What is science?

[rushmc 23]

billvon

> The colder it gets below freezing the more sea ice develops.

And the warmer it gets on land, the faster the glaciers move - and the more sea ice develops.

So, since it has statistically NOT warmed for over 18 years, how do you explain it then?

"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 3,107]

>So, since it has statistically NOT warmed for over 18 years, how do you explain it then?

Warmest years on record, in order:

2014 (+.69C anomaly)
2010 (+.66C anomaly)
2005 (+.65C anomaly)
1998 (+.64C anomaly)

You were saying?

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>So, since it has statistically NOT warmed for over 18 years, how do you explain it then?

Warmest years on record, in order:

2014 (+.69C anomaly)
2010 (+.66C anomaly)
2005 (+.65C anomaly)
1998 (+.64C anomaly)

You were saying?

Ya
That is the only list you like
You know that the data when looked at unbiasedly soes not suppor this

BTW
As of yet, no one has ever answed the question reagarding what the average temp should be

Who established that number and why? What data was used
(probably came from Mann who just got crushed again for another paper he was a part of this week. Crushed by warmists no less)

"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 3,107]

>That is the only list you like

Just one of many. It showed your assertion to be false, which is why I used that one. Perhaps you'd like one of these lists?

Year CO2 PPM
=== ======
2014 398.55
2013 396.48
2012 393.82
2011 391.63
2010 389.85
2009 387.37
2008 385.59
2007 383.76
2006 381.90
1997 363.71
1992 356.38
1987 349.16
1959 315.97


Years Temperature anomaly
==== ===============
1880–1889 -0.493 °F
1890–1899 -0.457 °F
1900–1909 -0.466 °F
1910–1919 -0.497 °F
1920–1929 -0.315 °F
1930–1939 -0.0774 °F
1940–1949 +0.0630 °F
1950–1959 -0.0360 °F
1960–1969 -0.0252 °F
1970–1979 -0.00180 °F
1980–1989 +0.317 °F
1990–1999 +0.563 °F
2000–2009 +0.923 °F

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>That is the only list you like

Just one of many. It showed your assertion to be false, which is why I used that one. Perhaps you'd like one of these lists?

Year CO2 PPM
=== ======
2014 398.55
2013 396.48
2012 393.82
2011 391.63
2010 389.85
2009 387.37
2008 385.59
2007 383.76
2006 381.90
1997 363.71
1992 356.38
1987 349.16
1959 315.97


Years Temperature anomaly
==== ===============
1880–1889 -0.493 °F
1890–1899 -0.457 °F
1900–1909 -0.466 °F
1910–1919 -0.497 °F
1920–1929 -0.315 °F
1930–1939 -0.0774 °F
1940–1949 +0.0630 °F
1950–1959 -0.0360 °F
1960–1969 -0.0252 °F
1970–1979 -0.00180 °F
1980–1989 +0.317 °F
1990–1999 +0.563 °F
2000–2009 +0.923 °F

The simple fact that you have 2014 on there shows the rest to be bs

So, you still have not answered what would be considered normal, what data was used and who decided

"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]

You have also stated that the oceans acitifying was of a major concern of yours and that has now been shown not to be happening

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

[kallend 2,146]

rushmc

BTW
As of yet, no one has ever answed the question reagarding what the average temp should be

At least you can spell "average"

...

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

[rushmc 23]

kallend

***

BTW
As of yet, no one has ever answed the question reagarding what the average temp should be

At least you can spell "average"
You avoid the question too
Along with your normal spewing of crap

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

[kallend 2,146]

rushmc

You have also stated that the oceans acitifying was of a major concern of yours and that has now been shown not to be happening

Link please.

Here is one to be getting on with: www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/resources/news-and-press/news-archive/872-amap-releases-arctic-ocean-acidification-overview-report

...

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

[rushmc 23]

kallend

***You have also stated that the oceans acitifying was of a major concern of yours and that has now been shown not to be happening

Link please.

Here is one to be getting on with: www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/resources/news-and-press/news-archive/872-amap-releases-arctic-ocean-acidification-overview-report

In a previous post
(and to follow your so humble lead) search for it yourself

"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]

How about a new one?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/25/ocean-acidification-natural-cycles-and-ubiquitous-uncertainties/

"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 3,107]

>The simple fact that you have 2014 on there shows the rest to be bs

Allergies kicking in again?

>So, you still have not answered what would be considered normal

"Normal" isn't a scientific term. However, "average" for the above is the average of 1901-2000 temperatures.

>what data was used . . . .

Temperature measurements made with thermometers.

>and who decided

Several different meteorological organizations. The above was NCDC data, but the data from Hadley and JAMA matches pretty closely.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>The simple fact that you have 2014 on there shows the rest to be bs

Allergies kicking in again?

>So, you still have not answered what would be considered normal

"Normal" isn't a scientific term. However, "average" for the above is the average of 1901-2000 temperatures.

>what data was used . . . .

Temperature measurements made with thermometers.

>and who decided

Several different meteorological organizations. The above was NCDC data, but the data from Hadley and JAMA matches pretty closely.

Thanks Bill
This clearly shows the alarmists are very happy to use data that could be from one persons life time

An arbitrary figure at best

"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 3,107]

>You have also stated that the oceans acitifying was of a major concern of
>yours and that has now been shown not to be happening

Sorry to set off your allergies again but here's another list:

Time pH
=== ===
18th century - ocean pH 8.179 average
1990 - ocean pH 8.104 average
2013 - ocean pH 8.069 average

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

> The colder it gets below freezing the more sea ice develops.

And the warmer it gets on land, the faster the glaciers move - and the more sea ice develops.

so the increase in sea ice in the Antarctic is due to glaciers calving? Or are you suggesting that a 2 degree Celsius rise in average temperature makes a lot of ice a few hundred feet thick flow more quickly?

Logically this leaves a couple of possibilities. The first is that the glacier is moving more quickly and can be detected because we will find the thickness of the glacier reducing the further uphill it goes. (As it moves more quickly it pulls along the higher elevation ice, thinning it out). I haven't seen evidence of this

Another is that the glacier moves more quickly but glacial mass remains the same due to increased precipitation. Which is not a problem.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>You have also stated that the oceans acitifying was of a major concern of
>yours and that has now been shown not to be happening

Sorry to set off your allergies again but here's another list:

Time pH
=== ===
18th century - ocean pH 8.179 average
1990 - ocean pH 8.104 average
2013 - ocean pH 8.069 average

We also know that the alarmist fudged the data/temps down ward to try and show a more marked increase in temps today
They got caught yet you still use those numbers

And I think you need to do some reading on your own regarding ocean ph levels and measuring of such
Instead of taking who ever is tell you this as the the whole story

"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 3,107]

>Or are you suggesting that a 2 degree Celsius rise in average
>temperature makes a lot of ice a few hundred feet thick flow more quickly?

Primarily that. As warmer water circulates under glaciers, their grounding points move rapidly, and that mobilizes a lot of ice quickly. From NASA Science News:


=======================
A key concept in the Rignot study is the "grounding line"—the dividing line between land and water underneath a glacier. Because virtually all melting occurs where the glaciers' undersides touch the ocean, pinpointing the grounding line is crucial for estimating melt rates.
Auroras Underfoot (signup)

The problem is, grounding lines are buried under thousands of feet of glacial ice. "It's challenging for a human observer to figure out where they are," Rignot explains. "There's nothing obvious that sticks out on the surface to say, ‘This is where the glacier goes afloat.’"

To find the hidden grounding lines, they examined radar images of the glaciers made by the European Space Agency’s Earth Remote Sensing satellites from 1992 to 2011. Glaciers flex in response to tides. By analyzing the flexing motions, they were able to trace the grounding lines.

This led to a key discovery. In all the glaciers they studied, grounding lines were rapidly retreating away from the sea.

"In this sector, we are seeing retreat rates that we don't see anywhere else on Earth,'" Rignot says. Smith Glacier's line moved the fastest, retreating 22 miles upstream. The other lines retreated from 6 to 19 miles.

As the glaciers melt and lose weight, they float off the land where they used to sit. Water gets underneath the glacier and pushes the grounding line inland. This, in turn, reduces friction between the glacier and its bed. The glacier speeds up, stretches out and thins, which drives the grounding line to retreat farther inland.

The only natural factor that can slow or stop this process is a "pinning point" in the bedrock -- a bump or projection that snags the glacier from underneath and keeps it from sliding toward the sea. To investigate this possibility, the researchers made a novel map of the bed beneath the glaciers using radar and other data from satellites and NASA's airborne IceBridge mission. The map revealed that the glaciers had already floated off many of their small pinning points.
==================

[billvon 3,107]

>We also know that the alarmist fudged the data/temps down ward to try
>and show a more marked increase in temps today . . .They got caught yet
>you still use those numbers

Because they are accurate, despite how much you try to deny them.

>And I think you need to do some reading on your own regarding ocean ph
>levels and measuring of such

I have. Ocean pH levels are declining.

You follow a pretty consistent pattern here:

"It's all lies! Show me the facts!"
"Here are the facts."
"Those facts are all lies too! I read it somewhere. And here's something unrelated from www.wattsupwiththat!"

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>We also know that the alarmist fudged the data/temps down ward to try
>and show a more marked increase in temps today . . .They got caught yet
>you still use those numbers

Because they are accurate, despite how much you try to deny them.

>And I think you need to do some reading on your own regarding ocean ph
>levels and measuring of such

I have. Ocean pH levels are declining.

You follow a pretty consistent pattern here:

"It's all lies! Show me the facts!"
"Here are the facts."
"Those facts are all lies too! I read it somewhere. And here's something unrelated from www.wattsupwiththat!"

Those are not facts Bill
Regardless of how many times you say they are

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

[turtlespeed 226]

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/worlds-best-ocean-scientists-confirm-skeptics-correct-ocean-acidifcation-hysteria-is-unwarranted.html

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

[billvon 3,107]

>Those are not facts Bill

Believe whatever you want. In the end you'll have to face reality, which is what remains no matter what your beliefs. And science is based on reality, not denier websites that tell you what you want to hear.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Those are not facts Bill

Believe whatever you want. In the end you'll have to face reality, which is what remains no matter what your beliefs. And science is based on reality, not denier websites that tell you what you want to hear.

Umm
you posted this for yourself

Correct?

Cause it is you acting on faith here

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

[GeorgiaDon 379]

turtlespeed

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/worlds-best-ocean-scientists-confirm-skeptics-correct-ocean-acidifcation-hysteria-is-unwarranted.html

1. What the hell is a "World's Best Ocean Scientist"? Who decides this? What factors are used in measuring or calculating "world's best"? It's not like "world's fastest" where you can run a race and actually see who wins.

On the other hand, maybe "world's best" means "I found a guy who agrees with me".

2. Lots of things vary around some mean (middle) value, and organisms obviously can tolerate some temporary exposure to those conditions, but that does not mean they can survive long exposure to the extremes.

Two familiar examples:

The amount of sunlight varies dramatically on a daily cycle, from none at all for roughly half the time (this is called night) to anywhere from some to a lot the other half (which we call day). Care to guess what happens to plants when we put them in permanent dark? Care to guess what will eventually happen to the animals that feed on those plants? How about the animals that feed on the animals that feed on the plants? Just because plants can survive some period of darkness, are we justified in saying that they will be fine under permanent darkness? That they will just somehow adapt?

Typically it is colder at night than it is during the day. It may even freeze at night, but warm up quite a lot during daylight hours, so that the average temperature is above freezing. Many animals have no problem with such conditions, they are active (feeding, for example) during the day and retreat to nests or burrows at night. Do you think this means they will be just fine if the average temperature shifts to the extreme low temperature they currently live under? If they can tolerate one night of 10 degrees below freezing, that means they will be able to survive just fine if the temperature stays at 10 below freezing permanently? Also consider that if the new average is what used to be at the extreme edge of short-term variation, the new extremes will also shift. An organism may be able to tolerate brief exposure to temperatures 20 degrees above the average (lets say the average is 70 and the extreme is 90, for example). If conditions shift so that the new average is, say, 85 (and so still within the limits set by the previous extremes), temperatures will still fluctuate from day to day so now that organism will be exposed to 105 degrees from time to time. Just because it could tolerate the occasional 85 degree day, does that automatically mean it will be able to tolerate 105 degrees?

This is the essence of the argument your "world's best ocean scientist" is making (or at least, the argument the blogger is making based on what the "world's best" wrote). To my mind, that argument is naive and frankly stupid.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 379]

turtlespeed

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/worlds-best-ocean-scientists-confirm-skeptics-correct-ocean-acidifcation-hysteria-is-unwarranted.html

I just went and reread the paper referred to in the blog post you linked. I am quite sure the authors would be horrified to find out how their work is being misrepresented. From the abstract to the paper:

"Knowledge of this spatial and temporal variation in seawater chemistry allows us to improve the design of OA experiments: we can test organisms with a priori expectations of their tolerance guardrails, based on their natural range of exposure. Such hypothesis-testing will provide a deeper understanding of the effects of OA."

Note: OA is "ocean acidification". This is entirely reasonable: determine an organisms "tolerance guardrails" (the environmental extremes they can tolerate), and design OA experiments to take into account anticipated shifts in the range of environmental values, not just the "average". In no way is this saying that OA is not likely to be a problem for marine organisms, and it should not be read that way.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

1880–1889 -0.493 °F
1890–1899 -0.457 °F
1900–1909 -0.466 °F
1910–1919 -0.497 °F
1920–1929 -0.315 °F
1930–1939 -0.0774 °F
1940–1949 +0.0630 °F
1950–1959 -0.0360 °F
1960–1969 -0.0252 °F
1970–1979 -0.00180 °F
1980–1989 +0.317 °F
1990–1999 +0.563 °F
2000–2009 +0.923 °F

I would say that burning so much of the planet in a World War might have had a wee bit of an effect on those readings... Talk about an addition of junk into the atmosphere.