Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by CaptainCrusader:

In Genesis God promises there will always be seasons. Should we believe the inventor of the internet or the inventor of the universe?

___

Typical ignorant and irrelevant comment.  Global climate change can occur with the seasons preserved.  The likelihood, though, is that the long-term average temperatures will be higher within each season.  Stop listening to whoever is feeding you the wingnut junk science on global climate change.

Are these the climate experts Contendah so proudly follows?  Article from 2007;  Houston, we have a problem: 

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

 

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

          By Jonathan Amos                              Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco                   

Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly
Professor Peter Wadhams

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

Real world

Using supercomputers to crunch through possible future outcomes has become a standard part of climate science in recent years.

Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.

These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100. 

But the Monterey researcher believes these models have seriously underestimated some key melting processes.  In particular, Professor Maslowski is adamant that models need to incorporate more realistic representations of the way warm water is moving into the Arctic basin from the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.



<noscript>&amp;lt;img src="/nol/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/05/ice_retreat/img/arctic_ice_melting_map203.gif" width="203" height="210" border="0" /&amp;gt;</noscript>

"My claim is that the global climate models underestimate the amount of heat delivered to the sea ice by oceanic advection," Professor Maslowski said.

"The reason is that their low spatial resolution actually limits them from seeing important detailed factors.  

"We use a high-resolution regional model for the Arctic Ocean and sea ice forced with realistic atmospheric data.  This way, we get much more realistic forcing, from above by the atmosphere and from the bottom by the ocean."

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN-led body which assesses the state of the Earth's climate system, uses an averaged group of models to forecast ice loss in the Arctic.

But it is has become apparent in recent years that the real, observed rate of summer ice melting is now starting to run well ahead of the models.

The minimum ice extent reached in September 2007 shattered the previous record for ice withdrawal set in 2005, of 5.32 million square km.

The long-term average minimum, based on data from 1979 to 2000, is 6.74 million square km.  In comparison, 2007 was lower by 2.61 million square km, an area approximately equal to the size of Alaska and Texas combined, or the size of 10 United Kingdoms.

Diminishing returns

Professor Peter Wadhams from Cambridge University, UK, is an expert on Arctic ice. He has used sonar data collected by Royal Navy submarines to show that the volume loss is outstripping even area withdrawal, which is in agreement with the model result of Professor Maslowski.

"Some models have not been taking proper account of the physical processes that go on," he commented.

"The ice is thinning faster than it is shrinking; and some modellers have been assuming the ice was a rather thick slab. 

"Wieslaw's model is more efficient because it works with data and it takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice."

Polar bears [Keith Levesque)          

He cited the ice-albedo feedback effect in which open water receives more solar radiation, which in turn leads to additional warming and further melting.

Professor Wadhams said the Arctic was now being set up for further ice loss in the coming years.

"The implication is that this is not a cycle, not just a fluctuation. The loss this year will precondition the ice for the same thing to happen again next year, only worse.

"There will be even more opening up, even more absorption and even more melting.

"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."

The US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) collects the observational data on the extent of Arctic sea ice, delivering regular status bulletins. Its research scientist Dr Mark Serreze was asked to give one of the main lectures here at this year's AGU Fall Meeting.

Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.

"My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."

And later, to the BBC, Dr Serreze added: "I think Wieslaw is probably a little aggressive in his projections, simply because the luck of the draw means natural variability can kick in to give you a few years in which the ice loss is a little less than you've had in previous years.  But Wieslaw is a smart guy and it would not surprise me if his projections came out."

Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski's analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.

My favorite quote from above: 

 

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

 

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

 

Yes, let us believe everything their supercomputer models spit out.  They can't be wrong, right?

One of my major research projects is trying to understand why the position that:

  1. global warming does not exist in reality or:
  2.  that the dangers of it warrants no consideration by scientists,
  3.  is directly proportional to one’s religiosity.

It is abundantly clear that a major contingent of those who argue for ‘no evidence of global warming’ rely on the clergy for proof.

Contendah/Quaildog, what caused the earth to heat up between previous ice ages? I have seen this question posed before to you two and other crackpots like you but no answer. The earth warms and cools naturally without human input.

Global warming(or climate change) is purely a political move with the agenda being more governmental control, higher taxes, and less personal freedoms -typical left wing plan.

Quit living in 1998 Quail, it's now called "climate change".  Show me anyone who is denying the climate changes.  I bet you can't.

 

What we, the realist, believe is the man made climate change alarmists are just that, alarmist.  Their computer projections from years ago have already being shown not to be just wrong, but grossly wrong.  Still believing in computer models that have already been proven wrong shows the alarmist beliefs are exactly what you say, "religiosity".  It's rock solid faith in something regardless of the fly in your face evidence, ie:  computer models predictions being grossly wrong.

 

Let's focus on a real problem, like the national debt.

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

so hoob the religious buzzwords are "computer model". Buzzword is about close to science as you preachers come. maybe your diluted term climate change comes from information gained at sticking your head up a preacher's azz for data when the word of scientists makes that unnecessary and more sense.


Re-read the article I posted above.  I get my info to discredit global warming from dumb azzes like yourself.

Last edited by Mr. Hooberbloob
Originally Posted by Quaildog:

One of my major research projects is trying to understand why the position that:

  1. global warming does not exist in reality or:
  2.  that the dangers of it warrants no consideration by scientists,
  3.  is directly proportional to one’s religiosity.

It is abundantly clear that a major contingent of those who argue for ‘no evidence of global warming’ rely on the clergy for proof.

 

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

One of my major research projects is trying to understand why the position that:

  1. global warming does not exist in reality or:
  2.  that the dangers of it warrants no consideration by scientists,
  3.  is directly proportional to one’s religiosity.

It is abundantly clear that a major contingent of those who argue for ‘no evidence of global warming’ rely on the clergy for proof.

 

 

Wow! I'm impressed!

And here, all along, I would have thought your "major research project" would have been...remembering to zip you pants...before going "stalking"...

Bravo! Herr QuailDung...

 

 

Originally Posted by Contendah:

The truly bogus "climate experts" are all the know-nothing wingnuts who ignorantly  line up with the know-nothing talk show hosts who tell them there is no such thing as global climate change.

WingNuts...Wing...nuts...

Is that your "fall back" response to everything that trounces/ reputes   your "Holy Grail" of LibTard  propaganda???

 

 

I’m still confused as to why the issue of ‘Global Warming’ has become an article of religion. Why would Al Sharpton be forbidden to give an opinion on Global Warming?  You nuts on here would swear you’ve obtained the art of climatology somewhere but couldn’t produce facts as to from whom or where you learnt it. I suspect your only authority is that a concern for it has somehow been included as a Biblical sin.

  Brother Sharpton will go down in history as a hero along with MLK as he champions the cause of equality for all citizens in these United States and the world.

 

Originally Posted by Quaildog:

I’m still confused as to why the issue of ‘Global Warming’ has become an article of religion. Why would Al Sharpton be forbidden to give an opinion on Global Warming?  You nuts on here would swear you’ve obtained the art of climatology somewhere but couldn’t produce facts as to from whom or where you learnt it. I suspect your only authority is that a concern for it has somehow been included as a Biblical sin.

  Brother Sharpton will go down in history as a hero along with MLK as he champions the cause of equality for all citizens in these United States and the world.

 

You need to lay off the Robitussen...

 

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×