Melting ice amplifies Arctic warming
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Money Well Spent
Next: Quantum Gravity 367.5: Recent Research in Positive/Negative Quadrant Dependence, Bivariate and Multivariate Distribution Functions, Concordance, Copulas, etc.
From: Dawlish on 5 May 2010 06:19 On May 5, 5:49 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On May 4, 5:57 am, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 4, 3:50 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On May 3, 4:04 am, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 3, 2:39 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 30, 1:50 pm, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 3:03 pm, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:07:55 -0700, Dawlish wrote : > > > > > > > > >> >>http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure2.png > > > > > > > > >> >>http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ > > > > > > > > >> > .........and your point is? > > > > > > > > >> My point is : let us first have a look at the data. Melting, not > > > > > > > >> melting ? Of what time scale, spring ? 5 years ? 30 years ?* Next > > > > > > > >> point, the sentence above is really puzzling. Is really ice melting > > > > > > > >> going to warm Artic ?** > > > > > > > >> When I put an ice cube in my whisky, will I expect it to warm ? Up to > > > > > > > >> the moment I read this press article, I ignored that melting ice could > > > > > > > >> warm something. > > > > > > > > > *So, weather (spring melt in one year), or climate (30-year trend). You > > > > > > > > are fudging. If you want to talk about weather, go discuss on a weather > > > > > > > > forum. > > > > > > > > From the data, is ice melting ? No, the trend of the last years is just > > > > > > > the opposite.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > aaaaaaaaaaaarghhh. What else can you say to a deliberate > > > > > > misinterpretaion of "long term trend".- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > What long term trend? The graphs only go back to 1979.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Circular argument really. It depends what you accept as a long term > > > > trend doesn't it? You don't accept 31 years but you cannot provide ice > > > > data that goes back further. There is data going back 50 years, but it > > > > is not in the public domain and there is sparse and ad-hoc data before > > > > that. I do wish there was more and I'm pretty sure that others do too, > > > > but there isn't. In this way, I do agree with you and there is only so > > > > much you can infer from data before the collation of polar-wide data > > > > about 50 years ago and especially before satellite data became > > > > available. > > > > So data is there, but you don't want to consider it. > > > Don't I? Which part of "if you can provide the data, I'll consider it" > > did you miss? > > It's not my job to dig up data for you. Besides, last time I went to > the trouble of tracking down specific info for you you ignored it and > wrote, "OK Bruce, it's a case of believe what you will." The data > isn't there in the form of direct measurements, but there is plenty of > data to infer that the ice volume has been up and down, not just in > steady decline as yiu wish to portray. > > > > Yet you don't > > > have a problem with accepting tree ring data to establish the history > > > of the earth's temperture, even if it comes from just a small area. > > > Yes, we can see how objective you are. > > > Do I? How would you know that as I've never discussed that with you, > > or on here, AFAIK. > > Tell me you have never defended Mann's hockey stick. Whatever, you > admit below that you have no problem with it. But you do seem to have > a problem with written reports of less ice in the past. Strange. > > > > > > > It's a shame we don't have accurate global > > temperature mesurements pre-1850. We have to rely on proxies (note the > > plural, tree rings are one of a range which scientists have used to > > construct past temperatures and there is bound to be argument and so > > there should be. I have no problem with that. I wish there was > > accurate data for thousands of years into the past, but there isn't. > > The work that has been done has been excellent and is highly > > believable, IMO, but it's a long way from perfect, as the scientists > > involved have said in every single paper that's been written (see > > Jones at al, Mann, Briffa et al). > > > > > Everyone and every scientific organisation working in the cryosphere > > > > feels that 30 years of excellent data is enough, Bruce, you don't: > > > > believe what you will.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Glad to see everyone is allowing you to speak for them LOL.- Hide quoted text - > > > A typical denier comment. I'm afraid. Show me that's not true. > > http://www.climatelogic.com/trends/north-atlantic/nao-and-barents-sea... > > Wow, that was hard. I'm sure I could find many more if I felt like > wasting my time for you, but that isn't going to happen.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It's not going to happen, probably because you are striggling here. You've referred me to the same NOA data from a site that is interested in seasonal forecasting, but has not related the sign of the NAO statistically to seasonal weather. That's a very iffy relationship at best, despite their having constructed a new conceptual model (ECliPS). The relationaship between Barents climate and the NAO is still only r=0.49, when the nAO is stepped forawrd 17 years. I honestly don't think you understand that and it's lack of usefulness. Let me return this thread to the
From: Dawlish on 5 May 2010 06:20 On May 5, 7:06 am, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On May 4, 3:20 pm, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 4, 8:01 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > > > > On May 4, 5:57 am, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Glad to see everyone is allowing you to speak for them LOL.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > A typical denier comment. I'm afraid. Show me that's not true. > > > > "Denier"? Now there's a nice "scientific" term. Just what I'd expect > > > from a "criminal fraudster" like you. > > > > I guess that now proves that neither of us have anything intelligent > > > to add to this debate. > > > I've set out my views about the 2 types of "denier" on another thread. > > I call them "deniers" as the either deny temperatures have risen over > > the last century, or so, or they deny that CO2 has anything to do with > > it. No worse. They are not nazis, or criminals and there is no > > association meant with anything else except a denial of the science of > > either. If you wish to read more into that, you are reading into it > > what isn't there, from me at least. If you don't like it, suggest > > another word to so aptly describe what they do. > > > If you wish to call me a "crminal fraudster", you'd have to explain > > how I've committed criminal fraud. I doubt you could do that, could > > you? > > Oh that's easy. By asserting that CO2 can have any significant effect > on global warming. Or how about that melting ice actually "warms" the > arctic? Or maybe you need to defend that "hockey stick" again. Making > these false statements isn't just "opinion" it's provable scientific > fraud. Since the plan is to create a trillion dollar "Cap and Trade" > exchange in Chicago to allow financial gain from a gas that can't even > effect climate, that sure sounds criminal to me. > > And anyway, the way I see it, it is YOU who is denying the science > that suggests that CO2 bands are insufficient and CO2 concentrations > too weak to be a factor in AGW. That makes YOU the "denier". > > Denier, Denier, Denier! > > Point Proven. > > Like I said. Use of propaganda techniques only proves you have an > agenda with nothing to add to this debate.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Yes, nice one Ben. "provable scientific fraud". So prove it.
From: erschroedinger on 5 May 2010 11:02 On May 4, 7:59 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > nor are most glaciers actually receding, although > this fact is mainly unnoticed, because of a massive lack > of historical data on virtually all glaciers. Lie. Over 90% are receding. > > satellite telemetry has shown almost no change > of Antarctic icesheets, but what else would one expect, > considering that there is as much ice as can > be accomodated, because "ice bergs do calve, > period." > > > OK, NSIDC and NERSC don't agree. NERSC, who shows the years 2007, 2008, > > 2009 and 2010, still shows 2010 with much more ice than 2007 and 2008. > > thus: > I'm allowed to agree with Al Gore about one thing; > am I not?... even though Mauna Loa is a weird place > to measure CO2, it's still just one place, > with a record since the '60s (I think). Agrees with other monitoring stations. > > now, most of the effect of humans may not > be the burning of Fossilized Fuels (tm), but > the burning-up of soil biota & forests. (after all, > oil comes out of the ground, by itself, > under pressure -- even when we're pumping like crazy > in the Gulf of Mexico and the Redondo Seep e.g.) And the sky is blue. So? > > thus: > most of these things, you mention, are just theoretical > interpretations from the Schroedinger's cat school > of Copenhagen, "reifying the math" of the probabilities; > they don't actually have any bearing on the correctness > of QM or GR or SR or any thing, nor > on your so-called theory. but, > why do you say that conversation of momentum > supposedly doesn't apply to a split quantum > of light in some standard theory? > > and poor Nein Ein Stein believes that p = mv is a force and > that F = ma is not, and some thing about Coriolis' force, > merely from a didactic say-so of his (in some sort > of pidgen English, which could be the whole problem). > > > - The future determines the past > > - Virtual particles exist out of nothing > > - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair > > --Light: A History!http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com If you can't afford your medication, the drug companies may be able to help.
From: erschroedinger on 5 May 2010 11:05
On May 5, 2:06 am, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > On May 4, 3:20 pm, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 4, 8:01 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > > > > On May 4, 5:57 am, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Glad to see everyone is allowing you to speak for them LOL.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > A typical denier comment. I'm afraid. Show me that's not true. > > > > "Denier"? Now there's a nice "scientific" term. Just what I'd expect > > > from a "criminal fraudster" like you. > > > > I guess that now proves that neither of us have anything intelligent > > > to add to this debate. > > > I've set out my views about the 2 types of "denier" on another thread. > > I call them "deniers" as the either deny temperatures have risen over > > the last century, or so, or they deny that CO2 has anything to do with > > it. No worse. They are not nazis, or criminals and there is no > > association meant with anything else except a denial of the science of > > either. If you wish to read more into that, you are reading into it > > what isn't there, from me at least. If you don't like it, suggest > > another word to so aptly describe what they do. > > > If you wish to call me a "crminal fraudster", you'd have to explain > > how I've committed criminal fraud. I doubt you could do that, could > > you? > > Oh that's easy. By asserting that CO2 can have any significant effect > on global warming. No more "assertion" than matter is composed of atoms. That CO2 contributes to GW is a fact. > Or how about that melting ice actually "warms" the > arctic? It does. It means the arctic will reflect less sunlight and the oceans absorb more. >Or maybe you need to defend that "hockey stick" again. Don't need to. The National Academy of Sciences has already done so. >Making > these false statements isn't just "opinion" it's provable scientific > fraud. OK, Doofus, what are your scientific qualifications? What makes you a better scientist than the thousands of actual scientists? >Since the plan is to create a trillion dollar "Cap and Trade" > exchange in Chicago to allow financial gain from a gas that can't even > effect climate, that sure sounds criminal to me. I bet evolution sounds criminal to you. > > And anyway, the way I see it, it is YOU who is denying the science > that suggests that CO2 bands are insufficient and CO2 concentrations > too weak to be a factor in AGW. That makes YOU the "denier". And what grand scientific source did you get this from? > > Denier, Denier, Denier! > > Point Proven. > > Like I said. Use of propaganda techniques only proves you have an > agenda with nothing to add to this debate. Like I said, you are dumber than a fence post. |