14 replies to this topic

[salsabob]

Shhh! Ice Increases 26%
"Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this."

But we still must destroy the world's economy.

As you made clear earlier, your tactic is to respond to the nonsense spewed by the believers by spewing some of your own. However, does it get to be so patently obvious that you would drive those of us who are rather agnostic into the arms of (what you would believe) the Dark Side?

Your reference comes from an online 'newspaper' that also informs us that -

Jennifer Ellison strips off for new role in Calendar Girls... four weeks after giving birth

Read more and be sure to check the photos out

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz0hnf0sR8p

Or, you can go here for something that may be a little bit more reputable -

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

And find this quote about the same year -

The sea ice minimum extent was announced by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). According to the NSIDC -

“Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the third-lowest extent since the start of satellite measurements in 1979. While this year’s minimum extent is above the record and near-record minimums of the last two years, it further reinforces the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent observed over the past thirty years.”

Yep, 26% more than 2007, the record year for minimum extent, but still comes in 3rd since records have been kept for 30 years. Yea, that really makes those true believers look bad.

This almost makes the coolest decade cherry-pick seem legit.

Can you guys step it up just a little? I’m open-minded, not stupid.

I greatly admire the TA that you and other non-believers provide here, but man, your climate change arguments so far, well, to put it mildly as I can, just really suck.

[OEXCHAOS]

Salsa, Arctic sea ice is mainly driven by currents, not temperature. GLOBAL sea ice is and has been expanding, no contracting. I get many of my tidbits from www.WattsUpWithThat.com and ClimateAudit.org Both are very credible blogs run by highly ethical and intellectually honest folks. Neither are advocacy blogs (unless good science counts). If you need a link on the global sea ice, let me know, I can dig one up for you. Mark

[OEXCHAOS]

Here's a quick link on ANTARCTIC ice

http://nsidc.org/dat..._plot_hires.png

If you want to see some voluminous stuff supporting my highly skeptical position, search by to the post by me called Why I Am an AGW Skeptic it's here. If you can't find it, I'll dig it up. I went to considerable effort. I reference peer reviewed research almost exclusively, except for a few explanatory links or other similar resources.

Mark

[OEXCHAOS]

Cripes, one more link.

http://www.ijis.iarc...aice_extent.htm

I keep one eye on this, just for fun, but I put less weight on it now that I understand currents can really cause seriously shocking drops or increases. It doesn't tell us much about warming or cooling, really.

Mark

[stocks]

Global warming: Another manufactured worry disappears

It now appears that another cause of worry has been exaggerated. The computer models on which so much of the concern regarding global warming is based have always predicted that ice would melt quickly in both the Arctic and the Antarctic. Indeed, ice did melt quickly in the Arctic, reaching a low in 2007. The ice there has recovered dramatically, however, and it looks like we're going to have to stay tuned for further developments regarding it.

But ice in the Antarctic has been increasing, not decreasing. A lot of different ways of looking at this have come to the same conclusion. The ice is increasing. However, the IPCC, in their famous AR4 assessment of global climate, minimized the increase to the point where those who live and die via climate models didn't have to change their thinking about it.

But it looks like the IPCC authors cherry-picked the reports and the data they used to minimize the increase in Antarctic ice. The full story is here, and I strongly suggest you go there and read it all--my capsule summary is sure to miss some important detail.

http://www.masterres...ea-ice-increase

This minimization of the increase in Antarctic ice was only possible by using an outdated calculation from a scientist named Cosimo. His revised calculation showed the growth to be greater. The IPCC authors had to ignore the NASA calculations, which showed the same robust growth, and Cosimo's revised calculations to get the results that were politically acceptable, using an earlier version of Cosimo's algorithm found in a book.

This could not have happened by accident. It shows that they wanted a certain result, and fished around until they found a way to do it. They had to change their calculations from monthly to annually to reduce statistical confidence in the increase they showed, and they used outdated calculations to get the answer they wanted.

This comes from the vaunted Work Group 1 of the IPCC AR4 team. Most of the other criticisms have revolved around Work Groups 2 and 3, working on mitigation and adaptation with access to much less science. But this error from the people assessing actual climate change is pretty damning. They had to close their eyes to the truth and change the science to get a wrong answer--and the fact that this allowed them to keep pointing to computer models as reliable is the only logical reason they would do this.

The only real question is, as we dispose of these manufactured worries one by one, what new ones will they come up with to continue trying to scare us?


http://www.examiner....Policy-Examiner