Slashdot Mirror
Arctic Ice Cap Rebounds From 2012 — But Does That Matter?
bricko writes "There has been a 60 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of almost a million square miles. In a rebound from 2012's record low an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin. The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes. A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century." "Some scientsts" in this case do not include Dana Nuccitelli, who blogs cogently in reaction at The Guardian that the 60 percent increase observed in Arctic ice is "technically true, [but] also largely irrelevant." He has no kind words for the analysis in the Daily Mail (and similar report in The Telegraph), and writes "In short, this year's higher sea ice extent is merely due to the fact that last year's minimum extent was record-shattering, and the weather was not as optimal for sea ice loss this summer. However, the long-term trend is one of rapid Arctic sea ice decline, and research has shown this is mostly due to human-caused global warming." If you want to keep track of the ice yourself, Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis offers frequent updates.
Out there on some Canadian glacier with a bon fire and fans trying to get them to melt again.
60% increase. Yet no relevant data for scale to understand the shift. No wonder someone else called it 'technically true'.
Looking at a single year doesn't tell us much about the trend. Here is some real data.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png
And makes this year look good in comparison but the overall trend is still downwards.
For all they care, the ice cap could return to the extent of 1980 wthin a couple of years and all they'd say would be:
See, an extreme weather event! This proves climate change is true!
So, to answer the question: Of course it doesn't matter. The whole language of the climate change has been geared to make it impossible for absolutely anything to happen that could make the true believers doubt their creed. Be it warm or cold or average. Be there storms or a lack of them. Be there rain or drought in contradiction to forecasts - they will merely say that the "climate has become unpredictable" - which is yet another proof that the climate is changing, because as we know from historical records, the climate has always been predictable in all the thousands of years of recorded history.
Absolutely nothing matters when the object of science is politics, except for money and rhethorics.
Pointing at year-to-year variations in order to prove or disprove a phenomenon that has a time-scale of decades is stupid, no matter which side of the argument you're on. This is like saying you don't believe winter will be cold, because the weather is actually warmer today than it was last week.
You won't find an analysis in Daily Mail. Use some other word.
In other words
it doesn't support my political position in which global warming is an important factor, therefore this data is irrelevant"
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
To put this in some context, have a look at Jim Pettit's "spiral" graphs and consider that the grey zone in the NSIDC plots linked from the summary are still two standard deviations from the norm, and this year we're almost touching that (if that doesn't mean much to you now would be a good time to brush up on your statistics). So compared to last year we've gone from holy shit batshit insane outlier to just plain old holy shit.
https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclimategraphs/sea-ice-volume
To anyone about to complain that the number of samples is too short, 1) these measurements start when humanity invented the satellites to measure it - can't change that, and 2) we have deep Greenland ice cores for a pretty good idea of what was going on before.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
We have been heading for the next Ice Age, and a disastrous period of global cooling. It is only by the release of more CO2 that we can save ourselves. Some people with their own self interests (research budgets) are trying to stop that, as well as some people doing so simply because they are pure evil (Al Gore).
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Why should we listen to fossil-fuel sponsored shills like Nuccitelli?
Or
Why does the above question only matter when a person questions AGW?
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
no, it really is largely irrelevant. here are the numbers up to and including last week:
http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/siv_annual_polar_graph.png
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/09/Figure31.png
Or see third chart on left if that link dies:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Climate change is reality - there is overwhelming evidence that the earth is currently warming. There is overwhelming evidence that the climate in the past has changed e.g. 10,000 year ago there was an ice age. Some of these cycles are well understood and related to natural phenomena e.g. precession of the earth's axis of rotation. The question which is being debated is how much of the current warming is natural vs. man-made.
The debate is complicated by the media's lack of reporters with any level of scientific training or competence. They have trouble distinguishing weather (day to day conditions) from climate (average over multiple years). They also seem unable to distinguish between pseudo-scientists and real scientists. This by itself is pretty typical but, unlike many cases (e.g. LHC black holes destroying the earth) there is no clear scientific consensus yet with which to counter the pseudo-scientists which makes it very hard for those of us not involved in the field to really understand what the current state of the real scientific debate is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
Thank god we have decades of research proving that an overactive massive industrial infrastructure is just the solution to this sort of thing. A few more coal plants should fix this, right?
Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?
Because it means there's high potential for conflict of interest. If however they're defending the theory of AGW then there's clearly no conflict of interest is there?
http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/siv_annual_polar_graph.png Cliamte change is the overall trend : starting from the 1980 to today each decade there has been a lower volume and extent than the previous decade. YOU are looking at the orange line in the center and the red line , and saying "woooot 1 year with more ice see global warming don#t exists thx k bye".
You sir are ignorant.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Thanks. You've made the only post that this article needs. All the rest is just a waste of time
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Used to be multi-year ice, now it's one-year ice. Major difference.
www.climatedepot.com
Still, don't let the facts get in the way of your religious belief system...
80% of climate scientists who were asked last year expected more ice this year than 2013. So this is hardly an unforseen event. The blog link mentioned in the summary explains why, but I'll repeat it since you didn't read it.
Arctic ice volume has a falling long-term trends, but on top of that there are short-term year-by-year changes. You effectively have a long-term signal with short-term noise on it. As you can see from this figure, the trend is about -0.065 million square kilometers per year, while the year-to-year variations are 0.5-1 million square kilometers. Hence, on a short timescale you can basically only see the yearly random variations. If you suddenly see a large jump, it is much more likely to be a short-term change than a long term one, and several years of observations are needed to see if the long-term behavior has changed or not.
The point now is that if you happen to get a particularly low value of the random yearly variations one year, you are likely to get a larger value the next year. Much like if you roll a die and get a 1, you are likely to get a larger value the next time you roll, simply because there are more values (2,3,4,5,6) that are larger than 1 than those that aren't (1). In general, extreme values are unlikely, and the chance of getting several of them in a row is much lower than getting one of them followed by less extreme values. This is called regression toward the mean.
So to summarize, this was expected, and predicted, and no models will have to be changed based on this observation.
If however they're defending the theory of AGW then there's clearly no conflict of interest is there?
Most of the 'fossil-fuel companies' are actually energy companies now, and will happily sell you solar panels, wind generators, and so on, and be the first in the queue for government subsidies on these things. There's a conflict of interest when they make claims in both directions, the difference is that in one case they are making the same claims as people with less of a conflict.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Perhaps sea ice extent oscillates between the North and South Poles
Yes, it's also been noted that the frequency of that (rough) oscillation seems to be synchronised with the seasons, weird huh?
Seriously, the ice at the two poles behaves in totally different ways. Just pause for a second and think about the geography, Antarctica is a land surrounded by deep oceans and a strong circumpolar ocean current, the Artic is a (relatively) shallow sea surrounded by land. Melting at the south pole INCREASES* the extent of the Antarctic sea ice.
This is because in Antarctica the majority of the sea ice comes from glacial outflows, this ice breaks up with the mechanical action of the waves and floats away as icebergs. Whatever bergs (or ships) that are still close to the coast in autumn become part of that years sea ice. The mouths of these glaciers are enormous and create permanent ice shelves that are several hundred feet thick.
These ice shelves are the best indicators that the warming trend is impacting Antarctica, we are seeing Antarctic ice shelves that have existed for at least 4kys breaking up disappearing at the rate of roughly one a year for over a decade now.
OTOH Greenland and the Antarctic peninsula have a lot in common and are both effected by something called Polar Amplification, a phenomena predicted by the much maligned climate models BEFORE it was observed in the data. There are a whole bunch of such phenomena that were predicted by models and subsequently observed in the real world, "stratospheric cooling" is another well known example.
In other words sea ice extent is basically meaningless without some context, What you really want to know for the Artic is sea ice volume. I've been following the subject for over 30yrs and the best estimates of volume that I have seen use data gleaned from cold war sonar maps that were declassified sometime in the last decade. According to those figures Artic sea ice volume is now less than 1/5th of what it was when I was born (1959).
Some (perhaps unwelcome) advise, forget about climate science for now and spend a year or two working on your technical research skills, the best way I know of doing that is to skip church (or some other overrated social club), and spend the time browsing WP and "double checking" the theories and assumptions you hold most dearly. Science is intelligently designed to evolve towards the ideal of "truth" (google "the relativity of wrong" and read it, I can't be bothered to link it). Not only that but for the last couple of centuries the rate of these changes has been increasing over time, Meaning that the older you get the faster it changes, and the more neural archives you will need to update (a personal "theory" that I use to explain my "senior" moments).
I jumped on the quote above because I first heard it in the mid-90's, I'll concede that on the surface it sounds plausible as it did to me when I first heard it. However as with most of the anti-science "talking points" pushed by a minority group within the FF industry via extremely effective (but surprisingly cheap) professional lobbyists, the theorised "oscillation" soon melts under a skeptical eye. This is why "deniers" don't normally give an alternative explanation. let alone one that stands up to rigor of broader peer-review process. I strongly suggest you use a reputable source to check out the next climate meme before you infect others with it. As stated in the title your particular meme is #113.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Finally, a graph showing volume rather than area!
What is the most likely consequence of a measured natural event that has just seen to have hit a record to do the next time it's measured?
That's right: "recover".
Natural systems with noise will have a trend that will go up and down on that trend, therefore a maxima will likely be followed by a minima that is higher than the previous local minima.
What the fuck is slashdot doing with this clickbait bullshit?
Sure, I wasn't commenting on the company and question though, the GGP was talking about people who work for fossil fuel companies.
I agree that anyone working for a solar panel firm similarly has a conflict of interest in defending the theory of AGW, but to date they've been strangely absent from the debate - presumably because they're way smaller in size and so don't have the money to pay the shills like the classic oil/gas companies do (and those with fingers in both pots probably simply give not a shit). Or perhaps they're just more professional and realise that sticking their nose in would raise conflict of interest arguments and simply only harm their viewpoint. Who knows, but either way there's an obvious reason why it's fair to take with a pinch of salt the opinion of someone with a vested interest which is a simple concept yet one that seemed to baffle the GGP.
"But when we hit a minimum ice level like last year it's ZOMG TEH GLOBAL WARMIN! "
Citation needed.
NEVER happened. Except with histrionic deniers like yourself pretending that this is what you're being told, when you're NOT being told that.
By the prudent norms of science, this is an excellent first approximation. For the first hundred years, the satellite data will support at most modest convictions. Our accumulated climate record will really hit its stride two centuries from now. And actually, from nearly every perspective of human progress, this represents a tremendous leap over what was known previously. Why should the earth's climate prove easier to decode than Mendel's peas? We finally found the actual genes and we're still pretty sketchy about how they really work. Complicated little buggers they are.
That said, the satellite data isn't actually bad, it just falls way short of historical norms of scientific prudence. We're stuck wandering around in the uncanny valley between one sigma and five sigma.
This doesn't mean society can't choose to draw a tentative, intermediate conclusion and act on that basis. However, the consequences of human political resolve are even murkier than the climate science itself, and the scientists can't help up sort this out, unless they have a giant boner for N=1. We have no control planet. Any choice we made can only be compared to counterfactual outcomes grounded in a proto-science itself still slowly gaining clearance from the null hypothesis on its major claim and with error bars a mile wide on the magnitude and immediacy and severity of the presumed effect.
I think we should be paying plenty of attention to the impacts of climate variability whether or not the cause is anthropogenic. Let's just not put the knee-jerk "all change is bad" types in charge who once decided that forests should never burn. Blockading change is change, too. One of the consequences of embarking upon a global economy is that you soon reach the situation where there's no such thing as somebody else's problem, whether the root cause is anthropogenic or not.
I have severe reservations about whether it's a good idea to instigate novel political initiatives on a global scale (e.g. abandonment of the hydrocarbon economy) against a back-drop of alarmist proto-facts. Much of the time our best, well-cured, time-proven facts barely suffice to move the political dial in any coordinated way. That's going to radically change over the twenty years? I highly doubt it. Of course, change has to begin somewhere, however bleak the early returns.
I was reading about some dude yesterday knowingly infected with HIV who had sex with 300 partners, none of whom he informed, and many he lied to. The ultimate self-gratifying scumbag. But what if he only worried he had HIV and never got himself tested? Would he still be a scumbag? Yes, I think so. Even if his worry is only 1.5 sigma? Yes, I think so.
But if Exxon has only 1.5 sigma belief that carbon emissions could prove disastrous, it's business as usual. "We didn't know!" Not with scientific certainty, anyway, which is unfortunately true. Any certainty worth having is late to the party. This is, however, entirely the wrong standard of prudence and concern. While 1.5 sigma is merely a proto-fact, not yet conclusively proven, it nevertheless demands proper consideration. Facthood in the moment is way too high a standard (and harlot to corporate convenience).
In retrospect, we will know the difference. Just as we do now about the impact of CFCs on the ozone layer. Whatever doubt remained about this in 1970 is now totally busted. We could confiscate their profits in retrospect. That would make them think twice about not knowing in the first place. I understand that it's bad form to suddenly shout "New rule!" so we could instead begin by suggesting that existing companies take out insurance against future confiscation of profit derived from embarking upon unproven, potentially destructive lines of business—as soberly judged by a future generation with a vastly superior knowledge base (subject to the same hor
For the past ten years or so I have been watching the levels of faggotry rise here on /. The trend has been monotonic. I can therefore extrapolate that by the year 2015, the level of faggotry will be at the point where faggotry has become the dominant form of communication in the universe. What can we do about this faggotry? Some say that the trend has been going on so long that it has become irreversable. Others say there is nothing we can do about it, so might as well just learn to adapt to the new levels. Others say that we must fight this faggotry every inch of the way, and are demanding that we destroy all the faggots on this board, or at least add a counteracting level of manliness (alas if there were only that much manliness in the universe)
Personally I can not believe this level on faggotry could ever develope on it's own. I am led to believe that at the heart of the matter there are certain key 'super-faggots' This cabal of super-faggots is spread across the world, and at key junctures in the life of /. have made post of such inane faggotry that they have driven off 90 % of the manliness that once existed on /.. I for one can not see /. ever returning to tnormal levels , when there are super-faggots controlling things behind the scenes.
that is just MHO, YMMV
I don't need to consider facts or consensus to be an AGW skeptic. I just need angry geeks like you. The angrier you get, the bigger the car I drive, because I love watching how angry it makes you. My approach is far easier than having to wade through climate science and geopolitics.,
isn't it backwards? fossil-fuel shills trying to prevent us from releasing CO2 so that we need to buy more fuels to keep us worm in the coming cooling period?
This doesn't mean society can't choose to draw a tentative, intermediate conclusion and act on that basis.
But it doesn't provide a reason to do so.
But if Exxon has only 1.5 sigma belief that carbon emissions could prove disastrous, it's business as usual.
What 1.5 sigma belief? What is Exxon's responsibility supposed to be here? And Exxon is scooping renewable energy funding as well.
> That said, the satellite data isn't actually bad, it just falls way short of historical norms of scientific prudence.
That is WHY it is actually bad. Scientific prudence is no joke, but results from hard-earned experience of heads hitting desks at significant velocities, when it turned out that "scientific discoveries" of confident scientists turned out to be figments of illusion and statistical artifacts.
Wonder if the ice caps on other planetary and lunar bodies did the same too?
I remember the cap on mars and one of Jupiters' moons shrinking as ours did last time..
when they tell me "yes we're ok with nuke power." (I know I know, we can't do nuke because Fukushima) BTW Kyoto was stupid because all you had to do to comply was move your plants to China and India.(Which come to think of it happened anyway, I guess we should have signed on with Kyoto to shut up Al.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
"No, but scientists agree on the external reality after proof, therefore if the scientists agree on something, then there is proof of it."
"After proof". Kind of a little phrase you didn't bother backing up. That's the crux of AGW, there's no *empirical" proof, just hand-picked statistics. It's worthless as science at this point.
The second clause is simply wrong.
Are you from freerepublic.com or something? Because your completely transparent attempt at trolling kind of says you are.
Do us a favor, you half-witted, mouth-breathing imbecile. Go away. You lack the ability, intelligence, and subtlety to pull off a proper troll here.
Yeah, and if Hitler were alive today, he'd probably be a "Warmist" as well, what with his vegetarianism and long walks in the woods.
Give me a break.
This whole Slashdot discussion today, based on a Daily Mail article, seems to be mental preparation of the public so that they're properly revved up for global warming denialism,
before the next IPCC report gets published in a few weeks.
So that on 2013-09-27, Joe Public will say to Jane Public: "but it's all rubbish; wasn't that in the newspaper a few weeks ago?".
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Also why it's Summer in November and Winter in May.
A few loose comments:
Very well put; although according to a previous poster, w.r.t. arctic ice we're at two sigma already, so (if I'm not making a stupid mistake and the data has a normal distribution) it's 4.6% likely that this year's values are normal, assuming a long-term stable arctic ice extent.
Well, there is a whole guild of people who specialize in determining the statistical pay-off between high-damage low-probability events (black swan?) and low-reward high-probability events (maximum squeezable insurance premium), and they're called actuaries . I'd like to know if, say, Lloyds can insure you against global warming affecting your business, and how much it would cost qua premium. What do the actuaries think?
Lastly a loose comment (not based on your essay): one of the global warming denialist talking points is "the necessary effort to stop global warming would bring our society back to the stone age, which is what YOU tree-hugging hippies want". You mentioned "putting the long view out of mind"; the long view is that, 300 years ago, we were before the "age of petroleum" and we didn't live in the stone age, either. (Although maybe in the whale oil age, I don't know). Who knows what the 21st century may bring technologically; maybe a mixture of high-tech low-energy-use equipment and low-tech low-energy-use 19th century technologies.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
...when cult predictions don't come true. If the end of the world is predicted, and it doesn't end, we realize, once again, that the zealots were just being zealots.
So the fact that arctic ice has not completely disappeared by the summer of 2013 as per Professor Wieslaw Maslowski back in 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm) really shouldn't surprise us at all. His prediction was simply apocalyptic cult thinking, nothing more.
Additional apocalyptic cult thinking about sea level rise, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, pestilence, etc, are left for the dear reader to identify on their own.
Does it matter? Well, tell me: if the amount decreased by 60%, would that matter? I think it would be in every headline, along with pitches from nearly every prominent client scientist (plus Bill Nye) for global economic governance to avert this oncoming tragedy.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Yes folks the 2013 measurements are 1 standard deviation below the normal average.
That means that after a lot of number crunching and rather convoluted math, we arrive at the fact that the 2013 ice extent is sufficiently in line with the 1981 - 2010 average as to be statistically insignificant.
However, the actual amount, for August, is still 20% lower today than the peak in 1981.
The only question remaining is; what are you going to do about it? Me, I'm jetting to the Caribbean, I don't have time to worry about penguins being eaten by polar bears!
not mass.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It only matters when the amount of ice is lessening. That way we can create the impression that the world is being destroyed, get more money for research, and pass ever more restrictive and controlling laws!
Given the constant complaints about the people who support AGW, it obviously doesn't only matter when someone questions AGW.
Learn to love Alaska
DERP INTERNET Is there an invisible army of retards on /.
such that trash like this gets marked funny on any article about warming?
- There is no "proof" there are theories, based on computer models, that do do not, as of yet, reflect reality or fit reality in any way, shape or form.
- Go read on Patrick Moore and show us which Fossil fuel he works for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)
Screaming does not make your right.
Yelling and calling names, does not prove your point.
Telling lies (namely about Patrick Moore) just makes you sound like an idiot
Why should we consider anything you say??
Facts are against us ? Too bad for the facts.
I mean WTF, some positive environmental news, but we should just dismiss this because it doesn't fit with the current trend of hyper-reactive green environmentalism that want's us all to act like the end of the world is nigh. I'd like to read more similar reports before I say its a trend, but why all the hate to discredit an actual scientist doing actual research opposed to some website regurgitating environmental hyperbole.
Besides, discrediting global warming will only ruin the billion dollar industry of green guilt products. Being green is just as much about corporate greed as oil or mining, green marketers just do a good job to make you think you are trying to save the planet and not simply throwing thousands of dollars into the green eco-friendly schtick.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
that the 60 percent increase observed in Arctic ice is "technically true, [but] also largely irrelevant."
Well, then why the hell should I have cared that 2012 was such a 'low ice' year?
This is where the whole global warming debate gets me frustrated. One year the ice is melting, and all of the global warming scientist wave their hands and scream about how the end is near. Yet the next year we get the opposite (ice rebounds), and it doesn't matter because of 'long-term trends". Well, if long-term trends are the only thing that matter, STOP YELLING ABOUT ONE YEAR ANOMALIES!!!
I feel like the Guardian article's mention of "regression toward the mean" is incorrect because it attributes this effect as a causal one. The wikipedia link cited warns against using this effect as a predictive one under "misunderstandings." Past deviations do not predict future returns to the norm, just like rolling a high number with dice doesn't predict that the next roll will be below average. Dana makes it sound like climatologists predicted this year's rise as a consequence of last year's fluctuation.
I do agree with the conclusion that the 2013 sea ice level remains consistent with a decreasing trend.
Is anyone but a tiny, tiny minority really concerned about CO2/global warming? Where are the marches demanding that we as quickly as possible replace coal power plants (the biggest single source of CO2) with nuclear power plants? No, the marches I see are all against nuclear power.
Arithmetic denialism.
http://www.ted.com/talks/george_monbiot_for_more_wonder_rewild_the_world.html
But you have a positive rate of change regardless of man being here or not. Do you want to go back to the old rate of change, or do you want the rate of change to be negative or zero?
What is it that you want?
And the unintended consequences?
Because you can't be a real environmentalist (socialist) while working for an evil capitalist destroyer of everything that's good and holy in an Engelian state of nature?
You're a moron.
...just because you have an erection doesn't mean that you are getting bigger.
"Ice caps are melting, it's a catastrophe!! Humanity could end in a few centuries!!"
"Ice caps are reforming... oh, but that doesn't matter, though! We're still fucked!!"
You're completely right that a low value on a die roll does not predict that the next roll will be below average. After, all, each roll of the dice is independent. However, we are asking a slightly different question: What will the next value be relative to the previous one? And this comparison with the previous value introduces correlations. For example, if you roll a 1, the probability that the next value will be smaller than that is 0. But if you roll a 6, the probabiliy that the next value is smaller will be 5/6. And if you roll a 1 or a 6, the probability that the next value will be less extreme is 2/3.
Similarly, if you draw a random standard normal distributed number and get -3, then you will be right 99.87% of the time if you bet that the next number will be higher. Even though all the numbers are completely independent. In general, if you see an extreme value, it is a good bet that the next value will be less extreme, because that is where most of the probability volume is. And this observation is what is called regression to the mean.
I think the way the term was used in that article was completely consistent with this. It was a pretty safe bet that this year would see a rise in the ice coverage because last year was a large negative fluctuation compared to the long-term trend, and most fluctuations deviate less. So regression towards the mean can be used to make certain kinds of predictions, though they all boil down to the banal "the next value will probably be inside the most probable range of values".
IPCC made dire predictions about global warming driving stronger hurricanes in 2007. but no hurricanes over cat 1 have made landfall on the USA since 2005. here we are halfway through hurricane season and exactly nothing has happened. oops.
Dana Nuccitelli is the least credible person to ask anything about climate. Earth warming and it is human emitted CO2 that is causing it is just a religion to him.
Maybe the skeptics who said wind direction and/or ocean floor volcanic activity were possible explanations were right? Naw, could never be. After all we know the science is settled. /sarc
CO2 has risen 8-10% over the last 15-20 years and the earth has not warmed in any statistically significant way for between 17-23 years depending on the dataset.
So once again I ask those who feel human emissions of CO2 are the cause the following question:
How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit that CO2 does not control the climate of the planet? 20 years? 30? 50? NEVER?
Meanwhile Livingston & Penn and those who feel they are correct are stocking up on wool socks.
Back in 1979 some scientists (Libby and Pandolfi) correctly predicted the 20 year rise and then the top and guess what comes next? Cold. Real serious cold.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/1979-before-the-hockey-team-destroyed-climate-science/
But we'll all go with the models scientists use today because they are so accurate. NOT. What a joke. Wake up people they are playing you like a fiddle.
"- There is no "proof" there are theories, based on computer models"
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
If you're so blatantly ignorant about science, why the fuck should we believe anything you say?
Paleoclimate data.
Current weather
1) 33C warming, 65% from H20, 20% from CO2, indicating 3x sensitivity feedback and a calculated radiation equation showing 1.2C per doubling because of the effect of CO2's MEASURED absorbption charachteristics
2) 0.9C warming from half a doubling shows 1.8C per doubling from CO2, and actual measurements showing that there is still an imbalance in the radiative balance of the earth's atmosphere.
And direct measurement: you can see more IR coming back from the sky.
And these are only the PHYSICAL processes.
Biologic changes too.
1000% clueless you are.
"- Go read on Patrick Moore and show us which Fossil fuel he works for"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore_on_nuclear_power
OK, nuclear shill. Same difference.
"Screaming does not make your right."
So those screaming about Al Gore and the New World Order conspiracy are getting a dose of your "wisdom", right?
Very simply, the russian meteorite weighing 10,000 tons created a ring of very high altitude dust that wrapped itself right around the North Pole is the reason for the relatively slight increase in the ice cover this year. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/15aug_russianmeteorplume/
I'm not an expert here, but isn't that graph misleading? Projecting onto a circular graph makes it appear less than linear, because the circumference increases faster than the radius.
Besides, how can volume be measured from space? Can a satellite see through the ice deep below the surface of the ocean?
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
The deniers at Climate Depot will be all over this story. But they and many others will be confusing weather and climate. And anyone with reasonable intelligence knows the difference.
Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation -1
30% Troll
40% Insightful
10% Flamebait
Extra 'Troll' Modifier 0 (Edit)
Total Score: 0
Troll and flamebait for simple logic and common sense. Pathetic. But that's what you have to resort to when you can't argue logically.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Carbon dioxide actually reflects solar radiation, how could it cause global warming?