millennia
-
Posts
141 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Learn About Weather and Meteorology
Community guides
Posts posted by millennia
-
-
?
So man can do in 'micro climates' but doesn't 'do in' macro climates???
From what I can see of the 'Russian' side of things the ice has melted back from the coasts and if things occur like last year then we can expect the open water pack (which is well fragmented) to rotate clockwise with the ice melting as it passes Bering straights (as it did last year).
If I remember correctly the melt of the ice whilst it rotated was the 'fastest spurt' of ice decay in last seasons record melt and consitions seem just right for that to occur again now the Alaskan sector is clear of all ice.
2 weeks and check again I'd say
That is going to have to be one HELL of a spurt...
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/..._timeseries.png
-
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...c9-8a90fcb5569a
While we continue to beat ourselves up about whether to cut emissions by 50, 60, 80 percent India has quiently done it's own piece of climate change research. The result? They see no reason to abandon the fight against poverty to tackle a perception of climate change they can find no evidence of on the Indian subcontinent.
India are second only to China in growth potential and both have the ability to dwarf the USA, which in turn dwarfs our output.
At what point will we wake up and smell the coffee and realise that the only real beneficiaries of such draconian cuts in our emissions, and the damage it will do to our advanced economies, will be the Chinese, Indians, and every anti-capitalist hater of the West?
-
If you remove the 1998 EL NINO spike it has warmed in the last 10 years at least according to most sources including NOAA, NASA, Hadley etc.. That message obviously isn't getting through. Maybe we need to present it differently.
Actually the 1998 spike is overstated in it's effect on averages, the actual peak came around 5-6 years ago and 1998 didn't add much to that peak as it was such a short event but if you took it off we'd still be heading lower than before Hansens 1988 testimony.
Note also from this just how useless a linear trend is as well in giving you any proper interpretation, it relies so much on where you start it from whereas higher orders at least react to the warming and cooling cycles.
I guess who is in power is not always the case when it comes to the persuasion of the populace etc.Yes one person may have power if in office, political power, but I believe today media, movies, music trends even, have power which can surpass political power at times.
In my view its quite possible that "media" power for want of a better word could even influence political power and decisions if the populace starts to question and turn against the ones in office, even if what the politics say or think is correct. If the political power sees a way to join with the media power, and sees a way to raise taxes and make revenue on whatever the subject is, it will do so in a harder and more competitive market.
Influences today in a more global market, and fast moving media and trend driven economies is a whole lot more complex than it was even 10 years ago.
Couldn't have put it better myself SB
-
Without wanting to go to off topic Bio fuels are the invention of the petrol companies and are being pushed by the petrol companies as they are generally mixed with Petrol.
-
As regards global warming, I believe that ...
It is 90% natural and 10% man made, like my pants
-
And you get the (imo) myths. Try this and you'll get what you think are myths? I think Tim Lambert is right but I'm not sure we'll get anywhere on this...
...actually why I gave you search terms rather than a single link, but apparently everything those search terms throw up are pants - must remember that next time I put climate change into Google....
I've just said (as a 'green' (an environmentalist)) that biofuels are (pretty much) a nonsense. You then go on to ...blame the greens. it's not the 'greens' who are responsible, it's people like GWB who thought he could seem green (as in concerned about the environment) and help his farmers in one easy way - biofuels - that's where it was all set off.OMG!
It was the Democrats through Al Gore that pushed biofuels into the limelight without thinking of the consequences of where you get 20 billion barrels of biofuel FROM. That is equivalent to Labour banging on, 11 years later, that all the country's woes are due to the last Conservative Govt.
I say again, culpible, responsible, one lot starts it and the other lot capitalises on it. If it wasn't there you couldn't capitalise on it and with GWB being firmly rooted in Texas vegetable oil was NOT one of his original thoughts.
Again, sadly, we're not going to agree.You ain't kidding.
-
Chilling stuff - note the use of the word evil. If it's not evil why do you have to say it's not? It's like saying you're not in denial just wrong - are you happy if I say that you're not in denial just wrong? or you're not evil just wrong?
We'll be being compared to Hitler next
Try not to grab the wrong end of the stick Dev, it quite clearly means it shouldn't be branded evil but wrong because the debate has got so heated some people - on the extreme sceptic side - are calling it evil. I would agree this is not a helpful stance as it reinforces the dogma into a good versus evil battle, which is ridiculous.
It's ludicrous to say DDT was needlessly banned. For a start it's not banned, for a second it stopped being used because it became ineffective. Trouble is those are the facts not the propaganda.Really? Then try putting these keywords into Google and see how "ineffective" DDT is:
malaria death africa ddt
I know it's inconvenient but most people like me have stressed time and time again we think bio fuels a mistake - but hey, just keep trying to smear us with the charge eh?Yep, and I recognise that fact, but the MEDIA blames the capitalist corporates for biofuels when they would NEVER have got the idea if it hadn't been rammed down their throat by environmentalists. How can Tesco be responsible for the EC directive to put up to 10% biofuel in all their diesel? They have to get the bloody stuff from somewhere, there isn't enough room to grow it so rainforests get chopped down. Tesco are culpible but the greens are responsible.
Apologies everybody, going wildly off topic so I'll shut up about the DDT angle. I'm just hoping the film is more balanced than The Great Global Warming Swindle, and particularly more balanced than AIT, because God knows we need it.
-
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MIDTROP.JPG
Welcome,Snowball Earth. IF you're planning to hang around here,I strongly advise you invest in a metaphorical crash helmet. To answer your question,the ones who continue to 'push' AGW have a vested interest in doing so. As for the man in the street their belief is almost entirely fuelled by a biased media and drip-fed government twaddle. As for the passionate ones on here,I believe that they simply cannot accept that after all this time they are wrong and have been led,in many cases willingly,up the garden path. Cognitive dissonance is evident. I've noticed over time that many of the proponents of AGW have fallen by the wayside. They'll probably come out of the woodwork now,only to explain their absence by saying they were fed up of arguing with the likes of me. Yes,of course dears.
The graph above is the only one required. 'AGW' has cost billions upon billions to prove.... that there has been no warming (despite all that evil,warming CO2 weve been adding) except perhaps for the slight persistence of the peak after 'that' big El Nino,conveniently explained by coinciding with the culmination of many year's high solar activity. Look where the graph is going now... maybe that's CO2's fault too! Seriously,can anyone see a definite trend in that,let alone pinpoint a CO2 generated effect? Ya got better eyes than me if you can!
Hmmm - I wonder if this little piece of cinematography will make into all of our schools courtesy of our taxes?
Obviously needs to be viewed first, but I've been reading quite a bit on the environmentalists part in the needless illness of 50 million African children, and deaths of hundreds of thousands, because of another now forgotten panic - DDT. Putting this in context of the potential damage AGW hysteria is now causing across the world (Guardian, Friday, food prices up 75% just due to biofuels) will make interesting viewing. Of course it will be dismissed out of hand....
-
I've compared this morning's image (Monday) with the Saturday morning and Saturday evening images. Interestingly it would appear that the chunk in the middle distance on the right moved across some time on Saturday, between the morning and evening snapshots.
Since Saturday evening there has been no noticable change to the landscape (except the blueness of the sky and, consequently, the visibility). The camera has not moved at all since Saturday evening, and the landmarks in the middle distance are all still in precisely the same relative position.
The chunk in the middle distance is a little hard to make out on the Saturday evening image, but it is there and in precisely the same place as it currently rests.
CB
Yep, thought this might happen - last month it was all about graphs showing we were exceeding the melt from last year and then this month suddenly nobody wants to see that rapid melt completely failing to show up:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NSIDCICE7608.JPG
so instead we talk about pools of water in a web cam image - per-leese!
Here's a graphic that may show it a little more clearly. This is a smooth of the average melt (lowess with f=.2) for the average of the period with online daily information from this source(http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv), 2007 and 2008. It seems that 2007 already has an insurmountable lead over 2008 and we ain't breaking any records this year. The x scale is Julian days, BTW, and the graph shows a pretty good profile of the excessive melt and then excessive freeze of 2007.
Next panic please....
Like the signature GW - boo to you too
-
Millennia
I laready started this game back on Carinthians thread back I think in early May. I predicted a NH ice area minimum of 1-2 million sq.km above last years minimum.
Gray Wolf predicted that it would all go.
Missed that - sorry.
-
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Is the early onset of polar melt part of this cooling???
GW - this graph is the one the media hacks at the Independent and BBC reproduced in the last week to make a story about "No Ice at the North Pole". Zoom into the picture and you now see the departure of this year from last year's anomalous melt. However, as I get fed up of pointing out, early July is too early to make a forecast! However, why don't I just join in and extrapolate the 2008 data and assume it holds the same percentage below the average. I therefore predict :lol: an extent of 7.5m sq km at the end of this month.
Anybody wanna start a sweepstake (any takers should post to Arctic Ice)?
-
This is an advance warning to all those ready to pounce on a bad hurricane season this year and immediately link it to AGW - this article may also interest GW, who I know has particular interest in these beasties...
-
Compare this latest from Tony Blair, to the statement last week from the ever excitable Mr. Hansen. I know which one I'd rather read: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/26/opi...lair.php?page=1
Y'know if you took out all the constant climate change drip drip drip and took it at face value on energy conservation and the need to start earnest research now for viable (note I said viable, not thousands of buzzard shredders) alternative to fossil fuels then yes, it's a good piece. Hansen is losing it and needs to be sidelined as he'll not do the movement any good at all.
If you were to be pragmatic about AIT then you could say it was a story contrived to get an energy hungry population to start being more efficient and prepare them for difficult choices ahead in the transition to the post fossil (or if you like post carbon) energy era, and the only way to do that is to scare the bejeebers out of them because otherwise they won't listen. Maybe that's the way it started and then too many people saw a career in it, and now it's gone too far and people are becoming more suspicious and science will suffer because you can only cry wolf so many times before nobody listens - and that's when we'll have a REAL crisis.
-
Where bluecon? If we take all the little slivers of extra ice beyond the 'normal' and stick them around the peninsula do you think they'll be any left over?
Yeah - about 1.5million square kilometres
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM...t.365.south.jpg
and rising!!!!
So now we even have studies on ice cover disgareeing with each other. The Internet is great in that you can try and research something you don't agree with but at the same time it's such a potential source of bull it creates most of the disinformation you don't agree with in the first place - perpetual motion has been discovered....
Yeah - about 1.5million square kilometresApologies - 1.3m sq km - don't want to appear to be exaggerating
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IM....anom.south.jpg
-
Never mind Mill., you only have 2 months to go before we either see the awful truth or you are vindicated in your comments.
Well,yeah, exactly - so I wish they would lay off the hand wringing doom mongering until we really have something to discuss. I'll be only too happy (if that's the word) to enter into a discussion of a new record melt AFTER it happened - especially if it all melts with a normal weather pattern and not an anomalous late summer like last year. However if it doesn't and even half that first year ice goes into a new winter we then have a load of multi-year ice next year to watch drifting about.
As the quotes from 100+ years ago indicate, it's actually not an unknown event for the NP to go ice free and a polynya could form in the 90 deg area due to pack drift and the amount of first year ice up there - surely nobody expected it would take 1 year to restabilise after a record melt? Not even me
-
This has been alluded to in other threads, but I thought it might deserve a thread of it's own.
There is mounting evidence that global policy is being influenced, but not necessarily by those who have been so far accused on these boards...
http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4104/8/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...anizations.html
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/gl...y/exxon-secrets
http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=289
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006...petrol.business
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/eu...ing-427404.html
Having had so much discussion of the bias of IPCC scientists, the MetO, etc, etc, I thought it was about time we levelled the playing field a little.
With hugely wealthy trans-national oil companies, etc having a vested interest in disproving AGW, is it not possible that the most influential bias/propaganda/lobbying being done benefits the skeptics, rather than the proponents, of AGW?
And, if so much money has been poured into this, how come they still can't find any solid evidence to disprove the findings of the IPCC?
Propaganda or defence? If I were accused of producing something that was destroying the planet I'd pretty much want to defend myself. I'm no purveyor of rose tinted specs with regard to the energy industry, what Big Coal is doing to the Appalachian mountains is absolutley appalling (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/am...top-831037.html) but I would be VERY careful to automatically dismiss a defence as propaganda on the basis that the accused might benefit. This is a dangerous precendent that does not need to feed into courtroom decisions or we really are screwed.
Yes, I'm quite happy to accept that you can find as much bull and spin on the sceptic side as the climate change side, and somehow we have to sift through all the trash to come up with the nuggets of truth - and good luck on that one!
-
It does at first glance bluecon but if you dig a little deeper and look at the higher resolution images, then ignore hudson and Chukchi which melt every year then the situation looks pretty bad.
Pockets of thin ice are floating all over the place, the deeper passage of the NW only has one chunk of sheet ice left, the rest is broken up first year ice. As GW has already mentioned as soon as the ice starts breaking up like this it's had it until September or October the water reflects alot less of the sun's energy and more ice movement occurs. So far during the spring conditions for the arctic particularly away from the Canadian coast really helping the ice to hold on, lots of cloud, cooler temps, less heat from the sun etc but even under these favourable conditions the first year ice is struggling to hold on.
Conditions in the next two weeks are set to reverse to an environment more favourable to melting with Temps in the Arctic Canadian Islands already hitting 15-20C this month the highest possibility still favours rapid ice melt.
A truly outrageous piece of alarmist "journalism" in the Independent (yeah, if only) today:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...ole-855406.html
The journo has been truly flamed in their have your say section - the best comment I saw is quoted below. Sometimes it's so hard to counter things like "North Pole never known to be clear of ice in human history", and "northwest passage opens for first time in recorded history". Both statements, apparently, are untrue.... (I love the way the posting changed my original "bllx" to "dog biscuits" - a replacement profanity checker, what a brilliant idea :o )
THERMAL PATHS TO THE POLE,THE CURRENTS OF THE OCEAN, BY SILAS BENT, SAINT LOUIS: 1872. Just as the work was completed upon these currents in the North Pacific, in 1855, the news was received in the United States that Dr. Hane had discovered an open sea near the Pole, and people began to ask how that could be possible, when it was well known that a belt or region of ice several hundred miles in width must lie to the south of that sea, and which was never dissolved.THE NORTH WEST PASSAGE BEING THE RECORD OF A VOYAGE OF EXPLORATION OF THE SHIP "GJOA" 1903 - 1907 BY ROALD AMUNDSEN
"We encountered no ice with the exception of a few narrow strips of old sound ice, carried by the wash. Of large Polar ice we saw absolutely nothing.
Between the ice and the land, on either side, there were large and perfectly clear channels, through which we passed easily and unimpeded.
The entire accumulation of ice was not very extensive. We were soon out again in open water.
Outside the promontories, some pieces of ice had accumulated; otherwise the sea was free from ice.
The water to the south was open, the impenetrable wall of ice was not there.
At 5.30 P.M. we met a quantity of ice off Cape Maguire,a fairly broad strip of loose ice. Beyond this we could see clear water.
Captain Knowles reports the season the most open he has ever known. He entered the Arctic on the day we left San Francisco, May 22, and thinks the straits were open even earlier than that.
The ice of the Arctic Ocean is never at rest. Even in the coldest winters it is liable to displacement and pressure by the currents of air and water. The expansion and contraction, due to changes in temperature,also assist in this disturbance."
-
I thought that there's some doubt over the validity of the petition. Oh I don't doubt it - it would be amazing if there wasn't. Every time somebody tries to voice an opinion that doesn't follow the "consensus" view then people almost kill themselves to dig up some dirt to discredit it. Unfortunately human nature being what it is you can never get a whiter than white arguement from either side, and never will.
How about this guy then:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/doc...Corrections.pdf
Dunno, maybe he has a pile of oil shares, he mentions Steve McIntyre and look at how many times he's been flamed for his attempt to make sense of station data feeds. Fact is though there are hundreds of scientists out there actively trying to make themselves and their theories heard and they are being drowned out by sound bites and blatant ridiculous alarmism like Hansen's anniversary testimony. And to give a voice to "Big Coal" before free speech is removed completely here is a response to Hansen's testimony from Vic Svec, senior vice president for Peabody - the largest private coal producer in the world:
1. His (Hansens) use of Holocaust analogies is outrageous and demeaning. It cheapens the dialogue and invites ridicule.2. The suggestion that a dissemination of ideas be criminalized ?- coming from a government employee no less ?- does harken back to World War II. It is stunning and should be pounced upon by everyone who advocates free speech, from the ACLU and talk radio complex to yourself.
3. Blaming big oil and big coal for the broad array of opinions about climate change is disingenuous. If he would imprison those who don't march in lockstep with his views, the jails would be very, very big. It would include thousands of scientists and university professors and the likes of the president of the Czech Republic, a former founder of Greenpeace and the former founder of The Weather Channel.
4. Speaking for Peabody, our time and energy are being devoted to satisfying an energy-hungry world's need for coal and advancing the commercialization of carbon capture and storage technology. Among other initiatives, we're proud to have reduced our greenhouse gas emissions intensity by more than 30% since 1990; to be the initial developer of a supercritical coal plant that will emit 15% lower carbon dioxide than existing plants; to be a founding member of the FutureGen Alliance; to be a part of Australia's low-carbon Coal 21 program; and to be the only non-Chinese partner in China's zero-emissions GreenGen project.
-
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,...1817665,00.html
"He said Earth's atmosphere can only stay this loaded with man-made carbon dioxide for a couple more decades without changes such as mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises."
I'm sorry but this guy is only 1 step outside the assylum doors. NASA make thousands of "adjustments" to their data, mainly up, and yet even they cannot show the kind of warming that would lead to such a calamity in a short space of time. He talks for putting Big Oil and Big Coal on trial for crimes against humanity, well I reckon it is high time this WAS put into a court and then we can get some proper testimony from scientists that now feel less cowed in coming forward with their dissention on the IPCC dogma - as the Oregon Petition with 31,000 signatures of concerned scientists showed.
-
You missed this bit then?
"And for the 30 species that were re-sampled between 1993 and 2003, the majority are already moving upslope to compensate for habitat loss at lower and warmer altitudes"
...and that bit is where warmer is shoehorned into the debate with absolutely no justification, which was the point of me posting the article. It seems that there are ever more desparate articles trying to pin some problem or other on GW as the great temperature uplift refuses to play ball. Only last night there was the Springwatch Sea edition which just couldn't help itself pinning the species movement in the North Sea to climate change - didn't even TRY and hint that this kind of free movement of species has been going on for millions of years and they will just as quickly clear off again if the temperature drops back.
My rant is not and has never been an AGW denier, won't look at any possibility of human induced warming stance, it a rant against lies peddled for the benefit of the peddlers, the twisting of good research to come to a conclusion that reinforces the dogma, and the untold damage that can be done if we blindly go along with this without question.
We should all have smelt a rat the day the Govt started taxing it, since when have they EVER had our best interests at heart?
-
I often wonder how much of it is political spin and how much of it is actually scientific research
...and how much of it is total media insanity
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitloc...death-doom-fire
-
Well, if Gray-Wolf has to "wait and see", surely the same should be levelled at Bluecon who is making out that ice "will" recover, despite significant evidence on the contrary.
We can speculate, but we can't state with certainty what will happen this year based on current evidence, whether arguing for pro or anti AGW or pro or anti ice melt.
Global warming appears to be affecting the temperature of these boards again
, I think I'll duck out for a few days - maybe go skiing in Aspen! -
I think what millennia was trying to say was; We really need less scientists who through around claims of GW related events when in fact it is not.
Even looking at the brief history of the temperature anomalies from Madagascar we can clearly see it is not because of an increase in temperatures. There is another factor causing this, whatever it may be etc.
Millennia was saying, why do scientists brandish such reports around with a pinch of salt even though the data suggests otherwise, which is one of the problems which causes such OTT hysteria surrounding AGW.
Exactly, cheers Andy, how many times do we see an item on the news ending with "... and you can expect more of this due to global warming..." - it is starting to be come a bolt on phrase for anything and everything observed to be changing. This is why after a measure of controlled debate we end up spiralling into tetchyness again - it's not just GW, politics in general has me lobbing things at the TV
, but GW has now reached dogma status and reasoned debate against a theology has never been taken seriously.I'd be happy to give up sit in the wait and see camp if it wasn't for all the terrible decisions like biofuels and cap and trade being barfed from knee jerk glory hunting politicians on a daily basis. The world will continue to do what it wants while we continue to scare ourselves up our own backsides - we really are our own worst enemy sometimes.
-
In all honesty, no one knows what's going on with the climate, why things happen or what will happen in the future; and I include all scientists, however well qualified they may be, in that statement.
Regardless of how much we personally think we know, or they think they know, without time travel, none of us can be certain.
What we need less of is baseless assumptions from jump on the bandwagon scientists like this:
http://www.livescience.com/animals/080612-...in-species.html
Gosh, I thought, has Madagascar really warmed up that much? Something like this certainly makes a good case for biodiversity problems caused by warming events.... then I took a look at the temperature profile of Madagascar for the last 100 years or so:
Hmmm, perhaps those critters are just trying to get away from all those crazy camera wielding scientists!
No AGW or normal temperature changes.
in Space, Science & nature
Posted
Strangely for a sceptic (or should I say heretic as my real fight is not against science but the hijacking of science by an idealism) I broadly agree with you
. The sudden drop from 2007 to 2008 is no more an indicator of trend than the precipitous drop from 1998 to 1999. If you stand well back a general upward trend from the Victorian period is clear to see - but of course overlaying a CO2 graph and citing correlation means causality is where the real debate lies. Not many on these threads deny we are warmer now than 150 years ago, but why is the big question.
I would counter the suggestion that you should ignore 1998 as this is just as valid as the rapid warming observed in the 1870s - it is as dangerous to start excluding data as it is to modify it to make it support your case.
My personal opinion is that we are at a turning point, but have not yet conclusively made that turn. Should the temperature graphs only show negative anomalies for the next year and then turn back on their previous path it would be very compelling as we should now have a decent period of cooling from solar and ocean cycles. Unfortunately I feel the pressure to act drastically may pre-empt the confirmation of the 21st Century trend and I am as afraid of the consequences of incorrect actions as any global warmer - just in the opposite direction.