Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Unfortunately "Wolf" has been cried too many times by pro AGW.


SNIP

All the links you posted were stories about real models developed by real folks who the government paid real money to.

What no one here seems to acknowledge is the difference between a theory and a law. Gravity is a great example. The theory of gravity is that bodies with mass attract each other. It was refined along the lines of that attraction is inversely proportional to the distance the objects are apart. It reached the status of a law when that attraction on the surface of the earth was calculated to be 32 ft per second per second.

The problem with AGW, or climate change, or what ever the politically correct name, models is they are still at the level of saying some molecules in the atmosphere absorb IR waves and increase the heat in the atmosphere and perhaps more to the point slow the rate of cooling at night.

But none of the current models are anywhere close to predicting the absolute temperature the extra heat retention will cause. In fact no model I know of is close to being able to explain what has happened in the last twenty, or maybe seventeen, years in terms of what seems to be a pause in a statistically significant temperature change.

The first AGW warnings occurred around the time of some what increasing temperatures and the models were somewhat optimistic about predicting temperature rise during a slight increase in temperature. But now we are in a pause in temperature increase so AGW proponents are pointing to other signs that AGW is going on.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

And lastly, what's your opinion of this:
Global Warming Petition Project

My standard response to the Oregon Petition:

Sure thing. A petition started by a publisher of civil defense materials, accompanied by a letter from a cigarette lobbyist, and a faux journal article co-authored by a couple of discredited deniers funded by the American Petroleum Institute , and which can be signed by anyone who claims to have a science degree - including my wife who is pharmacist.

Just 39 of the signatories claim to have any expertise in climate science.

Not a single science academy anywhere in the world disputes the findings of the IPCC.

++++++++++++++++++

I will attempt to respond to the rest later.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

My standard response to the Oregon Petition:

Just 39 of the signatories claim to have any expertise in climate science.

A skeptic might say that "No one with their snouts in the trough have signed on"

Not a single science academy anywhere in the world disputes the findings of the IPCC.

What exactly, has the IPCC found? I'm guessing increasing C02 levels in the atmosphere caused by anthropogenic activities and that the climate has warmed since 1870 or thereabouts. Everything else is prediction and theories. If I predict that there's life on Mars because my theory concludes that the martian atmosphere's methane content can only be explained by the presence of life on the planet, that's not going to be considered a "finding" by anyone, let alone a science academy.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by jackdale

My standard response to the Oregon Petition:

Sure thing. A petition started by a publisher of civil defense materials, accompanied by a letter from a cigarette lobbyist, and a faux journal article co-authored by a couple of discredited deniers funded by the American Petroleum Institute , and which can be signed by anyone who claims to have a science degree - including my wife who is pharmacist.

Just 39 of the signatories claim to have any expertise in climate science.

Not a single science academy anywhere in the world disputes the findings of the IPCC.

++++++++++++++++++

I will attempt to respond to the rest later.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch
"The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as 'a small research institute' that studies 'biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging.' It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for 'parents concerned about socialism in the public schools' and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war."

[conachair]

Originally Posted by tomfl

........... what has happened in the last twenty, or maybe seventeen, years in terms of what seems to be a pause in a statistically significant temperature change.

Remember that you're looking at a pause in rise of low atmospheric temperatures. Strong evidence for large amounts of of energy going into the oceans. And other than addition of greenhouse gases, no science to explain why the past century or so has seen a (in a geological time frame, instant) large spike the the planets heat content or any reason why co2 we understand not behave as experiment and theory predict.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by conachair

Remember that you're looking at a pause in rise of low atmospheric temperatures. Strong evidence for large amounts of of energy going into the oceans. And other than addition of greenhouse gases, no science to explain why the past century or so has seen a (in a geological time frame, instant) large spike the the planets heat content or any reason why co2 we understand not behave as experiment and theory predict.

Not sure I completely understand the second half of your last sentence.

But my point is that none of the models correctly predicted the actual temperatures. Literally tens of billions of dollars have been spent on the models.

Lets also keep in mind that the temperatures measured by satellites are showing lower temperatures. Not sure what you mean by lower atmosphere, but the satellites measure the temperature above the ground level. I tend to trust the raw data from satellites more than the "normalized" data from ground stations. Especially the extrapolated data from widely spaced ground stations in the less populated areas.

Bottom line is very costly models fail at predicting measured temperatures.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by sneuman

And, just today:

Antarctica is rapidly losing its edge | Science/AAAS | News

And just a little over a year ago. I think these guys were trying to get as far as the original Aurora did back in the early 1900's. At what point does weather become climate?

Antarctic expedition stranded as ship gets stuck in ice | World news | The Guardian

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

And just a little over a year ago. I think these guys were trying to get as far as the original Aurora did back in the early 1900's. At what point does weather become climate?

Antarctic expedition stranded as ship gets stuck in ice | World news | The Guardian

They were trying to get in there and every year the CSIRO ship does. They just left it way to late to get out.

"At what point does weather become climate'? Was that a serious question?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

They were trying to get in there and every year the CSIRO ship does. They just left it way to late to get out.

"At what point does weather become climate'? Was that a serious question?

Christmas is late in the season. I see.

[seandepagnier]

Don't forget the impact of global dimming. In the last 50 years there is 10% less solar radiation reaching the surface which has a huge cooling effect. This is because of particulate pollution which causes a lot more clouds to form. Also things like jet airplanes create clouds.

After 911 all the skies across america cleared, and the temperature jumped. Since fossil fuels are limited in the future they will run out, and no more global dimming will take place causing immediate massive spikes in temperature making the planet mostly inhospitable.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

"At what point does weather become climate'? Was that a serious question?

Yes it was. The articles consistently refer to ice "volume" and ice thickness. Tricky devils are staying mum on ice area and we all know why that is. But I digress.

This paragraph indicates possible variable weather rather than long term climate. When considered that the results across the continent are variable, I'd consider weather rather than climate again. After all, we've been told by many a climate scientist that the medieval warm period and little ace age were weather anomalies because they only affected regions of the globe.

From:Antarctica is rapidly losing its edge | Science/AAAS | News

But in the Totten and Moscow University ice shelves over on the eastern half of the ice sheet, the story was far less clear, Paolo says. “We still are not able to say with confidence whether that ice shelf is thinning or thickening—the data are very noisy, very difficult to interpret.” Although their data concurred with the earlier finding that the shelves had thinned from 2003 to 2008, he says, “before and after those 5 years the conditions changed. The ice shelves gained thickness.”

An interesting comparison is that even though 310 cubic kilometres of ice lost per year sounds like a lot, it represents only around 0.12 times the mass of carbon dioxide emitted by human breathing annually.

On an entirely unrelated note. Which direction is east when standing at the south pole???

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yes it was. The articles consistently refer to ice "volume" and ice thickness. Tricky devils are staying mum on ice area and we all know why that is. But I digress.

This paragraph indicates possible variable weather rather than long term climate. When considered that the results across the continent are variable, I'd consider weather rather than climate again. After all, we've been told by many a climate scientist that the medieval warm period and little ace age were weather anomalies because they only affected regions of the globe.

From:Antarctica is rapidly losing its edge | Science/AAAS | News

But in the Totten and Moscow University ice shelves over on the eastern half of the ice sheet, the story was far less clear, Paolo says. “We still are not able to say with confidence whether that ice shelf is thinning or thickening—the data are very noisy, very difficult to interpret.” Although their data concurred with the earlier finding that the shelves had thinned from 2003 to 2008, he says, “before and after those 5 years the conditions changed. The ice shelves gained thickness.”

An interesting comparison is that even though 310 cubic kilometres of ice lost per year sounds like a lot, it represents only around 0.12 times the mass of carbon dioxide emitted by human breathing annually.

On an entirely unrelated note. Which direction is east when standing at the south pole???

ummm, i would imagine you can only face North ?

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

And just a little over a year ago. I think these guys were trying to get as far as the original Aurora did back in the early 1900's. At what point does weather become climate?

Antarctic expedition stranded as ship gets stuck in ice | World news | The Guardian

For one thing, there are different kinds of ice. Pack ice is not the same as sea-surface ice. It makes a huge difference. And one year does not make a trend, in any case.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yes it was. The articles consistently refer to ice "volume" and ice thickness. Tricky devils are staying mum on ice area and we all know why that is. But I digress.

This paragraph indicates possible variable weather rather than long term climate. When considered that the results across the continent are variable, I'd consider weather rather than climate again. After all, we've been told by many a climate scientist that the medieval warm period and little ace age were weather anomalies because they only affected regions of the globe.

From:Antarctica is rapidly losing its edge | Science/AAAS | News

But in the Totten and Moscow University ice shelves over on the eastern half of the ice sheet, the story was far less clear, Paolo says. “We still are not able to say with confidence whether that ice shelf is thinning or thickening—the data are very noisy, very difficult to interpret.” Although their data concurred with the earlier finding that the shelves had thinned from 2003 to 2008, he says, “before and after those 5 years the conditions changed. The ice shelves gained thickness.”

An interesting comparison is that even though 310 cubic kilometres of ice lost per year sounds like a lot, it represents only around 0.12 times the mass of carbon dioxide emitted by human breathing annually.

On an entirely unrelated note. Which direction is east when standing at the south pole???

But ... but ... the scientists are all just lying and fudging the data to rake in the funding. So, why would they put a caveat on anything?!

[Dauntlessny]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

...

...In the long-term the future looks bleak as it may render most of the earth as incapable of supporting life once the warming reaches the 10C mark.

Now, that's an interesting conclusion.
What's it based on?