[GoghGoner]

New PDF report created by Centre for Ice, Climate and Ecosystems Norwegian Polar Institute. Glanced through it, will definitely be reading it...

http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/klima/melting_ice_report.pdf

In this document we provide a brief overview of the response of snow
and ice to a warming climate. Significant changes in sea ice cover, snow
cover, lake and river ice cover, permafrost temperatures, glacier and ice
sheet mass have been observed over the last decades. It appears that the
changes are occurring at an accelerating pace. The global implications of
these changes are potentially severe:

[Armageddon]

There's no global warming, it's snowing at my house.

[Jotapay]

Is this report going to turn out to be another lie by Ad hom deleted. , like that 50% of Holland is below sea level? link

Sea level blunder enrages Dutch minister
A United Nations report wrongly claimed that more than half of the Netherlands is currently below sea level.

In fact, just 20 percent of the country consists of polders that are pumped dry, and which are at risk of flooding if global warming causes rising sea levels. Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer has ordered a thorough investigation into the quality of the climate reports which she uses to base her policies on.

[dorlomin]

AGW-tards

Aw cute, one of the children has wandered into a science thread.

[pablonite]

Cool! Nice picture of the ice kayaker who might be endangered now! Didn't take too long to find this, right in the first few pages which the remainder of the "report" basis its opinion piece on. What are they selling?

The fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)* assessment report
projects a global warming of 1.1–6.4°C with a 2.8–7.8°C warming in the Arctic by
2100, assuming the implementation of some greenhouse gas reduction measures1.

[Jotapay]

AGW-tards

Aw cute, one of the children has wandered into a science thread.

I'm the one with the science degree, remember? In Earth Sciences too.

You are the one that appears to be infantile, with no supporting evidence or methodology but kicking sand at others in the sand box.

[dorlomin]

AGW-tards

Aw cute, one of the children has wandered into a science thread.

I'm the one with the science degree, remember? In Earth Sciences too.

Funny this. I have never seen you put together a coherent argument drawing upon anything resembling science in all the time I have seen you wibble about how climate change is some comunist conspiracy. Guess degrees are easy to buy down where you come from.

I dont flaunt my qualifications, my arguments stand and fall on their own.

But hey like Stephen Hawkings I am a AGW-tard. Guess you think the degree you bought makes you smarter than him (ad hom attack deleted watch COC please first warning.).

What can I say I am being rude name dropping people like EO Wilson, Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkings as fellow AGW-tards when we have someone with as distinguished an accademic record are yours on the thread.


machine gunning a fish bowl.

Make arguments about facts not about people per COC here. Thanks.
Blu

[Jotapay]

I have never seen you put together a coherent argument drawing upon anything resembling science in all the time I have seen you wibble about how climate change is some comunist conspiracy. Guess degrees are easy to buy down where you come from.

No, what I've done is post article after article after article that shows how many climate scientists are frauds and their research is fraudulent. You haven't responded to any of these reports which literally damn the entire AGW position across the board. I've also parsed the communications and notes in the CRU documentation which shows that not only did the analysts fabricate temperature data, they stated that it was common practice at CRU to fake data. Again, you are completely mute about the CRU fraud examples as well.

You never responded to ANY of these facts, except to use ad hominems like the "children" reference above.

Please respond to the UN report above which caused the Dutch environmental minister to re-examine ALL global warming reports for their accuracy, as so many have been found to be complete fantasy.


The University of Texas has the fifth best Geology program in the country and is #1 in funding. I interned with Geologists who invented many of the principles that you read in an intro Geology textbook. If you don't want any gorilla chest-beating from me, then watch where you're ignorantly slinging the word "child" after I slaved 4 years over this exact material.

I know crap work when I see it. You either don't have the ability or refuse to analyze these faulty reports and methods. That is what I call an AGW-tard.

[Jotapay]

Also Dorlomin, I don't know if you'll be able to understand this, but I'll try anyway.

I've never said AGW doesn't exist. I've never said pollution is OK; I've actually stated the opposite many times.

What I have said repeatedly is that the touted science behind AGW is complete shite. I've said that the science also appears to be very much incomplete. I have said that anyone who would produce reports that are as fallacious or outright dishonest as the ones released by UN IPCC officials or CRU scientists should be fired for incompetence.

It is also extremely disingenuous for policy makers to say the sky is falling from CO2 discharge when we are poisoning our drinking water, creating GMO franken-foods that deliver pesticide and sterilize the consumers, and produce bleached, e. coli-covered meat that is pumped full of hormones and antibiotics.

[dorlomin]

No, what I've done is post article after article after article that shows how many climate scientists are frauds and their research is fraudulent.

Is that what Glen Beck told you to think. Well if it makes you feel better I will pretend to agree with what you have posted.There there now, havent you done well.

You haven't responded to any of these reports which literally damn the entire AGW position across the board.

You see this is where your degree is so much better than everyone elses. Is it on really shiny paper with a big big pretty logo on it? That would prove it to be worth so much more than anything anyone else was awarded from their university (although I have to say I strongly suspect you are not the only person with a degree, but then others degrees, masters or PHDs may not be printed on shiney paper)

The entire AGW position is damned by what, glaciers not melting quite as fast as the IPCC claims?

Grow the f**k up kid. When you can post an articulate distillation of Lindzens positive feedback hypotheses or Pielke Snrs views on the impacts of land use chages I might, just might start treeting you like a grown up, till then keep cutting and pasting from the Glen Beck sites.

I've also parsed the communications and notes in the CRU documentation which shows that not only did the analysts fabricate temperature data, they stated that it was common practice at CRU to fake data. Again, you are completely mute about the CRU fraud examples as well.

That is because you are regurgitating what you have been trained to repeat by US talk radio and its ilk.

You never responded to ANY of these facts, except to use ad hominems like the "children" reference above.

Oh I am sorry, news stories are not my forte, I assume that people who substitute their own analysis for cutting and pasting news stories are lacking in an understanding of the basic principles under discussion. As I have never seen you so much as address those I leap too conclusions.

Accept my apology.

Please respond to the UN report above which caused the Dutch environmental minister to re-examine ALL global warming reports for their accuracy, as so many have been found to be complete fantasy.

Yes, the IPCC made a mistake. A stupid one. But you now seem to beleive because one mistake was made everything you believe is real.

I have not yet seen anything to suggest atmospheric physics needs to be rewritten. Certainly I have never seen you post anything suggesting you have any grasp of atmospheric physics, or for that matter mechanical physics, nuclear physics or anything other than cut and paste from blogs physics.

You are convinced you are right, but you are convinced you are more intellegent than AGW-tard Stephen Hawkings.

The University of Texas has the fifth best Geology program in the country and is #1 in funding. I interned with Geologists who invented many of the principles that you read in an intro Geology textbook. If you don't want any gorilla chest-beating from me, then watch where you're ignorantly slinging the word "child" after I slaved 4 years over this exact material.[/quality]Thats so nice. It was worth the money then. You working actively in climate research?


Geology?

Anything other than IT?


I am sure you think yourself clever than everyone else on this forum. So much so you dont feel the need to present any arguments about the actual physics under discussion, merely wave your degree and declare all of the worlds major scientific institutions AGW-tards.

Me I have tried to engage with people, but alas I have failed. This is 'on me B' as they say in the US. Tempus fugit as they say, time passes, those depending on the UAH satellite data got a god awfull shock this month, those depending on the University of Illinois sea ice extent have also had there fingers burnt over the past two years.


Time passes.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we are adding it to the atmosphere.

Chalange that scussfully and you win yourself a nobel prize.

I know crap work when I see it. You either don't have the ability or refuse to analyze these faulty reports and methods. That is what I call an AGW-tard.

Equivocation.

[dorlomin]

Also Dorlomin, I don't know if you'll be able to understand this, but I'll try anyway.

I've never said AGW doesn't exist. I've never said pollution is OK; I've actually stated the opposite many times.

What I have said repeatedly is that the touted science behind AGW is complete shite[/quopte]I have never seen you present this position.


The "science" behind AGW can be summed as
the warming from a doubling of CO2 addition being about 1C.
The feedback from H2O addition of a doubling of CO2 being in the region of 1C to over 5C
Other feedback including albedo feedback and CH4 feedback as less well quantified but taking us up to between 4C warmer than present to 10C warmer.

I've said that the science also appears to be very much incomplete. I have said that anyone who would produce reports that are as fallacious or outright dishonest as the ones released by UN IPCC officials or CRU scientists should be fired for incompetence.

Flawd and incomplete yes, but compaired to what, superstring theory, standard model physics, evolution, stem cell research?

AGW is very simple. The CO2 forcing of a doubling of CO2 is about 1C of warming, this is basic basic physics, the scientists involved including skeptics like Lindzen and Pielke say all the rest is in the feedbacks, positive and negative.

Argue with me the feedbacks and I will be polite and even defernetial(bad spelling). This is where denialism fades and real honest skepticism begins.

It is also extremely disingenuous for policy makers to say the sky is falling from CO2 discharge when we are poisoning our drinking water, creating GMO franken-foods that deliver pesticide and sterilize the consumers, and produce bleached, e. coli-covered meat that is pumped full of hormones and antibiotics.

No one says CO2 is poisening drinking water. Find a quote where it says that, or else you will look like you are erecting straw men.

FWIW I dont dislike you, I am just tired of arguing about nonesense. Read up on Pielke Snr, Lindzen, Spencer and Christie and so on, the real scientific skeptics with published papers behind them.

Less blogs more science.

[Jotapay]

No one says CO2 is poisening drinking water. Find a quote where it says that, or else you will look like you are erecting straw men.

I never said CO2 was poisoning the drinking water, LOL. I'm talking about heavy metals, pesticides, VOCs, hormones, prescription drugs, etc.

[Jotapay]

No, what I've done is post article after article after article that shows how many climate scientists are frauds and their research is fraudulent.

Is that what Glen Beck told you to think.

Jesus Christ on a popsicle stick, this is how you discuss things? Accusing someone of watching Glenn Beck is somehow relevant and valid to you? I don't have cable TV so that's impossible. You probably know more about him than me. But who gives a rat's ass what Glenn Beck says and how is that relevant here?? What does he have to do with the fact that a significant portion of the data and source material which the IPCC and CRU were faked? Glenn freaking Beck has nothing whatsoever to do with that at all.

I feel like I'm trying to teach my dog math right now. Glenn Beck?? Seriously?? What in the holy hell does he have to do with how scientists gather data and UN policy papers? Are you that paranoid or did you throw him on the table as some sort of evidence that AGW-theory is sound? That is so ridiculous it makes my head hurt and I feel dumber having considered it.

[Jotapay]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we are adding it to the atmosphere.

I agree with that 100%, but you do need to nuance that statement a bit in light of historical CO2 levels and temperatures across geologic time.

However, much of the temperature data that was collected and massaged is bullocks. It's now coming out that international scientific bodies have completely misrepresented some claims. It is not far-fetched to say that the whole AGW movement relies on complete sophistry. I find it virtually impossible to believe any AGW study now unless the data and methods have been double-checked by an independent body, not other pro-AGW scientists who have shown that they are completely willing to commit scientific fraud and vehemently exclude contrary views.

[Jotapay]

Here is a representation of CO2 over geologic time. Note that we are currently around 390 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere which is pretty low, relatively speaking. Temps are also no where near past record highs. Combine that with the bad data that researchers are working with and I think it's easy to see why the current hysteria is a little overblown.



Even this data is uncertain and incomplete, as noted in the graph.

[timmac]

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.

The silence surrounding this publication was deafening.

It would seem that with oft-stoked fears of a disastrous sea level rise coming this century any news that perhaps some signs may not be pointing to its imminent arrival would be greeted by a huge sigh of relief from all inhabitants of earth (not only the low-lying ones, but also the high-living ones, respectively under threat from rising seas or rising energy costs).

But not a peep.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index ... llite-era/

[Jotapay]

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.

The silence surrounding this publication was deafening.

It would seem that with oft-stoked fears of a disastrous sea level rise coming this century any news that perhaps some signs may not be pointing to its imminent arrival would be greeted by a huge sigh of relief from all inhabitants of earth (not only the low-lying ones, but also the high-living ones, respectively under threat from rising seas or rising energy costs).

But not a peep.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index ... llite-era/

They don't care. It's religion to them, not science.

They will accuse you of watching Glenn Beck, like a TV show has something to do with temperature and atmospheric gasses.

[dorlomin]

Here is a representation of CO2 over geologic time. Note that we are currently around 390 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere which is pretty low, relatively speaking. Temps are also no where near past record highs. Combine that with the bad data that researchers are working with and I think it's easy to see why the current hysteria is a little overblown.



Even this data is uncertain and incomplete, as noted in the graph.

Main sequence stars burn hydrogen into helium as a fuel. As they age the ratio of hydrogen to helium tilts in favour of helium, which is twice as dense, The denisty of the core is the critical factor in the burn rate of the star. This has all been well understood and pretty mainstream astrophysics from the 50s. The consaquence of this is that a star like the sun produces more energy as it ages, or when you run the clock backwards it cools as you go further back into time. The figure given for the past 500 million years is about 1% per 100 million years. So if one takes for example 100million years ago, we can give a ball park figure.
The current temperature is about 287K.
The greenhouse effect is about 33K
So the current direct solar energy is about 254K
At 1% less solar energy this would be roughly 251K

If we take the CO2 level at being 1700ppm we can make rough estimates of the additional global warming, 280ppm is given as the preindustrial level and each doubling generates an estimated 2K. At about 2.5 times preindustrial levels this would be 5K of additional heating or just slightly above current the current level of 251K + 33K + 5K =289K. Many other factors also contribute including changes in albedo and so on, but the figures give an indication that higher levels of CO2 during the Phanerozoic are necessary to prevent a global freeze.

[Lore]

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.

The silence surrounding this publication was deafening.

It would seem that with oft-stoked fears of a disastrous sea level rise coming this century any news that perhaps some signs may not be pointing to its imminent arrival would be greeted by a huge sigh of relief from all inhabitants of earth (not only the low-lying ones, but also the high-living ones, respectively under threat from rising seas or rising energy costs).

But not a peep.

This is in relation to the annual seasonal melt. The Antarctic land ice is still losing mass, as shown by his previous studies.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... wmelt.html

Also, the blog link you've shown failed to post the complete summary from the study. Just another attempt at disinformation.

The 30-year record confirms that significant negative correlations exist at regional and continental scales between austral summer melting and both the ENSO and SAM indices for October–January. In particular, the strongest negative melting anomalies (such as those in 2008 and 2009) are related to amplified large-scale atmospheric forcing when both the SAM and ENSO are in positive phases. Our results suggest that enhanced snowmelt is likely to occur if recent positive summer SAM trends subside in conjunction with the projected recovery of stratospheric ozone levels, with subsequent impacts on ice sheet mass balance and sea level trends.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2 ... 9186.shtml

[VMarcHart]

Here is a representation of CO2 over geologic time. Note we are currently around 390 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere which is pretty low, relatively speaking. Temps are also no where near past record highs. Combine that with the bad data that researchers are working with and I think it's easy to see why the current hysteria is a little overblown.

I wonder how many Homo sapiens used to stroll the air-conditioned halls of shopping malls some 150+ million years ago, let alone breathe in that atmosphere. I wonder if you can do it.

Here's an idea. Let's put you in a chamber, raise the temperature and CO2 level, and check how long you last. Are you game?