Further to the global warming crises that is seeing ice melt at unprecedented levels scientists on a global warming junket to Antartica have become stuck in ice after retracing Mawsons 1912 voyage where apparently he had no trouble at all 100 years ago sailing in and out of an ice free bay  ;D


Gets funnier by the day  ;D

But the models said there'd be no ice......

How feckin funny, talk about a ship (full) of fools

Rider wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 9:44pm:

But the models said there'd be no ice......

You obviously didn't get the memo, its recently been updated to ... the models said there will be sh#tloads of ice  ;D

Hilarious  ;D


This is pathological.



So what does a warmist like Turney do when he’s trapped in ice? Simple: blame global warming for not melting what global warming should have:


Q: Dr Adam Rutherford: The fact that it’s expanding, that - that sounds counter-intuitive, when we talk about the polar ice caps melting, as a result of global warming.

A: Prof Chris Turney:  Yeah, well, it’s a fascinating thing, isn’t it, really. Ultimately, global warming covers a vast array of different responses by our planet. And one of the fascinating things that we’re seeing is suggestions that large parts of the oceans off East Antarctica are actually getting fresher. And yet you’ve got this expanding sea ice, and one of the ideas we’re testing out here is this idea that when you’re melting the sea ice around the East Antarctic coastal fringes, at depth - not from air temperature but from warmer oceans - what you’re doing is you’re putting that fresh water from the Antarctic ice sheets into the oceans. It’s lighter, it’s less dense than salt water, so it floats to the surface relatively, and then it’s more vulnerable to freezing. And hence you get an expansion of sea ice cover. So that’s one idea that we’re testing at the moment.


;D

What is phase change? What is non linearity?? What is turbulence??? What is entropy???? The uncertainty principle sells but is it worth buying?????

So, dear innocent: WHAT IS PHASE CHANGE?

Rider wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 9:44pm:

But the models said there'd be no ice...... How feckin funny, talk about a ship (full) of fools

Which models? When i first visited this forum i was hounded for sources!

A good laugh, but then it is 'dam sick of these activist dressing themselves as scientists'

Another nail in the AGW brain trust.

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 9:49pm:

Hilarious  ;D This is pathological. So what does a warmist like Turney do when he’s trapped in ice? Simple: blame global warming for not melting what global warming should have: Q: Dr Adam Rutherford: The fact that it’s expanding, that - that sounds counter-intuitive, when we talk about the polar ice caps melting, as a result of global warming. A: Prof Chris Turney:  Yeah, well, it’s a fascinating thing, isn’t it, really. Ultimately, global warming covers a vast array of different responses by our planet. And one of the fascinating things that we’re seeing is suggestions that large parts of the oceans off East Antarctica are actually getting fresher. And yet you’ve got this expanding sea ice, and one of the ideas we’re testing out here is this idea that when you’re melting the sea ice around the East Antarctic coastal fringes, at depth - not from air temperature but from warmer oceans - what you’re doing is you’re putting that fresh water from the Antarctic ice sheets into the oceans. It’s lighter, it’s less dense than salt water, so it floats to the surface relatively, and then it’s more vulnerable to freezing. And hence you get an expansion of sea ice cover. So that’s one idea that we’re testing at the moment. ;D

Water is made 'more vulnerable to freezing' by global warming, don't you know.

dp

<sigh> OK. You picked your cherry, so I'll pick mine.

Iceland's vanishing ice
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/12/12fotos/Myrdalsjokull-Glacier-768.jpg
The Myrdalsjokull Glacier in southern Iceland. The country is shedding ice at an alarming rate, threatening a culture where ice is an everyday part of life. Photo by Malcome Browne/flickr.
Dec. 18, 2013
A land forged by fire and ice is losing the latter. And with the glaciers go a cultural and societal touchstone – for without ice, Iceland 'is just land.'

A Climate at Your Doorstep story.

By Cheryl Katz

The Daily Climate

Editor's note: This story is part of an ongoing effort at The Daily Climate to explore climate change impacts hitting society here and now. Find more stories like this here.
SOLHEIMAJOKULL, Iceland – A fierce wind shrieks down the glacier slope, flinging ice and grit like a weather-witch from an old Icelandic saga.

The glacier, Solheimajokull, a tongue of ice reaching toward Iceland's southeast coast, has become an apologue of climate change in recent years: Retreating an average of one Olympic pool-length every year for the past two decades due to climbing temperatures, warming ocean currents and disrupted seasons.

Crouching under 90-mile-an-hour gusts on a stormy autumn day, visitors to Solheimajokull see a rash of dirt cones poking through grey-streaked snow, while piles of rocks, gravel moraines and a now-empty glacial bed about a half-mile away attest to the former reach of this dying giant.

Iceland, lying just below the Arctic Circle, is one of the fastest-warming places on the planet – as much a four times the Northern Hemisphere average. The 300-some glaciers that cover more than 10 percent of the island are losing an average of 11 billion tons of ice a year.

http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/12/12fotos/Bjornsson-250T.jpg
The annual volume carried away from Iceland's glaciers and not replaced by new snow would fill 50 of the world's largest trucks every minute for the entire year.

'Highest losses on Earth'
"It is among the highest losses on the Earth," said pioneering glaciologist Helgi Bjornsson during an interview in his office at the University of Iceland's Institute of Earth Sciences, overflowing with 40 years of research and books about ice.

Subject of ancient myth, a proud literary tradition and a lucrative tourist draw, Iceland's majestic white mountains – jökull in Icelandic – are crucial to the nation today. Glacial rivers generate hydropower that provides most of the country's electricity. Glacier ice stores water for its 320,000 residents.

Some of the country's glaciers have vanished already and several others will be gone within a decade or two, said Bjornsson, one of the leading scientists to quantify the link between glacial loss and greenhouse gas-induced warming.

A generation from now there may not be enough water to drive turbines or slake a nation's thirst. Dust storms will swirl over dry glacier beds while huge expanses of exposed earth erode.

Without glaciers, one resident quipped, Iceland is "just land."

Happening now
Effects are already beginning to appear. Bjornsson tells of Iceland's longest bridge, a half-mile span over the Skeidara River which drains from the massive Vatnajokull ice cap down to the island's south coast.

"A few years ago, the river disappeared and now this bridge, the longest bridge in Iceland, is just standing there, and there's no water underneath it," he said. "So it looks like we are crazy here in Iceland."

On this Kentucky-sized island one is never far from the ice – look up from just about anywhere and you'll see towering white peaks and hanging glacier-filled valleys – and Icelanders are feeling its loss in a variety of ways.

http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/12/12fotos/Hallgrimsson-350.jpg

Magnus Hallgrimsson has spent a lifetime on the ice. The wiry octogenarian is vice-president of the Iceland Glaciological Society, a group of volunteers who have conducted annual surveys of the island's glaciers since 1950, and has been assisting Iceland Search and Rescue since 1948. An avid sportsman, he's made numerous glacial ascents and crossed the island's massive interior ice field many times, as the photos lining his Reykjavik apartment attest.

A path of 'just gravel'
In the past few years, Hallgrimsson said, some of the glaciers he frequents have begun to disappear. He's measured retreats of as much as one third of a mile: "The tail of the glacier goes back and leaves just gravel." And the melt, which he first noticed in the mid-1980s, is accelerating. "In the last years in the lower areas of the Tindfjallajokull (a glacier in the southern highlands)," he said, "all the snow is gone."

[continued ...]

[... continued]

Iceland's ice caps – the largest in Europe outside of Greenland – have waned 6 percent since 1995, with lower glaciers like Solheimajokull, an outlet of the Myrdalsjokull ice cap, shrinking much faster. Because Iceland’s warming began more than a decade later than in Europe and North America, that decline signals a very rapid change.

And with the melt rate speeding up as climate change effects intensify and feed off each other, Iceland could lose 30 percent of its glacial mass by 2050 according to Bjornsson.

If temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the next century – the maximum acceptable increase set by nations at the United Nations climate talks – Bjornsson calculates that Iceland's glaciers will be no more than small "ice museums" atop the highest peaks as early as the mid-2100s.

'Nailed and tied it down'
Artist Vigdis Bjarnadottir read an article in her morning paper last year about a new study by Bjornsson and colleagues predicting that the glacier she had grown up near – scenic Snaefellsjokull on the island's western peninsula – could be gone within 20 years.

"I was very shocked," said Bjarnadottir, who spent her childhood in the village of Olafsvik, at the foot of the rising glacier

http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/12/12fotos/Snaefellsjokull-painting-400.jpg

"This is my favorite mountain. We can see it from Reykjavik on a good day, always so beautiful," said the retired presidential secretary, who now lives in Gardabaer, just south of the capital. The news inspired her to create a painting of the mountain, with tacks and strings crossing its glacial peaks.

"As we do not want the Snaefellsjokull Glacier to disappear," she declared emphatically, "I have nailed and tied it down."

The painting, exhibited in a western Iceland art exhibit last summer, also shows a half-man half-giant named Bardur Snaefellsas. According to Icelandic lore, Bardur was one of the region's earliest settlers, and descended into the glacier more than a century ago to become a guardian of the land. But the giant seems to be off-duty these days – the glacier already looks much smaller to Bjarnadottir.

"You are able to see new landscape, new black lava cliffs," she said "where there was ice some years ago."

Travel photos more than a century old provide stark illustration for Bjornsson. The pictures of southwestern glacier Kotarjokull were taken by English explorer Frederick W.W. Howell as he made the first ascent of Hvannadalshnukur, Iceland's highest peak, in 1891. Two years ago, researchers visited the same spots and took new photographs.

Comparing the old and new photos, Bjornsson and colleagues determined that Kotarjokull had lost 20 percent of its volume since Howell's visit. While ice remained at the glacier's top, lower areas that had been covered 120 years ago were now completely bare.

Tourism at risk
The land of fire and ice has become a growing tourist destination in recent years, with more than two-thirds of a million international visitors in 2012, according to the Icelandic Tourist Board. Lured by its glacial beauty and recreational opportunities, tourists spent a record 238 billion Icelandic kronur (about $2 billion U.S.) here last year, putting the industry second to fishing as the island's biggest foreign money-maker.

http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/12/12fotos/Skeidara-Bridge-550.jpg

But the warming climate's assault is already evident at some popular attractions, such as Solheimajokull, where two would-be ice climbers from Germany stared dejectedly at the wind-swept dirt on that howling autumn day, then trudged back to their van and drove away.

Not all Icelanders see their country's shrinking glaciers as a bad thing. Glaciers historically posed a looming threat to nearby cities and farms, which lost land to advancing ice and were occasionally destroyed by sudden glacial outbursts called jokulhlaups, said University of Iceland engineer Finnur Palsson, a frequent collaborator on Bjornsson's research. As glaciers recede, he said, the danger from jokulhlaups may lessen.

"Also some very fertile land is coming from under the glaciers that can be utilized," said Palsson. "Another good thing from the energy point of view is there's more water to harness for the power stations."

And many Icelanders don't mind the weather being a little bit warmer.

Economic boon
"In reality, the negative impacts are relatively few," Palsson said, "if you look at the point of view of us living here."

Indeed, thawing ice could provide a much-needed economic boon to this country still struggling to recover from its 2008 fiscal collapse. Iceland's president Olafur Ragnar Grimsson is promoting plans for a major sea port on the island's north-east coast to serve new shipping routes on the opening Arctic Ocean. The government hopes to make Iceland an Arctic business hub and trading partner for countries like China seeking the anticipated oil and gas bounty exposed by receding Arctic ice.

[continued ...]

[... continued]

http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2013/12/12fotos/1967-400.jpg

What's more, Iceland's glaciers have advanced and retreated several times in the 11 centuries that humans have lived there, leading many to see the current retreat as part of a temporary, natural cycle.

"The glaciers have always been going up and down," said Hallgrimsson, who noted that early settlers faced considerably less ice than do residents today. "It looks like we are getting a period similar to around 900 (A.D.)

"Of course nobody knows."

Making the invisible visible
"People see it as 'business as usual,'" said Asdis Jonsdottir, science policy advisor for the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, who examined the development of Icelanders' scientific knowledge on glaciers and climate change in her recent doctoral dissertation. As part of her research, she accompanied the Glaciological Society on four glacier-measuring trips.

Time and again, Jonsdottir said, the surveyors showed her signs that the glaciers were shrinking, describing how much higher the ice used to reach or pointing out now-visible features that were once covered.

"You always have these stories, 'My first time on the glacier, it went up to there,'" Jonsdottir said, waving an arm toward the ceiling of her Reykjavik office. "And there are new islands coming up out of the ice. We visit them and people talk about that."

But for all their discussion of Iceland's retreating glaciers, the surveyors made little or no mention of climate change, Jonsdottir said. "Experiencing these changes didn't necessarily mean it was becoming a real issue for them."

Poetry in the ice
Bjornsson, who recently retired, has faced similar reactions since his studies first predicted that carbon dioxide put out by burning fossil fuels would melt away Iceland's glaciers in the not-too-distant future.

"We were told this was speculation," Bjornsson said. "But everything we said has come true.... The change in glaciers in Iceland is now even faster than we predicted from our models in the mid-90s."

The demise of Iceland's glaciers is especially poignant for Bjornsson, who spent two months every year on the ice for much of his working life, including 11 years as president of the Iceland Glaciological Society. Paging through a book of stunning photographs of glaciers that he took over the years, he stops at a photo of Vatnajokull, his favorite glacier, where he conducted most of his research. It was near here that he developed his life-long fascination with glaciers while manning a weather station for a summer job before college.

"I don't know whether I can explain this in English, and perhaps not even in Icelandic, but … when you're on the ice, it's endless white, and then the sky…. You can have a variety of colors and reflections … the evening when you start to see shadows...," Bjornsson said.

"I have been asked to write a poem about this," he added, "but I'm not a poet."


Or we could look at the whole picture, instead of cherry-picking.

Rider wrote on Dec 30^th, 2013 at 9:44pm:

But the models said there'd be no ice...... How feckin funny, talk about a ship (full) of fools

Let me guess - Cindy Crawford?

Innocent bystanders got his arse handed to him on plate again.

Stop making it so easy.   One ship caught in ice does not prove a global conspiracy. And what was that about super models again ?

The denialist argument in summary:

---

I'll see your one retreateting glacier and raise you 2000 growing glaciers http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/ImaPoser.gif


India - Record snowfall revives 2,000 glaciers 
17 Feb 11 - Already more snowfall this month than
1998 record for the entire month. Think you'll see
this in the mainstream media?
See India - Record snowfall revives 2,000 glaciers 


http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

;D





http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/ait_mawson.jpg

Soren wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 7:05am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 30th, 2013 at 9:49pm: Hilarious  ;D This is pathological. So what does a warmist like Turney do when he’s trapped in ice? Simple: blame global warming for not melting what global warming should have: Q: Dr Adam Rutherford: The fact that it’s expanding, that - that sounds counter-intuitive, when we talk about the polar ice caps melting, as a result of global warming. A: Prof Chris Turney:  Yeah, well, it’s a fascinating thing, isn’t it, really. Ultimately, global warming covers a vast array of different responses by our planet. And one of the fascinating things that we’re seeing is suggestions that large parts of the oceans off East Antarctica are actually getting fresher. And yet you’ve got this expanding sea ice, and one of the ideas we’re testing out here is this idea that when you’re melting the sea ice around the East Antarctic coastal fringes, at depth - not from air temperature but from warmer oceans - what you’re doing is you’re putting that fresh water from the Antarctic ice sheets into the oceans. It’s lighter, it’s less dense than salt water, so it floats to the surface relatively, and then it’s more vulnerable to freezing. And hence you get an expansion of sea ice cover. So that’s one idea that we’re testing at the moment. ;D Water is made 'more vulnerable to freezing' by global warming, don't you know.

Black is actually white!

Innocent bystander wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 8:55am:

I'll see your one retreateting glacier and raise you 2000 growing glaciers http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/ImaPoser.gif India - Record snowfall revives 2,000 glaciers  17 Feb 11 - Already more snowfall this month than 1998 record for the entire month. Think you'll see this in the mainstream media? See India - Record snowfall revives 2,000 glaciers  http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

Innocent has never heard of the hydro cycle??  :o

Yep. record 'warmth' in the USSR is causing Global Warming.

NOAA data doesn't fit with RSS or UAH data/

'Satellite data rejects NASA’s claim of ‘hottest’ November: UAH Nov 2013 9th warmest Nov (0.20 C cooler than warmest Nov.) — RSS Nov 2013 16th warmest Nov (0.22 C cooler than warmest Nov.)

Satellites: UAH (University of Alabama in Huntsville) Nov 2013 9th warmest Nov (0.20 C cooler than warmest Nov.)
RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) Nov 2013 16th warmest Nov (0.22 C cooler than warmest Nov.)'

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/12/18/satellite-data-counters-nasas-claim-of-hottest-november-uah-nov-2013-9th-warmest-nov-0-20-c-cooler-than-warmest-nov-rss-nov-2013-16th-warmest-nov-0-22-c-cooler-than-warmest-nov/

It's amazing how pig ignorant some people are when they don't realise that fresh water freezes at a temperature where salt water remains liquid. If there is more meltwater, there is more fresh water. 

The salt in seawater acts as an "antifreeze". I suppose you'd regard freezing point depression as "just a model".
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/8/3/583484d5d7d30f3f4d38e764fd42ec4b.png

where TF is the normal freezing point of the pure solvent (0oC for water for example); aliq is the activity of the solution (water activity for aqueous solution); ΔHfusTF is the enthalpy change of fusion of the pure solvent at TF, which is 333.6 J/g for water at 0oC; ΔCfusp is the differences of heat capacity between the liquid and solid phases at TF, which is 2.11 J/g/K for water.

'While their ship was imprisoned in the ice off Antarctica, the crew of the Endurance melted the sea ice and used it for their drinking water. How is that possible? Why wasn't it too salty?

The reason has to do with the behavior of ocean water when it freezes. When salt water freezes, much of the salt is expelled from the ice or gets trapped in pockets of salty liquid water within the ice. Eventually, most of the salt makes its way into the water just under the ice. This creates a layer of water under the ice that is saltier than the water below it. Because this layer of cold salty water is very dense, it sinks to the bottom levels of the ocean. As it sinks, it is replaced by water that is either warmer, less salty, or both. As ice continues to form, expelling more salt into the surface waters, this new layer of water in turn becomes saltier and it begins to sink, too. In this way, water circulates under the sea ice in a cycle that lasts the entire Antarctic winter. '

http://www.studyofplace.info/Activities/Activity.cfm?ActivityId=3

Send more helicopters........

The good ship Al Gore is still frozen in the "warm" ice..........we're globally stuck.....

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/scripts/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/plugins/imagemanager/files/Kremlik/frozen-gore.jpg

lee wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 11:52am:

'While their ship was imprisoned in the ice off Antarctica, the crew of the Endurance melted the sea ice and used it for their drinking water. How is that possible? Why wasn't it too salty? The reason has to do with the behavior of ocean water when it freezes. When salt water freezes, much of the salt is expelled from the ice or gets trapped in pockets of salty liquid water within the ice. Eventually, most of the salt makes its way into the water just under the ice. This creates a layer of water under the ice that is saltier than the water below it. Because this layer of cold salty water is very dense, it sinks to the bottom levels of the ocean. As it sinks, it is replaced by water that is either warmer, less salty, or both. As ice continues to form, expelling more salt into the surface waters, this new layer of water in turn becomes saltier and it begins to sink, too. In this way, water circulates under the sea ice in a cycle that lasts the entire Antarctic winter. ' http://www.studyofplace.info/Activities/Activity.cfm?ActivityId=3

All of which is true, however  ocean water freezes at a higher temperature when it contains less salt.

Another red herring. Where did you get that one from?

Muso says - Another red herring. Where did you get that one from?

Sorry muso, couldn't you read the attribution?

Just for you.
http://www.studyofplace.info/Activities/Activity.cfm?ActivityId=3

When science and religion clash  ;D

lee wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 9:51pm:

Muso says - Another red herring. Where did you get that one from? Sorry muso, couldn't you read the attribution? ...

I believe the question was: Where did you get that one from?

Judging by your history, you spend a great deal of time trawling denialist blogs, seeking out those who say what you what to hear. So; which denialist blog provided your red herring?

# wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 10:04am:

lee wrote on Dec 31st, 2013 at 9:51pm: Muso says - Another red herring. Where did you get that one from? Sorry muso, couldn't you read the attribution? ... I believe the question was: Where did you get that one from? Judging by your history, you spend a great deal of time trawling denialist blogs, seeking out those who say what you what to hear. So; which denialist blog provided your red herring?

Precisely. The attribution is where I got it from. The How I got it is Simple - Google.

It wasn't a red herring. Muso provided a mathematical expression; I provided a written expression. I was not decrying his work at all, merely providing another option to view.

You do realise how paranoid you sound, don't you?

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 10:54am:

... Precisely. The attribution is where I got it from. The How I got it is Simple - Google.

So you say your red herring arose from your attempt to interpret what you're not qualified to interpret.


lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 10:54am:

... It wasn't a red herring. ...

I believe muso explained that it is.

No muso claimed that it was. Proof to support your theory of red herring?

# wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 10:04am:

lee wrote on Dec 31st, 2013 at 9:51pm: Muso says - Another red herring. Where did you get that one from? Sorry muso, couldn't you read the attribution? ... I believe the question was: Where did you get that one from? Judging by your history, you spend a great deal of time trawling denialist blogs, seeking out those who say what you what to hear. So; which denialist blog provided your red herring?

Ah, details details: "we're gonna catch some fish today boyyyyyyyyyyyyysss <rubs hands with cheeky smile>"!!

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 10:54am:

# wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 10:04am: lee wrote on Dec 31st, 2013 at 9:51pm: Muso says - Another red herring. Where did you get that one from? Sorry muso, couldn't you read the attribution? ... I believe the question was: Where did you get that one from? Judging by your history, you spend a great deal of time trawling denialist blogs, seeking out those who say what you what to hear. So; which denialist blog provided your red herring? Precisely. The attribution is where I got it from. The How I got it is Simple - Google. It wasn't a red herring. Muso provided a mathematical expression; I provided a written expression. I was not decrying his work at all, merely providing another option to view. You do realise how paranoid you sound, don't you?

Hes questioning your moral compass to see if you're actually a moron or just pretending! Don't like questions or something mate??

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 11:54am:

No muso claimed that it was. Proof to support your theory of red herring?

Lol, circle work time is it?????????

lee wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 11:54am:

No muso claimed that it was. Proof to support your theory of red herring?

I believe muso explained it.

All this going around in circles is dizzying.  ;)

# wrote on Jan 1^st, 2014 at 12:44pm:

lee wrote on Jan 1st, 2014 at 11:54am: No muso claimed that it was. Proof to support your theory of red herring? I believe muso explained it. All this going around in circles is dizzying.  ;)

Some would say satisfying but only the fascistic warmongering class sowing confusion to normalise a whipped cream brained sheeple eager to let the status quo live and let live unchallenged!

Apparently weather conditions have eased and the ship of climate warmist fools may be airlifted today.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 31^st, 2013 at 10:26am:

Soren wrote on Dec 31st, 2013 at 7:05am: Water is made 'more vulnerable to freezing' by global warming, don't you know. Black is actually white!

Ve so evil, ve make ze poor little innocent water vulnerable to freezing.
Mwhoaaa......

Soren wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 9:02am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 31st, 2013 at 10:26am: Soren wrote on Dec 31st, 2013 at 7:05am: Water is made 'more vulnerable to freezing' by global warming, don't you know. Black is actually white! Ve so evil, ve make ze poor little innocent water vulnerable to freezing. Mwhoaaa......

Ahem. In winter, do they still add salt to the roads in Denmark? I wonder why. Freezing point depression is just a theory. Maybe they are thawists.

It might be safer for you, but it doesn't accomplish much to argue with drunks.

I am laughing at all that emotional incontinence bubbling away under the surface. The disclosure in the language of completely unselfconcious hand-wringing and head-tilting by the more distraught warm-mongers - the mental reflex that imagines even water being made vulnerable.  We have made sea water vulnerable.
The image of the red-in-claw, heartless human, rampaging through nature, making rocks weep, waters vulnerable, innocent poley bears raining from the sky.

Soren wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 11:03am:

I am laughing ...

You say laugh, but what comes out of you is more of a manic giggle.

Amateurish misinterpretations and comforting denial notwithstanding, the vast majority of the best qualified hold views within a remarkably small range. I don't like what they say but, as a responsible adult, accept it.

It seems to be mostly Conservatives who can't cope with reality.

# wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 2:37pm:

It seems to be mostly Conservatives who can't cope with reality.

They have been made vulnerable ( ;) by repeated exposure to exaggerated hand-wringing and hyperbolic head-tilting presented as reality.
Can you blame them for being a bit cautious?

Soren wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 3:39pm:

# wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 2:37pm: It seems to be mostly Conservatives who can't cope with reality. They have been made vulnerable ( ;) by repeated exposure to exaggerated hand-wringing and hyperbolic head-tilting presented as reality. Can you blame them for being a bit cautious?

The reality being the models are way wrong. Not even close to right and now they, the AGW loons, want to take the coolest model predictions, closest to mother natures emprical data and say they are wrong. So leave us with the much warmer, much greater wrong warmer models. Yeh, the conservatives are far from reality of the AGW loon who has no empircal data to back them up, no models left to get closer to reality and no credibility past localised warming that they can use to say 'see I told you so', but will take away any localised cooling on the opposite fense that can never ever be used as global cooling.

A total embarrasment for the AGW loons and no wonder they are looking more and more the extremist, minority they should always have been.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 4:05pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:39pm: # wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 2:37pm: It seems to be mostly Conservatives who can't cope with reality. They have been made vulnerable ( ;) by repeated exposure to exaggerated hand-wringing and hyperbolic head-tilting presented as reality. Can you blame them for being a bit cautious? The reality being the models are way wrong. Not even close to right and now they, the AGW loons, want to take the coolest model predictions, closest to mother natures emprical data and say they are wrong. So leave us with the much warmer, much greater wrong warmer models. Yeh, the conservatives are far from reality of the AGW loon who has no empircal data to back them up, no models left to get closer to reality and no credibility past localised warming that they can use to say 'see I told you so', but will take away any localised cooling on the opposite fense that can never ever be used as global cooling. A total embarrasment for the AGW loons and no wonder they are looking more and more the extremist, minority they should always have been.

cods, your terminology is all wrong. There are two basic groups:
1) Scientists.
2) Deniers.

You subscribe to one or the other.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 4:11pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 4:05pm: Soren wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 3:39pm: # wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 2:37pm: It seems to be mostly Conservatives who can't cope with reality. They have been made vulnerable ( ;) by repeated exposure to exaggerated hand-wringing and hyperbolic head-tilting presented as reality. Can you blame them for being a bit cautious? The reality being the models are way wrong. Not even close to right and now they, the AGW loons, want to take the coolest model predictions, closest to mother natures emprical data and say they are wrong. So leave us with the much warmer, much greater wrong warmer models. Yeh, the conservatives are far from reality of the AGW loon who has no empircal data to back them up, no models left to get closer to reality and no credibility past localised warming that they can use to say 'see I told you so', but will take away any localised cooling on the opposite fense that can never ever be used as global cooling. A total embarrasment for the AGW loons and no wonder they are looking more and more the extremist, minority they should always have been. cods, your terminology is all wrong. There are two basic groups: 1) Scientists. 2) Deniers. You subscribe to one or the other.

I know its too hard for you dolly, skippy or whatever your name is

Soren wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 11:03am:

The image of the red-in-claw, heartless human, rampaging through nature, making rocks weep, waters vulnerable, innocent poley bears raining from the sky.

If you get images like that, then maybe you should seek professional help.

Ah clutching at semantics because you can't make a cohesive argument , I see. Ok "vulnerable" was probably the wrong word. I would have said that fresh water freezes more readily. Prone might be a better word for inanimate "objects" like water.

Of course you yourself would never dream of anthropomorphising any inanimate objects now, would you?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 4:11pm:

cods, your terminology is all wrong. There are two basic groups: 1) Scientists. 2) Deniers. You subscribe to one or the other.

Wrong, its believers and unbelievers, same as the religious and the atheists, don't insult science by trying to hitch your wagon to it.

muso wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 4:29pm:

Of course you yourself would never dream of anthropomorphising any inanimate objects now, would you?

Only if it's a helpless, vulnerable, exploited and easily bullied inanimate object.



Whether Antarctic ice is more extensive because of the less salty water or some other reason is yet another conjecture. With a very complex an poorly understood system like the climate, it is not difficult to come up with all sorts of plausible post-hoc conjectures.

Predicting more extensive ice on these grounds would have been more convincing. An AGW prediction actually coming to pass. But nobody has ever predicted that due to AGW there will be more extensive polar ice, even though the 'science' is so simple. It's forever been about disappearing ice. And now we have yet another Get Smart moment, with another post-hoc conjecture: 'Sorry about that Chief. Would you believe...."


Anyway, it's pretty funny to wake up to the new that a bunch of scientists (consensus ones, of course!) and activist warm-mongers are likely to be stuck in ice for a few weeks. Because of the vulnerable water. And the scientific consensus never saw it coming!

Soren wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 7:05pm:

muso wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 4:29pm: Of course you yourself would never dream of anthropomorphising any inanimate objects now, would you? Only if it's a helpless, vulnerable, exploited and easily bullied inanimate object.

Like  a pet rock? >:(

Neferti wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 7:10pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 7:05pm: muso wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 4:29pm: Of course you yourself would never dream of anthropomorphising any inanimate objects now, would you? Only if it's a helpless, vulnerable, exploited and easily bullied inanimate object. Like  a pet rock? >:(

No, not like a pet rock. They are not vulnerable enough.

Ode to my pet rock
By Insouciance

You sit there,
Grey.
Grey and cold.
I watched you from my bed and smile happily.
Ahh, my pet rock.
You are the most agreeable pet ever.
I never have to walk you.
You don't need a litter tray which I'd have to clean.
Not a noise nor a whimper comes from your sturdy frame.
Perfect pet.
I don't have to feed you.
Spend my hard earned dollar on suspicious meat products.
I can recite Shakespeare to you and you don't leave the room in a hurry.
Oh, my pet rock,
You rock.



There is character there. You can't easily bully something like that.

Soren wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 7:25pm:

Neferti wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 7:10pm: Soren wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 7:05pm: muso wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 4:29pm: Of course you yourself would never dream of anthropomorphising any inanimate objects now, would you? Only if it's a helpless, vulnerable, exploited and easily bullied inanimate object. Like  a pet rock? >:( No, not like a pet rock. They are not vulnerable enough. Ode to my pet rock By Insouciance You sit there, Grey. Grey and cold. I watched you from my bed and smile happily. Ahh, my pet rock. You are the most agreeable pet ever. I never have to walk you. You don't need a litter tray which I'd have to clean. Not a noise nor a whimper comes from your sturdy frame. Perfect pet. I don't have to feed you. Spend my hard earned dollar on suspicious meat products. I can recite Shakespeare to you and you don't leave the room in a hurry. Oh, my pet rock, You rock. There is character there. You can't easily bully something like that.

:'(

Enya also rocks ... or used to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wfYIMyS_dI

Soren wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 7:05pm:

Predicting more extensive ice on these grounds would have been more convincing.

Soren, are you so far removed from what you are arguing against that you don't realise that 2013 is extremely early in the scheme of things? It might be part of an emerging pattern, but then again, it is probably a short term effect with a very specific cause. (more likely)

Anyway, far be it from me to interrupt you from doing what you do best. Would you like some more rope?

Just cling on to your patch of blue (see map below), click your heels together three times, close your eyes and keep repeating "There's no such thing as AGW". It will fill you with a nice warm comforting feeling.

Keep reading the Denialist blogs, but don't think too deeply about it, and above all, pay no attention to what that man behind the curtain is doing. He's the great and powerful Wizard of Watts. 
http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/5390b348-c2be-4363-806b-53e1dfd3026e_650x366.jpg

No need to read 'denialist' blogs (I don't, actually).


Nobody knows why, despite the predictions of melting polar caps, there is more polar ice than expected.

The less salty water idea is one guess. As you say, it's early days. Complex system, many unknown unknowns as well as known unknows and so forth.

Yet we know that it's all human made greenhouse gasses. We can't make accurate predictions based on this theory of AGW but still, the consensus is settled.

This strikes me as a little hasty, when considering the vast uncertainty about any of the details and the inability to make accurate predictions. On the other hand, there is no shortage of 'contrary to expectations' news - see warm-mongers trapped in ice, poley bears not nearing extinction, Himalayan snow not disappearing, sea levels nor rising as fast as predicted - there is some new variable every time predictions refuse to eventuate, there is some new, hitherto unmentioned explanation as to why predictions don't materialise, some new scientific explanation which, inexplicably, did not feature in the models. This less salty water is an excellent example.
It is a very basic fact that fresh water freezes before salt water. Yet none of the polar ice melting models devised by scientists seem to have taken it into account and made the prediction that this is how polar ice would increase. Why believe the models when they can't even take into consideration high school science? How reliable are those models? On past form, not very.

It's an endless 'well, would you believe...'

Soren wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 9:01pm:

It is a very basic fact that fresh water freezes before salt water. Yet none of the polar ice melting models devised by scientists seem to have taken it into account and made the prediction that this is how polar ice would increase. Why believe the models when they can't even take into consideration high school science?

None of them? I'm very impressed with your initimate knowledge of such models. Can you give me some examples of some "polar ice melting models" that don't take this into account?

Just two or three will do.

muso wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 8:22pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 7:05pm: Predicting more extensive ice on these grounds would have been more convincing. Soren, are you so far removed from what you are arguing against that you don't realise that 2013 is extremely early in the scheme of things? It might be part of an emerging pattern, but then again, it is probably a short term effect with a very specific cause. (more likely) Anyway, far be it from me to interrupt you from doing what you do best. Would you like some more rope? Just cling on to your patch of blue (see map below), click your heels together three times, close your eyes and keep repeating "There's no such thing as AGW". It will fill you with a nice warm comforting feeling. Keep reading the Denialist blogs, but don't think too deeply about it, and above all, pay no attention to what that man behind the curtain is doing. He's the great and powerful Wizard of Watts.  http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/5390b348-c2be-4363-806b-53e1dfd3026e_650x366.jpg

Thats nice, now prove that heat that is well within natural variation is actually caused by humans ... good luck with that  ;D
Its nice that you've decided that AGW is real and its happening now because a number of people said so but the true disciples of science need a little more than that  ;)

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 9:40pm:

muso wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 8:22pm: Soren wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 7:05pm: Predicting more extensive ice on these grounds would have been more convincing. Soren, are you so far removed from what you are arguing against that you don't realise that 2013 is extremely early in the scheme of things? It might be part of an emerging pattern, but then again, it is probably a short term effect with a very specific cause. (more likely) Anyway, far be it from me to interrupt you from doing what you do best. Would you like some more rope? Just cling on to your patch of blue (see map below), click your heels together three times, close your eyes and keep repeating "There's no such thing as AGW". It will fill you with a nice warm comforting feeling. Keep reading the Denialist blogs, but don't think too deeply about it, and above all, pay no attention to what that man behind the curtain is doing. He's the great and powerful Wizard of Watts.  http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/5390b348-c2be-4363-806b-53e1dfd3026e_650x366.jpg Thats nice, now prove that heat that is well within natural variation is actually caused by humans ... good luck with that  ;D Its nice that you've decided that AGW is real and its happening now because a number of people said so but the true disciples of science need a little more than that  ;)

It's a consequence of the physical properties of carbon dioxide, water and other greenhouse gases in combination with the First Law of Thermodynamics. Very basic stuff to anyone with half a clue.

Now, how can you prove that the extra heat energy caused by the increased radiative forcing (plus feedbacks) is totally without consequence?

You are the one making extraordinary claims, so the onus is on you to explain why all the extra (measurable) energy has no consequences. 

By the way, are you an expert on "polar ice melting models" too?  Please don't be shy in sharing your knowledge.

And heres me thinking you'd come back with armfulls of peer reviewed scientific reports proving man made global warming beyond any doubt http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/ImaPoser.gif

muso wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 9:32pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:01pm: It is a very basic fact that fresh water freezes before salt water. Yet none of the polar ice melting models devised by scientists seem to have taken it into account and made the prediction that this is how polar ice would increase. Why believe the models when they can't even take into consideration high school science? None of them? I'm very impressed with your initimate knowledge of such models. Can you give me some examples of some "polar ice melting models" that don't take this into account? Just two or three will do.

Who cares for models that 'take into consideration' something, yet miss the significance of said thing and so will not make reliable predictions.
This 'taken into consideration' yet mispredicting the actual event is becoming standard fare.

That is my model of warm-mongering and it is proving to have much greater predictive accuracy.

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 9:57pm:

And heres me thinking you'd come back with armfulls of peer reviewed scientific reports proving man made global warming beyond any doubt

It's too basic and established for that. Arrhenius did the ground work back in the 19th century. You don't get many researchers trying to establish that gravity works. In the same way, radiative forcing is pretty basic stuff.

Soren wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 9:58pm:

muso wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:32pm: Soren wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:01pm: It is a very basic fact that fresh water freezes before salt water. Yet none of the polar ice melting models devised by scientists seem to have taken it into account and made the prediction that this is how polar ice would increase. Why believe the models when they can't even take into consideration high school science? None of them? I'm very impressed with your initimate knowledge of such models. Can you give me some examples of some "polar ice melting models" that don't take this into account? Just two or three will do. Who cares for models that 'take into consideration' something, yet miss the significance of said thing and so will not make reliable predictions. This 'taken into consideration' yet mispredicting the actual event is becoming standard fare. That is my model of warm-mongering and it is proving to have much greater predictive accuracy.

You think you'll get off with that very specific remark scot free?

Come on now, if you come out with this bold assertion that "none of the polar ice melting models devised by scientists seem to have taken it into account", then surely you can give some examples that illustrate your point?

Not even a Climate model with a resolution of one or two years? You'd probably call that a Weather Model, I suppose.

I'll settle for an admission of waffling, but be prepared to wear the appellation of "Wafflist"

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 4:58pm:

... Wrong, its believers and unbelievers, same as the religious and the atheists, ...

I'd say it's accepters and deniers. Those who accept what the vast majority of the best qualified say and those whose fears prevent them from accepting.


Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2014 at 9:57pm:

And heres me thinking you'd come back with armfulls of peer reviewed scientific reports proving man made global warming beyond any doubt ...

What is beyond any doubt?

The question is; is your denial reasonable?

muso wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 5:52am:

Soren wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:58pm: muso wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:32pm: Soren wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:01pm: It is a very basic fact that fresh water freezes before salt water. Yet none of the polar ice melting models devised by scientists seem to have taken it into account and made the prediction that this is how polar ice would increase. Why believe the models when they can't even take into consideration high school science? None of them? I'm very impressed with your initimate knowledge of such models. Can you give me some examples of some "polar ice melting models" that don't take this into account? Just two or three will do. Who cares for models that 'take into consideration' something, yet miss the significance of said thing and so will not make reliable predictions. This 'taken into consideration' yet mispredicting the actual event is becoming standard fare. That is my model of warm-mongering and it is proving to have much greater predictive accuracy. You think you'll get off with that very specific remark scot free? Come on now, if you come out with this bold assertion that "none of the polar ice melting models devised by scientists seem to have taken it into account", then surely you can give some examples that illustrate your point? Not even a Climate model with a resolution of one or two years? You'd probably call that a Weather Model, I suppose. I'll settle for an admission of waffling, but be prepared to wear the appellation of "Wafflist"

Tell you what. You think there are models that did take this basic aspect of physics into consideration. Very well. Why then did NONE of the models predict more ice, rather than less??

I tell you why. Because these models lack accuracy because they are based, all of them, on hugely incomplete understanding. Proof? None predicted the growth of ice. They all predicted loss of ice. They all predicted wrong. So what they did and didn't take into consideration is all the more proof of their inadequacy.  The rest is arse-covering slippin' and slidin'.

Good model = predictive power.
Crap model = takes all sorts of things into consideration yet cannot predict anything accurately.


Show me the model that predicted more ice.

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:23am:

Show me the model that predicted more ice.

No, please. You're the expert on these very short term ice predicting models (the ones that don't get anything right).

You brought up the subject. I'd hate to steal your thunder.

I'm beginning to suspect that you might be waffling. Please set the record straight for us.

muso wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:11am:

Soren wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:23am: Show me the model that predicted more ice. No, please. You're the expert on these very short term ice predicting models (the ones that don't get anything right). You brought up the subject. I'd hate to steal your thunder. I'm beginning to suspect that you might be waffling. Please set the record straight for us.

I have already.
All models that did not predict growing ice coverage as a result of water being made more 'vulnerable to freezing' are worthless. This is now the post-hoc line but no so-called scientific model ever predicted it.
I am not aware of any modelling that predicted more ice as a result of AGW. Are you?

Professor Turney's expedition was supposed to repeat scientific investigations made by Douglas Mawson a century ago and to compare then and now. Not unreasonably, it has been pointed out Mawson's ship was never icebound. Sea ice has been steadily increasing, despite the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's gloomy forecasts. Had the expedition found the slightest evidence to confirm its expectation of melting ice caps and thin ice, a major new scare about the plight of the planet would have followed. As they are transferred to sanctuary aboard the icebreaker Aurora Australis, Professor Turney and his fellow evacuees must accept the embarrassing failure of their mission shows how uncertain the science of climate change really is. They cannot reasonably do otherwise.

Just so.


Before the expedition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFcYQfcU7vY#t=17

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/shipf_thumb.jpg

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:44am:

muso wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:11am: Soren wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:23am: Show me the model that predicted more ice. No, please. You're the expert on these very short term ice predicting models (the ones that don't get anything right). You brought up the subject. I'd hate to steal your thunder. I'm beginning to suspect that you might be waffling. Please set the record straight for us. I have already. All models that did not predict growing ice coverage as a result of water being made more 'vulnerable to freezing' are worthless. This is now the post-hoc line but no so-called scientific model ever predicted it. I am not aware of any modelling that predicted more ice as a result of AGW. Are you?

The AGW loon pseudo scientists just make it up as they go along

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 10:26am:

Professor Turney's expedition was supposed to repeat scientific investigations made by Douglas Mawson a century ago and to compare then and now. Not unreasonably, it has been pointed out Mawson's ship was never icebound. Sea ice has been steadily increasing, despite the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's gloomy forecasts. Had the expedition found the slightest evidence to confirm its expectation of melting ice caps and thin ice, a major new scare about the plight of the planet would have followed. As they are transferred to sanctuary aboard the icebreaker Aurora Australis, Professor Turney and his fellow evacuees must accept the embarrassing failure of their mission shows how uncertain the science of climate change really is. They cannot reasonably do otherwise. Just so. Before the expedition. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFcYQfcU7vY#t=17 http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/shipf_thumb.jpg

You are confusing weather with climate again.

A ship gets caught in sea ice, when it is travelling along just fine with minimal sea ice, then the current/weather changes and sea ice then traps them temporarily.

Had they gone a month earlier or a month later, they may not have got trapped.

That is weather, not climate.

Climate is the long term loss of Sea ice as clearly observed at the north pole the past 2 decades.

Antarctic ice has rarely been more extensive - is that weather? But when arctic ice shrinks - that's climate.
Is that how it works? Scary bad news - climate. Good news/no news - weather.

Anyway, the explanation for the ice-trapped ship was that AGW made sea water less salty (melting icebergs - thus making it 'more vulnerable to freezing'.
So the explanation for the ice trap was not weather but AGW - ie climate.

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 1:04pm:

Antarctic ice has rarely been more extensive - is that weather? But when arctic ice shrinks - that's climate. Is that how it works? Scary bad news - climate. Good news/no news - weather.

Has antartica had its coldest year on record, like Australia (a similar sized continent) has had it hotest ?

Quote:

Anyway, the explanation for the ice-trapped ship was that AGW made sea water less salty (melting icebergs - thus making it 'more vulnerable to freezing'. So the explanation for the ice trap was not weather but AGW - ie climate.

Who made the claim about less salty water ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 2:22pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 1:04pm: Antarctic ice has rarely been more extensive - is that weather? But when arctic ice shrinks - that's climate. Is that how it works? Scary bad news - climate. Good news/no news - weather. Has antartica had its coldest year on record, like Australia (a similar sized continent) has had it hotest ? Quote: Anyway, the explanation for the ice-trapped ship was that AGW made sea water less salty (melting icebergs - thus making it 'more vulnerable to freezing'. So the explanation for the ice trap was not weather but AGW - ie climate. Who made the claim about less salty water ?

Er... Prof Chris Turney.

Q: Dr Adam Rutherford: The fact that it’s expanding, that - that sounds counter-intuitive, when we talk about the polar ice caps melting, as a result of global warming.

A: Prof Chris Turney:  Yeah, well, it’s a fascinating thing, isn’t it, really. Ultimately, global warming covers a vast array of different responses by our planet. And one of the fascinating things that we’re seeing is suggestions that large parts of the oceans off East Antarctica are actually getting fresher. And yet you’ve got this expanding sea ice, and one of the ideas we’re testing out here is this idea that when you’re melting the sea ice around the East Antarctic coastal fringes, at depth - not from air temperature but from warmer oceans - what you’re doing is you’re putting that fresh water from the Antarctic ice sheets into the oceans. It’s lighter, it’s less dense than salt water, so it floats to the surface relatively, and then it’s more vulnerable to freezing. And hence you get an expansion of sea ice cover. So that’s one idea that we’re testing at the moment.

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:23am:

muso wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 5:52am: Soren wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:58pm: muso wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:32pm: Soren wrote on Jan 2nd, 2014 at 9:01pm: It is a very basic fact that fresh water freezes before salt water. Yet none of the polar ice melting models devised by scientists seem to have taken it into account and made the prediction that this is how polar ice would increase. Why believe the models when they can't even take into consideration high school science? None of them? I'm very impressed with your initimate knowledge of such models. Can you give me some examples of some "polar ice melting models" that don't take this into account? Just two or three will do. Who cares for models that 'take into consideration' something, yet miss the significance of said thing and so will not make reliable predictions. This 'taken into consideration' yet mispredicting the actual event is becoming standard fare. That is my model of warm-mongering and it is proving to have much greater predictive accuracy. You think you'll get off with that very specific remark scot free? Come on now, if you come out with this bold assertion that "none of the polar ice melting models devised by scientists seem to have taken it into account", then surely you can give some examples that illustrate your point? Not even a Climate model with a resolution of one or two years? You'd probably call that a Weather Model, I suppose. I'll settle for an admission of waffling, but be prepared to wear the appellation of "Wafflist" Tell you what. You think there are models that did take this basic aspect of physics into consideration. Very well. Why then did NONE of the models predict more ice, rather than less?? I tell you why. Because these models lack accuracy because they are based, all of them, on hugely incomplete understanding. Proof? None predicted the growth of ice. They all predicted loss of ice. They all predicted wrong. So what they did and didn't take into consideration is all the more proof of their inadequacy.  The rest is arse-covering slippin' and slidin'. Good model = predictive power. Crap model = takes all sorts of things into consideration yet cannot predict anything accurately. Show me the model that predicted more ice.

Ice has been predicted to do different things with respect to height!

Thanx for giving me your a__H____.... I hope you do more kicking than longy cos he got boring very quickly!

:D

muso wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:11am:

Soren wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:23am: Show me the model that predicted more ice. No, please. You're the expert on these very short term ice predicting models (the ones that don't get anything right). You brought up the subject. I'd hate to steal your thunder. I'm beginning to suspect that you might be waffling. Please set the record straight for us.

He wants you to do his homework: slippery tryhards these private school tryhards  ;D

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:44am:

muso wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 9:11am: Soren wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 8:23am: Show me the model that predicted more ice. No, please. You're the expert on these very short term ice predicting models (the ones that don't get anything right). You brought up the subject. I'd hate to steal your thunder. I'm beginning to suspect that you might be waffling. Please set the record straight for us. I have already. All models that did not predict growing ice coverage as a result of water being made more 'vulnerable to freezing' are worthless. This is now the post-hoc line but no so-called scientific model ever predicted it. I am not aware of any modelling that predicted more ice as a result of AGW. Are you?

Measurement problem!

Soren is making ass-umptions  ;D

I pawn Soren: well, many of us share him to be exact but I still happily claim part ownership lol

Three post from the dead horse flocker - and none of them makes any sense.
No fvckn mental climate change THERE!!!!!
I blame the oxigen. It should be turned orf.

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 3:03pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 2:22pm: Soren wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 1:04pm: Antarctic ice has rarely been more extensive - is that weather? But when arctic ice shrinks - that's climate. Is that how it works? Scary bad news - climate. Good news/no news - weather. Has antartica had its coldest year on record, like Australia (a similar sized continent) has had it hotest ? Quote: Anyway, the explanation for the ice-trapped ship was that AGW made sea water less salty (melting icebergs - thus making it 'more vulnerable to freezing'. So the explanation for the ice trap was not weather but AGW - ie climate. Who made the claim about less salty water ? Er... Prof Chris Turney. Q: Dr Adam Rutherford: The fact that it’s expanding, that - that sounds counter-intuitive, when we talk about the polar ice caps melting, as a result of global warming. A: Prof Chris Turney:  Yeah, well, it’s a fascinating thing, isn’t it, really. Ultimately, global warming covers a vast array of different responses by our planet. And one of the fascinating things that we’re seeing is suggestions that large parts of the oceans off East Antarctica are actually getting fresher. And yet you’ve got this expanding sea ice, and one of the ideas we’re testing out here is this idea that when you’re melting the sea ice around the East Antarctic coastal fringes, at depth - not from air temperature but from warmer oceans - what you’re doing is you’re putting that fresh water from the Antarctic ice sheets into the oceans. It’s lighter, it’s less dense than salt water, so it floats to the surface relatively, and then it’s more vulnerable to freezing. And hence you get an expansion of sea ice cover. So that’s one idea that we’re testing at the moment.

Seems like an awful lot of speculation and very little empirical evidence other than these places are prone to periodic variation. Sea levels actually dropped between 2010 and 2011 with lots of speculation by way of explanation as to were the water went but so far they've just been guesses...which as much as some would like them to be are not hard evidence of anything.

A professor wants to retrace Mawson's route a hundred years later - and gets stuck in smacking ice.

After a hundred years, after countless fvckn climate models, satellites, weather stations, computers, improved ship building technology, climate modelling, weather data, five fvckn IPCC reports - and he is stuck in the ice.

Your education dollars at work.

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 9:44pm:

A professor wants to retrace Mawson's route a hundred years later - and gets stuck in smacking ice. After a hundred years, after countless fvckn climate models, satellites, weather stations, computers, improved ship building technology, climate modelling, weather data, five fvckn IPCC reports - and he is stuck in the ice. Your education dollars at work.

Might be time to charge these scientists for the massive expense incurred for their rescue... So not only wrong...but irresponsible...tsk, tsk, tsk.... shakes head.

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 1:04pm:

Antarctic ice has rarely been more extensive - is that weather? But when arctic ice shrinks - that's climate. Is that how it works? Scary bad news - climate. Good news/no news - weather. Anyway, the explanation for the ice-trapped ship was that AGW made sea water less salty (melting icebergs - thus making it 'more vulnerable to freezing'. So the explanation for the ice trap was not weather but AGW - ie climate.

Weather is a short term phenomenon. Climate is  long term, measuring change over at least 30 years.

So your argument is that the models got it wrong. Of course, you don't know which models, and you don't know what their actual prediction was for that particular area, so you really don't know if they got it wrong at all. You assume. In fact, I doubt if you even know the exact location or the extent of the sea ice. All you know for sure is that a few ships got trapped in ice and that there was more ice than usual, and that certain vacuous idiots are giggling about it, so you decided to add a few inane giggles of your own.

You assume that global warming means that the entire globe will warm at the same rate from year to year and that there will be no local cooling effects whatsoever. You also assume that some predictions as yet unknown predict less sea ic in the Antarctic.

Soren, this may come as a surprise to you, but it's not unusual for ships to get caught in sea ice.

Please feel free to correct my perception of your argument, but from where I stand, it's not much of an argument at all.

It might be hot as hell right now, but there might be something in that Kool aid that you're drinking that severely affects your judgement. All you seem to have is an amazing collection of strawmen and totally wrong assumptions.

muso wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:37am:

Soren wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 1:04pm: Antarctic ice has rarely been more extensive - is that weather? But when arctic ice shrinks - that's climate. Is that how it works? Scary bad news - climate. Good news/no news - weather. Anyway, the explanation for the ice-trapped ship was that AGW made sea water less salty (melting icebergs - thus making it 'more vulnerable to freezing'. So the explanation for the ice trap was not weather but AGW - ie climate. Weather is a short term phenomenon. Climate is  long term, measuring change oiver at least 30 years. So your argument is that the models got it wrong. Of course, you don't know which models, and you don't know what their prediction was for that particular area, so you really don't know if they got it wrong at all. In fact, I doubt if you even know the exact location or the extand of the sea ice. All you know for sure is that a few ships got trapped in ice and that there was more ice than usual. You assume that global warming means that the entire globe will warm at the same rate from year to year and that there will be no local cooling effects whatsoever. You also assume that some predictions as yet unknown predict less sea ic in the Antarctic. Soren, this may come as a surprise to you, but it's not unusual for ships to get caught in sea ice. Please feel free to correct my perception of your argument, but from where I stand, it's not much of an argument at all. It might be hot as hell right now, but there might be something in that Kool aid that you're drinking that severely affects your judgement. All you seem to have is an amazing collection of strawmen and totally wrong assumptions.

Unless its a localised heat wave. Then its climate......climate change :D

A heat wave is weather.

muso wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:37am:

Soren wrote on Jan 3rd, 2014 at 1:04pm: Antarctic ice has rarely been more extensive - is that weather? But when arctic ice shrinks - that's climate. Is that how it works? Scary bad news - climate. Good news/no news - weather. Anyway, the explanation for the ice-trapped ship was that AGW made sea water less salty (melting icebergs - thus making it 'more vulnerable to freezing'. So the explanation for the ice trap was not weather but AGW - ie climate. Weather is a short term phenomenon. Climate is  long term, measuring change over at least 30 years. So your argument is that the models got it wrong. Of course, you don't know which models, and you don't know what their actual prediction was for that particular area, so you really don't know if they got it wrong at all. You assume. In fact, I doubt if you even know the exact location or the extent of the sea ice.

Never mind me.
What matters is that a professor specialising in Antarctic climate didn't know. HE must have seen all the models - yet he still got trapped in ice. The SPECIALIST had no idea.It was the vulnerable water that did it.

That's how good these models are.

The Greens Senator-elect, along for the ride, tweeted that the researchers counting penguins. dawdled back to the ship, after they were recalled by the captain, due to deteriorating conditions. they apparently took some hours.

http://www.janetrice.com.au/?e=98

It wasn't a sudden change that caught them out.

muso wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:40am:

A heat wave is weather.

I take it you forget the recent fires and all the climate change clap trap going on. Yes, you and I both know weather, but only a heat wave weather condition is used and abused by the AGW climate change church

muso wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:37am:

Soren, this may come as a surprise to you, but it's not unusual for ships to get caught in sea ice. Please feel free to correct my perception of your argument, but from where I stand, it's not much of an argument at all. It might be hot as hell right now, but there might be something in that Kool aid that you're drinking that severely affects your judgement. All you seem to have is an amazing collection of strawmen and totally wrong assumptions.

Not at all.

You couldn't make this up: Antarctic climate scientist, with all the models, science, equipment, data and technology and expertise at his disposal - gets stuck in the ice.  Hilarious and a massive credibility killer.

muso wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:37am:

Weather is a short term phenomenon. Climate is  long term, measuring change over at least 30 years.

And who gets to determine what's "short term" and "long term"?  Humans.

30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.

This is one of the major reasons why the AGW Church lacks credibility.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 12:18pm:

muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:37am: Weather is a short term phenomenon. Climate is  long term, measuring change over at least 30 years.  And who gets to determine what's "short term" and "long term"?  Humans.

Well it's actually aardvarks.  ::)

Who other than humans would define a term?

Soren wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 11:56am:

muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:37am: Soren, this may come as a surprise to you, but it's not unusual for ships to get caught in sea ice. Please feel free to correct my perception of your argument, but from where I stand, it's not much of an argument at all. It might be hot as hell right now, but there might be something in that Kool aid that you're drinking that severely affects your judgement. All you seem to have is an amazing collection of strawmen and totally wrong assumptions. Not at all. You couldn't make this up: Antarctic climate scientist, with all the models, science, equipment, data and technology and expertise at his disposal - gets stuck in the ice.  Hilarious and a massive credibility killer.

Pray tell me how a climate model that shows a temperature increase of 0.4 degrees per decade could possibly help in out in such a circumstance?

It's a little bit like using this map to navigate the London Underground.
http://www.3dmodelfree.com/imguploads/Image/1106/model/2012/10/12271.jpg

Har har har. He's got a map that covers the whole world but gets lost in the London Underground.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 11:44am:

muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:40am: A heat wave is weather. I take it you forget the recent fires and all the climate change clap trap going on. Yes, you and I both know weather, but only a heat wave weather condition is used and abused by the AGW climate change church

Which denomination?

muso wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 1:01pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 11:44am: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:40am: A heat wave is weather. I take it you forget the recent fires and all the climate change clap trap going on. Yes, you and I both know weather, but only a heat wave weather condition is used and abused by the AGW climate change church Which denomination?

The looniest

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 3:11pm:

muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 1:01pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 11:44am: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:40am: A heat wave is weather. I take it you forget the recent fires and all the climate change clap trap going on. Yes, you and I both know weather, but only a heat wave weather condition is used and abused by the AGW climate change church Which denomination? The looniest

Clouds say what?????  :o

Soren wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2014 at 8:52pm:

Three post from the dead horse flocker - and none of them makes any sense. No fvckn mental climate change THERE!!!!! I blame the oxigen. It should be turned orf.

Clouds say what?????  ;)

muso wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 12:53pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 12:18pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:37am: Weather is a short term phenomenon. Climate is  long term, measuring change over at least 30 years.  And who gets to determine what's "short term" and "long term"?  Humans. Well it's actually aardvarks.  ::) Who other than humans would define a term?

Exactly.  Now you're starting to see.

30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:41pm:

muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 12:53pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 12:18pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:37am: Weather is a short term phenomenon. Climate is  long term, measuring change over at least 30 years.  And who gets to determine what's "short term" and "long term"?  Humans. Well it's actually aardvarks.  ::) Who other than humans would define a term? Exactly.  Now you're starting to see. 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed?

Rates of change and clouds say what???

Even the climate change loons must cringe at having death rides a donkey in their corner  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 5:58pm:

Even the climate change loons must cringe at having death rides a donkey in their corner  ;D

Innocent don't like clouds  :o

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 4:41pm:

muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 12:53pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 12:18pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:37am: Weather is a short term phenomenon. Climate is  long term, measuring change over at least 30 years.  And who gets to determine what's "short term" and "long term"?  Humans. Well it's actually aardvarks.  ::) Who other than humans would define a term? Exactly.  Now you're starting to see. 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed?

The plot is over here,greggory. If you look hard enough, you'll find it.

muso wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 1:00pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 11:56am: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:37am: Soren, this may come as a surprise to you, but it's not unusual for ships to get caught in sea ice. Please feel free to correct my perception of your argument, but from where I stand, it's not much of an argument at all. It might be hot as hell right now, but there might be something in that Kool aid that you're drinking that severely affects your judgement. All you seem to have is an amazing collection of strawmen and totally wrong assumptions. Not at all. You couldn't make this up: Antarctic climate scientist, with all the models, science, equipment, data and technology and expertise at his disposal - gets stuck in the ice.  Hilarious and a massive credibility killer. Pray tell me how a climate model that shows a temperature increase of 0.4 degrees per decade could possibly help in out in such a circumstance? It's a little bit like using this map to navigate the London Underground. http://www.3dmodelfree.com/imguploads/Image/1106/model/2012/10/12271.jpg Har har har. He's got a map that covers the whole world but gets lost in the London Underground.

If one is a supposed expert on the London underground (Antarctic climate) and takes a school globe as a guide when re-tracing someone's route (Mawson's) in the London underground (Antarctica) after a hundred years and he gets lost (trapped in ice) - it just hows how idiotic and unknowing said 'expert' is.

Hilarious.

muso wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 7:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 4:41pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 12:53pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 12:18pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:37am: Weather is a short term phenomenon. Climate is  long term, measuring change over at least 30 years.  And who gets to determine what's "short term" and "long term"?  Humans. Well it's actually aardvarks.  ::) Who other than humans would define a term? Exactly.  Now you're starting to see. 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed? The plot is over here,greggory. If you look hard enough, you'll find it.

Avoiding the question, as usual.

30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed?

Clouds say what?????

Comparing the Earth in the Cainozoic with the Earth during the Paleozoic era is hardly relevent. It was like an entirely  different planet.

As I implied, you have seriously lost the plot.

muso wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:37pm:

Comparing the Earth in the Holocene with the Earth during the Cambrian is hardly relevent. It was like an entirely  different planet. As I implied, you have seriously lost the plot.

Avoiding the question, as usual.

30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed?

It's all about the common use of the term "long term" in any given context. Google "long term benefits". Are you saying that if I exercise, it will take 4.5 billion years to see any long term benefits?

muso wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:

It's all about the common use of the term "long term" in any given context.

The context here is planet earth.

4.5 billion years old.

30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:45pm:

muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:43pm: It's all about the common use of the term "long term" in any given context. The context here is planet earth. 4.5 billion years old. 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed?

Clouds say what?????

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:50pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:45pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:43pm: It's all about the common use of the term "long term" in any given context. The context here is planet earth. 4.5 billion years old. 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed? Clouds say what?????

Clouds don't talk (lay off the drugs).

30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:45pm:

muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:43pm: It's all about the common use of the term "long term" in any given context. The context here is planet earth. 4.5 billion years old. 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed?

If that's your context, then it's a totally irrelevent context.  The changing climate of Australia for example doesn't have a 4.5 billion year context.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:54pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:50pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:45pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:43pm: It's all about the common use of the term "long term" in any given context. The context here is planet earth. 4.5 billion years old. 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed? Clouds say what????? Clouds don't talk (lay off the drugs). 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed?

Clouds say what????

Andrei Hicks is tripping and you're supporting his statements: volumes are being written the more you toddle down this path  :D

muso wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:45pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:43pm: It's all about the common use of the term "long term" in any given context. The context here is planet earth. 4.5 billion years old. 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed? If that's your context, then it's a totally irrelevent context.  The changing climate of Australia for example doesn't have a 4.5 billion year context.

Hicks is now comparing mars to earth whilst Greg entertains his views but reckons he can avoid the cloud issue let alone the water one which no one seems to have the heart to bring up yet.... It's only been not even an hour since these convulsions have developed mind you  :o

Things seem to be getting a little complicated on someone's side of the story so this could get interesting here and NOW!

Good timing  ;) ;) ;)

muso wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 8:37pm:

Comparing the Earth in the Cainozoic with the Earth during the Paleozoic era is hardly relevent. It was like an entirely  different planet.

Did this "entirely different planet" have weather?

No dodging, no weaving: just answer the question.

Did this "entirely different planet" have weather?

Yes or no?

muso wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:45pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:43pm: It's all about the common use of the term "long term" in any given context. The context here is planet earth. 4.5 billion years old. 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed? If that's your context, then it's a totally irrelevent context.  The changing climate of Australia for example doesn't have a 4.5 billion year context.

I didn't mention Australia.

30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 9:17pm:

muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:08pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:45pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:43pm: It's all about the common use of the term "long term" in any given context. The context here is planet earth. 4.5 billion years old. 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed? If that's your context, then it's a totally irrelevent context.  The changing climate of Australia for example doesn't have a 4.5 billion year context. Hicks is now comparing mars to earth whilst Greg entertains his views but reckons he can avoid the cloud issue let alone the water one which no one seems to have the heart to bring up yet.... It's only been not even an hour since these convulsions have developed mind you  :o Things seem to be getting a little complicated on someone's side of the story so this could get interesting here and NOW! Good timing  ;) ;) ;)

30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:18am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:17pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:08pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:45pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:43pm: It's all about the common use of the term "long term" in any given context. The context here is planet earth. 4.5 billion years old. 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed? If that's your context, then it's a totally irrelevent context.  The changing climate of Australia for example doesn't have a 4.5 billion year context. Hicks is now comparing mars to earth whilst Greg entertains his views but reckons he can avoid the cloud issue let alone the water one which no one seems to have the heart to bring up yet.... It's only been not even an hour since these convulsions have developed mind you  :o Things seem to be getting a little complicated on someone's side of the story so this could get interesting here and NOW! Good timing  ;) ;) ;) 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed?

I‘m not thinking in terms of billions of years!

To think in terms of billions of years you would need a purpose for doing so!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:26am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:18am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:17pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:08pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:45pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:43pm: It's all about the common use of the term "long term" in any given context. The context here is planet earth. 4.5 billion years old. 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed? If that's your context, then it's a totally irrelevent context.  The changing climate of Australia for example doesn't have a 4.5 billion year context. Hicks is now comparing mars to earth whilst Greg entertains his views but reckons he can avoid the cloud issue let alone the water one which no one seems to have the heart to bring up yet.... It's only been not even an hour since these convulsions have developed mind you  :o Things seem to be getting a little complicated on someone's side of the story so this could get interesting here and NOW! Good timing  ;) ;) ;) 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed? I‘m not thinking in terms of billions of years!

And there's your problem.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:27am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:26am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:18am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:17pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:08pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:45pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:43pm: It's all about the common use of the term "long term" in any given context. The context here is planet earth. 4.5 billion years old. 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed? If that's your context, then it's a totally irrelevent context.  The changing climate of Australia for example doesn't have a 4.5 billion year context. Hicks is now comparing mars to earth whilst Greg entertains his views but reckons he can avoid the cloud issue let alone the water one which no one seems to have the heart to bring up yet.... It's only been not even an hour since these convulsions have developed mind you  :o Things seem to be getting a little complicated on someone's side of the story so this could get interesting here and NOW! Good timing  ;) ;) ;) 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed? I‘m not thinking in terms of billions of years! And there's your problem.

No its not: rates change is the problem!

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:13am:

30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed?

Greg, there is no absolute value for long term and short term. They are figures of speech. In this context, we are talking about climate and weather. These are well defined fields of study.

Generally when we speak about climate, we are not talking about paleoclimate. Paleoclimates are very interesting, but the conditions in the distant past bear no resemblance to the world we know today.

Climate change is to a large extent concerned with the effects on the world as we know it today. We need to have forward planning to determine what actions we need to take over the next few generations and what challenges we are going to face.

Paleoclimate is very experimental, and generally based on what we know about climate mechanisms today. The further we go into the past, the less accurate and less reliable these figures become.

If you really want to go back to Cambrian times when the land surface could support no life, the only life lived in the bottom of the oceans and the sun was somewhat dimmer that it is today (we think), the ocean circulation patterns were totally different, the distribution of land mass was completely different etc, then go for it, but that's your private context. It serves no purpose other than to introduce a red herring. 

Of course, red herrings are what you do best.

Soren wrote on Jan 4^th, 2014 at 7:47pm:

Quote: Pray tell me how a climate model that shows a temperature increase of 0.4 degrees per decade could possibly help in out in such a circumstance? It's a little bit like using this map to navigate the London Underground. Har har har. He's got a map that covers the whole world but gets lost in the London Underground. If one is a supposed expert on the London underground (Antarctic climate) and takes a school globe as a guide when re-tracing someone's route (Mawson's) in the London underground (Antarctica) after a hundred years and he gets lost (trapped in ice) - it just hows how idiotic and unknowing said 'expert' is. Hilarious.

The only thing that's hilarious is how you fail to "get it" every time.  The London underground map is to weather forecasting as the globe is to climatology. We're concerned about level of detail and temporal resolution. Weather is concerned with shorter term phenomena.

Weather forecasting and climatology are not the same thing. Can you understand that?

Taking the analogy I used, it's a bit like asking an oceanographer, who studies the ocean flows to tell you which lines to take to go from Paddington to Euston Station.

Teacher:What can you tell me about the Dead Sea?
Soren (expert on train lines): I didn't even know it was sick!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 2:26am:

I‘m not thinking in terms of billions of years! To think in terms of billions of years you would need a purpose for doing so!

Good. You tell him.

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:23am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:26am: I‘m not thinking in terms of billions of years! To think in terms of billions of years you would need a purpose for doing so! Good. You tell him.

What a pair of incredibly narrow-minded clowns.

You want to discuss global climate change, yet choose to focus on only one very tiny period of time of the earth's existence.

How unbelievably naive (or cunning, if the truth be known).

The Climate Church is losing traction.

Every day another liar or fraud exposed.

Lovin' it.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 3:30am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:27am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:26am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:18am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:17pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 9:08pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:45pm: muso wrote on Jan 4th, 2014 at 8:43pm: It's all about the common use of the term "long term" in any given context. The context here is planet earth. 4.5 billion years old. 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed? If that's your context, then it's a totally irrelevent context.  The changing climate of Australia for example doesn't have a 4.5 billion year context. Hicks is now comparing mars to earth whilst Greg entertains his views but reckons he can avoid the cloud issue let alone the water one which no one seems to have the heart to bring up yet.... It's only been not even an hour since these convulsions have developed mind you  :o Things seem to be getting a little complicated on someone's side of the story so this could get interesting here and NOW! Good timing  ;) ;) ;) 30 years out of 4.5 billion years is not "long term", by any stretch of the imagination.  Agreed? I‘m not thinking in terms of billions of years! And there's your problem. No its not: rates change is the problem!

No, your incredible narrow-mindedness and naivety is the problem.

That, and the lies perpetuated by the Climate Church.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:51am:

muso wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:23am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:26am: I‘m not thinking in terms of billions of years! To think in terms of billions of years you would need a purpose for doing so! Good. You tell him. What a pair of incredibly narrow-minded clowns. You want to discuss global climate change, yet choose to focus on only one very tiny period of time of the earth's existence. How unbelievably naive (or cunning, if the truth be known). The Climate Church is losing traction. Every day another liar or fraud exposed. Lovin' it.

Greggary - It's about science. We already know the effects of climatology on dinosaurs. We've already seen Christopher Monckton in action.

As I said before, we know very little about paleoclimate, and a lot of what we know is through our knowledge of the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases from studying today's climate mechanisms.

Here is a nice Wikipedia article on paleoclimatology for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

If you want to talk about it, maybe you should learn about it first.

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 9:43am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:51am: muso wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:23am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 2:26am: I‘m not thinking in terms of billions of years! To think in terms of billions of years you would need a purpose for doing so! Good. You tell him. What a pair of incredibly narrow-minded clowns. You want to discuss global climate change, yet choose to focus on only one very tiny period of time of the earth's existence. How unbelievably naive (or cunning, if the truth be known). The Climate Church is losing traction. Every day another liar or fraud exposed. Lovin' it. As I said before, we know very little about paleoclimate ...

Exactly.

So why go on about it?

That's why in Australia we have record temperatures from satellite data. From places where there there has never been a thermometer raised in anger.

lee wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:46am:

That's why in Australia we have record temperatures from satellite data. From places where there there has never been a thermometer raised in anger.

Its still a record lol. Love it. You can put a thermometer anywhere in Australia today that has never had one and call it a record tomorrow.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 12:19pm:

lee wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 11:46am: That's why in Australia we have record temperatures from satellite data. From places where there there has never been a thermometer raised in anger. Its still a record lol. Love it. You can put a thermometer anywhere in Australia today that has never had one and call it a record tomorrow.

I've got an idea where these AGW loons can stick a thermometer.

Go hate: let's all hate the kids because the adults trashed the joint and the party is over  ::)

What is this? Dumb and Dumber or the Three Stooges? The record temperatures  were from terrestrial weather stations.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 1:28pm:

Go hate: let's all hate the kids because the adults trashed the joint and the party is over  ::)

The 'hate the kids' bit is getting a bit old (not to mention the fact that it's completely irrelevant).

You need a new schtick.

Seriously.

muso, Sorry I can only go on the BOM site.

'This statement has been prepared using the homogenised Australian temperature dataset, ACORN-SAT and high-quality rainfall data.'

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2013/

Satellite data.

lee wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 5:47pm:

muso, Sorry I can only go on the BOM site. 'This statement has been prepared using the homogenised Australian temperature dataset, ACORN-SAT and high-quality rainfall data.' http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2013/ Satellite data.

ACORN-SAT is not satellite data. SAT stands for Surface Air Temperature. Here is a listing of the ACORN-SAT stations:

http://lab.environment.data.gov.au/data/acorn/climate/slice

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 5:04pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 1:28pm: Go hate: let's all hate the kids because the adults trashed the joint and the party is over  ::) The 'hate the kids' bit is getting a bit old (not to mention the fact that it's completely irrelevant). You need a new schtick. Seriously.

Don't tell me how to save the world matey  8-)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 6:41pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 5:04pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 1:28pm: Go hate: let's all hate the kids because the adults trashed the joint and the party is over  ::) The 'hate the kids' bit is getting a bit old (not to mention the fact that it's completely irrelevant). You need a new schtick. Seriously. Don't tell me how to save the world matey  8-)

Yes, you're going to save the world.


http://replygif.net/i/1126.gif

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 7:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 6:41pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 5:04pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 1:28pm: Go hate: let's all hate the kids because the adults trashed the joint and the party is over  ::) The 'hate the kids' bit is getting a bit old (not to mention the fact that it's completely irrelevant). You need a new schtick. Seriously. Don't tell me how to save the world matey  8-) Yes, you're going to save the world. http://replygif.net/i/1126.gif

Come along if you like!  :o

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 6:37pm:

lee wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 5:47pm: muso, Sorry I can only go on the BOM site. 'This statement has been prepared using the homogenised Australian temperature dataset, ACORN-SAT and high-quality rainfall data.' http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2013/ Satellite data. ACORN-SAT is not satellite data. SAT stands for Surface Air Temperature. Here is a listing of the ACORN-SAT stations: http://lab.environment.data.gov.au/data/acorn/climate/slice

DRAH, You're right, my bad.

lee wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:30pm:

muso wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 6:37pm: lee wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 5:47pm: muso, Sorry I can only go on the BOM site. 'This statement has been prepared using the homogenised Australian temperature dataset, ACORN-SAT and high-quality rainfall data.' http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2013/ Satellite data. ACORN-SAT is not satellite data. SAT stands for Surface Air Temperature. Here is a listing of the ACORN-SAT stations: http://lab.environment.data.gov.au/data/acorn/climate/slice DRAH, You're right, my bad.

:o am I ??  :o cool  :-?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:48pm:

:o am I ??  :o cool  :-?

Yes, you're right about rates of change.

muso wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 8:53pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 8:48pm: :o am I ??  :o cool  :-? Yes, you're right about rates of change.

The world wins then  ;)

lee wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 5:47pm:

muso, Sorry I can only go on the BOM site. 'This statement has been prepared using the homogenised Australian temperature dataset, ACORN-SAT and high-quality rainfall data.' http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2013/ Satellite data.

This is acorn-sat....

The methods used to create ACORN-SAT are wrong.

· Maintenance of ACORN-SAT as a production database is not practicable and not reproducible – Not by the BoM, and not by its author. It is one person’s view of Australian temperature history.

· The original Raw temperature data used to create the ACORN-SAT dataset has been corrupted by data merging and homogenising, and in particular by the Percentile Matching method employed.

· At least 60% of the entire ACORN-SAT dataset could be corrupted, and is of questionable value.

· BoM’s use of ACORN-SAT as their principal temporal temperature database is unsound. It should not be a regular BoM data product.

· ACORN-SAT in its present form cannot become the output of a “production” BoM system.

..............................

I reported in July 2012 that BoM data merging and homogenisation methods were introducing errors in temperature series that were not apparent in their “raw” data. I said that I had found 954 such errors, but that this was low estimate of the magnitude of the problem. These adjustments were made to large blocks of data, spanning many years. Thus if some were clearly wrong, then whole blocks of data must be suspect. I said in that report that ACORN-SAT should be withdrawn until these errors were corrected.

The second release of ACORN-SAT was in January 2013, to Y/E Dec 31, 2012. My data was downloaded Jan 21, 2013. I performed a detailed comparison between Releases 1 and 2.

This time I reported on April 28, 2013 that

1. All the Release 1 errors to Y/E Dec 2011 are repeated in Release 2.

more
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/04/the-australian-bureau-of-meteorology-gets-it-wrong/

More of the poorly done, scripted acorn-sat data

acorn-sat, homoginized the only way pseudo-scientists know how.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/28/australia-and-acorn-sat/

Acorn-sat vs satellite


Satellite says no record, not even close
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/australia/2013-hot-summer/australia-uah-summers.jpg

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/australias-angry-hot-summer-was-hot-angry-hype-satellites-show-it-was-average/

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:42pm:

... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/04/the-australian-bureau-of-meteorology-gets-it-wrong/

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5^th, 2014 at 11:54pm:

... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/28/australia-and-acorn-sat/

Quote:

Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:02am:

... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/australias-angry-hot-summer-was-hot-angry-hype-satellites-show-it-was-average/

Quote:

Joanne Nova aka JoNova (real name Joanne Codling), born circa 1967, is an Australian right wing communicator who mainly writes to promote anti-science views of climate in books and a denialist weblog, joannenova.com.au. She has no evident academic background in climate science; her degree (B.Sc.) is in molecular biology. ...

If these are your chosen sources of information on global warming, then it's no wonder you're such a mess.

progs (cods), like most deniers doesnt stop to think about things. He just reposts others thoughts.

Others smarter* than him.

* - Sometimes no qualification is smarter than him.

# wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:38pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 11:42pm: ... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/04/the-australian-bureau-of-meteorology-gets-it-wrong/ progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 11:54pm: ... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/28/australia-and-acorn-sat/ Quote: Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries. progressiveslol wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:02am: ... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/australias-angry-hot-summer-was-hot-angry-hype-satellites-show-it-was-average/ [quote]Joanne Nova aka JoNova (real name Joanne Codling), born circa 1967, is an Australian right wing communicator who mainly writes to promote anti-science views of climate in books and a denialist weblog, joannenova.com.au. She has no evident academic background in climate science; her degree (B.Sc.) is in molecular biology. ...

If these are your chosen sources of information on global warming, then it's no wonder you're such a mess.[/quote]



So what you are saying then is they are not qualified to reference thousands of scientific articles and material, thats like saying a reporter is not qualified to report on the news, they often reference sceptical science, the global warming loons preffered source of shite, a place where stuff does get made up.

You need to realise people like Nova, Watts and even Bolt are only reporting, they are not making anything up themselves, they are just a centre for reference,   I hope this helps ( but I'm sure it won't )     ::)

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

# wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:38pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 11:42pm: ... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/04/the-australian-bureau-of-meteorology-gets-it-wrong/ progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 11:54pm: ... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/28/australia-and-acorn-sat/ Quote: Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries. progressiveslol wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:02am: ... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/australias-angry-hot-summer-was-hot-angry-hype-satellites-show-it-was-average/ [quote]Joanne Nova aka JoNova (real name Joanne Codling), born circa 1967, is an Australian right wing communicator who mainly writes to promote anti-science views of climate in books and a denialist weblog, joannenova.com.au. She has no evident academic background in climate science; her degree (B.Sc.) is in molecular biology. ... If these are your chosen sources of information on global warming, then it's no wonder you're such a mess.

So what you are saying then is they are not qualified to reference thousands of scientific articles and material, thats like saying a reporter is not qualified to report on the news, they often reference sceptical science, the global warming loons preffered source of shite, a place where stuff does get made up.

You need to realise people like Nova, Watts and even Bolt are only reporting, they are not making anything up themselves, they are just a centre for reference,   I hope this helps ( but I'm sure it won't )     ::)[/quote]
Dont worry. The idiot comes from skeptical science, the cooke who cooks the books and is still saying what he is saying. Nothing but a pathetic AGW loon

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

You need to realise people like Nova, Watts and even Bolt are only reporting, they are not making anything up themselves, they are just a centre for reference,   I hope this helps ( but I'm sure it won't )     ::)

That is so funny.

;D ;D

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:50pm:

Dont worry. The idiot comes from skeptical science, the cooke who cooks the books and is still saying what he is saying. Nothing but a pathetic AGW loon

Are you saying we shouldn't take Dikran Marsupial and the rest of the kooky global warming activists at unsceptical science seriously?   :D


http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/gavin_small.jpg

Dikran Marsupial

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:56pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:48pm: You need to realise people like Nova, Watts and even Bolt are only reporting, they are not making anything up themselves, they are just a centre for reference,   I hope this helps ( but I'm sure it won't )     ::) That is so funny. ;D ;D

Please link to anything they have made up if you have some evidence of them making stuff up.  :) , you know, like all those thousands of links that proves sceptical shite made up a bogus consensus  ;)

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

# wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:38pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 11:42pm: ... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/04/the-australian-bureau-of-meteorology-gets-it-wrong/ progressiveslol wrote on Jan 5th, 2014 at 11:54pm: ... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/28/australia-and-acorn-sat/ Quote: Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries. progressiveslol wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:02am: ... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/australias-angry-hot-summer-was-hot-angry-hype-satellites-show-it-was-average/ [quote]Joanne Nova aka JoNova (real name Joanne Codling), born circa 1967, is an Australian right wing communicator who mainly writes to promote anti-science views of climate in books and a denialist weblog, joannenova.com.au. She has no evident academic background in climate science; her degree (B.Sc.) is in molecular biology. ... If these are your chosen sources of information on global warming, then it's no wonder you're such a mess.

So what you are saying then is they are not qualified ...[/quote]Precisely! They're no more qualified to interpret complex climate science than you or I.

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:59pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:56pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:48pm: You need to realise people like Nova, Watts and even Bolt are only reporting, they are not making anything up themselves, they are just a centre for reference,   I hope this helps ( but I'm sure it won't )     ::) That is so funny. ;D ;D Please link to anything they have made up if you have some evidence of them making stuff up.  :) , you know, like all those thousands of links that proves sceptical shite made up a bogus consensus  ;)

Here is a good start:  http://wottsupwiththat.com/

Knock yourself out.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 2:55pm:

Here is a good start:  http://wottsupwiththat.com/ Knock yourself out.

Would you like to be a little bit more specific, I haven't got time to wade through some global warming lunatics ranting nonsense, can you narrow it down a little.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 12:50pm:

... The idiot comes from skeptical science, ...

Which has reputable scientists prepared to endorse it. If memory serves, Skeptical Science won a prestigious award as well.

What reputable scientist endorse Watts or Nova? What awards have they won?

I don't pretend to know. I'm guided by credible others.

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 3:07pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:55pm: Here is a good start:  http://wottsupwiththat.com/ Knock yourself out. Would you like to be a little bit more specific, I haven't got time to wade through some global warming lunatics ranting nonsense, can you narrow it down a little.

So you acknowledge that there's so much wrong with Watts that you can't cope?

That endorsement page is a riot  ;D, what awards have they given themselves too, that will be good for a laugh, probably a Gore award  ;D

# wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 3:14pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:07pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:55pm: Here is a good start:  http://wottsupwiththat.com/ Knock yourself out. Would you like to be a little bit more specific, I haven't got time to wade through some global warming lunatics ranting nonsense, can you narrow it down a little. So you acknowledge that there's so much wrong with Watts that you can't cope?

I acknowledge that watts has made nothing up and thats why nobody can provide evidence  ;)

Innocent is covering his eyes: GO CENSORSHIP  8-)

THE CLOUDS SAY WHAT?

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 3:18pm:

That endorsement page is a riot  ;D, what awards have they given themselves too, that will be good for a laugh, probably a Gore award  ;D

A Eureka, I think, from the Australian Museum. If memory serves it was for excellence in science communication.

You see, the likes of Watts and Nova don't get endorsements from reputable scientists because they're disreputable. They aren't awarded because they don't rate.

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 3:19pm:

# wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:14pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:07pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:55pm: Here is a good start:  http://wottsupwiththat.com/ Knock yourself out. Would you like to be a little bit more specific, I haven't got time to wade through some global warming lunatics ranting nonsense, can you narrow it down a little. So you acknowledge that there's so much wrong with Watts that you can't cope? I acknowledge that watts has made nothing up and thats why nobody can provide evidence  ;)

Plenty of evidence  here. Just look at the first page for a lesson in how not to interpret. That's Watts' problem, he's trying to play a game, but he doesn't know the rules.

# wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:00pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:18pm: That endorsement page is a riot  ;D, what awards have they given themselves too, that will be good for a laugh, probably a Gore award  ;D A Eureka, I think, from the Australian Museum. If memory serves it was for excellence in science communication.

Stop it you're killing me http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/ImaPoser.gif

# wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:05pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:19pm: # wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:14pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:07pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:55pm: Here is a good start:  http://wottsupwiththat.com/ Knock yourself out. Would you like to be a little bit more specific, I haven't got time to wade through some global warming lunatics ranting nonsense, can you narrow it down a little. So you acknowledge that there's so much wrong with Watts that you can't cope? I acknowledge that watts has made nothing up and thats why nobody can provide evidence  ;) Plenty of evidence  here. Just look at the first page for a lesson in how not to interpret. That's Watts' problem, he's trying to play a game, but he doesn't know the rules.

If you could narrow it down a little that would be nice, what specifically did Watts make up?, thats the trouble when people like Watts kick your lame global warming kooks arses out of the park, you have to resort to slander because you have nothing else.

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:11pm:

# wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:00pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:18pm: That endorsement page is a riot  ;D, what awards have they given themselves too, that will be good for a laugh, probably a Gore award  ;D A Eureka, I think, from the Australian Museum. If memory serves it was for excellence in science communication. Stop it you're killing me http://d26ya5yqg8yyvs.cloudfront.net/ImaPoser.gif

:)
As I said, the likes of Watts and Nova don't get endorsements from reputable scientists because they're disreputable. They aren't awarded because they don't rate.

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:14pm:

# wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:05pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:19pm: # wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:14pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:07pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:55pm: Here is a good start:  http://wottsupwiththat.com/ Knock yourself out. Would you like to be a little bit more specific, I haven't got time to wade through some global warming lunatics ranting nonsense, can you narrow it down a little. So you acknowledge that there's so much wrong with Watts that you can't cope? I acknowledge that watts has made nothing up and thats why nobody can provide evidence  ;) Plenty of evidence  here. Just look at the first page for a lesson in how not to interpret. That's Watts' problem, he's trying to play a game, but he doesn't know the rules. If you could narrow it down a little that would be nice, what specifically did Watts make up?, thats the trouble when people like Watts kick your lame global warming kooks arses out of the park, you have to resort to slander because you have nothing else.

Just look at the first page.

Just give me an example.

# wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 3:12pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:50pm: ... The idiot comes from skeptical science, ... Which has reputable scientists prepared to endorse it. If memory serves, Skeptical Science won a prestigious award as well. What reputable scientist endorse Watts or Nova? What awards have they won? I don't pretend to know. I'm guided by credible others.

;D ;D ;D
The dribble you speak is pathetic really

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:29pm:

# wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:12pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:50pm: ... The idiot comes from skeptical science, ... Which has reputable scientists prepared to endorse it. If memory serves, Skeptical Science won a prestigious award as well. What reputable scientist endorse Watts or Nova? What awards have they won? I don't pretend to know. I'm guided by credible others. ;D ;D ;D The dribble you speak is pathetic really

Incredible as it may seem he really thinks that all of those thousands and thousands of articles referenced by Watts and Nova were actually written by them too  :D

'John Cook, founder of the blog Skeptical Science, has won the New South Wales Government Eureka Prize for Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge'

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/08/314374/skeptical-science-wins-award-for-demolishing-denier-myths/

I'm not sure as to claims of prestige. Proudly sponsored by UNSW- Climate Change anyone?

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:14pm:

# wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:05pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:19pm: # wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:14pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:07pm: Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 2:55pm: Here is a good start:  http://wottsupwiththat.com/ Knock yourself out. Would you like to be a little bit more specific, I haven't got time to wade through some global warming lunatics ranting nonsense, can you narrow it down a little. So you acknowledge that there's so much wrong with Watts that you can't cope? I acknowledge that watts has made nothing up and thats why nobody can provide evidence  ;) Plenty of evidence  here. Just look at the first page for a lesson in how not to interpret. That's Watts' problem, he's trying to play a game, but he doesn't know the rules. If you could narrow it down a little that would be nice, what specifically did Watts make up?, thats the trouble when people like Watts kick your lame global warming kooks arses out of the park, you have to resort to slander because you have nothing else.

How are you going with that evidence Gumby?, or shall we just agree that you have severe comprehension problems   ;D

'The IPCC's charter from the outset has been ''to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation''.

The IPCC's focus is therefore very specific - any human influence on climate. It has no mandate to examine other causes of climate change. IPCC assessment reports claim that the human influence is significant but look closely and we find the claims are based on the output of climate models that the IPCC admits are seriously flawed, that the IPCC often asserts a level of certainty that the data cannot sustain and that as ''Climategate'' showed us, a clique of scientists has in the past sought to control the material cited by these reports.
Advertisement

What starts out being a scientific report becomes a political instrument because after a hard-core group of IPCC supporters draft the Summary for Policymakers, government representatives discuss, negotiate and eventually agree on the wording of each sentence. The scientific component of the report is then modified to better align it with the thinking of government representatives.

If the IPCC reports were accepted for exactly what they are - exaggerated science with a large dollop of politics - this would be the end of the matter. Unfortunately, various bodies actively encourage us to believe the reports are entirely scientific, accurate and completely authoritative on all climate matters, this despite the IPCC's charter and the political interference.'

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/lack-of-accountability-clouding-the-climate-change-debate-20140102-307ja.html#ixzz2pcOzEmFi

'John McLean is the author of three peer-reviewed papers on climate and an expert reviewer for the latest IPCC report. He is also a climate data analyst and a member of the International Climate Science Coalition.'

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/lack-of-accountability-clouding-the-climate-change-debate-20140102-307ja.html#ixzz2pcP8FhtC

# wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:16pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:14pm: ... If you could narrow it down a little ... Just look at the first page.

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:27pm:

Just give me an example.

First you want me to narrow it down. I narrow it down. Then you demand an example.

Moving the goalposts is a loser's game.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 8:29pm:

# wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 3:12pm: progressiveslol wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 12:50pm: ... The idiot comes from skeptical science, ... Which has reputable scientists prepared to endorse it. If memory serves, Skeptical Science won a prestigious award as well. What reputable scientist endorse Watts or Nova? What awards have they won? I don't pretend to know. I'm guided by credible others. ;D ;D ;D The dribble you speak is pathetic really

Says he who's guided by disreputable others.  ::)

lee wrote on Jan 6^th, 2014 at 9:52pm:

... 'John McLean is the author of three peer-reviewed papers on climate and an expert reviewer for the latest IPCC report. He is also a climate data analyst and a member of the International Climate Science Coalition.' Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/lack-of-accountability-clouding-the-climate-change-debate-20140102-307ja.html#ixzz2pcP8FhtC

According to his personal home page, John McLean is a Computer consultant and occasional travel photographer. His main contribution has been in providing object lessons in how not to conduct science.


Quote:

The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) is a group of climate change skeptics ...

Quote:

Web leak shows trail of climate sceptic funding Date February 18, 2012 THE paper trail connecting the climate change sceptic movement in Australia and the conservative US expert panel the Heartland Institute goes back at least to 2009, ... The chief science adviser to the International Climate Science Coalition is Bob Carter, an adjunct professor at Queensland's James Cook University. When the Herald asked Professor Carter if people should be concerned about his impartiality given that he is on the Heartland Institute's payroll, he said: ''No more so than you should be concerned that a CSIRO employee is paid by the government.'' ...

# wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 7:43am:

# wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:16pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:14pm: ... If you could narrow it down a little ... Just look at the first page. Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:27pm: Just give me an example. First you want me to narrow it down. I narrow it down. Then you demand an example. Moving the goalposts is a loser's game.

Really....your posts are littered with you doing exactly that....so I guess by your own definition you define yourself as a loser.  ;)

# wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 7:43am:

# wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:16pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:14pm: ... If you could narrow it down a little ... Just look at the first page. Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:27pm: Just give me an example. First you want me to narrow it down. I narrow it down. Then you demand an example. Moving the goalposts is a loser's game.

So no examples of Watts making stuff up, thankyou for proving me right. 

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 8:41am:

# wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 7:43am: # wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:16pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:14pm: ... If you could narrow it down a little ... Just look at the first page. Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:27pm: Just give me an example. First you want me to narrow it down. I narrow it down. Then you demand an example. Moving the goalposts is a loser's game. So no examples of Watts making stuff up, thankyou for proving me right.

Do you include "making stuff up"  as cherry picking data, and producing a trend line that is the opposite direction of trend lines on the complete data ?

The only way this could be acheived is a deliberate trial and error to find the unusual set of data that matches his desired outcome.  This practice is a big no-no is scientific circles.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 8:59am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 8:41am: # wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 7:43am: # wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:16pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:14pm: ... If you could narrow it down a little ... Just look at the first page. Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:27pm: Just give me an example. First you want me to narrow it down. I narrow it down. Then you demand an example. Moving the goalposts is a loser's game. So no examples of Watts making stuff up, thankyou for proving me right.  Do you include "making stuff up"  as cherry picking data, and producing a trend line that is the opposite direction of trend lines on the complete data ? The only way this could be acheived is a deliberate trial and error to find the unusual set of data that matches his desired outcome.  This practice is a big no-no is scientific circles.

Link please  :)

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 8:41am:

# wrote on Jan 7th, 2014 at 7:43am: # wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:16pm: Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:14pm: ... If you could narrow it down a little ... Just look at the first page. Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 6th, 2014 at 8:27pm: Just give me an example. First you want me to narrow it down. I narrow it down. Then you demand an example. Moving the goalposts is a loser's game. So no examples of Watts making stuff up, ...

Lots here