Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
OK, I get what you are saying, Mr. Flacaltenn. We have a change from +2 standard deviations to -3 standard deviations in the ice melt in the Antarctic. And I don't know what it means, nor even what the primary cause. Therefore, it can be ignored. Nothing to see here, folks, just keep moving and look the other way.A change from nearly 2+ standard deviations to 3- standard deviations in the space of a year is a minor deviation? OK.............
Where do you see a std deviation marker in those graphs? The point is that any statistical distribution built on 35 years of data for some parameter like that -- the "std deviation" has not yet BEEN established. At least not one that is meaningful to a climate discussion.
Do YOU know why the SIE is less this spring down there?
OK, I get what you are saying, Mr. Flacaltenn. We have a change from +2 standard deviations to -3 standard deviations in the ice melt in the Antarctic. And I don't know what it means, nor even what the primary cause. Therefore, it can be ignored. Nothing to see here, folks, just keep moving and look the other way.A change from nearly 2+ standard deviations to 3- standard deviations in the space of a year is a minor deviation? OK.............
Where do you see a std deviation marker in those graphs? The point is that any statistical distribution built on 35 years of data for some parameter like that -- the "std deviation" has not yet BEEN established. At least not one that is meaningful to a climate discussion.
Do YOU know why the SIE is less this spring down there?
Wonderful engineering point of view. LOL
Disregarded as not credible for a lack of a link to a source. Damn, you claim to be an engineer? You may be. One of the type I have cursed for 50 years. You see, I have had a 50+ year career as a millwright, yes, 73 and still working, and one of the primary jobs I, and other people in the trade have, is fixing the fuckups the engineers do. Things like putting high maintenance items in inaccessible areas inside the machinery. Failing to provide access for lubrication."Imbecile"? More of your "I haven't attacked you personally"?
This warming. Holy shit!
You are shitting your pants over this?
OK, I get what you are saying, Mr. Flacaltenn. We have a change from +2 standard deviations to -3 standard deviations in the ice melt in the Antarctic. And I don't know what it means, nor even what the primary cause. Therefore, it can be ignored. Nothing to see here, folks, just keep moving and look the other way.A change from nearly 2+ standard deviations to 3- standard deviations in the space of a year is a minor deviation? OK.............
Where do you see a std deviation marker in those graphs? The point is that any statistical distribution built on 35 years of data for some parameter like that -- the "std deviation" has not yet BEEN established. At least not one that is meaningful to a climate discussion.
Do YOU know why the SIE is less this spring down there?
Wonderful engineering point of view. LOL
When the "std deviation" is 1% or LESS of the mean value -- exactly how PANICKED should you get Mr Rocks?
Especially when you're making a CLIMATE argument based on only 30 years of good observation..
And where did you get the std deviations you're quoting anyways?
Of course the present warming is almost not measureable in the Greenland Ice cores. It has not compacted to ice yet. And much of it has melted. But we know exactly the extent of the present warming as it is measured."Imbecile"? More of your "I haven't attacked you personally"?
This warming. Holy shit!
You are shitting your pants over this?
OK, I get what you are saying, Mr. Flacaltenn. We have a change from +2 standard deviations to -3 standard deviations in the ice melt in the Antarctic. And I don't know what it means, nor even what the primary cause. Therefore, it can be ignored. Nothing to see here, folks, just keep moving and look the other way.A change from nearly 2+ standard deviations to 3- standard deviations in the space of a year is a minor deviation? OK.............
Where do you see a std deviation marker in those graphs? The point is that any statistical distribution built on 35 years of data for some parameter like that -- the "std deviation" has not yet BEEN established. At least not one that is meaningful to a climate discussion.
Do YOU know why the SIE is less this spring down there?
Wonderful engineering point of view. LOL
When the "std deviation" is 1% or LESS of the mean value -- exactly how PANICKED should you get Mr Rocks?
Especially when you're making a CLIMATE argument based on only 30 years of good observation..
And where did you get the std deviations you're quoting anyways?
Click for high-resolution image. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
But you knew that already, Mr. Flacaltenn.
Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows
Mark Brandon • November 24, 2016 • Leave a reply
Antarctic sea ice 2016: Historic lows
The seasonal cycle of sea ice extent in Antarctica has been fairly stable over the length of the satellite record. There is a slow growth of sea ice from a minimum of ~3x106 km2 in February to a maximum of ~19 x106km2 in September in February before a relatively rapid fall in the Antarctic spring.
But this year something different is going on.
Below is Tamino's image for the Southern Hemisphere, the red line is 2016 up to 16 November 2016.
The annotated seasonal extent of sea ice in the Southern hemisphere. From Tamino's post Sea Ice, North and South.
From January up to September the sea ice extent follows all previous data.
But what happened in September?
After that date it dipped low, to reach historic lows by the end of October.
Well, there goes Antarctica argument the loserterians had.
That was Crick's graphic, you moron. That is too funny. You are attacking Crick's argument. Obviously you must agree with me, lol.Disregarded as not credible for a lack of a link to a source. Damn, you claim to be an engineer? You may be. One of the type I have cursed for 50 years. You see, I have had a 50+ year career as a millwright, yes, 73 and still working, and one of the primary jobs I, and other people in the trade have, is fixing the fuckups the engineers do. Things like putting high maintenance items in inaccessible areas inside the machinery. Failing to provide access for lubrication."Imbecile"? More of your "I haven't attacked you personally"?
This warming. Holy shit!
You are shitting your pants over this?
Oh yeah, and a bit of education. The highest class I have taken is Eng. Geo. 470/570. No degree yet, but all the lower division classes finished with the exception of Vector Calculus. And some upper division classes done.
So please, post a graph, post where it came from. No credibility granted unless I can see the article it came from.
And it is no different that the point in time I pointed out which time has shown to be a false indicator. So stop shitting you pants because of the latest false indicator. You can always shit your pants when and if a true indicator emerges.A change from nearly 2+ standard deviations to 3- standard deviations in the space of a year is a minor deviation? OK.............
You skipped a point where you demonstrated that human CO2 emissions have had nothing to do with the observed warming and that the negative ice mass balance has nothing to do with the rapidly increasing temperature of the poles.
lol, Crick posted the graph, moron. I re-posted it and you obviously thought it proved my point so you challenged the source. I agree with you. It does prove my point.No, I was attacking no one's graph, but I don't care who posts the graph, source and link, please.
Clearly the reason you climate change religious fanatics don't use the reply button is because you are embarrassed with how the thread is playing out. Use the reply button.Mr. Westwall, that was proven in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. And has been repeatedly been shown to be accurate ever since. That you disagree, means nothing at all to that reality. There are scientific journals that would welcome an article that actually definatively disproves his observations, and a Nobel awaits you if you could do it. I won't hold my breath.
What was proven by John Tyndall of England in 1859? That global warming religious fanatics would shit their pants over nothing? yes, I agree with him.Mr. Westwall, that was proven in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. And has been repeatedly been shown to be accurate ever since. That you disagree, means nothing at all to that reality. There are scientific journals that would welcome an article that actually definatively disproves his observations, and a Nobel awaits you if you could do it. I won't hold my breath.
Mr. Westwall, that was proven in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. And has been repeatedly been shown to be accurate ever since. That you disagree, means nothing at all to that reality. There are scientific journals that would welcome an article that actually definatively disproves his observations, and a Nobel awaits you if you could do it. I won't hold my breath.
Mr. Westwall, that was proven in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. And has been repeatedly been shown to be accurate ever since. That you disagree, means nothing at all to that reality. There are scientific journals that would welcome an article that actually definatively disproves his observations, and a Nobel awaits you if you could do it. I won't hold my breath.
I see. Then you disagree with Arrhenius? And your creds are equal to his? LOLMr. Westwall, that was proven in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. And has been repeatedly been shown to be accurate ever since. That you disagree, means nothing at all to that reality. There are scientific journals that would welcome an article that actually definatively disproves his observations, and a Nobel awaits you if you could do it. I won't hold my breath.
Let's get this straight. I have no problem whatsoever with Tyndall's contribution to the GH theory. But Tyndall KNEW BETTER than to postulate the accelerations and positive feedbacks that make up the core of this rabid version CATASTROPHIC GW that has been advanced. In fact, he knew enough to say that adding MORE of a tiny fractional atmos component like CO2 does not produce the SAME effect as the previous equal addition. In other words -- there were BOUNDS on the warming power of GH gases.
He also didn't have the Cajones to start conversations about the ocean's boiling and Florida going underwater. Or that 1 or 2 degrees is the largest extinction force ever to hit the planet..
Makes no sense to me that YOU think -- it's significant that GH gases work the way Tyndall predicted. Because that's NOT the general points of contention of GW skeptics..
And how is the thread playing out, Onenote?Clearly the reason you climate change religious fanatics don't use the reply button is because you are embarrassed with how the thread is playing out. Use the reply button.Mr. Westwall, that was proven in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. And has been repeatedly been shown to be accurate ever since. That you disagree, means nothing at all to that reality. There are scientific journals that would welcome an article that actually definatively disproves his observations, and a Nobel awaits you if you could do it. I won't hold my breath.
Relax. It isn't the end of the world. You didn't see the irony of you calling me onenote?And how is the thread playing out, Onenote?Clearly the reason you climate change religious fanatics don't use the reply button is because you are embarrassed with how the thread is playing out. Use the reply button.Mr. Westwall, that was proven in 1859 by John Tyndall of England. And has been repeatedly been shown to be accurate ever since. That you disagree, means nothing at all to that reality. There are scientific journals that would welcome an article that actually definatively disproves his observations, and a Nobel awaits you if you could do it. I won't hold my breath.
The Antarctic sea Ice is still melting at a rate unseen since we put up satellites.
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
Global sea ice has reached a record low – should we be worried?
We have not seen anything like this previously. Not in 1998, or at any time since the satellite record which started in 1979.
