LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Why is it like pulling teeth to get you to cite a reference for those “latest reports”?
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
F
frobert
Guest
I feel your agony. All the stats and facts in the world will not budge them one iota. I would wager that a category 5 hurricane in their backyard in Jan would not convince them either.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Nor are they interested in convincing anyone else of their position. It is far more important to score cleverness points with childish putdowns, as evidenced by post #219 and others.
M
Midwest88
Guest
Hmmm, global warming. This issue always amuses me - it’s a good thing I don’t live in California where this pet issue goes wild.
E
Ender
Guest
Well if statistics matter to you then you might be interested in learning that hurricanes are not increasing in either frequency or intensity. I realize that many people believe the opposite but that’s because they’ve listened to the media and the politicians, who claim things are getting worse, instead of the “stats and facts” which show they aren’t.
nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
Ender
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
and since then
15 hurricanes in 2005 with 7 major
5 in 2006 2 major
6 in 2007 2 major
8 in 2008 5 major
3 in 2009 2 major
12 in 2010 5 major
wjla.com/blogs/weather/2011/06/hurricane-activity-since-the-record-breaking-season-in-2005-11376.html
J
JB_Dugan
Guest
Leaf, old sport, all you have to do is ask the right questions. I try to make every effort to reply to any request.
You asked about “GLOBAL ICE” and I was talking about POLAR ICE. I have nothing on global ice, but if it will help here is the latest report on polar ice.
nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
I really think one should do a little research before “crying wolf” about “millions of people who will be displaced from their homes when the sea covers them.”
Arctic ice has come and gone for centuries.
The British sailed the Northwest Passage in 1853 because it was virtually ice free.
Norwegians sailed the Northwest Passage in 1903.
Canadians crossed the Northwest Passage both ways in 1940-42 and 1944.
According to the graphs & charts produced by the alarmists there was no man made CO2 back in those days. So what made the ice melt?
E
Ender
Guest
What are we to make of those numbers? If hurricanes are in fact caused by global warming should we infer that warming began in 2005 (if your numbers imply that hurricane activity suddenly increased at that point)? Given that there has been no global warming (anthropogenic or otherwise) for at least twelve years how can global warming be responsible for the hurricane activity in the last half of that period (high) but not in the first half (low)? If warming causes hurricanes then how could there have been more hurricanes in the last thirty years of the 19th century than in the last thirty years of the 20th century? Isn’t the latter precisely the period of greatest warming?
Despite all the heavy breathing on the subject (1) hurricane activity now is not anomalous with historical data because (2) global warming does not cause hurricanes.
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I suppose you are referring to the graph titled “Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent - October 1979-2013”. It does show that the extent of the sea ice this October was greater than October of 2009. But look at the whole graph. October 2009 was a below-average dip in the sea ice extent, compared to the long-term trend. So given the random variations that always occur, it is not surprising, or reassuring, that 2013 exceeded that mark. 2013 did not exceed any year in that graph from 1978-2006. The trend in the graph that you apparently think supports your view, in fact supports the opposite view. Thank you for pointing it out. Just read the whole report you cited and see if you can take much comfort in it.
If you are referring to the McClure Expedition, they did resort to sledges over the sea ice of the central part of Parry Channel. They did not find the Arctic “virtually ice-free”.
The ability to find a passage wide enough for a ship is a very poor measure of the overall ice condition of the Arctic. You could have 99.99% ice coverage and possibly still find a path through it. This is hardly worth mentioning when compared to the much more relevant and direct measures of Arctic ice trends.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
I have no idea if co2 is related to hurricane activity. I just wanted to see more current information. i did not cath the “landfall in teh US” distinction.
J
JB_Dugan
Guest
That’s all that needs saying. No “But…”
I’m not interested in long “term trends” or what went on from 1978-2006. What I am pointing out is that Arctic Ice** is increasing** while climate alarmist political scientists predicted an Ice Free North Pole in 2013.
“Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013” - - BBC News December 2007
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm
In 2008, James Hansen gave his famous “This is the last chance.” speech before congress. He predicted an ice free Arctic in 5 to 10 years.
“Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.”-- John Kerry, US Secretary of State 2009
huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/we-cant-ignore-the-securi_b_272815.html
“This could lead to a completely ice-free Arctic Ocean by September.”-- Fairfax Climate Watch June 2013
fairfaxclimatewatch.com/blog/2013/06/unprecedented-hole-is-growing-in-arctic-sea-ice.html
“Why Arctic Sea Ice Will Vanish in 2013” - - Sierra Club March 2013
sierraclub.ca/en/AdultDiscussionPlease
I think this “Climate Science” is a new religion and possibly only a three generational thing. Once the 20 something’s see that nothing is happening, they’ll turn on their elder climate scientists. Gonna be ugly.
There was probably less ice there then there is now. McClure’s ship was trapped in the ice closer to the North Pole than any other ship had been.
Ice is either there or it’s not. When a ship can sail the Northwest Passage…there is less ice. It does not take a detailed measurement to determine that. Nor are we considering trends.
There is evidence that Vikings sailed through the Passage from Greenland to the Pacific.
That means there was less ice…probably an ice free Arctic.
That happened before man made CO2. What made the ice melt then?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It looks like you are more interested in catching individual researchers in over zealous predictions than in determining the truth. Otherwise how could you not care about long term trends? They are much more relevant to the future environment than whether this or that ice pack was ice free by some milestone time. By the way, the prediction you cited was just the opinion of one small group headed by one Mr. Maslowski. It was not universally accepted by all climate scientists. So the failure of that specific prediction does not invalidate the general consensus of mainstream climate scientists, nor should it prevent you from analyzing the raw data presented in that very excellent report you cited in your previous post, and deciding for yourself what it means. I suppose you trust raw data more than someone’s analysis of raw data, and that is good. So do I.
Unsupported speculation that has no relevance to the question of global warming.
Yes it does. The Arctic is huge. A few ships poking around at the edges of it in the 19th century proves nothing.
With regard to global warming, trends are the only thing that is important.
F
frobert
Guest
Statistics are funny things. Mark twain once wrote there are three levels of lies: lies d**m lies and statistics.
I have taught statics and have other cute stories about them.
Have a great day.
J
JB_Dugan
Guest
Exactly!
This entire hoax is based on the fear mongering of politically motivated, over zealous researchers with a left wing agenda.
They are using environmental alarmism as one more way to expand the size and scope of big government. None of the more than 70 computer models used by the U.N. to predict global warming correctly predicted the global temperature hiatus we’ve experienced over the past 17 years.
Hmmm, I like that…“Unsupported speculation that has no relevance to the question of global warming.” May I use that quote? I think it would be an excellent reply to someone who claims that man is causing global warming.
Then the Arctic is inconsequential? A few ships going where “no ship has gone before”…because there was LESS ICE…proves nothing??
So why are we hearing the alarmists crying about the horrors of diminishing Arctic ice???
Polar Bears…maybe?
Not when the “trends” are manipulated by those with an agenda.
E
Ender
Guest
If you’re not interested in facts and statistics then you probably shouldn’t chide others for their (presumed) lack of interest in them. It was your claim that *“All the stats and facts in the world will not budge them one iota.” *that prompted me to supply the hurricane data. That you now dismiss the data (as opposed to contesting it like Michael Mayo did) suggests that your position is based more on hearsay than facts.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
It is relevant however to point out that JB Dugan’s original comment was about polar ice, and while sea ice at the North Pole has been decreasing for a number of years, the opposite is true of sea ice at the South Pole. I recognize that the trend around the Antarctic is much smaller, but it is nonetheless a positive one. That fact may be inconvenient but it should still be part of the global narrative.
Ender
F
frobert
Guest
I was trying to point out that statistics can be misused and didn’t think my opinion on hurricanes would be missed. I know hurricanes are not know to occur in Jan.and expected that the person I wrote the post would know that. I apologize neither post was as obvious as I thought it would be. I am learning that my attempts at humor is not appreciated by everyone and I have to work to correct my errors,
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
A hoax takes a lot of coordination and control. Even if there are “over zealous researchers with a left wing agenda”, it is beyond their capability to engineer such a massive hoax, involving so many independent groups of scientists who are mostly in agreement on the core facts. Let’s keep the speculation within the bounds of the possible, OK?
None of them correctly predicted the outcome of the last 17 World Series games either. So what?
Certainly. Whenever you like. I release that phrase to the public domain.
It proves nothing about global warming. All it proves is that somebody got lucky and tried the Northwest Passage at the time and a place where the random variations in ice distribution allowed them to get reasonably far. Global warming is not about boats getting through the Northwest Passage. It is about long term trends. I know you have said before you are not interested in long term trends. Then I can only assume you are not interested in the truth of global warming, because you cannot seriously consider the question if you don’t know what the question is about.
I don’t know what it means when you put “trends” in quotes. Do you mean that the real trends are not what those manipulators have led everyone to think they are? Or do you mean there is no such thing as a trend? Or are you using quotes as I did above, as a way of emphasizing the same word I used? Please be clear.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is not inconvenient, except to someone who has already made up his mind and only wants facts that support his decision. Most serious climate scientists do make the situation in the Antarctic part of the global narrative.
The “hardly worth mentioning” comment was directed at the fact that the 1853 McClure Expedition made some progress in the Northwest Passage. JB Dugan was hanging his hat on that fact in preference to scientific observations that are contrary to his position.
- Status