World's Ice Caps are Melting!

[Andre]

WTF?! Do you think I didn't understand that they are talking about considerably above ground level? :bugeye:
That is mentioned in that article and all I did was post a link to it.
Don't shoot the messenger, I didn't write the article and didn't claim that it's the ground level temperature.
So cease your silly rambling.

Then why post it off track in a ice caps melting thread while it has nothing to do whatsoever with melting ice caps. And we were just trying to expose the agenda of the BBC and the very clever use of fallacies and misleading statement.

But then compare it to Scientific American, Here is a messenger to shoot.

Balloon Data Confirms ANTARCTIC WARMING TREND

(Misleading if not a lie: trend of the surface stations is insignificant, some cooling some warming, the stratosphere is cooling. What are they talking about?)

Launching weather balloons has been a nearly daily habit at some Antarctic research facilities since 1957. Carrying radiosondes--instruments that measure atmospheric conditions such as temperature and wind speed--the balloons travel as high as 12 miles or more. A new analysis of the past 30 years of records from nine research stations, including Amundsen-Scott at the South Pole, reveals that THE AIR ABOVE THE ENTIRETY OF ANTARCTICA has warmed by as much as 0.70 degree Celsius per decade during the winter months.

Misleading/lie. Some air has cooled There is data about the lower troposphere as well as "surface air" around the thermometers.

John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey and his colleagues report in today's issue of Science that this warming trend is consistent across data from multiple stations run by multiple countries using multiple types of instruments. Previous studies had shown that Antarctica's surface temperatures had warmed by roughly 2.5 degrees C over the last half century, but this study provides the most complete look at atmospheric trends to date.

Blatant unashamed lie. If there was a law enforcing correctness of information somebody would have got convicted here.

"The rapid surface warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and the enhanced global warming signal over the whole continent shows the complexity of climate change," Turner says.

The pensinsula statement is about the only thing that's correct. The rest is yet another lie, there is no enhanced warming anywhere else on the surface of Antarctica except the tip of the western Peninsula.

"Greenhouse gases could be having a bigger impact in Antarctica than across the rest of the world and we don't understand why."

That's not what he says in his own study that merely states that the tropospheric has not been explained. Could be GHG; could be something else.

This warming has implications for snowfall on the continent as well as the melting of land-based ice reserves, potentially leading to global sea-level rise, the researchers warn.

Complete and utter BS. If the continent warms the temps are getting in the snow fall range causing a potential ice sheet growth. Right now it's too cold to snow.

Although they cannot ascribe a particular cause to the warming, they ruled out several other potential explanations, including heat transfer from other regions (there was no observed change in wind patterns) and solar radiation changes (the sun is either at or below the horizon throughout the winter months in question).

And although current computer models fail to predict this warming trend, the scientists argue that the data is consistent with what would be expected as a result of increasing greenhouse gases. "Our next step," Turner says, "is to try to improve the models.

See how an innocent and objective article can be used for unashamed propaganda.

 

[Billy T]

...They {BBC} get a dollar and thirty cents from Tom Cruise ...

Hope they did not collect from Tom for me. - I am in the "no body knows" camp, but willing to admit increasing CO2 tends to warm Earth and this plus its extra carbon in the air helps plants grow, especially the extra CO2 in air.

I thank Andre also as there are many more ignorant green soldiers than his type, but since i am posting want to note that the BBC uses Pounds, not dollars. If they get a Pound for each "CO2 is evil" recruit, your $1.30 is a little low.

 

[Andre]

Hope they did not collect from Tom for me. - I am in the "no body knows" camp, but willing to admit increasing CO2 tends to warm Earth and this plus its extra carbon in the air helps plants grow, especially the extra CO2 in air.

I thank Andre also as there are many more ignorant green soldiers than his type, but since i am posting want to note that the BBC uses Pounds, not dollars. If they get a Pound for each "CO2 is evil" recruit, your $1.30 is a little low.

You're welcome Billy although it's getting really tough nowadays, apparantly playing mankind enemy #1 and staying deliberate main target of the fallacy firing army instead of jumping on the bandwagon. Sceptism has been a intrinsic part of the scientific method ever since Phyrro and more defined by Karl von Popper. But with the war of global warming going on skeptism is now equivalent to the enemy, carefully cultivated by a deluge of ad hominems (oil companies et al).

Anyway, I was supposed to be sitting in a boat somewhere, according to a dissapeared post, I presume, to be fishing for red herrings?

 

[Andre]

While this has nothing to do with the subject of melting ice caps, it gives a great impression of how human conductors of science and applied as in global warming react on stone solid anomalies:

http://www.disputatio.com/articles/006-1.pdf

Check out IV conclusions but better enjoy the whole article. It's worthwhile.

 

[Edufer]

The article by UNScientific America says:

John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey and his colleagues report in today's issue of Science that this warming trend is consistent across data from multiple stations run by multiple countries using multiple types of instruments. Previous studies had shown that Antarctica's surface temperatures had warmed by roughly 2.5 degrees C over the last half century, but this study provides the most complete look at atmospheric trends to date.

As André correctly states, this is just plain shameless lying. These people at the British Antarctic Survey are well know liars and have a long standing fame for doing it since 1985 when they said they had “discovered the Ozone Hole in Antarctica”.

This subject has been discussed here at length, and we have provided ample and overwhelming proof that the Southern Anomaly (as G. Dobson called it, and described the phenomenon in his 1968 Oxford University Press book “Exploring the Atmosphere”.) was already known in 1957, during the International Geophysical Year, when Dobson’s team discovered the anomaly simultaneously with French scientists Rigaud and Leroy, at Dumont D’Urville Antarctic Base, on the other side of Antarctica.

Here are some examples of temperature records from Antarctica taken from NASA’s website at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ where you can check it for yourself:

<img src=http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/chart/Antartida/Vostok.jpg width=400> <img src=http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/chart/Antartida/AmundsenScott.jpg width=400>

Not much warming here - in fact, we see cooling n Amundsen-Scott base. Wait for more stations in Antarctica.

 

[Edufer]

More sations from Antarctica:

<img src=http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/chart/Antartida/Dome-c.jpg width=400> <img src=http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/chart/Antartida/LarsenIceShelf.jpg width=400>

More cooling here.

 

[Edufer]

Just two more stations for showing that Antarctcia has not warmed by 2.5º C in the last 50 years.

<img src=http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/chart/Antartida/Henry.jpg width=400> <img src=http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/chart/Antartida/Halley.jpg width=400>

Antarctica is cooling, gentlemen, and I guess the evidence provided here will be enough to prove that those people at the British Antarctic Survey, that call themselves “scientists” are nothing else than cheap liars.

 

[Ophiolite]

Fool. Dangerous fool. I curse you three times.

 

[QuarkMoon]

Fool. Dangerous fool. I curse you three times.

Careful, you wouldn't want to trip over your fanaticism. :m:

 

[duendy]

The article by UNScientific America says:



As André correctly states, this is just plain shameless lying. These people at the British Antarctic Survey are well know liars and have a long standing fame for doing it since 1985 when they said they had “discovered the Ozone Hole in Antarctica”.

This subject has been discussed here at length, and we have provided ample and overwhelming proof that the Southern Anomaly (as G. Dobson called it, and described the phenomenon in his 1968 Oxford University Press book “Exploring the Atmosphere”.) was already known in 1957, during the International Geophysical Year, when Dobson’s team discovered the anomaly simultaneously with French scientists Rigaud and Leroy, at Dumont D’Urville Antarctic Base, on the other side of Antarctica.

Here are some examples of temperature records from Antarctica taken from NASA’s website at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ where you can check it for yourself:

<img src=http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/chart/Antartida/Vostok.jpg width=400> <img src=http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/chart/Antartida/AmundsenScott.jpg width=400>

Not much warming here - in fact, we see cooling n Amundsen-Scott base. Wait for more stations in Antarctica.

don't trust ANYthing with 'american' attached to it...fool!
i have seen wit my own eyes on several documentaries that ice caps HAVE MELTED!

 

[Andre]

Here is another fool fairy Blackstick Freeman Dyson

....

You students are proud possessors of the PhD, or some similar token of academic respectability. You have endured many years of poverty and hard labor. Now you are ready to go to your just rewards, to a place on the tenure track of the university, or on the board of directors of a company.

And here am I, a person who never had a PhD myself and fought all my life against the PhD system and everything it stands for. Of course I fought in vain. The grip of the PhD system on academic life is tighter today than it has ever been. But I will continue to fight against it for as long as I live. In short I am proud to be heretic.

Unfortunately, I am an old heretic. Old heretics don't cut much ice. What the world needs is young heretics. I am hoping that one or two of you may fill that role. So I will tell you briefly about three heresies that I'm promoting.

The first of my heresies says that all the fluff about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of twilight model experts and the crowd of diluted citizens that believe the numbers predicted by their models. Of course they say I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak.

But I have studied their climate models and know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics and do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.

The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That's why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

There's no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global. The warming happens in places and times where it is cold, in the arctic more than the tropics, in the winter more than the summer, at night more than the daytime.

I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans...cont'd

 

[Ophiolite]

Careful, you wouldn't want to trip over your fanaticism. :m:

It it those suffering poor vision who are in danger of tripping up. And bringing the rest of us down with them.
I have rarely heard a view consistent with a global majority of experts and backed up by a plethora of research described as fanatacism. Perhaps the mote in your eye is what is causing your optical difficulties.

Do keep supporting the status quo, head in the sand, brain in neutral, everything will work out fine, approach. Go ahead and condemn my children and my grandchildren to a world of chaos and dissolution almost beyond imagination. Just don't expect me to thank you for it.

 

[Edufer]

Fool. Dangerous fool. I curse you three times.

Well, Harry Potter took off his mask! He should be posting in the Sorcerers & Witches forum somewhere else...

And all just becasue I posted temperature graphs (real, hard data) taken from a pro Warming site as NASA/GISS! Talk about intolerance...

 

[duendy]

If you errrrr 'heretics' issaying: listen. warming of Earth is a natrual phenomenon tyhat goes in cycles like everything els.

agreed

but very recently saw a bbc docu. a very earthy down to earth scienist went a searchin to get to the bottom of tis shit. he met a woman from Oxford uni who sowhed a graph OF how climate change does vary.....true

BUT, the graph went rigt up at the point of OUR relatively recent part to play with our emissions

so as i am currently understanding it. YESwe are in A crisis!

 

[Andre]

Perhaps it would have helped to show the source:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=700890090008&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=700896060008&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

etc.

This:

is from the June Jule August (JJA) column of the data like this:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/STATIONS//tmp.700890090008.1.1/station.txt

Very simple to reproduce and after this it is scientifically safe to say that this:

Antarctica's surface temperatures had warmed by roughly 2.5 degrees C over the last half century,

is the dangerous fanatism that we face today.

 

[duendy]

Perhaps it would have helped to show the source:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=700890090008&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/g...py?id=700896060008&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

etc.

This:

is from the June Jule August (JJA) column of the data like this:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/STATIONS//tmp.700890090008.1.1/station.txt

Very simple to reproduce and after this it is scientifically safe to say that this:



is the dangerous fanatism that we face today.

NASA...?? Illuminati, darlin!

 

[spidergoat]

Here is another fool fairy Blackstick Freeman Dyson

This from the guy that wanted to use nuclear explosions to power rockets.

 

[Andre]

This from the guy that wanted to use nuclear explosions to power rockets.

Thanks for the most excellent response I could hope for in the discussion about global warming and fallacies. An ad hominem and a strawman in one sentence. Very well done. This is the very main core of the global warming, lacking evidence there is only one way, fallacies and red herrings.

Are you sure he isn't paid by the oil companies?

 

[spidergoat]

He's not a climate scientist, so wasn't your post a red herring?

 

[Andre]

Are climate specialists qualified to solve the equations of fluid dynamics and describing fluid motions in various basins? Are physicians like Dyson qualified to do so? Are climate scientists qualified to select statictic methods and make non standards decision that yield a certain result? (MBH and the Hockeystick) and are staticians (Steve McIntyre) qualified to judge about the correct or incorrect use of statictistical techniques? Isn't any scientist qualified to judge whether or not climate scientist use the correct scientific method. I'm not a scientist but I can tell you that the role of models is extremely exagarated and the assessment of Dyson is absolutely correct. And he is not the only one. And even if the models were perfect then it all depends on the parametrization of climate of the past and I can tell after studying a few hundred scientific papers that this is even a bigger problem.