myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 334, 335, 336 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5574

PostPosted: Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bard--you are not paying attention, and you don't seem to have the educational background to understand the role of modeling in science. Models are not developed primarily for predictions. We finally have weather models that do a reasonable job--after 40 years of model development and wealth of satellite data. Perhaps we will get there with climate models.

Climate models are to test theories and determine which factors are the most important. They get adjusted and re-run every few years with corrections that makes them better--but still not predictive.

It is an invented story arc from the carbon industry that if a climate model doesn't accurately predict the future then the science is unsettled. It is simply not true--whether through intentional misrepresentation, or ignorance. Some here demonstrate both. Their relationship with the oil industry is not a coincidence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14618

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hope you CA folks who voted for Gov Moonbat like the extra dollar he may impose on each gallon of gas to fund his INCREDIBLY stupid high speed rail system and open borders policy. What the HELL are you and he thinking?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pointster



Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 227

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
I hope you CA folks who voted for Gov Moonbat like the extra dollar he may impose on each gallon of gas to fund his INCREDIBLY stupid high speed rail system and open borders policy. What the HELL are you and he thinking?


Well, the borders are a federal responsibility, so I don't think California can really have an open borders policy.

As to high speed rail, I don't know if it is incredibly stupid, but mark me skeptical. I believe we would get more bang for the buck by improving our existing rail infrastructure. Extend the line from Sacramento all the way to LA. Electrify Caltrain from San Francisco to San Jose, and the Capital Corridor from San Jose to Sacramento.

I have ridden the bullet train in Japan, and it is cool, but their regular trains are very good also, and much less expensive. Haven't ridden HSR in Europe, but have ridden the regular trains, which are much better than most trains in US. Unfortunately, there is no support for funding rail improvements in the US.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14618

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pointster wrote:
isobars wrote:
I hope you CA folks who voted for Gov Moonbat like the extra dollar he may impose on each gallon of gas to fund his INCREDIBLY stupid high speed rail system and open borders policy. What the HELL are you and he thinking?


Well, the borders are a federal responsibility, so I don't think California can really have an open borders policy.

As to high speed rail, I don't know if it is incredibly stupid ... I have ridden the bullet train in Japan ...

Tell that to AZ, TX, and NM, who have had to control their own southern borders because the administration refuses to. Even then, the feds do their damnedest to stop those states from interfering with illegal immigration. But what I was referring to is Gov Brown's declaration that CA is now a sanctuary state which openly refuses to comply with federal immigration law.

I've listened to scores of people debate HSR in CA, where cars are in people's DNA, for dozens of hours. Moonbat's HSR is a far bigger, more doomed, boondoggle than Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere. It's beyond insanity by every metric anyone has thrown at it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 6027

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars is a product of where he gets his news. Hang in the gutter, and the stain rubs off.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1916
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Sat Aug 30, 2014 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aaah, geeze, just when you think that you have all the flat earthers beaten back, another story like this comes along and screws everything up. It must really suck, frustrating as hell, can't the science and facts ever get this straightened out?
No, because it far from settled, nature just won't cooperate with the computer programs!
It sucks, I know.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Myth of arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now

>Seven years after former US Vice-President Al Gore's warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row
>An area twice the size of Alaska - America's biggest state - was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice
>These satellite images taken from University of Illinois's Cryosphere project show ice has become more concentrated

By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday

Published: 17:04 EST, 30 August 2014 | Updated: 17:05 EST, 30 August 2014


The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’

Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.

But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.

To put it another way, an area the size of Alaska, America’s biggest state, was open water two years ago, but is again now covered by ice.

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.

This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.

Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.

The satellite images published here are taken from a further authoritative source, the University of Illinois’s Cryosphere project.

They show that as well as becoming more extensive, the ice has grown more concentrated, with the purple areas – denoting regions where the ice pack is most dense – increasing markedly.

Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting. Professor Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University, an expert in climate satellite monitoring, said yesterday: ‘It is clear from the measurements we have collected that the Arctic sea ice has experienced a significant recovery in thickness over the past year.

‘It seems that an unusually cool summer in 2013 allowed more ice to survive through to last winter. This means that the Arctic sea ice pack is thicker and stronger than usual, and this should be taken into account when making predictions of its future extent.’

Yet for years, many have been claiming that the Arctic is in an ‘irrevocable death spiral’, with imminent ice-free summers bound to trigger further disasters. These include gigantic releases of methane into the atmosphere from frozen Arctic deposits, and accelerated global warming caused by the fact that heat from the sun will no longer be reflected back by the ice into space.

Judith Curry, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said last night: ‘The Arctic sea ice spiral of death seems to have reversed.’

Those who just a few years ago were warning of ice-free summers by 2014 included US Secretary of State John Kerry, who made the same bogus prediction in 2009, while Mr Gore has repeated it numerous times – notably in a speech to world leaders at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009, in an effort to persuade them to agree a new emissions treaty.

"The ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as 7 years from now"

Mr Gore – whose office yesterday failed to respond to a request for comment – insisted then: ‘There is a 75 per cent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.’

Misleading as such forecasts are, some people continue to make them. Only last month, while giving evidence to a House of Lords Select Committee inquiry on the Arctic, Cambridge University’s Professor Peter Wadhams claimed that although the Arctic is not ice-free this year, it will be by September 2015.

Asked about this yesterday, he said: ‘I still think that it is very likely that by mid-September 2015, the ice area will be less than one million square kilometres – the official designation of ice-free, implying only a fringe of floes around the coastlines. That is where the trend is taking us.’

For that prediction to come true it would require by far the fastest loss of ice in history. It would also fly in the face of a report last year by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which stated with ‘medium confidence’ that ice levels would ‘likely’ fall below one million square kilometres by 2050.

Politicians such as Al Gore have often insisted that climate science is ‘settled’ and have accused those who question their forecasts of being climate change ‘deniers’.

However, while few scientists doubt that carbon-dioxide emissions cause global warming, and that this has caused Arctic ice to decline, there remains much uncertainty about the speed of melting and how much of it is due to human activity. But outside the scientific community, the more pessimistic views have attracted most attention. For example, Prof Wadhams’s forecasts have been cited widely by newspapers and the BBC. But many reject them.

Yesterday Dr Ed Hawkins, who leads an Arctic ice research team at Reading University, said: ‘Peter Wadhams’s views are quite extreme compared to the views of many other climate scientists, and also compared to what the IPCC report says.’

Dr Hawkins warned against reading too much into ice increase over the past two years on the grounds that 2012 was an ‘extreme low’, triggered by freak weather.

‘I’m uncomfortable with the idea of people saying the ice has bounced back,’ he said.

However, Dr Hawkins added that the decline seen in recent years was not caused only by global warming. It was, he said, intensified by ‘natural variability’ – shifts in factors such as the temperature of the oceans. This, he said, has happened before, such as in the 1920s and 1930s, when ‘there was likely some sea ice retreat’.

Dr Hawkins said: ‘There is undoubtedly some natural variability on top of the long-term downwards trend caused by the overall warming. This variability has probably contributed somewhat to the post-2000 steep declining trend, although the human-caused component still dominates.’

Like many scientists, Dr Hawkins said these natural processes may be cyclical. If and when they go into reverse, they will cool, not warm, the Arctic, in which case, he said, ‘a decade with no declining trend’ in ice cover would be ‘entirely plausible’.

Peer-reviewed research suggests that at least until 2005, natural variability was responsible for half the ice decline. But exactly how big its influence is remains an open question – and as both Dr Hawkins and Prof Curry agreed, establishing this is critical to making predictions about the Arctic’s future.

Prof Curry said: ‘I suspect that the portion of the decline in the sea ice attributable to natural variability could be even larger than half.

‘I think the natural variability component of Arctic sea ice extent is in the process of bottoming out, with a reversal to start within the next decade. And when it does, the reversal period could last for several decades.’

This led her to believe that the IPCC forecast, like Al Gore’s, was too pessimistic.

‘Ice-free in 2050 is a possible scenario, but I don’t think it is a likely scenario,’ she concluded.

Also~
The apparent recovery in Arctic ice looks like good news for polar bears.

If there is more ice at the end of the summer, they can hunt seals more easily. Yet even when the ice reached a low point in 2012, there was no scientific evidence that bear numbers were declining, with their estimated total of 20,000 to 25,000 thought to be higher than in the 1970s, when hunting was first banned.

In many Arctic regions, say scientists, they are in robust health and breeding successfully.

Computer model predictions of decline caused by ice melt have also failed to come true. In 2004, researchers claimed Hudson Bay bear numbers would fall from 900 to fewer than 700 by 2011. In fact, they have risen to over 1,000.

However, the main international bear science body, the Polar Bear Specialist Group, admits it has no reliable data from almost half of the Arctic, so cannot say whether numbers are falling or rising.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html#ixzz3BwNfCAzy

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3538

PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That article says few scientists doubt that carbon dioxide causes global warning, there is doubt about how fast.

It also says the ice is for sure in decline over time, but not as much in the last two years as two guys predicted.
As I understand it, this is the position of the globalwarmers. They say it is for sure happening but predictions of the short term effects are constantly changing.

Is this also your belief NW?
Or do you disagree with this post saying that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2765

PostPosted: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
isobars is a product of where he gets his news. Hang in the gutter, and the stain rubs off.

It's unclear to me whether he stains the gutter or the gutter stains him.

.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1413

PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Todays paper.

'The latest edict from the eco-nuts is that we should all change our diets to save the polar bears!' Apparently, if we go on eating eggs and bacon at our current rate' greenhouse gases will increase by 80% (love these ever so precise and well researched statistics) by 2050.

I thought, at first, it was a typical wind-up, but it has that true stamp of Alice in Wonderland linkage of different facts to produce a barm-pot conclusion.

So, my eating of egg sandwiches (with or without bacon) makes me a polar bear muderer! Perhaps if these unimaginative researchers did a little joined up thinking, they would realise that polar bears are very large, extremely smelly animals, whose unsavoury eating habits (greasy seals, and torn off arms and legs from occasional canvassers asking their opinion) mean that each bear produces more atmosphere destroying exhuast gas in a day than I do in a whole year of eating egg sandwiches. (With or without bacon.)

Don't theses eco barm-pots reralise that I am actually saving the world from the perils of global warming, by causing all the brutes to drop like flies. Why do they suppose that, with the majority of them now demised, the Arctic ice is steadily reforming, and reflecting those killer rays back into space?

I'm encouraged to increase my consuption of egg sandwiches (with bacon) to help bring on the onset of this much predicted mini-ice age. (I haven't just bought a new winter wet suit for nothing!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4340

PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2014 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only problem with your strategy GT is HEART DISEASE! You might want to eat a bowl of oatmeal like I do every morning, and just hunt the bear. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 334, 335, 336 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
Page 335 of 349

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group