LOL, Global warming scientists, trapped by thick ice.

[OccamsSabre]

You denialist kooks do realize that the increase in Antarctic sea ice was specifically predicted by Dr. Manabe back in 1991, and has been established science ever since?

Wait. Of course you don't realize that. It's actual science, hence every denialist will be completely ignorant of it. After all, their cult never told them about it.

What exactly was predicted in your interpretation?

More ice from increased CO2?

More ice from a higher global temperature?

More ice from a stable global temperature?

What was predicted in your opinion?

Melting fresh water ice caps cause a drop in salinity in ocean water, making the water freeze at higher temperatures.

 

[asterism]

You denialist kooks do realize that the increase in Antarctic sea ice was specifically predicted by Dr. Manabe back in 1991, and has been established science ever since?

Wait. Of course you don't realize that. It's actual science, hence every denialist will be completely ignorant of it. After all, their cult never told them about it.

What exactly was predicted in your interpretation?

More ice from increased CO2?

More ice from a higher global temperature?

More ice from a stable global temperature?

What was predicted in your opinion?

Melting fresh water ice caps cause a drop in salinity in ocean water, making the water freeze at higher temperatures.

Then why more ice in the Antarctic but less ice in the Arctic?

I'm just trying to figure out what is being claimed here. The study that was posted is not very well known and I don't want to assume everyone's interpretation is the same as mine.

 

[itfitzme]

So some global warming scientists in Antarctica in the summer time get trapped in ice while trying to prove global warming.....roflmao

Yeah, apparently you have done no actual reading of what climate change and global warming are because it has always been the scientific position that the Antarctica would gain ice extent, at least.

You should actually learn the subject before attempting to critique it. It isn't hard.

First, state your idea in a specific measurable way like

"Global warming causes Antarctica to lose ice".

Then turn that into a question.

"Does global warming cause or predict that the Antarctic will lose ice?"

Now, use that to search on google or any known AGW sources, like the IPCC.

Finally, read them.

It's amazing what you will learn, like

"Mar 31, 2013 - In a polar paradox, melting land ice helps sea ice to grow. ... “The paradox is that global warming leads to more cooling and more sea ice around ... from the Antarctic ice sheet each year would affect ocean conditions. In the ..."

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-expands-antarctic-sea-ice-1.12709



http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=599

 

[TemplarKormac]

So some global warming scientists in Antarctica in the summer time get trapped in ice while trying to prove global warming.....roflmao

Yeah, apparently you have done no actual reading of what climate change and global warming are because it has always been the scientific position that the Antarctica would gain ice extent, at least.

You should actually learn the subject before attempting to critique it. It isn't hard.

First, state your idea in a specific measurable way like

"Global warming causes Antarctica to lose ice".

Then turn that into a question.

"Does global warming cause or predict that the Antarctic will lose ice?"

Now, use that to search on google or any known AGW sources, like the IPCC.

Finally, read them.

It's amazing what you will learn, like

"Mar 31, 2013 - In a polar paradox, melting land ice helps sea ice to grow. ... “The paradox is that global warming leads to more cooling and more sea ice around ... from the Antarctic ice sheet each year would affect ocean conditions. In the ..."

Global warming expands Antarctic sea ice : Nature News & Comment



IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

You lost the moment you cited the IPCC.

 

[TemplarKormac]

IPCC silently slashes its global warming predictions in the AR5 final draft | Watts Up With That?

 

[LeadRoundNose]

global warming leads to more cooling

 

[JimBowie1958]

'Polar vortex' set to bring dangerous, record-breaking cold to much of US | Fox News[/url]

Are you under the impression that the weather in the United States is characteristic of the entire world? Because it's summer in Australia at the same time that a "polar vortex" comes to the United States. Remember the forest fires a couple of months ago in Australia that were being called the worst ever? Do they not count or something? It seems like whenever something slightly cold happens, global warming skeptics are quick to use it as some sort of proof that the global average temperature is not rising, yet they fail to take the same approach to unusually hot weather or global averages.

1. US weather is part of global weather and we should not be seeing record cold weather if the planet is still warming, which the New York Times and the London MET have all agreed has stopped for the last 17 years.

2. forest fires are not cause solely by warm weather.

3. Negative 20 degrees on the mid Atlantic coast is not slightly cold.

Your claim that the globe is still warming has been disproven; you simply refuse to accept it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

An interesting summary of the Climategate scandal that the Big Lie Media totally ignored; cant report anything that might limit the governments growth in power!

Climategate - Conservapedia

Conservapedia? Oh, that's rich. I especially like how they say Einsteins' Theory of Relativity is a liberal plot.

You denialists got caught red-handed lying your asses of by fabricating the climategate pseudo-scandal. Until you apologize for that deliberate avalanche of lies, everyone in the world will keep correctly assuming that everything you say is equally dishonest.

I was referencing a specific article, and your ad hominem attack referencing a different subject is stupid and false logic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You denialist kooks do realize that the increase in Antarctic sea ice was specifically predicted by Dr. Manabe back in 1991, and has been established science ever since?

Wait. Of course you don't realize that. It's actual science, hence every denialist will be completely ignorant of it. After all, their cult never told them about it.

Different Warmistas have predicted so many things that no matter what happens, some Warmista predicted it decades ago, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

An interesting summary of the Climategate scandal that the Big Lie Media totally ignored; cant report anything that might limit the governments growth in power!

Climategate - Conservapedia

Dude, you really need to stop reading fairytale websites.

More ad hominem, which is the sort of thing ideologues do when the facts don't fit their narrative.

I wouldn't care about the ad hominem if yo brought some facts with it, but since you don't, toss off.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You denialist kooks do realize that the increase in Antarctic sea ice was specifically predicted by Dr. Manabe back in 1991, and has been established science ever since?

Wait. Of course you don't realize that. It's actual science, hence every denialist will be completely ignorant of it. After all, their cult never told them about it.

What exactly was predicted in your interpretation?

More ice from increased CO2?

More ice from a higher global temperature?

More ice from a stable global temperature?

What was predicted in your opinion?

Melting fresh water ice caps cause a drop in salinity in ocean water, making the water freeze at higher temperatures.

Which is why these scientists sailed straight into a bunch of ice and got stuck, lol, because the just knew it would happen.

roflmao, your humorous attempts to spin this your way is worth reading however, so carry on.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So some global warming scientists in Antarctica in the summer time get trapped in ice while trying to prove global warming.....roflmao

Yeah, apparently you have done no actual reading of what climate change and global warming are because it has always been the scientific position that the Antarctica would gain ice extent, at least.

You should actually learn the subject before attempting to critique it. It isn't hard.

First, state your idea in a specific measurable way like

"Global warming causes Antarctica to lose ice".

Then turn that into a question.

"Does global warming cause or predict that the Antarctic will lose ice?"

Now, use that to search on google or any known AGW sources, like the IPCC.

Finally, read them.

It's amazing what you will learn, like

"Mar 31, 2013 - In a polar paradox, melting land ice helps sea ice to grow. ... “The paradox is that global warming leads to more cooling and more sea ice around ... from the Antarctic ice sheet each year would affect ocean conditions. In the ..."

Global warming expands Antarctic sea ice : Nature News & Comment



IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Here is what I have l earned...

1. Artic global warming produces less ice, but antarctic global warming produces more, all proven by science, lol.

2. and the the global warming science is fraught with fraud and villainy.

Climategate: The Smoking Code | Watts Up With That?

Now, here is some actual proof that the CRU was deliberately tampering with their data. Unfortunately, for readability’s sake, this code was written in Interactive Data Language (IDL) and is a pain to go through.

NOTE: This is an actual snippet of code from the CRU contained in the source file: briffa_Sep98_d.pro

1;
2; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
3;
4 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
5 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
6 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
7
8 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

So the fudge factor is adjusting each year by their calendar year starting with 1904, in five year increments. Note that starting in 1930 the function arbitrarily subtracts 0.1 degrees, then in 1936 it removes 0.25, etc. Then in 1955 it begins to ADD temperature adjustments beginning with 0.3, etc.

Is it any wonder we have 'global warming' according to these liars?

Just the name 'fudge factor' at line 5 should be a dead give away.


Very revealing programmer comments found in the hacked emails in the Climategate scandal, and they explain how we have 'Global Warming' no matter what the temperatures may actually be.

And note how they call the temperatures they want to see the 'real' temperatures, when ordinary people might think the MEASURED proxy temperatures would be the 'real' temperatures or else the proxy temps are worthless anyway!

Climategate: hide the decline ? codified | Watts Up With That?

WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that don’t understand computer programming, don’t fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you....

◾FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

....

; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
......

; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)

...


;getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
; introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented.

....


;I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
; Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations

...


Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have

...

It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.

...

printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is.

...

printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'


.....


; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

...

;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***

...

applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.

...

 

[OccamsSabre]

Indeed, warmer temperatures cause more ice in the antarctic because the ice in the antarctic is not floating in the ocean but resting on top of land. Melting ice changes the salinity in the water, causing a change in the freezing temperature. This doesn't happen in the northern hemisphere because the ice is already in the water and is made up of salt water already.

Does it make sense to simply ignore the reduction in ice in the north and focus on a flawed understanding of how Antarctic conditions work.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Indeed, warmer temperatures cause more ice in the antarctic because the ice in the antarctic is not floating in the ocean but resting on top of land. Melting ice changes the salinity in the water, causing a change in the freezing temperature. This doesn't happen in the northern hemisphere because the ice is already in the water and is made up of salt water already.

Does it make sense to simply ignore the reduction in ice in the north and focus on a flawed understanding of how Antarctic conditions work.

Is the ice on Greenland not also sitting on dry land?

roflmao

 

[novasteve]

So now a us ship is coming to aid the ship that aided the ship that brought the global warming tards. It's like a retarded chad gadya

 

[Theowl32]

Indeed, warmer temperatures cause more ice in the antarctic because the ice in the antarctic is not floating in the ocean but resting on top of land. Melting ice changes the salinity in the water, causing a change in the freezing temperature. This doesn't happen in the northern hemisphere because the ice is already in the water and is made up of salt water already.

Does it make sense to simply ignore the reduction in ice in the north and focus on a flawed understanding of how Antarctic conditions work.

In case you ever want know what a liberal is, read this bullshit.

 

[Unkotare]

Gotta love the irony.

 

[mamooth]

I'm loving how the little conservative snowflakes can't accept that their opinion is not unique and special and every bit as good as that of pointed-headed scientists, and instead is just ridiculous reeking bullshit.

There were plainly too many participation trophies for the young conservative crowd, too much coddling of their precious self-esteem. Somebody should of told 'em "No, the world will not act like you want it to just becasue you'll throw a tantrum if it doesn't."

 

[OccamsSabre]

1. US weather is part of global weather and we should not be seeing record cold weather if the planet is still warming,

Says who, exactly? There is a difference between weather and climate, and local weather is not really a good determing factor of the state of the global climate.

which the New York Times and the London MET have all agreed has stopped for the last 17 years.

I was not aware that the New York Times or London MET were experts in climate change, and I'm not even sure this statement is true given what I read in the New York Times.

2. forest fires are not cause solely by warm weather.

No, but warmer weather usually causes droughts and dry conditions, which contribute to forest fires.

3. Negative 20 degrees on the mid Atlantic coast is not slightly cold.

It's not the climate, either.

Your claim that the globe is still warming has been disproven; you simply refuse to accept it.

By who, exactly? The mainstream scientific community seems to disagree with this blatantly obvious falsehood.

In any case, if global warming skeptics are going to use their unusually cold local weather conditions as "evidence," you also have to accept unusually hot local weather conditions. You are picking and choosing your evidence to support your predetermined views.

 

[OccamsSabre]

Indeed, warmer temperatures cause more ice in the antarctic because the ice in the antarctic is not floating in the ocean but resting on top of land. Melting ice changes the salinity in the water, causing a change in the freezing temperature. This doesn't happen in the northern hemisphere because the ice is already in the water and is made up of salt water already.

Does it make sense to simply ignore the reduction in ice in the north and focus on a flawed understanding of how Antarctic conditions work.

Is the ice on Greenland not also sitting on dry land?

roflmao

Do you realize how small Greenland is, or are you forming your opinions based on a Mercator projection map? Most of the ice in the arctic is floating in the ocean. Go look at a map of the arctic circle before you embarrass yourself.