I'm sorry, but the facts are readily available. The warming trend we've seen since the late 70s (which is nicely correlated with the PDO warm cycle) stopped about 8-10 years ago and is now cooling again (and the PDO just shifted to its cool phase).
There are temperature records for oceans, troposphere and land. It seems you've only seen the readings for land temperatures (which are extremely biased due to urbanization) - you might want to check the ocean and atmosphere readings.
No:) Why should I. He has no data on the ice being thinner (please, go find the source instead of his speculation - which is based on computer modeling from earlier this year!) - and the myth of both passages being open is also just that, a myth. Please ask the shipping companies for their opinion:)
Stop treating AGW as a religion and base your opinion on hard solid facts, please.
We have news from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They say: The melt is over. And weâ(TM)ve added 9.4% ice coverage from this time last year. Though it appears NSIDC is attempting to downplay this in their web page announcement today, one can safely say that despite irrational predictions seen earlier this year, we didnâ(TM)t reach an âoeice free north poleâ nor a new record low for sea ice extent.
[---]
Unlike last year, this year saw the opening of the Northern Sea Route, the passage through the Arctic Ocean along the coast of Siberia. However, while the shallow Amundsenâ(TM)s Northwest Passage opened in both years, the deeper Parryâ(TM)s Channel of the Northwest Passage did not quite open in 2008.
No:) Why should I. He has no data on the ice being thinner (please, go find the source instead of his speculation - which is based on computer modeling from earlier this year!) - and the myth of both passages being open is also just that, a myth. Please ask the shipping companies for their opinion:)
Stop treating AGW as a religion and base your opinion on hard solid facts, please.
We have news from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They say: The melt is over. And weâ(TM)ve added 9.4% ice coverage from this time last year. Though it appears NSIDC is attempting to downplay this in their web page announcement today, one can safely say that despite irrational predictions seen earlier this year, we didnâ(TM)t reach an âoeice free north poleâ nor a new record low for sea ice extent.
[---]
Unlike last year, this year saw the opening of the Northern Sea Route, the passage through the Arctic Ocean along the coast of Siberia. However, while the shallow Amundsenâ(TM)s Northwest Passage opened in both years, the deeper Parryâ(TM)s Channel of the Northwest Passage did not quite open in 2008.
Neither of us have current data on average thickness
Correct.
all we know is that the multi-year trend has been downward and all indication is that the trend has continued
You have no such "indication". That is the concept of having "no data" to support your point.
I'm amused by the fact that you seem to believe that I'm the only one who claims arctic ice has increased this year compared to last - when so far you're the only one I've seen to claim otherwise:) (And I've already sourced the statements that support me)
Anyway. You claim precipitation to be the only way arctic ice can increase. Why? It's not true:)
For even more calculations, Bjorn Lomborg's "Cool It" (with a HUGE reference list due to critic against his earlier book) goes into even more detail.
Basically: Even IF the world is warming up (which is seriously in doubt - check the numbers for the last decade) cutting CO2 emissions by economic force is not the right answer.
Feel free to study the topic you're debating:) If you would, you would also know that solar sycle 24 is running very late - and there are plenty of indications that it will not be as strong as the ones we've had lately. That in turn indicates less heating from the sun. The geomagnetic planetary index change is interesting, and would point to a possible new Maunder Minimum in the worst (?) case scenario.
Anyway, with regards to the ice - here's a link in Danish. I could of course provide you with links in English, but so far you've managed to misinterpret the ones you've read.
(The link is to the official Danish weather centre btw)
I september 2007 nåede den samlede, arktiske is sin historisk mindste udbredelse og selv om sommer 2008 blev noget koldere i Arktis, kommer isudbredelsen i år næsten lige så langt ned
There is more ice in the arctic this year compared to last year. It's not inconsistent with known data (the figures have been posted here) and it does not require some unknown mechanism (water, like, flows).
Your post clearly shows you not understanding the topic you're posting about however. Is it fun?
(You're welcome to bring up ice thickness again when you have data for 2008, of course)
That cause is not especially hidden - we've had cold spells and warming cycles forever. There's nothing unusual about the one we're in now - depending on which fudged very-recent non-proxy-verified algorithm-changed temperature record you want to believe.
There's also nothing special about "very old" (not) ice melting. We're still coming out of a small ice age.
Ah. I see you realised you had no basis for your statements and thus replied yet again without supporting them:)
1) How is the list biased? How many of the 30000+ scientists (with close to 4000 in the extremely relevant fields of science) are not working in the field? (Although they're still educated in the field if so!) Remember: The reporter only speculates in the article, and you quoted that speculation.
2) Where's your "95% of all climate scientists agree with IPCC" figure coming from? Please support it. I fear it will be quite difficult.
Of course. Why ask when you could've found that out yourself?
30000 scientists against the IPCC "consensus":
When I (one of perhaps eight to 10 reporters in the audience) asked whether there were any climatologists who had signed the petition, Robinson said yes, 40 of them. Another 341 were meteorologists, and 114 were atmospheric scientists, he said. Add in environmental scientists and the total in this composite category jumps to 3,697. Some 900 were trained in computer science, math, or statistics. Roughly 9,900 were trained as engineers or in general science (whatever that means). An additional 5,690 were trained as physicists, 4,800 as chemists, and 2,923 as biochemists. Several thousand more were trained in still other fields. Of the total, roughly one-third said they held PhDs.
(I selected an article by a seemingly very biased reported on purpose - to show what has been obvious in this Slashdot thread as well. Real science is apparently not of interest to the ones who, without factual support, keeps claiming that AGW has been "proven")
Slashdot Mirror
Please reply again if you have anything constructive to add to the debate :)
Where do you people come up with this sort of nonsense?
Real science. Grandparent is correct, and if you spend a few minutes researching the subject you'll (easily) find his missing link.
IPCC is a political organisation. AGW is a religion in the US (mostly). I prefer science over both politics and religion.
I'm sorry, but the facts are readily available. The warming trend we've seen since the late 70s (which is nicely correlated with the PDO warm cycle) stopped about 8-10 years ago and is now cooling again (and the PDO just shifted to its cool phase).
There are temperature records for oceans, troposphere and land. It seems you've only seen the readings for land temperatures (which are extremely biased due to urbanization) - you might want to check the ocean and atmosphere readings.
From one of the linked articles:
It is likely that methane emissions off Svalbard have been continuous for about 15,000 years â" since the last ice age
Because it's true?
Could you please explain why you think the percentage is relevant?
If TPB gave a fuck about free speech, it would remove all the Hollywood movies and music and purely host documents from civil rights groups.
One of Sweden's biggest artists just released his new single - on Piratebay. Why should they remove legit content?
No :) Why should I. He has no data on the ice being thinner (please, go find the source instead of his speculation - which is based on computer modeling from earlier this year!) - and the myth of both passages being open is also just that, a myth. Please ask the shipping companies for their opinion :)
Stop treating AGW as a religion and base your opinion on hard solid facts, please.
We have news from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They say: The melt is over. And weâ(TM)ve added 9.4% ice coverage from this time last year. Though it appears NSIDC is attempting to downplay this in their web page announcement today, one can safely say that despite irrational predictions seen earlier this year, we didnâ(TM)t reach an âoeice free north poleâ nor a new record low for sea ice extent.
[---]
Unlike last year, this year saw the opening of the Northern Sea Route, the passage through the Arctic Ocean along the coast of Siberia. However, while the shallow Amundsenâ(TM)s Northwest Passage opened in both years, the deeper Parryâ(TM)s Channel of the Northwest Passage did not quite open in 2008.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/artic-sea-ice-melt-season-officially-over-up-over-9-from-last-year/
No :) Why should I. He has no data on the ice being thinner (please, go find the source instead of his speculation - which is based on computer modeling from earlier this year!) - and the myth of both passages being open is also just that, a myth. Please ask the shipping companies for their opinion :)
Stop treating AGW as a religion and base your opinion on hard solid facts, please.
We have news from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They say: The melt is over. And weâ(TM)ve added 9.4% ice coverage from this time last year. Though it appears NSIDC is attempting to downplay this in their web page announcement today, one can safely say that despite irrational predictions seen earlier this year, we didnâ(TM)t reach an âoeice free north poleâ nor a new record low for sea ice extent.
[---]
Unlike last year, this year saw the opening of the Northern Sea Route, the passage through the Arctic Ocean along the coast of Siberia. However, while the shallow Amundsenâ(TM)s Northwest Passage opened in both years, the deeper Parryâ(TM)s Channel of the Northwest Passage did not quite open in 2008.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/artic-sea-ice-melt-season-officially-over-up-over-9-from-last-year/
Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/
Note the date, it was even reported back then.
Neither of us have current data on average thickness
Correct.
all we know is that the multi-year trend has been downward and all indication is that the trend has continued
You have no such "indication". That is the concept of having "no data" to support your point.
I'm amused by the fact that you seem to believe that I'm the only one who claims arctic ice has increased this year compared to last - when so far you're the only one I've seen to claim otherwise :) (And I've already sourced the statements that support me)
Anyway. You claim precipitation to be the only way arctic ice can increase. Why? It's not true :)
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/IMB/icethick.htm
(It's quote obvious when you read climate related threads on Slashdot that AGW has become a religion in the US btw)
For even more calculations, Bjorn Lomborg's "Cool It" (with a HUGE reference list due to critic against his earlier book) goes into even more detail.
Basically: Even IF the world is warming up (which is seriously in doubt - check the numbers for the last decade) cutting CO2 emissions by economic force is not the right answer.
Well, I've yet to see a person, until now, who can _quote_ the relevant factoid without understanding it even after several tries :)
Recap: I've proven my point, with data. You've tried to make a point to which you have no supporting data.
I guess that's why "research" is in my job title - and presumably not in yours ;)
Feel free to study the topic you're debating :) If you would, you would also know that solar sycle 24 is running very late - and there are plenty of indications that it will not be as strong as the ones we've had lately. That in turn indicates less heating from the sun. The geomagnetic planetary index change is interesting, and would point to a possible new Maunder Minimum in the worst (?) case scenario.
Anyway, with regards to the ice - here's a link in Danish. I could of course provide you with links in English, but so far you've managed to misinterpret the ones you've read.
(The link is to the official Danish weather centre btw)
I september 2007 nåede den samlede, arktiske is sin historisk mindste udbredelse og selv om sommer 2008 blev noget koldere i Arktis, kommer isudbredelsen i år næsten lige så langt ned
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/smeltning_i_oest_og_vest_aabner_arktiske_sejlruter_samtidigt
There is more ice in the arctic this year compared to last year. It's not inconsistent with known data (the figures have been posted here) and it does not require some unknown mechanism (water, like, flows).
Your post clearly shows you not understanding the topic you're posting about however. Is it fun?
(You're welcome to bring up ice thickness again when you have data for 2008, of course)
Oh I do :) You might want to rethink whether you do.
No, yet again you fail to understand the data you're looking at. "further into negative" is not supported by any of the linked articles.
No, I did. 2008 is not a record setting year, something still claimed by people in this thread.
We had a discussion about 2008 vs 2007. You tried to make a point and failed since you didn't have data for 2008.
That's it, simply.
That cause is not especially hidden - we've had cold spells and warming cycles forever. There's nothing unusual about the one we're in now - depending on which fudged very-recent non-proxy-verified algorithm-changed temperature record you want to believe.
There's also nothing special about "very old" (not) ice melting. We're still coming out of a small ice age.
Correlation is not causation. Also, it's very unlikely that this brief period of slight warming (that stopped several years ago) is that uncommon.
Ah. I see you realised you had no basis for your statements and thus replied yet again without supporting them :)
1) How is the list biased? How many of the 30000+ scientists (with close to 4000 in the extremely relevant fields of science) are not working in the field? (Although they're still educated in the field if so!) Remember: The reporter only speculates in the article, and you quoted that speculation.
2) Where's your "95% of all climate scientists agree with IPCC" figure coming from? Please support it. I fear it will be quite difficult.
Please try to stay on topic.
How is the list biased? Because the reporter (without factual basis) attacks it? Where's your "95%" figure coming from?
Again. As with most AGW proponents, you seem unable to grasp the difference between fact and fiction :)
Yes, I figured you would prove my point about AGW fanatics :) Thanks. You did fail at supporting your argument though.
Please save this thread, and re-visit it in ~Â2 years. By then, the world will have moved on from this AGW nonsense.
Of course. Why ask when you could've found that out yourself?
30000 scientists against the IPCC "consensus":
When I (one of perhaps eight to 10 reporters in the audience) asked whether there were any climatologists who had signed the petition, Robinson said yes, 40 of them. Another 341 were meteorologists, and 114 were atmospheric scientists, he said. Add in environmental scientists and the total in this composite category jumps to 3,697. Some 900 were trained in computer science, math, or statistics. Roughly 9,900 were trained as engineers or in general science (whatever that means). An additional 5,690 were trained as physicists, 4,800 as chemists, and 2,923 as biochemists. Several thousand more were trained in still other fields. Of the total, roughly one-third said they held PhDs.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/32328/title/Science_%2B_the_Public__When_Is_a_Consensus_on_Climate_Not_a_Consensus%3F
(I selected an article by a seemingly very biased reported on purpose - to show what has been obvious in this Slashdot thread as well. Real science is apparently not of interest to the ones who, without factual support, keeps claiming that AGW has been "proven")