in much shorter time periods--the commonly accepted time for a change to be consider a climatic one is 30 (that's THIRTY years), not 100,000. The Maunder Minimum, which led to the Little Ice Age was generally accepted as a climate change, and that was only a few hundred years ago, for a couple centuries.

Second, what we are doing to the atmosphere really has no precedent, so looking at natural cycles is not predictive of what's happening now.

Thirdly, you seem to think that only temperature affects ocean uptake of CO2. That is simply NOT true, nor is it that main determinant NOW of ocean acidificatipon. Henry's Law says that the solubility of a gas in water is proportional to the PARTIAL PRESSURE of that gas in the atmosphere, i.e. the pressure exerted BY THAT GAS on the liquid. Since the concentration of CO2 in the atmospher has increased by a third in the last century and a half or so, and that increase has the isotopic hallmarks of anthropogenic origins, the increased concentration of CO2 in the oceans (anc concomitant acidification) due to increased partial pressure outweighs the comparatively smaller effect of rising temps, so the oceans are going to continue to acidify. That's the evidence. That's what climate change science in fact says, and the contradiction you think is there is simply not. That's a highly simnplified picture of what's going on, since in fact CO2 is reactive with salt water and has a complex chemistry too, but there's NO conflict with continuing acidification.
Ionus
 
  -2  
Wed 10 Jun, 2015 12:13 am
@MontereyJack,
100,000 yrs is the cycle that includes all the smaller cycles . If it was any other aspect of science, no one would suggest using a small fraction of the time of only one cycle, but GW has special dispensation from the normal rigours of science .
Quote:

the glacial periods of the last ice age – period around 100 000 years (see Quaternary glaciation#Astronomical cycles and 100,000-year problem)
North African climate cycles – tens of thousands of years
the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation – around 50 to 70 years, but unpredictable
the El Niño Southern Oscillation – 2 to 7 years
the Pacific decadal oscillation – 8 to 12 years? (not clear)
the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation – 15 to 30 years? (not clear)
the Arctic oscillation – no particular periodicity
the North Atlantic Oscillation – no particular periodicity
the North Pacific Oscillation – ?
the Hale cycle or sunspot cycle – about 11 years (may be discernible in climate records; see solar variation)
the Quasi-biennial oscillation – about 30 months
a 60-year climate cycle recorded in many ancient calendars
As well as the above, there has been a cooling tendency for the last 2.5 million years .

There is a 2-7 yr cycle called the El Nino/La Nina . No one knows what it is doing till it has done it . If you cant get such a short cycle right, what hope do you have of predicting climate ? Where are we in relation to a 100,000 yr cycle ? Are we in between a glacial retreat and advance, or are we leaving an Ice Age completely and it might be tens of thousands of years till we cool again, or perhaps it might only be 1,000 yrs till the next glacial advance . It is not known . Some have suggested that cooling trends could occur within a hundred years and before the last glacial advance the weather was catastrophic . Not warming weather like the GW enthusiasts maintain, but hot and cold mixing is what makes weather unstable . This is very poor territory for making guesses, called "predictions" .

What we are doing to the atmosphere has every precedent, as recently as the demise of the forests and the rise of grasses and the spreading of flowering plants . Before that, the earth has had 10 times more CO2 in the atmosphere then it does now, and that of course means less oxygen .

Coral has been around for half a BILLION yrs . They have survived far worse and there is already evidence of sea life like coral adjusting to slight changes .
Polar bears have seen several meltings of the northern seas, and they are still with us .

Photosynthesis of CO2 gives us oxygen, both on land and water . Most of out oxygen comes from the oceans . An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will come with a decrease in oxygen . Plants will breathe easier and create more O2 . If GW increases the temp of either the oceans or the air, the CO2 entering the oceans will reduce .

Some processes that increase the CO2 concentrations of coastal waters include:
Quote:
1. the dissolution of atmospheric CO2 (i.e. exchange between air and sea) is affected by the PCO2 differential between the atmosphere and coastal water body (i.e. Henry’s Law), wind speed and water temperature.
2. the decomposition of organic matter by processes including oxygen reduction, nitrate reduction (a.k.a. denitrification), iron or manganese reduction and sulfate reduction;
3. the precipitation of calcium carbonate (calcite or aragonite): e.g. Ca2+ + 2HCO3- = CaCO3 + H2O +CO2; and
4. lowering of water temperature .


Some processes that decrease the CO2 content of coastal waters include:

Quote:
1. degassing of CO2 to the atmosphere (exsolution);
2. the photosynthetic consumption of CO2;
3. the dissolution of calcium carbonate (calcite or aragonite): e.g. CaCO3 + H2O +CO2 = Ca2+ + 2HCO3-;
4. chemical weathering of alumino-silicate minerals; and
5. increasing water temperature
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Wed 10 Jun, 2015 07:11 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ocCh5yDaqs

Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Wed 10 Jun, 2015 07:26 am
@gungasnake,
The list of those scientists and the published reports:

Quote:
1. Dr. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov: Russian Academy of Scientists. Head of space research at the Pulkova Observatory, St. Petersburg.
Comment: RIA Novosti, August 25, 2006: “Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century – when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland – could start in 2012-2015 (sic) and reach its peak in 2055-2060….He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today….”
***
2. David Archibald. Summa Development Limited. (Australia).
From his paper: Archibald, D.C., (2006), Solar Cycles 24 and 25 and predicted climate response, Energy and Environment, Vol.17, No.1.
Comment from paper: “Based on a solar maxima of approximately 50 for solar cycles 24 and 25, a global temperature decline of 1.5C is predicted to 2020 equating to the experience of the Dalton Minimum.”
***
3. Dr. O.G.Badalyan, and Dr.V.N. Obridko, Institute of Terrestrial Magnestism. Russia, Dr.J.Sykora. Astronomical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovak Republic.
From their paper: Balalyan, O.G., V.N. Obridko, and J. Sykora, (2000), Brightness of the coronal green line and prediction for activity cycles 23 and 24, Solar Physics, 199: pp.421-435.
Comment from paper: “ A slow increase in (intensity of coronal green line) in the current cycle 23 permits us to forecast a low-Wolf-number (number of sunspots) cycle 24 with the maximum W~50 at 2010-2011.” (Note: a 50 sunspot level is a Dalton class minimum)
***
4. Dr. B. P. Bonev, Dr. Kaloyan M. Penev, Dr. Stefano Sello.
From their paper: Bonev, B.P., et. al., (2004), Long term solar variability and the solar cycle in the 21st century, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 605, pp.L81-L84.
Comment from their paper: “…we conclude that the present epoch is at the onset of an upcoming local minimum in long term solar variability.”
***
5. John L. Casey, President, Space and Science Research Corporation. Orlando, Florida
From his research report: Casey, John L. (2008), The existence of ‘relational cycles’ of solar activity on a multi-decadal to centennial scale, as significant models of climate change on earth. SSRC Research Report 1-2008 – The RC Theory, www.spaceandscience.net. Comments from the research report:
“ As a result of the theory, it can be predicted that the next solar minimum may start within the next 3-14 years, and last 2-3 solar cycles or approximately 22-33 years. …It is estimated that there will be a global temperature drop on average between 1.0 and 1.5 degrees C, if not lower, at least on the scale of the Dalton Minimum. …This forecast next solar minimum will likely be accompanied by the coldest period globally for the past 200 years and as such, has the potential to result in world wide, agricultural, social, and economic disruption.”
***
6. Dr. Peter Harris. Engineer, retired, Queensland, Australia.
From his analysis of glacial and interglacial cycles he concludes: “…we can say there is a probability of 94% of imminent global cooling and the beginning of the coming ice age.”
***
7. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera. Researcher at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
His comments from his research released in August 2008: “…in two years or so, there will be a small ice age that lasts for 60-80 years.”
***
8. Dr’s. Y.T.Hong, H.B. Jiang, T.S. Liu, L.P.Zhou, J.Beer, H.D. Li, X.T.Leng, B.Hong, and X.G. Qin.
From their paper: Response of climate to solar forcing recorded in 6,000-year (isotope) O18 time-series of Chinese peat cellulose. The Holocene 10.1 (2000) pp. 1-7.
The Chinese team of researchers observed “…a striking correspondence of climate events to nearly all of the apparent solar activity changes.”
In showing O18 isotope measurements were high during the coldest periods they concluded, “If the trend after AD 1950 continues…the next maximum of the peat O18 (and therefore cold maximum) would be expected between about AD 2000 and AD 2050.”
***
9. Dr. Boris Komitov, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Astronomy, and Dr. Vladimir Kaftan: Central Research Institute of Geodesy, Moscow.
From their paper: Komitov, B., and V. Kaftan, (2004), The sunspot activity in the last two millennia on the basis of indirect and instrumented indexes: time series models and their extrapolations for the 21st century, paper presented at the International Astronomical Union Symposium No. 223.
Comment from paper: “It follows from their extrapolations for the 21st century that a supercenturial solar minimum will be occurring during the next few decades….It will be similar in magnitude to the Dalton minimum, but probably longer as the last one.”
***
10. Dr. Theodor Landscheidt (1927- 2004), Schroeter Institiute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, Canada)
Among his comments from many years of research on solar climate forcing include: “Contrary to the IPCC’s speculation about man made warming as high as 5.8(degrees)C within the next hundred years, a long period of cool climate with its coldest phase around 2030 is to be expected.”
***
11. Dr. Tim Patterson: Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton Univ., Can.
From an article in the Calgary Sun*: May 18, 2007. Indeed, one of the more interesting, if not alarming statements Patterson made before the Friends of Science luncheon is satellite data shows that by the year 2020 the next solar cycle is going to be solar cycle 25 – the weakest one since the Little Ice Age (that started in the 13th century and ended around 1860) a time when people living in London, England, used to walk on a frozen Thames River and food was scarcer. Patterson: “This should be a great strategic concern in Canada because nobody is farming north of us.” In other words, Canada – the great breadbasket of the world - just might not be able to grow grains in much of the prairies.(* Previously listed in error as Calgary Times, corrected April 1, 2015)
***
12.Dr’s. Ken K. Schatten and W.K.Tobiska. (In other works D.Hoyt)
From their paper presented at the 34th Solar Physics Division meeting of the American Astronomical Society, June 2003:
“The surprising result of these long range predictions is a rapid decline in solar activity, starting with cycle #24. If this trend continues, we may see the Sun heading towards a “Maunder” type of solar activity minimum – an extensive period of reduced levels of solar activity.”
***
13. Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin. Merited Scientist of Russia and Fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and researcher at the Oceanology Institute.
From recent news articles, regarding the next climate change he has said: “Astrophysics know two solar cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of irradiating solar surface….Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041,and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.”
***
14. Dr’s. Ian Wilson, Bob Carter, and I.A. Waite.
From their paper: Does a Spin-Orbit Coupling Between the Sun and the Jovian Planets Govern the Solar Cycle? Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 25(2) 85-93 June 2008).
Dr. Wilson adds the following clarification:
“It supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20-30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1-2 C.”
***
15. Dr’s. Lin Zhen-Shan and Sun Xian. Nanjing Normal University, China
From their paper in Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 95,115-121: Multi-scale analysis of global temperature changes and trend of a drop in temperature in the next 20 years.
“… we believe global climate changes will be in a trend of falling in the following 20 years.”
Source via https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/2014/12/15/mini-ice-age-2015-2035-top-scientists-predict-global-cooling-2015-2050/][b]Mini Ice Age 2015-2035 | Top Scientists Predict Global Cooling 2015-2050[/b]
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Wed 10 Jun, 2015 08:10 am
@Ionus,
Your argument is that thermometers can't tell temperature accurately.

Quote:
What about staying closer to the high temp ? Do you think or just post ?
I did think. Maybe you should stop and reflect for a moment on your claim.
Ionus
 
  -3  
Wed 10 Jun, 2015 08:47 am
@parados,
Quote:
Your argument is that thermometers can't tell temperature accurately.
Laughing Do you have any sense of shame ? You are telling me my argument...let me guess...you can easily defeat your...sorry, my.... argument ? Very Happy
parados
 
  2  
Wed 10 Jun, 2015 09:26 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
Your argument is it doesnt matter how inaccurate the data is

Data is high and low temperature. Temperature comes from reading thermometers. If you aren't arguing the thermometers are wrong then there can be no major inaccuracy in the data.

Averaging the high and low temperature is not data. It is analyzing data. Arguing that the average can't show trends is silly unless you can show that over long periods of time the average temp doesn't correlate with high/low or any other measure.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Wed 10 Jun, 2015 10:34 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
Do you have any sense of shame...


Not really. That's why I have him on ignore. Paradork and Monkeyjerk should be near the top of everybody's ignore lists.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Wed 10 Jun, 2015 01:23 pm
@parados,
It has no interest in anything that approaches fact or evidence. It is here merely to present its narrative of its worldviews ,
Ionus
 
  -1  
Wed 10 Jun, 2015 08:03 pm
@parados,
Quote:
there can be no major inaccuracy in the data.
Your declarations are not reassuring . Do you understand that if this was any experiment any where in the world and you were following heat transfer, and all you measured was the max and min temps, you would be a laughing stock ? Try measuring the temp every hour, in separate climates . That would be data .

Quote:
Averaging the high and low temperature is not data. It is analyzing data.
It is using the only thing you have . Analyse bad data all you want, it amounts to a guess .

Quote:
Arguing that the average can't show trends is silly unless you can show that over long periods of time the average temp doesn't correlate with high/low or any other measure.
Nice try, but no cigar . YOU have to show that taking the mid-way point between min and max, (it is not averaging the daily temp), is a true reflection of heat transfer . Different Climates, thats right, plural, none of this we are the world BS therefore we have one climate, will accept different amounts of heat . YOU have to prove the positive, I dont have to prove the negative .
Ionus
 
  -1  
Wed 10 Jun, 2015 08:04 pm
@farmerman,
Here to argue thermometers are accurate when I never said they weren't ? Wind things down, Gomer, you are starting to lose it .
parados
 
  1  
Wed 10 Jun, 2015 09:07 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
YOU have to show that taking the mid-way point between min and max, (it is not averaging the daily temp), is a true reflection of heat transfer .

Why do I have to show anything since I only am using that average to show trends in average temperature over time? Why don't you show that temperature affects your ability to not think? It would make as much sense as your demand that we have to show heat transfer.

I see no reason to defend your straw man argument. You are clearly misrepresenting what the average daily temperature is used for.
parados
 
  1  
Wed 10 Jun, 2015 09:08 pm
@Ionus,
How can temperature readings be inaccurate if the thermometers are accurate? You are the one losing it Ionus. You make a claim and then when called on it, you call people name.s
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 01:20:11