New York State suffers 6 feet and counting of global warming
Discussion
Dear sd,
Healthy species
It's fantastic isn't it, those cuddly chaps are actually, gulp, thriving?
regards,
Jet
sherbertdip said:
I have no idea who "they" are to which you refer and I would like to see the data that says "it is still colder" than what i've no idea?
As for "Lobal Warming" proof why not do all or even one of the following:
Ask the Polar Bears that are year on year having to wait longer for the Arctic Ocean to freeze before they go and eat seals after starving for many months.
Or look at the massive reduction in thickness and extent of the Antartic Ice Sheets.
Or go and explore the barren rocky valleys in every area where glaciers used to be.
Sitting here in the UK with our changeable weather will not give you a clue as to what the effects of global warming (not climate change) caused by man over the past 200 years has done - stop being an ignoramus, read about real changes, then step back and think!!!!
I have really good news for you which should make you sleep so much better As for "Lobal Warming" proof why not do all or even one of the following:
Ask the Polar Bears that are year on year having to wait longer for the Arctic Ocean to freeze before they go and eat seals after starving for many months.
Or look at the massive reduction in thickness and extent of the Antartic Ice Sheets.
Or go and explore the barren rocky valleys in every area where glaciers used to be.
Sitting here in the UK with our changeable weather will not give you a clue as to what the effects of global warming (not climate change) caused by man over the past 200 years has done - stop being an ignoramus, read about real changes, then step back and think!!!!
Healthy species
It's fantastic isn't it, those cuddly chaps are actually, gulp, thriving?
regards,
Jet
jet_noise said:
Dear sd,
Healthy species
It's fantastic isn't it, those cuddly chaps are actually, gulp, thriving?
regards,
Jet
And sherbertdip can have a lie in knowing this too ...........sherbertdip said:
I have no idea who "they" are to which you refer and I would like to see the data that says "it is still colder" than what i've no idea?
As for "Lobal Warming" proof why not do all or even one of the following:
Ask the Polar Bears that are year on year having to wait longer for the Arctic Ocean to freeze before they go and eat seals after starving for many months.
Or look at the massive reduction in thickness and extent of the Antartic Ice Sheets.
Or go and explore the barren rocky valleys in every area where glaciers used to be.
Sitting here in the UK with our changeable weather will not give you a clue as to what the effects of global warming (not climate change) caused by man over the past 200 years has done - stop being an ignoramus, read about real changes, then step back and think!!!!
I have really good news for you which should make you sleep so much better As for "Lobal Warming" proof why not do all or even one of the following:
Ask the Polar Bears that are year on year having to wait longer for the Arctic Ocean to freeze before they go and eat seals after starving for many months.
Or look at the massive reduction in thickness and extent of the Antartic Ice Sheets.
Or go and explore the barren rocky valleys in every area where glaciers used to be.
Sitting here in the UK with our changeable weather will not give you a clue as to what the effects of global warming (not climate change) caused by man over the past 200 years has done - stop being an ignoramus, read about real changes, then step back and think!!!!
Healthy species
It's fantastic isn't it, those cuddly chaps are actually, gulp, thriving?
regards,
Jet
" A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006."
dickymint said:
jet_noise said:
Dear sd,
Healthy species
It's fantastic isn't it, those cuddly chaps are actually, gulp, thriving?
regards,
Jet
And sherbertdip can have a lie in knowing this too ...........sherbertdip said:
I have no idea who "they" are to which you refer and I would like to see the data that says "it is still colder" than what i've no idea?
As for "Lobal Warming" proof why not do all or even one of the following:
Ask the Polar Bears that are year on year having to wait longer for the Arctic Ocean to freeze before they go and eat seals after starving for many months.
Or look at the massive reduction in thickness and extent of the Antartic Ice Sheets.
Or go and explore the barren rocky valleys in every area where glaciers used to be.
Sitting here in the UK with our changeable weather will not give you a clue as to what the effects of global warming (not climate change) caused by man over the past 200 years has done - stop being an ignoramus, read about real changes, then step back and think!!!!
I have really good news for you which should make you sleep so much better As for "Lobal Warming" proof why not do all or even one of the following:
Ask the Polar Bears that are year on year having to wait longer for the Arctic Ocean to freeze before they go and eat seals after starving for many months.
Or look at the massive reduction in thickness and extent of the Antartic Ice Sheets.
Or go and explore the barren rocky valleys in every area where glaciers used to be.
Sitting here in the UK with our changeable weather will not give you a clue as to what the effects of global warming (not climate change) caused by man over the past 200 years has done - stop being an ignoramus, read about real changes, then step back and think!!!!
Healthy species
It's fantastic isn't it, those cuddly chaps are actually, gulp, thriving?
regards,
Jet
" A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006."
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=arctic+sea+ice+v...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/12...
and where to begin with Glaciers?
sherbertdip said:
and where to begin with Glaciers?
Begin with causality to humans, there isn't any, then continue with Ollier and Paine with my emphasis added...Ollier and Paine paper said:
The speed of valley glaciers has been measured for a long time, and is rather variable. Sometimes a valley will flow several times faster than it did earlier. Suppose we had a period of a thousand years of heavy precipitation. This would cause a thickening of the ice, and more rapid glacial flow. The pulse of more rapid flow would eventually pass down the valley. It is important to understand that the increase in flow rate is not related to present day air temperature, but to increased precipitation long ago.
...finishing on Svalbard and Prof Ole Humlum, who commented on a Green zealot photo-stunt involving the glacier Blomstrandbreen as snapped in 1918 and 2002. The difference in appearance was 'explained' by the zealots as due to man-made global warming, but Prof H pointed out that glaciers on Svalbard typically experience a rapid advance lasting 5 to 7 years, then retreat slowly for the next 80 to 100 years. This may well be related to past events within natural weather cycles in the area (see Ollier and Paine ^) or some other natural cause. Professor Humlum also wondered why that one particular glacier was the focus of attention when dozens of glaciers were advancing. Friddjovbreen had advanced more than a mile in the last seven years, one of many to do likewise. Photographs of Svalbard glaciers such as Vonpostbreen and Esmarkbreen taken in the 1990s showed a very healthy picture. Clearly this wasn't the highly selective message that the zealots wanted to convey as part of the stunt. There are glaciers which are advancing and retreating at the same time (two snouts) so this must be due either to manmade global warmingcooling or manmade global coolingwarming. A large publicly funded research grant and the best scientists money can buy should sort that one nicely.
<In reply to sherbertdip>
However, even were one to accept your figures without question (and there are reasons not to, whatever your or my personal take on things) it is still necessary to establish a causative link between human CO2 emissions and those observations; outwith the assumptions embedded in models the predictions of which have never been correct no such link has been demonstrated. I don't know that anthropogenic CO2 is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things but I strongly suspect it because the "science" done by the major proponents of AGW is basically, pants.
However, even were one to accept your figures without question (and there are reasons not to, whatever your or my personal take on things) it is still necessary to establish a causative link between human CO2 emissions and those observations; outwith the assumptions embedded in models the predictions of which have never been correct no such link has been demonstrated. I don't know that anthropogenic CO2 is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things but I strongly suspect it because the "science" done by the major proponents of AGW is basically, pants.
sherbertdip said:
I have no idea who "they" are to which you refer and I would like to see the data that says "it is still colder" than what i've no idea?
As for "Global Warming" proof why not do all or even one of the following:
Ask the Polar Bears that are year on year having to wait longer for the Arctic Ocean to freeze before they go and eat seals after starving for many months.
Or look at the massive reduction in thickness and extent of the Antartic Ice Sheets.
Or go and explore the barren rocky valleys in every area where glaciers used to be.
Sitting here in the UK with our changeable weather will not give you a clue as to what the effects of global warming (not climate change) caused by man over the past 200 years has done - stop being an ignoramus, read about real changes, then step back and think!!!!
Engineer1 - really? The whole planet fella. As for this "some places will get colder" - when did this start? Was it in the first 10 years of no warming? Or fifteen? What it when they needed to change the name to Climate Change because guess what, there is no Global Warming.As for "Global Warming" proof why not do all or even one of the following:
Ask the Polar Bears that are year on year having to wait longer for the Arctic Ocean to freeze before they go and eat seals after starving for many months.
Or look at the massive reduction in thickness and extent of the Antartic Ice Sheets.
Or go and explore the barren rocky valleys in every area where glaciers used to be.
Sitting here in the UK with our changeable weather will not give you a clue as to what the effects of global warming (not climate change) caused by man over the past 200 years has done - stop being an ignoramus, read about real changes, then step back and think!!!!
Edited by sherbertdip on Saturday 22 November 19:17
Turning to Dip:
1. They are the bull**t merchants getting rich on this stuff, including but not limited to the BBC Pension Fund
2. The data that says it is colder is all around you if you care to look. The internet has a good deal of information (of course, the AGW lies and propaganda to which I refer is also abundant, but the truth is out there too)
3. Polar bear Numbers? Really? You may wish to get up to date knowledge before making such assertions. You see, the "poster boy" of the bulls***ers does well when not being hunted by man.. Funny that.
4. Antarctic Sea ice? Oh, more good news for you, take a look at google for more information.
5. Glaciers used to be? And? Used to make wine in Kent, along with lots of other stuff. The Climate changes and has changed for billions of years. Greenland, why was it called that? Heck, did you know that in history there was no arctic or Antarctic. Incredible eh?! I mean, before we had cars too. Shock of the century or what?
6. Believe me, I have read up on this stuff. I don't mean just the Guardian either or the BBC< perhaps you might want to do the same?! Then you'd actually realise it is a load of s**e too.
sherbertdip said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Polar_bear
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=arctic+sea+ice+v...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/12...
and where to begin with Glaciers?
Rather than posting links to articles written by organisations (BBC / Guardian) that are institutionally pre-disposed to embrace the CAGW meme, why not digest some properly peer-reviewed literature.https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=arctic+sea+ice+v...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/12...
and where to begin with Glaciers?
Like this, for example : Armstrong, J. Scott and Green, Kesten C. and Soon, Willie (2007): Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit.
You want to know about Polar Bears? Try this........
http://polarbearscience.com/2014/11/19/polar-bear-...
"Here you’ll find polar bear science without advocacy, fearmongering or spin. Most importantly, there will be no predictions about the future of polar bears!"
"The bottom line is this: the authors knew that data existed showing the population had continued to increase beyond 2010 but they failed to mention that fact in their paper, in the press release or in their interviews with the press"
http://polarbearscience.com/2014/11/19/polar-bear-...
"Here you’ll find polar bear science without advocacy, fearmongering or spin. Most importantly, there will be no predictions about the future of polar bears!"
"The bottom line is this: the authors knew that data existed showing the population had continued to increase beyond 2010 but they failed to mention that fact in their paper, in the press release or in their interviews with the press"
dickymint said:
You want to know about Polar Bears? Try this........
http://polarbearscience.com/2014/11/19/polar-bear-...
"Here you’ll find polar bear science without advocacy, fearmongering or spin. Most importantly, there will be no predictions about the future of polar bears!"
"The bottom line is this: the authors knew that data existed showing the population had continued to increase beyond 2010 but they failed to mention that fact in their paper, in the press release or in their interviews with the press"
In other polar bear newshttp://polarbearscience.com/2014/11/19/polar-bear-...
"Here you’ll find polar bear science without advocacy, fearmongering or spin. Most importantly, there will be no predictions about the future of polar bears!"
"The bottom line is this: the authors knew that data existed showing the population had continued to increase beyond 2010 but they failed to mention that fact in their paper, in the press release or in their interviews with the press"
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/my...
NO No NO the environment has never changed
dickymint said:
And sherbertdip can have a lie in knowing this too ...........
" A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006."
This again." A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006."
Sea ice in Antarctica has grown. All the other ice in the world is shrinking - including the Antarctic land ice, but hey let's just ignore all that and focus on the exception that confirms our bias.
durbster said:
dickymint said:
And sherbertdip can have a lie in knowing this too ...........
" A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006."
This again." A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006."
Sea ice in Antarctica has grown. All the other ice in the world is shrinking - including the Antarctic land ice, but hey let's just ignore all that and focus on the exception that confirms our bias.
"Or look at the massive reduction in thickness and extent of the Antartic Ice Sheets."
Where's my bias?
Mr Gearchange said:
But the general PH view that all climate change is b
ks is absolute rank idiocy.
ks is absolute rank idiocy.Mr Gearchange said:
...the denizens of PH sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting 'la la la la' because they like large displacement V8's is just laughable.
Mr Gearchange said:
It's strange because PH is generally a well educated and enlightened place.
Mr Gearchange said:
...and I was hugely skeptical for a long time...
So let's get this straight: anyone who doesn't share your current view is an idiot but you previously shared their now incorrect view.You've been radicalised by the climate change evangelists, you hypocritical tool.
durbster said:
dickymint said:
And sherbertdip can have a lie in knowing this too ...........
" A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006."
This again." A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006."
Sea ice in Antarctica has grown. All the other ice in the world is shrinking - including the Antarctic land ice, but hey let's just ignore all that and focus on the exception that confirms our bias.
The only place such influence is visible is in gigo from computer climate models - and it pops out because the modellers put it in, via false assumptions.
Meanwhile, 6ft of snow and every US State including Hawaii recording temperatures at freezing point or below, mother nature is getting on with business as usual.
Mr Gearchange said:
But the general PH view that all climate change is bks is absolute rank idiocy.
Good job there's no PH view in sight like that - there was no link or quote to back up that exaggerated generalisation, a clue to BS. PH posts I've seen over the years correctly point out that natural climate change has been happening for billions of years, and still is.ks is absolute rank idiocy.PorkInsider said:
So let's get this straight: anyone who doesn't share (Mr Gearchange's) current view is an idiot but (they) previously shared their now incorrect view.
They've seen the It's only fair to return it to Trenberth et al, they're still searching for it.
Arguing is utterly pointless; these people are never wrong. This is an old blog post but, reading some of the comments on this thread, it's still pretty relevant:
And so their ordeal is over. One would have to be very hard-hearted indeed not to feel some sympathy for those poor souls trapped aboard the MV Akademik Shokalskiy over the holidays. At last they can breathe a sigh of relief; rest easy in their beds in the knowledge that, thanks to a Chinese rescue helicopter, they have been freed from their dreadful torment. All they must do now is wait out the storm, batten down the hatches and let nature release them from her frigid grasp. No longer must the Shokalskiy’s poor crew bear the insufferable burden of having to spend day after day cooped up with a load of miserable, po-faced climate obsessives.
Led by Professor Chris Turney, a “Climate Change scientist” from the University of New South Wales, the intrepid team of researchers journeyed south in an effort to gain yet more data for use as a weapon in the curious little war to which they have dedicated their lives. Joining them on their jaunt were a couple of Guardian journalists (natch.); a BBC reporter, who – thanks to the unique way the Corporation is funded – was there to provide us with some more of the balance to which we are so accustomed and, best of all, an Australian Green Party politician. I’ll bet Christmas Dinner was a blast.
This time, the aim was to prove that the ice is catastrophically receding. That if we (in the Western world) don’t all change our heinous oil-burning ways, the Antarctic ice will disappear forever and the polar bears will die. Unfortunately for the wacky prof. and his merry band of right-thinking pals, the non-existent ice they weren’t supposed to encounter turned around and – there’s no polite way to put this – bit them right on the bottom. It seems there was rather a lot of ice after all – so much that the Shokalskiy went and got herself stuck fast. Well they never expected that. Especially as it’s summer in the Southern Hemisphere at present.
In an ensuing comedy of errors a tri-national rescue operation proved spectacularly unsuccessful. French, Chinese and Australian vessels in the vicinity each failed to reach the stricken doers of good. The ice that wasn’t really there turned out to be quite a bit too thick. Eventually it fell to an airlift operation to liberate the chumps.
Now I don’t profess to be an expert in these matters, but to these untrained eyes it looks like an awful lot of fossil fuels were burned in an effort to convince us to stop burning fossil fuels. Wouldn’t it be incredibly refreshing, once they’ve reached the safety of dry land, to witness the professor and his hapless gang holding a humourously apologetic press conference? Wouldn’t it be great to watch the prof. sip from a well-deserved can of beer, sheepish grin on his face, and hear, “You know what? We got it wrong.”
Unfortunately, although it’s still not likely to happen, there’s probably a higher chance of Antarctica disappearing.
And so their ordeal is over. One would have to be very hard-hearted indeed not to feel some sympathy for those poor souls trapped aboard the MV Akademik Shokalskiy over the holidays. At last they can breathe a sigh of relief; rest easy in their beds in the knowledge that, thanks to a Chinese rescue helicopter, they have been freed from their dreadful torment. All they must do now is wait out the storm, batten down the hatches and let nature release them from her frigid grasp. No longer must the Shokalskiy’s poor crew bear the insufferable burden of having to spend day after day cooped up with a load of miserable, po-faced climate obsessives.
Led by Professor Chris Turney, a “Climate Change scientist” from the University of New South Wales, the intrepid team of researchers journeyed south in an effort to gain yet more data for use as a weapon in the curious little war to which they have dedicated their lives. Joining them on their jaunt were a couple of Guardian journalists (natch.); a BBC reporter, who – thanks to the unique way the Corporation is funded – was there to provide us with some more of the balance to which we are so accustomed and, best of all, an Australian Green Party politician. I’ll bet Christmas Dinner was a blast.
This time, the aim was to prove that the ice is catastrophically receding. That if we (in the Western world) don’t all change our heinous oil-burning ways, the Antarctic ice will disappear forever and the polar bears will die. Unfortunately for the wacky prof. and his merry band of right-thinking pals, the non-existent ice they weren’t supposed to encounter turned around and – there’s no polite way to put this – bit them right on the bottom. It seems there was rather a lot of ice after all – so much that the Shokalskiy went and got herself stuck fast. Well they never expected that. Especially as it’s summer in the Southern Hemisphere at present.
In an ensuing comedy of errors a tri-national rescue operation proved spectacularly unsuccessful. French, Chinese and Australian vessels in the vicinity each failed to reach the stricken doers of good. The ice that wasn’t really there turned out to be quite a bit too thick. Eventually it fell to an airlift operation to liberate the chumps.
Now I don’t profess to be an expert in these matters, but to these untrained eyes it looks like an awful lot of fossil fuels were burned in an effort to convince us to stop burning fossil fuels. Wouldn’t it be incredibly refreshing, once they’ve reached the safety of dry land, to witness the professor and his hapless gang holding a humourously apologetic press conference? Wouldn’t it be great to watch the prof. sip from a well-deserved can of beer, sheepish grin on his face, and hear, “You know what? We got it wrong.”
Unfortunately, although it’s still not likely to happen, there’s probably a higher chance of Antarctica disappearing.
Genuine question: if the many scientists who support the idea of AGW are wrong, are they -
(1) knowingly wrong (presumably to obtain funding); or
(2) accidentally wrong?
To allege 1 is to allege a vast amount of scientific fraud. Not impossible, perhaps, but not very plausible.
To allege 2 is to suggest that a great many scientists are making simple blunders that some clever people on a car forum can spot. Again, not impossible, but is it very likely?
When I say many scientists, take the latest IPCC report - 209 lead scientists, 600 plus contributors, 50 reviewers, 9,200 papers cited.
As to the level of consensus, see
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/art...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
Does the existence of this consensus have no significance? Saying that there used to be a consensus that the Sun orbited the Earth adds nothing, as that was not a consensus based on modern scientific disciplines.
I would be interested in receiving genuine answers to the above which are posed as genuine questions. Is the widely held position on AGW a vast fraud or a huge cock up? Leave aside what politicians may want (albeit that it is notable that politicians often favour large and well established industries such as the oil industry). What about all those scientists? I know that you can find scientists here and there to take the other line, but they are a distinct minority. This does not in itself make them wrong, but, if the majority are wrong, that takes some explaining.
(1) knowingly wrong (presumably to obtain funding); or
(2) accidentally wrong?
To allege 1 is to allege a vast amount of scientific fraud. Not impossible, perhaps, but not very plausible.
To allege 2 is to suggest that a great many scientists are making simple blunders that some clever people on a car forum can spot. Again, not impossible, but is it very likely?
When I say many scientists, take the latest IPCC report - 209 lead scientists, 600 plus contributors, 50 reviewers, 9,200 papers cited.
As to the level of consensus, see
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/art...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...
Does the existence of this consensus have no significance? Saying that there used to be a consensus that the Sun orbited the Earth adds nothing, as that was not a consensus based on modern scientific disciplines.
I would be interested in receiving genuine answers to the above which are posed as genuine questions. Is the widely held position on AGW a vast fraud or a huge cock up? Leave aside what politicians may want (albeit that it is notable that politicians often favour large and well established industries such as the oil industry). What about all those scientists? I know that you can find scientists here and there to take the other line, but they are a distinct minority. This does not in itself make them wrong, but, if the majority are wrong, that takes some explaining.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff