Death knell for AGW

waldo

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
oh Locutus you.... melting trend images (extent & volume) from NSIDC, PIOMAS, SKS





 
waldo

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Walter said:
Yet the Antarctic graphs, from the same sources, you disparage.
Click to expand...

huh Walter??? Say what! From the same sources??? The only Antarctic graphs I recall are:
- you continually trying to make something out of the increase in Antarctic sea-ice extent

- the images I've put forward showing the normal/typical yearly melt of Antarctic sea-ice extent... almost to its entirety showcasing there is no Antarctic multi-year ice accumulation concept (as exists within Arctic sea-ice).

- the images I've put forward showing Antarctic ice mass change (decrease)
​
these images Walter... these ones:









of course Walter, you're (purposely) putting forward the same nonsense that member 'taxi' did a short while ago... trying to draw some type of meaning, equivalency, relationship, etc., between Arctic and Antarctic sea-ice extent (where the Arctic is dramatically decreasing over a long-term melting trend) and the Antarctic where an increase in sea-ice extent has been seen in the last couple of years... which, again (as you know) has been attributed to warming... and, again (as you know) melts to essentially its entirety every year. Let me quote you again the same reply I provided to member taxi:
waldo said:
---
Click to expand...
taxi! You should come out more often... do ya think it actually makes sense to try to equate... draw equivalencies... between sea-ice across the earth? Care to offer your thoughts beyond your most simplistic "not seeing much change" comment? I wonder what the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center would say about your move here taxi...

Question: Why don’t you publish a global sea ice extent number?

NSIDC Answer: The combined number, while easy to derive from our online posted data, is not useful as an analysis tool or indicator of climate trends. Looking at each region’s ice extent trends and its processes separately provides more insight into how and why ice extent is changing. Sea ice in the Arctic is governed by somewhat different processes than the sea ice around Antarctica, and the very different geography of the two poles plays a large role. Sea ice in the Arctic exists in a small ocean surrounded by land masses, with greater input of dust, aerosols, and soot than in the Southern Hemisphere. Sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere fringes an ice-covered continent, Antarctica, surrounded by open oceans. While both regions are affected by air, wind, and ocean, the systems and their patterns are inherently very different. Moreover, at any point in time, the two poles are in opposite seasons, and so a combined number would conflate summer and winter trends, or spring and autumn trends, for the two regions.

​
again, Walter... let me replay you the post that speaks to Antarctic sea-ice (which, again, melts almost to its entirety each year) makeup as single-year ice:
waldo said:
get a grip Walter! The scientists suggest it's principally first year sea-ice... and deformed sea-ice. You know, the kind of ice that regularly melts in a subsequent years melting phase. And, as you know Walter, Antarctic sea-ice typically melts, almost to it's entirety, each and every year.
Assessment of Ice Type: First Year versus Multiyear Floes

All of the surveyed floes are most likely to be first year (FY) floes based on multiple lines of evidence (Table S1, Fig S1, S2). While in most cases MY ice is distinguished from thinner FY ice by the deep snow cover, thick ice and high freeboard, discrimination is more difficult in our case where the FY ice was also thick and heavily deformed and most floes had a deep snow cover. This evidence includes imagery showing lack of ice in the region at the end of the previous summer, ice morphology, ice properties, and snow cover characteristics.​
Click to expand...

​
now, again Walter... it keeps being stated for you, yet you continue to ignore the scientific based reasons put forward as to why the Antarctic sea-ice extent has been increasing the last few years:

1 - the warming ocean is causing slightly fresher sea surface water around the margins of the continent’s melting ice shelves; additionally rain and snowfall increases are also freshening ocean water. These changes are altering the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea and coastal land ice. As I replied to you in an earlier post:
waldo said:
Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice under Warming Atmospheric and Oceanic Conditions
The model shows that an increase in surface air temperature and downward longwave radiation results in an increase in the upper-ocean temperature and a decrease in sea ice growth, leading to a decrease in salt rejection from ice, in the upper-ocean salinity,and in the upper-ocean density. The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 1979–2004 and the extended period 1948–2004
​
Click to expand...
2 - ozone levels decreasing over the Antarctic with an accompanying increase in the strength of cyclonic winds,

3 - this increasing cyclonic wind strength which, in turn, creates polynyas (open water areas) that freeze to increase sea-ice


c'mon Walter! When are you finally going to stop this continued denier play of yours over Antarctic sea-ice extent?
 
B

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
Walter said:
In the heat of the battle, nobody is talking about climate change
Saturday, 10 May 2008

Gordon Brown, Ken Livingstone and 300 Labour councillors were not the only casualties of the local and London elections. No one seems to have noticed, but the other big losers were those people who care about the environment.

We might just look back on May Day 2008 as the moment when the power of green politics peaked and went into reverse. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt it. The reaction of the two main parties to the elections was instructive. Desperate to prop up his own position after Labour's rout, Mr Brown needed to toss a few bones to the voters and jittery Labour backbenchers. So it suddenly emerged that he was about to dump the so-called "bin tax" – allowing councils to charge householders who do not recycle their rubbish. Downing Street didn't confirm it, and five token pilot schemes will go ahead, but it's clear the bin tax has been binned.
Brown allies also floated the idea that the 2p rise in fuel duty might be shelved again. No doubt this was an attempt to placate motorists. As well as being anti-green, it was a surprise, since the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, will need all the revenue he can get when he delivers his pre-Budget report in the autumn – not least to compensate the losers from the abolition of the 10p tax rate.
Mr Brown was not alone in relegating the environment to the back burner. David Cameron, the wind in his sails after the elections, held a prime ministerial press conference in which he set out his priorities for government. Significantly, the words "environment" and "climate change" did not appear in his 1,200-word statement.
Was this the same man who fought the local elections on the campaign slogan "vote blue, go green"? And was the leader who hugged huskies to convince us his party had changed addressing new issues and no longer preaching to the Tory converted? Green issues have gone out of fashion for Mr Cameron; they have served their purpose.
Naturally, the Tory leader denied it. "We have made quite good progress," he insisted. "I'm not saying the job is done. There is still a huge amount that we want to see changed."
But whatever happened to the impressive tome of green policies produced last year by the Tory policy review headed by John Gummer and Zac Goldsmith, who seems to have disappeared off the planet he was trying to save? When asked, Mr Cameron banged on about the fuel price pressures facing motorists and hauliers.
Officially, the Tories remain committed to raising green taxes in order to cut taxes for families. But they don't talk about it much. After a brief detour, they seem to have arrived at the same point as Mr Brown: that the public needs "carrots" as well as "sticks" to go green; that they suspect green taxes are stealth taxes.
Another reason why the elections have set back the environmental cause is the election of Boris Johnson as Mayor of London. He will dump Mr Livingstone's plan to charge drivers of gas-guzzlers £25 to enter the capital's congestion charge zone, and review its recent expansion into west London. In Manchester, the councillor behind plans for a £5 congestion charge lost his seat to a community party which opposed it.
Labour and the Tories will doubtless argue that the Manchester experience shows they are right to be cautious on green issues. Similarly, Labour MPs say the bin tax was an issue on the doorsteps in the local elections. As The Independent reported eight days ago, a new opinion poll found that more than seven out of 10 people are not prepared to pay higher taxes to fund projects to tackle climate change.
It's hardly surprising that people downgrade soft issues such as the environment when economic times are hard. Yet politicians surely have a duty to lead rather than follow public opinion. Despite that, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs quietly shelved plans to bring in annual personal carbon allowances this week, saying the idea was "ahead of its time".
The two main parties will continue to pay lip service to green issues in the run-up to the general election. But something has changed in the past week. Both parties will put saving seats before saving the planet.
If they carry on like this, voters who still put the environment at the top of their list will have to vote Liberal Democrat or Green if they want to change the climate of British politics.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't it be Global Weather Change?? GWC. Since it is the ozone layer that is disappearing, it will be hotter and colder in the seasons. Also, it starts with holes in the polar regions which accounts for the warming in that region. It also makes it warmer in summer since the protection from the sun's rays is thinner everywhere. It will also bring much colder weathers in winter as well, since there is less protection from the cold (outer space).

Also because that protection is lessened, weather changes will be more abrupt and this causes super storms, which are popping up all over the world these days. Huge hurricanes, more tornadoes, downpours that dump massive amounts of rain or snow in much shorter times.

Does any of this sound familiar. It should do, it has all been happening quite frequently in recent history.
 
Walter

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,870
116
63
bluebyrd35 said:
Shouldn't it be Global Weather Change?? GWC. Since it is the ozone layer that is disappearing, it will be hotter and colder in the seasons. Also, it starts with holes in the polar regions which accounts for the warming in that region. It also makes it warmer in summer since the protection from the sun's rays is thinner everywhere. It will also bring much colder weathers in winter as well, since there is less protection from the cold (outer space).

Also because that protection is lessened, weather changes will be more abrupt and this causes super storms, which are popping up all over the world these days. Huge hurricanes, more tornadoes, downpours that dump massive amounts of rain or snow in much shorter times.

Does any of this sound familiar. It should do, it has all been happening quite frequently in recent history.
Click to expand...
In '08 "climate change" was not in the vocabulary. The term 'climate change' is a result of CYA.
 
B

bluebyrd35

Council Member
Aug 9, 2008
2,373
0
36
Ormstown.Chat.Valley
Walter said:
In '08 "climate change" was not in the vocabulary. The term 'climate change' is a result of CYA.
Click to expand...
It is now 2015 and we have learned a lot more about the condition. I am sure that when the scientific community develops a vaccine or a formula that explains and or treats a condition it is not considered covering one's ***. It is called discovery and treatment.
 
waldo

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Walter said:
In '08 "climate change" was not in the vocabulary. The term 'climate change' is a result of CYA.
Click to expand...

no - "climate change" has been in the vernacular for some time..... uhhh, see IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)... founded in 1988!

Walter said:
Then your memory is faulty.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
Click to expand...

and if, as you say, "I disparaged that graphic" that would line up with everything I've repeatedly posted on your failed attempts to make something about Antarctic sea-ice extent... you know, like everything I just repeated in my most immediate, somewhat lengthy post, that you've just replied to!

bluebyrd35 said:
Since it is the ozone layer that is disappearing
Click to expand...

the Antarctic 'ozone hole' has not been increasing (and has no significant impact on the global temperature rise): the NASA Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (Toms) site is currently down or I would link there directly for the following graphic... since the results of the Montreal Protocol began to be realized, depletion extent has improved.


the Arctic 'ozone hole' is a rarity and has no relative equivalency to that of the Antarctic:
- Cause of Odd (2011) Arctic Ozone 'Hole' Found

- An Arctic ozone hole? Not quite --- MIT researchers find that the extremes in Antarctic ozone holes have not been matched in the Arctic.​
 
Walter

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,870
116
63
waldo said:
no - "climate change" has been in the vernacular for some time..... uhhh, see IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)... founded in 1988!
Click to expand...
Climate change was not used in the vernacular until much after 2008 because the warming had stopped and global warming wasn't following model predictions so the term climate change replaced global warming. The only thing the IPCC studied in its first 20 plus years was global warming.
 
waldo

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
petros said:
It might come back but we have to wait for SC25 to find out. So yeah, officially on hold until 2025.
Click to expand...

that sun thingee didn't work out so well for you in that recent post of yours... care to ever... ever, support your continued claim that "it's the SUN"? Ever?
petros said:
What happened to the sun over the last two solar cycles? TSI dropped creating a lull in AGW?
Click to expand...
waldo said:
don't be telling more porkies, hey petros! Per PMOD:


hey petros, care to show a temp vs. TSI correlation... say something like this 1880-to-2009 graphic (Per SKS):

Click to expand...
Walter said:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=no+warming+18++years
Click to expand...

and every one of those links ties back to a denier blog/denier... notwithstanding that's the infamous ENSO 97/98 cherry-pick starting point... notwithstanding that's only surface temperature where you purposely ignore ocean warming. Again, Walter... again:

waldo said:
---
Click to expand...
...As a few here have shown, there is no pause... there has been a slower rate of warming based on surface temperature readings of certain datasets. Your article author's first sentence speaks to the purposeful cherry-pick to align with the anomalous 97/98 ENSO event; one that can be measured against this graphic that shows the BS for what it truly is:



you've also been apprised that some of the surface temperature datasets lack coverage of station data from remote areas of the earth (like the Arctic, like areas of Africa) that are warming the most. In that regard, it was member Tonington that offered a reference to the Cowtan/Way hybridization method to upgrade the HadCRUT4 dataset... one that allows you interactively to bring forward your own results for surface temperature warming... results like the following; results that clearly show there has been no pause. Member Tonington's link also allows you to pick other surface temperature datasets to present your own results based on dataset/start&end year, etc.


Notwithstanding, of course, that this doesn't even factor the warming of the oceans where more than 90% of all warming goes into:

 
Ron in Regina

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,283
9,624
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Try & keep this one clean guys. Much (never all) of the more
repulsive and blatant trolling has been expunged from this
Thread over the last couple of months, in an effort to make
it more inviting to those interested in the topic to review and
debate the issue.
 
waldo

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Locutus said:
Blog: The loss of climate significance
Click to expand...
member Walter put forward your same reference... yesterday. I note neither of you could actually rise above a straight C&P and offer any of your own interpretation/commentthe same reply I provided to Walter:

waldo said:
Walter... I thought it was called GLOBAL warming... not 48 contiguous U.S. states warming???

... with 2014 set to become the warmest year within the instrumental GLOBAL surface temperature record evah!




​
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom