 |
Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered
Steven Goddard
The Register
Monday, Aug 18, 2008
Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet. Some scientists were predicting that the “North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer”. Others predicted that the entire “polar ice cap would disappear this summer”.
The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun is now very low above the horizon and will set for the winter at the North Pole in five weeks. And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Yet there is, however, something odd going on with the ice data.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado released an alarming graph on August 11, showing that Arctic ice was rapidly disappearing, back towards last year’s record minimum. Their data shows Arctic sea ice extent only 10 per cent greater than this date in 2007, and the second lowest on record. Here’s a smaller version of the graph:
(Article continues below)
The problem is that this graph does not appear to be correct. Other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006. Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years. A comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. (2008 is a leap year, so the dates are offset by one.)
The video below highlights the differences between those two dates. As you can see, ice has grown in nearly every direction since last summer – with a large increase in the area north of Siberia. Also note that the area around the Northwest Passage (west of Greenland) has seen a significant increase in ice. Some of the islands in the Canadian Archipelago are surrounded by more ice than they were during the summer of 1980.
The 30 per cent increase was calculated by counting pixels which contain colors representing ice. This is a conservative calculation, because of the map projection used. As the ice expands away from the pole, each new pixel represents a larger area – so the net effect is that the calculated 30 per cent increase is actually on the low side.
So how did NSIDC calculate a 10 per cent increase over 2007? Their graph appears to disagree with the maps by a factor of three (10 per cent vs. 30 per cent) – hardly a trivial discrepancy.
What melts the Arctic?
The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn’t even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss.
We know that Arctic summer ice extent is largely determined by variable oceanic and atmospheric currents such as the Arctic Oscillation. NASA claimed last summer that “not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming”. The media tendency to knee-jerkingly blame everything on “global warming” makes for an easy story – but it is not based on solid science. ®
Bootnote
And what of the Antarctic? Down south, ice extent is well ahead of the recent average. Why isn’t NSIDC making similarly high-profile press releases about the increase in Antarctic ice over the last 30 years?
The author, Steven Goddard, is not affiliated directly or indirectly with any energy industry, nor does he have any current affiliation with any university.
Prison
Planet.tv Members Can Watch
Fall Of The Republic
Right Now Online -
Don't Miss Out! Get
Your Subscription Today!
CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are
"they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU
be the next victim? Learn
the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
32 Responses to “Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered”
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||||
| By N2H | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
August 18th, 2008 at 3:45 am
HOW DEAR THE ARTIC SEA ICE DEFIY THE NWO:
ARTIC SEA ICE.THE NWO HEREBY ORDERS YOU TO COMPLY.
IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO YOU WILL BE ARRESTED AND HELD IN THE UK FOR 42 DAYS WITHOUT CHARGE.
WE THINK THATS HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE FOR YOU TO MELT.
WE HAVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS RIDING ON YOU MELTING SO GET IN LINE AND MELT WILL YOU.
AFTER ALL HOW WILL AL GORE FEED HIS FAMILY.OR DRIVE HIS FLEET OF CARS.
NOBODY WANT’S TO SEE THE IPCC LOOK LIKE A RIGHT LARTHING STOCK.
YOU MUST LEARN TO BE MORE PATRIOTIC TOWORD THE NWO ARTIC ICE.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:56 am
hahaha. If it does not comply with the NWO’s world domination plan they will probably invent some type of shyt to make it melt. These people are loonies. If everyone on this earth knew their real enemies we would not have this problems
August 18th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Maybe the Bush administration will decide to nuke Antarctica into submission for failing to comply with U.N. directives.
That ought to melt a little ice don’t ya think?
August 18th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Looks like the Rothschilds will have to find a new spin. The Nobel Committee isn’t working anymore.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:32 am
The funny thing is when you look at Geography and have a degree in it. Covering palaeoclimates. You realise that humans don’t do much damage to the planet. Volcanoes that become active or explode can do more damage than humans for a year or two. When they erupt the Earths global temperature decreases by up to a degree or two. This is very big.
Humans can’t however have the same impact.
Secondly, the Earth nearly froze over 450-500 Million years ago.
Damn those dinosaurs and they gass guzzling hummers I say.
We go through cycles. Cosmic cycles and solar irradiance output from the Sun does a hell of alot more for us. Precession, tilt and wobble look these up.
Study the stuff, and you will come to a simple conclusion.
I mean its funny how does the temperature go up, even though were using less fuel, recycling everything in site, rationing on electricty, turning off tv’s, lights, using public transport and somehow the temperature goes up. Give me a break.
Were in a cooling phase. Carbon Dioxide lhelps keep the Earth alive.
Fuck the NWO.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Oh, I get it! The ice is NOT melting because of global warming creating a temperature inversion that has also created an increase in UFO sightings all over the world and an increase in swamp gas too.
Every time sea-levels rise, that’s because of global warming, counterwise is true also. Likewise with polar bears, it makes them breed faster, so their numbers are exploding leading to an almost guaranteed extinction. Likewise with global mean temperatures, rises are caused by global warming, and cooling is caused by global warming as well. The rapid cooling of the last 18 months is a SURE sign of global warming. I get it now!
The computer models that clearly predicted that a stratospheric or tropospheric heat island would exist under greenhouse warming have been proved wrong by the Aqua satellite system, but that just shows how bad global warming really is. As global warming is SO POWERFUL that it even reverses the laws of physics. Heat no longer rises to trap more heat, but it falls closer to earth warming the surface faster. The recent rapid cooling clearly presents a massive threat of even greater global warming that the earth will fry to a crisp in only 4 years.
However it may only take 4 months for the earth to be fried to a glowing crisp, if Israel attacks Iran with nukes and kills Russian nuclear experts.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Hey, maybe they could get some of those fake Chinese spectators at the fake Chinese “Olympics” to go up there with blow dryers to fry the defiant ice cap into submission. God knows. there would be enough of ‘em to make it an effective strategy :;
August 18th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
http://video.google.com/videop.....&hl=en
August 18th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Conclusion: Global Warming is *mostly* a well prepared false flag operation creating the need for extra taxes and environmental fees.
Carbon-tax anyone ?
August 19th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Here’s one of the “best” ones I’ve heard in a long time; “insect farts a ‘major contributor to global warming’”
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/sto.....yId=128542
How fucking stupid can these “scientists” get?!?!
Anyway – it reminds me of a campaign they had in China under Mao where they killed millions, if not billions of insects to get ridd of something “bad” I don’t quite remember what it was ecaxtly – but the result of that was a major food shortage the very next year killing a LOT of people.
Now, that wouldn’t be the goal here as well, would it?
No, they’re just worried about “global warming” and they have “good science” to back them up too, not?
August 19th, 2008 at 3:48 am
Oh joy, an article from The Register! This will be easy to debunk, as usual.
So, where to begin? How about:
“Just a few weeks ago, predictions of Arctic ice collapse were buzzing all over the internet.”
Oh my god! Internet rumors may be a load of bull? Say it ain’t so!
“Some scientists were predicting that the “North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer”.”
Were they? Let’s have a look at The Registers source for this:
“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],”
Notice the square brackets? That means the reporter inserted that phrase. No scientist would actually say that, because the North Pole has been ice free in the distant past, back when CO2 was incredibly high and no life lived on Earth, no plants no animals, except in the very warm oceans.
But what were they REALLY saying?
“Firsthand observations and satellite images show that the immediate area around the geographic North Pole is now mostly annual, or first-year, ice—thin new ice that forms each year during the winter freeze. ”
Hmm how could most of the ice be FIRST YEAR, unless it wasn’t there the year before? Also not, they are not saying the entire Arctic would melt, only that the are around the geographic North Pole.
“I would say the ice in the vicinity of the North Pole is primed for melting, and an ice-free North Pole is a good possibility,” Sheldon Drobot, a climatologist at the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at the University of Colorado, said by email.”
Turns out the “prediction” was actually a “possibility”!
“The melt would be mostly symbolic—thicker ice, pushed against the Canadian continental shelf by weather and Earth’s rotation, would still survive the summer.
Recent models suggest that the Arctic won’t see its first completely ice-free summer until somewhere between 2013 and 2030.”
Well, well. What can one say? The Register flat out LIED. So where did this idea the whole Arctic would melt come from?
“Others predicted that the entire “polar ice cap would disappear this summer”.”
Let’s check out THAT source:
“OSLO, Feb. 29 (Xinhua) — The polar cap in the Arctic may well disappear this summer due to the global warming, Dr. Olav Orheim, head of the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat, said on Friday.”
Awesome, they quote an actual scientist who said what The Register claims “others” have said! Is it possible there may be a kernel of truth in this article from The Register?
“”If Norway’s average temperature this year equals that in 2007,the ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging from current conditions,” Orheim said.”
Aw damn, spoke too soon. He didn’t PREDICT it would melt, he said IF temperatures were as high as 2007, then the ice cap will melt.
Fo course that was in February. What do the Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat say now?
“A revised outlook for the Arctic 2008 summer sea ice minimum, shows that ice extent will be below the 2005 level, but not beat the 2007 record.”
http://www.polararet.no/artikl.....8569502.35
So, so far only one scientist actually said anything remotely like what The Register claims. Par for the course, I’m afraid. The Register are renowned for trying to bullshit about AGW and getting caught, not least because as a Tech site, many of their readers have a modicum of intelligence!
So what else has The Register got to say?
“The Arctic melt season is nearly done for this year. The sun is now very low above the horizon and will set for the winter at the North Pole in five weeks.”
How accurate is that unsourced claim?
“And the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, the world’s leading satellite monitor of ice conditions in the Arctic Ocean, is now hedging its earlier bets that this year’s Arctic ice minimum – typically reached in mid-September – would not be as extreme as last year, when 14 million square kilometres of sea ice shrank to just over four million between March and September.”
http://www.canada.com/topics/n.....7018935667
Oops the minimum is usually reached in mid-September! Who would have guessed that the ice would keep melting UNTIL the temperatures went down? I’m sure The Register wanted you to believe the ice would stop melting in ANTICIPATION of the coming winter!
Re-read that quote again though. Then read the next load of crap from The Register:
“And none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Yet there is, however, something odd going on with the ice data.”
That’s right, after BULLSHITTING TO YOU in an attempt to make it seem ice stops melting even though the temperature doesn’t go down, next they want you to believe that the SCIENTISTS are lying because The Register’s lie and the scientists truth can’t BOTH be true! IF YOU BELIEVE THE REGISTER, YOU ARE A RETARD!
Reread the above quote again. The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center originally predicted that Arctic ice minimum wouldn’t be as low as LAST YEARS RECORD LOW. So they did NOT predict it would be a record year, and now, the rate of melt has them changing their minds! The Register LIES every time it “opens it’s mouth” on AGW! They just can’t help themselves, no matter how many times they get caught!
So, how does The Register dispute the NSIDC data?
“The problem is that this graph does not appear to be correct. Other data sources show Arctic ice having made a nice recovery this summer. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center data shows 2008 ice nearly identical to 2002, 2005 and 2006.”
Just off the top of my head, and without checking the validity of these claims (yet) it seems to me that being similar to some of the hottest years on record is not THAT surprising. Remember 2007 was the LOWEST year on record, and that was before La Nina got going!
Now lets check the claim (notice how The Register doesn’t link to THIS information, unlike the NSIDC graph. I wonder why?):
“The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) archives and distributes daily, weekly, and monthly data products from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer – Earth Observing System (AMSR-E) sensor on NASA’s Aqua satellite.”
http://nsidc.org/data/amsre/
Wait, you mean the data from Marshall is what NSIDC uses?
Here is the NASA MSFC page for the AMSR-E instrument on the NASA Aqua satellite:
http://weather.msfc.nasa.gov/AMSR/
Have a look at the top, and you will see a link to NSIDC, which takes you to the page I quoted above. So yes, NSIDC uses MSFC data. So much for The Register’s line of bullshit. Remember, they never linked to the data they claimed to be there!
So, what else?
“Maps of Arctic ice extent are readily available from several sources, including the University of Illinois, which keeps a daily archive for the last 30 years. A comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. (2008 is a leap year, so the dates are offset by one.)”
Then they show two maps. The images are stored on The Register’s server with no link given, so I’ll go find the data for myself.
Here they are:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/c.....070811.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/c.....080812.jpg
Now, why do you think they used their own local copy of the images, with no link to the source? Consider the size of the images in The Register’s article, and ask yourself what you are seeing. Then look at the links above and READ the title for yourself. These are maps of sea ice CONCENTRATION! In reality sea ice doesn’t form one long unbroken sheet. There are thin areas and areas with no ice at all. So the coloured areas show the CONCENTRATION of ice. Have a look at the key’s. The pinkish colours are areas with sea ice concentration from 70% to 100% the reddish colours are areas with 50% to 70% concentration.
Notice now that those two maps show a VERY different set of conditions! The area covered by 70% to 100% of ice is FAR SMALLER in 2008 than 2007, and the area covered by 50% to 70% is FAR LARGER! The reality is, that ice levels on that day were very similar, AND 2007 was the LOWEST ever recorded! Also remember that La Nina has driven down global temperatures this year!
Now do you see why they only showed you small images where you can’t see what they actually show? It’s because the don’t show what The Register claims they show! The Register is LYING, AGAIN!
But also note, they are showing the ice coverage compared to last year. Why not have a look at the same day in 1998, when global mean temperatures were higher, in fact second highest on record:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cg.....mp;sy=2008
The difference is astonishing. Even though it is colder this year, there is still FAR LESS ICE than in 1998. This is because the ice melts and freezes with the changing of the seasons, but as the world continues to warm, more ice melts, and less ice refreezes, so even though it is colder now, there was less ice to melt!
“The video below highlights the differences between those two dates. As you can see, ice has grown in nearly every direction since last summer – with a large increase in the area north of Siberia.”
This video is the result of either intentional lying, or outright retardedness. They treat the whole area as if it was one sheet of ice, which as you can see when you see the full sixe images is not the case. These are MAPS OF COVERAGE, not photos. The colour bands show how much of the surface is covered by ice. The red areas area show where just over half the surface is covered by ice, as I explained above. In other words, this video is a LIE!
To see what the actual AREA covered by ice is, refer to this graph:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/c.....t.area.jpg
You can see that while the AREA covered by ice is higher this year than last, it is lower than at any other time since 1978! By the way, remember how the world is supposed to have been COOLING for the last decade? Look at the ice coverage. For the whole decade it has dropped, with 2008 being over a quarter of a million square Kilometres less than 1998.
So, am I being harsh on The Register? Is it possible that they have added up all the concentrations and calculated an erroneous coverage?
“The 30 per cent increase was calculated by counting pixels which contain colors representing ice. This is a conservative calculation, because of the map projection used. As the ice expands away from the pole, each new pixel represents a larger area – so the net effect is that the calculated 30 per cent increase is actually on the low side.”
The answer is NO. They used a pixel by pixel count to estimate coverage, without taking ANY account of the actual coverage the colours represent, and without getting the ACTUAL coverage numbers from the SAME SOURCE!. The ONLY choices are The Register and this author are retards and can’t read, or they INTENTIONALLY LIED.
Don’t forget, there is at LEAST another three to four weeks of melting to go! Which is why all the scientists who said this year wouldn’t be as bad as last year are starting to waver. At the rate the ice is melting this year it COULD be as bad as last year, once we get to mid September!
“So how did NSIDC calculate a 10 per cent increase over 2007? Their graph appears to disagree with the maps by a factor of three (10 per cent vs. 30 per cent) – hardly a trivial discrepancy.”
Maybe not, if The Register actually calculated the REAL coverage, rather than a bullshit version that simply ignores the data and goes by how the maps LOOK, rather than what they REPRESENT.
“The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn’t even come close.”
Firstly, the NSIDC didn’t forecast anything with anywhere NEAR the absoluteness implied by The Register. Have a look at this news release where they DO make announce their forecast, and you will see they talked of possibilities and probabilities:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/050508.html
They even said that one model suggested a low year but not a record (just like we are seeing – SECOND lowest since 1978). They also explain WHY they said what they did, and you can see that the RATE of melt is what was important – the ice was melting FASTER than last year in April. So with the ice melting faster, and a fair amount of melting to go, it is possible that we WILL hit a record low in SEPTEMBER, which is the time where Arctic ice is at it’s minimum.
“We know that Arctic summer ice extent is largely determined by variable oceanic and atmospheric currents such as the Arctic Oscillation. NASA claimed last summer that “not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming”. The media tendency to knee-jerkingly blame everything on “global warming” makes for an easy story – but it is not based on solid science.”
Actually, go to the link and once again you find that The Register is misleading you, although more blatantly than normal. You don’t even need to check the source to see that the scientists are saying “not ALL the LARGE changes”. The emphasis shows where the reality is SOME of the LARGE changes are due to Global Warming, and it is also likely that SOME of the SMALL changes are also due to Global Warming, just not ALL of them. In any case what else do they say?:
“Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. “The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world,” he said.”
So, even though not ALL of the large changes now are from Global Warming, MORE of them will be as time goes on! The Register sticks true to form to the very last paragraph.
But wait, there’s more!
“And what of the Antarctic? Down south, ice extent is well ahead of the recent average. Why isn’t NSIDC making similarly high-profile press releases about the increase in Antarctic ice over the last 30 years?”
What, Antarctic sea ice is only half a million square Kilometres more than than the 1979-2000 mean during a particularly cold El Nina affected Southern Hemisphere winter? Is that ALL?
To put this bullshit into perspective:
“Recent climate change has driven significant changes in the physical and living environment of the Antarctic. Environmental change is most apparent in the Antarctic Peninsula, where climate change has been largest.”
“Melting of perennial snow and ice covers has resulted in increased colonisation by plants9. A long-term decline in the abundance of Antarctic krill in the SW Atlantic sector of the southern ocean may be associated with reduced sea ice cover”
“Large changes have occurred in the ice cover of the Peninsula. Many glaciers have retreated11 and around 10 ice shelves that formerly fringed the Peninsula have been observed to retreat in recent years12 and some have collapsed completely. Furthermore, 87% of glaciers along the west coast of the AP have retreated in the last 50 years, and in the last 12 years most have accelerated. The Antarctic Peninsula is contributing to sea-level rise, at about the same rate as Alaska Glaciers.”
“Analysis of global measurements of atmospheric CO2 indicates that the Southern Ocean carbon sink has weakened significantly since 1981. This reduction in the capacity of the ocean to absorb CO2 has been attributed to increased upwelling of carbon-rich waters associated with strengthening of the westerly winds19. Although future changes in the ability of the Southern Ocean to sequester CO2 are not completely known, this will be a key factor that helps shape global climate.”
“What further changes can we expect over the next 100 years?
If we make assumptions about how greenhouse gas emissions are likely to change, we can use climate models to predict how Antarctic climate may respond over the coming century. Models predict a warming of a few degrees celsius over much of continental Antarctica. However, as mean temperatures over most of the continent are well below freezing, even this warming will not greatly increase loss of ice from the continent through melting. Indeed, increases in snowfall resulting from a warmer atmosphere (which can hold more water vapour) may actually thicken the Antarctic ice sheets.
Warming is also predicted in and over the oceans surrounding Antarctica. As a result, sea ice cover may decline by around 25% (although there are considerable uncertainties associated with this prediction). Where warmer ocean waters come into contact with the continental ice sheets, loss of ice from the continent will be accelerated.
Although stratospheric ozone levels are predicted to recover as a result of implementation of the Montreal Protocol (and its subsequent revisions), model predictions indicate that the circumpolar westerly winds will continue to strengthen as the effects of increasing greenhouse gases outweigh those of reducing ozone. Further change associated with strengthening winds may be expected in the Southern Ocean environment, including, possibly, further reduction in the strength of the Southern Ocean carbon sink.”
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk//b.....change.php
That is how REAL scientists describe what is going on in the Antarctic. Basically climate models predict a warming over the next century, but the uncertainties due to the lack of long term knowledge of Antarctica are quite large. There is definitely climate change going on, but we can not as yet attribute that change to purely anthropogenic influences with certainty.
This is not the case with much of the world, where long time records and understanding of the local climate are much greater.
—-
@The commenters
Most of you are total retards. I found all this information simply by following the links in The Register’s article or by running Google searches based on the information provided. You COULD have done it too, so why didn’t you?
Also, having thoroughly debunked what The Register claimed, will all of you continue to trust this source in the future? Or will you now make sure to VERIFY their claims yourself, like I just did?
I know I stopped trusting The Register a long time ago. You should too.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:00 am
The little campaign in China I was trying to remember there was called the Great Sparrow War – see http://fatfinch.wordpress.com/…..rrow-wars/
To get ridd of sparrows – for they had an “evil” habbit of eating grain and grain seeds – Mao wanted to kill insects among other things too and the result of that was 35 million people dead.
My guess is that the common people went along for they just didn’t know any better – just like with this AGW-crap today – and the scientiests there went along too – just like today – because they knew there’d be less “useless eaters” once they were done with it.
And I mean it’s not like the elite would have trouble feedíng themsleves during a food shortage, would they?
August 19th, 2008 at 5:48 am
KarmaFACE – you put quite a lot of effort to “debunk” something that is supposed to be “so easy”. Besides – going thru all that crap, I’m not exactly sure what it is that you wanted to “debunk” – “North-Pole isn’t supposed to melt after all – and due to AGW” – or what?
But anyway – even the National Geographic had the original article titled “North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer”.
So,who’s making a possible “mistake” here – the Register which is refering to an article from the highly respected (?) National Geographic – or National Geographic who published the original article – or the scientist who talks like any scientist out there who wants and needs more grants to continue his hobby in the fields of “science” – or you, the eternal AGW-samurai trying to focus on the NON-issues instead of the actual issue, and which, by the way, was “North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer” versus “Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered”?
True – both sides use questionable tactics – yet the AGW-people do it more often – hence the reaction – and in fact, you’re one prime example of that yourself.
Now, google “Scientists: North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer” and you come up with 92.700 pages refering to this “rumour” – and – starting with that National Geographic article quoting this specific David Barber, of the University of Manitoba: “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” – and indeed – notice the square brackets.
The Register wasn’t the original source here – the Register didn’t even use that specific sentence in their article – it was Aalok Mehta, journalist of the National Geographic who “put” the words into the mouth of the scientist and used it in the article.
Then again – I wasn’t there – you weren’t there – so, it’s really your interpretation against the interpretation made by A. Mehta.
Yet, this all is beside the point – though you oughta write a letter to editor of NG, if you have trouble with the quote used there, for pissing here would be pissing on the wrong sneakers – if you know what I mean – and for the wrong reasons too.
The NG also states – but which you obviously didn’t care to quote – that “Scientists are particularly interested in the North and South Poles because they are expected to show the most dramatic effects of global warming.”
So, as for the melting of the North Pole – and which was the actual issue here – well, I’m still waiting… and waiting… and waiting… though I’m glad you’re here providing the entertainment ’til that actually happens, karmaCLOWN.
Ps. if you’d live closer to the polar circle – like I do – you’d know – and even without any scientific background – that with less or very little sunlight the melting of ice and snow slows down dramatically – not forgetting the fact that up there, the temperatures aren’t very high to start with – and – that during the longer and longer nights the temperatures go very easily – and regularly – below freezing point, slowing down the melting process even more. But hey – you wouldn’t know that for the sun ain’t even shining there where you are, right BUTTkaze?
Pps. Don’t they ever let you out – you know for fresh air, water, sunlight and a piss? Is that why you’re like that?
August 19th, 2008 at 11:08 am
This article is absolutely ridiculous.
The sea ice extent in 2008 is far below the 1979-2000 average :
http://nsidc.org/images/arctic.....igure2.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_i.....series.png
The year 2007 was the worst of all times.
So please : don’t tell lies and stupid things ! What you are claiming is NOT scientific : this is just propaganda.
Kind regards
Daniel
August 19th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
The decision by the government to distribute Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth has been the subject of a legal action by New Party member Stewart Dimmock. The Court found that the film was misleading in nine respects and that the Guidance Notes drafted by the Education Secretary’s advisors served only to exacerbate the political propaganda in the film.
In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
I found Dr. Carters testimony in this court case very interesting reading.
http://www.newparty.co.uk/User.....tement.pdf
August 19th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Daniel – the Northeast Passage was open in 1905, 1940-1942 and again in 1945. Last year the Passage was (emphasis ADDED) “NEARLY ice-free” according to http://earthobservatory.nasa.g.....g_id=14547
At http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6995999.stm
there is an “ARCTIC ICE RETREAT” animation showing also the “median ice edge” at the North Pole between 1980-2007. (Animation by NSIDC)
There it’s clear to see that “retreat” really didn’t start until 1998 – as ’til then there seems to be ice beyond the “median ice edge” rather than less – and even compared to the years with actual “retreat”, the year 2007 looks really “unusual”. But then again – it really wasn’t that unsual and it will happen again for sure – with and even without antropogenic C02.
Ps. you may want to read about the “history” of modern climate change(s) at http://www.businessandmedia.or.....andice.asp
August 19th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Ed. I’m starting to think that the krazykarma dude lives on Stewart Island. A remote tiny island at the southern most point of New Zealand. He mentioned in another post that he has never owned a car (no cars on Stewart Island). I suspect this is because he wasn’t smart enough to pass the driving test. And yeh, I also wonder whether his care givers let him out for fresh air and sunshine. Apparently not! Stand by, another ream of tirades are about to issue forth from his venomous mouth…
August 19th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
People are so stupid, they would still believe the global warming lie while freezing.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
crisis, what crisis..
Are we too stupid to know bullshit anymore?
the sky is falling, send us a few billion and we will fix it…
Stop being stupid-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V5iCUBEUx4
God bless America(even the stupid ones)
GS
August 19th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Paul T – what I’m suspecting is that this KiwiFruit is actually a disinfo-warrior who gets paid for being the asshole that he is.
And I mean you come across these people everywhere – on every site similar to PP with an AGW-sceptical stand – you also have at least one non-stop 24/7 BS-generator who appears to know the science, yet they always keep it in that little box of theirs as if they were following a manual on how to avoid the issue and how to distract people.
And I KNOW there are manuals for AGW-activist on how to answer “tough” questions “correctly” – meaning that you’ll sound like an expert without even having to understand the issue.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:33 am
@Ed Concern
“KarmaFACE – you put quite a lot of effort to “debunk” something that is supposed to be “so easy”. Besides – going thru all that crap, I’m not exactly sure what it is that you wanted to “debunk” – “North-Pole isn’t supposed to melt after all – and due to AGW” – or what?”
Firstly, Retard, a lot of information does NOT equal a lot of work. It took longer to type that post than it did to gather the information that it contains.
YOUR posts on the other hand ARE a lot of work. You have to search high and low to fins some source as retarded as you, and even then half the time they don’t show what you think they show.
As for what I was showing by my post, first, it’s obvious to anyone with a brain, second, for people like you without a brain let me summarise: The Register LIED when they said scientists were PREDICTING that the Arctic would be ice free. The Register LIED when they presented their “evidence”. The truth is that Arctic sea ice extent is the second lowest in recorded history, ALREADY, and there is still about a month of melting to go.
Is that simple enough for you, retard? That was the basic premise, that I thoroughly documented so even idiots like YOU couldn’t argue it. Or so I thought. I guess I underestimated just how stupid you are.
“But anyway – even the National Geographic had the original article titled “North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer”.”
OK let me give you an English lesson. The word “may” used in this context indicates a POSSIBILITY. For example, you MAY be a genius playing a joke on us. That IS a possibility, but, it is LIKELY that you are just a retard.
Second point: that title referred to the “North Pole” a specific geographic location within the Arctic. In the article it clearly states that the scientist was talking about THAT location, NOT the whole Arctic. Thanks for proving yet again how much of a retard you are.
“So,who’s making a possible “mistake” here – the Register”
End of sentence. read my post again, or read the National Geographic article again. Either way you will see:
“The melt would be mostly symbolic—thicker ice, pushed against the Canadian continental shelf by weather and Earth’s rotation, would still survive the summer.
Recent models suggest that the Arctic won’t see its first completely ice-free summer until somewhere between 2013 and 2030.”
Look at that last sentence. THAT is the PREDICTION. Ice free somewhere between 2013 and 2030. The Register LIED, and they even linked to the PROOF they lied! That is how retarded THEY are. The fact you REFUSE to see it shows how retarded YOU are.
“True – both sides use questionable tactics – yet the AGW-people do it more often – hence the reaction – and in fact, you’re one prime example of that yourself.”
BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT!
ONE side uses questionable tactics – LYING – YOUR side. Not ONE of the scientists The Register quoted said what The Register claimed they said. They talked of possibilities and probabilities. It was POSSIBLE the Arctic could be ice free, but as they said, it was PROBABLE that it would not even be a new record low. THE REGISTER LIED!!!!!! Get that through your think fucking skull, retard.
“Now, google “Scientists: North Pole may be ice-free for first time this summer””
Get an English dictionary and look up the word “may” retard! They did NOT say it WILL be ice free, they said MAY be ice free. WILL expresses certainty, MAY expresses possibility.
The fact is, based on early indicators it WAS POSSIBLE. As time went on, it became clear that it WASN’T. The Register has tried to turn the word MAY into the word WILL, in order to bolster their anti-AGW stance. They LIED.
““We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],” – and indeed – notice the square brackets.
The Register wasn’t the original source here – the Register didn’t even use that specific sentence in their article – it was Aalok Mehta, journalist of the National Geographic who “put” the words into the mouth of the scientist and used it in the article.”
Once again, notice the word MAY, and yes, brackets like that means the AUTHOR inserted that into the quote, The person didn’t SAY that! That is why it is in brackets. These are usually used to clarify the meaning of what was said, but they can also be misused to CHANGE the meaning. In this case, the National Geographic reporter was the one to change the meaning. What the scientist probably said was more akin to “first time in recorded history”. There is a difference, but this reporter may have not realised that.
I never claimed that The Register made that error, though. Here is what I said before I quoted the quote:
“Let’s have a look at The Registers source for this:”
I was referring to the source of The Register’s quote, and correcting the wrong impression that “clarification” gave. So what is your point in simply confirming what I said?
What I was blaming on The Register is what I am STILL blaming on The Register. The National Geographic article CONTRADICTED (”first completely ice-free summer until somewhere between 2013 and 2030″) the claim The Register made (”Others predicted that the entire “polar ice cap would disappear this summer”.”)
Notice the word The Register used “would” not “may” which is what ALL the scientists used. The Register intentionally LIED about what scientists were saying in order to fool you into thinking they PREDICTED such an event. They didn’t, in fact the most accurate models predicted exactly what we have seen.
BUT, they DID say it was a POSSIBILITY. However, The Register, can’t claim the scientists were wrong if they only called it a POSSIBILITY, so The Register had to lie and change what the scientists said! It is that simple.
“Then again – I wasn’t there – you weren’t there – so, it’s really your interpretation against the interpretation made by A. Mehta.”
Maybe so, but it was still the wrong impression, and, as I said above, I corrected it. The correct version of that quote would be:
“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in recorded history]”
It is a subtle but important difference, because the very first POSSIBLE person to reach the North Pole was in 1909, and the first flight was in 1926. So we really have no idea what may have happened in the immediate vicinity of the North Pole any further back than that. We can infer what may have happened, but prior to 1900, it is really quite speculative. Remember, Global Warming began in the 1800’s. So at least a few decades of warming occurred before anyone ever got to the North Pole.
Even after that time, regular observations of the Pole were not to occur until well into the 20th Century. So MAYBE it has melted before, but not in the time we can be SURE about.
“Yet, this all is beside the point – though you oughta write a letter to editor of NG, if you have trouble with the quote used there, for pissing here would be pissing on the wrong sneakers – if you know what I mean – and for the wrong reasons too.”
One paragraph. I wrote ONE paragraph to correct the wrong impression given by that bracketed phrase. YOU wrote three to, well, I guess dispute, my ONE paragraph. YOU are the one making a big deal about it, and I’m damned if I can figure out why.
The fact we have such a short period of observations of that area should be a part of YOUR argument! We don’t really know if the North Pole melting would be anything special! It would be the first time WE have SEEN it, but it is certainly not the first time IN HISTORY (as in the entire history of the planet), and it may not even be the first time in the last 200 years, let alone the last 1000.
But that is just how retarded you AGW deniers are. When there IS a case to be made that exaggeration is happening, all of you MISS it, instead focusing on LIES that don’t prove ANYTHING! It’s funny really. The best anti-AGW argument made on this thread came from ME
I’m even better at making YOUR argument than YOU! LOL!
Feel free to use it any time Ed, because I also know how to overcome THAT argument!
“The NG also states – but which you obviously didn’t care to quote – that “Scientists are particularly interested in the North and South Poles because they are expected to show the most dramatic effects of global warming.””
Yes, they are – over the next century or so. One year is not enough time to make ANY conclusions either way, which is why the scientists don’t use such short periods of time. Have a look at the sea ice extent graph I linked to in my first post. THAT is where you see the long term trend, and THAT shows that in recorded history, current sea ice extent is the second lowest, and that is after a very warm 2007, and during a colder La Nina affected 2008! It is even lower than the MUCH warmer El Nino affected 1998! What will happen when the next El Nino kicks in?
“So, as for the melting of the North Pole – and which was the actual issue here – well, I’m still waiting… and waiting… and waiting… though I’m glad you’re here providing the entertainment ’til that actually happens, karmaCLOWN.”
Wait, are you talking about the ACTUAL North Pole, or are you talking about the ENTIRE Arctic sea ice? If the former, it may still happen this year. If the latter, you will probably have to wait until at least 2013 like the scientists REALLY predict. Retard.
“Ps. if you’d live closer to the polar circle – like I do – you’d know – and even without any scientific background – that with less or very little sunlight the melting of ice and snow slows down dramatically”
SLOWS DOWN. You just proved my point idiot. SLOWS DOWN does NOT mean STOPS or REVERSES. Jesus, you are stupid. The melting in April was THREE TIMES faster than April last year, and thus it is reasonable to assume that even late in the season, the melting is FASTER than the same time last year. It may not be, but you can be DAMNED sure it hasn’t STOPPED, like The Register wants you to believe.
“But hey – you wouldn’t know that for the sun ain’t even shining there where you are, right BUTTkaze?”
Idiot. You truly are dense. You even said yourself that the ice keeps melting and you think you have proved me wrong somehow? Retard.
“Pps. Don’t they ever let you out – you know for fresh air, water, sunlight and a piss? Is that why you’re like that?”
Owning your own business gives you a lot of free time (if you’re good at it, that is), and even when I AM working, as the boss I can spend as much time here making fun of retards like you as I want. But thanks for your concern, retard.
—-
@Ed Concern 2
“There it’s clear to see that “retreat” really didn’t start until 1998″
What is your point? Would it make any difference to your argument if it started in 1988? Of course not. Remember, the period since 1998 has been the hottest ever recorded. So, the heat finally got to the level that the Arctic ice cap has begun to melt. I really don’t see what you are trying to say this proves? I guess that is because I am not a retard.
“and even compared to the years with actual “retreat”, the year 2007 looks really “unusual”.”
No shit, it was the lowest ever recorded. That is why no one really expected it to be as bad this year. So far, it hasn’t. It’s only been the SECOND worst ever recorded. I still don’t see your point, but, I’s still not a retard either.
“But then again – it really wasn’t that unsual and it will happen again for sure – with and even without antropogenic C02.”
Well, it WILL happen WITH anthropogenic CO2, but I’d like to know how you think it could happen without it. I’m sure you must have some cause in mind that NO ONE else, not the scientists, not the deniers, NO ONE, has thought of. I’m not even expecting evidence for that cause, just some indication of what that cause might be.
I mean really, you show evidence that proves that the warming world is finally melting the Arctic ice, then claim that it has nothing to do with the warming world. How retarded can you get?
“Ps. you may want to read about the “history” of modern climate change(s) at”
I might take this guy more seriously if he knew the difference between “weather” and “whether”! Actually, no I wouldn’t. These guys are free market libertarians – you know, the ones demanding free trade agreements like NAFTA and the NAU? The ones who think it’s just swell to send our jobs to China and other nations where basically slave labour is used. The ones who believe Enron should NOT have been regulated. Yep, THOSE retards.
Secondly, what difference does it make how many times the MEDIA has made a big fuss over threatened climate change? The fact is, over the whole time these idiots are talking about the climate WAS changing! The end result was not known, but even back then they KNEW it was changing!
Jesus this particular argument is one of the stupidest. The deniers act like climate change is an unproven science that has only just sprung up, then complain that for OVER A HUNDRED YEARS scientists have been warning us that we are changing the climate! Just because the end result wasn’t known a hundred years ago doesn’t mean that the science back then was WRONG!
Here is how it worked. For most of the last century, we knew that climate was changing. We also knew that there were TWO competing factors in play – atmospheric particulates, that cool the world, and Greenhouse Gases that warm the world. With the very dirty pollution we were making it seemed that particulates would win the fight, but as time went on and we understood the world’s climate better, we realised that the warming associated with the Greenhouse effect would soon outstrip the cooling from particulates, and it did.
Where is the controversy? The MEDIA sold advertising by creating sensations, but the science was simply getting better and better all the time. The MEDIA is still either sensationalising or downplaying the threat, but the SCIENCE is real. What the MEDIA does is not the fault of the scientists! Now, the MEDIA is trying to deny the SCIENCE because of what the MEDIA did!
It is thoroughly dishonest, and anyone falling for that bullshit is a retard.
—-
@Paul T
“Ed. I’m starting to think that the krazykarma dude lives on Stewart Island.”
I’ve told people before, in fact I believe I’ve told YOU. I live in Rotorua. You can speculate all you want, but unlike you retards I don’t need to lie.
“He mentioned in another post that he has never owned a car (no cars on Stewart Island).”
Wow, considering you think I am having no effect, the fact you remembered that shows that I am!
Yes, I’ve never owned a car. I use public transport when necessary, or at various times bicycles or my own two feet. Saves me a MINT. No one has increased the price of walking by 500%!
“I suspect this is because he wasn’t smart enough to pass the driving test.”
AHAHAHA More of that retard logic. I said I’ve never owned a car. I never said I have never had a drivers license! I let mine lapse after they required us to pay for a new photo license. I didn’t see the point of paying for something I never actually used.
“And yeh, I also wonder whether his care givers let him out for fresh air and sunshine. Apparently not! Stand by, another ream of tirades are about to issue forth from his venomous mouth…”
Aw poor Pauly boy! He can’t actually win the argument and so has nothing but ad hominem attacks to offer. Go fuck yourself Pauly boy… that’s what wankers do best!
August 20th, 2008 at 3:20 am
Basically, both sides are lying. It’s quite suspicious how this Clown ‘n Circus Show keeps flaring up whenever it seems a scientist or journalist is getting some media attention by showing the careful, thought-out and un-stimulated debate that should be waged to solve this problem.
I have plans to get some land and grow my own food. Also switching to self-sufficient energy creation to keep my house off the radar.
August 20th, 2008 at 3:54 am
@Ed Concern
“Paul T – what I’m suspecting is that this KiwiFruit is actually a disinfo-warrior who gets paid for being the asshole that he is.”
AHAHAHA! How did I KNOW you were going to eventually resort to the last defence of the retard? No, I am NOT an “Agent of the NWO”, but of course if I was, I would say that too.
But seriously, do you really think “the NWO” would think this site and the retards who seem to be it’s sole viewers are any threat? Jesus, if they DO, then THEY are even BIGGER retards!
I used to come here to see the stuff you couldn’t see in the MSM. Now Prison Planet is FULL of the same bullshit, and you idiots lap it up. If ANYONE is the “disinfo-warrior” around here it is the editors of this site. ALL they “print” are articles showing how “powerful” (killer robots, spies in the sky, etc) the elites are, and how weak (being beaten, tasered, locked up) WE are.
Never do you see ANYTHING that could be used to actually FIGHT the elites, like for example that story about the MIT solar energy break through. Nope, just more of the killer robots and fascist cops, and financial manipulation etc etc etc
We all KNOW they are “evil”, so what can we DO about it? That question is NEVER answered here. Well except for bullshit about stocking up on weapons and food (defeatism and possibly even agent provocateur).
Why should WE give in? Why are the only choices prison camps or civil war? Why is there NOTHING here about our real power – the power to just say “no more”? There are FAR more of us than of them, and we don’t even need guns. All we need is for people to STOP being their Kapos!
Well, when the public are told that they are powerless (as is the firm message here) then some of them will choose to side with the powerful.
“And I mean you come across these people everywhere – on every site similar to PP with an AGW-sceptical stand – you also have at least one non-stop 24/7 BS-generator who appears to know the science, yet they always keep it in that little box of theirs as if they were following a manual on how to avoid the issue and how to distract people.
And I KNOW there are manuals for AGW-activist on how to answer “tough” questions “correctly” – meaning that you’ll sound like an expert without even having to understand the issue.”
AHAHA. Oh really? Show us one of these manuals – it would be fun to see how much of it I am doing without realising it.
One last thing. Does anyone else ever notice that when I prove these guys wrong, the next step is for them to talk amongst themselves about how I must be an agent or brainwashed or ANYTHING to avoid admitting that they can’t prove me wrong?
Happens every time.
—-
@JEH
“People are so stupid, they would still believe the global warming lie while freezing.”
Welcome to the retard list, you’re in “good” company!
—-
By the way, did anyone else notice that Alan, who seemed to claim he had a degree in Geography covering paleoclimates, never came back to prove me wrong? I would so have loved to debate someone actually clever enough to put up a good fight. I still would have won, but at least it may have been a challenge
August 20th, 2008 at 4:23 am
@Leir
“Basically, both sides are lying.”
No they are not. ONE side is lying, and the other side is telling the truth. The only way the truth gets out is through the mouthpieces CONTROLLED BY THE LIARS – the MEDIA. So of course the media always distorts what the scientists are saying, just so they can pull one of the rogues gallery of liars and deniers out and seem to “disprove” the truth!
“It’s quite suspicious how this Clown ‘n Circus Show keeps flaring up whenever it seems a scientist or journalist is getting some media attention by showing the careful, thought-out and un-stimulated debate that should be waged to solve this problem.”
Exactly. The problem you seem to be having is recognising that the MEDIA is on the anti-AGW side. Once you see that, all the bullshit they pull becomes clear as day. Here is the simple recipe:
A scientist tells us something
The media takes that and pushes it beyond what the scientist said
The media finds an “opposing voice” for “balance”
The “opposing voice” then “disproves” the claim made by the media (ie more than what the scientist actually said)
The public thinks the scientist has been disproved.
It happens over and over and over again.
A big beat up of an often offhand remark such as “the Arctic ice cap MAY melt completely this year” but downplays the rest of the comment “but it is LIKELY to be not as bad as last year”. Then waits for the REAL prediction (the one with LIKELY in it) to come true, then makes an even BIGGER fuss over the fact the worst case scenario didn’t happen.
This article is a PRIME example of that process.
In print media this is easily seen. They know that the headline and the first paragraph is what most people read. Some also read the last paragraph. So if you want to bury something, you put it in the MIDDLE of the article. That way they can’t be accused of lying (they DID tell you the truth, they just relied on you not reading it) and yet they can leave you with a misleading impression of what ever the article was about.
It works a similar way in the audiovisual media. The top of the story is the over hyped crap, the middle puts the truth in an offhand way, and then the end reiterates the over hyped crap.
“I have plans to get some land and grow my own food. Also switching to self-sufficient energy creation to keep my house off the radar.”
Here is an article you may be interested in then, but Prison Planet seemingly doesn’t want you to know:
“Until now, solar power has been a daytime-only energy source, because storing extra solar energy for later use is prohibitively expensive and grossly inefficient. With today’s announcement, MIT researchers have hit upon a simple, inexpensive, highly efficient process for storing solar energy.
Requiring nothing but abundant, non-toxic natural materials, this discovery could unlock the most potent, carbon-free energy source of all: the sun. “This is the nirvana of what we’ve been talking about for years,” said MIT’s Daniel Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy at MIT and senior author of a paper describing the work in the July 31 issue of Science. “Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon.”"
“Nocera hopes that within 10 years, homeowners will be able to power their homes in daylight through photovoltaic cells, while using excess solar energy to produce hydrogen and oxygen to power their own household fuel cell. Electricity-by-wire from a central source could be a thing of the past.”
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/.....-0731.html
Ask yourself why Prison Planet isn’t ALL OVER this story. Look at that last sentence. Why stands to lose BIG TIME, if we stop paying them for our electricity needs?
So why is Prison Planet not interested? Why have we had a half dozen bullshit stories claiming AGW is a fraud since this press release, but the ONLY time this story has ever been on Prison Planet is when I have posted it in the comments?
Even the MSM has covered it:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1112.....l?hhTest=1
http://uk.reuters.com/article/.....1020080731
http://www.economist.com/scien.....d=11880474
But the only thing even close to this is a bullshit story about bioengineering that suggest putting even MORE pollution into the air will solve the problem!
August 20th, 2008 at 6:14 am
KanGURU from Kiwiland: “a lot of information does NOT equal a lot of work. ”
I agree – and though to me it seems that your posts are more about insulting others than it is about information – let alone real information.
KanGURU: “YOUR posts on the other hand ARE a lot of work. You have to search high and low to fins some source as retarded as you, and even then half the time they don’t show what you think they show.”
So far it has all been just a couple of clicks away. Still – how would you know – you said you’re not even interested in the sources I provide?
On the Register – no, they didn’t lie – they quoted other sources and produced a critical article on these predictions. And I don’t know how you interpret the word “predict” but some scientist indeed said it was a 50-50 chance.
Now, a 50-50 prediction is a quite convenient one to make – either way, you can say “I told you so” afterwards – yet they managed to get a few alarmist-style headlines all over the world and which was their main purpose anyway.
And by “recorded history” – you probably mean the time-frame of 1978-2007 – and which is all you AGW-satellites seem to know of and in terms of ice-melting in the arctic. However, there has been less ice there 5 times since 1900 – and prior to 1978 when you AGW-people entered space – liturally.
KanGURU: “Second point: that title referred to the “North Pole” a specific geographic location within the Arctic. In the article it clearly states that the scientist was talking about THAT location, NOT the whole Arctic. Thanks for proving yet again how much of a retard you are.”
Sorry but no – they refered to the entire region by that – it wasn’t even just the Northeast Passage and which was “nearly” open last year, but the region as a whole.
And BTW – wouldn’t it be kinda odd to say “ONLY the North Pole in the MIDDLE of it all might melt this year – while everything else AROUND it might not”?
KanGURU: “Recent models suggest that the Arctic won’t see its first completely ice-free summer until somewhere between 2013 and 2030.”
And how convenient that is – few years ago it wasn’t supposed to happen in decades – then they made some quick adjustments and voila – the models seem surprisingly realistic again. Does that surprise me? Well, not really.
KanGURU: “They did NOT say it WILL be ice free, they said MAY be ice free. WILL expresses certainty, MAY expresses possibility.”
Of course they say that – they talked about weather and which isn’t possible to predict even for the next day with absolute accuracy – let alone for next year or beyond.
KanGURU: “The fact is, based on early indicators it WAS POSSIBLE. As time went on, it became clear that it WASN’T.”
Exactly – yet some climatologists keep saying, that because it was warmer last year, it’ll most likely be even warmer next year. And because there is more C02 today that there was yesterday – there will be even more tomorrow. But as time goes on, it becomes clear that this is not a realiable way to make predictions in the first place.
KanGURU: “In this case, the National Geographic reporter was the one to change the meaning. What the scientist probably said was more akin to “first time in recorded history”..”
… and the “recorded history” being 1978-2007, maybe?
KanGURU: “the most accurate models predicted exactly what we have seen.”
Well, if you have enough models that you can play with it’s pretty much guaranteed that at least ONE of them turns out to be accurate. But that has nothing to do with science – it’s all about computer programming.
KanGURU: “We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in recorded history]”
Yes – with a 50-50 chance which again is BIG in terms of North Pole. And now using the main AGW-climatologists’ logic here, it should happen next year for sure, since it didn’t happen this year…
KanGURU: “One year is not enough time to make ANY conclusions either way, which is why the scientists don’t use such short periods of time.”
Well, sorry but they made A conclusion – the 50-50 chance and based primarely on last year’s ice cover. So, there you have a conclusion and which is conveniently BOTH ways, by the way.
Now, a good scientist doesn’t make ANY PREDICTIONS, for that’s not really their job, is it?
KanGURU: “Have a look at the sea ice extent graph I linked to in my first post. THAT is where you see the long term trend, and THAT shows that in recorded history, current sea ice extent is the second lowest, and that is after a very warm 2007, and during a colder La Nina affected 2008! It is even lower than the MUCH warmer El Nino affected 1998! What will happen when the next El Nino kicks in?”
Well, go and ask your models – ONE of them will know “for sure”.
KanGURU: “Idiot. You truly are dense. You even said yourself that the ice keeps melting and you think you have proved me wrong somehow? Retard.”
My point was that there isn’t a whole lot of sun up there anymore to cause significant melting. It’s the sun, shithead, that makes the ice melt there – and there just isn’t a whole lot of that up there this time of year.
The average temperature there in the MIDDLE of the summer is around zero – and we’re way beyond mid-summer, aren’t we? The only thing that might cause any “significant melting” would be the winds breaking the ice into smaller pieces – not the average temperature which already is below zero.
KanGURU: “Owning your own business gives you a lot of free time (if you’re good at it, that is),
It’s not an AGW-consulting-type of a business by any chance, is it? And I mean, with your shitty attitude it’s hard to believe you could get any other clients than AGW-freaks like yourself.
KanGURU: “What is your point? Would it make any difference to your argument if it started in 1988? Of course not. Remember, the period since 1998 has been the hottest ever recorded.”
For what I know, it has not been the hottest period. I believe it was the 1930’s or something – or the medieval warm period. But since NASA didn’t exist then yet, they never happened, I guess.
KanGURU: “No shit,[2007] was the lowest ever recorded.”
No, it was the lowest ever recorded by NASA. Last year The Northest Passage was “nearly” open, yet there are other records that show the Passage has actually been open for navigation 5 times during the last century. Now, one might assume that if C02 causes global warming, it would have happened more often and especially in the past decades.
KanGURU: “I mean really, you show evidence that proves that the warming world is finally melting the Arctic ice, then claim that it has nothing to do with the warming world. How retarded can you get?”
Now, tell me – at what point have I denied the possible warming of one degree celsius in the past century? I haven’t – for one – it’s well within natural variation – two – it’s also within a margin of error and in terms or measuring temperatures – and three – it’s the C02-BS that I’m opposed to. Get it?
KanGURU: “I might take this guy more seriously if he knew the difference between “weather” and “whether”! Actually, no I wouldn’t. These guys are free market libertarians – you know, the ones demanding free trade agreements like NAFTA and the NAU? The ones who think it’s just swell to send our jobs to China and other nations where basically slave labour is used. The ones who believe Enron should NOT have been regulated. Yep, THOSE retards.”
What does that have to do with the history of climate change(s)?
See, I don’t judge the book by looking at its’ cover, but which is what you do on a regular basis.
KanGURU: “Secondly, what difference does it make how many times the MEDIA has made a big fuss over threatened climate change? The fact is, over the whole time these idiots are talking about the climate WAS changing! The end result was not known, but even back then they KNEW it was changing!”
Nobody is denying climate CHANGE, you stupid fuck. It’s the AGW-part that is being questioned here.
Also – on the “end result” – tell me which AGW-”science” book has a chapter dealing with an “end result”?
What fucking “end-result”?!
Oh, “end result” as in “final solution”, I hope not?
August 20th, 2008 at 8:27 am
KanGURU: “Show us one of these manuals – it would be fun to see how much of it I am doing without realising it.”
I have one – it’s 20 pages long and in Finnish. But nowdays you can find these “right answers to the wrong questions” on the internet as most of the pro-AGW websites have “how-to-debunk-everything” pages very similar to the “manual” I have.
Give me your address, and I’ll airmail it to you…
August 20th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Wrong again krazykarma. You’ve never mentioned once to me that you live in NZ. But to find out for yourself you’d have to spend days going over all the volumes of utter retarded crap you’ve spewed out on this forum and I suspect even a retarded dunce like you wouldn’t want to waste his time. You have convinced NO-ONE about your retarded ideas. We, the sane ones in society can expect nothing from you except the same old retarded bullshit, rehashed, rewritten, copied and pasted…..whatever it takes for you to spin your retarded agenda. You’re a retard. In fact you’re a retarded retard. What global warming are you experiencing in Rotorua? Has the sea risen up and drowned half the town? Has all the snow on the mountains melted and flooded the other half? Are people huddled inside next to their airconditioning units because it’s just TOO HOT to go outside? Nothing right? Nothing? Just like your frikkin intelligence you cut and paste retarded wanker. Full of shit. 100% shit and nothing but shit! Retard!!
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
KarmaGeddon – I told you they had the little greenhouse in that story, didn’t I?
But I also knew you’d go back “hiding in it” again for that’s what you cherrypicking, nitfucking AGW-Tards do when you haven’t got anything else to say anymore and when you run out of answers. Well, let me try this once more…
On Venus – how did ALL that CO2 come about – did “they” have an AGW there too?
What about Mars and the lack of CO2 – is that one explained by the lack of AGW?
And how about planet earth and our most important “GHG” -dihydrogen monoxide – which in the form of clouds actually cools the planet – and in the form of the oceans stores and distributes A LOT of the solar energy all over the planet – including the arctics – now, is it a “pollutant” too and/or “waste”, or is it not?
And on malaria here in Finland as well as elsewhere… first, the average temperatures here in the last 160 years have varied from almost minus 1 to barely over +1 degree Celsius. Now, if the temp going up by one degree is enough to result in new outbreaks of malaria here, shouldn’t there be malaria basically everywhere where there is one or two degrees – or even warmer than here – or what’s the logic there?
See, MOST places in the world have higher temperatures than we do – so how come you won’t find malaria in places like Florida, Australia, New Zealand and Japan etc. that are much warmer places to start with? And how come malaria is found only in development countries, but not in already developed ones? Could it be that malaria has more to do with poverty than temperatures – let alone AGW?
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:53 pm
@Ed Concern
“On Venus – how did ALL that CO2 come about – did “they” have an AGW there too? ”
Nope. Venus had a natural Global Warming. The fact it was natural on Venus doesn’t change the fact it is unnatural on Earth. The mechanism is the same, but the cause is different. Atmospheric CO2 causes warming. Venus had too much atmospheric CO2 and eventually became what we see today due to a runaway Greenhouse Effect.
Earth on the other hand had too much CO2 in its atmosphere, but life developed in the oceans and began to sequester the Carbon in that CO2. Eventually (after billions of years) surface temperatures dropped low enough for life to be able to survive on land. Then the CO2 dropped even more. Finally it got to the balanced and comfortable levels we see today.
Now, we are beginning to reverse that process. We are releasing all that Carbon back into the atmosphere in the form of CO2 and the temperatures are climbing. If we keep it up long enough temperatures would become too high for life on land, and we would be forced back into the oceans, not least because there wouldn’t be much land left! If it KEPT increasing, even the oceans would boil away, and we would look like Venus. That would take about 8600 years if temperatures kept increasing at the current rate.
Current mean temperature: 14C
Rate of increase: 0.01C per year
Time to reach 100C mean temperature: (100C – 14C) / 0.01C = 8600 Years
After that point, the oceans would begin to boil, and the Greenhouse Effect would become runaway, and that is assuming that the rate of warming doesn’t increase.
Of course the reality is, LONG before that point, the damage to our climate would have been immense, and it is likely that we would be long gone. Waterworld (the movie) is a good example of what life would be like long before the oceans started to boil.
If it got to the “Waterworld” stage, even if we stopped producing CO2 at all, it would take tens of thousands if not millions of years for the atmospheric CO2 to reduce to the current levels (if ever!).
The argument at the moment in climate science is just how much CO2 will result in that “tipping” point – the point at which we will no longer be able to prevent “Waterworld”.
The disturbing part about this is, if we fired ALL our nukes right now, we would probably not be able to destroy ALL life on this planet. But given enough time, AGW COULD!
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:49 am
Now that was a scary bed-time story, but sorry – I still believe it’s the SUN that DRIVES temperatures whereas everything else – including CO2 levels etc. – simply follows.
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 am
@Ed Concern
“Now that was a scary bed-time story, but sorry – I still believe it’s the SUN that DRIVES temperatures whereas everything else – including CO2 levels etc. – simply follows.”
That is because you are a retarded idiot. Venus, with lots of CO2, is HOTTER than Mercury that has practically NONE.
If the Sun drives temperatures, why is Venus hotter than Mercury?
You seem to think you know what’s going on, so please, oh retarded one, grace us with a retarded explanation for that!
August 30th, 2008 at 7:06 am
@All the retards, including Paul Watson!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
“Walt Meier, research scientist at the NSIDC, has contacted us disputing the validity of Steven Goddard’s methodology, and of his use of University of Illinois data to question the NSIDC’s charts. We accept that these two data sets are not directly comparable, and that the University of Illinois data does not provide support for Goddard’s charge that the NSIDC data is incorrect. We reproduce Walt Meier’s response below. Walt Meier as provided further detail on the calculation of sea ice area and extent in the comments to this article:
The author asserts that NSIDC’s estimate of a 10% increase in sea ice compared to the same time as last year is wrong. Mr. Goddard does his own analysis, based on images from the University of Illinois’ Cryosphere Today web site, and comes up with a number of ~30%, three times larger than NSIDC’s estimate. He appears to derive his estimate by simply counting pixels in an image. He recognizes that this results in an error due to the distortion by the map projection, but does so anyway. Such an approach is simply not valid.
The proper way to calculate a comparison of ice coverage is by actually weighting the pixels by their based on the map projection, which is exactly what NSIDC does. UI also does the same thing, in a plot right on the same page as where Mr Goddard obtained the images he uses for his own analysis:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/c.....nt.365.jpg
The absolute numbers differ between the UI and NSIDC plots because UI is calculating ice area, while NSIDC is calculating ice extent, two different but related indicators of the state of the ice cover. However, both yield a consistent change between Aug. 12, 2007 and Aug. 11, 2008 – about a 10% increase.
Besides this significant error, the rest of the article consists almost entirely of misleading, irrelevant, or erroneous information about Arctic sea ice that add nothing to the understanding of the significant long-term decline that is being observed.
Steven Goddard writes: “Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid. So why the large discrepancy between their graphs and the UIUC maps? I went back and compared UIUC maps vs. NASA satellite photos from the same dates last summer. It turns out that the older UIUC maps had underrepresented the amount of low concentration ice in several regions of the Arctic. This summer, their maps do not have that same error. As a result, UIUC maps show a much greater increase in the amount of ice this year than does NSIDC. And thus the explanation of the discrepancy.
“it is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year – just as NSIDC had stated.”"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2.....e_mystery/
I WAS RIGHT!
By the way, Goddard still lies his arse off, even in his retraction! He tried to blame HIS ERROR (lie?) on “faulty data” that is NOT faulty, as I showed. His erroneous (intentional) misinterpretation of the maps is what caused this, not some “error” in the data, as Meier points out.