Artic sea ice has not recovered

[mamooth]

Scientists are for sale. Always have been, probably always will be.

You're making the mistake of projecting the way your side thinks on to honest people.

I understand. You're used to the company of crooks, so you consider it impossible for people to be honest. That's not how the world works. Your dishonest cult is the exception to the rule.

 

[Abraham3]

What do you believe is going to happen to the Arctic and Antarctic ice over, say, the next 50 years? If you could, you could treat them separately.

It will expand or contract just like it has been for the past 50, 500, 5000 years.

I believe I was asking BriPat (Patrick). But if you want to get in here...

That's not much of an answer. In what direction do you think it might move and why?

 

[PredFan]

Scientists are for sale. Always have been, probably always will be.

You're making the mistake of projecting the way your side thinks on to honest people.

I understand. You're used to the company of crooks, so you consider it impossible for people to be honest. That's not how the world works. Your dishonest cult is the exception to the rule.

You looney toon lefties keep telling us we don't have any scientists on our side. Can't keep your lies straight?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[PredFan]

You should educate yourself. For one thing, the sun HAS changed. We are at record lows for sunspot activity.

You seem to be implying low solar activity is causing the current warming.

Could you expand upon that theory? How does less solar activity cause warming?

Since when is it my job to educate you. Here's a hint though, I never said less solar activity, I said less sunspot activity. We learned about how the sun affects the climate in high school. Did you drop out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Abraham3]

Ignoring the AGW fanatics, here's some additional facts for those with more rational minds:

Scientists are for sale. Always have been, probably always will be.

For example (and I know I will piss some people off here) the Creationists have scientists on their side who will swear that dinosaurs and man were contemporaneous. Tobacco companies for many years had scientists and doctors who claimed that there was no link between tobacco and lung disease. As long as scientists can make a boatload of money from a benefactor with an agenda, there will be those who will be glad to do so.

Now, the DNC controlled government wants the control that the Climate Change Scam will provide, and they have an almost unlimited supply of money to fund the research....well, you connect the dots.

I rather doubt there was ever "a boat load of money" available from the anti-evolution forces. I think you would find that most of the scientists testifying on their side are also devout Christians. Now the tobocco industry had money, and just like the fossil fuel industry today, they funded a disinformation campaign for many years attempting to push the idea that the case connecting tobacco and lung cancer was weak or simply wrong. "Teach the controversy". Given the typical American's shitty science education, it's quite an effective strategy.

You're making the same mistake as several others here. If you're going to say scientists are being bought off, you need to look at the people who actually have the money to do that. The annual income of the fossil fuel industry is thousands of times the income of those who oppose them. Accusing the AGW side of this argument of selling out their principles for the money to be made and ignoring the evidence and potential for scam on the other side is patently absurd . No, it's worse than that. It's STUPID.

 

[PredFan]

What do you believe is going to happen to the Arctic and Antarctic ice over, say, the next 50 years? If you could, you could treat them separately.

It will expand or contract just like it has been for the past 50, 500, 5000 years.

I believe I was asking BriPat (Patrick). But if you want to get in here...

That's not much of an answer. In what direction do you think it might move and why?

I have no idea which direction they will move. Most likely nobody else does either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[Abraham3]

You should educate yourself. For one thing, the sun HAS changed. We are at record lows for sunspot activity.

You seem to be implying low solar activity is causing the current warming.

Could you expand upon that theory? How does less solar activity cause warming?

Since when is it my job to educate you. Here's a hint though, I never said less solar activity, I said less sunspot activity. We learned about how the sun affects the climate in high school. Did you drop out?

Well, Mr WhizBrain (can I call you WhizBrain?) what do YOU believe to be the relationship between sunspot activity and solar irradiance? I mean, in a conversation about global warming YOU brought up sunspots. Did you not have a reason to do so?

A..Hemmm

It is NOT your job to educate me, though it would be a wonderful thing if you could do it. It IS your job to educate yourself. On that you maybe need some work.

______________________________

Disagree with you I must, cause you certainly aren't right.

 

[Abraham3]

It will expand or contract just like it has been for the past 50, 500, 5000 years.

I believe I was asking BriPat (Patrick). But if you want to get in here...

That's not much of an answer. In what direction do you think it might move and why?

I have no idea which direction they will move. Most likely nobody else does either.

Oh... I think, with a little research, looking at a little evidence, we might be able to lean in one particular direction.

 

[bripat9643]

Ignoring the AGW fanatics, here's some additional facts for those with more rational minds:

Scientists are for sale. Always have been, probably always will be.

For example (and I know I will piss some people off here) the Creationists have scientists on their side who will swear that dinosaurs and man were contemporaneous. Tobacco companies for many years had scientists and doctors who claimed that there was no link between tobacco and lung disease. As long as scientists can make a boatload of money from a benefactor with an agenda, there will be those who will be glad to do so.

Now, the DNC controlled government wants the control that the Climate Change Scam will provide, and they have an almost unlimited supply of money to fund the research....well, you connect the dots.

I rather doubt there was ever "a boat load of money" available from the anti-evolution forces. I think you would find that most of the scientists testifying on their side are also devout Christians. Now the tobocco industry had money, and just like the fossil fuel industry today, they funded a disinformation campaign for many years attempting to push the idea that the case connecting tobacco and lung cancer was weak or simply wrong. "Teach the controversy". Given the typical American's shitty science education, it's quite an effective strategy.

You're making the same mistake as several others here. If you're going to say scientists are being bought off, you need to look at the people who actually have the money to do that. The annual income of the fossil fuel industry is thousands of times the income of those who oppose them. Accusing the AGW side of this argument of selling out their principles for the money to be made and ignoring the evidence and potential for scam on the other side is patently absurd . No, it's worse than that. It's STUPID.

The annual revenue of the federal government is millions of times greater than the income of the skeptics who oppose its nefarious scheme to loot and enslave us. Ignoring the potential for the government to scam us is patently absurd.

The mistake all you AGW cultists make is pretending that your so-called "scientists" are immune from the incentives that affect every other person. When AGW is fully discredited, a lot of "climate scientists" will no longer be able to pay their mortgages or make the payments on their BMWs. Why should anyone believe they aren't biased?

 

[ScienceRocks]

We will see what happens next year. The volume and depth of the sea ice hasn't recovered and the one year ice really is dictated by weather.

This is why one year can see a huge lose and the next can look like it is recovering. Look at the long term trend.

About the same as 2008-2009...Weather has over a million square miles of forcing on year to year sea ice in extent.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You should educate yourself. For one thing, the sun HAS changed. We are at record lows for sunspot activity.

You seem to be implying low solar activity is causing the current warming.

Could you expand upon that theory? How does less solar activity cause warming?

Since when is it my job to educate you. Here's a hint though, I never said less solar activity, I said less sunspot activity. We learned about how the sun affects the climate in high school. Did you drop out?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

Couldn't the low solar flex be a excuse for the slower warming?

 

[Abraham3]

The annual revenue of the federal government is millions of times greater than the income of the skeptics who oppose its nefarious scheme to loot and enslave us. Ignoring the potential for the government to scam us is patently absurd.

The mistake all you AGW cultists make is pretending that your so-called "scientists" are immune from the incentives that affect every other person. When AGW is fully discredited, a lot of "climate scientists" will no longer be able to pay their mortgages or make the payments on their BMWs. Why should anyone believe they aren't biased?

The federal government is spending a microscopic fraction of its annual revenue on this issue. And the federal government is not bribing scientists to falsify data or bias their results.

And it's not the folks on my side of the argument that are pretending scientists are immune from incentives. The point is that your side has a great deal more money, both to lose and to spend trying to keep it.

 

[Abraham3]

We will see what happens next year. The volume and depth of the sea ice hasn't recovered and the one year ice really is dictated by weather.

This is why one year can see a huge lose and the next can look like it is recovering. Look at the long term trend.

About the same as 2008-2009...Weather has over a million square miles of forcing on year to year sea ice in extent.

Now THIS is the chart we ALL ought to be using. The ice VOLUME. Thanks Matthew.

 

[bripat9643]

The annual revenue of the federal government is millions of times greater than the income of the skeptics who oppose its nefarious scheme to loot and enslave us. Ignoring the potential for the government to scam us is patently absurd.

The mistake all you AGW cultists make is pretending that your so-called "scientists" are immune from the incentives that affect every other person. When AGW is fully discredited, a lot of "climate scientists" will no longer be able to pay their mortgages or make the payments on their BMWs. Why should anyone believe they aren't biased?

The federal government is spending a microscopic fraction of its annual revenue on this issue. And the federal government is not bribing scientists to falsify data or bias their results.

Sure it is. It pays "climate scientists" to produce evidence that man is altering the climate. If a "climate scientist" fails to produce such evidence, no more research grant. No more tenure. No more grad students. No more cushy office. No more BMW. No more nothing.

That "microscopic fraction" comes to billions of dollars. When you have a $3.5 trillion budget, even a tiny piece of it is a lot of money.

And it's not the folks on my side of the argument that are pretending scientists are immune from incentives. The point is that your side has a great deal more money, both to lose and to spend trying to keep it.

Of course you are. You're always claiming skeptical scientists are "bought and paid for" while those on the government dole are pure as the driven snow.

"Our side" does not have a great deal money. Oil companies can't spend their entire gross revenue on bribing climate scientists. They can't even spend a large chunk of the profits. They have shareholders to answer to. Furthermore, the have almost stopped such activities entirely because the cultist nutburgers have given them so much bad publicity for doing it. If there's one thing corporate American hates, it's bad publicity.

 

[flacaltenn]

We will see what happens next year. The volume and depth of the sea ice hasn't recovered and the one year ice really is dictated by weather.

This is why one year can see a huge lose and the next can look like it is recovering. Look at the long term trend.

About the same as 2008-2009...Weather has over a million square miles of forcing on year to year sea ice in extent.

Now THIS is the chart we ALL ought to be using. The ice VOLUME. Thanks Matthew.

Sure is better than all those propaganda cartoons by ur hack heroes at skepticalscience. Those jerks spend most of their time fabricating ficticious graphs to amuse the pilgrims.

Bad enough that most folks look at those sea ice exte t pics and think thats the actual polar ice cap when its really coloring white a lot of open ocean with as little as 15percent ice cubes floatjng in it.

Ice is a very nonli near indicator kf warming. Cross 32deg by the slightest in either direction and you get dramatic effects. Thats why I dont get hysterical over ice.

Btw The 15percent definiton enhances volatility and drama. And ks the reason that wj ds and currents have such a large effect

 

[Abraham3]

The annual revenue of the federal government is millions of times greater than the income of the skeptics who oppose its nefarious scheme to loot and enslave us. Ignoring the potential for the government to scam us is patently absurd.

The mistake all you AGW cultists make is pretending that your so-called "scientists" are immune from the incentives that affect every other person. When AGW is fully discredited, a lot of "climate scientists" will no longer be able to pay their mortgages or make the payments on their BMWs. Why should anyone believe they aren't biased?

The federal government is spending a microscopic fraction of its annual revenue on this issue. And the federal government is not bribing scientists to falsify data or bias their results.

Sure it is. It pays "climate scientists" to produce evidence that man is altering the climate. If a "climate scientist" fails to produce such evidence, no more research grant. No more tenure. No more grad students. No more cushy office. No more BMW. No more nothing.

That "microscopic fraction" comes to billions of dollars. When you have a $3.5 trillion budget, even a tiny piece of it is a lot of money.

And it's not the folks on my side of the argument that are pretending scientists are immune from incentives. The point is that your side has a great deal more money, both to lose and to spend trying to keep it.

Of course you are. You're always claiming skeptical scientists are "bought and paid for" while those on the government dole are pure as the driven snow.

"Our side" does not have a great deal money. Oil companies can't spend their entire gross revenue on bribing climate scientists. They can't even spend a large chunk of the profits. They have shareholders to answer to. Furthermore, the have almost stopped such activities entirely because the cultist nutburgers have given them so much bad publicity for doing it. If there's one thing corporate American hates, it's bad publicity.

Show us evidence - any evidence - that federal grant money was cut from a researcher solely because he failed to find data consistent with AGW. You're big on having good evidence: sufficient data, accurate data, quality data. Let's see yours.

Of course you realize as well that in a universe in which AGW is actually taking place, failing to find it or finding conflicting results is an indication of faulty work. I am not suggesting that is the foundational position of funders. I'm suggesting that what you might see as a pro-AGW bias when the government fails to fund people like McKittrick, McIntyre, Watts, Pielke Sr, Soon and the lot are actually instances of the limited funding of taxpayer dollars, being witheld from scientists who have repeatedly demonstrated a certain level of incompetence. Given that, every one of those individuals HAS received funding to conduct research. In any field of research, when one arrives at conclusions that conflict with almost everyone else in the field, there are two possibilities: they're right or they're wrong. Such researchers need to be very careful dotting i's and crossing t's and make certain they haven't made fundamental mistakes getting to their novel conclusions. If they've done all that and still have conflicting results, publish away. The most famous scientists have always been those that overturned the existing paradigms.

And I love this statement on multiple levels: "Furthermore, the have almost stopped such activities entirely because the cultist nutburgers have given them so much bad publicity for doing it." You admit that there is very strong evidence they were, in fact, running a disinformation campaign in the recent past: not a PR campaign, not open-minded scientific research, but a campaign to knowingly spread false information to the public in an attempt to sway their opinions. In the same breath you tell us that you believe such activities would only be opposed by "cultist nutburgers". That seems to be very strong evidence that you SUPPORT such disinformation activities. Was that actually your intent? And, when I ask that question, I am asking both whether or not you openly support disinformation activities and did you intend to let that information out in the open?

 

[Politico]

Dors that mean it's going to get warmer here? I hope so cause it's freaking cold!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The ice has been melting since the 8 degree spike 14,000 years ago.

Why is this news?

Even the IPCC abandoned the CO2 glacier eating spaghetti monster

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"I thought you said it was ice free!"

"No, I said they were handing out free ice"

 

[Old Rocks]

One side shows scientific evidence and calls the other side's evidence "junk science". And vice versa.

That's true save that for the most part, one side's accusations are correct while the other's are not



And so we abandon the objective search for truth.



Do you have evidence of that? Do you have evidence that justifies you making an enormous generalization? Do you have evidence that they are only for sale going in one direction? That would be no, no and no.



Good idea.



Really? But we're talking about CHANGE here, aren't we? The sun hasn't CHANGED enough to have caused the climate CHANGE we've watched take place.

Aren't you proud of me? I used my own brain for that.



That's not quite true. They have been doing so for millions of years. Billions actually. But the point here is that they are retreating everywhere and at a rapid pace. The cause of their retreat is the increasing temperatures we've experienced over the last 150 years; that measly insignificant 0.9C. The result of all that has been a decreased albedo for the planet and thus even more solar energy trapped here rather than reflected away into space.



Who is "they" and what technical significance are you able to make from that point?



Who has? Can you cite the convictions? What do you mean "in the name of Climate Change"?



Apparently. Let me take a wild guess: you tend to vote Republican.



I don't know where you get socialism - you could explain yourself if you like. But that "control of people's actions" bit? They've got a name for it. "Laws" they call 'em. L A W S. Nations use them to control the actions of people within their borders. Most places - particularly the democratic ones - they work pretty well.

Normal intelligent people should be able to put these facts together, using their own brains, and come up with the logical answer.

I have put your comments together, used my own brain and have come up with the logical answer: Your argument doesn't even rise to the level of junk science. You don't know what you're talking about (on a technical basis) and your uninformed opinion is based on nothing BUT political biases.

So, how'd I do?

You should educate yourself. For one thing, the sun HAS changed. We are at record lows for sunspot activity.

Look pal, if you cannot be bothered to even do any kind of research for yourself, and all you do is regurgitate the AGW talking points, then really, you kind of take yourself out of the discussion.

That is correct. Record lows, in terms of the time that we have been recording sunspots. And lower TSI than we have previously observed. Which means that there is less energy incoming from the sun. Yet we have not seen any cooling. Combine the TSI and lack of sunspots with the ENSO conditions of the last decade, and we should be seeing significant cooling.

UAH V5.6 Global Temperature Update for August, 2013: +0.16 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

Look at where the running mean has been since 1998, compared to before 1998.

As for research on this subject, you obviously have done nothing but read blogs by the paid skeptics, rather than real research from peer reviewed journals, Predfan.