Summer Arctic Ice

jack97 · May 26, 2014

fbrissette said:
Let me repeat myself: Seasonal forecasts DO NOT WORK at the present time. Don't be fooled by the fact that all agencies do it nonetheless (there are justifications for the exercise however, but not operational at this point).

haha..... pot tell kettle not to trust one model but to trust another. But that's why I showed the observed data, even Bastardi is saying it's been online since 2011 and it needs to show some level of accuracy.

fbrissette · May 26, 2014

jack97 said:
where did all that warming go for the past 18 years? did the ocean flip that switch and turn into sinks? Or is it hiding in the deep ocean waiting to come up. Sounds like pseudo science or stuff you see in the sci fi channel.

Don't you think it has not puzzled scientists ? Do you think they're all idiots praying in front of the IPCC bible ? There has been quite a bit a literature and data analysis and the role of the ocean is emerging as the real culprit.

Stop focusing on the sole data of global surface temperature and look at the big picture.

fbrissette · May 26, 2014

jack97 said:
haha..... pot tell kettle not to trust one model but to trust another.

You CANNOT compare a weather model to a climate model, no matter how similar they are. It is actually severely more difficult to predict the weather in two weeks (and likely beyond the theoretical physically possible limit) that it is to predict the climate in 40 years.

jack97 said:
But that's why I showed the observed data, even Bastardi is saying it's been online since 2011 and it needs to show some level of accuracy.

It seems you can only cite 4 or 5 people, including Bastardi who is a nobody. Nobody cares what Bastardi think with the exception of your kind that will buy into anything that fits your preconceived ideas, without any critical evaluation whatsoever.

fbrissette · May 26, 2014

dlague said:
Well I plead a certain level of ignorance but do not buy into the Global Warming hysteria.

Contrarily to Jack97, at least you are admitting to your ignorance.

I do not buy the global warming hysteria either. But I definitely buy global warming. If you were to read the science, you will find that the hysteria is pretty much absent in there too.

jack97 · May 26, 2014

fbrissette said:
Don't you think it has not puzzled scientists ? Do you think they're all idiots praying in front of the IPCC bible ? There has been quite a bit a literature and data analysis and the role of the ocean is emerging as the real culprit.

Stop focusing on the sole data of global surface temperature and look at the big picture.

yes.... so if it's the ocean, how did man cause this? maybe we are eating too much sushi?

jack97 · May 26, 2014

fbrissette said:
You CANNOT compare a weather model to a climate model, no matter how similar they are. It is actually severely more difficult to predict the weather in two weeks (and likely beyond the theoretical physically possible limit) that it is to predict the climate in 40 years.

It seems you can only cite 4 or 5 people, including Bastardi who is a nobody. Nobody cares what Bastardi think with the exception of your kind that will buy into anything that fits your preconceived ideas, without any critical evaluation whatsoever.

Like you're a somebody who has authoritative knowledge? Sounds even more arrogant than cannonball.

And as I said before, even Bastardi links to the observed plots to verify.... so are you going to say the plots are not to be trusted as well b/c you don't approve them?

jack97 · May 26, 2014

fbrissette said:
Contrarily to Jack97, at least you are admitting to your ignorance.

I do not buy the global warming hysteria either. But I definitely buy global warming. If you were to read the science, you will find that the hysteria is pretty much absent in there too.

What about the cook's 97% paper you told me to read? That's full of hysteria and reeks of ignorance by those who cite it and references it.

fbrissette · May 26, 2014

jack97 said:
yes.... so if it's the ocean, how did man cause this? maybe we are eating too much sushi?

????

The ocean is taking more heat than predicted by the models. That's all. And before you jump on the second part of the sentence, climate scientists know first hand that their models are not perfect.

fbrissette · May 26, 2014

jack97 said:
What about the cook's 97% paper you told me to read? That's full of hysteria and reeks of ignorance by those who cite it and references it.

Show me examples of hysteria in the paper. I don't see it. Feel free to point the methodological problems and why it should not have been published. Where did the referees fail ?

jack97 · May 26, 2014

fbrissette said:
????

The ocean is taking more heat than predicted by the models. That's all. And before you jump on the second part of the sentence, climate scientists know first hand that their models are not perfect.

That's Trenberth's hypothesis.... he has to prove it to be different than the natural cycles we have experienced.

fbrissette · May 26, 2014

jack97 said:
And as I said before, even Bastardi links to the observed plots to verify.... so are you going to say the plots are not to be trusted as well b/c you don't approve them?

I have discussed the plots earlier. I have no problems with the data. Your interpretation of them is what I have a problem with.

jack97 said:
Like you're a somebody who has authoritative knowledge? Sounds even more arrogant than cannonball.

You don't need to be a climate scientist to have adequate knowledge. But you first need to read the scientific literature (not the interpretation made by others with an agenda), understand it, and be able to critically evaluate it before you can be someone with authoritative knowledge (which is clearly not your case). I have never flashed my credentials in the past few months but here's a glimpse: I am not a climate scientist but I work with several good ones, I have been conducting research in the field of climate change for the best part of the past 15 years, I have published dozens of peer-reviewed papers cited by hundreds of others, including the latest IPCC report (WGII). For a ski forum, I will say that my credentials to discuss this topic are above average.

Why do I do it ? Because it entertains me (especially when stuck in a boring hotel like tonight) and to be honest I find your views and thought process fascinating. Kinda like watching Duck dynasty or Swamp people. So far removed from my reality.

Cannonball arrogant ? Nahhh, Just impatient. It's easy to become impatient with you. You are relentless.

fbrissette · May 26, 2014

jack97 said:
That's Trenberth's hypothesis.... he has to prove it to be different than the natural cycles we have experienced.

It's not Trenberth's hypothesis anymore than that of many others. For every climate scientist that's a bit outspoken on the public place, you will find hundreds that shy away from the limelight. Saying it's Trenberth's hypothesis underlines the fact that you don't read the scientific literature. This hypothesis was a fairly obvious one to begin with (I mean where else can the heat go ?) and is now backed by studies from dozens of scientists using models and data analysis.

jack97 · May 26, 2014

fbrissette said:
Show me examples of hysteria in the paper. I don't see it. Feel free to point the methodological problems and why it should not have been published. Where did the referees fail ?

The paper is a consensus of the people screening them. Cook operates a dubious web site called "SkepticalScience", a pro AWG site. He along with his cohorts, they are either mentioned on the front page or on the back with acknowledgment performed the screen. IIRC, the only one who has any expertise in climate science is some one name debbi, she works at Michigan State and has a strong interest in ocean chemistry. Cook himself has a PHD in Psychology. As far I can tell, a Finnish computer scientist with a BA did the most reviews/screen that decided which papers were pro AGW or not.

Scientists have complained that there screened papers was unduly represented in this "consensus" paper. In addition, there have been attempts to get more background on other screeners to determine there expertise in this field. However, the university is not allowing this due to privacy concerns. The university and cook's position has to come in question since most well regarded technical journals would list the credential of the contributors.

Seems like a tarantino scene.... the 97% consensus determined by a Finnish guitar loving computer scientist.

jack97 · May 26, 2014

fbrissette said:
It's not Trenberth's hypothesis anymore than that of many others. For every climate scientist that's a bit outspoken on the public place, you will find hundreds that shy away from the limelight. Saying it's Trenberth's hypothesis underlines the fact that you don't read the scientific literature. This hypothesis was a fairly obvious one to begin with (I mean where else can the heat go ?) and is now backed by studies from dozens of scientists using models and data analysis.

ok, maybe so, but trenberth's writes and talks about this all the time.

fbrissette said:
This hypothesis was a fairly obvious one to begin with (I mean where else can the heat go ?) and is now backed by studies from dozens of scientists using models and data analysis.

Maybe the (man cause) heat didn't go into the ocean.....

jack97 · May 26, 2014

fbrissette said:
Why do I do it ? Because it entertains me (especially when stuck in a boring hotel like tonight) and to be honest I find your views and thought process fascinating. Kinda like watching Duck dynasty or Swamp people. So far removed from my reality.

SO how different are they from Curry, Christy and Lindzen?

jack97 · May 27, 2014

fbrissette said:
It's not Trenberth's hypothesis anymore than that of many others. For every climate scientist that's a bit outspoken on the public place, you will find hundreds that shy away from the limelight. Saying it's Trenberth's hypothesis underlines the fact that you don't read the scientific literature. This hypothesis was a fairly obvious one to begin with (I mean where else can the heat go ?) and is now backed by studies from dozens of scientists using models and data analysis.

Spoken like a third rate scientist.... making a hypothesis like this, saying man did this and without support of a reasonable guess for a cause. I've tune out from this hypothesis since is it sound like a kid gives a statement "just because".

jack97 · May 27, 2014

Kind of related.... ice still in the great lakes. I'm somewhat surprised the media outlets did not pick up on this since it would be unprecedented that ice has stay around for this long. In addition, the bugs have not been out, perhaps some should be put in the endanger species list.

Lake Superior Ice

jack97 · May 29, 2014

International media news outlet finally getting the story right about the Antarctic ice sheet melt. Summary from the scientific papers states that this process was happening 20,000 years ago due to the ice being on top of a unstable land water boundary.

Antarctic Ice melt

Fascinating how the US media is herding sheeple as well.

Not Sure · Jun 29, 2014

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice-area/

fbrissette · Jul 1, 2014

Siliconebobsquarepants said:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/antarctica-sets-new-record-for-sea-ice-area/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...May-was-the-hottest-month-ever-for-Earth.html

Summer Arctic Ice

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads