Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

Status
Not open for further replies.
After Another Record Snowfall, Greenland Approaches A Record For Mass Gain
Posted on February 4, 2015

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Greenland just gained 12 billion tons of snow in one day, and is approaching a record amount of mass gain.

This is the part where alarmists say “glaciers are calving faster than new ice is forming.” They don’t understand that glacial flow is a delayed response to the accumulation of excess snow. They also don’t understand that small changes in gravity measurements are useless for measuring
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    69.7 KB · Views: 49
OBD - it's a little astounding AND alarming how quickly you latch onto any glimmer of support you can find to support and promote the Koch brothers talking notes w/o critically thinking for yourself.

You do realize - being a Canadian I hope - that more snow falls as the temperature warms up from subzero to near zero temperatures. However, the season - in a warming Arctic - shortens - and seasonal loads decrease and ice caps melt.

Your post above proves nothing but ignorance. I don't believe that is a virtue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Climate Science Fiction: IPCC Climate Model Predictions of Global Warming 8X Greater Than Reality

We've said it before...climate models can't predict squat...current scenarios of global climate temperatures and level of temp change already reveal a massive failure...policymakers and taxpayers should completely disregard the virtual computer simulations of climate doomsday proposed by UN's IPCC.....

Ipcc climate model science fiction versus climate science fact reality 2014 013115
(click on graph to enlarge)
This is not brain surgery. This is not rocket science. This is not nuclear physics.

This is climate science fact versus climate science fiction (i.e. computer model simulations).

Climate science fiction: For the last 10 year-period, the UN's IPCC climate models predicted greenhouse global warming equaling a per century trend of 1.7°C.

Climate fact: The globe warmed at only a +0.2°C/century trend. In other words, global warming has stalled, paused, or if one prefers, in a hiatus condition.

Simply put, the computer simulations programmed by CAGW alarmists produced virtual global warming 8 times greater than climate reality.

This spectacular failure by models (developed by the "consensus" experts) is well documented. And as of this date, there are over 50+ excuses reasons by these "experts" as to why their billion-dollar climate simulations have turned out to be worthless for policymakers.

Article source for above climate model predictions.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    35.7 KB · Views: 40
Dr Roy Spencer.
Northeast Snowstorms & Atlantic Water Vapor: No Connection in Last 27 Years

One of the theories of how snowstorms can be made worse is that warming oceans provide more moisture for fuel.

While the theory sounds logical and even attractive, there are many ingredients that go into snowstorm formation. There has to be a synoptic scale disturbance feeding off the temperature contrast between the land and ocean, and since the land-ocean temperature contrast has actually DECREASED in the last several decades (if you believe the thermometer data), this would reduce the energy available for storm formation. (The “more-wavy” jet stream theory is highly suspect…without a greater temperature contrast, there is not as much thermal energy available for “baroclinic instability”).

Nevertheless, there do seem to have been more snowstorms in the Northeast U.S. in the last decade, so what might be the cause? As a meteorologist, my first inclination is to blame, in effect, “chaos”. Weather and climate variations are chaotic, there ARE weather patterns that can get set up and then persist. But these regional influences are basically disconnected from whether the global average temperature happens to be 1 deg. warmer or cooler. They are instead being driven by temperature contrasts of many tens of degrees.

But we can examine with observational data Kevin Trenberth’s hypothesis that increased Northeast snowstorms are the result of more water vapor from the North Atlantic.

For the last 27 years we have had the SSM/I and SSMIS instruments monitoring total water vapor content over the oceans every day. I took the Northwest Atlantic area from 30N to 50N, and 50W to 80W and examined the monthly average water vapor over this area versus the NESIS (Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale) index.

The results suggest basically no relationship between available water vapor and snowstorm events over the last 27 years:

There is little if any relationship between Northeast U.S. snowstorms and atmospheric water vapor over the Northwest Atlantic between 1988-2014.
There is little if any relationship between Northeast U.S. snowstorms and atmospheric water vapor over the Northwest Atlantic between 1988-2014.

In fact, while warm season water vapor has increased, cold season water vapor (if anything) has decreased on average over the region, making less vapor available for storms. The net trend through all seasons is about +0.5% per decade over the 27 year period.

There is always abundant water vapor available for U.S. snowstorms to feed off of, just as there is always abundant tropical water vapor available for hurricanes and typhoons. But that’s not the limiting factor in storm formation. What is necessary is the variety of conditions which can support the formation of low pressure centers….sufficient water vapor is usually ready and waiting to play its part.

It has more to do with the necessary temperature contrast between air masses (and in the case of tropical cyclones, vertical wind shear). And since global warming (no matter the cause) will lead to the continents warming faster than the ocean (reducing the energy for incipient storms), there is no convincing way to blame global warming for increasing snowstorm activity in the Northeast U.S.


And until climate scientists decide whether global warming causes more snow or less snow, don’t trust them. They will probably decide on “both”, which then makes it an untestable hypothesis, which is what climate science (and the politicians) love.

OBD - it's a little astounding AND alarming how quickly you latch onto any glimmer of support you can find to support and promote the Koch brothers talking notes w/o critically thinking for yourself.

You do realize - being a Canadian I hope - that more snow falls as the temperature warms up from subzero to near zero temperatures. However, the season - in a warming Arctic - shortens - and seasonal loads decrease and ice caps melt.

Your post above proves nothing but ignorance. I don't believe that is a virtue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr Roy Spencer.
Northeast Snowstorms & Atlantic Water Vapor: No Connection in Last 27 Years

One of the theories of how snowstorms can be made worse is that warming oceans provide more moisture for fuel...And until climate scientists decide whether global warming causes more snow or less snow, don’t trust them. They will probably decide on “both”, which then makes it an untestable hypothesis, which is what climate science (and the politicians) love.
Ah yes - the indomitable Spenser hedging his bets here. Any answer of criticism is wrong. His message of fear is transparent: "don’t trust them". Don't trust the scientists and the science. Instead. Ignore the science.

You know if he was that much in the know he could publish in the peer-review process. BUT...that might open him up to be proved wrong. Quel dommage!

Anyways this has already been answered in the - ahh sciences - what a concept.

on 01-29-2015, 09:20 PM post#2000 I posted:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150129143040.htm

Global warming won't mean more storms; but big storms get bigger, small storms shrink
Date: January 29, 2015
Source: University of Toronto
Summary: Atmospheric physicists predict that global warming will not lead to an overall increasingly stormy atmosphere, a topic debated by scientists for decades. Instead, strong storms will become stronger while weak storms become weaker, and the cumulative result of the number of storms will remain unchanged.

Journal Reference: F. Laliberte, J. Zika, L. Mudryk, P. J. Kushner, J. Kjellsson, K. Doos. Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate. Science, 2015; 347 (6221): 540 DOI: 10.1126/science.1257103 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1257103

Maybe try reading the actual science and thinking for yourself OBD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://canadalandshow.com/article/global-news-disappeared-koch-brothers-expose
Global News Disappeared a Koch Brothers Exposé
blames freelancer

Jesse Brown's picture
Jesse Brown • February 5, 2015

An investigative report into the billionaire Koch brothers' connections to Canada was pulled from Global's newsmagazine show 16x9 shortly before broadcast, and an article published on the same topic was scrubbed from GlobalNews.ca, CANADALAND has learned.

Last Thursday at 11:06am, an article titled "The Koch Stake in Canada" ran on GlobalNews.ca. The piece, by veteran investigative reporter Bruce Livesey summarized an upcoming investigative report titled "The Koch Connection," which, the article promised, was set to air two days later, on Saturday January 31 at 7pm. Global News promoted the item with a post on 16x9's Facebook page and a tweet from an official account, which was retweeted by Global's Washington correspondent Jackson Proskow.

By Thursday night, the article had disappeared from GlobalNews.ca, the Facebook post and official tweet were deleted, as was Proskow's retweet.

On Saturday night, 16x9 went to air without "The Koch Connection".

The article was preserved by Google Cache and brought to CANADALAND's attention by a reader. It can be read here.

The videos embedded in the article have disappeared, and no clips from the promised broadcast can be found online.

The article presents a series of verifiable facts about Charles and David Koch, the extraodinarily wealthy American brothers who funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into the U.S. political system, who are the biggest foreign lease-holders in the Canadian Oil Sands, and who fund the climate-change denying Fraser Institute think tank here in Canada.

Global News is owned by Calagry-based Shaw Communications, who advertise their services to the oil & gas industries here.

CANADALAND contacted Ron Waksman, Global News' Senior Director of Online News, Current Affairs, Editorial Standards & Practices, and conducted the following interview by phone:

Why did The Koch Connection not run?

Look, it wasn't killed, it was set aside. It was not up to scratch. Had the producer (Bruce Livesey) done better work, then.... It was not cancelled or dropped.

But why was it pulled so late? Didn't (16x9 Executive Producer) Laurie Few sign off on it?

What do you mean "sign off?"

Had she seen it?

Let's just say that Laurie acknowledged that due diligence was required on the script. More due diligence should have been done.

So did Laurie pull it or did you?

I read the web story, I had some concerns. It had some holes in it. I went back and watched the piece. It needs more work. Likely we won't revisit it until next season.

What holes did the web story have in it?

Look, when we have an editorial hypothesis, we need facts to back it up, we didn't have the facts to back it up. In my opinion it didn't meet our standards of fairness and balance. It just wasn't up to scratch.

Ron, you hired Bruce to write that piece and you published it. Now you're publicly disparaging his journalism but you won't say why? What holes were in his piece? You won't substantiate that?

Look, my job is not just to oversee 16x9 but everything. The duty of care may be higher on 16x9. It's better to look at the work and get it right.

Shaw does business in the oil sands, right?

No-one outside Global News attempted to influence us, it just wasn't up to editorial scratch.

A report like this takes many people months to produce. I assume it went through some kind of editorial process before being slated for broadcast and promoted. Do you have confidence in the 16x9 team, in Laurie Few?

I have a great deal of confidence in Laurie.

Do you have confidence in Bruce Livesey?

Bruce is a freelance producer. He's not on staff. I don't know Bruce all that well. I judge by the work.

***
Bruce Livesey declined to comment on these events. CANADALAND is told by sources at Global News that Livesey has two pending investigations commissioned by 16x9.

Livesey is well-regarded in the Canadian journalistic community. He has been investigating corporate abuse and corruption in Canada for over 20 years, and has contributed to CBC's fifth estate and PBS' Frontline.

jesse@jessebrown.ca
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NASA’s Arctic Fraud

By Paul Homewood

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/arctic_ice3.php

I showed this graph from a 2003 NASA report earlier today. It came with this commentary:

Comiso’s new study presents some striking trends. When compared to longer- term, ground-based surface temperature data, the rate of warming in the Arctic from 1981 to 2001 is eight times larger than the rate of Arctic warming over the last 100 years.

Hands up who can spot the fraud.

I'm stunned how illiterate your team is. Can your team not even read or understand the website that the link that was supplied to?
Yes I have my hand up because I can spot the fraud.... you and your team.
 
After Another Record Snowfall, Greenland Approaches A Record For Mass Gain
Posted on February 4, 2015

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Budget: DMI

Greenland just gained 12 billion tons of snow in one day, and is approaching a record amount of mass gain.

This is the part where alarmists say “glaciers are calving faster than new ice is forming.” They don’t understand that glacial flow is a delayed response to the accumulation of excess snow. They also don’t understand that small changes in gravity measurements are useless for measuring

Why don't you go to the source of this information and read and understand what is happening?
Is that asking too much from you? Need someone else to do your thinking for you?
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
If you read the source you would find this important detail.
"Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr"

I needed to breakout another keyboard because my morning coffee ruined another one when I read this part of your post.
"small changes in gravity measurements are useless for measuring"
Seems your team now has a problem with the "theory of gravity"
Do keep us updated on the results of your quest to poke holes in that theory.

I'm stunned but not surprised how such a lack of understand your team displays on a daily basis.
 
Global Warming Conundrums And "Force Fitting" Contradictory Data

When faced with obvious conundrums that do not support the global warming consensus theory, science experts often retreat to the safety of “force-fitting” contradictory data.

Figure 1Figure 1

Global warming advocates are in the midst of doing this very thing. Significant amounts of data, observations, and climate trends are just not fitting into their theory. For instance; polar ice mass is not decreasing, sea level is not rising at predicted rates, alpine glaciers are not melting at predicted rates, hurricanes are not increasing in intensity or frequency, and the granddaddy of all global warming contradictions…”Earth’s Ocean’s are Warming / Earth’s Atmosphere is NOT Warming”.

Big problem!

Climate experts have handled this global warming conundrum by suggesting that excess manmade heat has somehow been mysteriously funneled into the oceans. OK, stop for a moment and think about what you are being asked to believe. Funneled how? The entire heat store of earth’s atmosphere suddenly gets scooped up by hitherto unrecognized unique winds and currents, and then transposed without a trace into the ocean.

Implied and perplexing aspects of this funneling process include: it is historically unique, heat energy is concentrated into a point source prior to ocean injection, and most importantly, the funneling process is an acceptable “adjustment” to the global warming theory…not a “Force Fit.”

The history of how climate science agencies have handled this ocean and atmospheric “force-fitting” process is very telling.

1995: Oceans have nothing to do with manmade atmospheric global warming.
2011: Deep oceans have absorbed all the manmade global warming heat.
2013: Deep oceans haven’t absorbed any manmade global warming heat.
2014: Shallow oceans have absorbed all manmade global warming heat.

Unnerving, curious, and confusing at best.

Another major ocean and atmospheric conundrum is that ocean temperatures have changed in a non-uniform fashion: varying dramatically from area to area, vertically within the ocean column, and throughout time.

These verified non-uniform changes show that certain portions of the ocean may actually cool for a time while other areas are warming. Yes, the ocean is generally getting warmer at expected post-ice age rates, however, not in a uniform fashion. Non-uniform ocean temperature changes do not fit well with absolutist statements by climate scientists that oceans will warm in a linear, continuous, and dramatic fashion.

Evidence supporting non-uniform ocean temperature change is abundant and diverse in nature. First, Western Pacific ocean surface temperatures were anomalously warm in late spring and early summer of 2014. So warm, Japan issued a formal El Niño Alert (Figure 2).

Japan Weather Bureau Declares First El Niño in Five Years (Reuters) - Japan's weather bureau said on Wednesday that an El Niño weather pattern, which can trigger drought in some parts of the world while causing flooding in others, had emerged during the summer for the first time in five years and was likely to continue into winter. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/10/us-elnino-japan-idUSKBN0JO0I620141210)Figure 2: Japan Weather Bureau Declares First El Niño in Five Years (Reuters) - Japan's weather bureau said on Wednesday that an El Niño weather pattern, which can trigger drought in some parts of the world while causing flooding in others, had emerged during the summer for the first time in five years and was likely to continue into winter. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/10/us-elnino-japan-idUSKBN0JO0I620141210)

Climate scientists in the U.S. notified the media that their climate models strongly indicated an El Niño of monumental proportions was clearly imminent by late summer 2014.

Well…it didn’t happen. There was no El Niño of monumental proportions, but rather Western Pacific sea surface temperatures were unexpectedly moderated during the late summer of 2015. These events are clear evidence that global warming / El Niño climate models cannot predict ocean-warming trends, even short-term trends.

Model credibility was severely damaged. Shocked and surprised, U.S.-based science agencies utilized the mainstream media to cover their scientific retreat by claiming “Natural Variation.” Sadly, many in the public bought the whole story, neither questioning what went wrong, nor wavering in their collective and passionate global warming beliefs.

Proof of non-uniform ocean temperature response extends far beyond just temperature readings, it can be observed in the non-uniform response of polar ice masses. Major portions of the polar ice masses lie directly above, or are in lateral contact with the ocean. Therefore, polar ice extent responses would presumably be tied to ocean warming responses, so say global warming experts.

Arctic Ice extent diminished rapidly from 2001 to 2007, then suddenly increased back to near normal during the 2012 to 2015 time period. These trends do not fit global warming climate models, which predicted continuous, uniform, and rapid Arctic ice extent decrease. Most climate models, and more importantly, climate science agencies, suggested the Arctic would be ice free, or nearly ice free by 2015. Again, it didn’t happen.

The ramifications of this model prediction failure are truly staggering.

Noted universities such as the NOAA-funded University of Colorado INSTAAR (Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research) group have recently amended previous predictions by climate scientists that the Arctic would be ice free by 2015. INSTAAR now says Arctic ice extent is extremely variable and it may take decades to understand. (http://www.colorado.edu/news/releas...tic-sea-ice-loss-expected-be-bumpy-short-term). This is essentially an admission that Arctic ice extent decrease can no longer be used as the poster child for global warming. INSTAAR’s announcement also contradicts IPCC and U.S. government statements that the debate is settled and it’s time to take action. Gone is the pretence of a “consensus” theory, no more 97%.

Wow! Have to take a breath here to regain composure.

Ok…now on to modern Antarctic ice extent conundrums. Antarctic ice extent trends clearly don’t fit global warming climate models: ice extent has increased for thirty years, recent and very rapid local ice melting has occurred in glaciers above the geothermally active West Antarctic Rift System (West Antarctic Ice Sheet Melting From Geothermal Heat Not Global Warming), and East Antarctic glacial ice mass is increasing.

So how can all of the above-mentioned ocean and atmospheric global-warming conundrums be placed into a more believable framework? The answer lies in giving strong consideration to a new and sound geologically based theory: Plate Climatology.

Plate Climatology Theory is a far more plausible explanation of many observed natural variations in ocean temperatures. Does it answer all ocean temperature variation questions? No. However, it does an excellent job of explaining many of them, especially prominent ones such as: El Niños, La Niñas, and rapid shifts in polar ice extents to name a few. One of the basic tenants of Plate Climatology Theory is that geologically induced heat flow from deep ocean faulted rift systems (figure1) act to warm the oceans from beneath much like a stove burner heats a pot of water.

Knowing this, ocean and atmospheric conundrums can be resolved.

If you heat the oceans from beneath they will warm, but will have little effect on the atmosphere. Non-uniform, lateral ocean-temperature variations are easily explained because the primary deep ocean heat sources are limited in geographical distribution: rift systems are limited to plate pull-a-part boundaries, and active volcanic areas are of limited extent. The time-variable element of non-uniform ocean temperature changes is caused by the proven on / off nature of these deep ocean heat sources. Many non-uniform polar ice and El Niño responses are a consequence of geologically induced ocean temperature changes.

By utilizing Plate Climatology Theory, many conundrums, questions, and odd trends are answered and clarified. Additionally, major variations in ocean and atmospheric temperatures can be “Naturally Fit” into a geological setting.

James Edward Kamis is a Geologist and AAPG member of 40 years and has always been fascinated by the connection between Geology and Climate. Years of research / observation have convinced him that the Earth’s Heat Flow Engine, which drives the outer crustal plates, is also an important driver of the Earth’s climate. To contact James, please use the Contact Us page.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    48.2 KB · Views: 68
Quote.


The ramifications of this model prediction failure are truly staggering.

Noted universities such as the NOAA-funded University of Colorado INSTAAR (Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research) group have recently amended previous predictions by climate scientists that the Arctic would be ice free by 2015. INSTAAR now says Arctic ice extent is extremely variable and it may take decades to understand. (http://www.colorado.edu/news/releas...tic-sea-ice-loss-expected-be-bumpy-short-term). This is essentially an admission that Arctic ice extent decrease can no longer be used as the poster child for global warming. INSTAAR’s announcement also contradicts IPCC and U.S. government statements that the debate is settled and it’s time to take action. Gone is the pretence of a “consensus” theory, no more 97%.
 
Climate Science Fiction: IPCC Climate Model Predictions of Global Warming 8X Greater Than Reality

We've said it before...climate models can't predict squat...current scenarios of global climate temperatures and level of temp change already reveal a massive failure...policymakers and taxpayers should completely disregard the virtual computer simulations of climate doomsday proposed by UN's IPCC.....

Oh my... Lord Monckton speaks again and the fan boy's eat it up as "truth"
It's stunning how you folks fall for such nonsense.
Wake up and Man up.
[hl2lShU6zD0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl2lShU6zD0
 
Global Warming Conundrums And "Force Fitting" Contradictory Data

Plate Climatology Theory is a far more plausible explanation of many observed natural variations in ocean temperatures. Does it answer all ocean temperature variation questions? No. However, it does an excellent job of explaining many of them, especially prominent ones such as: El Niños, La Niñas, and rapid shifts in polar ice extents to name a few. One of the basic tenants of Plate Climatology Theory is that geologically induced heat flow from deep ocean faulted rift systems (figure1) act to warm the oceans from beneath much like a stove burner heats a pot of water.

Knowing this, ocean and atmospheric conundrums can be resolved.

Western Pacific sea surface temperatures were unexpectedly moderated during the late summer of 2015. (OBD What is his source of this, does he also have a time machine?)

By utilizing Plate Climatology Theory, many conundrums, questions, and odd trends are answered and clarified. Additionally, major variations in ocean and atmospheric temperatures can be “Naturally Fit” into a geological setting.

James Edward Kamis is a Geologist and AAPG member of 40 years and has always been fascinated by the connection between Geology and Climate. Years of research / observation have convinced him that the Earth’s Heat Flow Engine, which drives the outer crustal plates, is also an important driver of the Earth’s climate. To contact James, please use the Contact Us page.

Well OBD we know you are scrambling to find an excuse for the trend 2014 being the hottest year on record but this?
Have you totally lost it? Don't answer that......

If this were true then we could make a prediction that as the ocean warms, then the atmosphere warms.
We could then measure the atmosphere at different levels and see a gradual warming over time.
Is that happening? Perhaps you could copy paste the answer for the community.....
Or I could save you the trouble and answer that.... NO it's not happening.....
The lower atmosphere is warming faster then the upper atmosphere.
Makes sense if you know what the Greenhouse Gas theory is.
The theory of Plate Climatology is nonsense.... nice try but only a fool would think otherwise.
attachment.php
 
You know OBD - you are very much allowed to believe in what you feel comfortable with - God, Santa, sasquatch, flat earth, the Conservative Party, climate denier blogs ... BUT you should realize none of this is Science. It is religion.

Almost none of what you post is science - and what little bits there are - they use cherry-picked data and fear to deliberately mislead people with unfortunately limited science literacy.

Science has a structure in how to collect, analyze and defend conclusions and assumptions. It is called the peer-review process. That process is open to everyone - including the climate deniers.

Yet - 97% of the actual science - the weight of evidence - confirms that global warming is real, exasperated by human activities - is something we can effect especially if we act now rather than spinning our wheels with PR firms and Koch-funded right-wing think tanks spinning out sh*t that you love to cut and paste from. Those same bloggers never publish in the peer-review process because their "beliefs" (often initiated by pay-offs from the Kochs) are *NOT* science - even though they can bamboozle people with limited science literacy that it is.

There are also other practical, logical reasons why we should already have come to grips with our addiction to hydrocarbons - the least of which is that we will run out of affordable hydrocarbons at some time. Just this fact alone - should be enough to develop renewable alternatives where they exist and make sense.

YET - the denier bloggers want us all to waste valuable time in having this religion verses science debate.

Personally - I would find it extremely unfortunate if we have to wait for a couple of rich, greedy white guys to die before we can get on with planning for the future. They should realize that their time is indeed short - and what will their legacy be? Greed is *NOT* a "legacy". You can't take it with you.

That's the frustration I have with this so-called debate. It really isn't a debate - it's a blocking mechanism. Our future generations will pay for the Koch's and big oil and coal's greed. That's the real crime I see happening here.

It's not a crime to think for yourself, OBD. It's not a crime to read the actual science yourself. It's our legacy as free-thinking humans.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quote.


The ramifications of this model prediction failure are truly staggering.

Noted universities such as the NOAA-funded University of Colorado INSTAAR (Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research) group have recently amended previous predictions by climate scientists that the Arctic would be ice free by 2015. INSTAAR now says Arctic ice extent is extremely variable and it may take decades to understand. (http://www.colorado.edu/news/releas...tic-sea-ice-loss-expected-be-bumpy-short-term). This is essentially an admission that Arctic ice extent decrease can no longer be used as the poster child for global warming. INSTAAR’s announcement also contradicts IPCC and U.S. government statements that the debate is settled and it’s time to take action. Gone is the pretence of a “consensus” theory, no more 97%.

No your teams fail is truly staggering...... did you even read the press release?
Did you read the science paper they are talking about?
Didn't think so.....
Lets just let some of the scientist tell their own story......
First up Ed Hawkins of University of Reading National Centre for Atmospheric Science

[K96KpcdcuWQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K96KpcdcuWQ
 
This one is old.. maybe 2010... that would make sense as Canadian scientist don't talk any more.
There are only so many government minders around and it takes years to book them.
[yH-AxYMq0Ow]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH-AxYMq0Ow
 
As noted to you before.


You know OBD - you are very much allowed to believe in what you feel comfortable with - God, Santa, sasquatch, flat earth, the Conservative Party, climate denier blogs ... BUT you should realize none of this is Science. It is religion.

Almost none of what you post is science - and what little bits there are - they use cherry-picked data and fear to deliberately mislead people with unfortunately limited science literacy.

Science has a structure in how to collect, analyze and defend conclusions and assumptions. It is called the peer-review process. That process is open to everyone - including the climate deniers.

Yet - 97% of the actual science - the weight of evidence - confirms that global warming is real, exasperated by human activities - is something we can effect especially if we act now rather than spinning our wheels with PR firms and Koch-funded right-wing think tanks spinning out sh*t that you love to cut and paste from. Those same bloggers never publish in the peer-review process because their "beliefs" (often initiated by pay-offs from the Kochs) are *NOT* science - even though they can bamboozle people with limited science literacy that it is.

There are also other practical, logical reasons why we should already have come to grips with our addiction to hydrocarbons - the least of which is that we will run out of affordable hydrocarbons at some time. Just this fact alone - should be enough to develop renewable alternatives where they exist and make sense.

YET - the denier bloggers want us all to waste valuable time in having this religion verses science debate.

Personally - I would find it extremely unfortunate if we have to wait for a couple of rich, greedy white guys to die before we can get on with planning for the future. They should realize that their time is indeed short - and what will their legacy be? Greed is *NOT* a "legacy". You can't take it with you.

That's the frustration I have with this so-called debate. It really isn't a debate - it's a blocking mechanism. Our future generations will pay for the Koch's and big oil and coal's greed. That's the real crime I see happening here.

It's not a crime to think for yourself, OBD. It's not a crime to read the actual science yourself. It's our legacy as free-thinking humans.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    92.1 KB · Views: 59
Next from another one of the scientist that is an author of that paper. Jennifer Kay
This one is current Dec 2014
[gKVBBnqPlNg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKVBBnqPlNg
 
Revisiting The Facts On Climate Change

Every now and then I am tempted to look at Warmist websites in order to learn what they mean. So I had a look at ‘about.com’ In case you don’t know it is not the Globe that is warming – oh no! – it is the Atmosphere - quite literally, I am assured. (I like this use of the word literally. The atmosphere is ‘literally warming up’ according to this Warmist website. Where did they place the thermometer?)

What Is Global Warming?

Global warming is, quite literally, when temperatures of the world's atmosphere rises. Between 1956-2005, the average earth's temperature rose .13°C per decade. This might not seem like much, but it was double the rate for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005. Temperatures in colder areas, like the Arctic, rose twice as fast as the average.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/criti...g.htm?utm_term=facts on climate change&utm_co

The atmospheres are some 62 miles high wrapped round a Globe hurtling through space round the Sun in a mighty ellipse. There is no such thing as a temperature of the atmosphere – such an animal does not exist. Even in the troposphere there is a huge range of temperatures, as the temperature declines by 2 degrees centigrade for every 1,000 feet of altitude. There is simply no way that the temperature of the Earth can be gauged.

Oh yes! There is an average, but what is it an average of? Answer: A few measly pinpricks on the surface to the Planet. But that is ridiculous, since we already know that the near surface is the warmest part of the atmosphere. So an average of these pinpricks is meaningless – in no way does it indicate an average of the temperatures of the four levels of atmosphere.

It is so obvious to a normally intelligent person that there is no way to take the temperature of anything so vast and so constantly in flux as the atmosphere. Some smart bloke wrote that what goes up stays up, referring of course to Carbon Dioxide. He simply has not noticed that rain falls down, gravity, and at this very moment snow is falling down outside my window. He omits to mention winds, which transport vast masses of the atmosphere, from one area to another. Presently we have bitter winds from the East, and hopefully before too long we will receive warmer air from the Sahara. He evidently has never heard of the Coriolis effect nor that hot air rises.

I am accused by my adversaries of not ‘believing’ in climate change. But that is absurd. Every day, every hour, every minute and every second the weather everywhere is changing. There is constant change, inevitable change, and this constant inevitable change has been happening to the Biosphere since it was first created. Of course some of my learned adversaries declare that they are not talking about the weather – oh no because any Tom Jack can observe the weather for themselves – oh no they are talking about climate and the climate is – wait for it – an average of the weather in a particular place over a pre-determined period of time.

So we have the truly wonderful argument so often repeated on the Science pages of the BBC that climate change is producing climate change and we must not do nothing, we must fight to oppose climate change, since in their opinion changes of climate are the biggest danger to mankind – bigger than the threat of ISIS. So absurdity is piled on absurdity.

Then I hear again the cries of ‘climate justice’. Tell me what has climate to do with justice? They are two disparate concepts. Or are they railing against Great Nature? Or worse, do they imagine in their ignorance that mankind can control Great Nature? Well, yes, that is exactly what they do imagine. They imagine that by limiting emissions of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere they can control a Global Temperature that does not exist. There is no one Global temperature, but there is a huge range of temperatures constantly changing. Likewise there is no meaningful ‘average’ temperature – such an animal only exists in the machinations of charlatan scientists with a political agenda to push.

I sometimes write that the Sun is 109 times bigger than the Earth. But the truth is even more dramatic.

To put it simply, the Sun is as big as more than 1 million Earth masses put together. It is 1,287,000 times bigger than a solitary Earth. The Sun has a diameter of 1,392,000 km (865,000 miles) while the Earth’s diameter is only 12,742 km (7,918 miles). In terms of weight, the Sun is 333,000 times heavier than the Earth and accounts for 98% of all mass in the solar system.

From http://planetfacts.org/how-big-is-the-sun-compared-to-the-earth/

Of course the Warmists don’t do the Sun, just as they don’t do clouds. They only do Carbon Dioxide and Fossil Fuels. They mostly don’t even know what Carbon Dioxide is, but rail against all carbon, and they hate fossil fuels with an intensity that borders on insanity. They still believe and even teach that 0.04% of the atmosphere is causing the Globe to warm up. Nothing could be more ridiculous, but they persist. They believe that in repeating their nonsense ad nauseam that it will be believed. Unfortunately they have a point. They have repeated this nonsense so often that even quite intelligent humans are taken in by this hysteria. There are still people that believe that heat can be trapped. Heat can be generated in a variety of ways but heat can never be trapped. For if heat could be trapped we would have no need of fires or central heating, we would have no need of sources of energy – we could trap heat each and every one of us once and for all and that would be that.

The truth is that Great Nature has supplied us with an abundance of fossil fuels, coal, gas and oil. In history the Luddites broke up machinery for fear of losing jobs. Modern Luddites oppose fracking, when fracking could free the United Kingdom, for one, from dependence on foreigners for 70% of their gas. Yet this gas is right beneath our feet, opposed with a vehemence that only total ignorance permits.

Not only is the Sun the major source of energy on this Planet, but also we may be affected by many other constellations in space. I quote from a recent email received:

This region of space contains several super-massive stars that will one day explode as supernovae. Aldebaran, the brightest star in Taurus and only 65 light-years away, has exhausted its hydrogen fuel and will assuredly blow up. It may be within a few thousand or a million years, or it may be tomorrow morning.

So also will Betelgeuse, at 640 light-years, in neighbouring Orion. But its explosion will be dwarfed by that of Eta Carinae in the southern sky. The demise of this star, although 7,500 light-years distant, will be a "hypernova" rather than a supernova on account of its huge mass, 120 times the Sun's. It could even strip away Earth's ozone layer, threatening all life.

(in email from Philip Foster 02.02.2015)

What caught my eye was the Hypernova with a mass 120 times that of the Sun! The Warmists seriously contend that a molecule invisible to the naked eye is causing dangerous warming. The only thing that is truly dangerous is this dangerous nonsense.

So dangerous is this because the adherents of this false religion are now calling on children to murder their own fathers if they are sceptical. You don’t believe that? Think again. Some bonehead has done just exactly that to David Rose as he wrote in an article in the Mail on Sunday. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2934540/What-happens-dare-doubt-Green-prophets-doom.html

Why are the Warmists so sickeningly belligerent? Yet David Rose is a lukewarmer, God knows why. He actually also believes that the Earth is warming, but not dangerously. But what is the basis of such a belief? The average temperatures produced by the Goddard Institute or the Climate Research Unit? But David even if we lay aside that these two institutions are driven by noted Warmists, even if we allowed that there is no chicanery in the results they produce, their results are not Global temperatures, are they? Their results are not temperatures of the Atmosphere, which is 62 miles high more or less? No, because what they are measuring is an average of temperatures some 5ft off the ground in louvred boxes.

Such measurements are totally insignificant. We do not have a temperature of the Earth. We do and cannot have a temperature of the atmosphere since it has a thousand temperatures in a constant state of flux. The Warmists have not got the wit to conceive of anything so massively complicated, so they come up with such howlers as the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.

For the Warmists the world is static, just as their understanding of the Universe is static. They cannot define the globe, they talk about global warming yet never declare exactly what’s warming, they talk about climate as if there were one static climate, they are so divorced from reality that it is amazing that so many people have been taken in. They are so wrapped up in their self-obsessed guilt that they wish to spew their sickness on everyone else. God forbid!
 
OBD you like this one don't you....
You think we are some how "Tards'
You are so much smater then everyone.....
How is your stocks doing?
Got any Suncor?
Aug 2014 $40 per share
Feb 2015 $ 30 per share
Who is the "tard" now?
attachment.php
 
There are still people that believe that heat can be trapped. Heat can be generated in a variety of ways but heat can never be trapped. For if heat could be trapped we would have no need of fires or central heating, we would have no need of sources of energy – we could trap heat each and every one of us once and for all and that would be that.

Anthony Bright-Paul
I see you have another "I'm not a scientist" with a clever theory..... LOL
Perhaps test his theory this evening at meal time but I do hope you do not injured yourself or others in your kitchen by switching on your oven, thereby allowing the entire room to reach 200 degrees C. as, clearly in your oven, “heat cannot be trapped”.

Give it up OBD your team is so stupid it's not worth your time to post such nonsense.

Need more proof? Try another science experiment and do post the result.

At 9 PM tonight go outside and stand there for ten minutes.
Are you warm?
Now do the same thing but this time stand there for ten minutes buck naked......
Are you still warm?
Still think “heat cannot be trapped”?

Why do people who clearly do not understand science take it upon themselves to be experts at science when clearly they do not possess the intellectual capacity to form an opinion on the subject. (translation is ... man you have a stupid team)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top