|
|
Post by glc on Sept 25, 2009 8:43:24 GMT
Speaking of the kings of de nile,
How are our AGW believer friends going to rationalize away the Arctic ice after this year?
The new vs. old ice will get old after this year, and goal posts with ice volume did not really strike a chord.
Obviously the AGW community cannot keep talking about storms, sea levels or acidification, and the people in the US SE do not really want to hear about drought threats right now. OHC has not worked out.
Ice seemed pretty good: the Arctic is far away. But now people are paying attention.
So how will the deniers of reality claim the world is ending this time next year?
We don't need to wait until next year. This year has seen enough factual observations of cooling that are being countered with "what you see just isn't true" to give us a glimpse of future arguments. I assume we will get continued obsfuscation and rhetorical agruments in hopes that AGW activists can stall long enough to get their political agenda enacted.
Could we just rewind a couple of years. In 2007, many sceptics were telling us that the exteme ice melt was due to certain weather conditions. There was some truth in this. AGW on it's own could not explain the huge reduction in minimum ice extent in 2007. The minimum ice extent in 2009 was ~1.5 million sq km below the average 1979-2000 minimum extent. The trend is still quite definitely down and the extent still considerably lower than predicted by even the most pessimistic models.We were not supposed to be this low until 2050.
All things considered, I'd be a bit wary of calling a recovery just yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 25, 2009 10:01:11 GMT
Speaking of the kings of de nile,
How are our AGW believer friends going to rationalize away the Arctic ice after this year?
The new vs. old ice will get old after this year, and goal posts with ice volume did not really strike a chord.
Obviously the AGW community cannot keep talking about storms, sea levels or acidification, and the people in the US SE do not really want to hear about drought threats right now. OHC has not worked out.
Ice seemed pretty good: the Arctic is far away. But now people are paying attention.
So how will the deniers of reality claim the world is ending this time next year?
We don't need to wait until next year. This year has seen enough factual observations of cooling that are being countered with "what you see just isn't true" to give us a glimpse of future arguments. I assume we will get continued obsfuscation and rhetorical agruments in hopes that AGW activists can stall long enough to get their political agenda enacted. Could we just rewind a couple of years. In 2007, many sceptics were telling us that the exteme ice melt was due to certain weather conditions. There was some truth in this. AGW on it's own could not explain the huge reduction in minimum ice extent in 2007. The minimum ice extent in 2009 was ~1.5 million sq km below the average 1979-2000 minimum extent. The trend is still quite definitely down and the extent still considerably lower than predicted by even the most pessimistic models.We were not supposed to be this low until 2050. All things considered, I'd be a bit wary of calling a recovery just yet. When an apple falls from a tree an idiot predicts it is falling because of global warming When more apples fall from trees and reach the ground even more idiots then say something unprecedented is happening because of global warming |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 25, 2009 10:19:27 GMT
Speaking of the kings of de nile,
How are our AGW believer friends going to rationalize away the Arctic ice after this year?
The new vs. old ice will get old after this year, and goal posts with ice volume did not really strike a chord.
Obviously the AGW community cannot keep talking about storms, sea levels or acidification, and the people in the US SE do not really want to hear about drought threats right now. OHC has not worked out.
Ice seemed pretty good: the Arctic is far away. But now people are paying attention.
So how will the deniers of reality claim the world is ending this time next year?
We don't need to wait until next year. This year has seen enough factual observations of cooling that are being countered with "what you see just isn't true" to give us a glimpse of future arguments. I assume we will get continued obsfuscation and rhetorical agruments in hopes that AGW activists can stall long enough to get their political agenda enacted. Could we just rewind a couple of years. In 2007, many sceptics were telling us that the exteme ice melt was due to certain weather conditions. There was some truth in this. AGW on it's own could not explain the huge reduction in minimum ice extent in 2007. The minimum ice extent in 2009 was ~1.5 million sq km below the average 1979-2000 minimum extent. The trend is still quite definitely down and the extent still considerably lower than predicted by even the most pessimistic models.We were not supposed to be this low until 2050. All things considered, I'd be a bit wary of calling a recovery just yet. So really its a case of how far you go back to start your simplistic linear trend-lines. If you go back 3 or 4 years you can claim a recovery of ice - if you go back 30 years you can claim that the ice is trending down - if you go back 75 years you can claim things are level if you go back to the LIA one could claim the trend is reducing etc etc etc. The main problem here is 'the satellite era' scope that is being used. The extrapolations from this brief period are about as sensible as claiming the world is going to flood based on the last 10 minutes of observing the incoming tide. |
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Sept 25, 2009 11:10:29 GMT
glc writes "All things considered, I'd be a bit wary of calling a recovery just yet. "
First we must define what state is being recovered to. I think there are three possibilities.
1. We can be recovering to pre-2007 levels.
2. We can be recovering to the average of 1979 to 2000 levels.
3. We can be recovering to pre-1979 levels.
I suggest the data from the last 3 years suggest we are probably recovering to pre-2007 levels; i.e a loss of sea ice area of about 10% per decade.
It is a lot too soon to suggest we are recovering to 2. or 3.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 25, 2009 14:53:08 GMT
When an apple falls from a tree an idiot predicts it is falling because of global warming When more apples fall from trees and reach the ground even more idiots then say something unprecedented is happening because of global warming The idiots who won't believe falling apples might be a sign of coming winter are the dangerous ones. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 25, 2009 17:42:03 GMT
Could we just rewind a couple of years. In 2007, many sceptics were telling us that the exteme ice melt was due to certain weather conditions. There was some truth in this. AGW on it's own could not explain the huge reduction in minimum ice extent in 2007. The minimum ice extent in 2009 was ~1.5 million sq km below the average 1979-2000 minimum extent. The trend is still quite definitely down and the extent still considerably lower than predicted by even the most pessimistic models.We were not supposed to be this low until 2050. All things considered, I'd be a bit wary of calling a recovery just yet. Thats funny! The fact 2007 may have been an anomaly it has nothing whatsoever to do with any potential recovery. Once the ice is melted from whatever reason the remaining ice should be continuing to melt not growing, unless of course you can come up with a rational physical mechanism why the recently melted ice should suddenly reverse direction and recover in the face of global warming. I swear you dyed-in-the-wool alarmists will come up with any argument whatsoever to support your view and deny that ice is in fact freezing faster than it is melting on an annual basis. Very clearly the AGW alarmism was over the top. Al Gore was wrong wrong wrong wrong! Natural variation still rules and until you alarmists come up with an actual mechanism for natural variation overriding CO2 forcing. . . .you in fact have no clue whatsoever about what is really going on. . . .by your own arguments of the past. You tools of the AGW alarmism cabal can't even recognize fallacies you claimed as fallacies a couple of years ago. Fact is empirical observations have placed AGW theory in exactly the same place AGW placed skepticism two short years ago!! Yeah its fair to be skeptical of a recovery, but its at the expense of any credible argument for CO2 warming the planet. Now plaster on top the "dog ate my global warming" even the so-called science used by the alarmists about unprecedented warming can't any longer be even called science. |
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 27, 2009 3:28:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 27, 2009 16:44:14 GMT
To support AGW some have created their own reality. www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168Hockey anyone? Published and peer reviewed. The very core of AGW. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Sept 28, 2009 10:27:51 GMT
What is annoying, and should be criminal, is how these deniers are corroupting our children.  ouch OUCH!! |
|
ouch OUCH!!