Canada warming at twice the global rate

[waldo]

Stating you can create an accurate history of Earth climate using the last 125 years of data is like stating you can provide an accurate history of the automobile with data from the last 2 days.

you're correct. If you find anyone doing so, you should admonish them over it. Equally, you should admonish anyone who attempts to attribute causal ties to the warming/climate of the "last 125 years" by attempting to make correlation/association... causation... to events/circumstance of the long distant brazillion years time past.

The AGW supporters all seem to dismiss anything prior to the industrial revolution in order to support their bogus claims. If you look at the entire climate history of this planet all the evidence points to much larger and more violent swings in temperature and climate than anything predicted by AGW scientists and politicians.

as above... oh wait... are you prepared to admonish yourself, hey?

The one under the Arctic ice cap has a lava field that is at least 10 km2. Considering the pressure at those depths, that's still some very powerful eruptions. I'm not talking about some volcano steaming away, I'm talking full-on, violent eruptions going thousands of feet up.

once again, I will note your unsubstantiated personal opinion... I quoted you directly from the website of the U.S. NSIDC; it clearly punted your... unsubstantiated personal opinion.

Which makes the data displayed on the graphs even less reliable then.

I didn't put up any satellite data... do you know the distinction between what satellites measure (and how measurements are made... and what organizations/datasets are associated) versus surface measurements (and what organizations/datasets are associated)? You didn't know when satellite temperature measurements began... you're making improper associations between satellite and surface temperature measurements based on the data/datasets that were presented/discussed.

You manage to talk a lot for someone who says nothing. I wasn't focusing on the past. That's just your way of trying to shut down debate on the subject. Your "consensus" is a joke as well. 97% of 1/3 is hardly a consensus on anything.

be well in your denial

 

[MHz]

silly nonsensical response! Those respective datasets are global in nature. Somehow, because the website presenting the interactive tool is hosted by the University of York... you interpreted the measurements originating from there? Wow... just wow! Notwithstanding the datasets were all named. Clearly you know nothing... nothing... about surface temperature measurement.

How global was data set in 1840 and have the locations changed at all since then? (I can see this is an exercise where short sentences will be the 'norm') Let's see the sets from Halifax and from Vancouver then.
You can have the land heat up a lot or cool off a lot and the change in the ocean is minimal. There are these things called variations and even exceptions to the norm. To get global warming you need an event the magnitude of the Siberian Traps. We don't have that happening but there could be smaller events such as the Pacific Rift playing a role.

Is Global Warming a Hoax? | RealClearPolitics

Meanwhile, forecasters are warning that Britain is about to get its coldest winter for 100 years.

That would mean the Gulf Stream cools off or gets pushed south by cold air from the north that rolls across the UK and France and gives Libya more rain before a north wind from the Arabian Sea takes that air north again across Syria and Iran.

 

[Walter]

This has been posted in other threads but needs repeating.

 

[waldo]

How global was data set in 1840 and have the locations changed at all since then? (I can see this is an exercise where short sentences will be the 'norm') Let's see the sets from Halifax and from Vancouver then

if your intent is to question the veracity of the surface temperature record, data and processing therein, enjoy your denial.

on one level your implication is worth comment; given the vastness of the earth and the sparse positioning of measurement stations in the remotest of the remote, scientists have had to employ techniques to deal with this issue... those techniques are peer reviewed and have undergone significant scientific scrutiny. More pointedly, much to the chagrin of deniers, technique resolution/advances have allowed more accurate accounts of temperature within these remote areas, some of which are areas of the earth where warming is most pronounced... as in the Arctic... most northerly latitudes... areas within Africa, etc..

 

[mentalfloss]

This has ben posted in other threads but needs repeating.

Would you like to clarify how this matters in the context of the thread Ben?

 

[MHz]

I have no particular affinity to any source... let's try the U.S. NSIDC: Have undersea volcanoes caused the Arctic sea ice decline?

"A recent study discovered active volcanoes on the floor of the Arctic Ocean, and some people have wondered if they are causing sea ice to melt.

While volcanic eruptions surely warmed the ocean in the immediate vicinity of the eruptions, the amount of heat they produced compared to the large volume of the Arctic Ocean is small. The Arctic Ocean covers 14 million square kilometers (5.4 million square miles), about 1 ½ times the size of the United States or 58 times the size of the United Kingdom. In its deepest spots, the Arctic Ocean is 4,000 to 5,500 meters (13,000 to 18,000 feet) deep. The heat from the volcanoes would have dispersed over an enormous volume and had little effect on ocean temperature, much as a bucket of boiling water emptied into a lake would have little effect on the lake’s temperature.

Second, the eruptions would have introduced heat deep below the sea ice that floats on the ocean surface. The tops of even the tallest undersea volcanoes are more than 1,000 meters (3,000 feet) deep. The Arctic Ocean is strongly stratified, which prevents layer mixing and makes it difficult for any deep water, even deep water warmed by heat from volcanoes, to reach the surface and melt the ice. This layering results from a strong density gradient: water layers near the surface are less salty and therefore less dense, while bottom waters are the densest. Unlike most oceans, where density gradients are determined by both salinity and temperature, Arctic Ocean waters are heavily stratified primarily because of variations in salinity."

Heat rises no matter if the salinity creates layers, it would rise faster through denser layers. Nor would it stop in the water, it would rise to the top and be taken away by the prevailing winds so surface temp of the water would not change. Where the warmer winds meet the land there should be more rain as warm air would have picked up more moisture.

Do the math of the temp of magma going from molten to 50C along a path that is 2,000 km long. Use 2cm as the 'normal rate of expansion and then double it and then triple it to see how much 'heat got released'

 

[waldo]

Would you like to clarify how this matters in the context of the thread Ben?

Ben? I'm new... back new... still fresh. Is Walter... Ben Carson like? But ya, I didn't bother to start up the vid... seeing the mug of Cruz was enough for me.

Heat rises no matter if the salinity creates layers, it would rise faster through denser layers. Nor would it stop in the water, it would rise to the top and be taken away by the prevailing winds so surface temp of the water would not change. Where the warmer winds meet the land there should be more rain as warm air would have picked up more moisture.

Do the math of the temp of magma going from molten to 50C along a path that is 2,000 km long. Use 2cm as the 'normal rate of expansion and then double it and then triple it to see how much 'heat got released'

if you are also a proponent of attributing the Arctic sea ice loss to undersea volcanoes, you could take up the cause of your compatriot... you could both go beyond your personal unsubstantiated opinions and provide legitimate support for your position/claims. Of course, "legitimate support" takes on a perspective of its own, yes?

 

[mentalfloss]

Saw it a while ago but can't watch while at work.

It was basically Cruz pressuring a response from an eco lobbyist who dances around the answer.

I forgot the context but from what I recall, the counterpoint to the Cruz missile is there it's just the talking head couldn't make it.

 

[MHz]

if your intent is to question the veracity of the surface temperature record, data and processing therein, enjoy your denial.

on one level your implication is worth comment; given the vastness of the earth and the sparse positioning of measurement stations in the remotest of the remote, scientists have had to employ techniques to deal with this issue... those techniques are peer reviewed and have undergone significant scientific scrutiny. More pointedly, much to the chagrin of deniers, technique resolution/advances have allowed more accurate accounts of temperature within these remote areas, some of which are areas of the earth where warming is most pronounced... as in the Arctic... most northerly latitudes... areas within Africa, etc..

It is my intent to show that the reading methods are flawed because they are taking differences and averaging the humps and dips out.

Basically they are guessing is what you are trying to say. Rather than guess look at naval records for various harbors around the world, Each of those should have falls and rises in the 'season averages' that don't show up on yearly averages. The Pacific Rift could warm up BC by 3deg and that would cool off the east by 1.5 deg over 2x the area, on average there is no change but if you lived in each location you would notice 'big changes'.

 

[waldo]

It is my intent to show that the reading methods are flawed because they are taking differences and averaging the humps and dips out.

as I said, enjoy your denial... will you be publishing soon... and overthrowing the establishment practices of some of the most renowned and accepted world-wide scientific organizations?

 

[MHz]

if you are also a proponent of attributing the Arctic sea ice loss to undersea volcanoes, you could take up the cause of your compatriot... you could both go beyond your personal unsubstantiated opinions and provide legitimate support for your position/claims. Of course, "legitimate support" takes on a perspective of its own, yes?

I doubt that is the cause, air would seem to be the factor as both the north and south pole gain or lose ice at the same time. Higher wind speeds would supply the answer as long as it was dry and cold which it would be after coming across the mountains of Alaska.

 

[darkbeaver]

notorious smoothing I believe

 

[MHz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVulUYF1-88&index=15&list=PU-5dIHmtQzHIdNCs7-bEdCA

 

[darkbeaver]

as I said, enjoy your denial... will you be publishing soon... and overthrowing the establishment practices of some of the most renowned and accepted world-wide scientific organizations?

While the present establishment enjoys the trust and adulation of the masses it does not as a rule suffice as clinical proof of anything but support for mouthed intentions in line with that very same establishment. While you support the rectification of the alleged climate anomaly by untested means. What evidence have you to support the proposed methods of aliviation of this supposed dire situation?

Respectfully D.B. Eaver, a respected member of the world wide science community.

 

[waldo]

While the present establishment enjoys the trust and adulation of the masses it does not as a rule suffice as clinical proof of anything but support for mouthed intentions in line with that very same establishment. While you support the rectification of the alleged climate anomaly by untested means. What evidence have you to support the proposed methods of aliviation of this supposed dire situation?

Respectfully D.B. Eaver, a respected member of the world wide science community.

Respectfully Mr. D.B. Eaver... I can't help you out with your alleged and supposed impressions. Until you are able to move beyond such "feelings" of uncertainty and doubt, there is little point in discussing mitigation/adaptive measures in the face of your personal quandary. Be well... I trust the Dark will lessen at some point.

 

[darkbeaver]

Respectfully Mr. D.B. Eaver... I can't help you out with your alleged and supposed impressions. Until you are able to move beyond such "feelings" of uncertainty and doubt, there is little point in discussing mitigation/adaptive measures in the face of your personal quandary. Be well... I trust the Dark will lessen at some point.

Thankyou for your prompt courteous reply. I have confidence in telling you that my impressions are informed albeit unconventional. Where shared impressions may indeed become personalized as a matter of trust in investigative rigour and technical expertise nevertheless they cannot easily be ignored as the common man is inclined to do simply because of the widespread misapplications of established methodologys as pertains to this weighty subject. Dare I mention the popular talk of conspiracy to defraud the public with this as yet unsubstaniated pending disaster? We would be remiss if we did not persue all available avenues while maintaining first and foermost the continued good health of our charming planet.

best regards and I hope you're not offended by my offering of a Merry Christmas now should I miss the oportunity later.

 

[waldo]

Thankyou for your prompt courteous reply. I have confidence in telling you that my impressions are informed albeit unconventional. Where shared impressions may indeed become personalized as a matter of trust in investigative rigour and technical expertise nevertheless they cannot easily be ignored as the common man is inclined to do simply because of the widespread misapplications of established methodologys as pertains to this weighty subject. Dare I mention the popular talk of conspiracy to defraud the public with this as yet unsubstaniated pending disaster? We would be remiss if we did not persue all available avenues while maintaining first and foermost the continued good health of our charming planet.

best regards and I hope you're not offended by my offering of a Merry Christmas now should I miss the oportunity later.

no - thank you! Acknowledging unconventional impressions is admirable; however, in the face of such admittance, additional measures are warranted in fostering and projecting your declared informed perception on others. Your burden is noted and I trust you have the intestinal fortitude to deal with the skeptical establishment fiber coming your way. When you shift to the elevated stature of conspiracy application, it is clear you have your work cut out for you... are you're sure you're not chewing off more than you can handle? Are you not concerned that your perceived meritorious position will be undercut by those wags who will surely cast conspiratorial aspersions your way? I trust the charming Gaia recognizes exactly where you're coming from...

equally, Happy Festivus... in the interests of sustainability, leave a few extra trees standing, yes?

 

[taxslave]

nice empty rhetoric we have here.

Globull warming truthers are full of that.

Problem is, Canada starts warming in April. I bet the records will reveal we're in a cooling cycle now....

That is climate so it don't count.

 

[pgs]

Globull warming truthers are full of that.



That is climate so it don't count.

Well in my 60 plus years living in the same area I really can't find much difference in the climate around here .

 

[Walter]

Well in my 60 plus years living in the same area I really can't find much difference in the climate around here .

Yer just a denier.