2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?

[Old Rocks]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Warming-Papers-Scientific-Foundation-Forecast/dp/1405196165]The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation for the Climate Change Forecast: David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert: 9781405196161: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[SSDD]

To save me the trouble of reading all that disproved 19th century sciecne again rocks, how about you simply tell me where, in any of it, is the proof that man is the primary driver of the climate.

Watch this siagon. Rocks, like you claims such evidence exists, and he posts "stuff" that I suppose he believes constitues such proof. But like you, when asked where the proof is, he has no answer. He will not answer my request to point out the proof in any of the posts above, because, like you, he knows that no such proof exists, but has drunk to much koolaid to actually admit it....so like you, he keeps posting stuff but no proof.....alas.....no proof....nothing even close to proof.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lordy, lordy. Fucking dumb there, SSDD. Do you have the faintest idea what absorption spectrum means?

 

[westwall]

Lordy, lordy. Fucking dumb there, SSDD. Do you have the faintest idea what absorption spectrum means?

I would say far better than you olfraud.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

To save me the trouble of reading all that disproved 19th century sciecne again rocks, how about you simply tell me where, in any of it, is the proof that man is the primary driver of the climate.

Watch this siagon. Rocks, like you claims such evidence exists, and he posts "stuff" that I suppose he believes constitues such proof. But like you, when asked where the proof is, he has no answer. He will not answer my request to point out the proof in any of the posts above, because, like you, he knows that no such proof exists, but has drunk to much koolaid to actually admit it....so like you, he keeps posting stuff but no proof.....alas.....no proof....nothing even close to proof.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGWCult always plays the "yer Rly Dumb, no rly!!" Card.

 

[Dot Com]

deniers still in high gear. Why? WHY?!!!

 

[Saigon]

AGWCult always plays the "yer Rly Dumb, no rly!!" Card.

Do you think this might have anythingto do with the fact that posters such as yourself and Skooks can't read, and both SSDD and Westwall have apparently taken a solemn vow not to?

 

[skookerasbil]

AGWCult always plays the "yer Rly Dumb, no rly!!" Card.

Do you think this might have anythingto do with the fact that posters such as yourself and Skooks can't read, and both SSDD and Westwall have apparently taken a solemn vow not to?

The only thing that matters in terms of reading s0n............

Because its all that matters to the policy makers. So sorry if you have the political IQ of a small soap dish!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Why do people call the warmists bubble dwellars that live in a green fantasy?

I'll tell you why.........

Because when they debate this stuff, the only critical question to be answered at the end of the day is.....even if we all concur that global warming is "man-made", what next? To the committed hysterical OC's who want to go NO FOSSIL FUELS, they are not at all concerned with the only two questions that really, really matter.......

1) At what cost?

and

2) As compared to what?


Reasonable people KNOW these questions must be answered before we collectively decide to return to the early 1800's in terms of our lifestyle.


Which guess what???


Its not fucking happening......like.......ever!!!!


So the science matters???


Really??!!!!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGWCult always plays the "yer Rly Dumb, no rly!!" Card.

Do you think this might have anythingto do with the fact that posters such as yourself and Skooks can't read, and both SSDD and Westwall have apparently taken a solemn vow not to?

It's BECAUSE we read and understand what you post that we know you're totally full of crap, you fucking moron.

Can you show us how CO2 Forces the climate, because ALL the evidence runs contrary to that stupid notion?

Can you show us a single lab experiment on how these rounding error increases of CO2 affect "Warming" and "Climate change"?

Can you show us a single lab experiment how reducing this wisp of CO2 will end "Climate change" as we know it, AGWCult?

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

Right. So it's just a coincidence that Skooks can't read or write, that you have never posted an on-topic sentence in your life, and that Wailing Wall and SSDD flat out refuse to read science on the Antartic ice.

Personally, I don't think it is.

If you read so much science - why have you never posted a single sentence about what you've read? Why will you never, ever debate a topic without running away?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

Right. So it's just a coincidence that Skooks can't read or write, that you have never posted an on-topic sentence in your life, and that Wailing Wall and SSDD flat out refuse to read science of the Antartic ice.

Personally, I don't think it is.

If you read so much science - why have you never posted a single sentence about what you've read?

I posted that we replicated black holes in a lab, how could you forget that so quickly?

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

Exactly. Nowhere on this board have you ever, or will you ever, enter into a debate about climate change.

Topics like farting and what to do with a gram of smack I dare say you're more likely to discuss at length.

 

[skookerasbil]

Being mental cases, the k00ks believe message board forums are public pissing contests. Thats cool I suppose but doesnt work for me.

I couldnt give a shit about trying to wage war with a mental case about science that is not proveable one way or another. But I can sure get right to the crux of the bigger issue like a laser guided MOAB.......which is that debating temperatures/ice/storms and drought is nothing more than a circle jerk session for social invalids. Carbon reduction efforts are in the shitter because the legislators arent at all impressed with the consensus shit......which makes it 100% certain that the science doesnt matter for dick.

 

[polarbear]

A blog, but many links to reputable sources. Such as the US Navy.

Arctic News

In conclusion, it looks like there will be no sea ice from August 2015 through to October 2015, while a further three months look set to reach zero in 2017, 2018 and 2019 (respectively July, November and June). Before the start of the year 2020, in other words, there will be zero sea ice for the six months from June through to November.

And, events may unfold even more rapidly, as discussed earlier at Getting the picture.


The image below, from the Naval Research Laboratory, shows the dramatic decline of sea ice thickness over the last 30 days.

"2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?"
So why the question mark ? It is indicative of scaremongering
"December 2012, the end of the world ?"
"Will Iran nuke Israel ?"
"Will Israel nuke Iran ?"
"Will Syria use Chemical weapons ?"

REAL science does not publish in that format. "Science" is defined as "the knowledge of" and not speculation like "2015, the beginning of ice free arctic ?"
...and if the question mark was Your idea that would indicate that You have some doubts !
Anyway I`ve read the article which is for the most a speculation if rising methane levels could cause arctic ice to melt...and it goes without saying that mankind is ("of course") responsible for Methane levels to rise.
Then there is the usual "data"....as a "graphed average" and "trend extrapolated"....like always no mention of the variance, margin of error, standard deviation, correlation, or the coefficient of determination etc, ...just the usual media/blog propaganda crap + the "?"
Looking at this publication,...it avoids only by a hair of deserving to be called a total cheat and only so in a legal sense because it has been left up to You to make the final assumption....without knowing the degree of accuracy of the prediction..
None of us "deniers" is supposed to notice that all these "climatology" graphs which are supposed to show a correlation between "climate" and CO2 never disclose any of the variance, such as the correlation R, or R^2..the coefficient of determination.
It`s not as if nobody knew how shitty this correlation is...:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Solar_Changes_and_the_Climate.pdf

Solar Changes and the Climate
Two other recent studies that have drawn clear connections between solar changes and the Earth’s climate are Soon (2005) and Kärner (2004). Soon (2005 GRL) showed how the arctic temperatures (the arctic of course has no urbanization contamination) correlated with solar irradiance far better than with the greenhouse gases over the last century (see Figure 3). For the 10 year running mean of total solar irradiance (TSI) vs Arctic-wide air
temperature anomalies (Polyokov), he found a strong correlation of (r-squared of 0.79) compared to a correlation vs greenhouse gases of just 0.22.
Figure

Just so You know how shitty a 0.22 r^2 is..
A r=1 is a perfect correlation, a r=0 is no correlation at all...and √(.22) means that only 47 % of the data fits what you are preaching and the other 53% show that the thesis is total crap..!!!
So if I were a Global warming preacher I would not mention any variance data either..
But as an engineer I would like to point out that there is a 89 % correlation between solar activity and temperature.
So, if not all cylinders are firing an engineer would check the spark plugs...but a dip stick climatologist would blame it on the oil and continue with only half of his cylinders firing

Now about who is ignoring REALITY...:

The IPCC AR4 discussed at length the varied research on the direct solar irradiance variance and the uncertainties related to indirect solar influences through variance through the solar cycles of ultraviolet and solar wind/geomagnetic activity. They admit that ultraviolet radiation by warming through ozone chemistry and geomagnetic activity through the reduction of cosmic rays and through that low clouds could have an effect on climate but in the end chose to ignore the indirect effect


For the total solar forcing, in the end the AR4 chose to ignore the considerable recent peer review in favor of Wang et al. (2005) who used an untested flux transport model with variable meridional flow hypothesis and reduced the net long term variance of direct solar irradiance since the mini-ice age around 1750 by up to a factor of 7. This may ultimately prove to be AR4’s version of the AR3’s “hockey stick” debacle.

The IPCC is using an untested flux model to downplay the effect of solar irradiance by a factor of 7 ...

...is using a data set where more than half the data points to the contrary.
And overstates CO2 "radiative forcing" by a factor of 80 ..:
The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact

[FONT=Arial, Geneva](9.79[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] - 1.11[SIZE=+1]*[/SIZE]10[SIZE=-2]-4[/SIZE] cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE]) / 0.5171 cm[SIZE=-2]-1[/SIZE] = 0.17 %[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Geneva] Conclusions[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]It is hardly to be expected that for CO[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] doubling an increment of IR absorption at the 15 µm edges by 0.17% can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]The radiative forcing for doubling can be calculated by using this figure. If we allocate an absorption of 32 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1][14][/SIZE] over 180º steradiant to the total integral (area) of the n[SIZE=-2]3[/SIZE] band as observed from satellite measurements [SIZE=-1](Hanel et al., 1971)[/SIZE] and applied to a standard atmosphere, and take an increment of 0.17%, the absorption is 0.054 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE] - and not 4.3 W/m[SIZE=-2]2[/SIZE].[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva]This is roughly 80 times less than IPCC's radiative forcing.[/FONT]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

Exactly. Nowhere on this board have you ever, or will you ever, enter into a debate about climate change.

Topics like farting and what to do with a gram of smack I dare say you're more likely to discuss at length.

Debate? How do you debate a Cult?

 

[westwall]

Frank -

Right. So it's just a coincidence that Skooks can't read or write, that you have never posted an on-topic sentence in your life, and that Wailing Wall and SSDD flat out refuse to read science on the Antartic ice.

Personally, I don't think it is.

If you read so much science - why have you never posted a single sentence about what you've read? Why will you never, ever debate a topic without running away?

A more uniformed "journalist" would be hard to find. Frank posts on scientific matter all the time. It's not his fault you're a complete fool who can't, or won't read.

For someone who claims to be a journalist, your research capabilities are worse than my 6 year old daughters.

 

[westwall]

Frank -

Exactly. Nowhere on this board have you ever, or will you ever, enter into a debate about climate change.

Topics like farting and what to do with a gram of smack I dare say you're more likely to discuss at length.

That's because you clowns don't "debate". You don't know how to. Your scientific ignorance is astounding. Frankly I'm surprised you can wipe yourself.

 

[skookerasbil]

Frank -

Exactly. Nowhere on this board have you ever, or will you ever, enter into a debate about climate change.

Topics like farting and what to do with a gram of smack I dare say you're more likely to discuss at length.

That's because you clowns don't "debate". You don't know how to. Your scientific ignorance is astounding. Frankly I'm surprised you can wipe yourself.

OK West.....I just spit my late night coffee right onto my monitor screen.....LMAO.....I love this forum!!!