Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

Mentions extent but not thickness.
I know where you appear on derty's graph.

This fact has been brought to attention on here a number of times in the past but we find no one is really comfortable with the facts.

Same with the rain, ye ole GG will still be cursing as his mates, pub and all, are being washed away by the g/w torrents.

 

[sails]

Mentions extent but not thickness.
I know where you appear on derty's graph.

lol Knobby - your opinion only...

Take away the funding for scientists to promote AGW and it would be interesting to see how many professionals still prop up this unbelievably stupid hypothesis. Flannery's predictions clearly continue to flop.

 

[wayneL]

This fact has been brought to attention on here a number of times in the past but we find no one is really comfortable with the facts.

Same with the rain, ye ole GG will still be cursing as his mates, pub and all, are being washed away by the g/w torrents.

What are the facts Mr Plod?

 

[explod]

What are the facts Mr Plod?

About 15 million years into the Cenozoic Era, the Arctic Ice Cap formed over the Arctic Ocean, virtually covering the entire sea with a sheet of ice. As the continents continued to move, climatic changes, brought about by shifts in water and air currents, caused the Earth to gradually cool down. This created the glaciers that mostly dominated the land masses through the end of the Great Ice Age in the Pleistocene Epoch, about 10,000 to 1.8 million years ago These glaciers still exist today on Greenland.

The same climatic conditions that created the glaciers, which are essentially great ice sheets formed on land, also formed the Arctic Ice Cap. Yet the ice sheet covering the Arctic Ocean rests directly on top of the ocean instead of land, and it has remained relatively stable and frozen since it was formed… until now.

The Arctic Ice Cap is shrinking dramatically. Roughly the size of the United States, it has lost an area roughly the combined size of Massachusetts and Connecticut each year since the late 1970s. Since the 1950s, when data was first collected on the Arctic, the ice cap has lost nearly 22 percent of its volume. It is projected that in another 50 years, nearly half of the Arctic Ice Cap will be gone.

http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/11/earth-warms-thinning-arctic-ice/

And sure it has happened before but never at this rate, ref:- "The Sixth Extinction" by Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin (Doubleday, 1995)

“Extreme” rain follows global warming

Heavy rain is coming more of*ten as glob*al warm*ing con*tin*ues””an in*crease that is out*strip*ping sci*en*tists’ pre*dic*tions, ac*cord*ing to a stu*dy.

The find*ings imply that warm*ing-induced changes in the glob*al wa*ter cy*cle could have more dras*tic im*pacts than ev*er im*ag*ined, its au*thors said.

Heavy rain is oc*cur*ring more of*ten as glob*al warm*ing con*tin*ues””and the in*crease is out*strip*ping sci*en*tists’ es*ti*mates based on sim*ula*t*ions, ac*cord*ing to a stu*dy.

The find*ings “re*veal a dis*tinct link be*tween rain*fall ex*tremes and tem*per*a*ture, with heavy rain events in*creas*ing dur*ing warm per*i*ods,” wrote the au*thors, Rich*ard P. Al*lan of the Uni*ver*s*ity of Read*ing, U.K. and Bri*an J. So*den of the Uni*ver*s*ity of Mi*ami, Fla.

The re*port is to ap*pear in the Aug. 8 is*sue of the re*search jour*nal Sci*ence.

Al*lan and So*den used sat*el*lite ob*serva*t*ions and com*pu*ter sim*ula*t*ions to study the rela*t*ion*ship be*tween trop*i*cal rain*fall and changes in Earth’s sur*face tem*per*a*ture and at*mos*pher*ic mois*ture.

The ob*serva*t*ions point to a di*rect link be*tween warm*er cli*mate and an in*crease in ex*treme pre*cipita*t*ion based on both sat*el*lite da*ta and sim*ula*t*ions, they wrote. But the ob*served in*crease in ex*treme rain*fall is larg*er than the in*creases pre*dicted by sim*ula*t*ions, sug*gest*ing the pre*dic*tions are too low, they added.

The pair warned that it’s cru*cial to find out the cause for this dis*crep*an*cy as soon as pos*si*ble in or*der to un*der*stand glob*al warm*ing and its ef*fects on the wa*ter cy*cle. In past stu*dies, sci*ent*ists have also sug*gested global warm*ing may wors*en the im*pact of hurri*canes and wild*fires.
Source(s):
Aug. 7, 2008
Courtesy Science
and World Science staff

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

What are the facts Mr Plod?

We were having, in the public bar here, quite an interesting Kantian discussion on whether all that is or could be experienced is thinkable.

And then the bloody rain came, and we can hardly hear ourselves think.

gg

Methinks explod reads Kant.

gg

 

[explod]

Methinks explod reads Kant.

gg

Did too (a long time ago) "the apriari moment"

whew, welcome aboard GG, that rain must be absolutely teaming now and I don't think a big ark is going to help much this time either.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Did too (a long time ago) "the apriari moment"

whew, welcome aboard GG, that rain must be absolutely teaming now and I don't think a big ark is going to help much this time either.

If the godbotherering warmists are correct, this could be the night that the Ross Island Philosophy Club is taken out, there is much thunder and lightning, and rain by the bucketful.

We do have enough beer, spirits, wine, port and liquers to last a moderate flood though.

Where is Flannery when you need him?

I shall report post hoc as must turn off the computer because of the wrath of god and bobbrown.

gg

 

[Julia]

At the risk of being off topic, I really feel for all those people whose homes are under water in NSW and parts of Qld. Must be so heartbreaking and disruptive.
And then when they can get home, they face that huge and horrible clean up and the apparently inevitable battle with their insurance companies.

 

[sails]

Did too (a long time ago) "the apriari moment"

whew, welcome aboard GG, that rain must be absolutely teaming now and I don't think a big ark is going to help much this time either.

I don't get this. Flannery bleated on about no more dam filling rains because of AGW. Now you are saying AGW is causing the rain?

Make up your mind.

It seems that when a prediction fails, it is too easy to change your story to suit the current (and normal) conditions. Either the modelling got it right or got it wrong.

It clearly got it wrong.

 

[wayneL]

Methinks explod reads Kant.

gg

Methinks Plod is unable to distinguish the difference between hypothesis and fact.

Plod,

Once every few weeks I get people knocking at my door trying to present another certain book as fact.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

I don't get this. Flannery bleated on about no more dam filling rains because of AGW. Now you are saying AGW is causing the rain?

Make up your mind.

It seems that when a prediction fails, it is too easy to change your story to suit the current (and normal) conditions. Either the modelling got it right or got it wrong.

It clearly got it wrong.

sails, no matter if the earth were to freeze and plummet into an ice age it would be a clear indication to the agw extremists in this thread that man's 3% of co2 was 100% responsible. All bets are off when dealing with AGW religion - it simply must be so, even in the face of massive fraud and years of dud predictions.

The only choice open to the extremists here is to continue with the 'religion' no matter what may happen to the weather, and for some - continue to pick up a paycheck for posting propaganda.

 

[Knobby22]

We have been going through a solar lull - looks like its ended.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-08/earth-braces-for-biggest-space-storm-in-five-years/3875508

 

[Knobby22]

Ozwaveguy, increase in C02 in the atmospere has gone from 280ppm to 392ppm. I don't know which religous tome gives you 3%.

You are right in one way though, the effects are small at this level.
Earlier tornados in the USA, slightly worse droughts, slightly increased rainfall, minor global warming. We have a long way to go yet. Its just starting.

Skeptical scientists argue
-what about the effects of methane which doesn't last long in the atmosphere?
- negative feedback effects.
- sensitivity of CO2 with regard to global warming etc.

They don't argue that its not occurring -that's the area of Newscorp and other dishonest purveyors of ignorance and lies. They have cash and political reasons to do this. That article from Andrew Bolt was a classic example - twist the truth and con the public.

Also, Flannery (according to Newscorp was wrong but I would like to check the context since I don't trust the source), he is not a climate scientist and he doesn't speak for the scientific community, he is an economist as has oft been said.

 

[orr]

Methinks Plod is unable to distinguish the difference between hypothesis and fact.

There is of course the inconvenient fact that 'uber' conservation Koch foundation funded climate report, was, and is in agreement with IPCC, NASA, and the vast majority of scientific opinion AGW.

The following link will help anybody interested critical thinking on the full spectrum across thoughtful comment through to reactionary Ideologically skewed twaddle quoted in this thread.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Interesting graph in the modelling critique, on arctic sea ice.(intermediate level)

To qualify 'Ideologically skewed' please read 'Merchants of Doubt' Oreskes & Conway(2010)

 

[ghotib]

Artic ice melting...really - the chart below says artic ice is a fine. Sound like another AGW prediction that has failed.

Um...
What is the blue dotted line?
What is the grey shadow on the blue dotted line?
What was the state of the ice extent in May 2009? And in September 2009?
What was the state of the ice extent in April 2010? And in October 2010?
What does this chart say about the probable ice extent in September/October 2012
If you can answer those questions and still think that arctic ice is fine, then I have a nice piece of coastal land to sell you.

 

[Julia]

Also, Flannery he is not a climate scientist and he doesn't speak for the scientific community, he is an economist as has oft been said.

He is well paid by the taxpayer in his role as climate expert.

 

[noco]

He is well paid by the taxpayer in his role as climate expert.

Yes Julia, $180,000 pa and I read somewhere he puts in 3 days a week.

 

[Knobby22]

He is well paid by the taxpayer in his role as climate expert.

Yes, which corrupts him.

 

[sails]

Um...
What is the blue dotted line?
What is the grey shadow on the blue dotted line?
What was the state of the ice extent in May 2009? And in September 2009?
What was the state of the ice extent in April 2010? And in October 2010?
What does this chart say about the probable ice extent in September/October 2012
If you can answer those questions and still think that arctic ice is fine, then I have a nice piece of coastal land to sell you.

Ghoti - there is a legend on the chart which should answer your questions.

The probable ice extent in Sep/Oct would follow a similar pattern as provided by the chart.

This chart shows annual patterns. Nothing out of the ordinary appears to be happening.

Oh, and we already have coastal property. Not interested in purchasing more at this stage.

 

[orr]

This chart shows annual patterns. Nothing out of the ordinary appears to be happening.

Observed (red line) and modeled September Arctic sea ice extent in millions of square kilometres. Solid black line gives the average of 13 IPCC AR4 models while dashed black lines represent their range. The 2009 minimum has recently been calculated at 5.10 million km², the third lowest year on record and still well below the IPCC worst case scenario (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

This one suggests something is