|
Post by socold on Mar 22, 2009 23:11:46 GMT
Why should it?
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Mar 22, 2009 23:30:09 GMT
[cue twilight zone theme]
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 22, 2009 23:31:19 GMT
Because the CO2 forcing is significantly higher now. There is nothing, according to popular AGW theory, that should have prevented greater warming the past 30 years. Especially since the warming of the past 30 years has been largely attributed to CO2 increases.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 24, 2009 0:42:18 GMT
Not over a period of 20-30 years I explained why I chose that period. It's to remove the effect of ENSO. A strong el nino for two years followed by a strong la nina for two years can cause quite a trend. Even if there is an ENSO neutral gap of 5 years between them. There you go again - the Pacific is somehow not part of the planet. There really needs to be some agreement on 'GLOBAL' meaning 'GLOBAL' not - just the atmospheric effect of Pacific perturbations.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 24, 2009 18:41:58 GMT
We can depend upon the Associated Press and NASA to make the latest propaganda available to us promptly. Ice Cover on Great Lakes Declining, Scientists Say(Associated Press) Tuesday, March 24, 2009 www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510237,00.html "CLEVELAND — Ice cover on the Great Lakes has declined more than 30 percent since the 1970s, leaving the world's largest system of freshwater lakes open to evaporation and lower water levels, according to scientists associated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration." ... "Scientists at the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, say global climate change can be at odds with regional climate patterns."
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 24, 2009 19:23:55 GMT
The Fox News icon, "Fair and balanced" = says it all.
Like "Pravda" - Truth in the Soviet era. - Though more truthful these days.
The Ice is holding up well above means - and a return to past cooler climates is obvious.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 24, 2009 19:36:03 GMT
From the fox news story: "Now close"? Sounds like they are having a longer season. From webcam.crrel.usace.army.mil/soo/FAQ.htmlAhhh. Guess it's always been this way. They have procedures to move ice out of the locks during operations. There's links to web cams overlooking the locks on the above page. Since opening day is the same every year, I sent an email to the operator of the web page (not sure what role she plays in the operations of the lock) hoping for a little first-person observation: ...and I received a VERY prompt reply! For what it's worth!
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Mar 25, 2009 7:30:41 GMT
The Fox News icon, "Fair and balanced" = says it all. My apologies to Fox News and Kiwistonewall. In #109, I should have made it more plain that the story is straight from Associated Press, not Fox News. I did not cite this story as fact, but as an alert to yet another steaming pile of AP propaganda. Nonetheless, Fox News obviously did not fact check the Associated Press story. Every AGW story by the Associated Press must be cross-examined (and preferably prosecuted and convicted). I tried to send to Fox News the graphics links posted here, but their forums gagged on the bad news.
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 25, 2009 20:09:59 GMT
Turns out that the Great Lakes freeze up of 2008/2009 was not all that unusual after all, and was significantly less than has happened in the past few decades:
|
|
|
Post by cyberzombie on Mar 25, 2009 21:14:57 GMT
Eyeballing it, it looks like it's #8 w/ the last higher occurring in 95/96.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 25, 2009 22:38:34 GMT
It also looks like only three times in that history has this much ice been followed by more the following year, so a decline from this level next year would seem to be expected. It also is the 3rd consecutive year of increased amounts, something that has only occurred twice before. Too bad the data only goes back as far as the 1970's when the core writer for the IPCC thought we were headed for a new ice age due to man-made global cooling. Three years ago, the trendline continued would have put 2009 around 15, the current trendline puts the ice around 19. What a difference a couple of years of rebound makes. (Clickthrough for full-size) We shall see...
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 25, 2009 22:56:44 GMT
The IPCC was formed in 1988, so this makes no sense.
Also, hundreds of authors write the IPCC reports, so who is this mysterious "core writer" you are referring to?
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Mar 25, 2009 23:16:41 GMT
"Also, hundreds of authors write the IPCC reports,"
Can you name more than 10% of the authors or even 2% of them? I seriously doubt it. But they have encouraged work shy rich people to drag things across the "warm thinning ice". No-one told them it would be bitterly cold and the ice would be 30m thick! I think they should sue the green party for fraud and get compensation for the appendages that drop off in the next few weeks.
Lets send the estimated remaining 50 authors of the IPCC to the arctic for a few weeks to see how the global warming works outside their centrally heated hotels.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 26, 2009 4:50:28 GMT
The IPCC was formed in 1988, so this makes no sense. Also, hundreds of authors write the IPCC reports, so who is this mysterious "core writer" you are referring to? Stephen "propagandist extraordinaire" Schneider The sentence is correct, for nearly the full decade of the 1970's he was a global cooling propagandist and now is a core writer for the IPCC, listed right at the top of AR4. Feel free to read it. From his own self published biography You know the content of AR4, but before that he was running around with his hair on fire about global cooling: Of course even on his flagrantly ego-maniacal website he doesn't mention his time as a global cooling expert/propagandist, but what do you expect from a guy who proudly proclaims that he has said: You want unbiased neutral honesty from your scientists? Well, sorry. This is what you have instead: unabashed sensationalized advocacy under the guise of science.
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 26, 2009 5:37:35 GMT
You posted a quote from his 1971 paper, where he made the mistake of overestimating the cooling from aerosols and underestimating the warming from CO2, but not his 1975 paper where he corrected the mistake. The full story is available in this article, entitled, "The 1970s Global Cooling Myth": scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf
|
|