June ice the lowest on record

[skookerasbil]

Theyr'e skiing in northern California this weekend assholes..........latest on record!!!

The k00ks never want to talk about places where people are freezing their balls off. Usually at this ski resort, they are well into mountain biking season on the slopes.

 

[westwall]

You know for someone who claims that every sceptic is a luddite you and your fellow cultists are the ones who can't seem to understand that science methodologies have really improved from way back then. Imagine that. Back then some people actually thought that you couldn't travel faster than a galloping horse.

Most of the early relevant work on the subject was done in the late 19/early 20th century precisely because the relevant physics (namely, thermodynamics/stat mech and electromagnetism) had been established by that point. This is post-Maxwell and post-Boltzmann.

The problem with that is instruments have improved enormously since then. And the modern instruments don't confirm the older hypothesese any longer. Which is why no AGW cultist will ever do a legit controlled lab experiment. They know the theory will fail.

 

[edthecynic]

You know for someone who claims that every sceptic is a luddite you and your fellow cultists are the ones who can't seem to understand that science methodologies have really improved from way back then. Imagine that. Back then some people actually thought that you couldn't travel faster than a galloping horse.

Most of the early relevant work on the subject was done in the late 19/early 20th century precisely because the relevant physics (namely, thermodynamics/stat mech and electromagnetism) had been established by that point. This is post-Maxwell and post-Boltzmann.

The problem with that is instruments have improved enormously since then. And the modern instruments don't confirm the older hypothesese any longer. Which is why no AGW cultist will ever do a legit controlled lab experiment. They know the theory will fail.

And what exactly prevents you deniers from conducting the same experiment and publishing the results???

Could it be you know it will confirm the earlier experiments, so it is safer to just attack without proof!!

 

[westwall]

Most of the early relevant work on the subject was done in the late 19/early 20th century precisely because the relevant physics (namely, thermodynamics/stat mech and electromagnetism) had been established by that point. This is post-Maxwell and post-Boltzmann.

The problem with that is instruments have improved enormously since then. And the modern instruments don't confirm the older hypothesese any longer. Which is why no AGW cultist will ever do a legit controlled lab experiment. They know the theory will fail.

And what exactly prevents you deniers from conducting the same experiment and publishing the results???

Could it be you know it will confirm the earlier experiments, so it is safer to just attack without proof!!

The reason I don't do it is simply the cost. To do the test properly will cost on the order of three to four hundred thousand bucks and take about a year to run the whole sequence.
The sceptics have presented plenty of scientific reasons (all theoretical but with excellent math behind them, better math than even existed way back in 1858) so the ball is in the AGW court. They presented their evidence we presented ours. Now they get to do the experiment. Then, we get to look at their numbers (something they have so far been unwilling to do, even though it's required by law) and try and reproduce what they did.

That is how science works. Well legitimate science that is.

 

[Greenbeard]

The problem with that is instruments have improved enormously since then. And the modern instruments don't confirm the older hypothesese any longer.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I was talking about the early theoretical work, which effectively amounts to combining radiation laws with thermodynamic relations. The same concepts are at the center of the work behind modern climate dynamics. The basic physics at work hasn't changed.

 

[Old Rocks]

You know for someone who claims that every sceptic is a luddite you and your fellow cultists are the ones who can't seem to understand that science methodologies have really improved from way back then. Imagine that. Back then some people actually thought that you couldn't travel faster than a galloping horse.

Most of the early relevant work on the subject was done in the late 19/early 20th century precisely because the relevant physics (namely, thermodynamics/stat mech and electromagnetism) had been established by that point. This is post-Maxwell and post-Boltzmann.

The problem with that is instruments have improved enormously since then. And the modern instruments don't confirm the older hypothesese any longer. Which is why no AGW cultist will ever do a legit controlled lab experiment. They know the theory will fail.

OK, Walleyes, show us where the new instruments have shown that the GHGs do not have the absorbtion spectra that Tyndall stated they did.

You stated that the old hypothesis no longer stand. So show us some real scientists stating that. You know, like from peer reviewed journals. Not ex-TV weathermen with no degrees.

 

[edthecynic]

The problem with that is instruments have improved enormously since then. And the modern instruments don't confirm the older hypothesese any longer. Which is why no AGW cultist will ever do a legit controlled lab experiment. They know the theory will fail.

And what exactly prevents you deniers from conducting the same experiment and publishing the results???

Could it be you know it will confirm the earlier experiments, so it is safer to just attack without proof!!

The reason I don't do it is simply the cost. To do the test properly will cost on the order of three to four hundred thousand bucks and take about a year to run the whole sequence.
The sceptics have presented plenty of scientific reasons (all theoretical but with excellent math behind them, better math than even existed way back in 1858) so the ball is in the AGW court. They presented their evidence we presented ours. Now they get to do the experiment. Then, we get to look at their numbers (something they have so far been unwilling to do, even though it's required by law) and try and reproduce what they did.

That is how science works. Well legitimate science that is.

No the ball has never left the deniers court. The way legitimate science works is the skeptics REPEAT the experiment to confirm or rebut the experiment. Deniers never do experiments, they only attack those who do. That's why they have no credibility.

To give you an example, remember when some scientists claimed to have achieved cold fusion? If you recall, a number of other scientists then tried to repeat their experiment to confirm the results. When they couldn't, the hoax was admitted.

Until you deniers conduct an experiment that disproves the earlier experiment, the earlier experiment STANDS!
That's how legitimate science works.

 

[Old Rocks]

Are you confident enough yet in the power of an additional 200PPM of additional CO2 that you can show us in a laboratory setting how it raises temperatures by degrees and melts ice?

The science was proven in 1859.

You really need to do a little research outside of right wing blogs.

You know for someone who claims that every sceptic is a luddite you and your fellow cultists are the ones who can't seem to understand that science methodologies have really improved from way back then. Imagine that. Back then some people actually thought that you couldn't travel faster than a galloping horse.

Really? I didn't realize that horses could gallop at 35 mph, or 60 mph. I bet you majored in and have a degree in history, also.

http://designmuseum.org/design/isambard-kingdom-brunel

In 1822, Brunel returned to London and the following year went to work for his father, who was designing suspension bridges for Ile de Bourbon (now Ile de Réunion) in the western Indian Ocean. He worked for Marc for five years, mostly as resident engineer on the Thames Tunnel. Work was suspended in 1828 when a flood destroyed much of the tunnel. Brunel was badly injured during the flood and was sent to convalesce in Bristol where he was encouraged to enter a competition to design the Clifton Bridge across the Avon Gorge. Three years later, the judges declared him the winner, Brunel set to work on the bridge and, two years later, was appointed chief engineer to the Great Western Railway. As his practise expanded, he moved to larger premises at 18 Duke Street in 1835 to which he later added number 17. After his marriage to Mary Horsley in 1836, they lived in the upper floors, where Brunel had his office, while business was conducted downstairs.

The design of the Great Western Railway linking Bristol to London absorbed much of his time. Brunel had to pitch for the project against other engineers and presented an audacious proposal for a high speed railway on which Stephenson’s locomotives could travel at 60mph rather than 35mph. He argued that by developing a track with a broader gauge – 7 feet ¼ inches, than the then-standard 4 feet 8 ½ inches (1435mm) – the centre of gravity of the carriages would be lower thereby allowing the engine’s driving wheels to be larger and the trains to run faster. Brunel’s scheme was highly controversial and he fought a bitter battle to implement it: even threatening to resign when the GWR board tried to force him to work with a co-engineer. The broad gauge was eventually used on the Great Western Railway, Cornwall Railway and smaller lines, even though an 1845 Royal Commission deemed it too expensive to be adopted as the national standard gauge.

 

[Oddball]

The problem with that is instruments have improved enormously since then. And the modern instruments don't confirm the older hypothesese any longer.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I was talking about the early theoretical work, which effectively amounts to combining radiation laws with thermodynamic relations. The same concepts are at the center of the work behind modern climate dynamics. The basic physics at work hasn't changed.

The basic physics of astrophysics didn't have to change for Fred Hoyle to be wrong.

 

[westwall]

Sea Ice News #13 | Watts Up With That?

 

[Chris]

MIT: Climate change odds much worse than thought
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago — and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well — such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

MIT: Climate change odds much worse than thought

It's that time again!

Time for everyones favorite game:

WHEEL

OF

CLIMATE

CHANGE!!

I always think it's funny that someone who calls themselves "Crusader Frank" thinks they are smarter than the scientists at MIT.

 

[westwall]

MIT: Climate change odds much worse than thought
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago — and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well — such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

MIT: Climate change odds much worse than thought

It's that time again!

Time for everyones favorite game:

WHEEL

OF

CLIMATE

CHANGE!!

I always think it's funny that someone who calls themselves "Crusader Frank" thinks they are smarter than the scientists at MIT.

I never heard Frank ever claim that Chris. More honest absolutely, smarter no.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Walleyes, are you going to Frank's hollow moon with him?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The problem with that is instruments have improved enormously since then. And the modern instruments don't confirm the older hypothesese any longer.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I was talking about the early theoretical work, which effectively amounts to combining radiation laws with thermodynamic relations. The same concepts are at the center of the work behind modern climate dynamics. The basic physics at work hasn't changed.

The fuck it hasn't

We can measure accurately out to parts per million and accordingly to climate "Scientists" an increase of just 200PPM will raise temperature a few degrees. That's what Climatologists are now alleging.

Show me that in a lab.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey Walleyes, are you going to Frank's hollow moon with him?

Hey OR, you going to perform one single experiment that show how a 200PPM increase in CO2 will raise temperature by even a single degree?

I'll see if NASA will publish the seismometer readings from when Apollo 13 dropped it's Stage 3 booster on the Moon and it rang like a bell for over 3 hours.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is being shown in a lab. The lab is our entire planet. And the effect is not instantaneous, but all can now see it happening as the glaciers and ice caps are melting. Spring comes earlier every decade, and fall ends later. Each decade is warmer than the last.

Present evidence that this is not so.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

MIT: Climate change odds much worse than thought
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago — and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well — such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

MIT: Climate change odds much worse than thought

It's that time again!

Time for everyones favorite game:

WHEEL

OF

CLIMATE

CHANGE!!

I always think it's funny that someone who calls themselves "Crusader Frank" thinks they are smarter than the scientists at MIT.

The big advantage I have over you clowns is I'm perfectly capable of reading data and scientific papers on my own and coming to my own conclusions irrespective of my formal education being in business rather than science.

Also, in one of those "Maybe I should have thought it through a little better" moments, I turned down a chance to attend Bronx HS Of Science. I was a straight A student in science and wanted to be an archaeologist but got talked out of it in favor of a business education.

It's obvious to me what my capabilities and limitation are with respect to the sciences and your attempted ridicule of me says way more about you than it does about me.

And to date, no Warmer have ever published a research paper demonstrating in a laboratory setting how it is a deminimus increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause instantaneous and cataclysmic increases in temperature.

I'll give you a 400PPM increase, and all you have to show me is a 1 degree increase in temperature

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is being shown in a lab. The lab is our entire planet. And the effect is not instantaneous, but all can now see it happening as the glaciers and ice caps are melting. Spring comes earlier every decade, and fall ends later. Each decade is warmer than the last.

Present evidence that this is not so.

That's not science.

That's astrology. That's homeopathy. That's phrenology.

It is your contention that you can eliminate all variable other than a deminimus increase in CO2.

Show me.

 

[Greenbeard]

The fuck it hasn't

It really hasn't. A lifted air parcel allowed to expand adiabatically is just as isentropic (and follows the same temperature and pressure relationship) today as it was over a century ago. Similarly, the derivation of an atmosphere's temperature profile from the lapse rate hasn't changed.

We can measure accurately out to parts per million and accordingly to climate "Scientists" an increase of just 200PPM will raise temperature a few degrees. That's what Climatologists are now alleging.

Show me that in a lab.

Unfortunately a single laboratory experiment can't mimic the numerous real-world feedbacks that determine climate sensitivity. That's why climate sensitivity has to be determined empirically from the real world with its real clouds and ice and lapse rate, etc. We know how the variables work together--that's the theoretical physical bit and that can be verified piece by piece in some lab jar. But inserting the real-world values of the variables to make quantitative predictions can't be done in a lab. That's the stage climate dynamics is on today.

Unfortunately for some the "debate" doesn't seem to have moved beyond the basic physics yet. Infrared opacity determines the radiating pressure level of the atmosphere. Increase that and you'll bump up that pressure level a bit higher, making the surface warmer. None of this is in doubt. Now the empirical contours of the climate system are being mapped out and attempts to model their future evolution are being made. Yes, that's hard. No, that doesn't make your opinions any more interesting.

 

[konradv]

And to date, no Warmer have ever published a research paper demonstrating in a laboratory setting how it is a deminimus increase in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause instantaneous and cataclysmic increases in temperature.

Why would they? No one I know would call 30-40% increases, "deminimus" and no one is saying "instantaneous and cataclysmic" changes will occur. Nice try, but your prejudices just aren't scientifically testable. What is testable is that CO2 and other gases absorb infra-red radiation. If they absorb in the lab, they'll absorb in the atmosphere. More gases means more energy absorbed. Given that a basic principle of science is Conservation of Energy and that statistically only half of the absorbed radiation would be re-emitted into space, where's the rest going but to heat the earth?