…. the melt season ended with considerably more ice. This is not surprising, as climate models consistently project ….
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
- Useful Graphs From ChatGPT
- Fort Lauderdale Drowning
- Sinking Of The Titanic
Recent Comments
- czechlist on “The Hour Of Decision”
- Trevor on Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Trevor on Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- arn on Technology Advances
- Billyjack on “The Hour Of Decision”
- arn on “fair & equitable”
- arn on Michael Mann Continues His War
- Bob G on “fair & equitable”
- Bob G on Michael Mann Continues His War
- arn on Michael Mann Continues His War
Whoa ohh! The lies keep getting bigger. Yeah yeah there getting bigger.
http://youtu.be/jE1vYhU0DnE
Problem is, there is no “huge ice increase.” You have to look at thickness to see the whole story. Besides, this claim of huge increase is coming from cherry picking the record low area of 2012 and claiming the rebound back to the previous trend line of steady loss of Arctic ice is somehow vindicates the science deniers like Steve.
“1981-2010… 2007-2012… 1982-2006… 2007-2013”
– Marky Serreze
Ok gator, I just read the Serreze article. I think you only read the first couple of line if you concluded he supports the “huge increase” premise. He clearly recognizes the long term trend of major ice loss in the Arctic.
To quote Steven, “You cannot be as stupid as you pretend”.
Cherries parrot. Yes, I did read the entire propaganda piece that was riddled with cherries you idiot.
67% is a huge increase. Stop being a moron.
You are still only looking down in plan view. Put some goggles on and take a peak underneath.
I thought you said you came here to learn. Oh yeah, temporarily forgot this parrot lies too.
So how did it go when you confronted the IPCC over their incestuous behavior? 😆
I like to learn, but you have catching up to do first. Remember, the IPCC does not do research. They review the thousands of peer reviewed climate science papers and then try to make sense of them for the world to see. They do us a great service. I get that you reject all that out of hand, I just think you should show some skepticism toward some of the stuff I see you blindly accepting.
OK, then like learning this, this time. Last time I posted it for you, you learned nothing.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,”Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
[Of the IPCC panel] “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton
Former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate EPW committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,”Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center
“The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,…We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.” Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher
“The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science. There is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe.” UK Botanist and ex-BBC broadcaster Dr. David Bellamy (who used to believe in man-made climate fears.)
Ok, I read that. Sound like a debate on if the glass is half full or half empty. Nothing conclusive. I was struck by this statement. “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…”
At least he is not saying we are entering an ice age. It is back to the carbon dioxide issue. There is certainly a lot of natural carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the question is about the effect of the CO2 that man is dumping into the sky on top of the natural CO2.
Let’s stick to the science debate on that and not get lost in weed of how the sausage is getting made.
The ‘science’ told us that open sea water will warm the ocean causing quick melt and reduced extent. Well that’s what I have been told repeatedly yet we saw over 60% increase over 2012 in extent! It this what’s supposed to happen?
CORRECTION:
The ‘science’ told us that open sea water will warm the ocean causing quick melt and reduced extent the following melt season.
You saw 60 per cent wider icing. Stick your head underneath and look at the cake. It is two thirds gone.
Get your head out of your ass.
I sure hope Marky Mark bakes up one huge pie with all those lovely cherries!
http://anhonestclimatedebate.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/2982-journal-of-civ-eng-vol-49-no-2.pdf this is a great read for those who want to understand solar climate linkages….
“This is not surprising, as climate models consistently project that there will be large variations in summer ice extent from year to year.”
Prediction of variability is not a prediction.
“Let’s stick to the science debate on that and not get lost in weed of how the sausage is getting made.”
How about you cite even one paper you parrot. All you do is repeat propaganda, and you have no clue what the science actually says.
Until you start reading and comprehending the peer reviewed science, you have no place in this debate.
Type less, read more peer reviewed science.
You need to do a little work yourself sometime. Why should I be the only one on the hot seat? It is good to see some of the other commenters push back on you bs.
Once again you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea what you are talking about. How many peer reviewed references have you provided to back your parroted claims? Zero.
How many times have I proven you wrong? Dozens.
You are an idiot.
I’m all mix-ed, here is Arctic expert Serreze saying Arctic will be mostly ICE FREE in 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztz3ZdPbdKo
Perhaps NASA should rename their climate reasearch group as “Goddardammerung”.