lawrocket 3 #401 February 9, 2014 kallend***http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-is-27-4-above-normal-as-of-feb-7-2014/ "Now, the European Space Agency’s Cryosat satellite has allowed NSIDC researchers to produce better estimates of sea ice thickness that can be used to better calculate volume. CryoSat showed that in October 2013, sea ice volume stood at about 9,000 cubic kilometers — about 3,000 cubic kilometers more than in October 2012." And how does it compare with 10 years ago? 20 years ago? 30 years ago? I'll act like a climate scientist with this answer: "It's the greatest ice thickness ever measured! This is a record - we've never seen it so thick before, and it's unprecedented." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #402 February 9, 2014 kallend***With regard to volume, we don't know, cryosat has only been up since 2010. So you're claiming some kind of long term trend on the basis of comparing 2 consecutive years. That's toddler level comprehension. It really has come to bite the climate alarmist community in the ass that "15 years" was the trend of choice. Because 15 years made stuff all look so bad, it was the big one! The top cheese. Now it's been 15 years. Take Pinatubo's effect out of it, and the trend is going on 25 years. Warming at 1 degree F per century just ain't gonna work. John, every time it looks like the Arctic ice is trending low (not the Antarctic ice - that ice is an asshole) you mention it. (Yes, I know. The bullshit has evolved from GLobal Warming to Polar Amplification to Northern Polar Amplification to, well, fuck, "let's just call it climate change.") Have you ever seen a scientific community so desperate for something to occur as the climate community is desperate for a strong El Nino? They are praying to the climate gods for a strong El Nino to make 2014 the warmest year since 1979. Every night, Dana Nutticelli says: "Lord, you do not exist. But if you do, please send a strong El Nino so that we can have a hiccup in this warming pause. And while you're at it, please send a few Cat 5 hurricanes onto our shores, preferably targeting Houston, Miami and particularly Red States. I'm talking Camille level hurricanes, but we won't ever mention Camille. 190 mph sustained winds, if that can ever happen again. Last year sucked. "And please send more tornadoes to target University of Alabama Huntsville, and James Inhofe's house. Last year sucked. At least $100 billion in damage and 10k deaths, please. We cannot help people unless lots of them die and we say that a sentient mother nature is mad at us - but not you, God, because you're always pissed off." "And Lord, please keep this California drought going - it's way better than the Texas drought. The last week or so has been bad with all the rain. We need unemployment, crop failure and high food prices. Above all, every time we say a drought is permanent you send a lot of rain. Please stop that. We need misery and human suffering. "But if you do send rain, please make the brush grow large, and make sure people of Malibu don't clear brush again and kill some firemen in a large Malibu fire so we can blame global warming. And if it rains, please make floods and landslides and kill a lot of people. Especially the underpaid domestic servants of Barbra Streisand. "And please send some heat waves. People react better with heat waves than cold waves. Enough of this cold stuff because it makes us look bad. We need DEADLY heat. Kill a few thousand Republican voters, please, so we can tell people that global warming is here. "And one more thing - could you quit putting ice in the Arctic? We needed it ice-free a couple of years ago." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #403 February 10, 2014 More than five years ago I told this forum that I knew just how this was going to play out. I also said that I would be an irrepressible dick, until the warmists cried uncle. I feel that I have kept my word. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #404 February 10, 2014 QuoteMore than five years ago I told this forum that I knew just how this was going to play out. Let's see the post. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #405 February 10, 2014 "BTW I live in the epicenter of the whole AGW debate. There is the Penn State climate mafia on one hand and the Accuweather mafia on the other. I know the players I know the agendas and I know how this movie ends. That is why I am being such an ass about it. " Posted March 2010 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #406 February 10, 2014 Saying, "I know how the movie ends," is not the same as saying, "here's how the movie ends..." In fact, I know who will win the next five Kentucky Derbies. I'll bring this post back up in five years. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #407 February 10, 2014 You just have to look at the preceding posts on that thread and you will see what I was referring to. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #408 February 10, 2014 What was the thread title? I'm not searching though four years of your posts. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #409 February 10, 2014 "30 year time out for global warming says IPCC" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #410 February 10, 2014 kallend***With regard to volume, we don't know, cryosat has only been up since 2010. So you're claiming some kind of long term trend on the basis of comparing 2 consecutive years. That's toddler level comprehension. Comprehend this: NBC News, typically the most alarmist network on global warming, published a surprisingly balanced article today... Among the eye-opening quotes in the article are: The "head-scratcher of a discrepancy between the temperature trends churned out by climate models and those observed in the real world" "If you let the models do what they want to do without constraining them by observations, then they will not reproduce the hiatus," "And they don't do that because ... they do not reproduce this cooling over the past 10 or 20 years in the tropical Pacific. Instead they show, on average, warming." "The picture is further muddled by the fact that "longer-term climate models have these winds weakening over the 21st century; that is to say 100 years from now they should be weaker. The fact that they have gotten stronger over the past 20 years, I think, is a surprise," "It suggests that there is something that is happening in the real system that is not quite captured in the models." "The shortcomings of the climate models highlighted in this new paper feed into larger criticism that the models play down the importance of natural variability in the global climate system. " it is bad news for the climate research community because it does point to a potential problem for the climate models." A problem with the models, in turn, could erode trust in climate science The inability of the models to capture the observed wind trends and thus the hiatus is "just one small process in the global system that seems to need improvement,"" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #411 February 10, 2014 Cherry picking again, I see.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #412 February 10, 2014 QuoteYou just have to look at the preceding posts on that thread and you will see what I was referring to. You didn't post anything in that thread except a couple of clickys and your quote about how you know how the movie ends. If you going with, "I told you so," you have to first say something. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #413 February 10, 2014 How about this little gem from 2009? "MYTH: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming. FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #414 February 10, 2014 QuoteMYTH: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming That's your statement about computer models, not any scientists'. Anyone who works with computer models will tell you that computer models can't "verify" anything. They can model a system and make predictions about how that system will behave given different boundary conditions. Models are verified by data, models to not verify anything themselves. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,593 #415 February 10, 2014 brenthutchHow about this little gem from 2009? I knew you were going to say that.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #416 February 10, 2014 "I was wrong about global warming Quote | Reply Apparently it IS Mann made! (Dr. Michael Mann for those on the left)" Posted Dec 2009 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #417 February 10, 2014 Um, yeah. We know you've never believed in climate change. So what? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #418 February 10, 2014 And I seem to have been vindicated by the facts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #419 February 10, 2014 QuoteAnd I seem to have been vindicated by the facts. In your own mind and the denier websites you frequent, yes. But that was a given, so I'm not sure why we're supposed to be impressed. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #420 February 10, 2014 kallend Cherry picking again, I see. Indeed. A typical defense lawyer move he made. Like when some criminal defense lawyer says, "the DNA and fingerprints aren't the defendant's." Cherry picking. Everybody hates it. Especially prosecutors, Creationists and climate alarmists. Sure, a lot of stuff works with the hypothesis. It's the stuff that doesn't fit that is pointed out. So, yes, data that doesn't match predictions is cherry-picked. That's kind of how science works. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #421 February 10, 2014 The cherry picking part was not including these two sentences from the opening paragraph: QuoteDoes this prove global warming is a giant hoax? No, according to a new study, which says the missing heat is being blown into the western Pacific Ocean by extraordinarily powerful and accelerating trade winds. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #422 February 10, 2014 brenthutchAnd I seem to have been vindicated by the facts. What the F are you talking about? http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicatorsquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #423 February 10, 2014 DanGThe cherry picking part was not including these two sentences from the opening paragraph: QuoteDoes this prove global warming is a giant hoax? No, according to a new study, which says the missing heat is being blown into the western Pacific Ocean by extraordinarily powerful and accelerating trade winds. I hate the allegation that it's a hoax. I just think the science is flawed. And note the next and newest explanation. The missing heat isn't missing but in the western pacific, where it's there but just not detected. Or, it's in the western Pacific, where they didn't put stuff to find it because nobody predicted it. But one way or another, the heat that has been sequestered where it doesn't affect the atmosphere is causing all kinds of problems with the atmosphere. But it's not really missing, because we're heating up way more than the thermometers tell us. I hate that logic, too. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #424 February 11, 2014 QuoteAnd note the next and newest explanation. The missing heat isn't missing but in the western pacific, where it's there but just not detected. Or, it's in the western Pacific, where they didn't put stuff to find it because nobody predicted it. For someone who claims to be interested in the science, you seem to have distain for how science works. Those "explanations" are called hypotheses. The scientist creates a hypothesis, then either conducts experiments to gather data to prove or disprove the hypothesis, or, in the case of something like climate, looks for raw data in the natural environment to do the same thing. A hypothesis is not an "explanation" that is presented as fact. It is simply a starting point to look for the explanation of the underlying physical process. I don't see anything here that proclaims, "we found the heat!" I see hypotheses that try to determine where the heat has gone. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #425 February 11, 2014 DanGFor someone who claims to be interested in the science, you seem to have distain for how science works. I think you misunderstand lawrocket. He not actually interested in science whatsoever. He's simply in it to "win" an argument.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
