Arctic Warming Causing Cold Weather

[jack97]

Here's peer-reviewed research. Not an IPCC document.

Cook, John, et al. "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature." Environmental Research Letters 8.2 (2013): 024024.

haha... an alarmist quantifying his biased survey

 

[jack97]

duplicate deleted.

 

[Rowsdower]

haha... an alarmist quantifying his biased survey

What specifically didn't you like in the author's methodology?

 

[jack97]

What specifically didn't you like in the author's methodology?

do your own research and come up with your opinion.

i have get some sleep and ski tomorrow before the non crystalline precipitation comes. winter has been great so far!

 

[fbrissette]

I have... its why I stated the measurements for baselining is a major undertaking.


edit: btw, ocean as a heat absorption has been speculated long ago by these tenure professor and that's why in part they never believed in the greenhouse theory. But the nowadays you have to present it as "global warmth hiding in the ocean" to get any media attention let alone any of the trade rags who have been taken over by alarmist.

May I suggest you read the paper again ? Because what you are saying about it and what it actually says are not the same thing.

The total energy imbalance at the top of atmosphere is best assessed by taking an inventory of changes in energy storage. The main storage is in the ocean, the latest values of which are presented. Furthermore, despite differences in measurement methods and analysis techniques, multiple studies show that there has been a multidecadal increase in the heat content of both the upper and deep ocean regions, which reflects the impact of anthropogenic warming.

Edit: note it says 'multiple studies' whereas you said earlier you did not find any papers about this.

 

[jack97]

May I suggest you read the paper again ? Because what you are saying about it and what it actually says are not the same thing.



Edit: note it says 'multiple studies' whereas you said earlier you did not find any papers about this.

As far as I read no one has shown how or why the oceans took over the warmth or absorb the excess co2 (if such a quantity can be measured in the first place).

the paper did not address what the trigger in the ocean cause this pause at 97-98. Trenberth's recent papers at least correlates this to natural causes measured at the ocean.

.... you really need to get off the IPCC bible.

 

[jack97]

hmm.... no more replys from the ipcc zealots or political activist?


Here's an interesting transcript (sorry fbriss... no ytube) from the American Physic Society in that they want to reframe the policy statement on climate science. The last statement caused several resignation from prominent members. From what I have gather, the resignation was due to supporting claims as a result of bad science.

The transcript is from a workshop for framing this statement. Several key speakers were former IPCC lead authors and some are now cast out b/c this didn't drink the koolaid. Its a long read.... but if you're comfortable with dogma just ignore it.


http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf


btw, some are giving hints that we may experience more cooling... meaning good winters, I had to bring this back to topic.

 

[flightschool]

hmm.... no more replys from the ipcc zealots or political activist?


Here's an interesting transcript (sorry fbriss... no ytube) from the American Physic Society in that they want to reframe the policy statement on climate science. The last statement caused several resignation from prominent members. From what I have gather, the resignation was due to supporting claims as a result of bad science.

The transcript is from a workshop for framing this statement. Several key speakers were former IPCC lead authors and some are now cast out b/c this didn't drink the koolaid. Its a long read.... but if you're comfortable with dogma just ignore it.


http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf


btw, some are giving hints that we may experience more cooling... meaning good winters, I had to bring this back to topic.

Finally some good news.

 

[Cannonball]

hmm.... no more replys from the ipcc zealots or political activist?

like a politician, resort to ridicule to for the mudslinging remarks.

I think you can handle this "discussion" all on your own.

 

[BenedictGomez]

.... you really need to get off the IPCC bible.

It's not even a bible, because the "zealouts" don't even follow it. They practice "à la carte science", choosing to focus on the bits they see fit, rather than what the actual science suggests.

The fact that according to IPCC data eating meat is FAR worse than driving an SUV (if you believe the IPCC)?

Yeah, THAT doesnt get any attention, even though turning people to vegetarianism would be FAR more impactful than getting people to drive hybrid cars. But telling people they shouldnt eat meat isnt a winning strategy, and would lose politicians votes. And you cant get campaign dollars from telling people to not eat meat, unlike what you can grab from the automobile manufacturers and for providing tax subsidies for electric and hybrid cars.

Or how about the fact that according to IPCC data, owning a few dogs and a cat is worse for the planet than driving that big gas-guzzling SUV (if you believe the IPCC)?

THAT doesnt get any attention either, because telling people that owning pets is bad for the planet wont exactly win hearts and minds and get you votes either.

So instead they do the sterotypical leftist thing, attack businesses, call them evil, extract money, and focus on self-righteous phoney "solutions" rather than the actual solutions that would honestly make the most dramatic difference to the problem (assuming you believe the IPCC data in the first place).

 

[jack97]

I think you can handle this "discussion" all on your own.

yep... the dogma, zealot and activist remark was directly point at you and frbis... after 13 to 14 yrs, you should know was the mud and the condescending remarks start slinging it going to be chucked right back.

 

[jack97]

It's not even a bible, because the "zealouts" don't even follow it. They practice "à la carte science", choosing to focus on the bits they see fit, rather than what the actual science suggests.

The fact that according to IPCC data eating meat is FAR worse than driving an SUV (if you believe the IPCC)?

Yeah, THAT doesnt get any attention, even though turning people to vegetarianism would be FAR more impactful than getting people to drive hybrid cars. But telling people they shouldnt eat meat isnt a winning strategy, and would lose politicians votes. And you cant get campaign dollars from telling people to not eat meat, unlike what you can grab from the automobile manufacturers and for providing tax subsidies for electric and hybrid cars.

Or how about the fact that according to IPCC data, owning a few dogs and a cat is worse for the planet than driving that big gas-guzzling SUV (if you believe the IPCC)?

THAT doesnt get any attention either, because telling people that owning pets is bad for the planet wont exactly win hearts and minds and get you votes either.

So instead they do the sterotypical leftist thing, attack businesses, call them evil, extract money, and focus on self-righteous phoney "solutions" rather than the actual solutions that would honestly make the most dramatic difference to the problem (assuming you believe the IPCC data in the first place).

I call this blinded arrogance of the left. UN or IPCC states that 30 % of the greenhouse gasses are due to agriculture of that a significant portion of it transportion and storage. In addition of the grains are for meat, cattle is very inefficient and is still a luxury item in the rest or the world yet we have very cheap forms of it here. And then we throw out 40% of the food we produce.... plain blind arrogance.

 

[Cannonball]

yep... the dogma, zealot and activist remark was directly point at you and frbis... after 13 to 14 yrs, you should know was the mud and the condescending remarks start slinging it going to be chucked right back.

Scotty, can you translate this for me?

 

[jack97]

Finally some good news.

within that workshop, Lindzend, Curry and Christy were contributors to the IPCC, they became out casted when they questioned co2 causal relationship to temps when observations showed there is no causality or at best, very little. Their hypothesis is that the natural uncertainities were masking out man made contributions. The APS and any good scientist is re-examining the policy statements since the AWG hypothesis does to correlate to observations.

btw, causation would imply correlation the inverse is not true. imo, scientist who does states otherwise is second rate.

 

[jack97]

Scotty, can you translate this for me?

haha... i think you know.

btw, i'm having fun trolling you.... come back and play. but first I have to get some skiing done.

 

[Cannonball]

haha... i think you know.

I'm not sure I do. I'd love for you to take a stroll back through this thread and point out what makes you consider me to be dogmatic, a zealot, or an activist.

 

[Cannonball]

btw, i'm having fun trolling you.... come back and play. but first I have to get some skiing done.

Yikes!!! Just read Nick's thread that Online Trolls are Actually Sociopaths in Real Life:
http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...y-Sociopaths-in-Real-Life?p=826766#post826766

All the signs were there....

 

[MadMadWorld]

Yikes!!! Just read Nick's thread that Online Trolls are Actually Sociopaths in Real Life:
http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...y-Sociopaths-in-Real-Life?p=826766#post826766

All the signs were there....

That explains a lot about you.

 

[fbrissette]

I'm not sure I do. I'd love for you to take a stroll back through this thread and point out what makes you consider me to be dogmatic, a zealot, or an activist.

In the eyes of jack97, if you believe that man has a role in the warming, or that the earth is warming at all, or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you are by definition a radical alarmist. Any peer-reviewed paper that points to any of the above is also automatically part of the IPCC conspiracy. Any paper that goes against his belief will either be interpreted in a different way, criticized for not looking at something entirely different, or part of the bible of the IPCC (whatever that is).

I would add that having a polar bear as an avatar automatically makes you an alarmist since we all know polar bears are used as a propaganda tool by the IPCC.

May I suggest the following avatar ?

 

[MadMadWorld]

This shit is so over my head I don't even know who's arguing which side anymore.