Page 5 of 150 FirstFirst 123456789101555105 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 2988

Thread: Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by TWDeac View Post
    Funny. I was listening to NPR today and a story came on about an archaeologist in Northern Canada/Alaska. Her work is being effected because the sea ice is breaking up earlier and earlier every year, exposing shorelines to large waves and storm surges which washes away the bones/pottery/etc.. from the campsites she excavates. Other sites in the region are also being effected because the permafrost is starting to melt. Where sites could be preserved in the permafrost for many thousands of years, once the frost melts, items begin to decompose.
    That was about a dude who put a message in a bottle on the site decades ago when we know the earth was cooler and there was more ice. He put it at the edge of a glacier and it receded (or something like that). You and most believers who read these stories then make a HUGE assumption that it will continue unabated due to CO2. No evidence.

    The facts are..sea ice fluctuates quite a bit and expands and contracts in different places all the time...including the guys that got trapped. Just because they got trapped following a route from a hundred years ago that was free of ice, doesn't mean much at all about global climate change...as it would imply cooling and more ice. Ice has definitely shrunk due to warming (that can be explained almost entire by solar forcing) and ocean temps were warming but stopped. Sea ice has nearly doubled this year from last and some scientists are projecting the same trend again next year. If that were to happen again (a doubling), then the sea ice levels would return roughly to levels seen in the early 1980s. My guess is it will increase but not double.

    The difficulty in accurately measuring total sea ice highlights the problem with measuring ANYTHING related to global climate change needed for the models and highlights how easy it is to fake for the climate believers who have invested their careers, lives...and total income...on the theory. It's absolutely 100% scientifically impossible to measure sea ice to the degree of precision needed to predict a 0.6 degree change in temperature by the end of the century due to changes in CO2. Same for ocean temps, cloud cover, atmospheric temps, etc.....even the overall earth temp itself or CO2 levels. The predicted change is within experimental error...and therefore statistically meaningless. If they measured ice where the people are trapped it would imply greater ice. If they measure it elsewhere like near that glacier, it would imply less ice. Which is correct? They have to model ice changes first, then put that data into their overall climate model.

    I do find the latest theory to hit the stands funny. The tiny change in CO2 will thin clouds and lead to massive temp change? LOL. I've been wondering how they would attack the cosmic ray issue...and that's a doosey.

  2. #82
    Resident Astrophysicist
    TWDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    22,061
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by pourdeac View Post
    That was about a dude who put a message in a bottle on the site decades ago when we know the earth was cooler and there was more ice. He put it at the edge of a glacier and it receded (or something like that). You and most believers who read these stories then make a HUGE assumption that it will continue unabated due to CO2. No evidence.

    The facts are..sea ice fluctuates quite a bit and expands and contracts in different places all the time...including the guys that got trapped. Just because they got trapped following a route from a hundred years ago that was free of ice, doesn't mean much at all about global climate change...as it would imply cooling and more ice. Ice has definitely shrunk due to warming (that can be explained almost entire by solar forcing) and ocean temps were warming but stopped. Sea ice has nearly doubled this year from last and some scientists are projecting the same trend again next year. If that were to happen again (a doubling), then the sea ice levels would return roughly to levels seen in the early 1980s. My guess is it will increase but not double.

    The difficulty in accurately measuring total sea ice highlights the problem with measuring ANYTHING related to global climate change needed for the models and highlights how easy it is to fake for the climate believers who have invested their careers, lives...and total income...on the theory. It's absolutely 100% scientifically impossible to measure sea ice to the degree of precision needed to predict a 0.6 degree change in temperature by the end of the century due to changes in CO2. Same for ocean temps, cloud cover, atmospheric temps, etc.....even the overall earth temp itself or CO2 levels. The predicted change is within experimental error...and therefore statistically meaningless. If they measured ice where the people are trapped it would imply greater ice. If they measure it elsewhere like near that glacier, it would imply less ice. Which is correct? They have to model ice changes first, then put that data into their overall climate model.

    I do find the latest theory to hit the stands funny. The tiny change in CO2 will thin clouds and lead to massive temp change? LOL. I've been wondering how they would attack the cosmic ray issue...and that's a doosey.
    You will notice that I made no statements about causation in my post. Interesting how quickly you jumped to defending your high horse, though.

  3. #83
    The Aussie Press responds:

    The aim of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition, led by Chris Turney of the University of NSW, was to prove the East Antarctic ice sheet is melting. Its website spoke alarmingly of “an increasing body of evidence” showing “melting and collapse from ocean warming”. As they are transferred to sanctuary aboard the icebreaker Aurora Australis, Professor Turney and his fellow evacuees must accept the embarrassing failure of their mission shows how uncertain the science of climate change really is. They cannot reasonably do otherwise. --Editorial, The Australian, 2 January 2013

    No doubt they were set for an icy reception as it took taxpayer money (which subsidized the ill-advised trip) to retrieve the 72 members on board. Add to the fact that it absolutely required modern innovation and,gasp, large amounts of fossil fuels to perform this amazing rescue. It has been duly noted that in another era these folks would be dead.

  4. #84
    What happened...I thought this thread would be red hot right now considering the mini ice age that has descended on half the country.

  5. #85
    Never Murdered My FIL
    Deacfreak07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    'Murica
    Posts
    64,355
    Quote Originally Posted by Lectro View Post
    What happened...I thought this thread would be red hot right now considering the mini ice age that has descended on half the country.

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Lectro View Post
    What happened...I thought this thread would be red hot right now considering the mini ice age that has descended on half the country.
    #climateexpert

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Lectro View Post
    What happened...I thought this thread would be red hot right now considering the mini ice age that has descended on half the country.
    #doesntunderstandscience
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  8. #88
    [QUOTE=Deacfreak07;1564295]:


    Last edited by Lectro; 01-06-2014 at 11:43 AM.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by ONW View Post
    #doesntunderstandscience
    Well, I'm no "gull". If the Midwest were currently balmy then every carbonated alarmist would be bubbling over with claims of "proof!"

    As it is the alarmists cry "weather" when it doesn't fit...either that or they toss their computer models into the deepest ocean -- claiming the heat is trapped at the bottom of the deep blue sea...conveniently so that no readings can be taken.

  10. #90
    Understands science...particularly deeply flawed computer models.


    To introduce 2014, the world is being greeted with some nasty weather. Record cold grips the northern stretches of the U.S., and some pockets of the Northeast are supposedly bracing for the coldest days they've seen in more than two decades.

    This is all just weather, of course, not climate. The two are not the same, it must be remembered, except when they are.

    Nevertheless, the New Year commences with global warming's ecclesiastical authorities in something of a flux. From England comes word things may get even colder than alarmists claim, given possibly thinning cloud cover, while in Antarctica rescue teams finally reached the global warming scientists turned Shackleton explorers and locked in expanding sea ice.

    The predictions of even more sinister cooling are at odds with the high priests of global warming - the good folks at the United Nation's IPCC - who have quietly lowered their temperature predictions.

    Does all of this underscore the argument global warming is a crock? No. But it does highlight how bizarre the situation has become, with a highly politicized group of bureaucrats and scientists shilling for massive expansions of state power and redistribution of wealth.

    Does all this mean folks should blast their air conditioners and drive aircraft carriers on wheels and whistle while they go 80 mph in the rain on I-12? Of course not.

    What the constantly fluctuating scenarios do indicate, however, is that basing major changes in policy and spending today on the basis of something that might happen a half-century or more down the road remains a dubious approach.

    In other words, buy real, good old-fashioned lightbulbs while you still can.

    James Varney can be reached at jvarney@nola.com

  11. #91
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    42,014
    i love the hypocrisy of lectro's/pour's position on science and this issue in particular. we're all a bunch of sheep because we look at the enormous body of evidence and opinions of 99% of actual scientists who work on this issue every day. instead, we're either supposed to discount every study because of the (self-admitted) inherent nature of modeling and its flaws: I.E we're learning something new every day, no model is perfect, therefore everything is flawed and controlled by big business/government (pourman). OR we should get behind a small subset of contrarian science because of a "science mafia" that is too embarrassed to admit defeat (lectro)

    do you clowns work for big tobacco?

  12. #92
    [QUOTE=ImTheCaptain;1564594]i love the hypocrisy of lectro's/pour's position on science and this issue in particular. we're all a bunch of sheep because we look at the enormous body of evidence and opinions of 99% of actual scientists who work on this issue every day. instead, we're either supposed to discount every study because of the (self-admitted) inherent nature of modeling and its flaws: I.E we're learning something new every day, no model is perfect, therefore everything is flawed and controlled by big business/government (pourman). OR we should get behind a small subset of contrarian science because of a "science mafia" that is too embarrassed to admit defeat (lectro)

    do you clowns work for big tobacco?[/]

    Man, that was cold.

  13. #93
    A senior BBC journalist accepted 15,000 in grants from the university at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ scandal – and later went on to cover the story without declaring an interest to viewers.
    Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s ‘environment analyst’, used the money from the University of East Anglia’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research to fund an ‘ad hoc’ partnership he ran with a friend.
    Mr Harrabin, an influential figure who both broadcasts and advises other BBC journalists, later reported extensively about Climategate. The scandal erupted two years ago when emails were leaked from the Tyndall Centre’s sister department, the Climatic Research Unit at the same university.
    The leaks left the scientific community in dis-array after claims that key data was manipulated in the run-up to a major climate change summit.
    An official inquiry later found that although there had been no scientific fraud, there was ‘a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA’.
    Full article here

    I guess "big tobacco think" comes in all shapes and size

  14. #94
    How global warming can make cold snaps even worse

    In fact, despite the trolling of Donald Trump and other climate change deniers, global warming is probably contributing to the record cold, as counter-intuitive as that may seem. The key factor is a feedback mechanism of climate change known as Arctic amplification. Here’s how to explain the nuts and bolts of it to your under-informed family and friends:

    Snow and ice are disappearing from the Arctic region at unprecedented rates, leaving behind relatively warmer open water, which is much less reflective to incoming sunlight than ice. That, among other factors, is causing the northern polar region of our planet to warm at a faster rate than the rest of the northern hemisphere. (And, just to state the obvious, global warming describes a global trend toward warmer temperatures, which doesn’t preclude occasional cold-weather extremes.)

    Since the difference in temperature between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes helps drive the jet stream (which, in turn, drives most US weather patterns), if that temperature difference decreases, it stands to reason that the jet stream’s winds will slow down. Why does this matter?

    Well, atmospheric theory predicts that a slower jet stream will produce wavier and more sluggish weather patterns, in turn leading to more frequent extreme weather. And, turns out, that’s exactly what we’ve been seeing in recent years. Superstorm Sandy’s uncharacteristic left hook into the New Jersey coast in 2012 was one such example of an extremely anomalous jet stream blocking pattern.

    When these exceptionally wavy jet stream patterns occur mid-winter, it’s a recipe for cold air to get sucked southwards. This week, that’s happening in spectacular fashion.

    Climate scientist Jennifer A. Francis of Rutgers University explains this process in a short video:

  15. #95
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    42,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Lectro View Post
    A senior BBC journalist accepted 15,000 in grants from the university at the heart of the ‘Climategate’ scandal – and later went on to cover the story without declaring an interest to viewers.
    Roger Harrabin, the BBC’s ‘environment analyst’, used the money from the University of East Anglia’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research to fund an ‘ad hoc’ partnership he ran with a friend.
    Mr Harrabin, an influential figure who both broadcasts and advises other BBC journalists, later reported extensively about Climategate. The scandal erupted two years ago when emails were leaked from the Tyndall Centre’s sister department, the Climatic Research Unit at the same university.
    The leaks left the scientific community in dis-array after claims that key data was manipulated in the run-up to a major climate change summit.
    An official inquiry later found that although there had been no scientific fraud, there was ‘a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA’.
    Full article here

    I guess "big tobacco think" comes in all shapes and size
    you realize the Climatic Research Unit was cleared of wrongdoing or data manipulation, right

  16. #96

  17. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by ImTheCaptain View Post
    you realize the Climatic Research Unit was cleared of wrongdoing or data manipulation, right
    If Hannity hasn't cleared them, I do not.
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  18. #98
    All you two clowns have demonstrated is an undying faith in a religion you "need" to believe... It's a socialist auto da fe.

    Your self-titled experts and their bullshit computer models look like Catholic Cardinals telling me I don't need to read.

    You are pigeons of another order and in another time. But equally as religious and cult like in your faith in what you are told. Stanley Milgram would have put you both to good use.


    In the end you really don't know shit and yet your hubris is so great you "just know that man is responsible".

  19. #99
    All you two clowns have demonstrated is an undying faith in a religion you "need" to believe... It's a socialist auto da fe.

    Your self-titled experts and their bullshit computer models look like Catholic Cardinals telling me I don't need to read.

    You are pigeons of another order and in another time. But equally as religious and cult like in your faith in what you are told. Stanley Milgram would have put you both to good use.


    In the end you really don't know shit and yet your hubris is so great you "just know that this is natural".

  20. #100
    This what healthy skepticism looks like. It grows every day and is based in scientific rigor. Today, there are over 40000 PhDs in various scientific fields who have signed a petition opposing the claims of the deeply flawed and skewered IPCC report.


    It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
    Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
    The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
    According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
    The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.
    The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”
    Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”
    The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”
    The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”
    Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.
    One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’
    Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.
    People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •