Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@okie,

okie wrote:

I don't think I need to expound on it at all. It should be obvious to anyone that precipitation would be perhaps more crucial to the extent of glaciers on land, such as in alpine areas. In regard to sea ice, I am not sure if precipitation is one direct key factor or not, and if so, to what extent. I would advise you to do some reading on this, parados. Just a few minutes of web searching turned up the following:
http://www.heartland.org/ClimateChangeReconsidered/chapter4.html
"Chapter 4 reviews observational data on glacier melting, sea ice area, variation in precipitation, and sea level rise. We find no evidence of trends that could be attributed to the supposedly anthropogenic global warming of the twentieth century."

maybe you should read it then okie instead of just posting it. It has nothing to do with precipitation causing ice. It is about changes in precipitation in places like Africa.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

"ice extent" normally refers to the ice on the sea.

So when we say that during the latest glaciation the extent of the ice reached as far south as Virginia we mean the entire continent north of the Mason-Dixon line was submerged in some hitherto unknown ocean? Dammit Parados - it's astounding what we can learn from reading your posts!

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Quote:
You are not only a very persistent, pedantic nit picker, but are also apparently deliberately deceptive.
Damn OB1, you know him better than his mum.....I see you have encountered parados before.....

Parados fights in the peasant-cunning style formalized by the late unlamented Mao - i.e. he retreats when subjected to frontal attack.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Ah.. but okie was responding to a post about SEA ICE EXTENT.

But then we learned from you HS that a mistrial can occur after verdict has been reached. Drunk

2 Replies

@parados,

You truly are a dishonest dimwit, Parados - by definition, a mistrial can ONLY be declared AFTER verdict. Mistrial can be declared upon proof of improper court procedures, misconduct by a judge or attorney, or issues related to jury selection. Now go back to the bottle, you'll be sober tomorrow Smile

1 Reply

High Seas, you really ought to see what the discussion is about before you chime in. The discussion has been about what's changing the ARCTIC ice cap extent. There is no land under the Arctic ice cap. It's all ocean beneath it. Parado sis, as usual, correct. What happened over the North American land mass in the last ice age has no bearing here.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Thank you, Monterey. You will also inform us (pls) how we know via satellite measurements, that the arctic icecap extent is at a "record low", as Parados stated, and when exactly those records started being kept. Include some info on ICBM polar orbits and CEP deviation from east-west trajectories. Please.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Never mind those babbling fools - here's a present for you and thread, a composite satellite image of our beautiful planet dated today (GMT/Zulu/UTC)

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/comp/latest_cmoll.gif

0 Replies

HS, damn,I wish you guys had some functioning long-term memory. We keep posting the data and you denialists seem completely incapable of retaining it. As far as I know, ICBMs don't have orbits. They have flight paths. They don't go into orbit. They also don't generally carry sensors that measure things like sea ice extent. They carry warheads or dummy warheads. The rockets themselves may be the same or similar as the ones that loft satellite, but the purposes and instrumentation are different. Why do you think ICBMs are relevant here?

The satellite record extends back to the late 1970s, when we developed accurate satellite sensor systems. Measurements of the extent of Arctic sea ice on some sort of systematic basis extend back to around 1900. Data quality improved markedly by around the middle of the century. There weren't a whole lot of people leaving written records before 1900, so information before then is pretty much anecdotal, but from the information we have, no one, with the possible exception of Inuit in kayaks, which of course you can portage, could gain pasage. The historical record, then, begins around the start of the 20th century. The satellite record starts in the last quarter of the century. That's the "historical record", and the historical record shows we are at historic lows. In the last several years, a couple non-icebreaker ships have transited the Northwest Passage. If the trends continue, they project that large, fragile ships like oil tankeers will be able to make the passage within the next 5-10 years. That's unprecedented.

Contrary to what the Heartland Institute, which is essentially a PR denialist "think" tank, maintains, as in Okie's post, the shrinkage of sea ice is statistically significant, and the replacement of multi-year ice with transient single year ice over most of the Arctic icecap is now fairly well-documented. Considering that virtually every glacier in the world is retreating (each one is subject to a specific set of local temperature and weather conditions, and there are several that are not retreating, but I believe the figure is well over 90% are retreating), I haven't looked for any measures of statistical significance for them, but glaciologists certainly maintain the shrinkage is significant.

0 Replies

@parados,

So what happened to the sea ice extent when it reached down to Spain ? What politically correct reason was there for that disappearing ? You didnt even know there was more than one Ice Age when you first posted in this thread. You argued the sea ice has never been that far south....when will you learn ? You next post will say this never happened, and expect me to go back and prove it to you like I have done before, then you will disappear for a while, and come back even more forgetful than the last time.

Brilliant contributions to science, parados....if the topic is the psychology of self hypnotism.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Arguing with Parados is a complete waste of time, but Monterey is at least correct that the ICBMs and the Molniya aka polar orbits (highly elliptical, inclination of 63.4 degrees, orbital period 1/2 of a sidereal day) should have been separated by a comma.

The point is that Arctic ice is monitored only too well for decades; it does what it has always done since the end of the last glaciation, shrink.

Polar ice wasn't there for over 90% of the planet's existence, there's no reason to worry if it goes away altogether, but there will be plenty of reason to worry if it suddenly starts growing significantly. I love polar bears as much as anybody, but we know they've already survived as a distinct species a previous complete glaciation cycle, so there's no reason to worry about them in this cycle. It only detracts attention from the really massive danger of heavy metals accumulating in all the oceans, including polar waters. I've come to question the motives of the "anthropogenic CO2" hysterics.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Where did you read that it was AFTER a verdict?

From Wikipedia

Quote:

A judge may cancel a trial prior to the return of a verdict; legal parlance designates this as a mistrial.

This from West's Encyclopedia of Law

Quote:

A courtroom trial that has been terminated prior to its normal conclusion. A mistrial has no legal effect and is considered an invalid or nugatory trial. It differs from a "new trial," which recognizes that a trial was completed but was set aside so that the issues could be tried again.

This from USlegal.com

Quote:

A mistrial is the termination of a trial before its natural conclusion because of a procedural error, statements by a witness, judge or attorney which prejudice a jury, a deadlock by a jury without reaching a verdict after lengthy deliberation (a "hung" jury), or the failure to complete a trial within the time set by the court.

This from Webster's law dictionary

Quote:

A trial that the judge orders ended without a verdict, either because the jury has deadlocked or because of an incident or mistake prejudicing the outcome.

But I guess I am a dishonest dimwit for actually using the legal definitions. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2010

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2010
http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg

Solar Irradiance 1611 t0 2001

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

I like your graphs, thanks ican. So all we are arguing about is a measly 0.5 degree C in about the last hundred years? And of that, at least half or more could be or probably is due to an increase of solar energy!! Add to that the fact that many of their climate monitoring stations are in parking lots, next to air conditioner vents, you name it!!!!! And we are all supposed to believe we are doomed unless we take marching orders from the jetsetter Al Gore ?

2 Replies

@okie,

Thats it in a nutshell, okie. Now dont compare the last 10,000 yr during which we had a glacial retreat or the last 2.5 million yrs of an Ice Age. Or the cooling trend of the last 10 million years.

Lets argue about the last 100 or even last 10 yrs that the GW Thuggees want to argue about in the hope it will mean something. It is pointless because it is such a ridiculously short period of time. BUT IT IS ALL THEY HAVE.

Quote:

And we are all supposed to believe we are doomed unless we take marching orders from the jetsetter Al Gore ?

I'm sure a politician of his great standing and intellect wouldnt be wrong about anything. Very Happy

0 Replies

@okie,

Don't forget the IPCC mathematical modeling idiocy - having no clue as to cloud formation, they just went ahead and entered as variables "cloud conditions" assumed exogenously by themselves in order to "prove" their AGW theories! Btw, I recently found out why a technique that works to bring rainfall (send a plane into the air and keep it doing circles, crisscrossing its own path) does work: turbulence. You know the Stokes number, I'm sure:

Quote:

........
Here's the problem. Before clouds form, the droplets are small and the Stokes number is tiny. Therefore the droplets rarely collide. After clouds form, the droplets are large and the Stokes number is huge, meaning that the particles easily combine, creating rain.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/files/49520/Cloud%20formation.png

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas and Ionus, agreed, but there is one thing that continues to bother me about this entire issue, so I am wondering what others that are doubters of this whole crisis also think. To set the stage for my question, I am quite convinced that the climate monitoring stations are not at all giving us reliable data that we can say are within an acceptable margin of error. Secondly, I think the greenhouse gas theories are flawed, as are their computer modeling projections and conclusions about the effects of CO2. I also think the solar component has been downplayed, under studied, and underestimated.

With all of that said, the apparent regular and steady rise of CO2, such as from Mauna Loa, seems to be almost too good to be true for those that are solidly in the global warming camp. My question is, do the readings of CO2 make sense and do you think they are very credible and scientifically sound in the way the data are collected and recorded? Secondly, if so, do you think there is any credible study or scientific work that strongly supports an explanation for this rise, such as - is it without a shadow of a doubt due to the output of man produced CO2? Or is the rise possibly instead due to CO2 rising as a result of a rising global temperature? Or is there some other explanation for the apparent rise? Third question, which ties into the first question actually, what are the chances that we might find out at some point that the CO2 monitoring data have been cooked? I doubt that, but given the issue that this is, I have considered that as a possibility to look for? It seems almost to me as if the rate of rise is too steady to be typical of nature. But I am not a climatologist or atmospheric scientist, so that is just a general observation from my experience in another scientific field, that readings of things tend to be a little more erratic and less perfect in terms of the numbers forming such a perfect trend.

Anyway, I am interested in some of your thoughts about my questions.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

the climate monitoring stations are not at all giving us reliable data that we can say are within an acceptable margin of error.

Of course they're not reliable. Any scientific enquiry would establish accurate measuring stations. GW has no reliable data so it has to be scrounged from the faulty weather stations that are sited incorrectly by local positioning and by overall pattern.

Quote:

I think the greenhouse gas theories are flawed

Only flawed ? I would say they are based on manufactured data.

Quote:

their computer modeling projections

I think HS covered rather well the faults with those....

Quote:

conclusions about the effects of CO2

You mean how they arrived at the conclusion and then searched for something to do it for them ?

Quote:

the solar component has been downplayed, under studied, and underestimated.

Do you mean simply ignored because it contradicts their theory ?

Quote:

do the readings of CO2 make sense and do you think they are very credible and scientifically sound in the way the data are collected and recorded?.........what are the chances that we might find out at some point that the CO2 monitoring data have been cooked?

I dont think it is important to even consider CO2. The time span involved is way too short and factors such as the natural trend have been conveniently ignored.

Quote:

do you think there is any credible study or scientific work that strongly supports an explanation for this rise, such as - is it without a shadow of a doubt due to the output of man produced CO2? Or is the rise possibly instead due to CO2 rising as a result of a rising global temperature?

You dont need an explanation for such a small rise in such a small period of time untill the big picture is fully understood.

Of all the Green House Gases, why concentrate on CO2 the least effective and ignore water vapour, the most effective ?

There is one big question ignored by the GW Thuggees - what is the lead time from cause to effect to correction in our climate, A SELF CORRECTING SYSTEM.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Thanks for your answers. Your point about time span in regard to CO2 is a good one. I agree in regard to water vapor. We know it is by far the most important greenhouse gas, yet it appears to me that there is little or no emphasis on studying it or mounting any serious effort to collect more reliable data in its regard.

0 Replies

One big contributor to increasing CO2 density in the atmosphere has been the trend in the warming of the earth's oceans. The earth's oceans are the greatest source of such CO2, because warmer oceans evaporate more water than cooler oceans, and that evaporating water contains a relatively higher density of CO2 than do other CO2 sources.

The earth's oceans now are alleged to be cooling somewhat. If that cooling were to continue, the density of CO2 in the atmosphere would decrease through greater precipitation.

The heating and cooling of the earfh's oceans is largely caused by the sun increasing and decreasing its rate of radiation onto the earth.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know