lulz

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

lulz

Postby assateague » Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:40 am

98%! 98%! 98%!


Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month


A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.
The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland


Re: lulz

Postby Gunnysway » Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:58 am

:eek:

So I will still be able to wear my expensive cold weather hunting gear after all...

And to think I almost sold it due to global warming... :hammer:
Setting up meetings between geese and God since 1992...

Gud till ära, oss till gagn...
User avatar
Gunnysway
hunter
 
Posts: 2944
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:46 am
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell

Re: lulz

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Sep 09, 2013 8:24 am

The greenies are gonna have to sell their Prius's and buy F-350's to help warm the world up now. :lol3:
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6582
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: lulz

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:15 am

That should make for an interesting season of Deadliest Catch next year. :yes:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16122
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: lulz

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Sep 09, 2013 9:24 am

Rehash bitchin about worst weather ever, had to go home and be lazy and sleep with the wife, hard to make money when we can't fish, etc.......
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6582
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: lulz

Postby Chilidawg » Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:08 am

It still seems a bit below average.

Image


Image
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: lulz

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:21 am

Chilidawg wrote:It still seems a bit below average.

Image


Image


Are you serious? You put a plot that goes all the way back to 1978 and that is the "average" by which you compare :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

And remember, what was the fear at that time? :huh: Oh yeah, the coming ice age and not the cartoon. Might the ice been above average? Don't know, but I'll bet they probably had charts just like yours showing the growing artic ice sheet :yes:

Image

I couldn't find any good charts. I found one that suggested that it never varied by much more than ±10%, which seems laughable but that makes the 20% decline look huge :huh: Seems too good to be true, so it must be true. :rolleyes: After the climategate e-mails were released. I just don't trust these people. They've been crying wolf for so long, who the hell knows if this time there is one or it's just their self-serving desire to feel important.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16122
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: lulz

Postby assateague » Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:24 am

Chilidawg wrote:It still seems a bit below average.

Image


Image



:lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

Since the global warming folks seem to have a catch all derogatory phrase for anything a conservative chooses to believe, I think I'll start referring to these folks as "clenchers", because they just won't let it go.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: lulz

Postby seastreet » Mon Sep 09, 2013 10:30 am

Two recent peer reviewed and published papers show ENSO as the main planetary temperature control knob:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/another-paper-blames-enso-for-global-warming-pause-calling-it-a-major-control-knob-governing-earths-temperature/

CO2 is just along for the ride. It is a bit player and we are wasting our time/money trying to do anything about it.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
User avatar
seastreet
hunter
 
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:56 pm
Location: Downeast, NC

Re: lulz

Postby Chilidawg » Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:20 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
Are you serious? You put a plot that goes all the way back to 1978 and that is the "average" by which you compare.



Satellite records began in 1979.
Other records of sea ice go back to the 1950's

Image

Prior to that there are no direct measurements. Proxy measurements using ocean sediment cores and other indicators have been used to reconstruct sea ice levels.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 81_F3.html
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: lulz

Postby assateague » Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:29 am

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: lulz

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Sep 09, 2013 11:45 am

Chilidawg wrote:Satellite records began in 1979.
Other records of sea ice go back to the 1950's
Which as I said, is zip, zero, nada in terms of a climate argument.

Chilidawg wrote:Prior to that there are no direct measurements. Proxy measurements using ocean sediment cores and other indicators have been used to reconstruct sea ice levels.
And do you think that the variation was only on the order of ±10% or do you think that there may not really be 95% confidence in their 95% confidence interval? Although over the course of 14 hundred years a good scientist would expect the 99% confidence interval would have been exceed about 14 times? :huh: Now this is the 40 year average so we are smoothing out the annual variations so we would expect to exceed it less if it was perfectly correctly, which is never true.

All records with a time resolution smaller than 40 years were interpolated to 1 year and then smoothed with a 40-year lowpass filter.

Why did they smooth out the 1 year variations? :huh:

I just find it highly unlikely that the variation was so limited, given that the annual variation in sea ice around the mean seems to be about 30%, especially given that there looks like one year variations of the high and low on the order of 10%. Look at the first peak and the 4th peak and look at the first min and the 3rd min. Those are some big short term changes for the extent of the range over longer time periods to be so small. I'm just skeptical and is that not what scientists are supposed to be? :huh:

Image

While I have studied most of the underlying physics, this is not an area I have ever had any particular interest. Maybe there is some strong proof here, but there are a lot of things going on here with the numbers that may be totally legitimate, but they also may be misleading. not implying intent, but after the climate gate e-mails Image

There is a reason that double blind studies are necessary for SCIENTISTS, and not just laypersons to avoid biasing results to the point of uselessness and it is not because they are inherently dishonest.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16122
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: lulz

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:31 pm

assateague wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:It still seems a bit below average.

Image


Image



:lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

Since the global warming folks seem to have a catch all derogatory phrase for anything a conservative chooses to believe, I think I'll start referring to these folks as "clenchers", because they just won't let it go.



Make that anal clenchers. :lol3:

Every time a conservative speaks and brings up the truth, they get all squeaky and pucker up in an uncomfortable area.

Apparently liberal mommies no long teach their children that you can only lie for so long before you get caught.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6582
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: lulz

Postby Chilidawg » Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:43 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:Satellite records began in 1979.
Other records of sea ice go back to the 1950's
Which as I said, is zip, zero, nada in terms of a climate argument.


But that is precisely the argument made in the OP.

Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: lulz

Postby Rat Creek » Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:46 pm

Here is what I learned. We have multiple visual charts and varying claims of facts that all show something different. :huh: Maybe, just maybe someone is getting their creative freak on like the chief frauds at East Anglea when they decided to hide the decline (in global temps that is).

And though the clenchers are begrudgingly admitting the sea ice has returned, these same clenchers claim it is an anomaly because it does not meet their definition of average. Can their be a real average that provides anything but a fund raising mechanism if we know the planet has been much, much colder and much, much warmer? :huh:

If not for the destruction of industries, brainwashing of children and useful idiots, and wasting untold billions of windmills, it would all be pretty funny. :no:

But to all this good news that we are all going to freeze to death, I think we owe a debt of gratitude (or blame) to all the Prius drivers for saving the planet. :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

Quick. Create more CO2 and paint everything black with crude oil to absorb heat in an attempt to stave off the next ice age. :yes: We have about as good a chance at that as we did of saving the planet from the phony warming crisis.

Honest question: Will members of the Church of Global Warming (clenchers) ever admit to being duped? My guess is NEVER. :rolleyes:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4411
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: lulz

Postby Chilidawg » Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:47 pm

assateague wrote:98%! 98%! 98%!


Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

-- SNIP==

A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.
The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
--SNIP--





a 60% increase from the record minimum last year, and it is still way below the norm.
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: lulz

Postby Chilidawg » Mon Sep 09, 2013 1:52 pm

Rat Creek wrote:And though the clenchers are begrudgingly admitting the sea ice has returned, these same clenchers claim it is an anomaly because it does not meet their definition of average.


What is YOUR definition of average?

The fact that the sea ice has increased slightly from last year, does not change the fact that last year was the lowest level in recent history.

Why is is ok to point to a 1 year deviation from last year to this year to claim that "the science is wrong," but that a 33 year trend is "too short a time frame?"
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: lulz

Postby Chilidawg » Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:07 pm

Another graph

Image
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: lulz

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:13 pm

Chilidawg wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:Satellite records began in 1979.
Other records of sea ice go back to the 1950's
Which as I said, is zip, zero, nada in terms of a climate argument.


But that is precisely the argument made in the OP.

So your graphs were pointless? :huh:

Plus is below average arctic ice good or bad? If below average ice bad, then wouldn't that suggest above average is good? Or is the average the perfect optimum and anything else and the porridge is just not right?

I'm just very skeptical. It's human nature. Smoking is bad, everybody knows it, yet people never stop because the consequences are off in the future, so the call to action must be dire and immediate. If you want to get grants, they go to the people that prove something is or will happen and not to the people that show that it makes little difference.

I have no doubt that the earth is warmer. How much? Image Are the consequence on average positive? Image Clearly depends on where you live and how much warmer it is than it otherwise would be. All consequences are not negative and they are definitely not all doomsday.

And the final point is that it does not matter anyways. China is not going to cut it's CO2 emissions. Economic growth is clearly far more valuable to them than the harm from the CO2 ever will be. Same with India and every other piss-poor country with billions of people. The lack of economic growth is going to do way more harm than CO2 ever will for those piss-poor countries that may be harmed by the effects of greater CO2.

If you care about people, it is not even close to the biggest issue. Cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy is a critical part what is needed to get the piss-poor to the quality of life of the fat dumb and happy "poor" in America. If they get that, they will adapt to the impacts of CO2, whatever they may be. If they don't well they will continue to suffer as they do.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16122
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: lulz

Postby Chilidawg » Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:15 pm

assateague wrote:98%! 98%! 98%!



Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html


the Daily mail and the telegraph both ran this article.

According to a review of the facts by the Guardian,

Both articles also claimed that "some scientists" are predicting that we're headed into a period of global cooling. Both named just one scientist making this claim – Professor Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin, whose research shows that slowed global surface warming is only temporary. In fact, Tsonis' co-author Kyle Swanson wrote,

"What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf."


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -delusions

so in other words, the article cited in the OP is full of it.
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: lulz

Postby Chilidawg » Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:19 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:Satellite records began in 1979.
Other records of sea ice go back to the 1950's
Which as I said, is zip, zero, nada in terms of a climate argument.


But that is precisely the argument made in the OP.

So your graphs were pointless? :huh:


So the OP was pointless? :huh:

You can't make the argument that the 34 year satellite record is too short, and not at least admit that the time frame made in the OP was even shorter.

No one has ever claimed that there are no cyclical trends.
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: lulz

Postby Chilidawg » Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:21 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
I'm just very skeptical. It's human nature. Smoking is bad, everybody knows it, yet people never stop because the consequences are off in the future, so the call to action must be dire and immediate. If you want to get grants, they go to the people that prove something is or will happen and not to the people that show that it makes little difference.

I have no doubt that the earth is warmer. How much? Image Are the consequence on average positive? Image Clearly depends on where you live and how much warmer it is than it otherwise would be. All consequences are not negative and they are definitely not all doomsday.

And the final point is that it does not matter anyways. China is not going to cut it's CO2 emissions. Economic growth is clearly far more valuable to them than the harm from the CO2 ever will be. Same with India and every other piss-poor country with billions of people. The lack of economic growth is going to do way more harm than CO2 ever will for those piss-poor countries that may be harmed by the effects of greater CO2.

If you care about people, it is not even close to the biggest issue. Cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy is a critical part what is needed to get the piss-poor to the quality of life of the fat dumb and happy "poor" in America. If they get that, they will adapt to the impacts of CO2, whatever they may be. If they don't well they will continue to suffer as they do.


Move to Canada.

:tongue:
Chilidawg
hunter
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 6:24 am

Re: lulz

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:32 pm

Here is the deal with the entire temperature argument. No matter what we do and ice age is coming, as is global warming. It is cyclical. What are the main driving forces?

1. The Oceans
2. The Sun
3. Variances in Solar Radiation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20,989 Carbon Dioxide

You can talk about averages all you want, the short term you are using is an irrelevant blip. The world has been both warmer and cooler with higher CO2 levels than we have now. As mentioned the growing industrial nations are not going to slow down. We cannot even begin to counter the amount of CO2 that will be produced by 3 billion people with only 300 million doing everything they can. It is a completely ridiculous waste of money.

The one thing we can be certain of is that when the present period of solar flares slows and stops the world will cool. Something else will come up and it will heat up, something else will come along and we will experience another ice age. The real question is what difference does a foot higher ocean make to me? Doesn't mean a dang thing to me. As for idiots who built in the flood zone. Life is gonna suck. Better buy flooding insurance now!

Chili your charts, and argument are completely unsupportable. Nothing in science or the worlds history supports your hypothesis. Nothing.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6582
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: lulz

Postby assateague » Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:04 pm

Chilidawg wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Chilidawg wrote:Satellite records began in 1979.
Other records of sea ice go back to the 1950's
Which as I said, is zip, zero, nada in terms of a climate argument.


But that is precisely the argument made in the OP.

So your graphs were pointless? :huh:


So the OP was pointless? :huh:

You can't make the argument that the 34 year satellite record is too short, and not at least admit that the time frame made in the OP was even shorter.

No one has ever claimed that there are no cyclical trends.



Yes they did. The IPCC, as a matter of fact.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: lulz

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:30 am

ScaupHunter wrote:Here is the deal with the entire temperature argument. No matter what we do and ice age is coming, as is global warming. It is cyclical. What are the main driving forces?

1. The Oceans
2. The Sun
3. Variances in Solar Radiation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20,989 Carbon Dioxide

You can talk about averages all you want, the short term you are using is an irrelevant blip. The world has been both warmer and cooler with higher CO2 levels than we have now. As mentioned the growing industrial nations are not going to slow down. We cannot even begin to counter the amount of CO2 that will be produced by 3 billion people with only 300 million doing everything they can. It is a completely ridiculous waste of money.

The one thing we can be certain of is that when the present period of solar flares slows and stops the world will cool. Something else will come up and it will heat up, something else will come along and we will experience another ice age. The real question is what difference does a foot higher ocean make to me? Doesn't mean a dang thing to me. As for idiots who built in the flood zone. Life is gonna suck. Better buy flooding insurance now!

Chili your charts, and argument are completely unsupportable. Nothing in science or the worlds history supports your hypothesis. Nothing.

I'm still waiting for a clencher to explain how we had an ice age with 20 times the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere...... :hi:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56979
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Next

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests