North pole to melt this year?

I am not going to read this entire thread, but I think mop is operating with a key logical fallacy. The melting of the North Pole last year was about 80 years ahead of the IPCC prediction. If it completely melts this year, this will be about 100 years ahead of the prediction.

How does showing that the melt this year will not be quite as bad as 2007 show a lack of global warming?

When the entire sea ice melts in 2011 will this mean something?

Do the trends mean anything?
 
I don't really give a rat's *** what you think about my credibility, blueglasshorse.

You should stick to posting pictures. You're a hell of a lot more interesting and articulate that way.
 
arctic_sea_ice_extent6_sm.jpg
 
pasotex...i remind you of this:


total global ice

and this:


northern ice only

while last year was dramatic and the trend is downward....i have a very difficult time believing it was 80 years ahead of schedule. in fact, if you look closely, it recovered to the same point as about 1981 (missed that by about 400,000 Kilometers actually).

as for total melt off this year, that now seems highly unlikely. at any rate, could you please document your claim for last year being 80 years ahead of schedule? i don't doubt you have heard that, i just haven't and am not sure what to do with that piece of information.

to answer your overall question....trends mean something. i believe that the trend has been warming for most of the past 100 years. it has warmed about .8 degrees celsius. the question is about who is to blame. just because it warms does not mean man is to blame. just because it cools.....does also not mean man is to blame. my question is on that point. currently, the earth has been cooling for the past 18 months fairly precipitously. before that it was mostly level back to 2002. from 1998 to 2002, the overal trend continued upwards but 1998 is still the warmest year on record. to me that piece of information is at least intriguing.

as for the IPCC......what do we do with all of the predictions that they got wrong? it would be interesting to go back to the first IPCC report and see what they said would be true today. i seriously doubt that they would have predicted it cooling in the late aughts.
 
powerful response as usual steinbeck.

by the way.....were you ever the playground bully? it seems like you haven't completely let go of that phase of your life.
 
Good move, GT WT.

Pasotex: you don't come around nearly enough. But that's probably one measure of your intelligence. Good to see you posting.
 
GT, of course i understand that......do you understand that man made CO2 makes up a small fraction of total CO2 in the environment? we contribute about 3 to 4 percent.

now i know the response is what about a glass of water with 3 to 4% cyanide. but is that a fair analog? it is very difficult for me to imagine a greenhouse that already has a centimeter of glass warming a bunch because we add 3% to its thickness.

regardless, i do understand the question but i am not sure i agree with the implications. i am open to being educated.

mop

ps water is by FAR the leading greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, dwarfing CO2 by a good margin.

pps you should throw hissy fits more often....it is quite impressive
wink.gif
 
question to Hornpharmd, what do you think about your original question now? do you still think the north pole is going to completely melt? (i know there is a question about what the original author of that article meant). is this year going to be worse than last year?
 
from McIntyre:

Day 192 Race Report
Another day in which 2008 showed no urgency whatever in its efforts to catch 2007. It fell behind another 37,000 sq km and is now nearly 790,000 sq km behind (over 10 days at current rates). It might be worth watching the race with 2002, which made up 50,000 sq km on 2008 yesterday.

month day year ice diff
7 11 2002 9.262344 -0.120000
7 11 2003 9.302188 -0.060312
7 10 2004 9.458125 -0.075938
7 11 2005 8.697500 -0.071250
7 11 2006 8.313594 -0.046094
7 11 2007 8.125156 -0.108750
7 10 2008 8.916563 -0.071562


more slipping......2008 is going to have to get very serious about melting if it is going to have any chance of catching 2007. i am now curious about the other link i posted. it would still be significant if 2008 was the 2nd largest year in terms of melt off.
 
GT WT's link clearly shows the Wilkins ice shelf decreasing even in the antartic winter, and says the predictions of the ice shelf disintegrating in 30 years were too conservative, because it is happening sooner than predicted.
 
despite that not being in response to me GT....that still seems a bit frightening. it will be interesting to see where we stand in september at the end of the Arctic summer and the end of the Antarctic winter.......
 
i would add though that this seems difficult to interpret apart from the bigger picture. i imagine ice shelves in the polar regions have come and gone many times (i could be wrong, so consider this a question). how much is 6000 square miles in light of several million square miles?

serious questions as usual....not trying to disrespect anyone's point of view on this.
 
to put things in perspective.....the wilkin's shelf makes up about .1 percent of Antarctica which is at a current all time high for ice. here is a graph provide by Icecap


graph of ice

they followed the report with this commentary:


In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Long post, but it's for people who are truly open to thinking. A couple of folks have asked for information in apparent sincerity. So here are things to consider if that's you.

For anyone who's interested in reading about ICECAP (linked immediately above as a source), here's a link from SourceWatch:

the link

ICECAP is made up of meteorologists and climatologists who basically buck the scientific consensus. While they obviously have some expertise, they're still vastly outnumbered by others in their fields who take the human impacts much more seriously.

If you're interested, you can follow the links on this page to other related groups. There's a whole web of them, and one of the things these groups count on people doing is not reading carefully and not following the sources of the money or the science, such as it is.

One thing they do is hammer over and over again at the same arguments and hope that people don't read carefully and seek out wider sources of information.

And people won't. They won't notice, for instance, that the last link that mop provided was to a chart that is the EXACT same one he provided in one of his 60 or so (count 'em) posts above. The post starts with something like "To make my case rock solid ..."

There is, of course, only 30 years of satellite data on this particular point, so the graph is only somewhat useful anyway. There's a much bigger picture, and much of it has been outlined by bierce and others above. Unfortunately, you'll have to read a great deal to reach your conclusions -- again, something the skeptics have correctly guessed that people don't want to do.

A better place to start for those of you who haven't read a lot about this is with the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which can be found (and downloaded in .pdf format) here.

Unfortunately, it's 52 pages long, but that's what happens when you try to synthesize the years-long work of the world's leading scientists on a problem they deem to be of supreme importance. It is, however, very readable, in relatively plain language. And at least it's not the long version.

One thing you may note is that the report directly contradicts the claims of ICECAP. There is not a "sole focus" on greenhouse gases by serious climate scientists, who have a clear understanding that climate is part of a broader system of natural cycles, including those that the ICECAP page mentions. So while there's some truth to the ICECAP approach -- they are, after all, scientists who collect data -- there's a substantial amount of ********.

The "sole focus" straw man is a key semantic and rhetorical point for people who try to foment distrust of the science, but for the majority of scientists, the basic assumption is that we've impacted the "natural" system. Obviously, greenhouse gases are the part we can do something about, as we're not going to be able to shift sun cycles or change ocean currents.

You will, however, have to judge these things for yourselves. Many folks here, like GT WT, bierce, accuratehorn, pasotex and others have obviously done some reading and buy into the scientific consensus.

Many others here are too skeptical to give any credence to the idea that there is a consensus. This message isn't for them.

It's for those who are truly interested in reading and learning on their own and who are willing to recognize and look past the well organized ******** machine.

I still believe that we have to attack the ******** machine head-on and I'll continue to do so.
 
steinbeck.....this was the best post you have put forth yet, but you still only go halfway. at the end of your post i felt like i had actually read something valuable, but then you fall short of actually closing the deal. you never go on to say what icecap says that is actually factually wrong for instance.

you also never really tell us why the consensus is correct and where the lies and distortions are.

as for the scientific data being only 30 years old in terms of satellite data....i have carefully repeated that several times so as to NOT give any appearance of purposeful distortion. this is true for UAH and RSS data. it is what it is.
 
RIP76,

You linked to an essay by Roy Spencer, who is one of the most credible dissenters from the global warming concensus. He's a Principal Investigator at the University of Alabama and has a Ph.D. in meteorology. He's also Scientific Advisor of the Interfaith Stewardship Council.

His opinion is informed and should be read with respect. It's also true that the concensus of climate scientists is in disagreement with Dr. Spencer.

Roy Spencer is similar in many respects to Michael Behe, a leading proponent of creationism. Behe is one of the few real biologists on the ID/creationism bandwagon. He is in a distinct minority in opposing the scientific concensus on biological evolution.

The similarities between Behe and Spencer are interesting. I suspect his interpretations are biased by other factors. He is, however, a credible scientist. This can't be said for most of the anti-science bloggers that have been linked to in this thread.

texasflag.gif
 
Roy W. Spencer, whose book is linked above by Rip76, is one of the most prominent members of the ******** machine. As an intelligent design supporter and member of the Heartland Institute, he has far less credibility than members of the scientific mainstream. There are clear links between him and the massive amounts of money ExxonMobil has poured into the denial arguments.

Obviously a judgment issue. Read and make your own judgments.

Short answer: There's a difference between natural greenhouse effect (water) and human-induced greenhouse effect. Water is limited and essentially part of a closed system that we can't change in any substantial way, and it's in the atmosphere only a few days. If we could change it, we wouldn't have droughts. Think about it.

Here's a simple read:
Understanding greenhouse gases

Here's another link and a third.

Intelligent answers are very easy to find. It's not so easy to make the effort.

Don't take the easy way and fall for the ******** machine.

Edit: I was posting this as GT WT was posting his. While I respect GT WT's post, I would point out that even if Spencer is "one of the most credible," his credibility is tainted by his associations and it's still far less than those with the mainstream, consensus perspective. He's done some good work. He also did the book linked above -- a book whose basic premise is flawed. And all one needs is to look at the link to see that Spencer has a very clear ideological agenda. Again, judge for yourself.
 
GT/Stein.

I suggest y'all check with each other before posting.
smile.gif


Is it only ******** because it's not what you believe?
IE: Creationism
 
RIP,

Steinbeck is more concerned with being consistently right. I'm more concerned with rehabilitating my image.

After reading Steinbeck's post I did research Spencer a little further and found that he's one of the 'Dissenters from Darwin' idiots. I still maintain that he has more credibility on climate issues than the amateur science-deniers that have been used to support anti-science on this thread.



texasflag.gif
 
Rip, I trust you will read my edit and GT WT's response.

Your agenda seems clear.

GT WT, I don't think you have an image problem. I might, and that's part of this little game. As I stated much earlier in this thread, I'm going to take a much more active and forceful approach in calling ******** what it is.

There's a time for fact and a time for rhetoric. They're obviously not mutually exclusive, but facts, as we clearly see, are only a very, very small part of the ******** machine's rhetoric.

I'm not sure my links do much good unless they serve as part of a call to arms, and I choose that metaphor with purpose. It's a metaphor, but a good one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top