|
Post by thermostat on Sept 22, 2012 5:08:16 GMT
icefisher,
Do you seriously think that your personal gripe merits a scientific publication?
Really?
About what?In the absence of reference its a bias. People who are biased are not independent. People who are not independent should not be believed. Actually that's a standard for the financial sector, including the requirement of reference, for good reasons. Can you think of any good reasons why it should not be a standard for the science and public servant sector? I didn't think so! Again, my interest in this subject is in geophysics.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 22, 2012 6:08:20 GMT
In the absence of reference its a bias. People who are biased are not independent. People who are not independent should not be believed.
Actually that's a standard for the financial sector, including the requirement of reference, for good reasons. Can you think of any good reasons why it should not be a standard for the science and public servant sector?
I didn't think so!
Again, my interest in this subject is in geophysics.
Is your interest hampered by credibility?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Sept 22, 2012 6:21:48 GMT
In the absence of reference its a bias. People who are biased are not independent. People who are not independent should not be believed.
Actually that's a standard for the financial sector, including the requirement of reference, for good reasons. Can you think of any good reasons why it should not be a standard for the science and public servant sector?
I didn't think so!Again, my interest in this subject is in geophysics.Is your interest hampered by credibility? icefisher, My interest is in geophysics. You wrote "Is your interest hampered by credibility?" I have no idea what you are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 22, 2012 8:18:31 GMT
icefisher, My interest is in geophysics. You wrote "Is your interest hampered by credibility?"
I have no idea what you are talking about.
well then obviously credibility is not a great concern for you.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Sept 22, 2012 12:46:31 GMT
North and south together because one was all melted and the other not. Mr Stieg must have measured with one thermometer. Photoshop knew better. "A paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds the Antarctic Peninsula has experienced a “significant accumulation” of “up to 45 meters of extra ice thickness over the past 155 years.” This finding is contrary to the claims of the highly-flawed study published by RealClimate’s Dr. Eric Steig, which alleged that the Antarctic Peninsula is rapidly warming. The finding is particularly surprising since the “significant accumulation” of ice has occurred since the end of the Little Ice Age in ~ 1850. " icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 22, 2012 18:14:02 GMT
The significance of 2012, from Tamino Annual minima: numerouno, I think the graph of Antarctic Sea Ice Minumum is most relevent to the present discussion. It is different from the graph of the sea ice minimum in the Arctic as we can see. It shows, that unlike the Arctic, the Antarctic minimum is hardly changing over 30 years. But, hmmm... The Antarctic maximum is increasing... right? Obviously, the whole system is different in the south compared with the north. In the south, sea ice extent maximum is increasing while sea ice extent minimum is staying much the same. Factor in the evidence that West Antartica is warming while East Antartica is holding steady and a picture of events in the south begins to form. The distinct physical processes that affect a polar continent surrounded by ocean are conspicuously different from the processes that affect a polar ocean surrounded by continents. It should be no suprise that the northern and southern systems are behaving differently. The interesting question is to explain the events in Antarctica. It should be no suprise that the northern and southern systems are behaving differently.
;D ;D ;D Do you have anything to support that statement? Climate models predicted the opposite of Tamino's graph of Antarctic ice, which comprises 90% of the world's ice.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 22, 2012 19:09:58 GMT
It should be no suprise that the northern and southern systems are behaving differently.
;D ;D ;D Do you have anything to support that statement? Climate models predicted the opposite of Tamino's graph of Antarctic ice, which comprises 90% of the world's ice. Its no surprise they behave differently as they are subject to natural internal variation that is different at the polls. Where Tstat goes off track is in being convinced that the arctic is showing longterm affects from a well mixed atmospheric gas while the antarctic is showing no signs of such an effect. Here Tstat buys the suggestion that some mysterious process of energetic rays getting through the earth's high frequency shield is causing ice growth. At least the cosmic ray folks built the "Cloud 9" laboratory to demonstrate their theory had some scientific merit. The ozone heads want to get by with arm waving. Unfortunately here again arm waving instead of scientific reference is artificially propped as "scientific understanding".
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Sept 22, 2012 20:09:37 GMT
Open water at the Arctic will release masses of energy at this end of a melt season sounds like a negative feedback.
Rememmber it was the non floating ice that was the problem that would lift sea levels Greenland is small relative to the Antarctic and it will be all melted in a quarter of a million years, but the Antarctic is growing. I suggest more computers, more models, and more summits could get the planets death back on track observed from a Swiss apartment paid by the UN. It's not a conspiracy it's greed from the ruling class, the most dangerous people on the planet who have brought us Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler to mention a few, yes they are do good socialists. They make bankers look like nice folk.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 22, 2012 20:33:18 GMT
It should be no suprise that the northern and southern systems are behaving differently.
;D ;D ;D Do you have anything to support that statement? Climate models predicted the opposite of Tamino's graph of Antarctic ice, which comprises 90% of the world's ice. Its no surprise they behave differently as they are subject to natural internal variation that is different at the polls. Where Tstat goes off track is in being convinced that the arctic is showing longterm affects from a well mixed atmospheric gas while the antarctic is showing no signs of such an effect. Here Tstat buys the suggestion that some mysterious process of energetic rays getting through the earth's high frequency shield is causing ice growth. At least the cosmic ray folks built the "Cloud 9" laboratory to demonstrate their theory had some scientific merit. The ozone heads want to get by with arm waving. Unfortunately here again arm waving instead of scientific reference is artificially propped as "scientific understanding". hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-high.htmlThis sums up Tstat and Numo's MO: is.gd/9O6qsS'As a result what passes for science includes, opinion, arguments-from-authority, dramatic press releases, and fuzzy notions of consensus generated by preselected groups. This is not science'
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Sept 23, 2012 2:53:03 GMT
"This is not science"
Magellan, I agree. This is some intriguingly weird and morbid psychology. See you folks again the summer of 2013!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 23, 2012 5:31:24 GMT
"This is not science" Magellan, I agree. This is some intriguingly weird and morbid psychology. See you folks again the summer of 2013! Posting a map of mid-1800's, then a satellite map of 2012 claiming it is evidence of AGW is pseudoscience. Posting a glacier from 1941, then the same glacier from 2004 and claiming it is evidence of AGW, is pseudoscience. Worse, it is fraud when a so-called "science" website does it that is financed by taxpayer dollars. You are proficient at obfuscation and hiding peas under cups. That's what charlatans do. See if this goes over your head: epa.gov/climatechange/kids/impacts/signs/glaciers.htmlWith the text: Glaciers all over the world have been melting for at least the last 50 years, and the rate of melting is speeding up. Many glaciers in Alaska and other parts of the United States have shrunk dramatically. 50 years? How about 200+ years! They are indoctrinating young skulls full of mush with lies and half-truths; propaganda. Note they left out the picture from 1950. The vast majority of glacier melt occurred prior to 1950. gallery.usgs.gov/images/climate_change/2008_10_6/medium/Molnia%20-%20Fig%2017B%20-%20Field%20-%201950.jpgThat's the sort of crap you try to pull off. What part of this don't you understand? Now we must contend with your ilk trying to convince the public no matter what happens, it is always in agreement with AGW.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 23, 2012 5:42:38 GMT
An accounting of Glacier National Park by Keith Fellbaum who worked there beginning in 1963 when scientists weren't hand picked to promote the political agenda of their masters. www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/article_51fc3a44-4f3f-11df-a1a9-001cc4c03286.htmlThe recent news release concerning the melting glaciers in Glacier National Park seems somewhat deceptive. I am a National Park Service retiree. I started my career in Glacier National Park in 1963 and attended my first park staff meeting in September of 1963.
At that meeting the United States Geological Survey staff presented the results of their annual glacier monitoring program and reported that the park glaciers were continuing to shrink. They assured the park staff that the glaciers would eventually disappear, but would not make any time predictions.
The park superintendent thanked the USGS for their effort and took the opportunity to remind the staff that the park was named Glacier because of the park topography that was formed by the action of continental glaciers thousands of years ago, not because glaciers existed in the park. It was understood and accepted by the National Park Service and the United States Geological Survey that the park glaciers were a remnant of the last ice age and would eventually melt.
It is disconcerting to hear government professionals now blame the ice melting on anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming.
The USGS wondered 50 years ago why glaciers remained in the park when the mountains north and south of the park at the same elevations did not have glaciers. The USGS of 50 years ago also would not have claimed that the disappearance of glaciers would result in uncontrolled wildfire threats. A review of the hydrology involved is needed.
The park master plan that was in place at the time specified a visitor center at the foot of Lake McDonald and the park staff was recommending an audio-visual presentation in a theater facing the head of the lake. The presentation would illustrate on screen a glacial landscape followed by movement and melting of the ice and finally curtains would open to show the existing landscape.
One of the objectives was to show the park visitor what a glacier was and could do, because it was understood that they would soon be gone.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 23, 2012 6:23:30 GMT
is.gd/hJWbTCWe were told 20+ years ago (my first exposure was Hansen in 1988) the world's premier climate experts integrated basic physics in their climate models. We were told the Antarctic would warm faster than the Arctic by a substantial amount. Many fell for it, including me for a number of years. After all they were professionals working for the government, and were very convincing. Then years later some of us noted things didn't appear to be panning out like the "scientists" predicted. Hmm, maybe they're full of *hit I thought. After the hockey stick fraud was exposed in 2005, that was the last straw for me. It appears Numerouno has taken an extended absence from this forum. Maybe Thermostat can explain why expert scientists got it so wrong and why we should believe the same charlatans today.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Sept 24, 2012 12:41:30 GMT
We were just getting a handle on what our CFC daliance would lead to in terms of ozone loss and strat temp issues back then Mags? Don't frat the Peninsula juts out beyond the 'splendid isolation that the strengthened circumpolar winds/current has placed Antarctica in so you can see what awaits the rest of the continent once the ozone heals? (i see it's a smaller hole this year?). As it is you may be in luck and the extra energy that the Arctic 'Albedo Flip' has placed into the system might just be enough to overcome the wind/current issues and flood the continent with it's warmth? Anyhows the higher trop is now letting it's heat extend down to just above the mountain peaks in the Antarctic and the southern ocean has craftily undercut the current , via the canyons, and was already beyonf P.I.G. complex 2 years ago so maybe we'll see a nice big Ross calve this summer to comfirm it's arrival there?
Whichever way it goes , top down or bottom up the 'waiting game' draws to a close and we can get on with the business of seeing just how fast and ice sheet can drain?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2012 14:48:13 GMT
We were just getting a handle on what our CFC daliance would lead to in terms of ozone loss and strat temp issues back then Mags? Don't frat the Peninsula juts out beyond the 'splendid isolation that the strengthened circumpolar winds/current has placed Antarctica in so you can see what awaits the rest of the continent once the ozone heals? (i see it's a smaller hole this year?). Do you have a scientific link to this theory? Its always a good idea to read up on the matter as simply engaging a bunch of ozone heads typically does not end up being educational. As it is you may be in luck and the extra energy that the Arctic 'Albedo Flip' has placed into the system might just be enough to overcome the wind/current issues and flood the continent with it's warmth?Yeah one never knows! The straw that broke the camels back eh? Anything is possible. Anyhows the higher trop is now letting it's heat extend down to just above the mountain peaks in the Antarctic and the southern ocean has craftily undercut the current , via the canyons, and was already beyonf P.I.G. complex 2 years ago so maybe we'll see a nice big Ross calve this summer to comfirm it's arrival there?
The mailman may always knock on the door but a knock on the door does not confirm its the mailman. Whichever way it goes , top down or bottom up the 'waiting game' draws to a close and we can get on with the business of seeing just how fast and ice sheet can drain?Yep, we will know soon! You hold your breath and I will count!
|
|