AGW: atmospheric physics

[SSDD]

The problem is that reality just won't cooperate.

Well, reality just proved your postcards false, didn't they?

NASA records, and others, confirm that the Arctic was NOT ice free in the years your claim.

You believe nasa over your own eyes? Wow. Even more stupid than I thought and I really didn't give you much credit in the first place.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. And the clouds are in a differant position in every photo.

You ever hear of time lapse? Clouds just don't wait around for the next shot.

LOL. Now notice I did not say the pictures were not what they are. I just said the clouds were in differant postitions in each photo. In other words, I used your method of arguement against you. Irrelevant facts that cast doubt without outright lying.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Try and focus.

YOU claimed the arctic had been ice free within the past 50 years.

I just proved that your claim was false.

With what? NASA's claim vs photographic evidence. Good luck with that.

 

[Old Rocks]

The problem is that reality just won't cooperate.

Well, reality just proved your postcards false, didn't they?

NASA records, and others, confirm that the Arctic was NOT ice free in the years your claim.

You believe nasa over your own eyes? Wow. Even more stupid than I thought and I really didn't give you much credit in the first place.

LOL. Now who saw the whole of the Arctic ice free fifty years ago. Show your proof.

 

[Saigon]

Arctic Sea Ice situation 6th worst on record:

This year’s maximum ice extent was the sixth lowest in the satellite record. The lowest maximum extent occurred in 2011. The ten lowest maximums in the satellite record have occurred in the last ten years, 2004 to 2013.

On March 15, 2013 Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 15.13 million square kilometers (5.84 million square miles). The maximum extent was 733,000 square kilometers (283,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average of 15.86 million square kilometers (6.12 million square miles). The maximum occurred five days later than the 1979 to 2000 average date of March 10. The date of the maximum has varied considerably over the years, with the earliest maximum in the satellite record occurring as early as February 24 in 1996 and as late as April 2 in 2010.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

 

[SSDD]

LOL. And the clouds are in a differant position in every photo.

You ever hear of time lapse? Clouds just don't wait around for the next shot.

LOL. Now notice I did not say the pictures were not what they are. I just said the clouds were in differant postitions in each photo. In other words, I used your method of arguement against you. Irrelevant facts that cast doubt without outright lying.

The only thing you cast doubt on was your own intelligence rocks.

 

[Old Rocks]

SSDD -

Try and focus.

YOU claimed the arctic had been ice free within the past 50 years.

I just proved that your claim was false.

With what? NASA's claim vs photographic evidence. Good luck with that.

Photographic proof? I saw a sub in a small area of open water. For all we know, the photographer could have been standing on ice. You are a fool, SSDD.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Try and focus.

YOU claimed the arctic had been ice free within the past 50 years.

I just proved that your claim was false.

With what? NASA's claim vs photographic evidence. Good luck with that.

It isn't luck, genius, it is comparing science with gossip.

And science proves that the Acrtic has patently NOT been ince free during the past century. Which I think we all knew, anyway.

 

[SSDD]

Well, reality just proved your postcards false, didn't they?

NASA records, and others, confirm that the Arctic was NOT ice free in the years your claim.

You believe nasa over your own eyes? Wow. Even more stupid than I thought and I really didn't give you much credit in the first place.

LOL. Now who saw the whole of the Arctic ice free fifty years ago. Show your proof.

Learn what ice free means rocks. Even scientists who claim an ice free arctic is just around the corner don't mean completely ice free.

 

[SSDD]

Arctic Sea Ice situation 6th worst on record:

This year’s maximum ice extent was the sixth lowest in the satellite record. The lowest maximum extent occurred in 2011. The ten lowest maximums in the satellite record have occurred in the last ten years, 2004 to 2013.

On March 15, 2013 Arctic sea ice likely reached its maximum extent for the year, at 15.13 million square kilometers (5.84 million square miles). The maximum extent was 733,000 square kilometers (283,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average of 15.86 million square kilometers (6.12 million square miles). The maximum occurred five days later than the 1979 to 2000 average date of March 10. The date of the maximum has varied considerably over the years, with the earliest maximum in the satellite record occurring as early as February 24 in 1996 and as late as April 2 in 2010.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

I repeat:

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Current Arctic Sea Ice is More Extensive than Most of the past 9000 Years

A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that western Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that the western Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since. The paper also demonstrates that even though western annual sea ice extent has been less than the present throughout most of the last 9000 years, low sea ice has consistently failed to cause a planetary albedo 'tipping point' claimed by warmists.

http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf

 

[SSDD]

And science proves that the Acrtic has patently NOT been ince free during the past century. Which I think we all knew, anyway-

Proves or says. So far you have shown that they said it. Now lets see the proof. Climate science has made it obvious that they will say all sorts of things but proving them is an entirely different matter.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

is evidenced by the fact that it fails to explain all the various global climate changes that preceded human industry.

What ARE you talking about?

Honestly - I am AMAZED how many times we posters present their own ignorance of fact as some kind of political point we should all been impressed by.

Both you and SSDD seem to suffer from the terrible fallacy that suggests that if you refuse to look at evidence, therefore it doesn't exist.

Meanwhile there are books and sites devoted to this topic the rest of the world read 10 years ago.

No. It is you who is suffering from that fallacy. I am not amazed at all at the persistence of your pitiable and deliberate ignorance.

All evidence contrary to your pet notion (not even a true scientific theory) is disregarded by you AGW Faithers.

There is tons of evidence showing how misguided you Faithers are, but tools such as you persist in simply wishing it all away.

Let us know how that works out for you if you ever man up sufficiently to actually consider the tons of contrary evidence.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Saigon does not even grasp that observation is a component part of science, yet he pretends to be able to lecture others ABOUT "science."

Remarkable.

Sad.

But still, pretty amusing.

SSDD has completely exposed Saigon as the hack he is.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Just the other day (yesterday I believe) I posted an interesting link.

Let's put Saigon, Rolling Fart and Old Socks to the test.

As honestly and as scientifically as you can manage it: STATE with precision the PROPER "null hypothesis" relative to the question of AGW.

Lots more could easily follow from that simple assignment. But let's take it one small step at a time. You can collude if you wish. But try to be honest, objective, scientific and lucid.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD has completely exposed Saigon as the hack he is.

Oh, definitely.

But it's good to know that we can now all use postcards instead of data.

All evidence contrary to your pet notion (not even a true scientific theory) is disregarded by you AGW Faithers.

Yes there are "tons" blogs out there that take all kind of stands on climate change. Very few of them have any scientific standing, and many of them are linked to particular right-wing politicians. There are very, very few solid pieces of research that deny climate change. Some of those that do are interesting, some less so.

At this stage, every major scientific organisations backs human involvement in climate change. That is 60+ organisations representing every field of scientific enfeavour from biology to physics. It's a no brainer to anyone who does not hold extremist political views.

What these discussions will always come down to ultimately is that those of you who do hold vey extreme political positions of any kind, be they left or right - and SSDD's positions are extreme enough that he can not use dictionaries - will never understand science. Science simply isn't suited to politics.

Keep in mind that there have been 13,500 peer-reivwed research papers on climate change. Some 24 deny human involvement. So those are your odds.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD has completely exposed Saigon as the hack he is.

Oh, definitely.

But it's good to know that we can now all use postcards instead of data.

Just to be sure of your grasp of science...are you claiming that photographic evidence is not data? I just want to confirm how far from reality you really are with regard to what is and isn't science.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

You do not have any "photographic evidence". You have a postcard.

Keep in mind that the "evidence" has already been proven false by science - not that you believed it for a minute anyway.

 

[SSDD]

At this stage, every major scientific organisations backs human involvement in climate change. That is 60+ organisations representing every field of scientific enfeavour from biology to physics. It's a no brainer to anyone who does not hold extremist political views.
.

And they do it without the first shred of actual proof of a greenhouse effect...they do it without even a mathematical model of a greenhouse effect....
they do it based on models that assume...assume....assume.....assume.

• hey assumethat the surface of the earth has a constant source of heat
• they assume that the energy arriving at the surface of the earth does not vary with clouds or other atmospheric phenomena
• they assume that the surface does not cycle between day and night periods where incoming energy is fully on and then fully off
• they assume that radiation is the only type of energy transfer in operation
• they assume that convection and conduction do not force heat to rise from the surface
• they assume that there is no differential in heat capacity between the surface and the atmosphere
• they assume that the surface of the earth is composed of oceans and land and equators and poles and variable elevations and contours
• they assume that the surface of the earth does not store and release energy over many variable time scales
• they assume that the atmosphere is composed mostly of non radiative gasses and therefore has very little heat capacity.

Why would you put your faith in models that make so many assumptions when you know what the actual earth is like?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

You do not have any "photographic evidence". You have a postcard.

Are you saying that there was no photograph?

Keep in mind that the "evidence" has already been proven false by science - not that you believed it for a minute anyway.

I have seen no proof...you have presented no proof. You presented a claim and that is all. No evidence to support the claim. A real part of you guys (warmers) problem is that you accept statements as proof when they are not proof. Proof is proof...hard observable evidence is proof....not statements.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

SSDD -

You do not have any "photographic evidence". You have a postcard.

Keep in mind that the "evidence" has already been proven false by science - not that you believed it for a minute anyway.

Unless you have some reason to believe that he photographs were altered (like photoshopped), then it is beyond silly of you to deny that that the postcard that comes with photographs is not photographic evidence.

You post silly words which leaves electronic ink in the form of letters and words. That may not constitute evidence of much, but it is certainly proof that somebody using your account typed some shit and hit "submit."