About that artic sea ice...

Werbung:
Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by Sept '16... They were wrong... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/

Warmers perfect record of misses is intact!
As predicted.
Bumper crop this year !
As predicted.
Ready to give up the hoax now ?

What hoax?

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

"Compared to some other years, the growth rate since the seasonal minimum has been quite rapid. The ice growth has been predominantly in the central Arctic Ocean and the East Siberian Sea sector. There has been little ice growth in the Laptev and Kara Seas, and ice has actually retreated in the Barents Sea."
 
What hoax?

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

"Compared to some other years, the growth rate since the seasonal minimum has been quite rapid. The ice growth has been predominantly in the central Arctic Ocean and the East Siberian Sea sector. There has been little ice growth in the Laptev and Kara Seas, and ice has actually retreated in the Barents Sea."
Preduction: gone by September (last month)
Reality: bigger than usual

Has it been bigger ? Sure. Ebbs and flows and always has. Point is when you are claiming science and your basis is agenda, you shoot yourself in the foot a lot. All the time for warmers.
 
Preduction: gone by September (last month)
Reality: bigger than usual

Has it been bigger ? Sure. Ebbs and flows and always has. Point is when you are claiming science and your basis is agenda, you shoot yourself in the foot a lot. All the time for warmers.


As usual, you missed the part of the article, and since you did not read it, that proves you to be ignorant. Like Antarctica, the interior ice is growing somewhat, however, the outer edges (as I posted) are not. If you had actually read the article you would have seen where the ice is shrinking at 13.3% per year.

Give it up Dog, you are never right. You just pass along more *********.
 
I actually watched a little documentary like thing the other day about the ice melting, and it was very alarming. Of course you will get information from both sides and it leaves you questioning what is right, but some of the evidence they are giving is pretty shocking, like speeding up the melting 2000%. That one hit home.
 
All aboard: Cruise through the once-impassable Northwest Passage

A luxury cruiseliner is making history by sailing through the once-impassable Northwest Passage. The Crystal Serenity will be the largest passenger ship to successfully navigate the frigid Arctic waterway between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.

Historic efforts to conquer the Northwest Passage have been described as “voyages of delusion,” but in recent years, global warming has drastically altered the landscape, reports CBS News travel editor Peter Greenberg.


Time to shift the conversation to, "Oh, we know global warming is real, of course it is, it has been going on for centuries. It's just that humans have nothing to do with it."
 
This is a gold standard reconstruction of arctic temperatures over the past 1o,ooo years taken from ice cores collected above the arctic circle...take a good look and tell me what you think the arctic of the present might look like if compared to the arctic of the bulk of the past 10,o00 years....then tell me what you find alarming about the present.

And tell me PLC1...what percentage of the past 10K years do you think the sea voyage you just mentioned would have been possible? Looks like most of it if you ask me.

Lappi_Greenland_ice_core_10000yrs.jpg
 
This is a gold standard reconstruction of arctic temperatures over the past 1o,ooo years taken from ice cores collected above the arctic circle...take a good look and tell me what you think the arctic of the present might look like if compared to the arctic of the bulk of the past 10,o00 years....then tell me what you find alarming about the present.

And tell me PLC1...what percentage of the past 10K years do you think the sea voyage you just mentioned would have been possible? Looks like most of it if you ask me.

Lappi_Greenland_ice_core_10000yrs.jpg
Interesting and looking and sciency and all, but the last ice free arctic predates human existence.
 
And you have exactly what to support that claim?
I thought everyone knew that, but here's some reading you could do. Humans didn't exist 2.6 million years ago, at least not modern homo sapiens.

The study provides new evidence that the last major gap ended about 2.6 million years ago, after which ice sheets spread southward and humanity’s ancestors began to respond to colder temperatures in Africa, forcing adaptation like the use of stone tools. Humans themselves wouldn’t evolve for more than a million more years
 
One paper vs the gold standard temperature reconstruction for the past 10K years in the region?...OK...easy to see how you came to be duped so easily...
 
That incredibly rapid rate of change—10 times faster than any change recorded over the past 65 million years—is extinction-worthy
....!!??
I'm only really a passive observer of the great climate debacle and read with interest the various comments here, whilst I have no claim to expertise in meteorology, I also tend to read the odd scientific articles written by both pro and anti warmers. They offer differing views as one would expect from scientists, add to that the mix the “informed” journalist and their take on the popularist consumable re-interpretation of the science and then it gets emotive as per the above from the linked article.

So, for what it’s worth my take, well;
Is the planet getting warmer… yes it probably is
Is this solely caused by humans… no it probably isn’t
Is there something we should do about it… yes there probably is
Will it make a difference… no it probably won’t
Are we all going to die… bollocks

Like anything when Governments, quasi-government bodies and lobbyists become involved in social, economic or scientific endeavours I look at motive and agenda; who gains and why? What is the benefit of proving that there is no imminent social or economic threat or outcome from a global warming scenario – if you prove a negative then the status quo surely prevails. If, on the other hand your “science proves” a significant threat of a likely occurrence or outcome then you create a dynamic – who, what, why, where and when. That opens up the delicious possibility of creating a social movement and industry which creates a demand for consequence and remedy: bringing us back to Governments, quasi-government bodies and lobbyists;
Government = tax
Quasi-government bodies = funding
Lobbyists = influence
The scientists of course being the guardians of fact suddenly find an ear and a ready market for their services in all of the above organisations - for a fee of course.
 
That incredibly rapid rate of change—10 times faster than any change recorded over the past 65 million years—is extinction-worthy


That 10X faster meme is all the rage...even though there isn't a single proxy reconstruction that can support the claim...no proxy record other than ice cores can even begin to boast such resolution and the ice cores show temperature changes happening more rapidly than anything we have seen...
 

That 10X faster meme is all the rage...even though there isn't a single proxy reconstruction that can support the claim...no proxy record other than ice cores can even begin to boast such resolution and the ice cores show temperature changes happening more rapidly than anything we have seen...
And, we have seen extinctions in the past. Species homo sapiens was nearly extinct at one time due to climate change. Now, we're numerous enough to accelerate climate change ourselves and bring on the Anthropocene era.
 
Werbung:
Now, we're numerous enough to accelerate climate change ourselves and bring on the Anthropocene era.

There is of course that scenario and its being written about and peer reviewed by many established and reputable institutes and organisations but again it has to go back to why? Look at the link within the article to where this 10 times faster comes from....

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html

Diffenbaugh and Field also reviewed results from two-dozen climate models to describe possible climate outcomes from present day to the end of the century. In general, extreme weather events, such as heat waves and heavy rainfall, are expected to become more severe and more frequent.

Whose climate models? Have these models been peer reviewed? Have they been stress tested? Are they based on current analytical algorithms etc. etc. etc. the questions go on and on. There is a view within a section of the scientific community that the study and teaching of climate/meteorology and heat transfer etc. being provided to the governmental/non-governmental bodies is like children put in a dark room and telling ghost stories - the longer they are in there the more dramatic stories become the more scared they get. Finally the message that emerges from these sessions bears little relation to the actual state of affairs.
 
Back
Top