Global warming not going away

[Hawkamania!]

On the Arctic ice, from the most popular and respected website on climate issues:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-25-since-may-2008/

Below is a blink comparator of U.S. Navy PIPS sea ice forecast data, zoomed to show the primary Arctic ice zone.

An upward trend of sea ice since 2008 by the US Navy which does Arctic excercises, while cookie's site linked by dd is showing decline since 2008. I wonder which source would be more reliable.

And on the total global sea ice extent, well, the truth can be inconvenient for the global warming religious nut jobs.

Please note that this chart shows drastic ice loss during a natural warm period in our climate history.

I bet cookie from "skeptical science" will have some paper approved from team hide the decline to argue that more is less.

And lets see what an actual physicist has to say on cookie's claims. Read the whole article as it really does highlight how embarrassing that "skeptikal science" blog really is.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html

Arctic icemelt is a natural cycle: John Cook says that it's melting and it's great because that's what the models predict. Too bad for the models because the Arctic sea ice are has returned back to the normal (average in the last 30 years). But I guess that such a wrong prediction is not a problem for John Cook: he's only interested in the successful predictions and thinks that wrong predictions are not a problem for a theory.

Southern sea ice is increasing: Cook agrees but says that it surely has nothing to do with warming or global climate change. It must be due to "complex phenomena" such as changes of the winds and circulation. Note that such comments would be unthinkable if he tried to discuss the Northern sea ice. As we have noticed, all "warming" observations are about the climate, important signals that you should appreciate, worship, extrapolate, and be afraid of. On the other hand, all "cooling" observations are just an irrelevant weather that you should dismiss, humiliate, and spit on. With such a biased attitude, it shouldn't be shocking that Mr Cook ends up with an irrational orthodoxy based on 104 largely obscure misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and myths - and that his opinions about the most important questions are upside down.

And for the win (the alarmists here must have very short memories):

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

And now frenzied panic attacks from the pulpits of the global warming acolytes rebutting the evidence brought to your attention by heretics.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Williams once claimed the oceans would rise by 100 metres by the year 2100. I think that qualifies as alarmism and is enough to discredit any contribution he has to make on this subject.

Link?

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1867444.htm#transcript

Andrew Bolt: Dean of science...suggesting rising seas this next century of up to 100 metres, or Al Gore six metres. When I see things like that I know these are false. You mentioned the IPCC report; that suggests, at worst on best scenarios, 59 centimetres.
Robyn Williams: Well, whether you take the surge or whether you take the actual average rise are different things.
Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres in the next century...do you really think that?
Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes. The increase of melting that they've noticed in Greenland and the amount that we've seen from the western part of Antarctica, if those increases of three times the expected rate continue, it will be huge, but the question...

Still waiting for some evidence to support that claim.

Even though I know evidence isn't your long suit.

Wow. I knew you were special, but this takes the cake.

 

[Grin]

Andrew Bolt's really the best "expert" on global warming science you've got?

Where in that quote does RW say that sea levels will rise 100 metres?

It's Andrew playing with words to trick the very silly into thinking that Global warming is a global communist conspiracy theory. And I note you didn't finish the quote so as to ensure that it is taken out of context. Do you really think that your need to resort to clear intellectual dishonesty supports your argument?

You really need to follow the links I have provided about what constitutes evidnece and how it is interpreted.

Don't just desperately cling to ignorance assuming that regurgitating ignorance makes you look very intelligent. It actually makes you look very ignorant and gullible. Two qualities we find in every Liberal party fan boy.

 

[Hawkamania!]

^ The transcript was from the abc, the media stronghold of your labour brethren.

Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres in the next century...do you really think that?
Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes. The increase of melting that they've noticed in Greenland and the amount that we've seen from the western part of Antarctica, if those increases of three times the expected rate continue, it will be huge, but the question...

What part was difficult for you to comprehend?

 

[Grin]

^ The transcript was from the abc, the media stronghold of your labour brethren.


What part was difficult for you to comprehend?

I admit existence of God is a possibility yet I don't believe in God.

Please point me to where he said that the seas will rise by 100 metres.

Andrew Bolt's bread and butter is misleading the stupid, naive, ignorant, racist and cruel into voting against their own interests. Surely you haven't been hoodwinked by this dishonest little attempt. Please reassure me that you're not that stupid Hawkmania

 

[Hawkamania!]

^ *Sigh*. Since I'm in a charitable mood....

First Andrew Bolt asks: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres in the next century...do you really think that?

Then Robyn Williams answers: It is possible, yes. The increase of melting that they've noticed in Greenland and the amount that we've seen from the western part of Antarctica, if those increases of three times the expected rate continue, it will be huge, but the question...

First Bolt asks, then williams answers. Bolt asks, williams answers. Very simple. Bolt asks, williams answers. Capice?

Please note I've highlighted the answer in red for ease of comprehension.

 

[Grin]

^ *Sigh*. Since I'm in a charitable mood....

First Andrew Bolt asks: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres in the next century...do you really think that?

Then Robyn Williams answers: It is possible, yes. The increase of melting that they've noticed in Greenland and the amount that we've seen from the western part of Antarctica, if those increases of three times the expected rate continue, it will be huge, but the question...

First Bolt asks, then williams answers. Bolt asks, williams answers. Very simple. Bolt asks, williams answers. Capice?

Please note I've highlighted the answer in red for ease of comprehension.

If I were you I would be feeling to embarrassed to be pushing this any further. I can't figure out why you are persisting. Perhaps you don't have any dignity, or pride.

Just out of curiosity. What comes after "but the question...."?

 

[Wednesday]

If I were you I would be feeling to embarrassed to be pushing this any further. I can't figure out why you are persisting. Perhaps you don't have any dignity, or pride.

Just out of curiosity. What comes after "but the question...."?

If you hit the link i provided you could find out for yourself.

 

[Hawkamania!]

If you hit the link i provided you could find out for yourself.

Poor grins waiting for penny wong's office to formulate a response for him. Its difficult to reason with someone caught up in a cult mentality. The global warming movement is quickly morphing into the new scientology.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

Poor grins waiting for penny wong's office to formulate a response for him. Its difficult to reason with someone caught up in a cult mentality. The global warming movement is quickly morphing into the new scientology.

Seriously Hawkamania, it appear you never read anyones other posts. Just keep posting the same old rubish over and over again.

Please read Grim's mp3 link, and offer some discussion on that. Its a well articulated point of view without all the hoopla.

 

[Wednesday]

Seriously Hawkamania, it appear you never read anyones other posts. Just keep posting the same old rubish over and over again.

Please read Grim's mp3 link, and offer some discussion on that. Its a well articulated point of view without all the hoopla.

From someone who thinks the oceans will rise by 100 meters in the next 100 years. Why would you give any credibility to someone who pushes this level of alarmism?

 

[Dippers Donuts]

On the Arctic ice, from the most popular and respected website on climate issues:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/29/arctic-ice-volume-has-increased-25-since-may-2008/

Popular with pubescent adolescents and the tinfoil hat denier brigade yes that it is true. Not quoted by experts anywhere..

An upward trend of sea ice since 2008 by the US Navy which does Arctic excercises, while cookie's site linked by dd is showing decline since 2008. I wonder which source would be more reliable.

You have confused yourself a couple of times here;
1: The chart i posted is from the NSIDC - the national snow and ice data centre, one of the worlds most respected cryosphere analysis centres. These are real experts doing real science. Even the retired weathermen and engineers at wattsupwiddat quote from it when it suits them.
2: Its good to see you can cherry pick data but youre not smart enough to realise you have reinforced my point. After the record ice loss in 2006/7 yes there has been a recovery to a degree in the ice cover (hello thats why they are called records!!) but the trend line since satellite records began is all one way. You dont really understand trends do you? See below

And on the total global sea ice extent, well, the truth can be inconvenient for the global warming religious nut jobs.

Please note that this chart shows drastic ice loss during a natural warm period in our climate history.

Overall, even accounting for the slight increases in the antarctic ice extent (which is fully understandable, explainable and consistent with AGW) global sea ice extent is declining.
Thats fact.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Extent, 1979-2009: Although Arctic sea ice extent underwent a strong decline from 1979 to 2009, Antarctic sea ice underwent a slight increase. The Antarctic ice extent increases were smaller in magnitude than the Arctic increases, and some regions of the Antarctic experienced strong declining trends in sea ice extent. See the Arctic Sea Ice FAQ for more information. Image provided by National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.

I bet cookie from "skeptical science" will have some paper approved from team hide the decline to argue that more is less.

And lets see what an actual physicist has to say on cookie's claims. Read the whole article as it really does highlight how embarrassing that "skeptikal science" blog really is.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
And for the win (the alarmists here must have very short memories):

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

And now frenzied panic attacks from the pulpits of the global warming acolytes rebutting the evidence brought to your attention by heretics.

You are confused here - the demolition of bug eyes was Professor John Abraham, not john cook. Look a bit closer next time.
Here is the link to the paper where Prof Abraham clinically dissects ole bug eyes.

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

 

[Doctor Jolly]

From someone who thinks the oceans will rise by 100 meters in the next 100 years. Why would you give any credibility to someone who pushes this level of alarmism?

Dont be stupid. He doesnt think it would happen at all. He said its a possibility, as are a lot of things, like a meteor hitting earth and wiping us out. Then we'd know about global warming!

 

[HarryTiger]

Dont be stupid. He doesnt think it would happen at all. He said its a possibility, as are a lot of things, like a meteor hitting earth and wiping us out. Then we'd know about global warming!

The fact that he stated it as a possibility in a debate about global warming would indicate he felt it was within the bounds of reasonable likelihood. You don't discuss irrelevant BS when you're debating a topic do you?

 

[Doctor Jolly]

The fact that he stated it as a possibility in a debate about global warming would indicate he felt it was within the bounds of reasonable likelihood. You don't discuss irrelevant BS when you're debating a topic do you?

You guys are really clutching at straws, if thats how you are justifying throwing away everything he says.

 

[HarryTiger]

You guys are really clutching at straws, if thats how you are justifying throwing away everything he says.

Did you finally admit that he meant what he said?

 

[Dippers Donuts]

The fact that he stated it as a possibility in a debate about global warming would indicate he felt it was within the bounds of reasonable likelihood. You don't discuss irrelevant BS when you're debating a topic do you?

Maybe just maybe, he meant;

The fact that he stated it as a possibility in a debate about global warming would indicate he felt it was within the bounds of possibility. You don't discuss irrelevant BS when you're debating a topic do you?

 

[HarryTiger]

Maybe just maybe, he meant;

The fact that he stated it as a possibility in a debate about global warming would indicate he felt it was within the bounds of possibility. You don't discuss irrelevant BS when you're debating a topic do you?

Is it? In your opinion. 100 metres.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Is it? In your opinion. 100 metres.

This is about you and others verballing what Robin Williams said. Where did he say it was "within the bounds of reasonable likelihood".

 

[HarryTiger]

This is about you and others verballing what Robin Williams said. Where did he say it was "within the bounds of reasonable likelihood".

It's implied by the fact that he bothered to state it in a debate about global warming. Or do you think Robin Williams is prone to ejaculating random gibberish in formal media debates?

 

[Dippers Donuts]

It's implied by the fact that he bothered to state it in a debate about global warming. Or do you think Robin Williams is prone to ejaculating random gibberish in formal media debates?

Rubbish, you're the one making the implication, nobody else. Or can you read Robin Williams mind?
There is a massive difference between possibility, which is what he said; and reasonable likelihood, which is what you said. Surely you can see that.

 

[HarryTiger]

Rubbish, you're the one making the implication, nobody else. Or can you read Robin Williams mind?
There is a massive difference between possibility, which is what he said; and reasonable likelihood, which is what you said. Surely you can see that.

Yes I can 'read' his mind in a sense. Based on the words that come out of his mouth I can make deductions about what his thoughts are and in this case he thought the sea could possibly rise by 100 metres due to global warming. He even went on to provide the rational for making that claim ("if those increases of three times the expected rate continue, it will be huge".)

The term "possible" when used in casual language is not "massively different" to reasonable likelihood. Possible means it's not unlikely, it might happen.

"It's possible it might rain today"

"Yeah?"

"Yeah, there's a 0.00001 percent chance of precipitation" (says Dippers Donuts)

 

[Wednesday]

Dont be stupid. He doesnt think it would happen at all. He said its a possibility, as are a lot of things, like a meteor hitting earth and wiping us out. Then we'd know about global warming!

Then he should have said no not yes. The fact he answered yes makes him a loon. Same applies to anyone who thinks were a chance to be wiped out by a meteor in the next 100 years.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Yes I can 'read' his mind in a sense. Based on the words that come out of his mouth I can make deductions about what his thoughts are and in this case he thought the sea could possibly rise by 100 metres due to global warming. He even went on to provide the rational for making that claim ("if those increases of three times the expected rate continue, it will be huge".)

The term "possible" when used in casual language is not "massively different" to reasonable likelihood. Possible means it's not unlikely, it might happen.

"It's possible it might rain today"

"Yeah?"

"Yeah, there's a 0.00001 percent chance of precipitation" (says Dippers Donuts)

So there's not much difference between the "possibility" of Richmond winning the premiership this year; and a "reasonable likelihood?".
Thats what you're saying right?

 

[HarryTiger]

So there's not much difference between the "possibility" of Richmond winning the premiership this year; and a "reasonable likelihood?".
Thats what you're saying right?

http://www.iasbet.com/Sport/BetType...titionID=46744&EventID=553514&FutureFlag=True

Why can't I place a bet on them winning the 2010 premiership?

They've obviously decided (reading minds again) that it's either impossible or so remotely unlikely that they aren't bothering to take bets.

So no in this case it is for all practical intents impossible for Richmond to win the premiership.

So if I were having a conversation with a person considering betting on Richmond winning the prem I'd say "no don't bother it really isn't possible for them to win".

It's not within the bounds of reasonable likelihood for Richmond to win the prem. You'd be stupid to entertain the notion that Richmond can win the prem, as you'd be stupid to raise the possibility during a media discussion concerning that subject.