Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- 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
Recent Comments
- Ed on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Walter on Ellen Flees To The UK
- conrad ziefle on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- conrad ziefle on Ellen Flees To The UK
- William on Ellen Flees To The UK
- William on Ellen Flees To The UK
- arn on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Greg in NZ on Ellen Flees To The UK
- arn on Ellen Flees To The UK
I guess it’s time to buy Canadian beach property. Boogie boards and bikinis along Baffin Bay. Where do I go to invest?
You found another Polar researcher that has no clue about the history of the region around the North Pole.
First time in a Million Years, My A##!
I left out the obvious detail: The Arctic is not yet Ice free and the year is 2010.
Even if the Arctic does go Ice Free, It does not mean a thing because history shows long periods (2 to 3 hundred years min) that the region was ice free in summers in the last 10 thousand years.
This researcher is clueless or afflicted by the common malady that is contagious in AGW believers. I think the best descriptive phrase I read yet was CRAINALPROCTOSIS. Or was it Cranialproctitis. the cure for either is a cranialanalectomy.
Are those years the same millions that Al-baby uses to describe the temperature of the earth’s core?
Just askin…..maybe a whole new number series has been created while I wasn’t paying attention.
Forget celebrities, Hollywood starlets, and musicians … they need to start a program of massive drug testing of these looney climate scientists.
Mike,
You mean if the arctic goes ice free in 2040 during the summer, i can’t gloat?
You really do rain on my parade sometimes.
Oh I forgot, no matter what happens it is exactly what you predict because natural cycles predict every possibility. It is like a quantum wave. It always collapses where the observer is looking!
But imagine that. The IPCC is a bulwark against global warming extremists!
And I agree that this guys predictions, obviously based on the extreme ice retreat of 2007 were exaggerations. You are right on one Steve, congratulations
TonyD:
It does not matter what the Arctic ice does because under normal natural long term weather patterns the extent will vary. Stronger winds will blow more ice out of the region into warmer waters. It seems that 68% of the ice that disappears in the Arctic is due to wind and currents moving it out of the region.
I have told you to find the extents of natural variability and show where weather patterns are outside of natural variability. you only need to take the recent period since the Glacial termination event about 12000 years ago and find where current weather patterns are outside of those experienced around the globe over those 12 thousand years.
It should be simple to find tree lines that are further north. Show a trend in melt start dates or later freeze start dates for a period over 5 thousand years. 30 years is not climate and using 180 would only give you at most three cycles in only one region so the results would not be statistically significant. Three peaks and three valleys is just not enough because the regional weather patterns are not independent of each other and do not always follow the same timing.
With proper application of statistics you could probably find any answer you want. Look at what Mann and progeny found.
I prefer to Cherry Pick so you can limit your search to the last 3 million years.
that makes perfect sense.
As long as the climate does not go outside the parameters for ALL historical ranges in the last 12,000 years, then CO2 forcing of temps is not a valid theory.
Ok Mike, you show me a period over the last 12,000 years where there was an increase of 30% CO2 in 50 years and no temperature increase because your natural cycles wouldn’t indicate an increase…
Wait. There hasn’t been any time in the holocene with that large an increase of CO2 over that period of time, so I guess my test is totally unfair. Sorry.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not the question. The question is: Is CO2 the primary cause of recent temperature changes? Are recent temperature changes out side of natural variations that could be expected due to shifts in natural long term weather patterns?
I do not care how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. Without proof there is a problem / trouble, the is no problem.
The FIRST step in trouble shooting is to determine if a problem exists.
I can not remember the number of times I was told a problem existed only to prove what was thought to be a problem was a standard characteristic of the equipment and the problem was the end user not being aware of how the equipment worked.
I followed an old tradition: If it aint broke Don’t fix it!
You also do not have an accurate enough record of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere for the last 12,000 years to know what the concentration was in PPM. We do not have the technology to make those claims on a global basis today. We measure 3 to 10 locations and make claims about global concentrations. It is as ludicrus as using measurements of less than 1% of the globe to claim we know within .00 degrees what the temperature of the globe is on a given day or during a given month.
Your test is not unfair just totally stupid as the historic concentrations of CO2 are not the issue.
well, I guess you have me. No evidence for greenhouse effect from current CO2 concentrations.
You really need to publish this and get those idiots like Lindzen and Spencer, and Michaels out of the way.
As I recall, CO2 concentrations do not show levels this high no matter what proxy you use during the holocene. And there is no indication that it is not going to increase.
So you mean to tell me that in your work, when you were told there was a problem, by experts who presented you with a correlation, you would dismiss the correlation and assume there was no problem, because you wanted to wait until the problem was so obvious it would be destructive.
Of course if there were no negative consequences to ACC theory your approach would make sense. let’s wait a hundred years and see if the temps do rise more than 3° and there is no way you can get your cycles to explain it. If you are wrong you were just being cautious.
But there is a rather complex robust theory that says clearly that CO2 concentrations are important, both historically and now. There was a theory in the 30’s that said Hitler was trying to destroy the jews and take over europe. Rational people knew that these things get exaggerated. there were always anti semites, and people talking about nationalistic domination. Better to wait and see that all the heat over Hitler would go away. Why stop him now and waste all the resources and attention. better to see how it turns out and if there is a problem it is worth waiting. Clearly Hitler had done nothing prior to 1941 that hadn’t been done in the natural variation of political cycles.
TonyD:
My job was to find and define problems so solutions could be found. It was also my job to analyze if a problem existed when others thought there was a problem or when the so called experts claimed there was no problem. I was the guy that designed the test equipment to test whether systems preformed as advertised along with acceptance testing before the final product was turned over to the customer. No matter how long I worked for my employer my word was not good enough. I had to provide real world evidence to support my statements. Usually through reproducible experiments /tests.
We were only talking about thousands to millions of dollars involved and critical systems for public safety.
well then Mike,
I apologize for the dozens of times I have said you were incompetent at your job and ruined the business you were in.