Arctic sea ice BACK to Normal!

[Old Rocks]

The point of the graph seems to be that the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice has been relatively stable since 1979.

Yep, you are truly that stupid.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This is the link presented by old Rocks countless times.

Like I give a fuck.

Want a different more recent wrong prediction? Try this one. Dr. James Hansen who is plying his hobby during the working day while accepting his salary from the government as an astronomer at NASA makes about 4 times as much spreading Climate panic than he makes as a government employee.

And Les Miles draws a $300,000 salary from the state of Louisiana and a $3,750,000 salary from TAF that is paid to his corporation in Texas so he can avoid Louisiana income tax - what's your fucking point?

He, to, is wrong and used the combined assets of NASA and the GISS to come to the wrong conclusion.

Go figure.

Is Jim Hansen’s Global Temperature Skillful? | Watts Up With That?

Why are you so obsessed with climate science celebrities?

 

[Old Rocks]

A predicted effect now being observed.

AGW Observer

Evidence for changes in tundra vegetation

Satellite-based evidence for shrub and graminoid tundra expansion in northern Quebec from 1986-2010 – McManus et al. (2012)

Abstract: &#8220;Global vegetation models predict rapid poleward migration of tundra and boreal forest vegetation in response to climate warming. Local plot and air-photo studies have documented recent changes in high-latitude vegetation composition and structure, consistent with warming trends. To bridge these two scales of inference, we analyzed a 24-year (1986-2010) Landsat time series in a latitudinal transect across the boreal forest-tundra biome boundary in northern Quebec province, Canada. This region has experienced rapid warming during both winter and summer months during the last forty years. Using a per-pixel (30 m) trend analysis, 30% of the observable (cloud-free) land area experienced a significant (p < 0.05) positive trend in the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). However, greening trends were not evenly split among cover types. Low shrub and graminoid tundra contributed preferentially to the greening trend, while forested areas were less likely to show significant trends in NDVI. These trends reflect increasing leaf area, rather than an increase in growing season length, because Landsat data were restricted to peak-summer conditions. The average NDVI trend (0.007/yr) corresponds to a leaf-area index (LAI) increase of ~0.6 based on the regional relationship between LAI and NDVI from the Moderate Resolution Spectroradiometer (MODIS). Across the entire transect, the area-averaged LAI increase was ~0.2 during 1986-2010. A higher area-averaged LAI change (~0.3) within the shrub-tundra portion of the transect represents a 20-60% relative increase in LAI during the last two decades. Our Landsat-based analysis subdivides the overall high-latitude greening trend into changes in peak-summer greenness by cover type. Different responses within and among shrub, graminoid, and tree-dominated cover types in this study indicate important fine-scale heterogeneity in vegetation growth. Although our findings are consistent with community shifts in low-biomass vegetation types over multi-decadal time scales, the response in tundra and forest ecosystems to recent warming was not uniform.&#8221;

Citation: K.M. McManus, D.C. Morton, J.G. Masek, D. Wang, J.O. Sexton, J. Nagol, P. Ropars, S. Boudreau, Global Change Biology, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02708.x.

 

[westwall]

yes.On the road to becoming hundred thousandaires, the world's elite climate scientists and graduate students, living in the lap of luxury, ignored something that only smart people like you can figure out.



Poor at what?

Hundred thousandaires? I suggest you look at the $900,000 Mann recieved for ONE grant.

That has got to be the dumbest statement you've ever made. Grant money isn't paid into scientists' personal checking accounts you fucking dolt, its paid to cover their research expenses.

How abouOr how about the $1.2 MILLION that Hansen recieved for one speaking gig

I suppose all climate scientists are as filthy rich as the most famous ones - we can only assume this - no data needed.


Jeez - Carl Sagan made a ton of money - I'm an astrophysicist - so by your logic I must be loaded with cash. I also got a grant of 2.5 MILLION service units on LONI computing clusters - man I've been livin it up with those SU's!

I'd have to sink pretty low to get to your level of stupidity. Take a look at their sources of income nimrod. They get millions of dollars in grants every year. They also get at least 200,000 per year as a tenured professor. Some get 400,000 plus.

Just go away spidey tooberpoopeydoo. How many other names do you have?

 

[westwall]

Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming

Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming



Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability
Relative impacts of human-induced climate change and natural climate variability : Abstract : Nature
Letters to Nature



Signature of recent climate change in frequencies of natural atmospheric circulation regimes
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6730/full/398799a0.html?free=2


Shall I continue?

I'm guessing your definition of "ignore" isn't the same one everyone else uses.

Didn't read the abstracts did you? No, I thought not. I would expect more from an astrophysicist...I really would. Oh yeah, one more thing. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE "studies" IS A COMPUTER MODEL.

You said the scientists were ignoring natural causes.

Clearly, as I have shown with my links - they not only do not ignore them, they write papers about them.

So its quite obvious you were wrong.

Why can't you accept that?

Scientists are supposed to OBSERVE the natural world. These "scientists" write fiction about the real world and fools like you eat it up.

 

[westwall]

You shouldn't be using 100+ year old analytic toy models when more recent ones are available, no. That's just plain fucking stupid

This is the link presented by old Rocks countless times.

Want a different more recent wrong prediction? Try this one. Dr. James Hansen who is plying his hobby during the working day while accepting his salary from the government as an astronomer at NASA makes about 4 times as much spreading Climate panic than he makes as a government employee.

He, to, is wrong and used the combined assets of NASA and the GISS to come to the wrong conclusion.

Go figure.

Is Jim Hansen’s Global Temperature Skillful? | Watts Up With That?

LOL Here we go again. We present articles from peer reviewed scientific journals, and you present articles from the blog site of an undegreed ex-TV weatherman, known for his lies.

So do we. the difference is ours are based on actual observation. Yours are fiction made up in the depths of a shitty computer program.

 

[daveman]

I believe he WAS talking about the current models. They are remarkable only for their colossal lack of accuracy.

On the contrary: They fit the leftist agenda 100% of the time.

Dumb fuck. The cryosphere does not respond to anyones political agenda. It responds to the physical laws that control our universe. Laws that you people continue to deny.

The models have done reasonably well on the temperatures, but have failed completely on the results of those temperature increases. The results have been far more serious than even the worst of the 'alarmist' predictions.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

If you had science on your side, you wouldn't have to rely on fear-mongering.

 

[skookerasbil]

yes.On the road to becoming hundred thousandaires, the world's elite climate scientists and graduate students, living in the lap of luxury, ignored something that only smart people like you can figure out.



Poor at what?

That has got to be the dumbest statement you've ever made. Grant money isn't paid into scientists' personal checking accounts you fucking dolt, its paid to cover their research expenses.

!

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD.

Been on this board for almost 4 years. You talk about naive. Either naive or IQ of a small soap dish. Either/or.........laughable beyond words!!!

One other possibility............we are now seeing the fallout from people listening closely to a president who re-defines words and reality.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The point of the graph seems to be that the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice has been relatively stable since 1979.

Yep, you are truly that stupid.

We don't see the "wider and wider swings" predicted by your model

 

[saveliberty]

Now I get it. Global Warming is code for enviromentalist meltdown.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is the link presented by old Rocks countless times.

Want a different more recent wrong prediction? Try this one. Dr. James Hansen who is plying his hobby during the working day while accepting his salary from the government as an astronomer at NASA makes about 4 times as much spreading Climate panic than he makes as a government employee.

He, to, is wrong and used the combined assets of NASA and the GISS to come to the wrong conclusion.

Go figure.

Is Jim Hansen’s Global Temperature Skillful? | Watts Up With That?

LOL Here we go again. We present articles from peer reviewed scientific journals, and you present articles from the blog site of an undegreed ex-TV weatherman, known for his lies.

So do we. the difference is ours are based on actual observation. Yours are fiction made up in the depths of a shitty computer program.

Once more Walleyes demonstrates his stupidity. Tyndall's observations of the absorption bands of GHGs was a shitty computer program? The observations of the melting of the permafrost, the worldwide retreat of alpine glaciers, the melting of the Arctic Sea Ice, and the melting, by the tens of gigatons, on the continental ice sheets. Is that a shitty computer program? How about the weirding of the weather, and the increase in the number and severity of extreme weather events? Are they shitty computer programs?

We have fruitloops on this board telling us nothing is happening, that it is all dirty data, and a hoax. Then we have all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities telling us that AGW is real, and already creating problems. And then the two major re-insurance companies in the world, Munich Re and Swiss Re are flat stating that there has been a very strong increase in the severity and number of extreme climate events, and the cause is the present warming.

Ah yes, who to believe.

 

[code1211]

Science works in the opposite way. The models we have now Arrhenius could not have eben conceived of.

What is your point?

That science works in the opposite way than you suggested, and that the models we have now are far more sophisticated than the toy model of Arrhenius.

Can you read?

Then this challenge should be an easy one to answer.

Produce the model that accurately predicts the climate since 1980 or 1990 or 2000. This demands that the model you present was created before the date at which the predicted period starts.

I'll wait here.

 

[code1211]

This is the link presented by old Rocks countless times.

Like I give a fuck.

Want a different more recent wrong prediction? Try this one. Dr. James Hansen who is plying his hobby during the working day while accepting his salary from the government as an astronomer at NASA makes about 4 times as much spreading Climate panic than he makes as a government employee.

And Les Miles draws a $300,000 salary from the state of Louisiana and a $3,750,000 salary from TAF that is paid to his corporation in Texas so he can avoid Louisiana income tax - what's your fucking point?

He, to, is wrong and used the combined assets of NASA and the GISS to come to the wrong conclusion.

Go figure.

Is Jim Hansen’s Global Temperature Skillful? | Watts Up With That?

Why are you so obsessed with climate science celebrities?

Please, feel free to produce a model that accurately predicts climate across a 30 year period.

Dr. Hansen at least tried. He failed, but he tried.

You claim you've got the goods. Present them

 

[Intense]

How about the glaciers in Chile (the country, not the pepper) ?

Fooled me.... You are too smart for your own good. I thought Genetic Engineering and going Vaccination Crazy caused Global Warming. Playing with yourself, and Gay Sex does too.

 

[code1211]

A predicted effect now being observed.

AGW Observer

Evidence for changes in tundra vegetation

Satellite-based evidence for shrub and graminoid tundra expansion in northern Quebec from 1986-2010 – McManus et al. (2012)

Abstract: “Global vegetation models predict rapid poleward migration of tundra and boreal forest vegetation in response to climate warming. Local plot and air-photo studies have documented recent changes in high-latitude vegetation composition and structure, consistent with warming trends. To bridge these two scales of inference, we analyzed a 24-year (1986-2010) Landsat time series in a latitudinal transect across the boreal forest-tundra biome boundary in northern Quebec province, Canada. This region has experienced rapid warming during both winter and summer months during the last forty years. Using a per-pixel (30 m) trend analysis, 30% of the observable (cloud-free) land area experienced a significant (p < 0.05) positive trend in the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). However, greening trends were not evenly split among cover types. Low shrub and graminoid tundra contributed preferentially to the greening trend, while forested areas were less likely to show significant trends in NDVI. These trends reflect increasing leaf area, rather than an increase in growing season length, because Landsat data were restricted to peak-summer conditions. The average NDVI trend (0.007/yr) corresponds to a leaf-area index (LAI) increase of ~0.6 based on the regional relationship between LAI and NDVI from the Moderate Resolution Spectroradiometer (MODIS). Across the entire transect, the area-averaged LAI increase was ~0.2 during 1986-2010. A higher area-averaged LAI change (~0.3) within the shrub-tundra portion of the transect represents a 20-60% relative increase in LAI during the last two decades. Our Landsat-based analysis subdivides the overall high-latitude greening trend into changes in peak-summer greenness by cover type. Different responses within and among shrub, graminoid, and tree-dominated cover types in this study indicate important fine-scale heterogeneity in vegetation growth. Although our findings are consistent with community shifts in low-biomass vegetation types over multi-decadal time scales, the response in tundra and forest ecosystems to recent warming was not uniform.”

Citation: K.M. McManus, D.C. Morton, J.G. Masek, D. Wang, J.O. Sexton, J. Nagol, P. Ropars, S. Boudreau, Global Change Biology, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02708.x.

All natural responses to warming are natural and predictable if the warming occurs.

The debate pivots on the cause of the warming. The Anthropogenic crowd asserts that the cause is Anthropogenic. The doubters assert that there are many causes and any of them in concert with any others can and has caused warming in the past.

As the proponent as the single cause theory, it is your job to prove the Anthropogenic cause. Proving warming is like proving a murder has occurred when everyone knows there has been a murder and is asking "who done it?".

Proving the dead guy is dead proves nothing regarding "who done it".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL Here we go again. We present articles from peer reviewed scientific journals, and you present articles from the blog site of an undegreed ex-TV weatherman, known for his lies.

So do we. the difference is ours are based on actual observation. Yours are fiction made up in the depths of a shitty computer program.

Once more Walleyes demonstrates his stupidity. Tyndall's observations of the absorption bands of GHGs was a shitty computer program? The observations of the melting of the permafrost, the worldwide retreat of alpine glaciers, the melting of the Arctic Sea Ice, and the melting, by the tens of gigatons, on the continental ice sheets. Is that a shitty computer program? How about the weirding of the weather, and the increase in the number and severity of extreme weather events? Are they shitty computer programs?

We have fruitloops on this board telling us nothing is happening, that it is all dirty data, and a hoax. Then we have all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities telling us that AGW is real, and already creating problems. And then the two major re-insurance companies in the world, Munich Re and Swiss Re are flat stating that there has been a very strong increase in the severity and number of extreme climate events, and the cause is the present warming.

Ah yes, who to believe.

Not your model which predicts "wider and wider swings" and is not supported by the graph

 

[freedombecki]

Nearly back to Normal! http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stdev_timeseries.png

Yeah. Global Warming was just a buncha hot air, melted those ice caps right down to the wire there.

 

[westwall]

LOL Here we go again. We present articles from peer reviewed scientific journals, and you present articles from the blog site of an undegreed ex-TV weatherman, known for his lies.

So do we. the difference is ours are based on actual observation. Yours are fiction made up in the depths of a shitty computer program.

Once more Walleyes demonstrates his stupidity. Tyndall's observations of the absorption bands of GHGs was a shitty computer program? The observations of the melting of the permafrost, the worldwide retreat of alpine glaciers, the melting of the Arctic Sea Ice, and the melting, by the tens of gigatons, on the continental ice sheets. Is that a shitty computer program? How about the weirding of the weather, and the increase in the number and severity of extreme weather events? Are they shitty computer programs?

We have fruitloops on this board telling us nothing is happening, that it is all dirty data, and a hoax. Then we have all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities telling us that AGW is real, and already creating problems. And then the two major re-insurance companies in the world, Munich Re and Swiss Re are flat stating that there has been a very strong increase in the severity and number of extreme climate events, and the cause is the present warming.

Ah yes, who to believe.

Yes, all of those observed effects began with the end of the LIA. Your priests haven't addressed that little fact. They ignore it. Amazingly enough the CO2 levels back then were much lower and STILL THE ICE WAS MELTING.

Ruh roh.

 

[westwall]

What is your point?

That science works in the opposite way than you suggested, and that the models we have now are far more sophisticated than the toy model of Arrhenius.

Can you read?

Then this challenge should be an easy one to answer.

Produce the model that accurately predicts the climate since 1980 or 1990 or 2000. This demands that the model you present was created before the date at which the predicted period starts.

I'll wait here.

Hell, let them use a model created yesterday. They're all equally useless at prediction. Hell, they can't recreate what we KNOW occured.....yesterday!

 

[saveliberty]

I'd sooner believe gremlins were the root cause. Probably a more accurate model too.