1. Gator Country Black Friday special!

    Stay on top of the football coach search with the Insider Authority on Gator Sports with a special discount!

    Now's a great time to join or renew and get up to $20 off your annual subscription! LIMITED QUANTITIES -- for details click here.

Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MOR

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by mocgator, Sep 2, 2014.

  1. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,930
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,659
    kind of like those who tout our economic "recovery" huh?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,930
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,659
    way too many facts and not enough emotion Wyoming. no religion can run on facts so throw some more emotion in there to help keep it alive would you :)
  3. Emmitto
    Offline

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,866
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +833
    And consistent with your strategy of focusing on single parts of a mountain of evidence, this whole scenario actually tells a story that contradicts your stance.

    Hansen's three models were too high because they overestimated climate sensitivity, primarily (he also overestimated the amount of GHG's that would be added to the atmosphere, including CFC's and other gases like methane.) But scenario B was decently close to the actual emissions, which means thee sensitivity he used was too high. At that time GHG forcings were all lumped together, treated essentially the same. It was known but not as well understood at the time that this wasn't accurate.

    Hanson used 4.2 degrees Celcius as CS (per a doubling of CO2). It turns out to be more like 3.4 to 3.6. The IPCC uses 3.0, almost assuredly TOO LOW, for their "best estimate." But the IPCC range is 2 - 4.5 degrees, which again, is likely right.

    Hansen also nailed the spatial distribution of warming and it's likely that as the rate of warming increases, even his original predictions will get closer to observed temps (IOW, as climate sensitivity increases and gets closer to the high one he used.)

    So again, what Hansen did was use a sensitivity on the high end of the range, or essentially a "worst case" CS. In the process, he essentially proved the middle value of the range was right on.

    Here is a comparison of Hansen's 1988 scenarios and observed temps:

    [​IMG]


    And of course this has been readdressed ad nauseam since 1988, including by Hanson himself. The refusal to acknowledge that is another strategy by people who are determined to deny.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Emmitto
    Offline

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,866
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +833
    Yeah, could be. Although the use of short term noise in economic matters tends to work both ways. I see the monthly unemployment report on here constantly, supporting both directions.
  5. beanfield
    Offline

    beanfield Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +222
    But,But,but......we were ready to elect him as POTUS!!! What say you now????
  6. Emmitto
    Offline

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,866
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +833
    Exactly the opposite. Denial can only exist in a vacuum that has been sucked dry of all but emotion. That's why it lives on Fox, with Hannity and crew about to throat punch themselves with the fury they feel over it. Well, to be fair, it's not all emotions, just the ones like rage.v
  7. Emmitto
    Offline

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,866
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +833
    Uh, you saw who did get elected, right? I mean if maximum distance from science, all science, was the goal, mission accomplished. No pun intended.
    • Winner Winner x 2
  8. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,930
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,659
    [​IMG]
    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/global-sea-ice-area-continues-its-spectacular-growth/

    Global Sea Ice Area Continues Its Spectacular Growth
    Posted on October 9, 2013 by stevengoddard
    There has been no global warming for 17 years, and global sea ice area is increasing as well. The earth has gained 27,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, and is greater than it was on this date in 1984.

    raw data since 1979 to 2014. Global sea ice is increasing

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.global.anom.1979-2008
  9. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,930
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,659
    yeah because msnbc has none of the other side. never watch Fox but mother-in-law loves madcow maddow so I have to endure when I visit them in Alaska and the nonsense that spews out of their mouths is just as bad or worse than what many post from Fox. Do you deny that global sea ice is increasing? or that the ice caps on Mars and other planets n our system is decreasing? or that the models have been so wrong that they continue to try and make an excuse for the day as to why they were so wrong? who is in denial here?
  10. Emmitto
    Offline

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,866
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +833
    Yes, I am forced to acknowledge the data on all of these points and have already deconstructed almost all of them on this thread already.

    I even deny that Steven Goddard's name is Steven Goddard. How about you?
  11. ncgatr1
    Offline

    ncgatr1 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,205
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +877
    Good Article, I saw HBO's Vice special on the Greenland Ice cap and they used measuring sticks drilled into the ice, after 1 year, the ice surface shrank in elevation almost 14 feet. Not to mention the entire ice sheet was covered in black soot residue. I have questioned climate change for years and have come to the conclusion that we are leaving a carbon foot print. This doesn't mean I agree with you on most things.
  12. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,660
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,093
    Wow...so after admitting that the formulas used to create the original graphs were wrong, we are supposed to trust that the newer figures are absolutely correct, even though warming has been flat for 15 to 19 years, depending on which data set is being used.

    And you accuse skeptics of evaluating with emotion rather than reason? Yeah...deconstruct that.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. Emmitto
    Offline

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,866
    Likes Received:
    248
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +833
    "Formulas"? It's a tad more complex than that.

    I explained in fairly decent detail why your proclamation was misleading (to be kind) and then how you inadvertently provided support for the projections as a whole. Hansen, in using a "worst case scenario" CS figure, which led to temp projections higher than observed temps, showed that the 3.0 that the IPCC uses is pretty much right on.

    And you continue to mistake science as a pursuit of "absolutes". Of course it is not. That's literally not the process. Obsesrve, hypothesize, test, reevaluate. Hypotheses that don't require changes become theories. Theories are also not "settled". You introduce absoluteness in order to prevent change. It's a rudimentary tactic, although I'll admit that it is effective.

    Warming has only "stopped" when you limit (only specific years, don't go before or after) and omit (only surface temps, can't include the other 98%) to absurd levels. Earlier you tried to question why observations of sea ice would be limited to September or only from 1979. Then a page later you have to employ the very trick you attempted to implicate in that post. You can find a "pause" at any number of places. You just can't view them all, or even more than one, or the narrative falls apart.

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    I'm also guessing the "depending on data" caveat is some sort of lead-in to a data correction point once all this other stuff fails. If so, that's another example of not understanding how data is processed. That's actually a more understandable error, as the fake Steven Goddard already relied on in this thread demonstrates. He also doesn't understand the difference between the data you get from some sort of sensor and why it requires more than copy/paste. It's unlikely he has ever gone through that process (although it's also possible he just takes advantage of this lack of knowledge which would also help explain the desire to conceal his identity.)

    But once again, we've just gone down a list of erroneous Denier Zombie Talking Points, which never die. Starting with the OP. This ice recovery lie shows up multiple times a year, and gets punked every time. But it actually came back to life in this very thread, after it had been killed once.

    But as always, I support your right to be wrong. I just can't pretend to agree.
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. mutz87
    Offline

    mutz87 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2014
    Messages:
    22,296
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,243
    Disclaimers are good. Science after all, is about qualifying ones answers. But I am interested in why you accept the factual basis and impact of LIA so easily when even a casual perusal of the writings on it call into question much of what we "think" we know about it. I mean, you have to ask yourself, if there are these gaps (potentially big ones), should I so easily point to it as evidence of something that truly undermines current AGW without first addressing limitations in LIA research first?
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
  15. beanfield
    Offline

    beanfield Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    877
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +222
    Gore couldn't carry GWB'S jockstrap.....
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  16. BastogneGator
    Offline

    BastogneGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,981
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +690
    So why is Antartic ice increasing? Haven't seen anyone touch on that subject. Certainly some of these PHDs have looked to see if there was a minor variation in time of the Earth's orbit or the suns radiation of heat/energy.
  17. mutz87
    Offline

    mutz87 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2014
    Messages:
    22,296
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,243
    It's been discussed before. I tend to use skeptical science as a start for things I know little about or when I am too lazy to go searching for research studies. This one of those times. Here's their take on it.
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2014
  18. BastogneGator
    Offline

    BastogneGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,981
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +690
    They say it's getting warmer (less than a hundredth of a degree Celsius per decade) and there is more ice. I wonder if you could also divorce ambient temperature from the reported decrease in ice in the Artic.
  19. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    14,930
    Likes Received:
    1,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +2,659
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/john-cook/

    forgive me for not buying your source. after viewing the page it is apparent that it is as biased as Hanson is. multiple reports at the link above debunking the quality of Cook's "science"

    and there are many more rebuttals to Mr. Cook's biased postings

    for your entertainment I have linked a site to counter your site and we could do this for pages and pages.

    This is what I know. Part of my job as a licensed professional engineer (in 3 states and the USVI) is doing models for stormwater systems. Relatively simple hydraulic and nutrient loading/removal models with a couple of hundred variables max. . I can manipulate these models within the range of acceptable engineering assumptions and move the needle to where I want it to point for the most part. These models are reviewed by state water management districts, epa, army corps, and even environmental groups opposed to the projects I am permitting. In 15+ years of doing this type of modeling none of my models have been proven to be incorrect. I can't imagine the degree to which a global climate model can be manipulated hence my skepticism of parties whose entire livelihood relies on perpetuating their agenda

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

    MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
    FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half.
    There has been no catastrophic warming recorded


    MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.
    FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

    MYTH 6: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
    FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
    1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
    2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
    To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  20. mutz87
    Offline

    mutz87 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2014
    Messages:
    22,296
    Likes Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,243
    I am not sure it's divorced from temperatures as much as there are different weather patterns and other factors that provide the different trends.
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2014

Share This Page