Global warming traps scientists in ice

[billvon 3,131]

>When you're charging scientists with fraud, words really do matter.

Come on. What they SAY doesn't matter. It's Al Gore; of course he's wrong.

[Stumpy 284]

jakee

Yeah, sure. There must be another reason why you can't think of anything to say except 'nope' again.

Great argument dude.

nope

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[jakee 1,608]

Stumpy

***
Yeah, sure. There must be another reason why you can't think of anything to say except 'nope' again.

Great argument dude.

nope

Oh yeah? Well you smell!!1!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,174]

brenthutch

******I'm sure that Kallend would be able to shed some light on the matter, however, the word on the street is that he is fighting for his life, beset by -15 degrees of global warming. One can only pray that an incremental Prius purchase will save him.

Warming of the Arctic was predicted some time back to cause instability of the jet stream. Usually the jet stream confines the polar vortex to the high Arctic. However, due to Arctic warming the polar vortex has been able to move south leading to the current cold spell.

Sound plausible, but it is wrong.
Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer

William Happer (born July 27, 1939 [1]) is an American physicist who has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy.

So why hasn't he published it in a peer reviewed journal?

Maybe he's the one that is wrong, since the jet stream HAS destabilized and HAS allowed the polar vortex to move south. In line with predictions.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

Do any of these "predictions" predate the halt in warming? If not they are, by definition, NOT predictions.

[kallend 2,174]

brenthutch

Do any of these "predictions" predate the halt in warming? If not they are, by definition, NOT predictions.

Arrant nonsense. If a prediction is made in 2012 and the predicted event happens in 2014 it most certainly IS a prediction.

Your denier hero has no more expertise in climate science than does rushmc:

William Happer (born July 27, 1939) is an American physicist who has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

I am sorry, I will have to eat crow if you can produce a peer review study published in 2012 which predicted a "polar vortex" during the first week of 2014. Of course a vague guess about a poorly defined potential outcome , does not constitute a valid prediction.

[jakee 1,608]

brenthutch

I am sorry, I will have to eat crow if you can produce a peer review study published in 2012 which predicted a "polar vortex" during the first week of 2014.

That's a really stupid expectation.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,174]

jakee

***I am sorry, I will have to eat crow if you can produce a peer review study published in 2012 which predicted a "polar vortex" during the first week of 2014.

That's a really stupid expectation.

I predict we'll get more of those from him, but in a chaotic system the exact dates of the stupidity are inherently unpredictable.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,608]

kallend

******I am sorry, I will have to eat crow if you can produce a peer review study published in 2012 which predicted a "polar vortex" during the first week of 2014.

That's a really stupid expectation.

I predict we'll get more of those from him, but in a chaotic system the exact dates of the stupidity are inherently unpredictable.

Bollocks to that, I'll go with later this afternoon

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,174]

brenthutch

I am sorry, I will have to eat crow if you can produce a peer review study published in 2012 which predicted a "polar vortex" during the first week of 2014. Of course a vague guess about a poorly defined potential outcome , does not constitute a valid prediction.

Here is something to read that *may* prevent you from making the same error again.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,131]

>In 1974, Time Magazine blamed the cold polar vortex on global cooling.

Rush Limbaugh explained that the term "polar vortex" was created only recently by liberals just to "prove" climate change. I can't believe you are claiming that he's lying! Careful or you will make RushMC very, very angry.

[brenthutch 444]

kallend

***I am sorry, I will have to eat crow if you can produce a peer review study published in 2012 which predicted a "polar vortex" during the first week of 2014. Of course a vague guess about a poorly defined potential outcome , does not constitute a valid prediction.

Here is something to read that *may* prevent you from making the same error again.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Which of course renders the whole IPCC claim of, “warming of the climate system is unequivocal and is largely due to human activities", a bit wanting.
I am still waiting for a peer reviewed study that predicted record breaking cold, increasing Antarctic ice and massive snows prior to pause in warming (1998). With google it should be easy to quote Michael Mann or James Hansen since they predicted it all along.

[billvon 3,131]

>Which of course renders the whole IPCC claim of, “warming of the climate system is
>unequivocal and is largely due to human activities", a bit wanting.

If you think that, you probably don't understand chaos theory. (It is not "everything is chaos.")

>I am still waiting for a peer reviewed study that predicted record breaking cold,
>increasing Antarctic ice and massive snows prior to pause in warming (1998).

You must be unaware that the hottest year on record is 2010, not 1998.

[brenthutch 444]

A distinction without a difference. I just got done reading the IPCC's 2nd assessment. And the closest thing to "we predicted this all along" Was, climate is difficult to predict and we may have many unexpected "surprises".

So.... if your definition of a prediction is: "we think it will get warmer, but then again it might not" you are correct.

[turtlespeed 226]

brenthutch

A distinction without a difference. I just got done reading the IPCC's 2nd assessment. And the closest thing to "we predicted this all along" Was, climate is difficult to predict and we may have many unexpected "surprises".

So.... if your definition of a prediction is: "we think it will get warmer, but then again it might not" you are correct.

Only until it gets much much cooler, then they were just inverse in their prediction.

Warm is cool, cold is HOT!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

You must be unaware that the hottest year on record is 2010, not 1998.

According to one dataset (GISS) - yes. According to HADCRUT, 1998 is still tops. This is due to methodology - HADCRUT only uses measured observations while GISS fills in gaps in data. The UAH dataset also list 1998 as the warmest, as does RSS.

There's plenty of room for disagreement on this, but considering the 3:1 ratio of global datasets finding 1998 to be the warmest (and the fact that the GISS dataset is the only one that inserts assumed data where no data exists) I don't think he is any more wrong than you are right.

And when we're talking about 2010 and 2005 being the "warmest year" (they are tied in GISS. Or were. GISS keeps adjusting the past down and the present up) they are within the margin for error.

Talking about a few hundredths of a degree isn't much worth arguing about, I don't think. I think it is sufficient to just say, "the better part of the last couple of decades has been fairly flat in terms of warming or cooling."

It's like pointing to this "polar vortex" as proof of global warming. Or pointing to it as proof it isn't happening. Both arguments are bullshit political rhetoric. Trends, remember? Even GISS is pretty flat for 15 years. Well, till the next adjustment.

I DO look at Antarctic ice OP a bit differently. It's been above average for more than two years straight. Record-breaking extents. This is a story of how bad it's been. http://japandailypress.com/japanese-supply-vessel-finally-reaches-syowa-antarctic-research-station-after-2-years-of-failure-0741980/

There's a thirty year trend of increasing Antarctic ice. And a multiyear recent trend of extreme ice that's been getting worse.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>In 1974, Time Magazine blamed the cold polar vortex on global cooling.

Rush Limbaugh explained that the term "polar vortex" was created only recently by liberals just to "prove" climate change. I can't believe you are claiming that he's lying! Careful or you will make RushMC very, very angry.

Nope
I saw the same articel
better yet
I actually remember the new anchors talking about the planet going into an ice age

And actually, Rush Limbaught was talking about how the alarmists were trying to make the term polar vortex seem like a new crisis. Like it had never happened before.

But that is not what the sight that tells you what to think about limbaugh, told you to think

But now it is warming up again
Someone fixed the jet stream and we are all safet again





for a while anyway

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>In 1974, Time Magazine blamed the cold polar vortex on global cooling.

BTW
This is great story to illustrate that the climate alarmists have been here forever trying to find a crisis that will get traction and give them (the alarmists) power over people’s lives

In 1973 my dad had bought his first farm with a house and buildings on in and we moved there that summer. He then built an open front hog confinement setup that we started to use. At this same time one of the biggest worst winter storms almost anyone could remember came through. We were in the house for 3 days because we could not even see the detached garage that was 15 feet from the house.

It buried the hog building, literally. We spent days after the storm just trying to keep the pigs alive (which we did and my dad made the Wallace Farmer that year for doing so. Because many farmers in the area had lost hundreds of pigs and cattle in that storm)

This same storm sunk the Edmund Fitzgerald ore ship on Lake Superior

The alarmists took this and ran with it
The world is going into another ice age
Humans must be causing it

We must dust the upper atmosphere with (???? I don’t remember what they wanted to dust it with) to raise the temp or we will all die


Funny, history has a way of repeating itself huh....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,131]

>A distinction without a difference.

The fact that warming has been going on between 1998 and 2010 is a "distinction without a difference?" Interesting.

In that case, the economy has been recovering steadily ever since Obama took office. And if you start citing unemployment numbers, that's a distinction without a difference.

[brenthutch 444]

Let me try to illustrate my point. My contention is:

"I predict with great certainty, that Alabama will beat Auburn, but given the dynamic nature of college athletics, I may be wrong"

Does not constitute a valid prediction.

Apparently you disagree.

[kallend 2,174]

brenthutch

Let me try to illustrate my point. My contention is:

"I predict with great certainty, that Alabama will beat Auburn, but given the dynamic nature of college athletics, I may be wrong"

Does not constitute a valid prediction.

Apparently you disagree.

I'm sure he is embarrassed for you, repeatedly displaying that you have no idea of the difference between a random phenomenon and a chaotic one.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

Enlighten me, with regard to college athletics vis a vis climate, which is random and which is chaotic. BTW I would like to see your calculations as well as your conclusions. As an educator, I am sure you will understand.

[billvon 3,131]

>"I predict with great certainty, that Alabama will beat Auburn, but given the dynamic
>nature of college athletics, I may be wrong"

You're sorta proving my point here.

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>"I predict with great certainty, that Alabama will beat Auburn, but given the dynamic
>nature of college athletics, I may be wrong"

You're sorta proving my point here.

While,
"I predict with great certainty,....................but I might be wrong"
might be a true statement, I would hardly call it a prediction. With either outcome one could claim they correctly predicted the event. Remember if it can not be falsified it is not a valid theory/prediction.