You can’t make up stupid like this. First they claim that global warming is causing glaciers to retreat away from the sea. Now they claim that global warming is causing glaciers to advance towards the sea.
Until they noticed that their theory wasn’t working a few weeks ago, they were screaming that all of the ice would be gone this year because of global warming. Now they say the exact opposite.
Sea ice forms at the periphery of the ice pack as cold air freezes seawater. The contribution of glacial ice is tiny, and occurs near land. Record Antarctic sea ice (by definition) forms far away from land.
Antarctic sea ice is thin, it reaches out over the ocean in winter and largely disapears in summer. That tells us very little regarding global warming. The real story is on land where ice is a mile and half thick or more on a continent 50 percent bigger than the United States.
Expanding Antarctic sea ice tells us that Antarctica is getting colder, and it tells us that Hansen’s WAIS collapse theory is not going to happen. The whole global warming scam at this point is centered around WAIS collapse and resultant catastrophic sea level rise.
Obsessing on sea ice is like not seeing the forest for the trees. I know it is difficult and certainly counter-intutive, but more sea ice indicates warmth. The data for Antartica is mixed on temperture but the overall trend is toward warming. It is warming along the edges with some cooling in the interior.
Antartica is not a good data point for discussing global warming in that it is isolated by a circular moving ocean with a circular jet stream that does not mix with other jet streams. That is why it is 50 degrees colder on average than the Arctic. Wikipedia does a good quick summary with lots of references to the underlying science on the question of whether the Antarctic is warming or not.
Wait. When the climate “experts” could point to declining sea ice, that’s all we ever heard; tipping point, catastrophic changes, unprecedented disaster. Now that sea ice is on the increase at both poles, mentioning sea ice is not seeing the forest for the trees? It’s comments like this that destroy all credibility for the AGW true believers. No matter the data, it’s the skeptics who are missing the boat. And, learn from Wikipedia on climate change? Are you serious, or did you just forget the sarcasm tag?
Reading wiki on climate issues is like studying the theory of flight by reading Superman comics. William Connolley has been there and done that.
One of the tricks in this game is to lay low for a while after your side has been demolished and then come back with the same arguments as if you were never refuted. Under those rules, I take it Steig et al are back in fashion.
(Incidentally the “Antarctic cooling” article on Wikipedia starts out saying, “Observations unambiguously show the Antarctic Peninsula to be warming”. That’s not the same as saying that the Antarctic is warming.)
I think the main problem here is that liberal arts students such as matayaya want to go off and play scientist. They had no interest or understanding of science up until the moment they decided to become eco-worrier activists. Then all the old cranky engineers on the website (like me) shake their heads and have a little fun dumping shit on them.
Well,l then according to the Climate Clowns, we must be cooling like crazy because they keep touting that Arctic Sea Ice is disappearing (according to the Climate Clowns).
Surely someone even as dense as matayaya can see the problems with what he wrote. Forgive me for I am having a very difficult time comprehending the utter stupidity of your comment matayaya. … WOW, dipshit on steroids….
Yeah matayaya, alarming … so damn alarming … I can hardly stand it.
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/the-horrible-destruction-of-arctic-sea-ice-on-display-last-nine-years-of-utter-devastation/
Wiki is bias on AGW – period. The are not credible.
It is 50 degrees colder and melting ?
Make a little effort and read the Wikipedia page on “is Antarctica cooling.” Cut the snarkiness and learn something new.
Can you walk and chew gum at the same time? Seriously Wikipedia the place where using facts and observation to counter doctrine gets you labelled a vandal, sockpuppet or spammer? You should just roll over now and save any further pretence.
Right, Wikipedia is definitely the final authority on all things climatic. “The stupid, it burns!”
@ matayoyo – First of all, welcome aboard. Now a quick question — Was the article cited by chief climate ethicist/fraudster Peter Gleick?
Why? It’s simple – you either reject the fraud, are a victim of the fraud, or in on the fraud. Now you have to figure out for yourself which scenario is more appealing to you. In lieu of reading a propaganda piece in place of hard data, try some critical thinking – you’re brain will thank you later. Suggestion – Start with no global cooling in the past 17 years. You’re welcome!
Our study did find that 58 percent of Antarctica cooled from 1966 to 2000. But during that period, the rest of the continent was warming. And climate models created since our paper was published have suggested a link between the lack of significant warming in Antarctica and the ozone hole over that continent. These models, conspicuously missing from the warming-skeptic literature, suggest that as the ozone hole heals — thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals — all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet. An inconvenient truth?” He also emphasized the need for more stations in the Antarctic continent in order to obtain more robust results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica_cooling_controversy
have suggested is likely to
the need for more stations
I personally would wait with bringing a canary to Antarctica.
Is the ozone hole over the entire SH oceans?
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/13-southern.png
The graph of Paul Homewood’s article clearly shows an intensification of the cooling trend after the El Nino of 1997,
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/satellites-confirm-antarctic-is-getting-colder/
People believe what they want, especially if their ‘beliefs” are based on wikipedia climate articles, which everybody knows is one of the last sites where AGW is still defended.
So what happens after El Nino? La Nina. Good chance for you guys to get up to speed on what those two turns mean. El Nino means the wind stops blowing and the surface water gets hot putting lots of heat directly into the air, a la1998. La Nina, what we have now, means the Pacfic begins to churn again taking the heat down into the ocean putting less heat into the air.
The bottom line is that understanding temperature change in Antarctica is speculative at best. One thing we have established with certainty is that climate models have failed to explain or predict any trend in that region.
The denier haters in total denial. Supreme irony. Next…..
I have to say that the moron is the most moronic I have encountered. Mahmood deserves a price. 1 year on Antartica to watch the ice grow.
I don’t think “matayaya” realizes that the original thread where that comment was made was about the Arctic, not Antarctic… Thus, his arguments here are a red herring.
-Scott
Ok, so talk about the Arctic some more. Last year, 2012, the Arctic ice was the lowest on record. The law of averages means that 2013 will not be as low 2012. You are missing the forest for the trees. The graph from 1970 till now shows very significant sea ice loss in the Arctic and nothing shows that graph about to bend in the other direction. Not even the cherry picked, miss leading 60 percent increase red herring.
Nonsense. They claimed that all that was left last year was thin, rotten ice. It all should have melted this year.
Who are “they”, what is “rotten” ice?
“Who are “they”, what is “rotten” ice?”
You’re joking, right?
Steve, could you please refer “matayaya” to the ENTIRE record for Arctic sea ice from your wonderful archive? I don’t believe s/he is aware that by taking a graph from the 70’s (record high point for Arctic sea ice) to today is the poster child of “cherry picking”.
You might want to look at that graph again. What it shows is that ice was low in the early 70’s and only began growing with the change in the PDO.
What was the ice extent when the Canadian government sent a ship through the NW Passage in the 40’s? What was the ice extent when Amundson rowed his way across the NW Passage? What was the ice extent when McClure almost made it across in the 1850’s?
It sounds as though you preach to your personal opinion rather than supply your readers with evidence that an increase in sea ice is good. Global warming isn’t a theory, it’s a fact. Even though carbon dioxide has always been on the earth, the surface is being damaged by the release of fossil fuels. When we impose on nature, there are consequences. Perhaps you might want to brush up on your “science” since you think that it is also opinion.
If it is a “fact,” why has the globe not warmed for over fifteen years? And why have virtually all of the consequences predicted from this ” fact” of yours failed to verify? Data, man, look at the data. You can not make bricks without clay.
There you go again. You are cherry picking that 1998 hottest year on record and because 1999 and there after was not quite as hot, we must be cooling. Fact is 10 of the years since that all time 1998 high have been the warmest on record, just not quite as hot as 1998.
matayaya … do you not know what a trend is?
There I go again? Cherry picking? Did you read my post? You sound like a football player who has been taught to spout some pithy phrases in answer to whatever question is asked at the post game press conference, regardless of whether the answer responds to the question. Go back to your beloved Wikipedia and try again.
I believe “matayaya” is the new username of “Reggie” or “T.O.O.”, similar style and level of knowledge at least…
Your interpretation of the data is a little sus. If you look at the model predictions, each following year has to warmer than the last, and not by a little. There has been no noticeable warming in 17 years. In fact, the last few years have shown cooling. With the PDO in full negative phase, temperatures will continue to drop.
If the AGW temperature predictions don’t follow the actual temperatures, scrap the theory. That’s the way the Scientific Principle works.
This is one of the last of a couple of remaining eco-worrier talking points:
” Fact is 10 of the years since that all time 1998 high have been the warmest on record, just not quite as hot as 1998…”
Fact is, you could say the same thing for, say, 1940-1950 or for 1860-1870. Why? Because the planet’s warmed slightly for the last 300 years. So in terms of the anthropogenic warming theory, this statement tells us nothing useful.
“When we impose on nature, there are consequences.”
That’s a very ominous pronoucement with religious overtones. On what basis do you do you make such a statment? I’m not pagan so I don’t believe that mother Earth has the ability to seek revenge for human “impositions.”
All warmist arguments always boil down to the warmist Pagan/Humanist religious predilections.
ghgre you need to do some serious reading on the sensitivity part of that CO2 “fact” … you might learn something!!
@qfgre …. everything you just posted is complete shit …
AGW is a failed concept. It didn’t even make it to the theory stage. Denial doesn’t look good on you – even in green….
Pictures & article re: alarming growth of glacier as proof of global warming.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1203500/In-pictures-How-global-warming-changing-face-northern-hemisphere.html
local phenomenon, world temps going down systematically since 2001, especially after 2008,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001/trend
Glaciers shrinking = Global Warming
Glacier growing = Global Warming
How convenient…
” As it turns out though, when the Antarctica temperature dataset used in this study was analyzed by statistical/mathematical experts in a later peer-reviewed study, it was discovered that the Climategate scientists had used bizarre techniques to prove Antarctica was warming.
In a nutshell, the IPCC associated scientists used the warming that had occurred in the sliver of geography known as the Antarctica peninsula and then literally pushed that “warming” across the entire continent, conveniently replacing real-world empirical temperature data. In review, the only reason for this lame fabrication of a Antarctica warming trend was an attempt to convince policymakers and the public that the weak AGW hypothesis was valid in the southern polar region, when it actually wasn’t.”
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/02/more-temperature-fabrication-by-agw-scientists-new-attempt-to-mislead-policymakers-public-revealed.html
You are hardly convincing but lets try a different tact. What about the steady upward warming trend in the oceans? The air and land may vary in temperature, but the oceans continue to absorb CO2 caused heat and the gauges show it. El Nino and La Nina effect how heat from the ocean is distributed to the land and air, but that heat has not left the planet.
“You are hardly convincing…”
So in other words you lack the ability to refute this evidence of scientific malfeasance.
Natural climate change denier, climates have changed for over 4,000,000,000 years. Prove that any of those changes are not due to natural variability.
You are a fool.
The difference right now is there is no record of their being change as fast as it is presently happeing apart from big volcano or asteroid.
Bullcrap. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about any of the recent climate changes we have seen, you have no clue what you are talking about.
The warming if the late 19th century and the 1930’s was virtually identical.
Please provide even ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of ANY global climate changes.
You are a fool.
Based on the best estimates we have, there is an enormous amount of “missing heat”. One fairly out-there speculation is that the heat has transitioned to the deep ocean (where it would anyway defuse in very cold water) without somehow warming layers of water above it. Pretty far fetched stuff, but it’s all that activists such as matayaya have left to grasp at.
You see this in thermodynamics all the time. Look at a map of the worlds ocean currents and jets streams. They go up and down and all around like a roller coaster. All heat does not rise vertically if it is being carried horizontally.
This is the “when lost for a reply” respond with blather?
“but the oceans continue to absorb CO2 caused heat ”
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif
Please, using these sorts of arguments make sceptics look stupid. If you place one object that is cold next to another object that is warm, will the temperature of either object be effected, regardless of the absorption characteristics of a heat source?
EXACTLY! … A cooler object cannot, I repeat CANNOT make a warmer object warmer still.
(Bangs head against wall.) A warmer object next to a cool/warm object can cause that cool/warm object to loose less heat than it would otherwise loose.
You are now talking about cooling slower, the warmer object will not become warmer still. You have not warmed anything. I suggest you quit banging your head against the wall, it is affecting your ability to think clearly.
“You are now talking about cooling slower, the warmer object will not become warmer still.”
We have a WINNER! Well done my friend.
Oceans expel and absorb enormous amounts of heat on a daily basis. If you slow down the heat loss, overall, you’ll end up with heat gain. Is the concept really so hard to comprehend? Why are some acting like idiots over this simple point?
So if I stop the bleeding, I gain blood?
Great! This Winter I will forget about the furnace and concentrate on insulation. Perfect. Who needs heat? We can now retire the Sun!
Alert the media.
Heat gain, and heat retained, are not the same. Period.
Why is this so hard for simpletons to understand?
Seriously?
So, if I have a 10F object next to a 100F object, the 10F object will increase the temperature of the 100F object? The 100F object will now become, say, 102F?
Stop it … my side is splitting here …
Gator, people like Will don’t actually think about things before they post stupid shit. I know, I know, you know this already, just thought I would reiterate for posterity.
Yea, but what about La Nina? Surface water is churned downward and deeper into the ocean. Even the Gulf Stream rides high for awhile and then ducks low into the depths.
“Heat gain, and heat retained, are not the same. Period…”
Yeah like money saved is not the same as money earned… Or maybe it is…. 😉
Just goes to show that while alarmists are as dumb as dog shit, some so called “sceptics” are hardly much brighter.
“Yeah like money saved is not the same as money earned… Or maybe it is….”
No, it isn’t. Buy a dictionary, or a clue.
Yeah like money saved is not the same as money earned…
But don’t save in US dollars .The longer you save it the less it will buy. It will lose purchasing power like sea ice warming the ocean.
“save s?v/
verb
1. keep safe or rescue (someone or something) from harm or danger.
2. keep and store up (something, esp. money) for future use.”
“earn ?rn/
verb
1. (of a person) obtain (money) in return for labor or services.”
I guess along with logic and critical thinking skills, the English language is no longer taught in public schools.
Please educate us on how CO2 creates heat.
Just ask Will.
This was discovered 150 years ago. CO2 acts like down in a comforter. Like the roach motel, rays from the sun get in, warm the surface of land and ocean, then heat radiate back out and is captured by the CO2.
CO2 does not, and cannot ‘capture’ or ‘trap’ heat. It can slow it down by a minuscule fraction of a second. It can also act as a coolant, especially in more humid air. Another note, CO2 levels have varied widely over time and never caused any runaway warming…
“The pre-industrial CO2 level was not significantly lower than current levels. Neither they nor the present readings are high relatively to the geologic record. The entire output of computer climate models begins with the assumption that pre- industrial levels were measurably lower. Elimination of this assumption further undermines the claim that the warming in the industrial era period was due to human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. Combined with their assumption that CO2 causes temperature increase when all records show the opposite then it is not surprising that IPCC predictions of temperature increase are consistently wrong.”
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS%20Pre-industrial%20CO2.pdf
The ‘greenhouse’ hypothesis is poorly named, as a real greenhouse has a physical barrier. Our atmosphere has no such barrier and heat is allowed to escape into the deathly cold of space.
When one uses words like ‘trap’ and ‘greenhouse’ to describe CO2, one is either stupid or looking for fear based funding.
OK, I’ll go with that. But then you have to accept that during the warming of 1977-1998 El Nino predominated and released a tremendous amount of heat warming the atmosphere, which was likely responsible for most if not all of the .4-.8C temp increase. Very likely, when a single El Nino can increase global temp.’s by that amount in just a few short months.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
ENSO may have affected circulation patterns that altered cloud cover and transferred large bodies of warm and cold water to different ocean basins around the globe, etc. And this may have affected global temperature measurement. But does anybody know by how much? Not really.
El Nino is directly affected by solar radiations, that’s why the trend to La Nina’s has increased recently and the opposite trend during the 1980’s and 1990’s. A big step-change happened in 1997-2001 period and the world started to cool, systematically (on the average).
All climate ultimately boils down to the primary heat source. Which is the sun. So you’ve actually said nothing.
You can’t say “most”. 97 and 98 were off the charts but if you look from 1970 till now, significant warming has occured that had nothing to do with 97 and 98.
30 year warming trend is about 1.5C per century. Which means warming is most likely to be a net benefit.
“…but was trapped in the CO2. it is a mind boggling thought. The science is advancing rapidly on many fronts and it is hard to keep up with it,”
SETTLED SCIENCE – Let’s burden the entire global economy on that basis.
Energy inovation is actually good for the economy. Those hurt by inovation are the those entrenced in the status quo energy sector. Just like evolution, it is the new thing that pops out that improves the species. I can already see the insults coming.
fine…when you figure that out, get back to us
@matayaya ” … El Nino and La Nina effect how heat from the ocean is distributed to the land and air, but that heat has not left the planet….”
You’re again concluding based on the *models* and running over the facts.
The heat has left the planet, because CO2 is not an important factor in climate:
OLWR is increasing despite the increase of CO2 due to … dryness:
“… As can be seen via both CERES and the NOAA/NCEP radiosonde measurements & reanalysis, OLWR has increased markedly over time as surface temperatures warmed… Reason for this is a decrease in cloud cover, O^3, and H2O (the decline in H2O above 850mb has outweighed any increase in backfired LWR via increasing CO2 by a factor of 57)… “
http://westernusawx.info/forums/index.php?showtopic=33725&p=643421
This is where some of our best satellite instruments help. They measure upper atmosphere temperatures very accurately, the heat is not leaving the planet. It is counter intutive, but the upper atmosphere is now cooler due to increasing CO2. Heat that would normally leave the planet is being trapped. You can argue that maybe the effect is less than what I would presume, or something, but can’t say no effect.
The studies I’ve seen all strongly point to the heat escaping back into space. The activist blogs and a paper or two speculate the heat has gone mysteriously into the deep ocean, where it conveniently cannot be accurately measured.
This question is worth digging into. I saw a report, can’t remember where, about the orbiting satellites measuring atmosphere temperatures to very minute precision. The conclusion was that the upper atmosphere had cooled because less radiative heat from earth was getting back thru the accumulating CO2.
@matayaya
Seriously… do you actually read this shit before you post it?
Heat certainly leaves the planet. I am referring to the additional heat in the atmosphere that should have left, but was trapped in the CO2. it is a mind boggling thought. The science is advancing rapidly on many fronts and it is hard to keep up with it, especially if you spend your time looking for red meat denial points. I am not saying this has all been proved, just that scientist are working it and that it is interesting.
Too bad this IPCC report will have some nuggets for denialist to be able to ignore the comprehensive message that global warming is happening, but understanding it becomes more complicated the more we learn. Point being, we should focus less on conclusions and more on just keeping up with what the scientist are doing. .
Can you explain to me exactly how heat is “trapped” in CO2? Do you have any clue, what-so-ever about which you are talking?
matayaya, … please, go read this: http://principia-scientific.org/publications/History-of-Radiation.pdf … then come back and comment to me about “heat trapped in CO2”
I read the first page closely, but admittedly quick skimmed the rest. I think his premise about CO2 is made clear with “a trendline analysis of satellite data clearly shows a maximum of global temperatures in 2010/2011 although
worldwide carbon dioxide emissions increased by 45% between 1990 and 2010.
Simply put, it can not be said that increasing carbon dioxide emissions between 1990 and 2010 are
causing the increase of earth’s temperature climaxing in 2010/2011. AGW claims that increasing.”
Science is never so neat and tidy to have such clear cause and effect. Certainly, CO2 is not the only thing driving climate. It is complicated. There is lots of literature out there explaining how CO2 retains heat. Leaven the contrariness with some of that. I am not claiming to have it all figured out. I’m just racing to try and keep up with what is being said.
matayaya, another good source for you to read up about your magical “heat trapped in CO2” … http://principia-scientific.org/publications/psi_radiated_energy.pdf
“Too bad this IPCC report will have some nuggets for denialist to be able to ignore the comprehensive message that global warming is happening…”
A 17 year pause is now called ‘warming’? 😆
The original alarmist fear mongering was over a shorter period of warming! I lived through the global cooling scare while in Europe, and was a climatology student before Hansen et al turned off the A/C in the halls of congress so he could sweat while giving his sermon.
The only deniers are those who ignore the Sun and deny natural variability.
You are a fool.
That is a complete misrepresentation of climate science history of the past 40 years. Your points are pointless.
I’m just racing to try and keep up with what is being said.”
Instead of listening to propaganda, hyperbole, and wild rhetoric, read what the science actually says.
@matayaya,
Can you point me to some of this literature that explains how CO2 “retains heat”? I would really like to see this. Are you familiar with the scientific discipline called “physics”? Are you aware of the results of scientific experiments and measurements of popular molecular compounds such as CO2 and their radioactive, absorption and thermal properties? Do you have any understanding of how SWR (short wave radiation) or LWR (long wave radiation (IR)) behave and affect popular molecular compounds such as CO2 and water vapor (to name just a pair)? Do you know what latent heat is? Can you tell me what the latent heat characteristics are for CO2? Methane? Water vapor? Do you understand molecular composition of our atmosphere and ratio of molecular compounds?
Unless you have a clear understanding of some of the fundamentals that I speak of, you are digging yourself a deep hole from which you have no means of ascension.
97 percent of th people commenting on this site are not qualified to comment by your definition.
Then don’t comment!
You still haven’t answered my question: Explain how CO2 “traps” heat. You can cite any paper or source you wish, but please show me how CO2 “traps” heat.
Show me the retention of thermal energy by CO2. What happens when a photon hits a CO2 molecule? Is it absorbed? or is it immediately re-emitted? Is there any thermal transfer to the CO2 molecule at all? Does the CO2 molecule retain any thermal energy and “trap” heat?
Again, you proclaimed that there are “many” papers or sources that show how CO2 “traps” heat. Please, present just one of those sources.
@matayaya “97 percent of th people commenting on this site are not qualified to comment by your definition.”
This is not true, many people here have college degrees and many, many comments I’ve read with good technical knowledge. I’ve read some papers written by people that comment here.
I’m a physicist myself and the comments of squid2112 make perfect sense.
How can you talk about climate if you have no knowledge about physics or elementary chemistry.
The argument about OLWR is essential in all this discussion, if you cannot understand that you’re not in condition to discuss (technically).
In this case you should try to learn a little first instead of coming here and parrot what you read on wikipedia.
We mean no disrespect to you, but you’re making yourself fool by doing this.
@matayaya First of all, it’s tack(a sailing term)not tact, and you seem to lack any tact as well a good dose of common sense. Now you claim heat from the atmosphere actually sinks down into the oceans depths. Poppycock! But I will accept ocean heating from undersea volcanism. However just try to boil a quart of water with a candle. Heat is leaving the planet all the time, remember: 15 years of no global warming coupled with an onset of cooling and glaciers the world over are growing. Glacier movement implies glacier growth in the form of ice build up. No. The oceans do not absorb (co2 caused heat), but absorb co2 itself. For most of Earth’s history CO2 was at levels that are much greater than today, as much as 7000 ppm in the Cambrian when all phyla of life burst forth upon this planet. Only the top few feet of open ocean gains heat from sunlight Go back to school.
Oceans do not absorb CO2 caused heat- another AGW fallacy. Oceans absorb shortwave radiation from the sun.
So what is El Nino if not a heat build up in the upper level of the ocean? The sun’s radiation becomes heat as surfaces absorb that radiation. For example, you get in your car on a sunny day. The temperature is significantly higher than the outside temperature. The inside of your car has become a greenhouse, hence, greenhouse gas. CO2 does the same thing with the planet.
matayaya, please, stop posting already. You are making yourself look incredibly stupid. Go school yourself for a couple more years and come back when you can actually mentally assemble something.
As others have mentioned, the bulk of the Antarctic is cooling; only the peninsula has been shown to be warming. As concerns the peninsula, the warming is so isolated that the cause cannot be AGW.
If the bulk of Antarctic is cooling and ice is increasing; (I’m going out on a limb here) the two are probably related.
Since CO2 is increasing and Antarctica is getting colder, they must be related. I saw a bird flying north this morning, also caused by CO2. (If alarmist only knew how stupid they sound)
You are thinking of surface and atmosphere. Whatever is happening in Antarctica, the slightly warmer ocean around it is the main driver of change.
What change?
change? For one, it is snowing more from the extra humidity in the air from the ocean. There is a little more calving of ice into the continental shelf. The water is becming fresher as the salt is seperated from the surface fresh water and falls as brine into the 1 and half to 2 mile deep gullys aound the continent. It is like a Niagra Falls of brine falling off the Antarctic continental shelf into the abiss. It is suspected this is the heart of engine that pushes the worlds ocean currents. That along with the rotation of the planet. Fresh water freezes quicker than salt water. The extra snow adds fresh water as well. It is complicated to say the lwast and no one pretends to know exactly what is going on in Antarctica. It sure is interesting trying to find out.
Where is the extra snow ?
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/webcams/mawson
http://www.martingrund.de/pinguine/pinguincam1.htm#2
http://www.weather-forecast.com/locations/McMurdo/webcams/latest
matayaya, and you believe this is different than it has been for the past 4 billion years? How? Why?
Maybe it is not different, but before I start making conclusions, I want to understand the underlying science. It is fascinating to say the least. To answer your question, what is different from 4 billion years ago?, there is more fresh water in the surface water around Antarctica due to ice calving and additional snow. Fresh water freezes at warmer temperatues more than salt water. Maybe this help explain why Antarctic sea ice has expanded in winter. That extra ice mostly melts by the next summer. This brine/fresh water production process may be increasing as a result of global warming, maybe not.
#matataya –First of all, you really need to let go of the “Global Warming” canard that has been drummed into your head. Then answer the question without relying on said canard.
The question was not “What is different from 4 billion years ago?”, It was ‘How is this any different than it has been for the last 4 billion years.
Answer: It is only different in the sense that Antarctica has not been centered at the South polar axis for the last 4 billion years. Continental positions and plate tectonics play a significant role in long term Earth climate variations. See: http://scotese.com/climate.htm
Ok, you won that gotcha moment. Feel better about yourself?
Antarctica, the slightly warmer ocean around
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2013/anomnight.9.12.2013.gif
Don’t misunderstand, I know it is still a cold ocean. Just that from what I understand, there is more moisture in the air above it.
anomaly
Some simple physics here. If the air is cooler in the Antarctic region, it will pick up less moisture from the oceans. The temperature of the ocean has little or no effect. How much snow falls depends on the delta T the air sees as it impacts colder air. In the Antarctic there is no AGW amplification signal and with the air being colder, there is less moisture to fall out for the same delta T.
That would suggest that if there is extra ice in the Antarctic it is a result of the colder air freezing the ocean water around the continent.
Reports I have seen, wish I could remember where there are, say the interior ice increase is due to increased snowing. That is the counter intutitive thing again where warming puts more water into the air and increases snow and ice.
If there were more warming then the air temperature in Antarctica would be rising as well. Warming from the oceans. That is not happening. Therefore, if there is an increase in snow volume, it is due to colder temperatures, not a warming ocean.
matayaya, I don’t know if you are aware, but atmospheric moisture content is indeed a metric that has been tracked and documented for several decades. This data shows absolutely no significant trend for the entire data archive. So what you are saying is simply more bullshit.
You would be well served to look these things up before you comment about them, and no, I am not going to do your work for you. This sort of information is available in abundance. Stephen has collected a whole lot of this information right here as well (with sources). There is a handy little tool in the upper right hand corner of this page. It is entitled “Search”. This is a handy little tool that was invented nearly the same time as the “internets” (perhaps it was our esteemed uncle Al Bore that did so). People have found this mystical “Search” function can, at times, return useful information to the individual and save him/her from ultimate humiliation from peers. I would highly recommend your first steps to be learning this new fangled technology and putting it to good use.
NOAA added new shade of color to NH temps map today. First time since the spring -20c has been on this map. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmp_01.fnl.html
Green land country club has been down to -30c to -40cc in the last week. So noaa’s maps do not show summit camp true temps. http://www.summitcamp.org/status/weather/
anecdotes are useless. You have to look at the big picture.
As long as it’s not too big, right? Like sea ice from 1979 but not before that as it destroys the narrative. 😉
The “hockey stick” graph has not been shown to be wrong. What is this obsession with sea ice and 1979?
At least spring is in the air:
http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/89606.html
And Fall too:
http://www.weather-forecast.com/maps/Canada?symbols=none&type=lapse
We are at Solar Max and have had less than 20 X Class eruptions during SC-24 and of those all were mild, the solar wind/Earth impact has been the lightest since the 1700’s and all solar indications point to minimum output for the foreseeable future…
http://www.solarham.net/regions/map.htm
The MEI and NAO are not cooperating to well with the AGW warmist hysteria and that is actually good news!
It has always amused me how whenever some peer reviewed climate science is making the rounds in the news, Drudge Report would do one of its Solar Max stories and ignore the science story completely. You can set watch to his predictibility. If it is cold as heck one day in Dubuque, we can stop worring about dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Drudge loves antidotes. All of the serious science says that changes in sun activity have no measurable effects on the climate. Besides, contrary to you saying we are in a “solar max”, we are actually in minimun.
Climate scientists know very little. Their models can’t explain warm periods or mini ice ages. Don’t worry what they claim about the sun. Maybe in 50 years they’ll have it figured out.
My mistake Chewer. You are saying solar activity is at a minimum. The “solar max” phrase is throwing me. Point stands, whats that got to do with earth’s climate?
Solar activity has EVERYTHING to do with Earth’s climate.
Sun is in maximum phase(i.e. middle of cycle) of the current sunspot cycle(24). Yet we just had about 3 days in a row of NO Sunspots. Absence of Sunspots means colder climate. See Maunder Minimum on this page: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
Sure lots of solarscience is being done but I don’t see any of these scientist claiming outright a connection between current solar activity and the warming we have seen since 1970.
Do I need to spell it out? That’s because there is no connection between CURRENT SOLAR ACTIVITY and ‘the warming we have seen since 1970.’ …but perhaps that’s not what you meant to say? Those scientists are there, you just haven’t found them. Being fond of the BIG PICTURE you should appreciate this: http://www.thelongview.com.au/images/Sunspot-Cycle-Strengths-Abdussamatov-Annotated.jpg
and this:
http://www.thelongview.com.au/documents/Sun-Defines-the-Climate-Abdussamatov-2009.pdf
Andrew, what are you saying? Are you saying lack of solar activity is the reason we have had “cooling” for the past 15 years.
This was a ‘liberal’ projection for cycle 24: http://science1.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2006/05/10/10may_longrange_resources/predictions3_strip.jpg
it has turned out to be smaller than 23, and some are saying 25 might not be much of anything. The largest in my lifetime was 19. Read Abdussamatov’s pdf there’s more to it than just sunspot numbers.
“matayaya says:
September 15, 2013 at 1:27 pm
That is a complete misrepresentation of climate science history of the past 40 years. Your points are pointless.”
Translation: ‘I cannot refute your points and will simply run away.’
“Sure lots of solarscience is being done but I don’t see any of these scientist claiming outright a connection between current solar activity and the warming we have seen since 1970.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0
Natural climate change denier, you are a fool.
It is not just me, check out the thousands of peer reviewed scientist saying something similar that are part of this discussion.
Appeals to authority are for the religious, and not the scientific. If you want to play stupid games, I can list more skeptical scientists than you can alarmists. But let’s leave the playground and discuss what the science actually says. I asked you earlier to provide even ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability for ANY global climate changes. What happened fool? 😆
You have much research to do before you spout off again.
Isn’t that trying to prove a negative? No one disputes that climate changes due to natural causes. The question has to do with all the added CO2s part in all this. You have some serious anger management issues. Why can’t you talk like a normal person without all the emotion?
God you are stupid. 😆
Have you never heard of Ockham’s Razor? If I hear noises coming for my kitchen in the middle of the night that sound exactly like my ice maker, do I (A) call a priest and perform an exorcism, or (B) confirm my ice tray now has more ice?
Take our time answering, I wouldn’t want you to hurt yourself. 😆
It is not anger, it is frustration. I sympathize with Gator as I too become frustrated reading your posts. You spin in circles on subjects that you obviously know absolutely nothing about, and try to come off as some sort of an authority. Your comical mistake is that many on this blog do indeed know what they are talking about and have studied these subjects for many years. You are most clearly ignorant on these subjects and are presenting yourself as an industrial strength fool.
That is all well and good but you all still sound like an insular community just preaching to the choir. I am a layman on the subject the of climate science but so is everyone else I have read on this site. Remember, scientist by nature are critical thinkers. You guys are critical of the science that says global warming is happening but not critical of those saying the earth is cooling. I may be an amateur, but the ideas I am slinging against your wall come from peer reviewed scientist.
I actually was a climatology student three decades ago, after years of studying geology. I have followed this scam from day one, reading every peer reviewed paper not hidden behind a pay wall. There is not a single paper refuting natural variability, NOT ONE. The entire AGW story is based upon models, and not on empirical observation.
When a hypothesis’ predictions do not come to pass, REAL scientists discard it, only agenda driven zealots keep pursuing a failed assumption.
The IPCC does not utilize the Scientific Method, they are into confirmation bias and name calling. You are no layman, you are a cheerleader who has chosen a side, most likely due to a political or social reason. What dictators call a useful idiot.
What I call a fool.
I am a layman like most of the people on this site. I have been trying to get a grasp on this stuff for years, like some of you have. My difference with some of you is I think I have a different respect for the scientific method. Ultimately, that means a paper gets written and it get put out in the general scientific community for thousands of scientists to review. The paper usually gets chewed up and improved. Sometimes it is accepted as is and sometimes it is rejected as bogus. But, the more qualified eyes put to paper, the better the quality of the paper.
You all could argue that global warming is being exaggared or that CO2 effect is being exaggared, but no, you are saying we are cooling and that the whole global warming thing is a hoax. Playing the odds, that is the number of peer reviewed scientist saying global warming is real, vastly outnumber those saying that is bogus and we are cooling. I’m sorry but that puts you into the flat earth society.
these are all weather predictions…
by the time the paper is written….reviewed….published
the weather changes
they promote the paper as fact after the review……before it has time to be chewed up
My dog ate my homework! =))
No, peer reviewed science by definition means it gets chewed up before it gets “promoted”.
The peer of a fraud is a fraud.
😆
You are not a layman, you are an idiot!
“I have a different respect for the scientific method. Ultimately, that means a paper gets written and it get put out in the general scientific community for thousands of scientists to review. The paper usually gets chewed up and improved. Sometimes it is accepted as is and sometimes it is rejected as bogus. But, the more qualified eyes put to paper, the better the quality of the paper.”
You have your own DEFINITION of the Scientific Method. 😆
What you just described is ‘peer review’, and not the Scientific Method, of which you know NOTHING!
ROFLMAO!!!!
The CO2 effect IS being exaggerated. BECAUSE it is known with certainty from Ice Core records that CO2 increase always FOLLOWS(DOES NOT LEAD) temperature increase by as much of a delay as 200 to 800 years! – Abdussamatov, The Sun Defines The Climate – Distant Past Of The Terrestrial Climate.
That is a good point. I need to read more on this. One quote I just saw said “lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming.
And that is why we have never had runaway warming! 😆
Keep the laugh track coming you moron.
Oh matayaya – playing the Odds now? I can say GW is real and caused by the Sun. At the same time I can say AGW is bogus as CO2 is a non-cause of warming, because CO2 levels rise after warm periods, and fall after cold periods. An effect is not a cause.
Why can’t we just both say we don’t know but are students of the subject. Why do we have to make science political.
What part of ‘failed hypothesis’ do you not understand? Oh, that’s right, you are the idiot who confuses peer review with the Scientific Method. 😆
Matayaya, No one is saying that AGW is a complete hoax. Just CAGW. As there are a few spectral bands available from CO2, you could see minor warming. The argument is not over a little warming; it is changing how we live our lives over the specious claim that whatever warming occurs is catastrophic.
And that is where the hockey stick comes in. Without it, there could be no claim of CAGW. But what a fraud that has turned out to be. Saying that we’ve never been warmer is the only argument that could be made that AGW is going to CAGW due to numerous positive feedbacks. Those feedbacks have never occurred in the past when we do know we were warmer; why would they now. The entire argument in a fraud. A fraud that our tax dollars are feeding.
As for your claim to live by the Scientific Principle. Your kidding yourself. It only takes one temperature record to show the fraud that is CAGW. Look at the rural temperature record vs. urban. Explain away the temperature records that show no CAGW. It only takes “ONE” data point that is not in line with the theory to dismiss the theory.
As the defender of the theory, it is your responsibility to defend against all data points. As a skeptic I only have to show you where the data does not match the theory. Again, you have to defend the theory. And you are not doing a very good job of it.
Thanks, at least you are not pushing cooling as many here are. This is a learning experience for me, I want to understand where you are coming from. It’s just that so many posters here seem more interested in the political side of the argument than the science side.
I recognize that the hockey stick is a flash point for both sides of the argument. The defense of it seems strong from everything I have seen. You all think differently. I respect that. The leveling off of surface temperatures since the peak 98 has thrown a wrench into the debate. But, you guys haven’t addressed the rising warmth showing up in the ocean. Afterall, the ocean contains 90 percent of the subject warming. Surface temperatures are the tail of the dog.
I addressed the claimed ocean warming, and told you that the claimed warming was less than the sensitivity of the buoys. If you have information to refute this, then by all means share with the rest of the class.
You are a parrot.
The leveling off of surface temperatures since the peak 98 has thrown a wrench into the debate
====
yep, because now 1/2 of the satellite temp record is going down
======
But, you guys haven’t addressed the rising warmth showing up in the ocean.
====
yes it has been addressed…and no one has come up with an answer as to how measured temps going down…can make water temps go up
when they haven’t gone up
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/RSS_mwSST_2002_thru_May_2013.png
matayayayadayada 😉 You seem as if you may be catching on to what some of us are saying. But maybe a little blindered by tales of oceans warming(SSTs-Sea Surface Temps). Did you know that if you go deep enough in an ocean, the temperature goes below freezing? yes even below the freezing temperature of saline seawater. What keeps it from freezing? You may wonder. Pressure. Pressure keeps the icy benthic depths from turning into a marine slushy. Also like lakes, which turn over on an annual basis with the seasons, oceans too, perform a more complex turning over on multi decadal time scales. This is where we get the terms AMO(Atlantic Multi Decadal Oscillation) and PDO, IPO, and ENSO. These multi year oscillations of SSTs are more tied to the various Solar cycles[there are more than just the 11 yr. sunspot cycle, there is also a 200 yr. cycle, and other longer solar cycles: http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot5.html#some200 ], and complex tidal cycles, than they are tied to anything anthropogenic.
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/
SMS, I disagree with you. I am saying that AGW is a complete hoax. And I will absolutely, unequivocally, stand by that statement.
Hoax? What would be the point of a hoax? You think like cultist. Most people in the world want the same thing you do. Most people are basically good. Many of what you think of as bad people aren’t much different than you. They want to take care of their family just like you. Who has time to waste on hoaxes.
Obama has ridiculed and threatened to fire government employees who don’t believe in global warming. How could that possibly affect the outcome?
matayaya, you are naive at best, and most certainly a fool.
@matayaya,
Translation: A fool and his money are easily parted.
There are more than a trillion motivations for this hoax. Here is but one of thousands of accountings for such motivations, some estimates have placed these markets at greater than $17 trillion dollar world wide markets.
Again, a fool and his money are soon parted ….
New Carbon Finance Study Predicts One Trillion Dollar US Carbon Market
And keep in mind matayaya, these are not voluntary markets, oh no, this hoax is fervently advocating for forced markets (ie: CO2 taxes). That translates into you and I being forced to finance these markets. You don’t believe there is any motivation behind the this scam that is AGW? How much money you got on you right now? I would like to make some deals with you. I can use a little extra cash.
You do understand that AGW resides in the “Working Hypothesis” realm and has no chance of making the big league “Scientific Theory” status, don’t you?
The forcing’s and mediation effects of the 5 spheres above our troposphere are not understood and the interactions of thermal & EMF energy, their transport methods and phasing over time, from the core of our planet to furthest boundary of our magnetosphere fall into the “Not Understood” category. Why would you put your faith in failed models developed by unknowledgeable people, who are actually the minority in the scientific community?
It is irrelevant what your IQ, level of knowledge or experience is, but is curious that you follow the progressive mode of thought.
Scientific Theories are accepted by both liberal & conservative minds, but the AGW working hypothesis is disagreed upon fiercely by the two minds, why?
You say “disagreed up fiercely” but the analysis I have seen of the number of the world’s scientist that accepts the “hypothesis” of AGW is not too many percentage points off unanimous. Seems to me you folks are fierecely defending a small minority. Show some skepticism toward them once in a while.
You are parroting again. 😆
I can provide over 30,000 actual scientists who say AGW is crap, how many can you provide that support it?
Meanwhile, here is what some of them have to say…
“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.)
And have you actually researched into those so-called “consensus” claims? Quit being a tool … quit being a fool!
Science is not done by consensus! … I can give you thousands of examples of how a “consensus” has led to complete travesties. You will find, more often then not, a “consensus” is wrong. It is group think, and rarely is group think correct or healthy.
You have much to learn…
Sorry, my prior was aimed at matayaya…
Thanks for the good info Gator! … exactly what I was driving at…:-)
Just what scientific method is it that you think supports the Hockey Stick? (Even the IPCC backed away from that one.)
Here’s a little observation about empirical science that might be edifying. In every area of science that I’ve explored, until one could perform highly controlled experiments ‘all hell broke loose’, that is, researchers obtained any number of conflicting results. One example: genetics before Mendel; people didn’t use pure lines for their hybridization experiments, and the results as a whole were uninterpretable. Now let’s consider climate science. Here we have the whole atmosphere/hydrosphere(/solar system/god-knows-what-else) that we’re dealing with, without any possibility of observations that are truly well-controlled. But despite this the “science is already settled”; we have a (nearly) full consensus among the experts; it’s all as clear as the back of my hand … Given what I said before, do you see any problem with this?
Nice thoughtful statement, thanks. I’m a layman here but one thing we do seem to know is that CO2 stays in the atmosphere and retains heat. I haven’t seen any comprehensible explanation that says otherwise. I keep thinking about the 7 billion people on the planet soon to be 9 billion, all with increasing ambition of dumping even more CO2 into the atmosphere. It is better than I be wrong than you.
Natural climate denier, you say you are here to learn, and yet you ignore the science coming from those who are in the know. You are a liar, as well as a useful idiot and parrot. Squid has pointed out the science that disproves your ‘belief’ regarding CO2 ‘traps’, I have repeatedly shown there is no science refuting natural variability, and instead of acquiring knowledge, you keep spouting your ignorance.
You are a self made moron.
matayaya proclaiming that he is “playing the odds” by counting how many scientific papers suggest warming (AGW?) is equivalent to looking at the public betting action on a given side of a football game to decide who won a particular football game instead of looking at the actual scoreboard. The warmists penchant for counting papers and models as actual scientific evidence for their theory is putting a black eye on science at large. The warmist actually create studies by counting other studies and then parade it around like they actually proved something.
Indeed, except AGW comes no where close to scientific theory.
Let’s call it what it is, a working hypothesis…
Yeah, AGW is too weak to be called an actual scientific theory, but I was using the word, theory, as used in the common parlance.
At least these papers and studies have been peer reviewed. Much of what you all seem to use to substantiate your claims are coming from non peer reviewed papers and studies. You can’t have an honest scientific method if your scientist don’t submit their stuff for peer review and take their lumps like everyone else. Like it or not, science is often a numbers game of satistics. The higher the number, the easier it is too accept. You never claim to absolutely know something. It doesn’t mean you check your skeptism at the door, it just means when consensus occurs, you accept it with a grain of salt and move on to the next issue.
Can you read? I have show you the corruption of ‘peer (pal) review’, and told you that is not the same as the scientific method, which the alarmists have abandoned for confirmation bias.
Find a new hobby fool.
I would trust the view of 97 pals more than just 3.
I’m still waiting for proof of your 97% consensus claim. Care to learn the truth moron?
“… is equivalent to looking at the public betting action on a given side of a football game…”
Worse, it is like determining the existence of God based upon the work of Bible scholars.
It was written long ago (by man), that God created man in his own image, however, the exact opposite could be true!
I have no issue with faith, except when it is dressed up as fact. I question everything, and on occasion have had to change my views as a result. I wish everyone would take this quote from Jefferson to heart, for if they would this world would be a much better place.
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”
-Thomas Jefferson
Very nice Gator! … Thank you for sharing! … sure wisdom for thought…thanks!
Nice, Thanks
Now show that you can read, and comprehend.
Your philosophy is better than your science
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
That’s rich coming from the ‘layman’ who lied about coming here to ‘learn’!
ROFLMAO!!!
By the way, I never said anything about not recognizing the importance of natural variabiltiy. I would say natural variability is the genesis and CO2 is the accellarent. Sort of like autism. It has a genetic component that is possibly triggered by environmental causes.
You are parroting again. What science are your claims based upon, I need to see these peer reviewed papers. Have you not rad them? Are you just accepting all of this on faith? Why do you deny science?
Does this site have a moderator? The quality of the discussion is being dumbed down. It is like a cult that only wants to hear from like minded cultist. If you are not a member of the cult, you must be a moron. Hate makes you irrelevent like the little dog yapping at the train going by. I am obviously not welcome so I will finish up here before long and bit my adios. I have had at least 100 responses, many of them thoughtful, and I have tried to respond to many of them. But, the brutes here are tired me and I guess I am tired of them. If there is no moderator to civilize the place, maybe I will moderate and respond only to those that would like to have a respectful exchange of ideas.
I see that you are looking to be spam. You ignore all the facts being presented and are just here to make noise.
I bet I have read more background papers the 100 or so commenters have sent me the past few days on this site than you have read the past year from sites that don’t fit your preconceived notions.
ok…then what’s the excuse for saying stupid things
Unfortunately, nature isn’t cooperating with your papers.
“matayaya says:
September 16, 2013 at 3:39 pm
Does this site have a moderator? The quality of the discussion is being dumbed down.”
Yes, and by you. You have not once discussed science, you have only parroted false talking points of the alarmists. We have repeatedly tried to engage you in a scientific discussion, as you claimed you were here to learn. Now we all know you are a liar as well as a fool.
Good riddance.
You accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing, “parroted false talking points of the contrarians. I changed the last word. Being an absolutist does not lead to wisdom. I am honest enough to admit that the more I learn about the world, the more I realize I don’t know. That is the definition of the true skeptic. You are not a skeptic, you know what you know and thats it. That stops you from learning. Maybe you live off in the woods somewhere and don’t need to know anything else, but the world is a big complicated, fragile place and folks like you are all around and can cause it to blow up at anytime. Maybe its a wrong perception, but you and Steve and some other here seem to hate much of the worlds population. You just wish all that “mess” would just go to hell and leave you alone. it aint going to happen. The world is as it is, and is here to stay, and it is better to try and engage with it and see if we can make things a little better.
I bet you can’t come back with a civil response. I’ll leave soon, just a few loose ends left.
So still not a shred of science from the parrot.
Get lost liar.
Quite a chorus of close minded people here. The window of understanding gets smaller and smaller. You just want to parrot insular ideas back and forth with each other and ignore a big wide world out there. We all have our political biases, but we should be able to still talk to each other.
Considering how radically sure you are of yourself, what do you think should happen to all the people in the world that don’t agree with you? Nuke em? Is is possible for them live their lives without getting a steady barrage of brainless insults from the likes of you?
WTF does politics have to do with climate you lying moron? You have avoided the scientific discussion from the first, and now are projecting.
Ass clown, you are the fool who did not know that peer review is not the scientific method and now you want to question our knowledge.
F off.
If what you say is true, then you would have engaged in “discussion”, but instead you continued to parrot debunked claims. You never engaged in conversation, you didn’t do your homework, you simply made noise.
Buh bye….
The “noise” I was trying to make was to throw a discordant note into such an incestous discussion. The quality of the discussion was skeptical about nothing. It was sounding like another battlefield for politics. Fortunately I eventually got some good discussion and background papers and my understanding has improved. Unfortunatley, the understanding of some folks on this site seem completely cemented.
When do you plan to confront the “97% consensus” over their incest?
Liar.
matayaya, I thought you left already … wazzup with that? … can’t find the door?
I guess not Mr. Squid. Truth is I don’t find it interesting getting on websites where people sort of think like I do. I would much rather have a discussion with someone in another univere. You should try it sometime. It can be fun as well as educational.
why don’t you just call them all trailer trash and be done with it?
cut the self serving victim crap….
Temp reconstructions are modeled by computers…
…global warming predictions are modeled by computers
Name just one prediction they have gotten right.
It is not an apple to apple discussion. Most of the trends you focus on are short term, mine are longer. It does not have to be a winner take contest here. The truth may eventually settle somewhere in the middle.
what trends?
half of the satellite temp record is not warming
You seem to be reading challenged….or do not want to admit the computer games have gotten nothing right
Fine, name a longer trend the computer games got right.
BTW You don’t know what I focus on
oh come on….this is an easy one
Now rattle your cow bell and focus….
Name just one thing they have gotten right.
I don’t accept your premise that they got anything wrong. Science is a fits and starts, evolving effort. What you call wrong is just part of the naturally evolving process. The bottom line, we know a lot more today than we did a year ago, or five years ago or twenty years. We will know more next year. Why must you insist on categorizing everyone as either genius or morons. Just because they agree with you does not make them a genius.
Your surface temp record trend point goes nowhere if you leave out the ocean. One thing i have learned on this site the past few days is that our throwing studies back and forth at each other ends at a dead end in most cases. I feel I have learned some useful things but my basic understanding of the issue has not changed much. it is obvious that the politics of it all means nothing meaningful will ever change. Truth is, too many people on the planet releasing too much carbon into the atmosphere and ocean. Species extintctions, sweeping the ocean of most fish, acidification of the ocean, reduction of clean fresh water. We really have fowled our nest. And that fact is barely on the radar of so many people. We would rather argue politics.
Ocean temps have not risen…ocean pH has not changed….more new species have been discovered and no species has gone extinct since global warming….fish populations are recovering…..there is no reduction in clean fresh water….
I asked you an extremely simple question…you are the one that is better read
What have the computer games predicted that have come true?
If you really were concerned about your list….you would be really pissed at all the time and money that has been wasted on this scam….that could have been focused on what you think are real issues
that they got anything wrong.
What you call wrong
Why must you insist on categorizing everyone as either genius or morons. Just because they agree with you does not make them a genius.
====
sweet cheeks you really are reading challenged…I said none of that
I just asked you a simple question….try to stay focused
I wonder how many parrots know that the “97% consensus” is just 76, out of 10,257 scientists surveyed.
I wonder how many parrots care?
That has become a pointless point for this setting. It has become like arguing over whether the glass is half full or half empty.
So this parrot does not care, after repeatedly using the “97% consensus” as defense of the indefensible.
Liar, keep digging.
And they said there were no shovel ready jobs … pffft … matayaya certainly found one …
I like the consensus argument. It is a bold indicator of just who you are dealing with.
The parrot says…
“Truth is, too many people on the planet releasing too much carbon into the atmosphere and ocean. Species extintctions, sweeping the ocean of most fish, acidification of the ocean, reduction of clean fresh water.”
Can parrots site papers? 😆
he bought the CO2 scam hook line and sinker….
CO2 has risen…so actual measurements be damned
Everything this parrot repeats are false talking points and/or model driven drivel, and he is clueless, because he has not read/comprehended the literature. The parrot keeps going on about ocean temps, and yet the Pacific, which covers more area than all land mass combined has not warmed since 1994.
More on the models…
http://mash.network.coull.com/activatevideo?video_provider_id=2&pid=8165&website_id=9871&width=420&height=315&embed_type=IFRAME&video_provider_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/embed/zxFStRC913I%3Fversion%3D3%26rel%3D1%26fs%3D1%26showsearch%3D0%26showinfo%3D1%26iv_load_policy%3D1%26wmode%3Dtransparent&mobile=true&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwattsupwiththat.com%2F2013%2F09%2F13%2Fa-video-preview-of-climate-models-fail%2F
matayaya says: “bit my adios”
Is that anything like bid you adieu? Anyway matayaya is the same clown that came on this blog a while ago with the same type of idiotic dreck and got himself completely demolished under a different name. He claimed to be from Canada IIRC. Now he’s back without having learned a GD thing from his first experience invincibly ignorant, but still clinging to the same Malthusian garbage
Me thinks Mahood & matayaya are one and the same.
Turds of a feather crock together.
It’s hard to tell one from the other.They only have 3 talking points.