Arctic ocean warming up/ ice melting in unheard of temp's

[Jinx]

G_T said:

So the accelerated rate of melt that's directly proportional to both the increased global temperature and CO2 levels doesn't strike you as a bit of a coincidence then?

1. Accelerated from what? (for this to be true there would have to have been a constant rate from which to deviate from).
2.Coldest winter (northern hemisphere) for how many years was it? (you know where the Polar Ice cap is) .
3. CO2 levels are still increasing yet the ice is increasing (from previous years).

I call BS G_T.

[G_T]

Jinx said:

G_T said:

So the accelerated rate of melt that's directly proportional to both the increased global temperature and CO2 levels doesn't strike you as a bit of a coincidence then?

1. Accelerated from what? (for this to be true there would have to have been a constant rate from which to deviate from).
2.Coldest winter (northern hemisphere) for how many years was it? (you know where the Polar Ice cap is) .
3. CO2 levels are still increasing yet the ice is increasing (from previous years).

I call BS G_T.

1. I think I'm correct in saying that it's accelerated from each subsquent measurement. An exponential rate of melting if you will.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/...

According to NASA's goddard institute's observations anyway. Obviously this reduces the "albedo" effect which in turn increases global temperature, that could go some way to explain the increase I suppose.

2. Don't confuse weather with climate. They are not the same thing. I should also point out that the weather in the southern hemisphere was the warmest recorded in many regions.

3. If you can cite a reference for that I'd like to see it because all the evidence I have read points to the contrary from a global perspective.

Edited by G_T on Thursday 4th February 10:47

[zakelwe]

Jinx said:

3. CO2 levels are still increasing yet the ice is increasing (from previous years).

I call BS G_T.

It's not just air temps though that effect the amount of Arctic sea ice, other factors are

a) Age of ice
b) Wind patterns
c) Amount of sunlight in summer / clear nights in winter
d) Sea temps and anomalies.

so it's rather hard to say one way or the other.

[Jinx]

G_T said:

1. I think I'm correct in saying that it's accelerated from each subsquent measurement. An exponential rate of melting if you will.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/...

According to NASA's goddard institute's observations anyway. Obviously this reduces the "albedo" effect which in turn increases global temperature, that could go some way to explain the increase I suppose.

[cough] 2003? a bit past the sell by date on that one. I suspect a more than full reversal by 2013 if current (non-CO2) based forcasts are used.

G_T said:

2. Don't confuse weather with climate. They are not the same thing. I should also point out that the weather in the southern hemisphere was the warmest recorded in many regions.

I thought we were talking about the northern hemisphere? non? Tell me is temperature a weather measurement? If not how did the whole "global warming" scare come from if it was not based on weather measurements? (ok we know since the motley CRU emails it was not based on measurements of any kind). So please don't confuse "Climate" with anything that is happening in the real world.

G_T said:

3. If you can cite a reference for that I'd like to see it because all the evidence I have read points to the contrary from a global perspective.

Let me guess you want "peer" reviewed references did you read Dr. John P.Costella's Climategate Analysis? If you did how can you still accept the "warming" "consensus" - both of these are figments of the imagination of a very few and unfortunatley very influential people whose "good intentions" have brought science to a new low.

We have been lied to. The extent of the lie is all that's left to determine.

[G_T]

No need to roll your eyes Jinx.

Jinx said:

G_T said:

1. I think I'm correct in saying that it's accelerated from each subsquent measurement. An exponential rate of melting if you will.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/...

According to NASA's goddard institute's observations anyway. Obviously this reduces the "albedo" effect which in turn increases global temperature, that could go some way to explain the increase I suppose.

[cough] 2003? a bit past the sell by date on that one. I suspect a more than full reversal by 2013 if current (non-CO2) based forcasts are used.

The age of the paper is irrevant if it is still the agreed understanding. Do you think the concept of evolution is any less valid now than it was a hundred or so years ago?

The estimates of future climate have been massively inaccurate I agree. But they remain estimates for that very reason. It also does nothing to detract from the argument that carbon dioxide is responsible for the rise in global temperature.

Jinx said:

G_T said:

2. Don't confuse weather with climate. They are not the same thing. I should also point out that the weather in the southern hemisphere was the warmest recorded in many regions.

I thought we were talking about the northern hemisphere? non? Tell me is temperature a weather measurement? If not how did the whole "global warming" scare come from if it was not based on weather measurements? (ok we know since the motley CRU emails it was not based on measurements of any kind). So please don't confuse "Climate" with anything that is happening in the real world.

Weather is short term. Climate is generally agreed to be an average over 30 year periods (according the world meterological group). So you can easily have record cooling as long as it averages out warmer.

It's akin to a fruit machine set to pay out only 40% of the time. Just because you've won a tenner doesn't mean that if you play it long enough you will lose 60% of the time.

Jinx said:

G_T said:

3. If you can cite a reference for that I'd like to see it because all the evidence I have read points to the contrary from a global perspective.

Let me guess you want "peer" reviewed references did you read Dr. John P.Costella's Climategate Analysis? If you did how can you still accept the "warming" "consensus" - both of these are figments of the imagination of a very few and unfortunatley very influential people whose "good intentions" have brought science to a new low.

We have been lied to. The extent of the lie is all that's left to determine.

I have read "spinning the climate", I suspect "climategate", and various articles that suggest that polar bear populations are increasing, the Ice caps are increasing and the CRU "scandal" has destroyed the reputation of science.

The best arguements are all based on "gaps in knowledge". The majority are based on "ad-hominem" arguements and they all cause more questions than they answer.

I should also point out that Micheal Mann has been cleared of any fraudulent science. by an indepedent inquiry. He referred to statistical methods in his emails.

If we have been lied to then the state of the science is the least of our worries. We are faced with the biggest and best orchaestrated conspiracy in human history. The concept of MMGW is far easier to swallow in my opinion.

[grumbledoak]

G_T said:

I should also point out that Micheal Mann has been cleared of any fraudulent science. by an indepedent inquiry. He referred to statistical methods in his emails.

If we have been lied to then the state of the science is the least of our worries. We are faced with the biggest and best orchaestrated conspiracy in human history. The concept of MMGW is far easier to swallow in my opinion.

"Mann's Nature trick" to "hide the decline" is, indeed, fraudulent. If you cannot see why you should probably bow out of the debate. Though I'm quite sure you will not. His "Hockey Stick" graph also proved to be a complete load of crap, predicted cataclysm whatever the input data. Whatever "independent inquiry" you refer to was a whitewash.

As to the second paragraph? The world's various governments use research grants to skew the direction of research all the time. Not to mention the Big Lie Theory...

[Max Turbo]

G_T said:

ewenm said:

I thought the modal (most common) state of the arctic region was thought to be ice-free? Isn't the current arctic icecap the final remnants of the last ice age?

Humanity - short-termism matters.

So the accelerated rate of melt that's directly proportional to both the increased global temperature and CO2 levels doesn't strike you as a bit of a coincidence then?

I normally have shreddies for breakfast and my commute in to work normally takes 15 mins. This morning, I had cornflakes and the commute took 30 mins for some reason.

By your logic, my crazy cornflake eating has doubled my commute time.

G_T said:

...doesn't strike you as a bit of a coincidence then?

Yup, a coincidence, and unrelated, in both instances.

Edited by Max Turbo on Thursday 4th February 11:54

Edited by Max Turbo on Thursday 4th February 11:54

[G_T]

grumbledoak said:

G_T said:

I should also point out that Micheal Mann has been cleared of any fraudulent science. by an indepedent inquiry. He referred to statistical methods in his emails.

If we have been lied to then the state of the science is the least of our worries. We are faced with the biggest and best orchaestrated conspiracy in human history. The concept of MMGW is far easier to swallow in my opinion.

"Mann's Nature trick" to "hide the decline" is, indeed, fraudulent. If you cannot see why you should probably bow out of the debate. Though I'm quite sure you will not. His "Hockey Stick" graph also proved to be a complete load of crap, predicted cataclysm whatever the input data. Whatever "independent inquiry" you refer to was a whitewash.

As to the second paragraph? The world's various governments use research grants to skew the direction of research all the time. Not to mention the Big Lie Theory...

There's no debate. Just lunatics like you crying out that he's guilty when he's just been cleared by an indepedent inquiry and that the government is out to get you.

Even the vested interest thing is absolute bks seeing how the NASA study I refered was conducted under the Bush administration that did not recognise global warming.

As ever though, I wouldn't expect you to back up what you're saying with facts grumbleoak.

[G_T]

Max Turbo said:

G_T said:

So the accelerated rate of melt that's directly proportional to both the increased global temperature and CO2 levels doesn't strike you as a bit of a coincidence then?

I normally have shreddies for breakfast and my commute in to work normally takes 15 mins. This morning, I had cornflakes and the commute took 30 mins for some reason.

By your logic, my crazy cornflake eating has doubled my commute time.

That's not the logic at all though is it? You're correct a correlation is proof of nothing. But a correlation that is backed up with decades of evidence and natural law (radiative forcing effect of CO2) is somewhat more than you can say with your cereal analogy.

[grumbledoak]

G_T said:

There's no debate.

You are right. MMGW is a load of cobblers being pushed largely by people who think they see a way to make money. Any further facts you might like can be found on the many, many informative threads on the subject. Not that I suspect they'll sway you.

[ewenm]

See, this topic has already gone the way of all the others and well into "I no longer care" territory - arguing about whether the climate is changing (probably is, being a dynamic chaotic system) and what's causing it. Why does it matter? Why not discuss technologies to help humanity adapt to a changing environment instead or discussing cause?

Even IF it is all humanity's CO2 output causing it, that really isn't going to change in the short term (we're not willing to give up our industrialised lifestyles and the third world aren't going to stop striving to become richer and more industrialised - and why should they stop?), so what's the point in arguing about it? IF that is the case, IMO the best way to change it is massive investment in Fusion research (ITER and the like). Of course, that would require true belief in the CO2 cause, rather than just lip-service as we get from our politicians.

Edited by ewenm on Thursday 4th February 12:07

[G_T]

grumbledoak said:

G_T said:

There's no debate.

You are right. MMGW is a load of cobblers being pushed largely by people who think they see a way to make money. Any further facts you might like can be found on the many, many informative threads on the subject. Not that I suspect they'll sway you.

Ahh yes the "we've already covered that go and look for it response".

No, what you consider fact on the climate threads is infact opinion or gaps in knowledge at best. That's why whenever you're asked for references on that forum you guys either copy and past a list of references (that actually do not support your theory) or you do what you're doing now and claim it's already explained elsewhere when it actually hasn't.

And that my friend is why the scientific community, mainstream reporters and government doesn't give you lot the time of day. Whilst MMGW isn't a perfect theory it's a hell of a lot better than any alternative that has been put forward.

[G_T]

ewenm said:

See, this topic has already gone the way of all the others and well into "I no longer care" territory - arguing about whether the climate is changing (probably is, being a dynamic chaotic system) and what's causing it. Why does it matter? Why not discuss technologies to help humanity adapt to a changing environment instead or discussing cause?

Because if CO2 levels are the cause of warming then it is a cumulative effect will continue until the damage is very extensive.

I agree we need to adapt to the change, but put out the house fire before you decide to live in the loft surely?

[BarRefaeli]

Simplistic point of view (it's all I know), but quickly releasing sequestered carbon, laid down over millenia, back into a closed system will have an effect. That is basic science. I agree the modelling is open to debate and is best informed guesswork (as all modelling is) but an effect will be observed.

[YAD061]

G_T said:

1. I think I'm correct in saying that it's accelerated from each subsquent measurement. An exponential rate of melting if you will.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/...

According to NASA's goddard institute's observations anyway. Obviously this reduces the "albedo" effect which in turn increases global temperature, that could go some way to explain the increase I suppose.

This NASA?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-noaa-and-...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30000

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-ad...

[ewenm]

G_T said:

ewenm said:

See, this topic has already gone the way of all the others and well into "I no longer care" territory - arguing about whether the climate is changing (probably is, being a dynamic chaotic system) and what's causing it. Why does it matter? Why not discuss technologies to help humanity adapt to a changing environment instead or discussing cause?

Because if CO2 levels are the cause of warming then it is a cumulative effect will continue until the damage is very extensive.

I agree we need to adapt to the change, but put out the house fire before you decide to live in the loft surely?

As ably demonstrated in the multitude of sources available, WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH! Climate models are too simple (and yet still very complicated) and have failed to predict NOW from a few years ago. There's lots of hazy talk that can comfortably encompass now, but could equally have encompassed a much colder now and a much wamer now. We don't have the level of detail or knowledge of the systems to make reliable predictions - the basis of scientific theory (predict, test, refine, repeat).

To continue your analogy, I'd like to know what sort of fire extinguisher to use on this fire before attempting to control it.

[parakitaMol.]

STOP MUMMY IT BURNS!

[Le TVR]

G_T said:

And that my friend is why some of the scientific community, some mainstream reporters and some governments don't give you lot the time of day.

EFA

ewenm said:

Why not discuss technologies to help humanity adapt to a changing environment instead or discussing cause?

Simple answer: financial return.
You dont have to look much further than how much money, and who's, is tied up in carbon trade schemes.

Once the pro-AGW group started with the deniers, flat-earthers, big oil supporters and most recently, lunatics tags was when my scientific mind said I could smell rodent.

If they were not so desperate to spend so much time pedalling their line on blogs et al then I would feel that the science really was credible. As they have chosen this route their words are becoming just a recited political mantra and not that of solid reproduceable science.

[YAD061]

This is pretty interesting too......600 years.....pffft

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-5...

[G_T]

Le TVR said:

G_T said:

And that my friend is why some of the scientific community, some mainstream reporters and some governments don't give you lot the time of day.

EFA

No "most" would be a better reflection of reality I'm afraid. 80%+ of climate scientists at least, including almost all those who publish papers as well.