Earth Has Its Warmest May on Record Globally

[MarAzul]

Does he think we don't know weather science?

Sigh!

 

[Sinobas]

"Correlates"

Think about that. It's not true, anyhow, but citing correlation as proof is cute in a middle school kind of way, although I may be insulting middle-schoolers.

Most of science is about correlation. And I didn't use the word prove or proof anywhere in my post. Bitch.

 

[barfo]

Does he think we don't know weather science?

The Para wodna is clearly falsified, you can tell that by looking at the Metan and the Tlenki azotu.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

The Para wodna is clearly falsified, you can tell that by looking at the Metan and the Tlenki azotu.

barfo

Exactly. And that's english, too.

 

[Sinobas]

For example, if we were to plot the times PapaG shit his pants we'd find a very strong correlation to posts made about trading LaMarcus. You could analyze other potential causes and find little to no correlation. The causual link becomes even more apparant if you understand the mechanism by which it operates. In the case of global warming, we've known that Co2 is a greenhouse gas for a long time. That's how climate scientists are able to make the educated assertion than human produced Co2 is largely behind the increase in temperature. And I think they understand their craft a lot better than PapaG.

 

[MarAzul]

Looks like the Obama voters taken over the thread.

 

[jlprk]

Oh you want some of this too, uh?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Looks like the Obama voters taken over the thread.

It seems like you make a lot of the issues discussed here divided between who posters voted for during the presidential election. This is about global warming, not who posters voted for during the election.

 

[jlprk]

Too many sunspots. Republicans say no problem. Republicans don't like the Sun.

 

[jlprk]

Buoys, buoys everywhere, and not a drop of respect for their findings from Denny.

 

[MarAzul]

It seems like you make a lot of the issues discussed here divided between who posters voted for during the presidential election. This is about global warming, not who posters voted for during the election.

Tuesday, June 03, 2008
"this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/2008/06/this-was-moment-when-rise-of-oceans.html

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Tuesday, June 03, 2008
"this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/2008/06/this-was-moment-when-rise-of-oceans.html

So for you, this link shows that: if you believe global warming is increasing because of mankind, you voted for Obama.

 

[MarAzul]

So for you, this link shows that: if you believe global warming is increasing because of mankind, you voted for Obama.

No I did not vote for him. I can't believe a sane man would speak like that, messiah like, contrary to science. But I think many of my countryman did buy it, and voted for him
and continue to push for stopping the ocean from rising.

It is slowing and Obama has nothing to do with it.

Chart from Scripps

 

[MarAzul]

Anyone on this thread ever read Oceanography and Seamanship by William Van Dorn?

http://www.amazon.com/William-Van-Dorn/e/B0034PLJ2G/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_pop_1
http://www.amazon.com/Oceanography-Seamanship-William-Van-Dorn/dp/0870334344

Mr. Van Dorn was the head of the Oceanography department at Scripps, a great guy, a real bona fide expert.

 

[PapaG]

At some point, even though I'll be paying more for dreams of unicorn energy grids, I admit it will be fun watching those who adhere to the religion of AGW gladly turn over their hard-earned money to a bunch of snake oil salesmen. They will then buy their books, pay for their lectures, etc. etc. It's AGW evangelicalism, except the AGW disciples don't realize their belief is faith-based, unlike religious nuts who are confident enough in their faith to know it's faith-based, and don't try to shout down skeptics on this board.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

 

[PapaG]

A BBC article from 2007. At what point do the idiots who believe the "models" just realize they've been duped???

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco


Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records


Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

Using supercomputers to crunch through possible future outcomes has become a standard part of climate science in recent years.

Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.

These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100.

But the Monterey researcher believes these models have seriously underestimated some key melting processes. In particular, Professor Maslowski is adamant that models need to incorporate more realistic representations of the way warm water is moving into the Arctic basin from the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.


"My claim is that the global climate models underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice by oceanic advection," Professor Maslowski said.
"The reason is that their low spatial resolution actually limits them from seeing important detailed factors.

"We use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice forced with realistic atmospheric data. This way, we get much more realistic forcing, from above by the atmosphere and from the bottom by the ocean."
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN-led body which assesses the state of the Earth's climate system, uses an averaged group of models to forecast ice loss in the Arctic.

But it is has become apparent in recent years that the real, observed rate of summer ice melting is now starting to run well ahead of the models.
The minimum ice extent reached in September 2007 shattered the previous record for ice withdrawal set in 2005, of 5.32 million square km.

The long-term average minimum, based on data from 1979 to 2000, is 6.74 million square km. In comparison, 2007 was lower by 2.61 million square km, an area approximately equal to the size of Alaska and Texas combined, or the size of 10 United Kingdoms.
Diminishing returns

Professor Peter Wadhams from Cambridge University, UK, is an expert on Arctic ice. He has used sonar data collected by Royal Navy submarines to show that the volume loss is outstripping even area withdrawal, which is in agreement with the model result of Professor Maslowski.

"Some models have not been taking proper account of the physical processes that go on," he commented.

"The ice is thinning faster than it is shrinking; and some modellers have been assuming the ice was a rather thick slab.

"Wieslaw's model is more efficient because it works with data and it takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice."

 

[PapaG]

Arctic ice at record high

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

I just can't take anyone who insists that AGW if a fact seriously, just as I can't take anyone who says God is a fact seriously.

 

[barfo]

Arctic ice at record high

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

I only looked at your link for 30 seconds, so maybe I missed something, but it seems to say the opposite of what you claim.

Arctic sea ice extent for May averaged 12.78 million square kilometers (4.93 million square miles). This is 610,000 square kilometers (235,500 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average for the month. May 2014 is now the third lowest May extent in the satellite record.

How does 'third lowest May' translate to 'record high'?

barfo

 

[PapaG]

I only looked at your link for 30 seconds, so maybe I missed something, but it seems to say the opposite of what you claim.



How does 'third lowest May' translate to 'record high'?

barfo

Did you read the 2007 doomsday article I posted? Probably not, since it blows your silly theories about accurate modeling to bits.

Stick to making fun of kids with Lupus. That's your thing.

 

[barfo]

Did you read the 2007 doomsday article I posted?

No, why would I? I was busy with MarAzul's 1991 article about sewers. Do you guys have a fetish for really old news?

Probably not, since it blows your silly theories about accurate modeling to bits.

I'm not sure which theories those are, but I doubt it. And I notice you ignored the fact that you were wrong about the Arctic. Surprising error for a noted climate scientist like yourself...

barfo

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

For example, if we were to plot the times PapaG shit his pants we'd find a very strong correlation to posts made about trading LaMarcus. You could analyze other potential causes and find little to no correlation. The causual link becomes even more apparant if you understand the mechanism by which it operates. In the case of global warming, we've known that Co2 is a greenhouse gas for a long time. That's how climate scientists are able to make the educated assertion than human produced Co2 is largely behind the increase in temperature. And I think they understand their craft a lot better than PapaG.

 

[MarAzul]

Here is an interesting look, PDF file at the Sea Level changes over time do to Climate Change.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=6UYxNXp5Kbuxyk8UlLV2bg&bvm=bv.69411363,d.cGU

Page 2 and 8 shows a map and how much land has been covered by the sea in the last 25 thousand years as the land glaciers recede in the interglacial warming cycle.

By all accounts, the sea level rise is decelerating, but we still have from .6' to 6' yet to go.

It doesn't seem like there is a darn thing man can do about this cyclic change. If the human
race became extinct tomorrow, I think the sea would continue to rise to it's apex for this cycle.

Even Barack Obama will find it difficult to slow.
"this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."

Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Barack Obama

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.reportingclimatescience....ta-shows-arctic-ice-volume-has-increased.html

 

[Denny Crane]

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266

McNider and Christy: Why Kerry Is Flat Wrong on Climate Change
It was the scientific skeptics who bucked the 'consensus' and said the Earth was round.

Most of us who are skeptical about the dangers of climate change actually embrace many of the facts that people like Bill Nye, the ubiquitous TV "science guy," say we ignore. The two fundamental facts are that carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space.

What is not a known fact is by how much the Earth's atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide. The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.

...

Messrs. McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Al Gore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
http://nsstc.uah.edu/users/john.christy/

 

[BlazerWookee]

Man can dam a river but only god can damn a planet.

-SlyPokerDog

Who said anything about Jean Claude Van Damme?

 

[MarAzul]

http://www.reportingclimatescience....ta-shows-arctic-ice-volume-has-increased.html

This article suggests the possibility that the sea is currently at the apex level for this cycle.
Could it be that the prediction discrepancy between .6' and 6' is slightly high, and between 0' feet and 6' is closer to the mark?

Perhaps 99% of the scientist could agree with corrected prediction.

 

[Denny Crane]

This article suggests the possibility that the sea is currently at the apex level for this cycle.
Could it be that the prediction discrepancy between .6' and 6' is slightly high, and between 0' feet and 6' is closer to the mark?

Perhaps 99% of the scientist could agree with corrected prediction.

Where I live, the sea rises every day. Then lowers every day.

 

[MarAzul]

Where I live, the sea rises every day. Then lowers every day.

It does it more where I live.

 

[PapaG]

A layover gif of the data I referenced earlier being manipulated.

Reminds me of the "Bush memos" that were proven as being forgeries, except that the AGW data was actually changed on the graph.

 

[PapaG]

Also, and I know Denny already pointed this out repeatedly, CO2 lags some 800 years behind global temps according to the IPCC's own data.

No wonder this thread died. Those who propose to believe in science can't counter the actual science that casts doubt on the "FACT" of AGW.

Sweeping floors in a lab doesn't make one a scientist, fwiw.