Strongbad Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 the 1982 version perhaps ... j/k Hahahaha, I tried to correct it but it was too late. You're always a step ahead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 It's in your best interest to stop reading into things. Basic understanding of the dialogue shows that neither of them are being too serious. I advise you do the same. Perhaps take some aspirin... How is it in my best interest? Please explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 How is it in my best interest? Please explain? I admire your passion for all things weather and climate related. Having said that, if you take things as seriously as I believe you do, why are you wasting your time on these forums? Go out and start the revolution! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 I admire your passion for all things weather and climate related. Having said that, if you take things as seriously as I believe you do, why are you wasting your time on these forums? Go out and start the revolution! You just formally threatened me. please explain your threat sir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 my inquiry about his training/field is legit. you don't need to get involved in this. Aye aye Cruella Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 You just formally threatened me. please explain your threat sir? Paranoid schizophrenia. By the way, what is the latest on those ice shelves? Are we going under any time soon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 it just seems weird you'd pack bulky journals borrowed from a friend in your carry on, but I've been known to carry and pore over meeting programs en route: if you're passionate about the field, it makes sense. what is your field? I'm an economist now, but I started out as a petroleum engineer. That sector hit one too many bad patches for me. I still work in that sector, but I'm on the money side now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Hahahaha, I tried to correct it but it was too late. You're always a step ahead... I noticed your correction, but the tylenol connection was to tempting to pass up. :arrowhead: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 it just seems weird you'd pack bulky journals borrowed from a friend in your carry on, but I've been known to carry and pore over meeting programs en route: if you're passionate about the field, it makes sense. what is your field? I used to pack bulky Wine Spectators, but don't anymore. However, I sometimes would read about a great restaurant in some city I was visiting, and that night I'd be there. It's a good life really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Paranoid schizophrenia. By the way, what is the latest on those ice shelves? Are we going under any time soon? If the ice shelves break off and float south, will that make the earth spin faster or slower, and what effect will that have on wind patterns in the Fram Strait next August?? Will we surpass 2007 melt?? Will we become ice free next summer?? Should I buy Spam for the coming famine?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 so you're not a climate scientist and you don't keep up with the literature. good to know. keeping it honest. You? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 If the ice shelves break off and float south, will that make the earth spin faster or slower, and what effect will that have on wind patterns in the Fram Strait next August?? Will we surpass 2007 melt?? Will we become ice free next summer?? Should I buy Spam for the coming famine?? Stop that! You know better than to buy Spam. Besides, when we are all on climate-safe welfare cards, government cheese will be a bulls market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I'm having dinner with Michael Mann and some of his colleagues next month because they are interested in publishing with me. you? Oh, well that about sums it up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I'm having dinner with Michael Mann and some of his colleagues next month because they are interested in publishing with me. you? Please tell him that he embarrasses my alma mater, and that he should find a new home. Can you do that for me please? Oh, and please ask him to also take a long walk off a short pier while wearing cement shoes. His "friends" can join him in this walk if they wish. It would be helpful. Thanks. If you do those things, I'd be indebted to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Stop that! You know better than to buy Spam. Besides, when we are all on climate-safe welfare cards, government cheese will be a bulls market. I know. I'm really looking forward to the day when some govt hacks can tell me what to believe in. Oh wait, ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 yep. you're not part of the ongoing discussion at the professional level. thanks. neither are you sister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 uh... GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L15708, 6 PP., 2011 doi:10.1029/2011GL048008 Inter-annual to multi-decadal Arctic sea ice extent trends in a warming world Inter-annual to multi-decadal Arctic sea ice extent trends in a warming world Key Points Large ensembles from credible models are needed to understand sea ice trends Observed Arctic sea ice extent loss has been enhanced by internal variability When internal variability masks anthropogenic forcing, positive trends occur Jennifer E. Kay Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA Marika M. Holland Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA Alexandra Jahn Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, USA A climate model (CCSM4) is used to investigate the influence of anthropogenic forcing on late 20th century and early 21st century Arctic sea ice extent trends. On all timescales examined (2–50+ years), the most extreme negative observed late 20th century trends cannot be explained by modeled natural variability alone. Modeled late 20th century ice extent loss also cannot be explained by natural causes alone, but the six available CCSM4 ensemble members exhibit a large spread in their late 20th century ice extent loss. Comparing trends from the CCSM4 ensemble to observed trends suggests that internal variability explains approximately half of the observed 1979–2005 September Arctic sea ice extent loss. In a warming world, CCSM4 shows that multi-decadal negative trends increase in frequency and magnitude, and that trend variability on 2–10 year timescales increases. Furthermore, when internal variability counteracts anthropogenic forcing, positive trends on 2–20 year timescales occur until the middle of the 21st century. Because climate models have such a great track record....... I think most skeptics will acknowledge that CO2 has caused some of the loss in sea ice, just as some warmistas agree that natural variability plays a role. Which plays a greater influence cant be determined with the tiny timeframe of reliable data we have to look back on. You cant draw conclusions about climate from 30 years worth of data Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Because climate models have such a great track record....... I think most skeptics will acknowledge that CO2 has caused some of the loss in sea ice, just as some warmistas agree that natural variability plays a role. Which plays a greater influence cant be determined with the tiny timeframe of reliable data we have to look back on. You cant draw conclusions about climate from 30 years worth of data CO2 does not cause any loss of sea ice. Warmer conditions do. What has caused the warmer conditions? The answer is not only to be found in the past 30 or 40 or 100 years. It is based on the physics of the greenhouse effect and how human activities are adding to it. It is determined by noting that open water begets a further reduction of ice as part of a self sustaining feedback process. The arctic sea ice is in decline and unless the overall global temperature drops, over time the decline will continue at varying rates until the feedback process is complete. Will it be 5 years? 20, 50? Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 CO2 does not cause any loss of sea ice. Warmer conditions do. What has caused the warmer conditions? The answer is not only to be found in the past 30 or 40 or 100 years. It is based on the physics of the greenhouse effect and how human activities are adding to it. It is determined by noting that open water begets a further reduction of ice as part of a self sustaining feedback process. The arctic sea ice is in decline and unless the overall global temperature drops, over time the decline will continue at varying rates until the feedback process is complete. Will it be 5 years? 20, 50? Who knows. That's simply not true. Open water starts a negative feedback process. Open water released previously locked in heat from oceans that were iced over at one time and increases snowfalls rates, which increases albedo. This all rebalances the system, and has occurred in the past. If Earth was so easily put into imbalance, the world would have long ago fallen into the abyss of runaway GW or GC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 30, 2011 Author Share Posted September 30, 2011 CO2 does not cause any loss of sea ice. Warmer conditions do. What has caused the warmer conditions? The answer is not only to be found in the past 30 or 40 or 100 years. It is based on the physics of the greenhouse effect and how human activities are adding to it. It is determined by noting that open water begets a further reduction of ice as part of a self sustaining feedback process. The arctic sea ice is in decline and unless the overall global temperature drops, over time the decline will continue at varying rates until the feedback process is complete. Will it be 5 years? 20, 50? Who knows. It will be interesting to see how the current stored heat in the water will affect the local weather when it is released some talk on other blogs that is possible part responsible for a -nao. It is definitely part responsible for the delay in refreeze in some places. Clearly this has an affect on how far the ice sheet penetrates and how strong/thick it is come April. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I'm having dinner with Michael Mann and some of his colleagues next month because they are interested in publishing with me. you? That's great! Does it have to do with the NA dendro stuff you mentioned before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gracetoyou Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 Sure it could be AGW, I'll be the first to admit that but....it could easily be "natural cycles" too. We do not have enough data to know with certainty that AGW is the reason the arctic ice has been shrinking over the last couple decades and that AGW is the reason behind the slight warming we have seen. The problem I have along with other skeptics is the method of which staunch AGW believers try and deliver their message. Let me show you something.... The ice can't be melting due to 1,001 other reasons sometimes referred to as "natural cycles". It is more likely because of human caused global warming.... The arrogance in your comment is seething. You think that most skeptics believe that it can't be AGW? You are wrong imo , I think many skeptics believe it is a possibility. How many of you staunch AGW supports think "natural cycles" COULD be the reason? Do you not see how this comes across as arrogant and unpleasant? If you AGW guys would just for a moment consider that maybe most of the arctic ice melt is due to "natural cycles". All I'm asking is that you consider it as a possibility, some of you guys refuse to even do that. The science is not settled... +1,000,000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 That's simply not true. Open water starts a negative feedback process. Open water released previously locked in heat from oceans that were iced over at one time and increases snowfalls rates, which increases albedo. This all rebalances the system, and has occurred in the past. If Earth was so easily put into imbalance, the world would have long ago fallen into the abyss of runaway GW or GC. So the negative feedback would be stronger than the cause? Interesting...why is it your presumed relationship has allowed for the Ice to regress from where it was decades ago? Hasn't seemed to work that way for you to this point, why should things be any different now or in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 +1,000,000 That's a rather shallow response. Nothing else to add? Oh, if having respect for science equates to arrogance then I'm guilty as charged. Believing human's are incapable of understanding nature must be awfully self defeating. I'd rather accept imperfect knowledge and have a chance at overcoming the perils of nature, than throwing my hands up in the air in defeat. Don't allow yourself to be paralyzed by presumed ignorance, when the science is telling you a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 So the negative feedback would be stronger than the cause? Interesting...why is it your presumed relationship has allowed for the Ice to regress from where it was decades ago? Hasn't seemed to work that way for you to this point, why should things be any different now or in the future? ever heard of a pendulum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gracetoyou Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 That's a rather shallow response. Nothing else to add? Shallow responses not allowed on here? I was just agreeing with the poster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gracetoyou Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I'm looking for opinions on something I read early this morning. I have not had time to check the data, but I found this very interesting...especially if it is indeed true. So don't kill me for posting this, I'm just wanting to see if anyone has checked the data to see if it's true: http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3981-2011-much-cooler-than-2010-so-far.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I'm looking for opinions on something I read early this morning. I have not had time to check the data, but I found this very interesting...especially if it is indeed true. So don't kill me for posting this, I'm just wanting to see if anyone has checked the data to see if it's true: http://www.thegwpf.o...010-so-far.html For absolute certainty 2011 to this point has been cooler than 2010. No question about it. I wouldn't say it is "much cooler" which implies something which is not true. 2011 will still go down as one of the warmest years on record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 ever heard of a pendulum? The climate is not a pendulum. The climate system responds to forces which tend to balance at a particular point with a range of variability surrounding that point. A pendulum has a fixed point around which it sways. The climate has no such fixed point, the point around which it sways can be pushed further to one side or the other. Change the relative values of the forces and the point moves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 30, 2011 Share Posted September 30, 2011 I'm looking for opinions on something I read early this morning. I have not had time to check the data, but I found this very interesting...especially if it is indeed true. So don't kill me for posting this, I'm just wanting to see if anyone has checked the data to see if it's true: http://www.thegwpf.o...010-so-far.html Two things of interest to me: No satellite data was used in this piece, which I find more reliable than those mentioned. GISS is now significantly out of step with HADCRUT and NOAA, and those are not "cold' data gatherers. Appears Hansen is busy working the numbers still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.