The IPCC exposed

[spacecowboy342]

it is a natural event which occurs like clockwork every 150 years.

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data."

do you disagree with Goddard Glaciologist Lora Koenig who analysed the data with a view to the historical context?

it would have been unusual if this event did not occur.

http://wattsupwithth...-right-on-time/

Far be it from me to disagree with a glaciologist however the article goes on to stress how unusual this level of melt was especially when combined with other unusual events such as the large calving event on Petermen glacier. And if such events keep occurring in subsequent years they will be quote worriesome. So once again we have to wait for more evidence. With CO2 levels continuing to rise any predictions on future melt levels?

[spacecowboy342]

97% melts happen regularly as show by the glacier data. do you disagree with the glacier expert who looked at the data who said "yep, right on time"?

if something happens regularly like clockwork, like for instance, the sun going down, then when the sun goes down tonight it won't be an unusual event. if someone claims that the sun going down is evidence for global dimming, what would you say to them?

Melts happen regularly.97% melts not so much, although we obviously have no satellite data for 1889.

[Little Fish]

So the basis of your argument is that the IPCC is not to be believed except when it seems to support your position?

http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm

which would kind of apply to your position too, so what you said there is a null statement. the ipcc is well known for bias to the co2 hypothesis given it pays near-zero attention to solar research which has advanced considerably recently, so EVEN the ipcc disagrees with you.

the link you provided there is a global warming activist site, and does not support your statement "The number and severity of storms is increasing".

did you read it all or just look at the scary graph

"all we’ve managed is to document here is what we don’t know for sure yet"

I can't find any provenance or context to the graph, although it does state it is not global.

[Kaa-Tzik]

The denial of evidence characteristic of religion seems to be coming from your side

BS, and your post and, it attendent "like" show that when it comes to warming the real face of people is revealed. I made one satirical post and get attacked again and again by people who have this weird desire to make posts telling others what I have written, when I haven't. Your post, and those of a few others really shows you as rather nasty minded people when it comes to warming. Yet again I point out that I have not made a single statement about warming that could be described as "fact", and neither have I "denied" anything. Want to attack me, then think clearly, as you and the others show strong symtoms of religious fanatiscism. My one post has exposed this, as it was intended to, but I do not expect you or any of the others to see themselves, you never do.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Kaa-Tzik

[spacecowboy342]

which would kind of apply to your position too, so what you said there is a null statement. the ipcc is well known for bias to the co2 hypothesis given it pays near-zero attention to solar research which has advanced considerably recently, so EVEN the ipcc disagrees with you.

the link you provided there is a global warming activist site, and does not support your statement "The number and severity of storms is increasing".

did you read it all or just look at the scary graph

"all we’ve managed is to document here is what we don’t know for sure yet"

I can't find any provenance or context to the graph, although it does state it is not global.

The statement about storms comes from the NOAA report. As far as the cycling of Greenland melts in 150 year cycles, if the last one happened in 1889 this one seems a quarter century early. There are many more examples of storm increasing

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070730-hurricane-warming.html

Edited October 12, 2013 by spacecowboy342

[spacecowboy342]

BS, and your post and, it attendent "like" show that when it comes to warming the real face of people is revealed. I made one satirical post and get attacked again and again by people who have this weird desire to make posts telling others what I have written, when I haven't. Your post, and those of a few others really shows you as rather nasty minded people when it comes to warming. Yet again I point out that I have not made a single statement about warming that could be described as "fact", and neither have I "denied" anything. Want to attack me, then think clearly, as you and the others show strong symtoms of religious fanatiscism. My one post has exposed this, as it was intended to, but I do not expect you or any of the others to see themselves, you never do.

What have I told anyone that you haven't written? Your post comparing climate deniers to holocaust deniers seemed a bit harsh to me but y'all are starting to remind me of young earth creationists who point to sea shells found in mountains as proof of Noah's flood. This is just my opinion and perhaps you are right that I too have some bias. I think there are very good reasons to get off fossil fuels and convert to clean renewable energy sources even without the global warming issue. The evidence for warming is, to my mind strong and, while I agree it is not conclusive, I agree with a post by Doug above that by the time it is conclusive it will be too late to do anything about it, It reminds me of all the debate in the 70's and 80's over CFC's and ozone depletion. No one wants to admit to destroying the environment if it will cost money to stop. And FYI, sarcasm doesn't really come across well in this medium

[Little Fish]

The statement about storms comes from the NOAA report. As far as the cycling of Greenland melts in 150 year cycles, if the last one happened in 1889 this one seems a quarter century early. There are many more examples of storm increasing

http://news.national...ne-warming.html

the trend you see in major hurricanes (bottom red line) is stated as not significant by the author.

[spacecowboy342]

the trend you see in major hurricanes (bottom red line) is stated as not significant by the author.

http://www.wundergro...ion/webster.asp

The gist of this link is that cat 4 and 5 hurricane worldwide have inreased but says that global warming has not been proved to be the cause and calls for more data and NOAA funding for further study. Obviously this is a complex issue but it would seem to me that although global warming hasn't been proved to cause the increase in major storms over the past century there does seem to be a correlation. I would propose an experiment. Suppose we convert to renewable energy sources, stop burning fossil fuels and wait a hundred years and judge the effects? We could always go back to burning fossil fuels then if no improvement is shown by this.

Edited October 12, 2013 by spacecowboy342

[Von Bismarck]

From 1910 to 1940 5 category 5 hurricanes were recorded in the Atlantic. In a similar time period 1983-2013 we see 12 category 5 hurricanes in the Atlantic

Yes correct but I was referring to globally

The period of 82-12 was greater in every category expect category 2.

[Von Bismarck]

http://www.wundergro...ion/webster.asp

The gist of this link is that cat 4 and 5 hurricane worldwide have inreased but says that global warming has not been proved to be the cause and calls for more data and NOAA funding for further study. Obviously this is a complex issue but it would seem to me that although global warming hasn't been proved to cause the increase in major storms over the past century there does seem to be a correlation. I would propose an experiment. Suppose we convert to renewable energy sources, stop burning fossil fuels and wait a hundred years and judge the effects? We could always go back to burning fossil fuels then if no improvement is shown by this.

Your experiment is not taking THC's into account and therefore wouldn't make much sense to do.

I have already made a comment on Webster paper and its errors. And actually your link agrees with comments I have made regarding Webster et all and nicely explain why you cannot use the paper to show increase in cat 4 and 5.

I recommend you reading your link again and you will see why there's a lot of scientists who don't believe that GW is more extreme hurricanes.

Edited October 12, 2013 by BFB

[Doug1029]

"Greenland’s ice sheet was found to have melted 97 percent"

I believe you have taken this out of context. Your editing implies a 97% loss of ice mass, a figure so preposterous as to be completely unbelievable. Anyone who said there was a 97% loss of ice mass would be immediately taken apart by more climatologists than I can count.

So where did the 97% figure come from? I can believe that a melting episode affected 97% of the ice surface. But that's hardly cause for alarm, as these have happened before.

I suspect you have deliberately distorted the meaning of this phrase. Arguing that it is not your doing - you got it from somebody else - won't cut the mustard. If you repeat somebody else's mistake, then it is your mistake.

Doug

[Doug1029]

I still contend this warmist stuff should be in the religous part of the forum as it seems the same mental processes are at work, and I'm being polite here....

Maybe we could reach a compromise here. We'll make our posts here and you make yours in the religious section.

Doug

[spacecowboy342]

Your experiment is not taking THC's into account and therefore wouldn't make much sense to do.

I have already made a comment on Webster paper and its errors. And actually your link agrees with comments I have made regarding Webster et all and nicely explain why you cannot use the paper to show increase in cat 4 and 5.

I recommend you reading your link again and you will see why there's a lot of scientists who don't believe that GW is more extreme hurricanes.

According to the way I read it it shows the claimed 80% increase was invalid but that some increase was shown. I agree that some scientists don't believe that GW is behind increasing storm severity and number and even some who don't believe GW should increase same. Clearly this is a complex issue and I am far from an expert, but consider this, the population of the earth exploded during the 20th century after having been relatively stable for many centuries. This was mainly, I believe due to energy derived from fossil fuels allowing better farming techniques and transportation of food over long distances to markets plus fertilizers derived from hydrocarbons. We are now stuck in a situation where we are dependent on fossil fuels to feed all these people. I don't know how much oil is left or how long it will last but I think it is clear that the supply is not infinite. We must develop alternate forms of energy before oil reserves are exhausted or, I believe mass starvation on unprecedented scales will result. So, as I said before there are many reasons other than GW to develop clean renewable energy. And as was stated before waiting for evidence for GW to be conclusive may be too late. None of that, of course does anything to prove the contention that storm severity and frequency are increasing. I got that from the NOAA report sited above. Where they got it or it's validity I'm not sure, but I have seen many charts and graphs showing seemingly contradictory trends. I'm not sure why data on this seems so hard to get consensus on. I mean not the cause but just the number of storms should be easy to find Edited October 12, 2013 by spacecowboy342

[Doug1029]

But what if you look at data from around 1910-1940.

We had more storms in this period. And they were greater.

I used the Ft. Smith barometric record, which only goes to 1949, so I can't give you a direct answer about that.

However, there is a tree-ring record from Broken Bow, Oklahoma that shows tree-damaging ice storms in 1788, 1806 and 1809, followed by a 51-year gap. Then there were severe storms in 1860, 1871, 1886, 1903, 1943, 1956, 1963, 1992 and 2001. Only one of those storms was in the 1910-1940 range. There are other chronologies which show additional storms. There was one in 1910 that didn't hit the Broken Arrow site. Also 1916, 1918 and 1938. These are based on point-samples, which are accurate for the stand's location, but can't tell us much about the other side of the mountain, but I note that the same years keep occurring in different chronologies with only minor variations.

Before LF has a cow over the definition of "severe:" A winter storm is severe if it produces a 30% reduction in ring thickness in at least 10% of the stand for at least two years following the storm. That is a response to injury caused by top loss, branch damage or severe bending of the trunk. The same patterns will be repeated with minor variations on nearby sites (<50 miles apart).

Doug

[Little Fish]

I believe you have taken this out of context. Your editing implies a 97% loss of ice mass, a figure so preposterous as to be completely unbelievable. Anyone who said there was a 97% loss of ice mass would be immediately taken apart by more climatologists than I can count.

are you really that dense?

the link was given by spacecowboy here:

http://www.redorbit....-report-080713/

if you are going to criticse the wording in exactly the same fasion as i did, then you should at least understand WHO said it.

So where did the 97% figure come from?

you have alrewady been told twice, from here:

"Greenland’s ice sheet was found to have melted 97 percent"

http://www.redorbit....-report-080713/

as posted by spacecowboy here:

http://www.unexplain...75#entry4946757

I can believe that a melting episode affected 97% of the ice surface. But that's hardly cause for alarm, as these have happened before.

I suspect you have deliberately distorted the meaning of this phrase. Arguing that it is not your doing - you got it from somebody else - won't cut the mustard. If you repeat somebody else's mistake, then it is your mistake.

Doug

you really ought to apologise at this point if you want people to think you arn't a dick.

[Doug1029]

the natural cycle over the last 10,000 years has been shown to fluctuate by several degrees in as little as a century on a regular basis, 20th century warming is just 0.7 degrees, there is nothing unusual about the magnitude or the rate of change of 20th century warming, that is what the ipcc is not telling you,

What you aren't saying is what warming has been about 4 degrees in the Arctic and about 1.6 degrees in continental interiors. The geographical divergenace of warming patterns is something new. And it fits the carbon fingerprint.

furthermore the past correlates nicely with solar activity, so why does the ipcc pay virtually no attention to solar effects on climate.

I personally checked the temperature-solar cycle records since 1880. The correlation accounted for 1.1% of total variation, compared to 86.6% for CO2. So while the solar cycle does correlate with temps, saying that it does so "nicely" is a major stretch.

And that's why the IPCC doesn't pay much attention to solar cycles - they have very little effect!

Doug

[Doug1029]

Klutz!

Edited October 12, 2013 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

are you really that dense?

the link was given by spacecowboy here:

http://www.redorbit....-report-080713/

if you are going to criticse the wording in exactly the same fasion as i did, then you should at least understand WHO said it.

you have alrewady been told twice, from here:

"Greenland’s ice sheet was found to have melted 97 percent"

http://www.redorbit....-report-080713/

as posted by spacecowboy here:

http://www.unexplain...75#entry4946757

you really ought to apologise at this point if you want people to think you arn't a dick.

If you're quoting it to support your position, then you own it.

And you still haven't named the study that came from. You still haven't posted anything to show that the original author's meaning has been faithfully represented.

Doug

[spacecowboy342]

If you're quoting it to support your position, then you own it.

And you still haven't named the study that came from. You still haven't posted anything to show that the original author's meaning has been faithfully represented.

Doug

Doug, the figure does come from a link I posted on the annual NOAA report. The wording in it may have been unclear as I am sure it was referring to a melt of 97% of the surface and not from a 97% of total ice as this would seem preposterous as you say. It was saying that the melt recorded was 4 times the average melt recorded between 1981 and 2010. Little Fish contends that this fits with a 150 year cycle of big melts in Greenland, the last being in 1889. The only thing I can find on this contention calls for more data

[Little Fish]

"We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, though without pointing to which one."

http://www.sciencebi...imeterFinal.pdf

the ipcc and the climate modellers only consider solar TSI variations as the solar contribution to 20th century warming in their models, but a study of the 11 year solar cycle finds the solar radiative forcing is 6 times higher than the ipcc admit to. this equates to ~1 Watt/m2 (modelers typically use ~0.15 w/m2 for solar contribution)

"the correlation coefficients between the SST, Global and Atlantic OHC variations, and the

reconstructed solar flux are r = 0.83, 0.79, 0.86"

and what they don't explain they attribute to man made co2.

Edited October 12, 2013 by Little Fish

[spacecowboy342]

the trend you see in major hurricanes (bottom red line) is stated as not significant by the author.

What would your take on these be?

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/18/1307758110/.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/a-pause-not-an-end-to-warming.html

[Little Fish]

What would your take on these be?

http://www.pnas.org/...tml?with-ds=yes

http://www.nytimes.c...to-warming.html

The more i read from Muller the more i think he's a hack. he is a physicist yet says nothing scientific in that article, looking at the title again after reading the article, the whole thing is a form of circular reasoning. he'd be rubbish playing the stock market.

the other link doesn't work, but using google i think the paper is "Robust increases in severe thunderstorm environments in response to greenhouse forcing" ?

it is based on model runs which is fine if you are looking for a hypothesis, but that's all it is.

[Kaa-Tzik]

Maybe we could reach a compromise here. We'll make our posts here and you make yours in the religious section.

Doug

No, as it is your posts that are clearly based on some religious ideas. The total lack of humor on the warmist side is a clear indication of that. Don't want any opposition at all do you, just as the religious fear that "god" will smite everybody down if just one person on the planet does not believe, so do warmists fear that if we are not all "on message" then the planet will die. Fanatics, and that is what you are, never see themselves as fantatics, but the rest of us certainly do see you all for what you are.

[spacecowboy342]

No, as it is your posts that are clearly based on some religious ideas. The total lack of humor on the warmist side is a clear indication of that. Don't want any opposition at all do you, just as the religious fear that "god" will smite everybody down if just one person on the planet does not believe, so do warmists fear that if we are not all "on message" then the planet will die. Fanatics, and that is what you are, never see themselves as fantatics, but the rest of us certainly do see you all for what you are.

Pure BS

[Little Fish]

[media=]

[/media]