Arctic ice thins dramatically

[Liability]

Right there on the top and front of my head where forehead meets hairline, I can't help but notice that my hair seems to be thinning, of late, rather dramatically.

I think it's cause is anthropogenic.

‪crush beer cans over head‬‏ - YouTube

Note to self:

male pattern baldness can be caused by trauma....

 

[gslack]

Sure, G, more of them thar pointy headed scientists.

AMS Journals Online - Large-Scale Climatic Controls on Lake Baikal Ice Cover

Large-Scale Climatic Controls on Lake Baikal Ice Cover
Martin C. Todd and Anson W. Mackay
Department of Geography, University College London, London, United Kingdom







Abstract

Long-term records of winter ice duration, formation, and breakup dates (1869–1996) and maximum thickness (1950–95) on Lake Baikal are analyzed to determine the nature of temporal trends and the relationship with the large-scale atmospheric circulation. There are highly significant trends of decreasing ice duration (and thickness) over the period, associated with later ice formation and earlier breakup dates. These trends are broadly in line with those of winter air temperatures in the region. Variability in Lake Baikal ice formation date, duration, and thickness is significantly related to winter temperatures over a wide area from the Caspian Sea to the Pacific and from northern India to the Kara Sea off the northern coast of Siberia. Thus, Lake Baikal ice cover is a robust indicator of continental-scale winter climate. Correlation and composite analysis of surface and upper-atmospheric fields reveal that interannual variability in ice cover is associated with a tripolar pattern of upper-level geopotential height anomalies. In years of high (low) ice duration and thickness, significant positive (negative) 700-hPa geopotential height anomalies occur over northern Siberia and the Arctic, complemented by negative (positive) anomalies over central-eastern Asia and southern Europe. This structure induces an anomalous meridional flow regime in eastern Siberia with cold (warm) temperature advection from the northeast (southwest) in years of high (low) ice duration and thickness. Analysis of the lower-tropospheric heat budget during years of extreme early and late ice onset indicates that horizontal temperature advection is largely responsible for the observed temperature anomalies. These circulation anomalies are associated with certain recognized patterns of Northern Hemisphere climate variability, notably the Scandinavian and Arctic Oscillation patterns. Significant correlations also occur between Lake Baikal ice cover and the Pacific–North American pattern in the previous winter. The component of variability in Lake Baikal ice cover unrelated to these modes of Northern Hemisphere climate variability is associated with the position and intensity of the Siberian high.

Thats it moron don't bother with the truth just keep on pretending I said something else. Yeah more of the same from you.. I would like to see you for once actually try and think for yourself. Just one time try to argue this with something other than mindless cut and paste. Do YOU think at all anymore or do you just let them tell you what you think about everything. Dude we all know you don't understand any of what you post you have shown that over and over. So please tell us what you think and why you support AGW theory. Not what they tell you or what some scientists are studying now but what you think. I bet you can't do it. I bet if you tried you would just cut and paste or take what someone else said or wrote and go with it. So come on man show us all what YOU think for once.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Sure, G, more of them thar pointy headed scientists.

AMS Journals Online - Large-Scale Climatic Controls on Lake Baikal Ice Cover

Large-Scale Climatic Controls on Lake Baikal Ice Cover
Martin C. Todd and Anson W. Mackay
Department of Geography, University College London, London, United Kingdom







Abstract

Long-term records of winter ice duration, formation, and breakup dates (1869–1996) and maximum thickness (1950–95) on Lake Baikal are analyzed to determine the nature of temporal trends and the relationship with the large-scale atmospheric circulation. There are highly significant trends of decreasing ice duration (and thickness) over the period, associated with later ice formation and earlier breakup dates. These trends are broadly in line with those of winter air temperatures in the region. Variability in Lake Baikal ice formation date, duration, and thickness is significantly related to winter temperatures over a wide area from the Caspian Sea to the Pacific and from northern India to the Kara Sea off the northern coast of Siberia. Thus, Lake Baikal ice cover is a robust indicator of continental-scale winter climate. Correlation and composite analysis of surface and upper-atmospheric fields reveal that interannual variability in ice cover is associated with a tripolar pattern of upper-level geopotential height anomalies. In years of high (low) ice duration and thickness, significant positive (negative) 700-hPa geopotential height anomalies occur over northern Siberia and the Arctic, complemented by negative (positive) anomalies over central-eastern Asia and southern Europe. This structure induces an anomalous meridional flow regime in eastern Siberia with cold (warm) temperature advection from the northeast (southwest) in years of high (low) ice duration and thickness. Analysis of the lower-tropospheric heat budget during years of extreme early and late ice onset indicates that horizontal temperature advection is largely responsible for the observed temperature anomalies. These circulation anomalies are associated with certain recognized patterns of Northern Hemisphere climate variability, notably the Scandinavian and Arctic Oscillation patterns. Significant correlations also occur between Lake Baikal ice cover and the Pacific–North American pattern in the previous winter. The component of variability in Lake Baikal ice cover unrelated to these modes of Northern Hemisphere climate variability is associated with the position and intensity of the Siberian high.

Thats it moron don't bother with the truth just keep on pretending I said something else. Yeah more of the same from you.. I would like to see you for once actually try and think for yourself. Just one time try to argue this with something other than mindless cut and paste. Do YOU think at all anymore or do you just let them tell you what you think about everything. Dude we all know you don't understand any of what you post you have shown that over and over. So please tell us what you think and why you support AGW theory. Not what they tell you or what some scientists are studying now but what you think. I bet you can't do it. I bet if you tried you would just cut and paste or take what someone else said or wrote and go with it. So come on man show us all what YOU think for once.

Gslack, Do you have any raw data for people to form their own opinions on this issue??? I somehow doubt a satellite "computer" ran system like AmsuE could be messed with to badly. Honestly---If this data is wrong and fucked up to the point that it straightly can't be trusted. How could even the skeptics know for sure what is going on? Don't we all use the same data sets as all the temperature sensor data, buoy, drop sonde, air ballon, satellite are all the same that the giss, noaa use and you can bet most of it is also being used by the skeptics. The satellite data from spencer and rss is also showing the surface record.

Honestly, if it's this bad then we're all shooting fish in the dark when it comes to any data. Who's to say who's right if the data was totally screwed.

Lets say that one of these data sets can be trusted---UAH for that matter; then they show nearly the same as the giss or noaa, but on a different avg-1980-2010 compared to 1960-1990 for the giss and noaa? This must be one huge stinking fraud. As even the Skeptical in the field support a warming.

I'm asking you how would one go about finding out the truth without being able to trust any of the data? Sure we can go through old writings and stories about the climate within europe, but if science has been completely fucked over then we can't trust anything anyways.

At the end of the day, how can you say your right if everything you or we use is WRONG? As to come to the truth you of course will need "really good data" to find out what the earth is really doing to know the truth.

 

[gslack]

Sure, G, more of them thar pointy headed scientists.

AMS Journals Online - Large-Scale Climatic Controls on Lake Baikal Ice Cover

Large-Scale Climatic Controls on Lake Baikal Ice Cover
Martin C. Todd and Anson W. Mackay
Department of Geography, University College London, London, United Kingdom







Abstract

Long-term records of winter ice duration, formation, and breakup dates (1869–1996) and maximum thickness (1950–95) on Lake Baikal are analyzed to determine the nature of temporal trends and the relationship with the large-scale atmospheric circulation. There are highly significant trends of decreasing ice duration (and thickness) over the period, associated with later ice formation and earlier breakup dates. These trends are broadly in line with those of winter air temperatures in the region. Variability in Lake Baikal ice formation date, duration, and thickness is significantly related to winter temperatures over a wide area from the Caspian Sea to the Pacific and from northern India to the Kara Sea off the northern coast of Siberia. Thus, Lake Baikal ice cover is a robust indicator of continental-scale winter climate. Correlation and composite analysis of surface and upper-atmospheric fields reveal that interannual variability in ice cover is associated with a tripolar pattern of upper-level geopotential height anomalies. In years of high (low) ice duration and thickness, significant positive (negative) 700-hPa geopotential height anomalies occur over northern Siberia and the Arctic, complemented by negative (positive) anomalies over central-eastern Asia and southern Europe. This structure induces an anomalous meridional flow regime in eastern Siberia with cold (warm) temperature advection from the northeast (southwest) in years of high (low) ice duration and thickness. Analysis of the lower-tropospheric heat budget during years of extreme early and late ice onset indicates that horizontal temperature advection is largely responsible for the observed temperature anomalies. These circulation anomalies are associated with certain recognized patterns of Northern Hemisphere climate variability, notably the Scandinavian and Arctic Oscillation patterns. Significant correlations also occur between Lake Baikal ice cover and the Pacific–North American pattern in the previous winter. The component of variability in Lake Baikal ice cover unrelated to these modes of Northern Hemisphere climate variability is associated with the position and intensity of the Siberian high.

Thats it moron don't bother with the truth just keep on pretending I said something else. Yeah more of the same from you.. I would like to see you for once actually try and think for yourself. Just one time try to argue this with something other than mindless cut and paste. Do YOU think at all anymore or do you just let them tell you what you think about everything. Dude we all know you don't understand any of what you post you have shown that over and over. So please tell us what you think and why you support AGW theory. Not what they tell you or what some scientists are studying now but what you think. I bet you can't do it. I bet if you tried you would just cut and paste or take what someone else said or wrote and go with it. So come on man show us all what YOU think for once.

Gslack, Do you have any raw data for people to form their own opinions on this issue??? I somehow doubt a satellite "computer" ran system like AmsuE could be messed with to badly. Honestly---If this data is wrong and fucked up to the point that it straightly can't be trusted. How could even the skeptics know for sure what is going on? Don't we all use the same data sets as all the temperature sensor data, buoy, drop sonde, air ballon, satellite are all the same that the giss, noaa use and you can bet most of it is also being used by the skeptics. The satellite data from spencer and rss is also showing the surface record.

Honestly, if it's this bad then we're all shooting fish in the dark when it comes to any data. Who's to say who's right if the data was totally screwed.

Lets say that one of these data sets can be trusted---UAH for that matter; then they show nearly the same as the giss or noaa, but on a different avg-1980-2010 compared to 1960-1990 for the giss and noaa? This must be one huge stinking fraud. As even the Skeptical in the field support a warming.

I'm asking you how would one go about finding out the truth without being able to trust any of the data? Sure we can go through old writings and stories about the climate within europe, but if science has been completely fucked over then we can't trust anything anyways.

At the end of the day, how can you say your right if everything you or we use is WRONG? As to come to the truth you of course will need "really good data" to find out what the earth is really doing to know the truth.

Okay matt, since you think I am being a bit unfair and perhaps one-sided or whatever. I want you to explain to me when you last saw a retraction of any data on the pro side of climate change. Can you name one time they came out and made a public correction? Surely you can't claim they have never made a mistake or had errors because well frankly we wouldn't have florida if they were infallible.

Right now there are people who watch and study their reports and claims and point out the errors to them and they either have some excuse or they quietly put up corrections in an attachment or some other manner. Why don't they come clean and fix the errors with the same zeal they make the wild claims they base on those errors?

You wouldn't even know the Hockey stick graph was a misleading and completely useless piece of fiction if it weren't for people like those I mentioned. Why didn't they come clean?

And BTW, your attempt to dismiss my points on the "you don't trust anybody" defense doesn't change a thing here. I DO NOT TRUST ANYONE WHO IS PROVEN FALSE SO MANY TIMES. And if you need a graph or some numbers pulled off a computer climate modeling program to tell you that they BS people about climate change, you are seriously in denial.

They lied about the polar bears, they lied about ocean acidity, they lied about CO2 driving climate with their hockey stick graph, they lied about the oceans rising 7 meters, they lied about Greenland melting, they lied about the medieval warming period, and they did all of this using the same modelling and computer hucksterism they use today.

Seriously matt, if you are only going to believe them why ask for data from elsewhere anyway? I tried this with oldsocks once and it was a waste of time. He didn't want data from somewhere else he wanted to call all others fakes and phonies and continue his sermon.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Thats it moron don't bother with the truth just keep on pretending I said something else. Yeah more of the same from you.. I would like to see you for once actually try and think for yourself. Just one time try to argue this with something other than mindless cut and paste. Do YOU think at all anymore or do you just let them tell you what you think about everything. Dude we all know you don't understand any of what you post you have shown that over and over. So please tell us what you think and why you support AGW theory. Not what they tell you or what some scientists are studying now but what you think. I bet you can't do it. I bet if you tried you would just cut and paste or take what someone else said or wrote and go with it. So come on man show us all what YOU think for once.

Gslack, Do you have any raw data for people to form their own opinions on this issue??? I somehow doubt a satellite "computer" ran system like AmsuE could be messed with to badly. Honestly---If this data is wrong and fucked up to the point that it straightly can't be trusted. How could even the skeptics know for sure what is going on? Don't we all use the same data sets as all the temperature sensor data, buoy, drop sonde, air ballon, satellite are all the same that the giss, noaa use and you can bet most of it is also being used by the skeptics. The satellite data from spencer and rss is also showing the surface record.

Honestly, if it's this bad then we're all shooting fish in the dark when it comes to any data. Who's to say who's right if the data was totally screwed.

Lets say that one of these data sets can be trusted---UAH for that matter; then they show nearly the same as the giss or noaa, but on a different avg-1980-2010 compared to 1960-1990 for the giss and noaa? This must be one huge stinking fraud. As even the Skeptical in the field support a warming.

I'm asking you how would one go about finding out the truth without being able to trust any of the data? Sure we can go through old writings and stories about the climate within europe, but if science has been completely fucked over then we can't trust anything anyways.

At the end of the day, how can you say your right if everything you or we use is WRONG? As to come to the truth you of course will need "really good data" to find out what the earth is really doing to know the truth.

Okay matt, since you think I am being a bit unfair and perhaps one-sided or whatever. I want you to explain to me when you last saw a retraction of any data on the pro side of climate change. Can you name one time they came out and made a public correction? Surely you can't claim they have never made a mistake or had errors because well frankly we wouldn't have florida if they were infallible.
I heard that climate-gate was shown to be misleading and the scientist where cleared, but yes I read some of the emails and some of them did say things like they can't find the missing heat---the missing heat could as well be a unknown and they're trying to figure it out. Not that it disproves a thing. In fact there is a huge fire storm going on within the science between where the heat is. Some say in the ocean deep and others say reflected from sulfur. A new paper came out supporting hansens case a few weeks ago. Of course the record is NOT perfect and errors have been found and skeptics have corrected the believers, but your going to throw it out over that? In to replace it with what. Sure some of it has been screwed with, but isn't this what we all use as I said in my last post.
Right now there are people who watch and study their reports and claims and point out the errors to them and they either have some excuse or they quietly put up corrections in an attachment or some other manner. Why don't they come clean and fix the errors with the same zeal they make the wild claims they base on those errors?

You wouldn't even know the Hockey stick graph was a misleading and completely useless piece of fiction if it weren't for people like those I mentioned. Why didn't they come clean?

How many more peer reviewed papers do you need supporting the hockey stick? All these are northern hemisphere reconstructions that agree with the mann 1999. There is NO less then 8 reconstructions---there. So all these people are all bodies with mann?

from stalemite

Of course other studies do so a warmer mid evil warm period

Caption: The curve shows the sea level from the year 200 to the year 2100. The future rise in sea level of 1 m is calculated from global warming of 3 degrees in this century. The dotted line indicates the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's prediction. The blue shade indicates the calculations' degree of uncertainty.

Credit: Aslak Grinsted, Niels Bohr Institutet

Anyways that clearly shows this group thinks that ocean levels where higher during the mid evil warm period, but you can find others that show much the same as the temperature graphs above for sea level---The question is who is right and who is wrong? Without good truthful honest data, who can tell. The black and white graph of the northern hemisphere is from 1964 that you skeptics enjoy posting---Not that it is not right and that many of the wine data and viking settlements within Greenland tells us that it was likely warmer.

And BTW, your attempt to dismiss my points on the "you don't trust anybody" defense doesn't change a thing here. I DO NOT TRUST ANYONE WHO IS PROVEN FALSE SO MANY TIMES. And if you need a graph or some numbers pulled off a computer climate modeling program to tell you that they BS people about climate change, you are seriously in denial.

How is pixie data=computer model trash? Seriously, I understand you don't trust the pixie data, but then you don't trust the surface temperature record either...I can kind of understand as it is not perfect and your criticism is warranted. But you go to war with the army you have! This is what we have. Why doesn't the trust any body defense work? I mean don't we use the same data set. it is not like there is two of them.

They lied about the polar bears, they lied about ocean acidity, they lied about CO2 driving climate with their hockey stick graph, they lied about the oceans rising 7 meters, they lied about Greenland melting, they lied about the medieval warming period, and they did all of this using the same modelling and computer hucksterism they use today.
You maybe right about the polar bear as it is a bear that developed from the brown bear and is capable of surviving within Hudson bay---This point and many others is being debated on a daily basis. As for ocean acidity it only makes sense that if you add carbon into them they will become more acidic---Case in point the acid rain that we had problems with 40 years ago, but of course this is also debatable. I'm not saying your right or wrong. Who said 7 meters and on what time frame? Al gore maybe, but no studies from anyone offical like the ipcc or giss, noaa, hadley center for that manner. A meter is about what Hansen feels and at 2.7-3.1 mm per year that can't be linear in nature. Of course if you melt the land ice like green land and start cutting into Antarctica you can have higher sea levels---we know this from much earlier climate periods in earth's history. For one there was a time when the Midwestern United states was a inland sea. Yes it was that much higher then today. In fact Greenland 20 million years ago and Antarctica 30 million years ago had NO ice sheets at all, so all very debatable, but that is what science is about g. It has happened before as you like to say
Seriously matt, if you are only going to believe them why ask for data from elsewhere anyway? I tried this with oldsocks once and it was a waste of time. He didn't want data from somewhere else he wanted to call all others fakes and phonies and continue his sermon.

Why should I believe either side being that you both have a bias to destroy the other and don't really went to get to the truth of the matter. Finding things out for what they were. Raw data would be nice that wasn't fucked by either side to help finding the real truth of the matter.

 

[gslack]

Gslack, Do you have any raw data for people to form their own opinions on this issue??? I somehow doubt a satellite "computer" ran system like AmsuE could be messed with to badly. Honestly---If this data is wrong and fucked up to the point that it straightly can't be trusted. How could even the skeptics know for sure what is going on? Don't we all use the same data sets as all the temperature sensor data, buoy, drop sonde, air ballon, satellite are all the same that the giss, noaa use and you can bet most of it is also being used by the skeptics. The satellite data from spencer and rss is also showing the surface record.

Honestly, if it's this bad then we're all shooting fish in the dark when it comes to any data. Who's to say who's right if the data was totally screwed.

Lets say that one of these data sets can be trusted---UAH for that matter; then they show nearly the same as the giss or noaa, but on a different avg-1980-2010 compared to 1960-1990 for the giss and noaa? This must be one huge stinking fraud. As even the Skeptical in the field support a warming.

I'm asking you how would one go about finding out the truth without being able to trust any of the data? Sure we can go through old writings and stories about the climate within europe, but if science has been completely fucked over then we can't trust anything anyways.

At the end of the day, how can you say your right if everything you or we use is WRONG? As to come to the truth you of course will need "really good data" to find out what the earth is really doing to know the truth.

Okay matt, since you think I am being a bit unfair and perhaps one-sided or whatever. I want you to explain to me when you last saw a retraction of any data on the pro side of climate change. Can you name one time they came out and made a public correction? Surely you can't claim they have never made a mistake or had errors because well frankly we wouldn't have florida if they were infallible.
I heard that climate-gate was shown to be misleading and the scientist where cleared, but yes I read some of the emails and some of them did say things like they can't find the missing heat---the missing heat could as well be a unknown and they're trying to figure it out. Not that it disproves a thing. In fact there is a huge fire storm going on within the science between where the heat is. Some say in the ocean deep and others say reflected from sulfur. A new paper came out supporting hansens case a few weeks ago. Of course the record is NOT perfect and errors have been found and skeptics have corrected the believers, but your going to throw it out over that? In to replace it with what. Sure some of it has been screwed with, but isn't this what we all use as I said in my last post.
Right now there are people who watch and study their reports and claims and point out the errors to them and they either have some excuse or they quietly put up corrections in an attachment or some other manner. Why don't they come clean and fix the errors with the same zeal they make the wild claims they base on those errors?

You wouldn't even know the Hockey stick graph was a misleading and completely useless piece of fiction if it weren't for people like those I mentioned. Why didn't they come clean?

How many more peer reviewed papers do you need supporting the hockey stick? All these are northern hemisphere reconstructions that agree with the mann 1999. There is NO less then 8 reconstructions---there. So all these people are all bodies with mann?

from stalemite

Of course other studies do so a warmer mid evil warm period

Caption: The curve shows the sea level from the year 200 to the year 2100. The future rise in sea level of 1 m is calculated from global warming of 3 degrees in this century. The dotted line indicates the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's prediction. The blue shade indicates the calculations' degree of uncertainty.

Credit: Aslak Grinsted, Niels Bohr Institutet

Anyways that clearly shows this group thinks that ocean levels where higher during the mid evil warm period, but you can find others that show much the same as the temperature graphs above for sea level---The question is who is right and who is wrong? Without good truthful honest data, who can't tell.

And BTW, your attempt to dismiss my points on the "you don't trust anybody" defense doesn't change a thing here. I DO NOT TRUST ANYONE WHO IS PROVEN FALSE SO MANY TIMES. And if you need a graph or some numbers pulled off a computer climate modeling program to tell you that they BS people about climate change, you are seriously in denial.

How is pixie data=computer model trash? Seriously, I understand you don't trust the pixie data, but then you don't trust the surface temperature record either...I can kind of understand as it is not perfect and your criticism is warranted. But you go to war with the army you have! This is what we have. Why doesn't the trust any body defense work? I mean don't we use the same data set. it is not like there is two of them.

They lied about the polar bears, they lied about ocean acidity, they lied about CO2 driving climate with their hockey stick graph, they lied about the oceans rising 7 meters, they lied about Greenland melting, they lied about the medieval warming period, and they did all of this using the same modelling and computer hucksterism they use today.
You maybe right about the polar bear as it is a bear that developed from the brown bear and is capable of surviving within Hudson bay---This point and many others is being debated on a daily basis. As for ocean acidity it only makes sense that if you add carbon into them they will become more acidic---Case in point the acid rain that we had problems with 40 years ago, but of course this is also debatable. I'm not saying your right or wrong. Who said 7 meters and on what time frame? Al gore maybe, but no studies from anyone offical like the ipcc or giss, noaa, hadley center for that manner. A meter is about what Hansen feels and at 2.7-3.1 mm per year that can't be linear in nature. Of course if you melt the land ice like green land and start cutting into Antarctica you can have higher sea levels---we know this from much earlier climate periods in earth's history. For one there was a time when the Midwestern United states was a inland sea. Yes it was that much higher then today. In fact Greenland 20 million years ago and Antarctica 30 million years ago had NO ice sheets at all, so all very debatable, but that is what science is about g. It has happened before as you like to say
Seriously matt, if you are only going to believe them why ask for data from elsewhere anyway? I tried this with oldsocks once and it was a waste of time. He didn't want data from somewhere else he wanted to call all others fakes and phonies and continue his sermon.

Why should I believe either side being that you both have a bias to destroy the other and don't really went to get to the truth of the matter. Finding things out for what they where. Raw data would be nice that wasn't fucked by either side to help finding the real truth of the matter.

But see you are believing one side and not the other. If you want to get to the truth of the matter and you can't trust either side, why do you only cite from the one side? All I know for sure is climate change is now big funding money, and they have been found false many many times. As far as oil goes I don't go to them for information because I know what I will get. Why is it every scientist not on the pro-side of AGW is working for or with big oil? Doesn't sound like science to me when they have to resort to those tactics. You seem to operate on the assumption that because they are educated scientists they are ethical and good people and wouldn't deliberately twist data to favor their side. Why are they so much better than the scientists who don't agree with AGW theory? Every time I see a person of science dare to accuse another scientist of bias because of their funding, I know dam good and well that scientist takes money from groups and people who are pro agw so why do they get a free pass?

Ethics is ethics no matter what side you are on.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are many scientists from many countries and political systems involved in the study of the climate. Yet virtually all are stating the same thing. That the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. A rate that will affect the agriculture that we depend on for food, and the fisheries that nearly a billion people depend on for their primary source of protean.

To state that all are lying, is to state that there is a conspiracy involving the whole of the scientific community worldwide. But then, G, your posts indicate that you are tinfoil hat material in any case.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Right there on the top and front of my head where forehead meets hairline, I can't help but notice that my hair seems to be thinning, of late, rather dramatically.

I think it's cause is anthropogenic.

I have Peer Reviewed this post and find it not only statistically accurate at the 100% significance level, but worthy of massive federal funding for both research and "awareness raising".

 

[ScienceRocks]

07,17,2011,7242813

-104,843 km^2 melted in 24 hours

2007 had much less the 17, 18th with -94,000, but went up to over -100 for a few days this week. But after this week 2007 drops to a avg of 50-70k per day. If we can have -90 to 100k days for the next 4-5 days we will remain below 2007.

Then it is up to August and if the volume is as low as it is and some of the satellite maps shows that the even the 3 meter sea ice is starting break up...So I think it is very possible for the above to come true. I think we could go through August with 75k avg per day melt.

I'm forecasting 3.9 million km for the minimum!

 

[gslack]

Gslack, Do you have any raw data for people to form their own opinions on this issue??? I somehow doubt a satellite "computer" ran system like AmsuE could be messed with to badly. Honestly---If this data is wrong and fucked up to the point that it straightly can't be trusted. How could even the skeptics know for sure what is going on? Don't we all use the same data sets as all the temperature sensor data, buoy, drop sonde, air ballon, satellite are all the same that the giss, noaa use and you can bet most of it is also being used by the skeptics. The satellite data from spencer and rss is also showing the surface record.

Honestly, if it's this bad then we're all shooting fish in the dark when it comes to any data. Who's to say who's right if the data was totally screwed.

Lets say that one of these data sets can be trusted---UAH for that matter; then they show nearly the same as the giss or noaa, but on a different avg-1980-2010 compared to 1960-1990 for the giss and noaa? This must be one huge stinking fraud. As even the Skeptical in the field support a warming.

I'm asking you how would one go about finding out the truth without being able to trust any of the data? Sure we can go through old writings and stories about the climate within europe, but if science has been completely fucked over then we can't trust anything anyways.

At the end of the day, how can you say your right if everything you or we use is WRONG? As to come to the truth you of course will need "really good data" to find out what the earth is really doing to know the truth.

Okay matt, since you think I am being a bit unfair and perhaps one-sided or whatever. I want you to explain to me when you last saw a retraction of any data on the pro side of climate change. Can you name one time they came out and made a public correction? Surely you can't claim they have never made a mistake or had errors because well frankly we wouldn't have florida if they were infallible.
I heard that climate-gate was shown to be misleading and the scientist where cleared, but yes I read some of the emails and some of them did say things like they can't find the missing heat---the missing heat could as well be a unknown and they're trying to figure it out. Not that it disproves a thing. In fact there is a huge fire storm going on within the science between where the heat is. Some say in the ocean deep and others say reflected from sulfur. A new paper came out supporting hansens case a few weeks ago. Of course the record is NOT perfect and errors have been found and skeptics have corrected the believers, but your going to throw it out over that? In to replace it with what. Sure some of it has been screwed with, but isn't this what we all use as I said in my last post.
Right now there are people who watch and study their reports and claims and point out the errors to them and they either have some excuse or they quietly put up corrections in an attachment or some other manner. Why don't they come clean and fix the errors with the same zeal they make the wild claims they base on those errors?

You wouldn't even know the Hockey stick graph was a misleading and completely useless piece of fiction if it weren't for people like those I mentioned. Why didn't they come clean?

How many more peer reviewed papers do you need supporting the hockey stick? All these are northern hemisphere reconstructions that agree with the mann 1999. There is NO less then 8 reconstructions---there. So all these people are all bodies with mann?

from stalemite

Of course other studies do so a warmer mid evil warm period

Caption: The curve shows the sea level from the year 200 to the year 2100. The future rise in sea level of 1 m is calculated from global warming of 3 degrees in this century. The dotted line indicates the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's prediction. The blue shade indicates the calculations' degree of uncertainty.

Credit: Aslak Grinsted, Niels Bohr Institutet

Anyways that clearly shows this group thinks that ocean levels where higher during the mid evil warm period, but you can find others that show much the same as the temperature graphs above for sea level---The question is who is right and who is wrong? Without good truthful honest data, who can tell. The black and white graph of the northern hemisphere is from 1964 that you skeptics enjoy posting---Not that it is not right and that many of the wine data and viking settlements within Greenland tells us that it was likely warmer.

And BTW, your attempt to dismiss my points on the "you don't trust anybody" defense doesn't change a thing here. I DO NOT TRUST ANYONE WHO IS PROVEN FALSE SO MANY TIMES. And if you need a graph or some numbers pulled off a computer climate modeling program to tell you that they BS people about climate change, you are seriously in denial.

How is pixie data=computer model trash? Seriously, I understand you don't trust the pixie data, but then you don't trust the surface temperature record either...I can kind of understand as it is not perfect and your criticism is warranted. But you go to war with the army you have! This is what we have. Why doesn't the trust any body defense work? I mean don't we use the same data set. it is not like there is two of them.

They lied about the polar bears, they lied about ocean acidity, they lied about CO2 driving climate with their hockey stick graph, they lied about the oceans rising 7 meters, they lied about Greenland melting, they lied about the medieval warming period, and they did all of this using the same modelling and computer hucksterism they use today.
You maybe right about the polar bear as it is a bear that developed from the brown bear and is capable of surviving within Hudson bay---This point and many others is being debated on a daily basis. As for ocean acidity it only makes sense that if you add carbon into them they will become more acidic---Case in point the acid rain that we had problems with 40 years ago, but of course this is also debatable. I'm not saying your right or wrong. Who said 7 meters and on what time frame? Al gore maybe, but no studies from anyone offical like the ipcc or giss, noaa, hadley center for that manner. A meter is about what Hansen feels and at 2.7-3.1 mm per year that can't be linear in nature. Of course if you melt the land ice like green land and start cutting into Antarctica you can have higher sea levels---we know this from much earlier climate periods in earth's history. For one there was a time when the Midwestern United states was a inland sea. Yes it was that much higher then today. In fact Greenland 20 million years ago and Antarctica 30 million years ago had NO ice sheets at all, so all very debatable, but that is what science is about g. It has happened before as you like to say
Seriously matt, if you are only going to believe them why ask for data from elsewhere anyway? I tried this with oldsocks once and it was a waste of time. He didn't want data from somewhere else he wanted to call all others fakes and phonies and continue his sermon.

Why should I believe either side being that you both have a bias to destroy the other and don't really went to get to the truth of the matter. Finding things out for what they were. Raw data would be nice that wasn't fucked by either side to help finding the real truth of the matter.

BTW matt I mentioned before how editing my posts leads to confusion and allows a person to alter my meanings... So once more please do not edit or add lines into quotes from my posts. If you want to address a certain point than multi quote me but doing this is misleading and makes any rebuttal next to impossible as well as confusing my posts with your own making it hard for anyone else to follow either one.

The first time I will consider a mistake, the second time a nuisance, the third time I will consider deliberate.

 

[Chris]

The storms keep coming and scorching temperatures are still rising leaving most Americans scratching their heads questioning whether or not all the talk about global warming just might be true. There are more Americans today that believe global warming exists and is causing the recent extreme weather, increased number of deadly illnesses, and rising sea levels.

One recent study conducted by Rasmussen Reports shows most voters (59 percent) now believe in the term “global warming” and that it is a serious problem.

The report comes as the earth continues to sizzle with soaring temperatures and unprecedented drought plaguing most of the nation.

Some of the shifts in Americans' views today reflect real-world events, including the publicity in a recent report conducted by the National Academy of Sciences that revealed 97 out of 100 scientists now believe in man-made climate change.

Global Warming: Now Real to Most Americans, Christian News

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yes, I added a little within a few minutes of submitting the post. The statement that we use the same temperature data and satellite measurements still stands. Raw data is very important as it's the only thing that doesn't have bias. I know that the warmers **** with it some and that is why I look at the raw data. I know they get grants and stuff like that....But again we use the same raw data. There is not two data sets.

If anything the amsuE data that I've been posting has shown to overestimate the melt only to be lowered 24 hours later a little. Nothing is perfect. If they were trying to inflate their case they would likely not fix it in the first place.

Secondly, I'm not going to stop watching the sea ice within the arctic. I find it rather interesting.

 

[skookerasbil]

The storms keep coming and scorching temperatures are still rising leaving most Americans scratching their heads questioning whether or not all the talk about global warming just might be true. There are more Americans today that believe global warming exists and is causing the recent extreme weather, increased number of deadly illnesses, and rising sea levels.

One recent study conducted by Rasmussen Reports shows most voters (59 percent) now believe in the term “global warming” and that it is a serious problem.

The report comes as the earth continues to sizzle with soaring temperatures and unprecedented drought plaguing most of the nation.

Some of the shifts in Americans' views today reflect real-world events, including the publicity in a recent report conducted by the National Academy of Sciences that revealed 97 out of 100 scientists now believe in man-made climate change.

Global Warming: Now Real to Most Americans, Christian News

Indeed..................

Well then.......we should be seeing some significant climate legilsation coming down the pike...........and soon!!!!

I'll be looking for it.............

 

[ScienceRocks]

Time series of global mean heat storage (0-2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2

 

[ScienceRocks]

Figure 3. Satellite images from the NASA AMSR-E sensor (large image) and MODIS (inset), show areas of low ice concentration north of Alaska. Both images were obtained on July 15, 2011. In the AMSR-E image, purple indicates areas of high sea ice concentration, while yellow and red indicates lower ice concentration. Blue shows open water and green shows land.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy IUP Bremen AMSR-E (main image), NASA MODIS Rapid Response Arctic Mosaic (inset)

High-resolution image

A closer look at sea ice concentration
The sea ice extent data that NSIDC uses come from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS) on U.S. Department of Defense satellites. Data from other satellites, while not as useful for studying long-term trends, can show more detail about ice cover in particular regions. Currently data from two NASA satellite


During the first half of July, a high-pressure cell persisted over the northern Beaufort Sea, as it did in June, and is linked to the above-average air temperatures over much of the Arctic Ocean. To date in July, air temperatures over the North Pole were 6 to 8 degrees Celsius (11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than normal, while temperatures along the coasts of the Laptev and East Siberian seas were 3 to 5 degrees Celsius (5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. By contrast, temperatures through the first half of July in the Kara Sea have been 2 to 5 degrees Celsius (4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than average.

 

[gslack]

Yes, I added a little within a few minutes of submitting the post. The statement that we use the same temperature data and satellite measurements still stands. Raw data is very important as it's the only thing that doesn't have bias. I know that the warmers **** with it some and that is why I look at the raw data. I know they get grants and stuff like that....But again we use the same raw data. There is not two data sets.

If anything the amsuE data that I've been posting has shown to overestimate the melt only to be lowered 24 hours later a little. Nothing is perfect. If they were trying to inflate their case they would likely not fix it in the first place.

Secondly, I'm not going to stop watching the sea ice within the arctic. I find it rather interesting.

NO DUDE YOU EDITED MY POSTS INSIDE THE QUOTE TAGS... That is not ethical and the fact you just tried to pretend it is okay tells me you either don't understand the problem with it, or you did it intentionally and just don't care about being ethical....

Want to address certain points separately fine, just multi-quote the post. Don't edit peoples posts inside the quotes. If you don't understand how quote tags work I will explain it.

(ignore the * this is to keep the browser or server from reading the tags and quoting the text.)

This is a quote tag *

* that would start the section you want to quote.

Now to close the quote I add a / inside the brackets and before the word quote. Understand?

It will look like this, and I can put any words I want in between the tags and it will be shown as a quote like this.

this is a quote.

You can quite a few small quotes in a post like that before the software will limit you. You do not have to edit quotes from my posts. This keeps things fair and prevents confusion. So either quote me fairly or not at all, but if you continue editing my words inside a quote I will treat you accordingly....

 

[ScienceRocks]

07,18,2011,7155156

7/18/2011, -87,657

Here is for 2007
07,18,2007,7427188 -71
07,19,2007,7363281 -64
07,20,2007,7271094 -92


I'm sorry-I may of writen outside of "my bolded" words.

 

[gslack]

Yes, I added a little within a few minutes of submitting the post. The statement that we use the same temperature data and satellite measurements still stands. Raw data is very important as it's the only thing that doesn't have bias. I know that the warmers **** with it some and that is why I look at the raw data. I know they get grants and stuff like that....But again we use the same raw data. There is not two data sets.

If anything the amsuE data that I've been posting has shown to overestimate the melt only to be lowered 24 hours later a little. Nothing is perfect. If they were trying to inflate their case they would likely not fix it in the first place.

Secondly, I'm not going to stop watching the sea ice within the arctic. I find it rather interesting.

LIke this for example.. I quoted your post above fully, and now I want to address a certain point you raised. So I do this...

If anything the amsuE data that I've been posting has shown to overestimate the melt only to be lowered 24 hours later a little. Nothing is perfect. If they were trying to inflate their case they would likely not fix it in the first place.

Yes just a lil white lie huh... Yeah and the data is suspect because of it just like I said. But hey don't take my word for it read what one of the leaders in the field said to Discover Magazine. Don't have the link for it but I did ketp that issue of Discover around for a long time as well as keeping the quote here on the PC. If you want you can google it its his words and accurate. Also I note the issue and name of the publication in the citation. Also he has since passed on, so he is no longer one of the leaders but there are a great many who agree and follow his lead.

“On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts.

On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” -Discovery Magazine (October, 1989, p. 45-48).

Yeah, kinda says it all doesn't it... Thanks but I think that was pretty enlightening.. BTW there are many more people at the heads of organizations who push climate change both scientists and laymen alike who think and act this very same way, I can get many more examples of this kind of talk from them if need be..

 

[gslack]

Yes, I added a little within a few minutes of submitting the post. The statement that we use the same temperature data and satellite measurements still stands. Raw data is very important as it's the only thing that doesn't have bias. I know that the warmers **** with it some and that is why I look at the raw data. I know they get grants and stuff like that....But again we use the same raw data. There is not two data sets.

If anything the amsuE data that I've been posting has shown to overestimate the melt only to be lowered 24 hours later a little. Nothing is perfect. If they were trying to inflate their case they would likely not fix it in the first place.

Secondly, I'm not going to stop watching the sea ice within the arctic. I find it rather interesting.

07,18,2011,7155156

7/18/2011, -87,657

Here is for 2007
07,18,2007,7427188 -71
07,19,2007,7363281 -64
07,20,2007,7271094 -92


I'm sorry-I may of writen outside of "my bolded" words.

Okay now I know you aren't just unaware or new to this... This was intentional and now we can see exactly what we are dealing with. So all of your nice guy BS was just that...

If you continue this kind of nonsense be prepared to be treated with respect befitting your actions..

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yes, I added a little within a few minutes of submitting the post. The statement that we use the same temperature data and satellite measurements still stands. Raw data is very important as it's the only thing that doesn't have bias. I know that the warmers **** with it some and that is why I look at the raw data. I know they get grants and stuff like that....But again we use the same raw data. There is not two data sets.

If anything the amsuE data that I've been posting has shown to overestimate the melt only to be lowered 24 hours later a little. Nothing is perfect. If they were trying to inflate their case they would likely not fix it in the first place.

Secondly, I'm not going to stop watching the sea ice within the arctic. I find it rather interesting.

07,18,2011,7155156

7/18/2011, -87,657

Here is for 2007
07,18,2007,7427188 -71
07,19,2007,7363281 -64
07,20,2007,7271094 -92


I'm sorry-I may of writen outside of "my bolded" words.

Okay now I know you aren't just unaware or new to this... This was intentional and now we can see exactly what we are dealing with. So all of your nice guy BS was just that...

If you continue this kind of nonsense be prepared to be treated with respect befitting your actions..

Honestly, I sure as **** didn't think I made a mistake, but I guess I did. I can treat you with the same, but I try to hold a higher standard with the hope for a honest debate of the data and the issue at hand as I'm not a extremist on either side of it. I wish the data would be looked at by each side honestly and we can make up our minds based on it without politics. **** politics.

As for that leader that you quoted---he is very much right as some within the science are going to hype the hell out of everything, but maybe that is to get people to 'look' as most people today can't get off there mother ******* ass for ten seconds or take anything seriously theses days. These guys understand this. Do I believe it hurts the science, hell yes!!! I'd rather them stick with the facts and leave the hyping the hell out of it. Do I think some of them are left wing idiots that went to use it for their own propose, you can bet your house on it. Do I believe that the data could be screwed with, YES! But each and every tiny bit of honest data shows a warming trend of some kind. I don't give a **** if it is natural or man made, but I do know it is there. Do I went to shut down big oil, **** NO, Do I went to shut down big coal, **** no---I'd rather the middle class and poor get cheap energy that is not taxed up the ass and those energy resources for this time are the best. I think cap and trade sucks ass! I would vote **** no. It would hurt people.

Not all these people are dishonest or stupid. Even Spencer at UAH will admit to a warming of earth...In and fact his satellite data shows about what the giss, noaa does. What data base or temperature data set does the skeptics have? I don't believe any. Every honest ******* data set on gods earth will show it.

Gslack, if you believe my thinking is wrong then post up a data set that shows me other wise. Something within the past 20 years.