Remember how the Arctic Ice Cap is shrinking?

[Old Rocks]

Thank you for the video. Yes, very cold country. Eastern Oregon does get cold like that in some years, but only for 3 to 6 weeks at the most.

Here is some information on the coldest area of the country that I call home.

Seneca Oregons Icebox

These are some pictures of my home town in that area;

Prairie City, Oregon (OR 97869) profile: population, maps, real estate, averages, homes, statistics, relocation, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools, crime, moving, houses, news, sex offenders

 

[polarbear]

Thank you for the video. Yes, very cold country. Eastern Oregon does get cold like that in some years, but only for 3 to 6 weeks at the most.

Here is some information on the coldest area of the country that I call home.

Seneca Oregons Icebox

These are some pictures of my home town in that area;

Prairie City, Oregon (OR 97869) profile: population, maps, real estate, averages, homes, statistics, relocation, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools, crime, moving, houses, news, sex offenders

Hey thanks for sharing that. In my off duty time I trucked through Oregon often, and loved it:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4byFeFxFXpw&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=38&feature=plcp"]Oregon Roadfood.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

But for a change of pace, here is something totally un-scientific..
...feel free to laugh, because I used to laughed about it too,.. 40 years ago when I married my (American Indian ) wife. However after a few years I quit laughing...she is no fool !...and neither is the wildlife Indians observe.
It`s the most accurate (short term) climate model I`ve seen so far !

Animal Weather Instinct.wmv - YouTube

By the way, the invite is not a joke

 

[polarbear]

Thank you for the video. Yes, very cold country. Eastern Oregon does get cold like that in some years, but only for 3 to 6 weeks at the most.

Here is some information on the coldest area of the country that I call home.

Seneca Oregons Icebox

These are some pictures of my home town in that area;

Prairie City, Oregon (OR 97869) profile: population, maps, real estate, averages, homes, statistics, relocation, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools, crime, moving, houses, news, sex offenders

Since we can agree to disagree on AGW while remaining civil I am telling You where the best fishing hole is on planet earth:

That bounty is from Lake Hazen
But it`s a long way even from the farthest northern point You have been in Canada...and I was actually quite impressed how far North You have been..But even this place is way way south from my favorite fishing hole..and is the closest civilian airport:

That`s where we always stop over on the way back home to AFB Trenton.
A few days ago I was stripping some old hard drives to salvage the (very powerful magnets) and just before I drilled out the rivets I thought I better check again what`s on there...and I got lucky..because a bunch of pictures which I had lost surfaced from the summer of 2004 at...:

That was a bit too close...so we chased him off with a warning shot...

none of us ever had to kill one and I hope it stays that way. After all that`s his home and we are the intruders. All the animals at the Northern tip of Ellesmere Island fear no man, You can walk right up to them and take close-ups...it`s a photographers paradise:

In the background that`s the grassland around Fort Conger..and that has been so since ages...but let`s leave that aside for now...
Here is a view from Ellesmere Island across the Nares Strait:

This is a view from CFS Alert looking out at the Lincoln Sea during July 2004...

then 2 weeks later the winds picked up to > 150 kmh and all that ice was out of sight...it happens all the time..I never bothered to look up where July 2004 was on the trend graphs...because I was there in person and way way out there in our Hueys every other day...but again, lets agree to disagree.
I came back here to add one more picture which might help explain my "denial" attitude:

As You can see the Louis St.Laurent had no trouble making it through there all the way to this point...with Google maps You can simply enter these co-ordinates and pin point where that sign is..most of the main stream media does not want to hear about it, but it is in the (Canadian) history books

 

[Foxfyre]

I have really appreciated your contributions to this thread, PolarBear. Some good stuff there.

The thing I wish could be discussed seriously and without triggering pages of interminable data posted over and over in lieu of any rational discussion on the whole topic of AGW or global warming in general is an objective and serious look at the probabilities. As you have already pointed out, the lack of snow in your country is generally due to excessive cold rather than too much warmth, and that addresses at least one misconception.

Your experience also points out the effect of the wind on the ice, something the crab fishermen on the Bering Sea have known for a very long time, but that could definitely affect perceptions of those observing from the shore so to speak. And also you have provided evidence that backs up other postings of ice conditions, or the lack thereof, posted by other ocean going vessels in the past. Evidence that some of our friends here really don't want to consider.

The fact is, we have had satellite imaging for 34 years. And observations and records within that 34 years are hardly likely to be conclusive of any long term trend, and to present it as 'evidence' of long term global warming simply defies all reasonable scientific basis. Most especially when Anarctica ice coverage for the same period is at the maximum for the satellite image.

And if the theory of some is correct, when we start watching arctic ice advance again and regain the coverage seen in the late 70's, early 80's--the oldest arctic ice is what, five to nine years old?--that would suggest a lot of melting. Conversely Anarctica ice, land bound or anchored to land, is much less susceptible to erosion by storms and gets very old. Still some geologists believe as recently as three million years ago, Anarctica was mostly ice free and was forested.

If human are warming the climate, then so be it. Like all other animals who leave their mark on the Earth, that could be a good thing or a bad thing for the long term. It is unlikely with the Earth population increasing by millions every year, that we will stop being human engaged in human activities, and will be successful in reversing that. If we can, we should. If we can't, we shouldn't give up our liberty, choices, options, and opportunities to the AGW religion, but should be focused on helping everybody adapt to an inevitably changing climate.

 

[mamooth]

Evidence that some of our friends here really don't want to consider.

Given how often we've refuted your awful logic, you ought to understand why we lose patience when you keep telling us we won't look at your awful logic.

The fact is, we have had satellite imaging for 34 years. And observations and records within that 34 years are hardly likely to be conclusive of any long term trend, and to present it as 'evidence' of long term global warming simply defies all reasonable scientific basis.

We have hundreds of thousands of years of data from sediment cores. That's been pointed out before.

But hey, you might have an anecdote from a ship. Which everyone was already fully aware of. Which just shows the wind had pushed the ice out of the area at that time, not that the whole icecap melted.

Most especially when Anarctica ice coverage for the same period is at the maximum for the satellite image.

No, less than last year. Antarctic sea ice has been rising at 1%/decade, Arctic sea ice crashing at -15%/decade. It's bizarre to equate the two as somehow similar. Especially since AGW theory predicted both cases ahead of time. According to you, AGW theory being proven right again somehow proves how AGW theory is wrong.

And if the theory of some is correct, when we start watching arctic ice advance again.

Nobody except cranks are making such a prediction. Those same cranks predicted the arctic ice would advance this year. They were totally wrong. They are always totally wrong, while the AGW scientists keep getting it right. You reject the side which has an excellent history of making successful predictions, and take the side of the group which has a track record of near-perfect failure.

If human are warming the climate, then so be it.

Terrible logic. Let's try some more examples of it.
"If humans are causing forest fires, so be it. We shouldn't put them out."
"If humans are dumping toxic waste, so be it. We shouldn't put a stop to it."

Like all other animals who leave their mark on the Earth, that could be a good thing or a bad thing for the long term.

It's a demonstrably bad thing in even the short term, because human civilization grew up around the present climate. There is an ideal climate, the one we've had for the past few thousand years.

If we can't, we shouldn't give up our liberty, choices, options, and opportunities

Conspiracy nonsense. But please, tell us of these horrible losses of liberty that you face. Be specific.

AGW religion.

We look at denialists kind of like the way we look at any religious cult, being denialists and cult religions are both based on irrational wishful thinking.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thank you for the video. Yes, very cold country. Eastern Oregon does get cold like that in some years, but only for 3 to 6 weeks at the most.

Here is some information on the coldest area of the country that I call home.

Seneca Oregons Icebox

These are some pictures of my home town in that area;

Prairie City, Oregon (OR 97869) profile: population, maps, real estate, averages, homes, statistics, relocation, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools, crime, moving, houses, news, sex offenders

Hey thanks for sharing that. In my off duty time I trucked through Oregon often, and loved it:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4byFeFxFXpw&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=38&feature=plcp"]Oregon Roadfood.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

But for a change of pace, here is something totally un-scientific..
...feel free to laugh, because I used to laughed about it too,.. 40 years ago when I married my (American Indian ) wife. However after a few years I quit laughing...she is no fool !...and neither is the wildlife Indians observe.
It`s the most accurate (short term) climate model I`ve seen so far !

Animal Weather Instinct.wmv - YouTube

By the way, the invite is not a joke

Thank you, and I mean that. I would love to go north again. But not to be for at least two years. I had planned on retiring last June, but my wife developed some major eye problems, torn retinas, and they are searching for the underlying cause. Going to be a long process. So, since I had already reduced my hours to 40 or 50 hours a week, I applied, and was accepted for re-entry to Portland State University. They even honored 96 prior credits from over 40 years ago. So, at the present rate, I will get a BS in about 2 to 3 years, depending on whether I retire in another year or two years.

So, if we are both up and about, I really would like to take a raincheck on that.

As mentioned before, my wife of almost 40 years is part Lakota, Hunkpapa, Standing Rock Nation. We have, over the last twenty years visited all the Lakota reservaions, and became aquinted with many of her relitives. Oddly, she was raised a city girl, while I was raised in a very rural area. What you say about the animals ability to sense things we miss is so true. They still exceed any man made protocal for forecasting earthquakes in the short term.

Fishing. Lordy, that is something I love to do, and something I really love to eat. My wife thought that she did not like fish. About 5 years after we were married, we camped south of Logan valley on edge of the Malhuer canyon. I went down and caught a few Montana Golden trout. Brought them back, and fried them up for her. Not only did she eat hers, she took mine! We had porcapine, antelope, deer, elk, and all kinds of birds in camp, which pleased her much. Until the bear came through. Then we left. Quickly. LOL.

Two years ago, I went back and fished the stretch of the John Day River that we lived on for a couple of years. Nothing more than a large creek that high in the mountains. When we were there, I was 12 through 14 years old. My brother, two years younger, and I constantly fished that little river. Every Friday, mom fried the result, and there was always enough that all eight of us had as much fish as we wanted. My wife had listened to all the stories and finally said, "why don't we go and fish that river?". We had been told that the river had been fished out. So, in an hour, I caught a 12 and 14 inch cutthrought, a 13, 15, and 18 inch dollyvarden, also known as bull trout, although it is really a char. Had to release the bull trout as they are endangered in the John Day. Looks like they are making a good comeback.

When I was working for the Forest Service, there was a herd of buffalo in Silvies Valley. One day we were going to Burns to do some augering to find out why a road kept going away. Saw the herd, and on the far end was the ugliest buffalo, from a distance, that I had ever seen. When we got closer, saw it was a Musk Ox. The fellow I was working with was from Kansas, and had never even heard of such an animal.

 

[mamooth]

As You can see the Louis St.Laurent had no trouble making it through there all the way to this point...

CCGS Louis St. Laurent is one of the heaviest icebreakers in the world. I don't see how that supports denialism, because heavy icebreakers have always been able to navigate the Nares Straight in August. It would have had a much easier time of it this year.

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh wow, Old Rocks. You made my mouth water with those trout. There is nothing quite like a fish pulled from the stream, cleaned, and going right into the pan even before it has been iced down. Except around here we don't have golden trout but there is plenty of rainbow and cutthroat.

I have always had a passion for the environment, the aesthetic beauty of the Earth and all the creatures on it, and have had a lifelong passion for all manner of extremes of weather and climate. If you really want to know where I do get my back up though, it is in the unconscionable dumping or inadvertant introduction of heavy metals into the oceans. That is something that should never be allowed and something we are highly unlikely to find an anecdote for when it occurs. I want the air clean of all but temporary pollutants; the water pure, the soil uncontaminated.

And I am all for finding ways to accomplish all that while allowing us to be as free as the other creatures.

 

[polarbear]

Thank you for the video. Yes, very cold country. Eastern Oregon does get cold like that in some years, but only for 3 to 6 weeks at the most.

Here is some information on the coldest area of the country that I call home.

Seneca Oregons Icebox

These are some pictures of my home town in that area;

Prairie City, Oregon (OR 97869) profile: population, maps, real estate, averages, homes, statistics, relocation, travel, jobs, hospitals, schools, crime, moving, houses, news, sex offenders

Hey thanks for sharing that. In my off duty time I trucked through Oregon often, and loved it:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4byFeFxFXpw&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=38&feature=plcp"]Oregon Roadfood.wmv - YouTube[/ame]

But for a change of pace, here is something totally un-scientific..
...feel free to laugh, because I used to laughed about it too,.. 40 years ago when I married my (American Indian ) wife. However after a few years I quit laughing...she is no fool !...and neither is the wildlife Indians observe.
It`s the most accurate (short term) climate model I`ve seen so far !

Animal Weather Instinct.wmv - YouTube

By the way, the invite is not a joke

Thank you, and I mean that. I would love to go north again. But not to be for at least two years. I had planned on retiring last June, but my wife developed some major eye problems, torn retinas, and they are searching for the underlying cause. Going to be a long process. So, since I had already reduced my hours to 40 or 50 hours a week, I applied, and was accepted for re-entry to Portland State University. They even honored 96 prior credits from over 40 years ago. So, at the present rate, I will get a BS in about 2 to 3 years, depending on whether I retire in another year or two years.

So, if we are both up and about, I really would like to take a raincheck on that.

As mentioned before, my wife of almost 40 years is part Lakota, Hunkpapa, Standing Rock Nation. We have, over the last twenty years visited all the Lakota reservaions, and became aquinted with many of her relitives. Oddly, she was raised a city girl, while I was raised in a very rural area. What you say about the animals ability to sense things we miss is so true. They still exceed any man made protocal for forecasting earthquakes in the short term.

Fishing. Lordy, that is something I love to do, and something I really love to eat. My wife thought that she did not like fish. About 5 years after we were married, we camped south of Logan valley on edge of the Malhuer canyon. I went down and caught a few Montana Golden trout. Brought them back, and fried them up for her. Not only did she eat hers, she took mine! We had porcapine, antelope, deer, elk, and all kinds of birds in camp, which pleased her much. Until the bear came through. Then we left. Quickly. LOL.

Two years ago, I went back and fished the stretch of the John Day River that we lived on for a couple of years. Nothing more than a large creek that high in the mountains. When we were there, I was 12 through 14 years old. My brother, two years younger, and I constantly fished that little river. Every Friday, mom fried the result, and there was always enough that all eight of us had as much fish as we wanted. My wife had listened to all the stories and finally said, "why don't we go and fish that river?". We had been told that the river had been fished out. So, in an hour, I caught a 12 and 14 inch cutthrought, a 13, 15, and 18 inch dollyvarden, also known as bull trout, although it is really a char. Had to release the bull trout as they are endangered in the John Day. Looks like they are making a good comeback.

When I was working for the Forest Service, there was a herd of buffalo in Silvies Valley. One day we were going to Burns to do some augering to find out why a road kept going away. Saw the herd, and on the far end was the ugliest buffalo, from a distance, that I had ever seen. When we got closer, saw it was a Musk Ox. The fellow I was working with was from Kansas, and had never even heard of such an animal.

Although we have a different opinion about AGW and had on occasion some spats, deep down I knew that You were not exactly how it appeared on the surface. The fact that You decided to re-enroll in a U is highly commendable. Many tears ago I worked in a lab in Winnipeg which was then a shared facility for Environment Canada and the RCMP forensic trace analysis. We had a guy working there, close to retirement age and his job was to wash our glass-ware. Then he become more and more interested in what we were doing...enrolled at the U of Winnipeg and studied Chemistry.
Right at exam-time he had a stroke...and suffered some memory lapses..despite that he went back again took a refresher and got a BSc in Chemistry. It floored all of us, and that`s the spirit I admire. "Ian" was his name and sometimes I wonder if "IanC" in our forum and this Ian is the same guy..nothing is impossible. North America is a huge continent, but shit happens and more often than not it turns out to be a small world.
Strange how many things in Your background and mine are so similar, right down to our spouses..!!! Please do take that rain-check and do bring her along...!!! I just told my wife about it and for all You or I know they might even be related.
@Foxfire
Thanks for Your reply. You touched on a few things that are not easily incorporated in climate modelling. Despite my often acid remarks about these computer models I also realize how difficult that job must be.
There are huge areas, not just in Canada, I`m sure that have their own unique climate. The area from Ellesmere Island, Northern Greenland and through the Nares Strait is such an area. And @mamoth:

CCGS Louis St. Laurent is one of the heaviest icebreakers in the world. I don't see how that supports denialism, because heavy icebreakers have always been able to navigate the Nares Straight in August

That`s not the only historical marker there, and this was definitely not an ice breaker:

And just before that Admiral Nares after whom the Strait is named. HMS Alert, after which our base at the northernmost tip of Ellesmere is named, because he camped there in 1875. This sign post honors the crew members of HMS Discovery who perished there.
Even today we still find artifacts from this and other expeditions because almost every expedition to the North Pole camped at this spot before venturing out into the Lincoln Sea.

It`s an awesome place. Imagine what it took to venture into this area when they did. It is humbling, when they did, there was no search & rescue or radio communication.
I think it should be compulsory school curriculum to read up also on Lt. Greely:
Adolphus Greely - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1882, Greely sighted a mountain range during a dog sledding exploration to the interior of northern Ellesmere Island and named them the Conger Range. He also sighted the Innuitian Mountains from Lake Hazen.

And that`s where these fish were from:

Big deal, we rode there in a Huey and had modern fishing tackle + rods....unlike Greely and his men.

We got a fishing hut on that Lake and in all honesty I confess that what we catch isn`t always worth bragging about:

The other picture was taken after we returned to our home base just outside our kitchen at CFS Alert.
Yes, sometimes we do get warm winds coming from Siberia during the summer, ...and when that happens it`s a disaster for us:

We have a very short (gravel) runway...it`s not a foot longer than the bare minimum,

because we had to make the proper gravel aggregate ourselves on location, blasting rock and crushing it to gravel:

So every one of us "chosen frozen" who do our tours of duty up there remember when we have a warm day on Ellesmere Island, because when it warms up shit happens:

And Military engineers are a very closely knit bunch...we may retire, but we do stay in (almost daily) contact what`s going on where we serve or have served with those who are serving there right now:

If there is a warm day at AFB Thule (well Okay their runway is paved)...or at CFS Alert I hear about it within the hour...I`m still "in the loop" and may even have to go up there again.
Yes 2008 we did have a warm summer, and because of it our Hercs had trouble landing...sounds strange...just like the lack of snow during very cold winters...but now You know why that is so. It`s not just the polar bears that like it frozen, it works out better for us too:

Because then we can land with max-loads and bring the fuel we need (from Thule) for our power plant.
I came back here for a quick edit to add one more picture...regarding the extreme winds that kick up :

That was during "day-time" in the winter and in the back ground You can see the ropes that we string between our buildings. When the winds kick up they are usually at near or at hurricane force and we have to hook our harness to these ropes...else we get swept away like a piece of paper.
Here is a short YouTube sample:...but it`s "only" @ 110 klicks

 

[IanC]

OR- if we have at least two recent articles from a known alarmist which state that Antarctic land ice is increasing, does that affect your confidence in the claims of rapidly increasing rates of Antarctic ice melt? I'm not asking you about CAGW just this particular set of data. Would you still wager your life on the accuracy of massive net ice loss?

 

[Old Rocks]

OR- if we have at least two recent articles from a known alarmist which state that Antarctic land ice is increasing, does that affect your confidence in the claims of rapidly increasing rates of Antarctic ice melt? I'm not asking you about CAGW just this particular set of data. Would you still wager your life on the accuracy of massive net ice loss?

Ian, what are seeing is that a researcher is assessing each set of data that he is getting and seeing differant results. So, I would have to say the jury may be out on the ice losses on continental Antarctica. However, it is not out on the fact that the average temperature for the whole of the continent is warming, with the peninsula experiancing a warming like the much of the Arctic is.

The GRACE data shows a definate ice loss. However, it is not from melting as the temperatures on the continent are not warm enough to melt the ice. The warmer ocean appears to be making inroads on the grounded ice sheets, and the glacial ice is now moving faster, thus removing ice from the continent. That, at present, is the hypothesis.

Your known "alarmist" is a bit over the top. Our 'alamists' have done an extremely poor job at being alarmists. The Arctic Sea Ice reduction this year is just one example of that. This was not supposed to occur until 2080. If the curve of this reduction continues as at present, the ice will be pretty much gone by 2020. Far too soon, and we have far too little knowledge about what that will mean in terms of weather and climate.

Dr. Jennifer Francis's lecture on ice, Rossby waves, and results, are at the present cutting edge of our knowledge. Note that what she is speaking about is what is already happening, not an extrapolation to decades, or even a decade, in the future. If the ice totally goes for a portion of the summer, I think we will see consequences that we did not anticipate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg]Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

OR- if we have at least two recent articles from a known alarmist which state that Antarctic land ice is increasing, does that affect your confidence in the claims of rapidly increasing rates of Antarctic ice melt? I'm not asking you about CAGW just this particular set of data. Would you still wager your life on the accuracy of massive net ice loss?

Ian, what are seeing is that a researcher is assessing each set of data that he is getting and seeing differant results. So, I would have to say the jury may be out on the ice losses on continental Antarctica. However, it is not out on the fact that the average temperature for the whole of the continent is warming, with the peninsula experiancing a warming like the much of the Arctic is.

The GRACE data shows a definate ice loss. However, it is not from melting as the temperatures on the continent are not warm enough to melt the ice. The warmer ocean appears to be making inroads on the grounded ice sheets, and the glacial ice is now moving faster, thus removing ice from the continent. That, at present, is the hypothesis.

Your known "alarmist" is a bit over the top. Our 'alamists' have done an extremely poor job at being alarmists. The Arctic Sea Ice reduction this year is just one example of that. This was not supposed to occur until 2080. If the curve of this reduction continues as at present, the ice will be pretty much gone by 2020. Far too soon, and we have far too little knowledge about what that will mean in terms of weather and climate.

Dr. Jennifer Francis's lecture on ice, Rossby waves, and results, are at the present cutting edge of our knowledge. Note that what she is speaking about is what is already happening, not an extrapolation to decades, or even a decade, in the future. If the ice totally goes for a portion of the summer, I think we will see consequences that we did not anticipate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg]Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube[/ame]

Rocks, consider your own reasoning here. When you use phrases like "this was not supposed to occur until 2080", what are you basing that on? You base it on what has been reported as scientific computer models, yes? But none of those same computer models have been able to input known conditions from the modern era--i.e. mid 18th century when thermometers were first put into use to present--and produce the existing conditions we have today. So why do you put faith in their data suggesting what should not occur until 2080?

I really am not a denialist. But I am deeply suspicious of the motives of those who make their living promoting a specific point of view, and whose living could be in jeopardy if they are 100% honest in promoting a specific point of view. And I think it is wise to pay attention when their 'scientific computer models' are not supported by observable phenomena reported by people who were there and who have absolutely no motive to describe things other than they are. And I simply don't find credible those who are sounding the alarm and wringing their hands based on 34 years of satellite imaging. Reporting it, yes. That they should do. Attaching some long range significance to it? Nope. That's not the scientific way.

 

[mamooth]

But none of those same computer models have been able to input known conditions from the modern era--i.e. mid 18th century when thermometers were first put into use to present--and produce the existing conditions we have today.

Sure they can. The models are darn good at hindcasting. Not being idiots, scientists know a good model has to be able to hindcast in order to be trustworthy for futurecasting.

Remember, the denialist web sites who fed you that bad info are feeding you bum info about everything. Once you understand that, all becomes clear. There's no AGW conspiracy, just a politically-driven conspiracy of pseudoscience to deny AGW.

I really am not a denialist.

Which is why you should read more info from sources other than denialists.

But I am deeply suspicious of the motives of those who make their living promoting a specific point of view,

Which is why you should be more suspicious of the denialists.

and whose living could be in jeopardy if they are 100% honest in promoting a specific point of view.

Which is not AGW scientists, who would get the same pay no matter what they reported. Nobody gets fired or censored for not supporting AGW theory.

Now, if someone could disprove AGW theory, that would make them rich. So that's where the monetary incentive is.

 

[westwall]

But none of those same computer models have been able to input known conditions from the modern era--i.e. mid 18th century when thermometers were first put into use to present--and produce the existing conditions we have today.

Sure they can. The models are darn good at hindcasting. Not being idiots, scientists know a good model has to be able to hindcast in order to be trustworthy for futurecasting.

Remember, the denialist web sites who fed you that bad info are feeding you bum info about everything. Once you understand that, all becomes clear. There's no AGW conspiracy, just a politically-driven conspiracy of pseudoscience to deny AGW.

I really am not a denialist.

Which is why you should read more info from sources other than denialists.

But I am deeply suspicious of the motives of those who make their living promoting a specific point of view,

Which is why you should be more suspicious of the denialists.

and whose living could be in jeopardy if they are 100% honest in promoting a specific point of view.

Which is not AGW scientists, who would get the same pay no matter what they reported. Nobody gets fired or censored for not supporting AGW theory.

Now, if someone could disprove AGW theory, that would make them rich. So that's where the monetary incentive is.

Bullcrap. No climate model ever developed is capable of hindcasting even ONE DAY. We don't have to disprove AGW theory. YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT! That's how science works silly person.

You generate the hypothesis, gather data, publish results, start over when the data doesn't support your hypothesis. But wait, AGW "theorists" don't follow the scientific method, they generated a hypothesis, they gathered data...aaaannndd when the data didn't fit with their pre-conceived ideas they ALTERED the data to conform to their computer models.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Only in the twisted psyches of a devout religious fanatic is wholesale falsification of data considered OK. Even the Catholic Church hasn't sunk that low...and they've sunk pretty low!




"HADCRUT4 – The Scammers Are Getting Shameless

Filed under: HADCRUT,HADCRUT4,Mockery — sunshinehours1 @ 8:57 AM
Tags: Climate Scam, HADCRUT4



HADCRUT4 is the new Met Office dataset designed to replaced HADCRUT3. Why do they need to replace HADCRUT3?

Because the trend for the last 15 years in HADCRUT3 is negative and therefore it must be exterminated – like the Medieval Warming Period.

The following graph compares HADCRUT4 to HADCRUT3. (Click for a larger version)

Take note of the following:

1) HADCRUT3 and HADCRUT4 overlaps until about 2002 with minor differences.

2) For some reason, after 2002, there appears to be corrections of .1 to .2C. Why was the data ok in 1997-2002 and suddenly it was so bad it had to be “corrected”.

3) What justifies a .2C adjustment up in 2007? Thats 40% higher!

4) Every place a red line is well above the blue they have adjusted up to make the the “new dataset” hotter.

5) HADCRUT3 trend (the dashed line) was negative (-.016C/Decade). HADCRUT4 is positive (.033C/Decade)."



HADCRUT4 – The Scammers Are Getting Shameless « sunshine hours

 

[saveliberty]

Totally laughable that the faithers have no problem with a large percentage of data stations in heat sink areas. Seems like these "science-based thinkers" would be more critical of the data collection system and data correction schemes.

 

[Old Rocks]

The models are getting better. Problem is, we are changing the parameters because of feedbacks we do not yet fully understand.

http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Lee_etal_Prediction.pdf

Evidence of Decadal Climate Prediction Skill Resulting from Changes in
Anthropogenic Forcing

TERRY C. K. LEE

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

FRANCIS W. ZWIERS

Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada, University of Victoria,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

XUEBIN ZHANG

Climate Monitoring and Data Interpretation Division, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada, Downsview,
Ontario, Canada

MIN TSAO

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
(Manuscript received 7 June 2005, in final form 17 February 2006)

ABSTRACT
It is argued that simulations of the twentieth century performed with coupled global climate models with
specified historical changes in external radiative forcing can be interpreted as climate hindcasts. A simple Bayesian method for postprocessing such simulations is described, which produces probabilistic hindcasts of interdecadal temperature changes on large spatial scales. Hindcasts produced for the last two decades of the twentieth century are shown to be skillful. The suggestion that skillful decadal forecasts can be produced on large regional scales by exploiting the response to anthropogenic forcing provides additional evidence that anthropogenic change in the composition of the atmosphere has influenced the climate. In the absence of large negative volcanic forcing on the climate system (which cannot presently be forecast), it is predicted that the global mean temperature for the decade 2000–09 will lie above the 1970–99 normal with a probability of 0.94. The global mean temperature anomaly for this decade relative to 1970–99 is predicted to be 0.35°C with a 5%–95% confidence range of 0.21°–0.48°C.

 

[Old Rocks]

OR- if we have at least two recent articles from a known alarmist which state that Antarctic land ice is increasing, does that affect your confidence in the claims of rapidly increasing rates of Antarctic ice melt? I'm not asking you about CAGW just this particular set of data. Would you still wager your life on the accuracy of massive net ice loss?

Ian, what are seeing is that a researcher is assessing each set of data that he is getting and seeing differant results. So, I would have to say the jury may be out on the ice losses on continental Antarctica. However, it is not out on the fact that the average temperature for the whole of the continent is warming, with the peninsula experiancing a warming like the much of the Arctic is.

The GRACE data shows a definate ice loss. However, it is not from melting as the temperatures on the continent are not warm enough to melt the ice. The warmer ocean appears to be making inroads on the grounded ice sheets, and the glacial ice is now moving faster, thus removing ice from the continent. That, at present, is the hypothesis.

Your known "alarmist" is a bit over the top. Our 'alamists' have done an extremely poor job at being alarmists. The Arctic Sea Ice reduction this year is just one example of that. This was not supposed to occur until 2080. If the curve of this reduction continues as at present, the ice will be pretty much gone by 2020. Far too soon, and we have far too little knowledge about what that will mean in terms of weather and climate.

Dr. Jennifer Francis's lecture on ice, Rossby waves, and results, are at the present cutting edge of our knowledge. Note that what she is speaking about is what is already happening, not an extrapolation to decades, or even a decade, in the future. If the ice totally goes for a portion of the summer, I think we will see consequences that we did not anticipate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtRvcXUIyZg]Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube[/ame]

Rocks, consider your own reasoning here. When you use phrases like "this was not supposed to occur until 2080", what are you basing that on? You base it on what has been reported as scientific computer models, yes? But none of those same computer models have been able to input known conditions from the modern era--i.e. mid 18th century when thermometers were first put into use to present--and produce the existing conditions we have today. So why do you put faith in their data suggesting what should not occur until 2080?

I really am not a denialist. But I am deeply suspicious of the motives of those who make their living promoting a specific point of view, and whose living could be in jeopardy if they are 100% honest in promoting a specific point of view. And I think it is wise to pay attention when their 'scientific computer models' are not supported by observable phenomena reported by people who were there and who have absolutely no motive to describe things other than they are. And I simply don't find credible those who are sounding the alarm and wringing their hands based on 34 years of satellite imaging. Reporting it, yes. That they should do. Attaching some long range significance to it? Nope. That's not the scientific way.

Naive Predictions of 2013 Sea Ice - Arctic Sea Ice

Naive Predictions of 2013 Sea Ice



These predictions are naive in the sense that they are not based on a physical model, nor other measurements apart from the 30-odd year history of the index in question. Moreover, they are made a year in advance as winter freeze-up is just starting. The predictions are simply If ... Then statements: If trends from the recent past continue ... Then we could expect this much ice next September. Those past trends appear reasonably well characterized by Gompertz curves, fit by nonlinear least squares to the data. Error bands in Figure 1 shade a range plus or minus twice the standard deviation of the residuals (observed variation around the curve).

 

[Foxfyre]

Ian, what are seeing is that a researcher is assessing each set of data that he is getting and seeing differant results. So, I would have to say the jury may be out on the ice losses on continental Antarctica. However, it is not out on the fact that the average temperature for the whole of the continent is warming, with the peninsula experiancing a warming like the much of the Arctic is.

The GRACE data shows a definate ice loss. However, it is not from melting as the temperatures on the continent are not warm enough to melt the ice. The warmer ocean appears to be making inroads on the grounded ice sheets, and the glacial ice is now moving faster, thus removing ice from the continent. That, at present, is the hypothesis.

Your known "alarmist" is a bit over the top. Our 'alamists' have done an extremely poor job at being alarmists. The Arctic Sea Ice reduction this year is just one example of that. This was not supposed to occur until 2080. If the curve of this reduction continues as at present, the ice will be pretty much gone by 2020. Far too soon, and we have far too little knowledge about what that will mean in terms of weather and climate.

Dr. Jennifer Francis's lecture on ice, Rossby waves, and results, are at the present cutting edge of our knowledge. Note that what she is speaking about is what is already happening, not an extrapolation to decades, or even a decade, in the future. If the ice totally goes for a portion of the summer, I think we will see consequences that we did not anticipate.

Weather and Climate Summit - Day 5, Jennifer Francis - YouTube

Rocks, consider your own reasoning here. When you use phrases like "this was not supposed to occur until 2080", what are you basing that on? You base it on what has been reported as scientific computer models, yes? But none of those same computer models have been able to input known conditions from the modern era--i.e. mid 18th century when thermometers were first put into use to present--and produce the existing conditions we have today. So why do you put faith in their data suggesting what should not occur until 2080?

I really am not a denialist. But I am deeply suspicious of the motives of those who make their living promoting a specific point of view, and whose living could be in jeopardy if they are 100% honest in promoting a specific point of view. And I think it is wise to pay attention when their 'scientific computer models' are not supported by observable phenomena reported by people who were there and who have absolutely no motive to describe things other than they are. And I simply don't find credible those who are sounding the alarm and wringing their hands based on 34 years of satellite imaging. Reporting it, yes. That they should do. Attaching some long range significance to it? Nope. That's not the scientific way.

Naive Predictions of 2013 Sea Ice - Arctic Sea Ice

Naive Predictions of 2013 Sea Ice



These predictions are naive in the sense that they are not based on a physical model, nor other measurements apart from the 30-odd year history of the index in question. Moreover, they are made a year in advance as winter freeze-up is just starting. The predictions are simply If ... Then statements: If trends from the recent past continue ... Then we could expect this much ice next September. Those past trends appear reasonably well characterized by Gompertz curves, fit by nonlinear least squares to the data. Error bands in Figure 1 shade a range plus or minus twice the standard deviation of the residuals (observed variation around the curve).

See, this is what I mean. You quote and link to a pro-AGW blog. No information about the credentials or funding of the owners of the blog. Just more charts and graphs that anybody could produce with a computer and that may or may not mean anything. But no mention anywhere of the reporting we do have evidence for is that a lot of the diminished Arctic ice this year is due to an Arctic cyclone. This immediately makes their conclusions suspect.

If you were a 'denier' and went to that site, those kinds of things you would see immediately. What I look for when I visit any of these site whether pro-AGW or in the skeptic category are 1) the credentials of those managing the website and 2) who funds them. If that information is not available, I don't consider either one of them credible.

 

[westwall]

The models are getting better. Problem is, we are changing the parameters because of feedbacks we do not yet fully understand.

http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Lee_etal_Prediction.pdf

Evidence of Decadal Climate Prediction Skill Resulting from Changes in
Anthropogenic Forcing

TERRY C. K. LEE

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

FRANCIS W. ZWIERS

Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada, University of Victoria,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

XUEBIN ZHANG

Climate Monitoring and Data Interpretation Division, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada, Downsview,
Ontario, Canada

MIN TSAO

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
(Manuscript received 7 June 2005, in final form 17 February 2006)

ABSTRACT
It is argued that simulations of the twentieth century performed with coupled global climate models with
specified historical changes in external radiative forcing can be interpreted as climate hindcasts. A simple Bayesian method for postprocessing such simulations is described, which produces probabilistic hindcasts of interdecadal temperature changes on large spatial scales. Hindcasts produced for the last two decades of the twentieth century are shown to be skillful. The suggestion that skillful decadal forecasts can be produced on large regional scales by exploiting the response to anthropogenic forcing provides additional evidence that anthropogenic change in the composition of the atmosphere has influenced the climate. In the absence of large negative volcanic forcing on the climate system (which cannot presently be forecast), it is predicted that the global mean temperature for the decade 2000–09 will lie above the 1970–99 normal with a probability of 0.94. The global mean temperature anomaly for this decade relative to 1970–99 is predicted to be 0.35°C with a 5%–95% confidence range of 0.21°–0.48°C.

The models are still SIGNIFICANTLY less accurate than random guessing. You call that getting better, I call it ridiculous.

 

[Foxfyre]

The models are getting better. Problem is, we are changing the parameters because of feedbacks we do not yet fully understand.

http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/Lee_etal_Prediction.pdf

Evidence of Decadal Climate Prediction Skill Resulting from Changes in
Anthropogenic Forcing

TERRY C. K. LEE

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

FRANCIS W. ZWIERS

Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada, University of Victoria,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

XUEBIN ZHANG

Climate Monitoring and Data Interpretation Division, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada, Downsview,
Ontario, Canada

MIN TSAO

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
(Manuscript received 7 June 2005, in final form 17 February 2006)

ABSTRACT
It is argued that simulations of the twentieth century performed with coupled global climate models with
specified historical changes in external radiative forcing can be interpreted as climate hindcasts. A simple Bayesian method for postprocessing such simulations is described, which produces probabilistic hindcasts of interdecadal temperature changes on large spatial scales. Hindcasts produced for the last two decades of the twentieth century are shown to be skillful. The suggestion that skillful decadal forecasts can be produced on large regional scales by exploiting the response to anthropogenic forcing provides additional evidence that anthropogenic change in the composition of the atmosphere has influenced the climate. In the absence of large negative volcanic forcing on the climate system (which cannot presently be forecast), it is predicted that the global mean temperature for the decade 2000–09 will lie above the 1970–99 normal with a probability of 0.94. The global mean temperature anomaly for this decade relative to 1970–99 is predicted to be 0.35°C with a 5%–95% confidence range of 0.21°–0.48°C.

The models are still SIGNIFICANTLY less accurate than random guessing. You call that getting better, I call it ridiculous.

And the fact remains that if it is conclusively shown within the margins of probability that AGW is not an issue and there is nothing that humankind can reasonably do to alter naturally occuring climate change, then mega millions, even billions of government grant funding immediately dries up. That provides powerful incentive to continue the 'concern' and keep the gravy train rolling along. In my opinion, it is extremely naive to assume that those receiving big money to study the 'problem' are all exemplary individuals who would not possibly intentionally overlook data that doesn't support there being a a problem.

When the pro-AGW advocates can show me a consensus of climate scientists who do not receive funding specifically to promote AGW who come to the conclusion that AGW is real and is a significant problem for conditions on Earth, then I will become far more skeptical of the skeptics. Currently almost all who are not paid by pro-AGW advocates are in the skeptic category.

Having a close family member in the oil refining business, I have learned that the oil companies are making out like bandits accommodating green industries. This family member recently designed and constructed a massive biofuel producing system at the refinery where he works, and that was paid for with a whole lot of our taxpayer dollars. Those subsidies to those eeeeeeeevul oil companies are going mostly for that purpose, which of course is why they continue. So the oil companies who are contributing to scientific studies have as much incentive as any to keep AGW theories alive and well.

So, to me, the reasonable scientific position is to keep an open mind but follow the money.