PDA

View Full Version : Scientists Are Cleared of Misuse of Data



The Night Owl
02-25-2011, 11:27 AM
A decision sure to make heads explode:


Scientists Are Cleared of Misuse of Data

By LESLIE KAUFMAN
Published: February 24, 2011

An inquiry by a federal watchdog agency found no evidence that scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration manipulated climate data to buttress the evidence in support of global warming, officials said on Thursday.

The inquiry, by the Commerce Department’s inspector general, focused on e-mail messages between climate scientists that were stolen and circulated on the Internet in late 2009 (NOAA is part of the Commerce Department). Some of the e-mails involved scientists from NOAA.

Climate change skeptics contended that the correspondence showed that scientists were manipulating or withholding information to advance the theory that the earth is warming as a result of human activity.

In a report dated Feb. 18 and circulated by the Obama administration on Thursday, the inspector general said, “We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data.”

...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/science/earth/25noaa.html?_r=1

Wow! A bad day for deniers.

Rockntractor
02-25-2011, 11:37 AM
Time ta do the owl dance!
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/400sw74223.gif

Apache
02-25-2011, 11:58 AM
A decision sure to make heads explode:



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/science/earth/25noaa.html?_r=1

Wow! A bad day for deniers.

Not really....was to be expected. What sucks is the likes of you thinking a flea fart can change the direction of a hurricane...;)

The Night Owl
02-25-2011, 12:19 PM
Not really....was to be expected. What sucks is the likes of you thinking a flea fart can change the direction of a hurricane...;)

How many investigations must be done before you guys let it go?

Articulate_Ape
02-25-2011, 12:22 PM
A decision sure to make heads explode:



Wow! A bad day for deniers.


A team of researchers and investigators from Phillip-Morris found that, contrary to previous claims, smoking is not only not bad for you, it is good for you because cigarette smoke has curative properties that can reduce the risk of heart disease and respiratory problems significantly in adults and even more so in small children. Honest injun.
:rolleyes:

Novaheart
02-25-2011, 12:27 PM
How many investigations must be done before you guys let it go?

You mean like the fact that the polar bear hysteria has been proven totally false, and yet the WWF keeps running celebrity ads pumping the GW-caused demise of polar bears as fact?

How about the bullshit about the Maldives sinking?

How about Naomi Klein being accidentally candid after Copenhagen and whining about the failure of the meeting to accomplish it's true goal: "social justice" and payment of 800 billion dollars to "developing nations which have been devastated by the United States and other industrial nations."

Don't snort sunshine up your nose.

FBIGuy
02-25-2011, 01:12 PM
Hmm. A bunch of liars backed up another bunch of liars and the delusional hold up this as some kind of proof.

malloc
02-25-2011, 02:00 PM
A decision sure to make heads explode:



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/science/earth/25noaa.html?_r=1

Wow! A bad day for deniers.

A VERY bad day for literacy. You didn't even read the whole article did you?

Some choice parts of the article you ignored.



But Mr. Inhofe said the report was far from a clean bill of health for the agency and that contrary to its executive summary, showed that the scientists “engaged in data manipulation.”

The report was not a review of the climate data itself.


Here's the related part from the OIG's (PDF) (http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/correspondence/2011.02.18_IG_to_%20Inhofe.pdf) actual report, emphasis mine.



Even though Dr. Lubchenco expressed confidence in the scientific research that forms the basis for the GHCN-M dataset, she and her staff discussed retroactively ensuring that the data meets certain standards, but she did not recall the feasibility or disposition of such an effort. However, according to NOAA, the algorithms, which NCDC utilizes to adjust monthly temperature time series data in the GHCNM dataset, are extensively evaluated in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

So she discussed manipulating the data with her colleges but then conveniently doesn't remember if she actually manipulated data or not? Since they merely discussed manipulating the data in the emails, according to her, and the OIG doesn't have the initial data, no evidence can be found, obviously. Hilarity ensues as she defends her position by expressing confidence in algorithms? The output of the algorithms is directly related to the input, which if manipulated, means a perfectly good algorithm spits out B.S.

Next we have another supposedly scientific organization hiding it's documents.



However, the CRU emails referenced a specific IPCC-related FOIA request received and responded to by NOAA in June 2007 that led to our further examination of how those FOIA requests were handled. We determined that, at the time, NOAA did not conduct a proper search for responsive documents as required under FOIA, and, as a result, did not have a sufficient basis to inform the requesters that it had no responsive documents.

Why would a scientific organization that is not a paid stooge of climate cult wacko's need to hide it's documents?

However, the first portion of the summary makes this entire report laughable and questionable.



Dr. Lubchenco's December 2, 2009, testimony statement. In preparation for the United Nations Climate Change Conference in mid-December 2009, the House Select Committee held a hearing on December 2,2009, to discuss the Administration's view on the state of climate science. Both Dr. John Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director ofthe Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Dr. Lubchenco testified at the hearing. Dr. Lubchenco, a marine ecologist and environmental scientist, told us that her statement from the hearing was based on, and reflects, her general confidence in the "fundamental science" behind the human-induced global warming theory, which she characterized as "robust." Specifically, Dr. Lubchenco told us that the CRU emails do nothing to undermine the conclusions drawn by climate scientists with regard to global warming because the emails involved just one ofthe many centers across the globe that analyzes climate information. According to Dr. Lubchenco, even if one were to discount the CRU's scientific assertions, other groups that analyze climate information have reached the same conclusion, and, as such, the fundamental science remains very strong.

Dr. Lubchenco exonerated Dr. Lubchenco? Wait, what?

Now I have some serious question that you should answer for yourself. The Office of the Inspector General resides under the Department of Commerce which is run by the President of the United States. The OIG's office is a cabinet department and as such it does not serve The Congress, The People or the scientific community, it serves it's boss. The President of the United States is a radical leftist who wants environmental regulation in order to grab great power over private production for the executive office. In such a case, would an agency subordinate to the will of the President go against the President's own agenda?

If there is a consensus, why does the U.S. continue to spend billions researching what we already know to be true? Why do so many climate scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming) oppose global warming? By definition a consensus is an agreement among the whole of a body. Why do climatologists say there is a consensus when clearly what they have is not by definition a consensus?

Apache
02-25-2011, 02:06 PM
How many investigations must be done before you guys let it go?

Exactly! That's what I've been saying! When are you guys going to figure out that man can't change ANYTHING GLOBALLY?

Let me know what you find out ;)

The Night Owl
02-25-2011, 02:31 PM
You mean like the fact that the polar bear hysteria has been proven totally false, and yet the WWF keeps running celebrity ads pumping the GW-caused demise of polar bears as fact?

How about the bullshit about the Maldives sinking?

How about Naomi Klein being accidentally candid after Copenhagen and whining about the failure of the meeting to accomplish it's true goal: "social justice" and payment of 800 billion dollars to "developing nations which have been devastated by the United States and other industrial nations."

Don't snort sunshine up your nose.

I see you're still over-focused on the vagaries of popular media when you should be focusing on science.


How about the bullshit about the Maldives sinking?

How about it? No scientist believes the Maldives are sinking. That would be idiotic. There are, however, scientists who feel that the Maldives are drowning, albeit slowly. Do you have any information which contradicts claims of rising sea levels in the Maldives?

JB
02-25-2011, 09:25 PM
Who cares. It's still a myth.

Articulate_Ape
02-26-2011, 12:20 AM
Do you have any information which contradicts claims of rising sea levels in the Maldives?




I do, but you're not my peer, so you can't review it.

Tecate
02-26-2011, 12:33 AM
The global warming /climate change / Sun denier crowd has become like a cult of religious zealots.

My new stock answer for them:

Let's assume that global warming is not only real, but 10, 50, or even 100 times worse than anyone ever imagined... WTF do you want me to do about it?

AmPat
02-26-2011, 01:46 AM
The global warming /climate change / Sun denier crowd has become like a cult of religious zealots.

My new stock answer for them:

Let's assume that global warming is not only real, but 10, 50, or even 100 times worse than anyone ever imagined... WTF do you want me to do about it?

Easy.

Buy a Prius, carpool. Ride the train. Don't eat meat. Don't use incandescent bulbs. Shut down factories. Never cut down a tree,,,,,,,,,,,,

Sonnabend
02-26-2011, 10:27 AM
What proof do you have that says anything to do with the Maldives has ANYTHING to do with "climate change"???

Do you have irrefutable facts to back up this claim?

Let's see them.

AmPat
02-26-2011, 10:49 AM
What proof do you have that says anything to do with the Maldives has ANYTHING to do with "climate change"???

Do you have irrefutable facts to back up this claim?

Let's see them.

It's a known hazard. DIMWIToRATS were point on this when they brought up the danger to Guam tiping over from too many American Service members.
Sometimes you have to concede a point.;):D

The Night Owl
02-26-2011, 11:13 AM
What proof do you have that says anything to do with the Maldives has ANYTHING to do with "climate change"???

Do you have irrefutable facts to back up this claim?

Let's see them.

We don't have proof that rising sea levels are attributable to global warming but that conclusion is likely given the correlation. I mean, if global warming isn't causing sea levels to rise, what is?

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm

AmPat
02-26-2011, 11:15 AM
We don't have proof that rising sea levels are attributable to global warming but that conclusion is likely given the correlation. I mean, if global warming isn't causing sea levels to rise, what is?

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm

Massive snow storms.:rolleyes:

The Night Owl
02-26-2011, 11:25 AM
Massive snow storms.:rolleyes:

You're kicking at open doors now. Scientists believe that the snowy winters we've been experiencing are related to the decrease in Arctic sea ice.

Information:

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html

Graphics:

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110202_Figure3_thumb.png (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews)

FlaGator
02-26-2011, 12:27 PM
We don't have proof that rising sea levels are attributable to global warming but that conclusion is likely given the correlation. I mean, if global warming isn't causing sea levels to rise, what is?

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm

Lord help me... not this crap again.

FBIGuy
02-26-2011, 12:31 PM
Every person that has taken a drink of water has contracted cancer. Hmmm, water is the obvious cause of cancer. There can be no other explanation. :rolleyes:

Articulate_Ape
02-26-2011, 12:55 PM
You're kicking at open doors now. Scientists believe that the snowy winters we've been experiencing are related to the decrease in Arctic sea ice.

Information:

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html

Graphics:

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110202_Figure3_thumb.png (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h32TTmd7HjQ



No 'tipping point' for Arctic sea ice - latest science
Alert Print Retweet Facebook
Polar cap would be back 2 yrs after an ice-free summer
By Lewis Page • Get more from this author

Posted in Environment, 10th February 2011 11:24 GMT
Free whitepaper – The Register Guide to Enterprise Virtualization
OK, so the floating Arctic ice cap appears to be shrinking. Catastrophe if it goes on, right? As white ice reflects heat into space, past a certain point more and more heat will not be reflected, more and more ice will melt. Past such a "tipping point", the ice cap would never recover - it would vanish completely, taking with it the ice cover of Greenland which would cause huge rises in sea levels and Biblical flooding worldwide.

Not so much, according to the latest research by German climate scientists. It seems that even in the case of a completely ice-free summer with the sun shining down onto an unprotected Arctic Ocean 24 hours a day (as it does in summer time up there), the heat absorbed by the sea would not be enough to permanently remove the ice cap. It would recover, in fact, within two years: there is no tipping point.


According to Steffen Tietsche, a polar ice expert at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, this is because removal of ice works two ways. It lets the sun's rays warm the ocean beneath more strongly, but it also lets heat escape from the sea more easily. Thus, following an ice-free summer the Arctic will shed the extra heat fast due to the lack of its usual igloo-like ice blanket. Soon it will be so cold that the ice will reappear.

Tietsche and his colleagues write:

We examine the recovery of Arctic sea ice from prescribed ice-free summer conditions in simulations of 21st century climate in an atmosphere–ocean general circulation model. We find that ice extent recovers typically within two years.
The excess oceanic heat that had built up during the ice-free summer is rapidly returned to the atmosphere during the following autumn and winter, and then leaves the Arctic partly through increased longwave emission at the top of the atmosphere and partly through reduced atmospheric heat advection from lower latitudes. Oceanic heat transport does not contribute significantly to the loss of the excess heat.

Our results suggest that anomalous loss of Arctic sea ice during a single summer is reversible, as the ice–albedo feedback is alleviated by large-scale recovery mechanisms. Hence, hysteretic threshold behavior (or a “tipping point”) is unlikely to occur during the decline of Arctic summer sea-ice cover in the 21st century.

Details of the full paper in Geophysical Research Letters can be read here.

So the gradual decline in ice extent seen in recent decades may continue, but even if a very hot summer seriously eats away at the sea ice - even so much as to completely melt it all - it will recover; there will be no sudden disaster this century.

Meanwhile down at the south pole the sea ice around Antarctica is actually increasing. The ice there has been covering another 100,000 square km more sea each decade for the last 30 years, despite the well-publicised losses of ice shelf in the Western Antarctic.

Link (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/10/no_tipping_point_for_arctic_sea_ice/)


I guess Heir Tietsche doesn't have a boat payment due.

Apache
02-26-2011, 01:19 PM
We don't have proof that rising sea levels are attributable to global warming but that conclusion is likely given the correlation. I mean, if global warming isn't causing sea levels to rise, what is?

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/409.htm

See, you make it way too easy...

You and your power-mad Chicken Littles don't have squat in terms of facts, data or history to back up a single claim that MAN has anything to do with climate change.

I've asked two of your brethern here to provide me with historical records of climate patterns... guess what, I was ignored. Can you provide me with the data that I'm seeking....HMMMMM?

NJCardFan
02-26-2011, 01:28 PM
You mean like the fact that the polar bear hysteria has been proven totally false, and yet the WWF keeps running celebrity ads pumping the GW-caused demise of polar bears as fact?

How about the bullshit about the Maldives sinking?

How about Naomi Klein being accidentally candid after Copenhagen and whining about the failure of the meeting to accomplish it's true goal: "social justice" and payment of 800 billion dollars to "developing nations which have been devastated by the United States and other industrial nations."

Don't snort sunshine up your nose.

For starters, Vince McMahon has nothing to do with polar bears. Also, if an island nation is sinking, then it's due to unstable land and not due to rising water levels, right? Hey you said sinking, no changing your wording now. Know how I know the difference? Because if I took a bowl of water, and put a rock in it, it will sink to the bottom. It sank not because of rising water tables. It sank because it's a rock in water.

FlaGator
02-26-2011, 01:34 PM
See, you make it way too easy...

You and your power-mad Chicken Littles don't have squat in terms of facts, data or history to back up a single claim that MAN has anything to do with climate change.

I've asked two of your brethern here to provide me with historical records of climate patterns... guess what, I was ignored. Can you provide me with the data that I'm seeking....HMMMMM?

It amazes me how gullible some people can be when something they want to believe is challenged with solid evidence.

Apache
02-26-2011, 01:53 PM
It amazes me how gullible some people can be when something they want to believe is challenged with solid evidence.

I know EXACTLY where you're coming from, just don't call them on their hypocrisy...;)

Sonnabend
02-26-2011, 06:05 PM
We don't have proof that rising sea levels are attributable to global warming And BANG goes any credibility. You don't know and are blaming it on something you havr no proof of whatsoever.


but that conclusion is likely given the correlation. I mean, if global warming isn't causing sea levels to rise, what is? The atolls of the Maldives are formed from coral structures, and in fact are by nature inherently unstable, the fact that there are several fault lines in the area, the fact that there have been several seaquakes in recent years (The Sumatra one in 2004 for example,.and there is no proof that any "global warming" causes earthquakes either, just a shitload of wild assed guess based on models that bear no resemblance to reality.)

Islands in the oceans, ESPECIALLY the Pacific (and I live in the Pacific Rim so I know more than you do) rise and sink frequently. They built on a rickety foundation and the place is in all likelihood ready to go back under the ocean where it came from.

Erosion of the island by sea activity is a likely cause..it's a set of coral atolls in the middle of a bloody big ocean. Of course it's unstable.

In the end, there is no way to accurately measure the cause and effect of small islands ending up in the ocean. Not only do sea levels regularly change, but islands can also rise and sink separately from the ocean. There are also arguments about if the increased water levels are due to global climate change or natural variations in the climate. No matter who or what is to blame, though, island nations that are sinking are being forced to find solutions – because there is not yet a way to simply stop the rise and fall of an island in the ocean.So Owl, what you have is panic mongering based on bullshit data which has been well and truly debunked.


I've asked two of your brethern here to provide me with historical records of climate patterns... guess what, I was ignored. Can you provide me with the data that I'm seeking....HMMMMM?Ask Dr Jones of the CRU for them..oh wait, that's right, he destroyed them along with a load of information to stop it getting into the hands of independent experts. And then lied about it.

Sonnabend
02-26-2011, 06:06 PM
You're kicking at open doors now. Scientists believe that the snowy winters we've been experiencing are related to the decrease in Arctic sea ice.

No, they don't.
.

After a series of record-setting snowstorms hit the mid-Atlantic region (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_region) this winter, some people asked NOAA if humans could somehow be to blame. Specifically, they wanted to know if human-induced global warming could have caused the snowstorms due to the fact that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor.

The CSI Team’s analysis indicates that’s not likely. They found no evidence — no human “fingerprints” — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms. (http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/2010/articles/forensic-meteorology-solves-the-mystery-of-record-snows/all/1/) If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century. But historical analysis revealed no such increase in snowfall. Nor did the CSI team find any indication of an upward trend in winter precipitation along the eastern seaboard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_seaboard).

The Night Owl
02-27-2011, 01:15 PM
No, they don't.


After a series of record-setting snowstorms hit the mid-Atlantic region this winter, some people asked NOAA if humans could somehow be to blame. Specifically, they wanted to know if human-induced global warming could have caused the snowstorms due to the fact that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor.

The CSI Team’s analysis indicates that’s not likely. They found no evidence — no human “fingerprints” — to implicate our involvement in the snowstorms. If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region as temperatures rose during the past century. But historical analysis revealed no such increase in snowfall. Nor did the CSI team find any indication of an upward trend in winter precipitation along the eastern seaboard.


As I stated in another thread (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=379764&postcount=6), there is no evidence connecting global warming to exteme weather. But there is a hypothesized connection and that's why NOAA and other scientific institutions are putting forth a lot of time and effort looking into it.

Anyway, I'm glad to see you putting stock in what NOAA has to say about weather. Now if I can only get you to put stock in what NOAA and other mainstream science outfits have to say about climate change. You won't though. You only agree with science when it agrees with your preconceived notions.

Rockntractor
02-27-2011, 01:18 PM
As I stated in another thread (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=379764&postcount=6), there is no evidence connecting global warming to exteme weather. But there is a hypothesized connection and that's why NOAA and other scientific institutions are putting forth a lot of time and effort looking into it.

Anyway, I'm glad to see you putting stock in what NOAA has to say about weather. Now if I can only get you to put stock in what NOAA has to say about climate change.

How were services at the global tabernacle this morning?

The Night Owl
02-27-2011, 01:22 PM
How were services at the global tabernacle this morning?

Ha! That joke about climate change being a religion never gets old. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
02-27-2011, 01:23 PM
Ha! That joke about climate change being a religion never gets old. :rolleyes:
Are you a deacon yet?
And why do you expect us to pay your tithe for you?:confused:

The Night Owl
02-27-2011, 01:31 PM
Are you a deacon yet?
And why do you expect us to pay your tithe for you?:confused:

Get some new material. I bet even your confederates are yawning.

Sonnabend
02-27-2011, 02:56 PM
It's a hypothesis.

A guess.

A theory.

NOT PROVEN FACT.

Case closed by your own admission.

Novaheart
02-27-2011, 03:16 PM
Ha! That joke about climate change being a religion never gets old. :rolleyes:

It isn't a joke, it's a classification based on observation.

J/C/I to the objective observer is clearly mythology, primitive understanding of natural forces explained by supernaturalized human personalities. The only way a person can be a devotee is by ignoring reason and denying fact.

Global Warming to the objective observer is the same way if you apply the same test.

In its own way, the Grand Canyon disproves both.

The Night Owl
02-27-2011, 03:29 PM
It isn't a joke, it's a classification based on observation.

J/C/I to the objective observer is clearly mythology, primitive understanding of natural forces explained by supernaturalized human personalities. The only way a person can be a devotee is by ignoring reason and denying fact.

Global Warming to the objective observer is the same way if you apply the same test.

In its own way, the Grand Canyon disproves both.

The weight of evidence, as expressed by the number of studies which support the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of climate change, is on my side-- as are all the major scientific institutions on the planet. Meanwhile, you dogmatically hold the position that climate change is not the result of human activities and to make matters worse this position seems to little more than a reaction to exaggerations and misstatements coming not from scientists but from journalists, activists, and politicians. Naomi Klein? Who fucking cares what Naomi Klein has to say about climate change?

Apache
02-27-2011, 03:45 PM
As I stated in another thread (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=379764&postcount=6), there is no evidence connecting global warming to exteme weather. But there is a hypothesized connection and that's why NOAA and other scientific institutions are putting forth a lot of time and effort looking into it.

Anyway, I'm glad to see you putting stock in what NOAA has to say about weather. Now if I can only get you to put stock in what NOAA and other mainstream science outfits have to say about climate change. You won't though. You only agree with science when it agrees with your preconceived notions.

Nope! Sorry, too many ifs. Too many maybes. Too many agendas. Man is not changing the climate, now or ever. Volcanoes don't even have the power to do that long term and they spew more greenhouuse gases than all man's combined efforts. The "science" behind climate change has to be an honest look, based on data and history... you guys have NONE.

Apache
02-27-2011, 03:48 PM
The weight of evidence, as expressed by the number of studies which support the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of climate change, is on my side-- as are all the major scientific institutions on the planet. Meanwhile, you dogmatically hold the position that climate change is not the result of human activities and to make matters worse this position seems to little more than a reaction to exaggerations and misstatements coming not from scientists but from journalists, activists, and politicians. Naomi Klein? Who fucking cares what Naomi Klein has to say about climate change?

Then you don't mind providing the Climate studies done in the 16th or 17th centuries to back up your claim?

Novaheart
02-27-2011, 04:18 PM
The weight of evidence, as expressed by the number of studies which support the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of climate change, is on my side-- as are all the major scientific institutions on the planet. Meanwhile, you dogmatically hold the position that climate change is not the result of human activities and to make matters worse this position seems to little more than a reaction to exaggerations and misstatements coming not from scientists but from journalists, activists, and politicians. Naomi Klein? Who fucking cares what Naomi Klein has to say about climate change?


If the goal of "climate summit" is "social justice" then clearly those at the top don't share your belief of the objective.

Novaheart
02-27-2011, 04:18 PM
Then you don't mind providing the Climate studies done in the 16th or 17th centuries to back up your claim?

lol

AmPat
02-27-2011, 07:00 PM
You're kicking at open doors now. Scientists believe that the snowy winters we've been experiencing are related to the decrease in Arctic sea ice.

Information:

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html

Graphics:

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110202_Figure3_thumb.png (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews)

Hmmm? 1979 to 2011. Interesting. If true, then man must have done something spectacular starting in 1979 that started the melting and continues until today. I blame China. They are the cause. I suggest you write China a strongly worded letter demanding that they stop heating up the planet.

Rockntractor
02-27-2011, 07:03 PM
I suggest you write China a strongly worded letter demanding that they stop heating up the planet.

You can't do all caps in Chinese and it loses its effect!:confused:

The Night Owl
02-27-2011, 07:13 PM
Hmmm? 1979 to 2011. Interesting. If true, then man must have done something spectacular starting in 1979 that started the melting and continues until today.

Or maybe emissions from over a century of industrialization finally caused the planet to get hot enough to start a decline in Artice sea ice. Yes, I know it's just crazy to believe that pumping massive amounts of CO2 and other materials into the atmosphere for over a century might affect something. :rolleyes:

Nubs
02-27-2011, 08:11 PM
That graph is such a bunch of shit it's hilarious

Rockntractor
02-27-2011, 08:13 PM
That graph is such a bunch of shit it's hilarious

He's a window licker, I was going to be nice and not say anything.:rolleyes:

Articulate_Ape
02-27-2011, 08:34 PM
I find the fact that TNO fails to respond to my posts, which invariably confound his own liturgical chants to the AGW god, to be telling of both my profound ability to own him intellectually, but also his own ability to fail in epic proportions.

Nice work, TNO, you go girl!

AmPat
02-27-2011, 08:48 PM
Or maybe emissions from over a century of industrialization finally caused the planet to get hot enough to start a decline in Artice sea ice. Yes, I know it's just crazy to believe that pumping massive amounts of CO2 and other materials into the atmosphere for over a century might affect something. :rolleyes:

It's a good thing we manufactured all those volcano plugs. Now if we can just fire that letter off to China, we'll start freezing our planet back to the Ice age.

Novaheart
02-27-2011, 08:57 PM
He's a window licker, I was going to be nice and not say anything.:rolleyes:

That's a terrible thing to say.

Articulate_Ape
02-27-2011, 09:07 PM
That's a terrible thing to say.

You say that as though you we a Windex tongue yourself.

FlaGator
02-27-2011, 09:20 PM
I find the fact that TNO fails to respond to my posts, which invariably confound his own liturgical chants to the AGW god, to be telling of both my profound ability to own him intellectually, but also his own ability to fail in epic proportions.

Nice work, TNO, you go girl!

Do you expect otherwise from a devotee of a made up science?

Articulate_Ape
02-27-2011, 09:40 PM
Do you expect otherwise from a devotee of a made up science?

Now that you mention it, no. ;)

Rockntractor
02-27-2011, 09:41 PM
You say that as though you we a Windex tongue yourself.

True, he has felt TNO's pane.

The Night Owl
02-27-2011, 10:30 PM
If the goal of "climate summit" is "social justice" then clearly those at the top don't share your belief of the objective.

You're on Glenn Beck's side of the argument. That's some top you have there.

Rockntractor
02-27-2011, 11:48 PM
You're on Glenn Beck's side of the argument. That's some top you have there.

You found a heritic, will you excommunicate her?

Novaheart
02-27-2011, 11:52 PM
You're on Glenn Beck's side of the argument. That's some top you have there.

So if I find a brain damaged homeless person that believes in Global Warming, then I have proven myself right? Oh wait, here's a good substitute:


http://www.openmediaboston.org/files/imagecache/article/files/Amy%20Goodman%20Speaks%20at%20First%20Church%20in% 20Cambridge.jpg

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 09:18 AM
So if I find a brain damaged homeless person that believes in Global Warming, then I have proven myself right? Oh wait, here's a good substitute:


Hey, if you want to see it, I can provide a long list of scientific institutions which support the conclusion that climate change is happening and that it's being driven mostly or in large part by human activities. I guess I missed the post where you list the scientific institutions backing your point of view (presumably because there are none). My guess is that you'll bail on this conversation when the rubber hits the road. You always do.


http://www.openmediaboston.org/files/imagecache/article/files/Amy%20Goodman%20Speaks%20at%20First%20Church%20in% 20Cambridge.jpg

Amy Goodman has no academic credentials in Earth science and so her opinion on climate is valueless to me. Try again.

FBIGuy
02-28-2011, 09:22 AM
I guess I missed the post where you list the scientific institutions (presumably because there are none) backing your point of view.

I on the other hand can provide a long list of scientific institutions which support the conclusion that climate change is happening and that it's being driven mostly or in large part by human activities.

I missed where you answered the Ape's questions. Bare in mind that any response other than addressing his points declares that you are incapable of answering them. In fact, no response will equal the same thing.

Rockntractor
02-28-2011, 09:30 AM
I missed where you answered the Ape's questions. Bare in mind that any response other than addressing his points declares that you are incapable of answering them. In fact, no response will equal the same thing.

That's the way the cults work, there are questions the reverend can't answer so he just moves on to the next talking point.

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 09:34 AM
I missed where you answered the Ape's questions. Bare in mind that any response other than addressing his points declares that you are incapable of answering them. In fact, no response will equal the same thing.


That's the way the cults work, there are questions the reverend can't answer so he just moves on to the next talking point.

None of Ape's posts in this thread contain questions. I'll be happy to answer a question from Ape when he posts one.

Zathras
02-28-2011, 09:39 AM
None of Ape's posts in this thread contain questions. I'll be happy to answer a question from Ape when he posts one.

Try post #22 of this thread cultist.

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 09:40 AM
Try post #22 of this thread cultist.

I don't see a question mark in post #22.

Rockntractor
02-28-2011, 09:41 AM
Try post #22 of this thread cultist.

I would have thought the reverend would have noticed it.
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=380167&postcount=22

Rockntractor
02-28-2011, 09:42 AM
I don't see a question mark in post #22.

Address the article point by point or you fail by default!

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 09:43 AM
I would have thought the reverend would have noticed it.
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=380167&postcount=22

See post #61.

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 09:47 AM
Address the article point by point or you fail by default!

Okay. I guess the question is how long can polar bears tread water? My guess is not two years.

Anyway, I don't see how Steffen Tietsche's claim that there is no tipping point for Arctic sea ice refutes my claim that Arctic sea ice is diminishing and so I don't really know what you're asking me for here.

The article plainly supports my point that Arctic sea ice is diminishing:


So the gradual decline in ice extent seen in recent decades may continue, but even if a very hot summer seriously eats away at the sea ice - even so much as to completely melt it all - it will recover; there will be no sudden disaster this century.

What can I say? Read to the end next time?

Rockntractor
02-28-2011, 09:57 AM
Okay. I guess the question is how long can polar bears tread water? My guess is not two years.

Fine you lose, you can't refute the piece that brings your whole premise into question. It deviates from your talking points that were given to you so you dodge.
Go waste someone else's time, you are not studied on anything.

Rockntractor
02-28-2011, 10:08 AM
Okay. I guess the question is how long can polar bears tread water? My guess is not two years.

Anyway, I don't see how Steffen Tietsche's claim that there is no tipping point for Arctic sea ice refutes my claim that Arctic sea ice is diminishing and so I don't really know what you're asking me for here.

The article plainly supports my point that Arctic sea ice is diminishing:



What can I say? Read to the end next time?

It say's "it will recover; there will be no sudden disaster this century". Nature heals itself. You reread the article and this time try to make an effort to comprehend it's meaning instead of coming back , talking in circles around the questions given you and returning to your talking points. You failed!

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 10:12 AM
Fine you lose, you can't refute the piece that brings your whole premise into question. It deviates from your talking points that were given to you so you dodge.
Go waste someone else's time, you are not studied on anything.

I haven't made any claims about tipping points in this thread and so I don't see how the article brings my premise into question. If you think the article is saying that no tipping point means no melting then you've misunderstood the article.

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 10:14 AM
It say's "it will recover; there will be no sudden disaster this century". Nature heals itself. You reread the article and this time try to make an effort to comprehend it's meaning instead of coming back , talking in circles around the questions given you and returning to your talking points. You failed!

Right. No sudden disaster. Unless you're a polar bear... then you're fucked.

FBIGuy
02-28-2011, 10:15 AM
Hmmm, 6 responses so far and still nothing, but that is pretty standard for the global warming nuts. First they speculate and then extrapolate on the speculation in order to make the speculation appear as fact. In the global warming world, guesses are substituted for facts and then presented as fact to the gullible for them to repeat.

Rockntractor
02-28-2011, 10:32 AM
Right. No sudden disaster. Unless you're a polar bear... then you're fucked.

Just as I thought, you are preprogrammed to answer a certain set of questions and when facts appear all you can do is dodge and talk about polar bears, you fail!

Madisonian
02-28-2011, 10:36 AM
Hey, if you want to see it, I can provide a long list of scientific institutions which support the conclusion that climate change is happening and that it's being driven mostly or in large part by human activities. I guess I missed the post where you list the scientific institutions backing your point of view (presumably because there are none). My guess is that you'll bail on this conversation when the rubber hits the road. You always do.



Amy Goodman has no academic credentials in Earth science and so her opinion on climate is valueless to me. Try again.

When you get this list, eliminate the ones that are either government funded or have an otherwise vested interest (get public money to continue the study of AGW) in showing that AGW does indeed exist.

It is still largely a case of follow the money. IF AGW does not exist, then there is nothing to study or otherwsie coerce funding to keep their cushy positions.

The results of any study seem to be directly proportional to the government's ability to continue funding it.

txradioguy
02-28-2011, 10:48 AM
Hey, if you want to see it, I can provide a long list of scientific institutions which support the conclusion that climate change is happening and that it's being driven mostly or in large part by human activities. I guess I missed the post where you list the scientific institutions backing your point of view (presumably because there are none).

You never learn do you Owl?

“We're not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” -- UN IPCC's Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” -- NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself.” -- Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn't happen...Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” -- Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.

“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate...The planet's climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” -- Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences...AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” -- Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

"I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” -- Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic's View.”

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what 'science' has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” -- Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Update December 9, 2010]

“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” -- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]

“Those who call themselves 'Green planet advocates' should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere...Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content...Al Gore's personal behavior supports a green planet - his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” -- Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named "100 most influential people in the world, 2004" by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him "the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer."

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith...My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” -- Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia's CSIRO's (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” -- Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens' Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity...In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” -- Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.


“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” -- Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore



My guess is that you'll bail on this conversation when the rubber hits the road. You always do.
.

Looking in the mirror again I see.

txradioguy
02-28-2011, 10:50 AM
Link to the full report in .PDF form

http://traffic.libsyn.com/rbushway/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

txradioguy
02-28-2011, 10:53 AM
Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on “low”. The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic.

Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 11:29 AM
Just as I thought, you are preprogrammed to answer a certain set of questions and when facts appear all you can do is dodge and talk about polar bears, you fail!

What do you want me to say? The article Ape posted in no way refutes my claim that Arctic sea ice is on the decline. In fact, the article itself points that out.

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 11:31 AM
When you get this list, eliminate the ones that are either government funded or have an otherwise vested interest (get public money to continue the study of AGW) in showing that AGW does indeed exist.

It is still largely a case of follow the money. IF AGW does not exist, then there is nothing to study or otherwsie coerce funding to keep their cushy positions.

The results of any study seem to be directly proportional to the government's ability to continue funding it.

Conspiratorial nonsense.

Novaheart
02-28-2011, 11:36 AM
Right. No sudden disaster. Unless you're a polar bear... then you're fucked.

Eskimos kill polar bears. And don't buy that bullshit about their ancient traditions or food needs- they kill polar bears for fun and profit.

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 11:43 AM
Eskimos kill polar bears. And don't buy that bullshit about their ancient traditions or food needs- they kill polar bears for fun and profit.

I don't have a problem with people killing polar bears for fun and profit but I and those who kill polar bears for fun and profit don't want to see them wiped out.

I guess you thought you were being edgy. Yawn.

Rockntractor
02-28-2011, 11:50 AM
I don't have a problem with people killing polar bears for fun and profit but I and those who kill polar bears for fun and profit don't want to see them wiped out.

I guess you thought you were being edgy. Yawn.

http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county-environmental-news-in-orlando/canada-s-growing-polar-bear-population-becoming-a-problem-locals-say

Canada's growing polar bear population 'becoming a problem,' locals say
January 8th, 2010 9:29 pm ET

On-the-ground reports show growth in polar bear numbers across much of Canada's Nunavut territory.
Photo: kewlwallpapers.com
Polar bears, the lumbering carnivores of the arctic, continue to be the poster bear – er, child – for global warmers everywhere who are convinced the baby seal munchers are being driven to extinction by man’s irresponsible release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Next to whales, the cuddly fur balls enjoy a special place on the “Animals to Love” list. Grown-ups adore them (provided it’s from a safe distance), and grade-school kids who can’t find Greenland or Manitoba on a map raid their penny jars to save them.

But are the denizens of the deep north facing extinction? Are they in desperate need of saving? It depends on who you ask.

According to the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG), the polar bear population is on shaky ground – actually, ice – because of warmer temperatures and shrinking ice floe in the Arctic triggered by the favorite bad-guy of the green movement – anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.

In a news release issued after its conference last July, the PBSG concluded that only one of 19 total polar bear subpopulations is currently increasing, three are stable and eight are declining. Data was insufficient to determine numbers for the remaining seven subpopulations. The group estimated that the total number of polar bears is somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000. (Estimates of the population during the 1950s and 1960s, before harvest quotas were enacted, range from 5,000 to 10,000.)

However, the PBSG quickly acknowledged that “the mixed quality of information on the different subpopulations means there is much room for error in establishing” the numbers, and “the potential for error, given the ongoing and projected changes in habitats and other potential stresses, is cause for concern.”

Despite those problems, the PBSG said it is optimistic that “humans can mitigate the effects of global warming and other threats to the polar bears.”

Not so fast. According to a U.S. Senate and Public Works Committee report, the “alarm about the future of polar bear decline is based on speculative computer model predictions many decades in the future. Those predictions are being “challenged by scientists and forecasting experts,” said the report.

Those challenges, supported by facts on the ground, including observations from Inuit hunters in the region, haven’t stopped climate fear-mongers at the U.S. Geological Survey from proclaiming that future sea ice conditions “will result in the loss of approximately two-thirds of the world’s current polar bear population by the mid 21st century.”

Such sky-is-falling rhetoric brings smiles to the Inuit population of Canada’s Nunavut Territory. They, too, know how to count, and they claim the bear population is stable or on the rise in their own backyard. Polar bears may be on the decline in some areas, but during their frequent visits to Inuit towns and outposts they rarely decline an easy meal from the local dump or a poorly secured garbage can.

Harry Flaherty, chair of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board in the capital of Iqaluit, says the polar bear population in the region, along the Davis Strait, has doubled during the past 10 years. He questions the official figures, which are based to a large extent on helicopter surveys.

“Scientists do a quick study one to two weeks in a helicopter, and don’t see all the polar bears. We’re getting totally different stories [about the bear numbers] on a daily basis from hunters and harvesters on the ground,” he says.

Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a biologist who has been researching polar bear populations in Canada’s Nunavut Territory for 35 years, seems to agree. “The study estimates from the Iqaluit area agree with those of local hunters, although the accuracy of the counts is doubtful in some areas,” he says.

Gabriel Nirlungayuk, director of wildlife for Nunavut Tuungavik Inc., is another doubter who questions the accuracy of helicopter surveys. “Helicopters have many limitations, including fuel capacity. They can’t go far out into the open water,” he says. But hunters crisscrossing the area by dog team, snowmobile or boat “are seeing polar bears where scientists and helicopters are not traveling.”

Forty years ago, old-timers living in the area around Hudson Bay were lucky to see a polar bear, Nirlungayuk says. “Now there are bears living as far south as James Bay.”

The growing population has become “a real problem,” especially over the last 10 years, he says. During the summer and fall, families enjoying outdoor activities must be on the look-out for bears. Many locals invite along other hunters for protection.

Last year, in Pelly Bay, all the bears that were captured were caught in town, Nirlungayuk says. “You now have polar bears coming into towns, getting into cabins, breaking property and just creating havoc for people up here,” he says.

In the Western Hudson Bay area, where harvest quotas were reduced by 80 percent four years ago, communities are complaining about the number of polar bears. “Now people can look out the window and see as many as 20 polar bears at the ice-flow edge,” Flaherty says.

During a public hearing last September focusing on the polar bear population in the Baffin Bay region, hunters reported more sightings of females with three cubs. The normal litter is one or two. Flaherty, himself a serious hunter, says the abundant food supply – primarily baby ring seals – in the area is responsible for the bigger litters.

The on-the-ground reports, if accurate, seem to contradict the official story of the beleaguered polar bear. According to the standard theory, warmer temperatures (caused by human CO2 emissions) are shrinking the ice floe, the polar bear’s main hunting ground, forcing populations to compete for a diminishing food supply. Warmer temperatures also are to blame for the loss of thicker “multi-year ice.”

Flaherty and many others disagree with the official story. “We are aware there are changes in the weather, but it is not affecting the daily life of the animals,” he says. “Polar bears hunt in the floe-edge areas, on newly formed ice, and in the fiords in search of baby seals. They don’t hunt in the glaciers [areas of multi-year ice].

“We’re not seeing negative effects on the polar bear population from so-called climate change and receding ice,” he says. He is convinced that some scientists are deliberately “using the polar bear issue to scare people” about global warming, a view widely shared by many Nunavut locals.

It has warmed in the region and, as Taylor confirms, the summer sea-ice boundary has been slowly contracting for the last 30 years and experienced a big decline in 2007 – an event that was widely reported as evidence of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming.

However, the shrinking sea ice does not affect polar bear numbers uniformly, he emphasizes. “Even in adjacent sub-populations, the impact may vary,” he says. “Every population is ecologically different. Some populations may actually benefit from less sea ice.”

Taylor downplays the theory that CO2 is the culprit responsible for warmer Arctic temperatures. Other factors, including wind-driven ice movement, shifting ocean currents, reduced albedo effect (less snow-cover resulting in less heat reflection) and increased water vapor (the major greenhouse gas) from a growing expanse of ice-free water, leading to warmer air temperatures, may be influencing the local climate, he says.

“Arctic warming is real, but just because it’s warmer doesn’t mean it’s caused by carbon dioxide. I don’t think CO2 is the main factor causing it.”

He notes that the current model forecasts, which show elevated CO2 levels triggering global temperature increases, don’t agree with the contemporary temperature record. “When predictions don’t match the observations, scientists should say ‘there is something wrong here.’”

The IPCC models, he claims, are “multiplying the effect of CO2 to obtain the temperature increases they predict,” a criticism shared by others in the scientific community who have openly accused modelers of data manipulation.

“The idea that these models can make predictions 50 to 100 years into the future seems, frankly, absurd to me.”

Both Nirlungayuk and Flaherty ridicule media claims that the polar bear is threatened or on the verge of extinction.

“Polar bears are very intelligent . . . they have adapted through many climate changes for thousands of years. They are not going to wait around for the ice to freeze to start hunting. They live on more than just seals,” says Nirlungayuk.

Adds Flaherty: “At the end of the day, the King of the North will always be here. When we hear that polar bears are headed towards extinction, we just kind of smile at ourselves.”




Continue reading on Examiner.com: Canada's growing polar bear population 'becoming a problem,' locals say - Orlando Seminole County Environmental News | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county-environmental-news-in-orlando/canada-s-growing-polar-bear-population-becoming-a-problem-locals-say#ixzz1FGyyq5Ut
More owl fail.

Novaheart
02-28-2011, 11:51 AM
I don't have a problem with people killing polar bears for fun and profit but I and those who kill polar bears for fun and profit don't want to see them wiped out.

I guess you thought you were being edgy. Yawn.

What kills more polar bears? Global Warming or licensed hunters?

Madisonian
02-28-2011, 11:51 AM
Conspiratorial nonsense.

I agree. AGW is largely conspiratorial nonsense.

Rockntractor
02-28-2011, 11:57 AM
What do you want me to say? The article Ape posted in no way refutes my claim that Arctic sea ice is on the decline. In fact, the article itself points that out.

It actually states that the ice is on the increase in Antarctica, stop wasting our time, you have been shot down on everything ,dodging questions and showing nothing to refute our points, go away window licker!

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 12:01 PM
What kills more polar bears? Global Warming or licensed hunters?

Right now, I'm guessing hunters are killing more polar bears than global warming is... and by a wide margin. Is it not reasonable to assume the situation might reverse at some point should Arctic ice keep vanishing?

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 12:02 PM
It actually states that the ice is on the increase in Antarctica, stop wasting our time, you have been shot down on everything ,dodging questions and showing nothing to refute our points, go away window licker!

I've been talking about Arctic sea ice in this thread. I thought that much was clear.

txradioguy
02-28-2011, 12:13 PM
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) claimed that this past June was the warmest ever in its temperature records, which go back to 1880. The global average temperature in June was 61.1 degrees, or 1.22 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average of 59.9 degrees. At face value, this appears to be consistent with the theory that global warming is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. But face value can be deceiving, and the value is not what it appears to be.

In fact, the claim that June 2010 was the warmest on record has no value at all.

NOAA gets its temperature data from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. They calculate the average temperature of the Earth using data from land-based thermometers and ocean buoy and ship measurements of water temperature. However, there is a major problem with how GISS measures temperature in a very large region — the Arctic.

The problem is that they don’t have any thermometers there. So they make it up. No, really!

Despite this lack of arctic temperature data, GISS shows that this June the area north of eighty degrees latitude was up to four degrees warmer than the long-term average. You must be asking: how can GISS show any temperature readings at all north of eighty degrees if they don’t have any data? Really, I’m not kidding — they make it up.

GISS uses measured temperature data from lower latitudes and then extrapolates them to the Arctic. Using this method, any readings warmer than average in the lower latitudes are pushed into the Arctic by a smoothing technique. GISS uses a 1,200 kilometer smoothing for its data, meaning that the temperature reading for one thermometer is used as the temperature for a 1,200 kilometer box in all directions from that location. Where there are more thermometers, the boxes overlap, and the readings of one thermometer are averaged with others around them. This reduces the effect of each individual thermometer.

But in data-sparse regions, the value of one thermometer takes on a much greater value.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/noaa-warmest-june-ever-caveat-we-made-it-up/



In the case of the Arctic that one thermometer and the few that are on the fringe of the Arctic are used to calculate the average temperature of everything north of eighty degrees. When one uses a 250-degree smoothing factor for the data from GISS, the truth is suddenly and shockingly revealed: they don’t have any thermometers north of eighty degrees and very few north of sixty degrees. The 1,200 kilometer smoothing floods the Arctic with assumed temperature readings that don’t actually exist.

So what does this all mean in miles? To get into further detail than the PJ article, each degree of latitude is approximately 69 miles. From 80 degrees north, where their highest (if I read the article right theres’ only 1)sensor is, it is about 690 miles to the North Pole (90 degrees north), (10 degrees x 69 miles = 690 miles). For an equivalent it’s like having a sensor in Salt Lake City, Utah and claiming the temperature there is the temperature in San Francisco, California. You can see approximate degrees latitude and approximate distances on the below map.

http://co2insanity.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/arctic-sensor-map.gif?w=480&h=284


From 60 degrees north, the line where most sensors cease to exist, it’s approximately 2,070 miles (30 degrees x 69 miles =2,070 miles). That’s like having a sensor in San Francisco, California and using it to ascertain the temperature in St. Louis, Missouri. Again, an extremely long distance to be claiming one temperature is the same as the other.

The 1,2oo kilometer smoothing basically means that they will take one sensor and use it as data for the whole area in a 1,200 kilometer 360 degree radius. What’s 1,200 kilometers? It is the equivalent of 745 miles. The approximate distance from San Francisco, California to Phoenix, Arizona. To give you an idea of what kind of temperature disparity this kind of “smoothing” can cause, as I write, it’s 56 degrees in San Francisco. In Phoenix it’s 99 degrees. Get the point? It’s called how to warm things up for the general public, many of who read these things without understanding them or bothering to do any research on whether the article, website, or TV show is being realistic or “alarmist.”

http://co2insanity.com/2010/08/15/the-arctic-is-not-melting/

Rockntractor
02-28-2011, 12:20 PM
I've been talking about Arctic sea ice in this thread. I thought that much was clear.

You have not addressed the material we have refuted your article with, you dodge, ignore, and go in circles like you are now, you have failed completely.

Rockntractor
02-28-2011, 12:24 PM
I've been talking about Arctic sea ice in this thread. I thought that much was clear.

When you failed to factually prove your premise you chose an emotional appeal using polar bears. Address my article concerning the rise in the polar bear population that I posted here.
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=380648&postcount=80

Novaheart
02-28-2011, 12:27 PM
Right now, I'm guessing hunters are killing more polar bears than global warming is... and by a wide margin. Is it not reasonable to assume the situation might reverse at some point should Arctic ice keep vanishing?


What makes you think that polar bears wouldn't adapt to a reduction in sea ice? IS there a species of bear that you can think of which hasn't adapted to conditions? We have bears that go fishing and bears that break into peoples' houses.

What if the polar bears were to breed into the brown bear population and become beige bears? Do you have a problem with a racial hybrid being the successor to the current distinct populations?

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 12:48 PM
What makes you think that polar bears wouldn't adapt to a reduction in sea ice? IS there a species of bear that you can think of which hasn't adapted to conditions? We have bears that go fishing and bears that break into peoples' houses.

What if the polar bears were to breed into the brown bear population and become beige bears? Do you have a problem with a racial hybrid being the successor to the current distinct populations?

So, the question is not about whether polar bears can adapt but about how fast they can adapt. The less time a species has to adapt the less likely it is to adapt. And then there's the problem of habitat. As the article Rockntractor posted explains, polar bears are already starting to be a problem in certain parts of Canada. What happens if roughly 20,000 hungry bears are suddenly forced to look South rather than North for hunting grounds. I doubt that's that's good for them or us. But what do you care? You once stated that you don't care if all the polar bears drown or not... you know, because you're all politically incorrect and shit.

Rockntractor
02-28-2011, 01:03 PM
So, the question is not about whether polar bears can adapt but about how fast they can adapt. The less time a species has to adapt the less likely it is to adapt. And then there's the problem of habitat. As the article Rockntractor posted explains, polar bears are already starting to be a problem in certain parts of Canada. What happens if roughly 20,000 hungry bears are suddenly forced to look South rather than North for hunting grounds. I doubt that's that's good for them or us. But what do you care? You once stated that you don't care if all the polar bears drown or not... you know, because you're all politically incorrect and shit.

There is no mass exodus of polar bears there habitat warms and cools, that have gone on for a thousands of years, their numbers continue to rise and they will be controlled by hunting like any other wildlife.
Your whole belief system is based on nothing but what if, and is nothing more than a wealth distribution scam. No one here buys your lies.

Sonnabend
02-28-2011, 05:35 PM
I see that amongst Owl's shortcomings is a singular lack of knowledge regarding elementary Mendelian genetics. I don't have time to waste on this imbecile. Anyone want the job?

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 06:00 PM
I see that amongst Owl's shortcomings is a singular lack of knowledge regarding elementary Mendelian genetics. I don't have time to waste on this imbecile. Anyone want the job?

By all means, dazzle us.

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 06:16 PM
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) claimed that this past June was the warmest ever in its temperature records, which go back to 1880. The global average temperature in June was 61.1 degrees, or 1.22 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average of 59.9 degrees. At face value, this appears to be consistent with the theory that global warming is caused by mankind’s use of fossil fuels. But face value can be deceiving, and the value is not what it appears to be.

In fact, the claim that June 2010 was the warmest on record has no value at all.

NOAA gets its temperature data from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. They calculate the average temperature of the Earth using data from land-based thermometers and ocean buoy and ship measurements of water temperature. However, there is a major problem with how GISS measures temperature in a very large region — the Arctic.

The problem is that they don’t have any thermometers there. So they make it up. No, really!

Despite this lack of arctic temperature data, GISS shows that this June the area north of eighty degrees latitude was up to four degrees warmer than the long-term average. You must be asking: how can GISS show any temperature readings at all north of eighty degrees if they don’t have any data? Really, I’m not kidding — they make it up.

GISS uses measured temperature data from lower latitudes and then extrapolates them to the Arctic. Using this method, any readings warmer than average in the lower latitudes are pushed into the Arctic by a smoothing technique. GISS uses a 1,200 kilometer smoothing for its data, meaning that the temperature reading for one thermometer is used as the temperature for a 1,200 kilometer box in all directions from that location. Where there are more thermometers, the boxes overlap, and the readings of one thermometer are averaged with others around them. This reduces the effect of each individual thermometer.

But in data-sparse regions, the value of one thermometer takes on a much greater value.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/noaa-warmest-june-ever-caveat-we-made-it-up/



I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with this information. GISTEMP and HadCRUT data sets are in agreement that the Arctic is warming. Where they differ is in how much. So, if you think this lengthy post knocks down the claim that the Arctic is warming, I'm afraid you have more work to do.

The Night Owl
02-28-2011, 06:26 PM
Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on “low”. The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.)

Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic.

Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

I can't imagine why you're quoting Roy Spencer here. Spencer acknowledges that disappearing sea ice in the Arctic is proof that Earth is warming. Where he disagrees with mainstream science is on the cause of that warming.

txradioguy
03-01-2011, 12:51 AM
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do with this information. GISTEMP and HadCRUT data sets are in agreement that the Arctic is warming. Where they differ is in how much. So, if you think this lengthy post knocks down the claim that the Arctic is warming, I'm afraid you have more work to do.

Gee and I even broke it down Barney style for you with a map so you'd understand.

:rolleyes:

What the article points out...is tht NASA has no accurate way of telling whether the ice is melting or not. Besides the fact their satellites is not operating correctly they don't have thermometers in place close enough to give an accurate reading.

They are guessing. It's the equivalent of me trying to give you an accurate reading on what the temp is where you are at...with a thermometer here in Afghanistan.

txradioguy
03-01-2011, 12:53 AM
I can't imagine why you're quoting Roy Spencer here. Spencer acknowledges that disappearing sea ice in the Arctic is proof that Earth is warming. Where he disagrees with mainstream science is on the cause of that warming.

Spencer also says that its a nautural cyclical ocurrence. Where he disagrees with the zealots is when he says we aren't doing anything to affect the ice one way or another....or the climate for that matter.

But you and the other cultists can't see that and have to fake numbers and guess to make your theory fit what you want it to be.

Rockntractor
03-01-2011, 12:55 AM
They are guessing. It's the equivalent of me trying to give you an accurate reading on what the temp is where you are at...with a thermometer here in Afghanistan.
His is the science of what if. They know better, it's all about more wealth redistribution.

txradioguy
03-01-2011, 12:59 AM
His is the science of what if. They know better, it's all about more wealth redistribution.

Yup. That's the dirty little secret they don't want to get out.

Apache
03-01-2011, 08:54 AM
Why it that I can never get the climate data I request?

The Night Owl
03-01-2011, 11:37 AM
Spencer also says that its a nautural cyclical ocurrence. Where he disagrees with the zealots is when he says we aren't doing anything to affect the ice one way or another....or the climate for that matter.

The point is that Mr. Spencer acknowledges that the Arctic is warming and the sea ice is melting, which were my initial claims. Anyway, I'm glad we can finally agree on what is happening even if we don't agree on why it's happening.

The Night Owl
03-01-2011, 11:44 AM
What the article points out...is tht NASA has no accurate way of telling whether the ice is melting or not. Besides the fact their satellites is not operating correctly they don't have thermometers in place close enough to give an accurate reading.

Even your guy, Roy Spencer, acknowledges that the ice is melting. He acknowledges this because all the data from the Arctic shows the place is warming. So much for global cooling!

txradioguy
03-01-2011, 12:56 PM
Even your guy, Roy Spencer, acknowledges that the ice is melting. He acknowledges this because all the data from the Arctic shows the place is warming. So much for global cooling!

No you obtuse jackass. What he says and has data to back up...is that what is happening is a NATURAL ocurrence. A cyclical thing.

But how much or how little it actually is warming can't be accurately determined because the NASA satellite that is supposed to monitor the North Pole is as buggy as Windows 3.1 and there isn't a thermometer within about 100 miles of the pole so the term "weatehr guesser" is actually a factual description of what's happening with the people tasked to monitor the arctic ice.

The Night Owl
03-01-2011, 01:14 PM
What he says and has data to back up...is that what is happening is a NATURAL ocurrence. A cyclical thing.

Did I not point out that Roy Spencer disagrees with mainstream science on what is causing global warming?

Apache
03-02-2011, 02:00 PM
Did I not point out that Roy Spencer disagrees with mainstream science on what is causing global warming?

Have you found what I asked for?

The Night Owl
03-02-2011, 02:15 PM
Have you found what I asked for?

NASA data sets are publicly available at the GISS site: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

Apache
03-02-2011, 02:41 PM
NASA data sets are publicly available at the GISS site: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

Hmmm The data seems to fall way short of what I asked for...

Where are the numbers for the 16th or 17th centuries?

The Night Owl
03-02-2011, 03:01 PM
Hmmm The data seems to fall way short of what I asked for...

Where are the numbers for the 16th or 17th centuries?

An extensive catalogue of data sources: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources

Apache
03-02-2011, 03:11 PM
An extensive catalogue of data sources: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources

Is it that difficult for you to admit your side doesn't have the history to back up the claims they made?

The Night Owl
03-02-2011, 06:03 PM
Is it that difficult for you to admit your side doesn't have the history to back up the claims they made?

Is this a joke? You asked for data sets pertaining to the 16th and 17th Centuries, did you not?

Rockntractor
03-02-2011, 06:08 PM
Is this a joke? You asked for data sets pertaining to the 16th and 17th Centuries, did you not?

You are the joke Hootie, I'm glad your not on our side, keep up the good work!:D

The Night Owl
03-02-2011, 07:40 PM
You are the joke Hootie, I'm glad your not on our side, keep up the good work!:D

I'm sure your confederates appreciate your cheerleading efforts but I think you can contribute more.

Rockntractor
03-02-2011, 08:11 PM
I'm sure your confederates appreciate your cheerleading efforts but I think you can contribute more.

It is pointless, when you are asked a question or shown proof of anything you just continue with your talking points undaunted.

FlaGator
03-02-2011, 08:16 PM
I'm sure your confederates appreciate your cheerleading efforts but I think you can contribute more.

He doesn't really need to. You're doing a fine job.

The Night Owl
03-03-2011, 09:20 AM
It is pointless, when you are asked a question or shown proof of anything you just continue with your talking points undaunted.

Apache asked for the data used in climate reconstructions of the 16th and 17th Centuries and I provided him with a link to just that. Please, explain how the information I provided is not sufficient.

Sonnabend
03-03-2011, 06:34 PM
You have already admitted you have no proof, therefore whatever you say means jack shit.

Proof or shut it.

Apache
03-03-2011, 06:56 PM
Apache asked for the data used in climate reconstructions of the 16th and 17th Centuries and I provided him with a link to just that. Please, explain how the information I provided is not sufficient.

No, I did not. I asked for data of that era, not reconstructions....
Then you don't mind providing the Climate studies done in the 16th or 17th centuries to back up your claim?
The links you provided are not from the time and based on weather not climate. Remember you guys are the ones harping that the two are different.

AmPat
03-03-2011, 07:10 PM
The point is that Mr. Spencer acknowledges that the Arctic is warming and the sea ice is melting, which were my initial claims. Anyway, I'm glad we can finally agree on what is happening even if we don't agree on why it's happening.

What?

Ice melts?

ICE MELTS?
Stop the presses. Re-rig for full panic attack!!!!:eek::eek::eek:

The Night Owl
03-03-2011, 10:33 PM
No, I did not. I asked for data of that era, not reconstructions....The links you provided are not from the time and based on weather not climate. Remember you guys are the ones harping that the two are different.

Look at the sections titled Paleo-data and Paleo Reconstructions. Everything you're looking for is there.

Apache
03-04-2011, 10:45 AM
Look at the sections titled Paleo-data and Paleo Reconstructions. Everything you're looking for is there.


The NOAA Paleoclimatology Program archives reconstructions of past climatic conditions derived from paleoclimate proxies

Um, no...

All those are, are SWAG's. There is no hard data. No recorded temps or conditions...

Climate science as it stands is too new to make any predictions as to what will happen or why something is happening...

The Night Owl
03-04-2011, 11:33 AM
Um, no...

All those are, are SWAG's. There is no hard data. No recorded temps or conditions...

Climate science as it stands is too new to make any predictions as to what will happen or why something is happening...

The fact that various forms of proxy data are in agreement demonstrates that there is no wild ass in the guesses.

Apache
03-04-2011, 12:16 PM
The fact that various forms of proxy data are in agreement demonstrates that there is no wild ass in the guesses.

Proxy data is just that...a guess. Hello :p