|
|
Post by throttleup on Sept 19, 2012 11:54:02 GMT
As I said previously; "The earth has two poles.   |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 19, 2012 16:15:16 GMT
Even a blind squirrel. . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 19, 2012 16:34:24 GMT
Climate models (programmers) predicted the Antarctic to warm more than the Arctic. As Steve Goddard notes (and has been posted here in times past) those predictions were well advertised for many years until it became inconvenient and now the evidence is being washed to eliminate traces of their failed predictions. stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/hansen-predicted-peak-sea-ice-loss-in-antarctica/EPA deleted the paper by Hansen: www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdfbut is still in the cloud at WayBack: web.archive.org/web/20070404001809/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf Below was published around 1990. I have the source link at home available upon request although I've posted it several times. Note the Antarctic region between 1990 and 2020. Does it look like reality? According to the expert climate scientists back then, this was all based on "physics".  Thermostat, what physics changed between 1990 and today? You like to use the term "physics" loosely as if climate science is all about "physics" based on centuries old knowledge (that's what we're told AGW is), but if that were true climate models should be a true representation of the climate system. If you can find the "physics" explaining the rapid warming in the Arctic during the 20's and 30's/40's that is different than CWP, by all means post it. Consider the major glaciers of the world largely melted prior to 1950. What "physics" explains that? Warmers will need to explain the climate changes for at least the last 1000 years and separate them from the past 30 years before I'll give one smidgen of respect for AGW. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 19, 2012 16:54:17 GMT
So let me get this right. The Arctic ice extent/area is trending down over the past few decades which, according to PIOMAS, should result in a summer ice free Arctic within the next few years because ice volume is diminishing rapidly.
The Antarctic ice extent/area OTOH is trending up and is currently at/near record highs since 1979 at the same time the Arctic is doing the opposite, but somehow that also means ice volume is diminishing.
Is that how it works?
Apparently there are no Antarctic experts at NSIDC because they aren't saying anything interesting about the ice there. Where are the headlines shouting the record ice?
|
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 19, 2012 17:46:07 GMT
"Apparently there are no Antarctic experts at NSIDC because they aren't saying anything interesting about the ice there."
When we know Antarctic ice has survived 4 full global glaciation cycles, it is not of anyone's immediate concern.
Arctic ice is, or should be. The current speed of decline is enormous.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 19, 2012 18:31:14 GMT
OK Folks! Nothing to see over here just move along!
Lets look at the Arctic and then lets talk global!!
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 19, 2012 18:32:40 GMT
"Apparently there are no Antarctic experts at NSIDC because they aren't saying anything interesting about the ice there." When we know Antarctic ice has survived 4 full global glaciation cycles, it is not of anyone's immediate concern. Arctic ice is, or should be. The current speed of decline is enormous. Now why should the loss of Arctic ice be seen as a problem? You should perhaps look back at history to times when the ice was not there _before_ as is shown by wave patterns on shores that are currently ice bound. See chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/low-no-ice-arctic-5000-bc/ It appears that 5000BC the Sahara was a green and pleasant land with cows being herded. Perhaps that is the concern of the AGW Malthusians that if the world becomes more fertile then there could be more and less hungry humans and that would never do. |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 19, 2012 22:18:03 GMT
"Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record"  "Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year). Please, nobody tell the mainstream media or they might have to retract some stories and admit they are misrepresenting scientific data." www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/ |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 20, 2012 1:20:37 GMT
"Apparently there are no Antarctic experts at NSIDC because they aren't saying anything interesting about the ice there." When we know Antarctic ice has survived 4 full global glaciation cycles, it is not of anyone's immediate concern. Arctic ice is, or should be. The current speed of decline is enormous. Arctic ice is, or should be. The current speed of decline is enormous. Is that a new law just recently discovered? Where do such unsupported hypotheses originate? The Arctic warmed at a higher rate in the 20's and 30's. Here's one from 1873: paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=ST18730328.2.20The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.stevengoddard.wordpress.com/polar-meltdown/ |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Sept 20, 2012 6:01:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 20, 2012 15:12:13 GMT
Its probably reasonable to conclude less ice now than then, but I agree claiming unprecedented rates in ice loss is totally without any scientific merit.
If world termperatures have been rising for the past 140 years and they probably have, despite how hard Phil Jones tried to destroy the credibility of his own work and that of his predecessor which forms the basis for all surface records. . . .it follows logically that if its warmer there would be somewhat less ice.
I did point out though to Tstat that the observations of his 1938 map are very similar with ice edge observations at 82degN then and maybe 83degN today. A 60 mile ice retreat is hardly a lot to get excited about even if it is the record lowest observation in the 30 year satellite record.
|
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 20, 2012 20:37:47 GMT
" A 60 mile ice retreat is hardly a lot to get excited about even if it is the record lowest observation in the 30 year satellite record." 60 miles? Did I not show you the difference on the Beaufort sea between 1854 and 2012? That is hard-ly 60 miles, more like 600 miles+.   |
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 20, 2012 23:06:30 GMT
Pole reversal?
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 20, 2012 23:31:53 GMT
60 miles? Did I not show you the difference on the Beaufort sea between 1854 and 2012? That is hard-ly 60 miles, more like 600 miles+.
In various years at various locations ice retreats over the past 75 to 150 years the current ice edge minimum has been within 60 miles of where it was then.
There are no viable arguments against short term ice loss there is also no viable argument for a single increasing variable uniformly and greatly diminishing the ice. That argument flies out the window with periodic observations of meager ice loss.
In fact the argument that ice fluctuates greatly wins hands down unless you can make the observations of meager ice loss go away. Observations that ice loss has at times been great simply reinforces the argument that ice loss fluctuates.
So,
1) If ice loss were meager and observed to be consistently meager (say 60 miles) then one can strongly that ice loss has been meager. That argument has been disproven.
2) If ice loss were great and observed to be consistently great (say 600 miles) then one can argue strongly that ice loss has been great. That argument likewise has been disproven.
3) If ice loss has been observed to sometimes be 600 miles and other times 60 miles and that sometimes the older observations are 600 and sometimes 60 less than current observations, then it is proven that ice fluctuates.
I am only arguing for number 3. Which one are you arguing for?
Its not clear what you are arguing for because it should not take a genius to figure out
that anecdotal evidence of 600 mile retreats does not defeat argument #3. Your only course for an argument to claim #2 is correct is to refute the older 60 mile retreat observations.
So since you cannot do that is obfuscation now the strategy du jour? Hide the declines? Reading the Captain Midnight decoder ring?
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 21, 2012 3:42:06 GMT
|
|
