FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Arctic ice not being replaced, and why that is a HUGE problem

Arctic ice not being replaced, and why that is a HUGE problem

(9:31) Thom Hartmann discusses the Arctic ice formation which "normally" occurs during the winter months, and how the lack of it in 2017 threatens to release billions of tons of methane trapped underneath.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (8 days ago)

You know on a graph showing an exponential curve, where the rise at the beginning starts slowly with little change, and then the graph becomes steeper, and shortly afterwards it becomes almost vertical - I think on climate change we are at the beginning of the almost vertical phase. That is very scary. The next few years will confirm this, or not if Trump is right and climate change really is a hoax perpertrated by the Chinese. LINK

Original comment

You know on a graph showing an exponential curve, where the rise at the beginning starts slowly with little change, and then the graph becomes steeper, and shortly afterwards it becomes almost vertical - I think on climate change we are at the beginning of the almost vertical phase. That is very scary. The next few years will confirm this, or not if Trump is right and climate change really is a hoax perpertrated by the Chinese. LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (8 days ago)

He was "right" about the crowd size at the inauguration, his appointments as national security advisor and labor secretary - how could he possibly be wrong on climate change?

Original comment

He was "right" about the crowd size at the inauguration, his appointments as national security advisor and labor secretary - how could he possibly be wrong on climate change?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: KnowwhatImean (5 days ago)

body{zoom:96%!important;} It's happening and the time for quibbling is past- time to figure out what we can do to save as much as possible, if anything. We can't wait until the last holdouts are finally convinced by watching their golf courses blow away on Tatooine Earth. It's like being a perch in a slowly evaporating pond listening to a little trout prove that the water isn't disappearing: we're all growing larger! Yay! I suppose the holdouts will eventually decide it's God's judgment on the unbelievers, "so let's git 'em"!

Original comment

body{zoom:96%!important;} It's happening and the time for quibbling is past- time to figure out what we can do to save as much as possible, if anything. We can't wait until the last holdouts are finally convinced by watching their golf courses blow away on Tatooine Earth. It's like being a perch in a slowly evaporating pond listening to a little trout prove that the water isn't disappearing: we're all growing larger! Yay! I suppose the holdouts will eventually decide it's God's judgment on the unbelievers, "so let's git 'em"!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (4 days ago)

I really don't care about this. The Chinese dunnit and the only thing that pisses me off i sthat my ice cream's melting faster

Original comment

I really don't care about this. The Chinese dunnit and the only thing that pisses me off i sthat my ice cream's melting faster

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: The one and only Mad (8 days ago)

It does this quite periodically. Not only are we at the peak of the 60 year amo cycle, but we are also coming off of a El nino year. But occasionally the weather patterns also conspire to drive the multi year ice out into the Atlantic where it melts. It soon. Ones back

Original comment

It does this quite periodically. Not only are we at the peak of the 60 year amo cycle, but we are also coming off of a El nino year. But occasionally the weather patterns also conspire to drive the multi year ice out into the Atlantic where it melts. It soon. Ones back

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (7 days ago)

The extremes of AMO cycles (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) vary the temperature about 1F. The cycle we are in right now started around the mid 1990s. LINK So AMO cycles cannot account for the 20C warmer North Pole than expected that was measured this winter, and the Greenland ice melting 600% faster than computer models predict.

We are coming off the El Nino cycle, which has an overall warming effect, moving into the opposite which is La Nina, which has an overall cooling effect. So El Nino/La Nina cannot account for the extreme temperatures and melting measured this winter, especially if combined.

I wish you were right, but you're not. Got any more theories?

Original comment

The extremes of AMO cycles (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) vary the temperature about 1F. The cycle we are in right now started around the mid 1990s. LINK So AMO cycles cannot account for the 20C warmer North Pole than expected that was measured this winter, and the Greenland ice melting 600% faster than computer models predict.

We are coming off the El Nino cycle, which has an overall warming effect, moving into the opposite which is La Nina, which has an overall cooling effect. So El Nino/La Nina cannot account for the extreme temperatures and melting measured this winter, especially if combined.

I wish you were right, but you're not. Got any more theories?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (7 days ago)

Walter I love it when you love mention real science. Its hilarious how it confuses the conservatard. sadly no you cannot argue with him when they lacks a basic education in science. they simply cannot accept that they are wrong. you cant teach someone who thinks he has all the answers . You will just get alinsky rule 5 mockery as he shows. He has swallowed the propaganda from breitbart and has branded himself by his gullible aceptance of fake science and fake news .

Original comment

Walter I love it when you love mention real science. Its hilarious how it confuses the conservatard. sadly no you cannot argue with him when they lacks a basic education in science. they simply cannot accept that they are wrong. you cant teach someone who thinks he has all the answers . You will just get alinsky rule 5 mockery as he shows. He has swallowed the propaganda from breitbart and has branded himself by his gullible aceptance of fake science and fake news .

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: The one and only Mad (6 days ago)

And the next thing that Walter will fail to do is explain why why the ENSO cycle changes the average surface temperature.

No no silly idea, that might lead to climate denial

Original comment

And the next thing that Walter will fail to do is explain why why the ENSO cycle changes the average surface temperature.

No no silly idea, that might lead to climate denial

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: The one and only Mad (6 days ago)

Whilst the el. Nino event is over, the heightened northern hemisphere temps including the sea surface temps are still operating albeit decaying, the Ice will come back next year, just like it did in 2013 after the previous 2010/11 el nino

Original comment

Whilst the el. Nino event is over, the heightened northern hemisphere temps including the sea surface temps are still operating albeit decaying, the Ice will come back next year, just like it did in 2013 after the previous 2010/11 el nino

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Real mad (7 days ago)

Walter, when you get a chance, load up some common sense. 20 F above normal is quite normal for warm plumes in the arctic.the cold air gets displaced elsewhere. And Greenland melting is quite normal. Have you noted that they find vegetation under the Ice from the MWP.

ReplyVote up (4)down (7)
Original comment

Walter, when you get a chance, load up some common sense. 20 F above normal is quite normal for warm plumes in the arctic.the cold air gets displaced elsewhere. And Greenland melting is quite normal. Have you noted that they find vegetation under the Ice from the MWP.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (5 days ago)

I'm uploading some common sense. 20F is about 1/3 of 20C. 20C above normal is not normal. -25C was expected, -5C was measured in November 2016 over most of the Arctic. LINK

Original comment

I'm uploading some common sense. 20F is about 1/3 of 20C. 20C above normal is not normal. -25C was expected, -5C was measured in November 2016 over most of the Arctic. LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: The one and only Mad (5 days ago)

Absolute nonsense Walter, and do you know why?

The Arctic circle has very poor coverage by instrument or satellite, it's has very little land area, and even that is round the edges. What you've been fed is the output of a computer extrapolating into the Arctic.

As I said, download some comments sense

Original comment

Absolute nonsense Walter, and do you know why?

The Arctic circle has very poor coverage by instrument or satellite, it's has very little land area, and even that is round the edges. What you've been fed is the output of a computer extrapolating into the Arctic.

As I said, download some comments sense

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (5 days ago)

The Arctic and Antarctic have been monitored by polar orbiting satellites since the 70s. LINK Scientists are really interested in what happens at the poles because they are warming the quickest, especially the Arctic since much of the ice is floating on water which stores heat better than rock. I believe the Arctic is warming 3 or 4 times faster than most of the rest of the planet.

Computer models predicted -25C. Arctic weather stations and polar orbiting satellites measured -5C. Observed reality is worse than the predictions, suggesting the climate is more sensitive to changes in the composition of the atmosphere than we previously thought. Basically, we're flucked.

Original comment

The Arctic and Antarctic have been monitored by polar orbiting satellites since the 70s. LINK Scientists are really interested in what happens at the poles because they are warming the quickest, especially the Arctic since much of the ice is floating on water which stores heat better than rock. I believe the Arctic is warming 3 or 4 times faster than most of the rest of the planet.

Computer models predicted -25C. Arctic weather stations and polar orbiting satellites measured -5C. Observed reality is worse than the predictions, suggesting the climate is more sensitive to changes in the composition of the atmosphere than we previously thought. Basically, we're flucked.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Real mad (4 days ago)

Walter, the satellites went AWOL a year or so ago.. Suspect the polarising filter jammed, but they never measured temperature, there is no satellite coverage at the poles on RSS or UAH.

Original comment

Walter, the satellites went AWOL a year or so ago.. Suspect the polarising filter jammed, but they never measured temperature, there is no satellite coverage at the poles on RSS or UAH.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (4 days ago)

UAH (the satellite group from the University of Alabama Huntsville) went AWOL (was badly calibrated). It's been fixed (now includes adjustment for diurnal cycles that come into play as satellites drift).

Original comment

UAH (the satellite group from the University of Alabama Huntsville) went AWOL (was badly calibrated). It's been fixed (now includes adjustment for diurnal cycles that come into play as satellites drift).

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: The one and only Mad (4 days ago)

Walter, the satellites DO NOT cover the poles, rhat includes the temperature data sets.UAH and RSS.but yes they are always adjusting, based on calibrating on fixed ground signals.

Original comment

Walter, the satellites DO NOT cover the poles, rhat includes the temperature data sets.UAH and RSS.but yes they are always adjusting, based on calibrating on fixed ground signals.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (4 days ago)

LINK

You're welcome

Original comment

LINK

You're welcome

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (4 days ago)

Thanks. I'll summarise the article for those who can't be bothered to read it.

There are multiple groups of satellites that collect temperature data. Turns out that one of the groups was badly calibrated and showing results different to the others by a factor of 3. That was in 2015 and has been corrected. Satellite groups and Arctic weather stations measured -5C when they were expecting -25C in November 2017.

Original comment

Thanks. I'll summarise the article for those who can't be bothered to read it.

There are multiple groups of satellites that collect temperature data. Turns out that one of the groups was badly calibrated and showing results different to the others by a factor of 3. That was in 2015 and has been corrected. Satellite groups and Arctic weather stations measured -5C when they were expecting -25C in November 2017.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (4 days ago)

Sorry, I meant November 2016.

Original comment

Sorry, I meant November 2016.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: The one and only Mad (4 days ago)

Walter the satellite temp data sets do not cover the poles

Original comment

Walter the satellite temp data sets do not cover the poles

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (4 days ago)

Are you saying we have no temperature data for the Arctic and Antarctic?

Original comment

Are you saying we have no temperature data for the Arctic and Antarctic?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: The one and only Mad (4 days ago)

Not from the satellites no. Their path doesn't take them over the poles,, so any scan is at a very acute angle, and therefore error prone. And the Arctic is mostly water not land, so temp stations are not permanently located above 80N The temps are mostly modelled using computers from a small number on the edges of the arctic, so take with pinch of salt.

Original comment

Not from the satellites no. Their path doesn't take them over the poles,, so any scan is at a very acute angle, and therefore error prone. And the Arctic is mostly water not land, so temp stations are not permanently located above 80N The temps are mostly modelled using computers from a small number on the edges of the arctic, so take with pinch of salt.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (3 days ago)

You are thinking of geostationary satellites that orbit the equator.

Polar orbiting satellites orbit north/south. NOAA run 2 polar orbiting satellites constantly. The European Space Agency run 2 polar orbiting satellites called MetOp. NASA also run polar orbiting satellites. These satellite groups have onboard a wide range of instrumentation including temperature measurement with very high accuracy.

Original comment

You are thinking of geostationary satellites that orbit the equator.

Polar orbiting satellites orbit north/south. NOAA run 2 polar orbiting satellites constantly. The European Space Agency run 2 polar orbiting satellites called MetOp. NASA also run polar orbiting satellites. These satellite groups have onboard a wide range of instrumentation including temperature measurement with very high accuracy.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (7 days ago)

Any climate data prior to 1880 is rejected because it doesn't tell the story they want to tell. You can look at historical cycles millions of years ago that shows the earth has been 16 degrees C warmer most of the time when animals roamed the planet. But since all that is prior to 1880, it's meaningless to the general public.

Original comment

Any climate data prior to 1880 is rejected because it doesn't tell the story they want to tell. You can look at historical cycles millions of years ago that shows the earth has been 16 degrees C warmer most of the time when animals roamed the planet. But since all that is prior to 1880, it's meaningless to the general public.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (5 days ago)

We've been through this many times before. Either update your ideas, or tell me where I'm wrong and teach me something - otherwise you just sound like a child with learning difficulties.

Climate data prior to 1880 is not rejected, it is simply less accurate because it is indirect - for example, if the Romans had vineyards in Scotland, then the Scottish climate was conducive to growing grapes during Roman times. It doesn't tell you much about the climate at the South Pole at the time.

1880 was when we began measuring the temperature with actual instruments around the planet. When you hear "... on record" or "... when records began" or something similar, that means since we started measuring global temperature with instruments, ie. 1880.

And again, we have been through the point you keep repeating like it's the only idea you've got - that the climate has been warmer before humans existed, therefore humans are not responsible for the warming we are experiencing today. It doesn't work. Most warm periods in the distant past were the consequence of higher concentrations of greenhouse gases. Just like the warming today.

Original comment

We've been through this many times before. Either update your ideas, or tell me where I'm wrong and teach me something - otherwise you just sound like a child with learning difficulties.

Climate data prior to 1880 is not rejected, it is simply less accurate because it is indirect - for example, if the Romans had vineyards in Scotland, then the Scottish climate was conducive to growing grapes during Roman times. It doesn't tell you much about the climate at the South Pole at the time.

1880 was when we began measuring the temperature with actual instruments around the planet. When you hear "... on record" or "... when records began" or something similar, that means since we started measuring global temperature with instruments, ie. 1880.

And again, we have been through the point you keep repeating like it's the only idea you've got - that the climate has been warmer before humans existed, therefore humans are not responsible for the warming we are experiencing today. It doesn't work. Most warm periods in the distant past were the consequence of higher concentrations of greenhouse gases. Just like the warming today.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (6 days ago)

1. Your figures are substantially off.

2. How was the human species doing back in those days?

3. What physical phenomenon caused the average temperature to be that much higher? (Did I hear rampant greenhouse effect?)

Original comment

1. Your figures are substantially off.

2. How was the human species doing back in those days?

3. What physical phenomenon caused the average temperature to be that much higher? (Did I hear rampant greenhouse effect?)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (6 days ago)

1. Then what do you say are your alternative facts?

2. Humans were not around at that time. That is my whole point. These cycles occur regardless of human activity.

3. Don't know and don't care. All I need to know is that humans did not cause it and that casts doubt about AGW. We are coming out of an ice age wo it is common sense that the termperatures are warming and would be doing so with or without us. We might be expediting it slightly but, by how much that is, is unknown.

Original comment

1. Then what do you say are your alternative facts?

2. Humans were not around at that time. That is my whole point. These cycles occur regardless of human activity.

3. Don't know and don't care. All I need to know is that humans did not cause it and that casts doubt about AGW. We are coming out of an ice age wo it is common sense that the termperatures are warming and would be doing so with or without us. We might be expediting it slightly but, by how much that is, is unknown.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (6 days ago)

Atmospheric CO2 (climate gas) has been declining steadily for the past 65 mill years. Around the time of the industrial revolution when we started burning fossil fuels on a large scale, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 sky rocketed and has been increasing ever since. Is that just a coincidence? I don't think the odds are in your favour.

Original comment

Atmospheric CO2 (climate gas) has been declining steadily for the past 65 mill years. Around the time of the industrial revolution when we started burning fossil fuels on a large scale, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 sky rocketed and has been increasing ever since. Is that just a coincidence? I don't think the odds are in your favour.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: The one and only Mad (6 days ago)

It's sad that some people don't take the time to research the limitations of historical proxy studies, in particular the suppression of high frequency variations, and on the scale of millions of years, thousand year cycles are high frequency. Apples and oranges.

Original comment

It's sad that some people don't take the time to research the limitations of historical proxy studies, in particular the suppression of high frequency variations, and on the scale of millions of years, thousand year cycles are high frequency. Apples and oranges.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (6 days ago)

Sometimes apples and oranges is all you've got. Sure there has been some variations around the trend, but that hardly changes the general direction of the trend.

Original comment

Sometimes apples and oranges is all you've got. Sure there has been some variations around the trend, but that hardly changes the general direction of the trend.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Real mad (6 days ago)

The variations of the last 2000 or so years from the warm Roman period via the cold dark ages, warm Medieval, cold little ice age, and warm modem period simply won't show up on some of these proxies. Only an ignoramus makes comparisons based on apple and orange data sets.

Original comment

The variations of the last 2000 or so years from the warm Roman period via the cold dark ages, warm Medieval, cold little ice age, and warm modem period simply won't show up on some of these proxies. Only an ignoramus makes comparisons based on apple and orange data sets.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (5 days ago)

Jesus, coming to BoreMe to read barely literate Wikipedia fanatics pretend to be climatologists is increasingly cringeworthy.

Original comment

Jesus, coming to BoreMe to read barely literate Wikipedia fanatics pretend to be climatologists is increasingly cringeworthy.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: The one and only Mad (5 days ago)

Anybody with an ounce of common sense would realise that a alkanoid sedimentary stack of approx 2000 years cut into 20 slices for analysis ain't going to give year by year data.

Original comment

Anybody with an ounce of common sense would realise that a alkanoid sedimentary stack of approx 2000 years cut into 20 slices for analysis ain't going to give year by year data.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (5 days ago)

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

When you have to make up a bunch of assumptions and pedantic excuses in order to defend your position you are probaly wrong.

Original comment

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

When you have to make up a bunch of assumptions and pedantic excuses in order to defend your position you are probaly wrong.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: The one and only Mad (5 days ago)

Of course you could actually read some of the original papers detailing these proxy studies. Remember the climate "scientists" don't actually collect and analyze the samples themselves, they merely chuck the figures from other buggers work into a principle component analysis program and coo at what it spits out.

I love chatting with libtards on the subject of science. Concepts like class 1 and class 2 errors and Gigo all forgotten when computers spit out pretty graphs.

One of my favorites emails from the hadley leak, was the one from a tree temperature proxy expert informing Michael Mann in no uncertain terms that bristlecone pines DO NOT make good proxies for temperatures

All ignored by delusional libtards

Original comment

Of course you could actually read some of the original papers detailing these proxy studies. Remember the climate "scientists" don't actually collect and analyze the samples themselves, they merely chuck the figures from other buggers work into a principle component analysis program and coo at what it spits out.

I love chatting with libtards on the subject of science. Concepts like class 1 and class 2 errors and Gigo all forgotten when computers spit out pretty graphs.

One of my favorites emails from the hadley leak, was the one from a tree temperature proxy expert informing Michael Mann in no uncertain terms that bristlecone pines DO NOT make good proxies for temperatures

All ignored by delusional libtards

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (5 days ago)

(You're the epitome of GIGO, so that concept is not easily forgotten.)

The consentration of atmospheric CO2 is well known for the past 650 000 years from Antarctic ice cores. If you do a statistical analysis of the available data with the null hypotesis being "current atmospheric CO2 levels within natural variation", you would have to reject the null hypotesis and the type 1 error would be minuscule.

And if you then look at the timing of the rise in CO2 levels versus human and industrial development, you'll arrive at a plausible mechanism for the abrupt rise in atmospheric CO2.

Original comment

(You're the epitome of GIGO, so that concept is not easily forgotten.)

The consentration of atmospheric CO2 is well known for the past 650 000 years from Antarctic ice cores. If you do a statistical analysis of the available data with the null hypotesis being "current atmospheric CO2 levels within natural variation", you would have to reject the null hypotesis and the type 1 error would be minuscule.

And if you then look at the timing of the rise in CO2 levels versus human and industrial development, you'll arrive at a plausible mechanism for the abrupt rise in atmospheric CO2.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Real mad (5 days ago)

Are you reading this Bob. I do remember having a conversation recently about libtards not appreciating being corrected, and getting abusive. But the resolution problem of historical proxies is well documented, even if some people refuse to acknowledge it's importance when comparing the current instrument records to the proxy compiled past.

Original comment

Are you reading this Bob. I do remember having a conversation recently about libtards not appreciating being corrected, and getting abusive. But the resolution problem of historical proxies is well documented, even if some people refuse to acknowledge it's importance when comparing the current instrument records to the proxy compiled past.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (5 days ago)

Funnily enough, the conversation you're referring to centres around the fact that a few users here confronted you with real science, and you became abusive. You then made out that you're the type of guy who can (unlike "libtards") accept when he's wrong, before failing completely to give a single example anywhere on BoreMe. Does that sound familiar?

Original comment

Funnily enough, the conversation you're referring to centres around the fact that a few users here confronted you with real science, and you became abusive. You then made out that you're the type of guy who can (unlike "libtards") accept when he's wrong, before failing completely to give a single example anywhere on BoreMe. Does that sound familiar?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (5 days ago)

No, you're very welcome to correct me any time. But neurotically looking for flaws in the datasets which doesn't support your beliefs, and whole heartedly accepting the datasets which does, is not the way to do that. I think someone mentioned a Texas sharpshooter fallacy?

Original comment

No, you're very welcome to correct me any time. But neurotically looking for flaws in the datasets which doesn't support your beliefs, and whole heartedly accepting the datasets which does, is not the way to do that. I think someone mentioned a Texas sharpshooter fallacy?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Real mad (5 days ago)

You just won't be told, will ya. You actually prefer your libtard delusions.

Original comment

You just won't be told, will ya. You actually prefer your libtard delusions.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (5 days ago)

Hahah, save yourself some agony and look up Occam's razor.

Original comment

Hahah, save yourself some agony and look up Occam's razor.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Real mad (5 days ago)

Well you keep on trying to draw a flawed conclusions from a comparison between low resolution and high resolution data sets, despite the weight of exert advice telling you not to.

Occams razor directs me to the simplest explanation with the least number of assumptions that fits the empirical evidence being that you are a deluded and retarded moron.

Btw look up Nyquist sampling theorem.

Original comment

Well you keep on trying to draw a flawed conclusions from a comparison between low resolution and high resolution data sets, despite the weight of exert advice telling you not to.

Occams razor directs me to the simplest explanation with the least number of assumptions that fits the empirical evidence being that you are a deluded and retarded moron.

Btw look up Nyquist sampling theorem.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (5 days ago)

Good! And to which explanation does Occam's razor direct you with regards to the developments in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

Original comment

Good! And to which explanation does Occam's razor direct you with regards to the developments in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Real mad (5 days ago)

Occam's razor suggests that as 2016 el nino average temp record was statistically indistinguishable from 1997 el nino avg temp record then the global warming in the last 19 years was zilch, therefore the sensitivity of temp to co2 is zilch divided by 19 equals zilch

You're welcome

Original comment

Occam's razor suggests that as 2016 el nino average temp record was statistically indistinguishable from 1997 el nino avg temp record then the global warming in the last 19 years was zilch, therefore the sensitivity of temp to co2 is zilch divided by 19 equals zilch

You're welcome

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (5 days ago)

Hahhaha, that's not at all what I asked. And way to go on selecting data points in support of your predetermined conclusions. Mrs Conway couldn't have done it any better.

Original comment

Hahhaha, that's not at all what I asked. And way to go on selecting data points in support of your predetermined conclusions. Mrs Conway couldn't have done it any better.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Real mad (5 days ago)

I compared two years with comparable strong El ninos,( and the recent el nino was the strongest on record )like for like. Zero global warming in the last 19 years.. I'd say that's a worry for you as the effects decay and the pause resumes.

Original comment

I compared two years with comparable strong El ninos,( and the recent el nino was the strongest on record )like for like. Zero global warming in the last 19 years.. I'd say that's a worry for you as the effects decay and the pause resumes.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (5 days ago)

Yeah, let's hope you're right, but I fear that's only dishonest use of statistics. I think what you're observing is high variance relative to the trend. Look at the development through the last century and you'll see which way the temperatures are heading.

But I am interested in your views on the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Given what we know today (all flawed proxies and datasets), do you agree that it's likely that the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration mainly can be attributed to human activity? And if no, why not?

Original comment

Yeah, let's hope you're right, but I fear that's only dishonest use of statistics. I think what you're observing is high variance relative to the trend. Look at the development through the last century and you'll see which way the temperatures are heading.

But I am interested in your views on the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Given what we know today (all flawed proxies and datasets), do you agree that it's likely that the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration mainly can be attributed to human activity? And if no, why not?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (5 days ago)

Brilliant . So funny when you show conservatard real science and he struggles to take it on board. He is always right like his idol so atempts to educate him will always fail. He has breitbart and wikipedia and thats all he needs.

Hilarious

Original comment

Brilliant . So funny when you show conservatard real science and he struggles to take it on board. He is always right like his idol so atempts to educate him will always fail. He has breitbart and wikipedia and thats all he needs.

Hilarious

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Real mad (4 days ago)

Did you look up Nyquist sampling theory like I told you to ?

Original comment

Did you look up Nyquist sampling theory like I told you to ?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Real mad (5 days ago)

Nothing dishonest about it. The average temps of 2016 should have exceeded 1998 by a clear margin, and it didn't.

Btw the oceans are warming, and not due to co2 the change in Henry's coefficient states that the oceans will outgass.

Original comment

Nothing dishonest about it. The average temps of 2016 should have exceeded 1998 by a clear margin, and it didn't.

Btw the oceans are warming, and not due to co2 the change in Henry's coefficient states that the oceans will outgass.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (4 days ago)

I saw a denialist professor do the same trick. He showed a bar graph depicting the steadily rising global temperatures year by year, and stated that the increase from one year to the next was less than one standard deviation and hence insignificant. "Scientifically" ; there were no increasing temperatures. That's plain dishonesty.

When your car burns petrol, where does the CO2 end up if not in the atmosphere? We have been introducing vast amounts of new CO2 to the carbon cycle the last 150-200 years. This correlates fairly well with the increase in atmospheric CO2 we have seen. It's possible to construct any old story to explain the increase in CO2 levels. The test is Occam's razor. Although Henry's law is clearly part of the explanation, using Occam's razor you'll see that most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is probably anthropogenic.

Original comment

I saw a denialist professor do the same trick. He showed a bar graph depicting the steadily rising global temperatures year by year, and stated that the increase from one year to the next was less than one standard deviation and hence insignificant. "Scientifically" ; there were no increasing temperatures. That's plain dishonesty.

When your car burns petrol, where does the CO2 end up if not in the atmosphere? We have been introducing vast amounts of new CO2 to the carbon cycle the last 150-200 years. This correlates fairly well with the increase in atmospheric CO2 we have seen. It's possible to construct any old story to explain the increase in CO2 levels. The test is Occam's razor. Although Henry's law is clearly part of the explanation, using Occam's razor you'll see that most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is probably anthropogenic.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Ha ha ha (4 days ago)

I love it when libtards attempt to talk science. it comes out as pure dope head gibberish, displaying their idiocy for all the world to see.

Original comment

I love it when libtards attempt to talk science. it comes out as pure dope head gibberish, displaying their idiocy for all the world to see.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (4 days ago)

Bwahahaasaaa. In other words conservatard is totally floored by the science of it . Just like he said he cannot accept he is wrong . He is bouncing between wiki pedia and breitbart and oh crap they didnt teach him how to respond to actual peer reviewed science. Guess that university of life aint what its cracked up to be !!

Original comment

Bwahahaasaaa. In other words conservatard is totally floored by the science of it . Just like he said he cannot accept he is wrong . He is bouncing between wiki pedia and breitbart and oh crap they didnt teach him how to respond to actual peer reviewed science. Guess that university of life aint what its cracked up to be !!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (4 days ago)

Yeah, it's getting late..

Original comment

Yeah, it's getting late..

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Real mad (4 days ago)

Have you any idea how.much co2 an erupting volcano kicks out ?. Dwarfs the annual human contribution, oh and there is a satellite that maps worldwide atmospheric co2. Launched to a big fanfare, and the results eagerly anticipated, quietly disappeared from public view when results didn't fit the narrative. Curiously the co2 density correlated with subduction zones................

Original comment

Have you any idea how.much co2 an erupting volcano kicks out ?. Dwarfs the annual human contribution, oh and there is a satellite that maps worldwide atmospheric co2. Launched to a big fanfare, and the results eagerly anticipated, quietly disappeared from public view when results didn't fit the narrative. Curiously the co2 density correlated with subduction zones................

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (4 days ago)

If you look at the atmosphere as a closed system, we annually release between 4-5 ppm worth of CO2 from burning fossil fuels (+-10 gigatonnes of carbon). Since 1870 that adds up to more than 250 ppm (+-560 gigatonnes). Now luckily, the atmosphere isn't a closed system, but anthropogenic CO2 is hardly negligable.

Original comment

If you look at the atmosphere as a closed system, we annually release between 4-5 ppm worth of CO2 from burning fossil fuels (+-10 gigatonnes of carbon). Since 1870 that adds up to more than 250 ppm (+-560 gigatonnes). Now luckily, the atmosphere isn't a closed system, but anthropogenic CO2 is hardly negligable.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Real mad (3 days ago)

No hum, a lot of assumptions go into those figures, they really don't have a clue about a lot of the numbers they use, most of it is pure guesswork.

Original comment

No hum, a lot of assumptions go into those figures, they really don't have a clue about a lot of the numbers they use, most of it is pure guesswork.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3 days ago)
Latest comment:

I did the numbers myself on the back of a napkin. There's not really a whole lot of assumptions. I did the following:

- Ripped off the number of molecules in the atmosphere from this guy, LINK I think that's a decent estimate.

- Used the atomic and molecular weights of carbon and CO2 to figure out how many molecules of CO2 one gigatonne of carbon would produce.

- When you know the amount of molecules in the atmosphere and you know the amount of CO2 molecules from one gigatonne of carbon, the ppm per gigatonne carbon can be calculated.

-Then you just plug in any old estimate for carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels (which I guess are pretty good estimates since all the energy companies will know how much they're producing and selling of oil, gas, coal etc).

You're welcome to verify my calculations. With that many zeros to keep track of it's easy to miss by an order of magnitude.

Original comment
Latest comment:

I did the numbers myself on the back of a napkin. There's not really a whole lot of assumptions. I did the following:

- Ripped off the number of molecules in the atmosphere from this guy, LINK I think that's a decent estimate.

- Used the atomic and molecular weights of carbon and CO2 to figure out how many molecules of CO2 one gigatonne of carbon would produce.

- When you know the amount of molecules in the atmosphere and you know the amount of CO2 molecules from one gigatonne of carbon, the ppm per gigatonne carbon can be calculated.

-Then you just plug in any old estimate for carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels (which I guess are pretty good estimates since all the energy companies will know how much they're producing and selling of oil, gas, coal etc).

You're welcome to verify my calculations. With that many zeros to keep track of it's easy to miss by an order of magnitude.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: The one and only Mad (6 days ago)

Well it's irrelevant nonsense to climate loony progressives, but don't worry about their blinkers, those that have a enquiring brain soon stumble across the historical variance.

Original comment

Well it's irrelevant nonsense to climate loony progressives, but don't worry about their blinkers, those that have a enquiring brain soon stumble across the historical variance.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Arctic ice not being replaced, and why that is a HUGE problem
Arctic ice not being replaced, and why that is a HUGE problem
What's going on with the climate system?
What's going on with the climate system?
Nuclear sub breaks through Arctic ice
Nuclear sub breaks through Arctic ice
Snapshot of life on an Arctic science expedition
Snapshot of life on an Arctic science expedition
Russian Navy officers test polar waters
Russian Navy officers test polar waters