List begin
List end
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
Recent Comments
- Greg in NZ on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Paul Marks on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- arn on New BBC Climate Expert
- Paul Marks on New BBC Climate Expert
- Gordon Vigurs on New BBC Climate Expert
- Disillusioned on “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Disillusioned on “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- GeologyJim on “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- oeman50 on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- D. Boss on “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
NSIDC administrators will be able to squawk loudly about how full funding of their mission is vital to our existence when budget talks come up in the cesspit that passes for our federal government.
The sun is going mad!! We are all going to DIE!! But since everyone dies sooner or later, that is hardly a profound statement.
Funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding, funding…
That is the major consequences of the record Arctic minimum.
For something of no consequence you sure do talk a lot about it.
What a moron.
It’s kinda like Newton’s third law, if the alarmist weren’t whining, hand waving and pointing at it all the time then you wouldn’t be here whining like you just did!
Didn’t someone comment here a while back that the missing sea ice would cause freaky unnatural anthropogenic storms “somewhere in the north.” Maybe those need to be added to the list…
Instead of name-calling, why don’t you own up to the fact you were wrong? When for example you said around August 9th the melt season was over.
I think he did admit that, so doesn’t that therefore make you an idiot?
Will, please stop issuing apologies for things I didn’t say.
You wrote in a recent post that you will settle bets shortly as I recall. If you have to settle that strikes me as implicit that bets were lost. But perhaps you can clarify this?
Did you actually read the comment which you replied to? The minimum extent was not the topic of discussion.
Would you care to clarify exactly what your claim was, and what you got right or wrong then? A lot of vague accusations have been flying around and your critics might accuse you of evasion given the vagueness of your response.
I didn’t make any claim. I asked a question which was going to be answered in the next few days.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/shortest-arctic-melt-season-record/
Ignore my question. I found your quote:
“I lost JAXA minimum bets with three people.”
Which was the topic of one of your posts.
Ok Steve I missed that, sorry.
I did not, and you are now spam.
@bernardb: Steve actually made a post recently where he admitted he lost his Arctic minimum bet. Can you imagine someone like Joe Romm doing the same? Not a snowball’s chance in hell.
Can you please stop?
@Steve: I was in the process of making my post and didn’t realize you had spammed the guy until after I clicked the “post comment” button. Sorry about that.
Warmist Revkin accuses warmist Kolbert of “gross Arctic hyperbole” in tweet:
Consequence #1: Morons will come on the site, and attempt to deflect or obfuscate your point, causing you to state the obvious.
Consequence #2: Others will come to your defense, but in doing so will attribute words to you that were never spoken, causing you to ask them not to do that.
Consequence #3: Eventually you will get back to the Antarctic ice extent, which doesn’t fit the catastrophic meme, which will receive deafening silence from Walt, Julienne, and Mark.
“Why the Melting Arctic Matters”
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/09/why-melting-arctic-matters.html
So you’re claiming that a drop in extent from approx. mid August to mid October by a couple of % enhances the greenhouse effect by 10% globally. Incredible how sensitive the climate system… we must be really cooking by now.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
No, that’s not what I’m claiming.
Try to read it again.
Sorry David, I stand corrected. I read your stuff too quickly sometimes because it is so utterly silly. Your actual point was that if all the sea ice melted both in winter and summer at both poles (a physical impossibility) then the green house effect would be approx. 10% stronger. I incorrectly assumed that nobody would make such an utterly absurd point given the fact that it can’t happen.
David that’s either very disingenuous or incredibly stupid.
First of all, the Arctic is all sea ice. Tell me again about the ice coverage in the Antarctic? Oh, you didn’t bother to mention that. When considering earth’s albedo, sea ice is only a small part of the calculation. Yes, the antarctic has only 53% of the sea ice. Quit pretending you know what you’re talking about. You don’t.
How much is the land ice extent? You’re talking percentages instead of actual land coverage. I’d rather have 1% of a dollar than 10% of a penny.
Then, of course there is the time consideration. The arctic only has less ice momentarily. Which leads us to the angle of incidence. But, you don’t seem to mention that. There’s so many more considerations that your posit is simply sophistry. What are your credentials, again? You need to ask for your parents money back.
Lastly, did the momentary decrease of sea ice in the arctic change the color of the globe? You know what decreases albedo? Green does. You twit!
Let me ask him a broader question –
CO2 atmospheric content is at record levels
El Nino type conditions in the Pacific
Solar Max
Record minimum northern hemispheric sea ice
How are global temperatures responding?
David? David? Where are you?
Lol, even Wild Bill Connolly is calling him out.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=28837843&postID=6840745511528130340&page=1&token=1348886495323
I think David is busy whimpering from the spanking he just took.
Well, jeez, just because many people would buy into his crap doesn’t mean all people would. He should have known he’d get called on his stupidity. I don’t comment as much as I used to, but I’m still lurking. 🙂
Gyro-Robo is just trying to get traffic at his site. LAME! 😆
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poAhbsBFjxs&NR=1&feature=endscreen
I read that post and William’s comment, you’re both talking about hypothetical energy budgets and assuming some very major variables as minor constants, Where does the extra radiation come from? It can not come from the lack of sea ice reflecting energy, that’s preposterous, you’re basically arguing that low arctic sea ice contributes more energy based on Ice reflecting energy back into the atmosphere directly above and then being reflected back down and then back up again, then you say because the energy does not get reflected back up to the atmosphere, the energy is greater than when it was being reflected into the atmosphere simply because it is not being reflected back into the atmosphere, ten fold (or some sort of gibberish like that). When energy is being dissipated (lost) through a substance such as frozen sea water (Ice) it melts, once it melts how do you suppose it cools and refreezes while absorbing and also reflecting equal amounts of energy and also contributing a considerable amount of more energy back into the atmosphere that it actually inhibits the cooling and contributes to warming on a global scale.
Yes I’m paraphrasing somewhat, well if you can multiply the effects of atmospheric CO2 by first using Ice and then multiply the effects further with less ice, I think you need to be called on it!
Even so I think this misses the bigger picture. Let’s assume the IPCC’s best estimate of 3.5C of warming by 2100 is correct and let’s be generous and assume the north and south poles loose all their sea ice cover for half the year. Again all fairly implausible stuff.. but just sip the Kool-Aid with me for the sake of the argument… Do a quick back of the envelope calculation and assume David is correct in all his numbers and what’s the actual global impact on temperature? Probably around 0.17C global increase, but realistically it would be half that or less. (Honestly the numbers are all so dodgy that you can come up with different results but either way the result is still going to be minuscule.)
The reason why David didn’t carry his calculations to their logical conclusion was that doing so would refute the very point was trying to make.
I almost posted a comment here on The Appell’s sea ice forcing yesterday, but thought it just a cheesy transparent way to try and lure eyeballs over to his whispering gallery blog.
Well, I see at least three issues with The Appell’s estimate.
1- The Appell’s estimated TSI is too high for 80 deg latitude. For example, at 71N, NREL provides monthly measured values of TSI in W/m^2 as follows-
Jan thru Dec: 0, 13, 67, 154, 196, 204, 188, 108, 54, 21, 0, 0
The average is 83 W/m^2 at 71N, lower than The Appell’s 125 W/m^2 at 80N/S. This is incident power on a horizontal surface, not absorbed power. Near grazing incidence, the absorbed power will be considerably less.
2- The 10% calculation compares sea ice albedo loss forcing to annual anthro CO2 forcing. But, once all the sea ice is lost, that’s the maximum forcing available. It doesn’t accumulate the way CO2 forcing is claimed to accumulate.
3- Open polar oceans will result in large heat loss (compared with ice-covered ocean) once winter sets in. The Appell does not even consider this large negative forcing.
Will Nitschke says:
September 29, 2012 at 1:39 am
“Again all fairly implausible stuff.. but just sip the Kool-Aid with me for the sake of the argument…”
lol no-problem!!
——
“The reason why David didn’t carry his calculations to their logical conclusion was that doing so would refute the very point [he] was trying to make.”
David has to be intelligent enough to know what his mistakes are? It seems odd to me that David has an interest in the environment and believes in something to a point where he knowingly lets logic fly out the window. between you and me Will, I think he visits Stevens site to get a dose of reality. 🙂
Steve, I’d like to congratulate you on a thorough and comprehensive list.
Wait, you mean David Appell thinks that ice acts in an insulating capacity when the sun is up, but suddenly doesn’t when the sun goes down? I wonder if David Appell has ever lived in a place that gets snow.