[PluggyRug]

bootlegga bootlegga:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Anybody can play the graph game though. Have you seen this one?



Do you know what it shows?

Looks to me like it shows ice growing in the colder months and melting in the warmer months...

Take another look.

Using Simpsons Rule and subtracting the area below the zero from the area above, the result will be a positive substantial increase.

[N_Fiddledog]

desertdude desertdude:

Personally I wouldn't mind all this go green bullshit, hell even if its true some good might actually come out of it but just banging on about how cars are the biggest culprit gets me. I'm betting the smoke chugging industrial setups spew out more crap than cars, punishing the average Joe by forcing him to buy horribly expensive and totally useless hybrids, paying more in fines ( I call them fines instead of taxes )of overpriced fuel etc etc.

It looks like this.

U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions, By Source

[DrCaleb]

bootlegga bootlegga:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Anybody can play the graph game though. Have you seen this one?



Do you know what it shows?

Looks to me like it shows ice growing in the colder months and melting in the warmer months...

You mean, exactly what sea ice has been doing for millions of years! Wow!

What N_Fiddledog's graphs are ignoring is the long term pack ice and glacier ice has been melting at unprecedented rates. And they haven't been replenished year over year, they are getting smaller and thinner.

[N_Fiddledog]

If you're talking about land based ice it's a complicated subject, but basically if there was a problem it would manifest itself as sea rise. There's been some sea rise since the last great glacier melt thousands of years ago. Basically if we project the current rate of annual sea level rise out to say a hundred years from now it's what? About 7 inches right. Al Gore doesn't have to sell the beachside properties he bought with his global warming millions just yet.

Oh and the thing about sea ice is I was going to try to stay out of this one, but Andy wanted to bring up the polar vortex hypothesis from the other thread. That one relies on sea ice melt. If sea ice melt wasn't a big problem last year, it shows the vortex hypothesis is bunk.

So basically don't pick em if you can't finish em.

But yes sea ice melt has been happening for millions of years. No biggie as far as any supposed support for a hypothetical, coming catastrophe of warming is concerned.

[martin14]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

It looks like this.]

38% electricity.

And we can be sure the Chinese will be increasing that percentage every year.

Wanna cut CO2 ?

Hug a nuke.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

. . . Andy wanted to bring up the polar vortex hypothesis from the other thread. That one relies on sea ice melt. If sea ice melt wasn't a big problem last year, it shows the vortex hypothesis is bunk.

So basically don't pick em if you can't finish em.

But yes sea ice melt has been happening for millions of years. No biggie as far as any supposed support for a hypothetical, coming catastrophe of warming is concerned.

Sea ice was at record lows for 2012 (6th all time, IIRC). 2013 it was the lowest summer minimum recorded.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... t-science/

Don't pick 'em if you can't research 'em. And it's not hypothetical if the Permian–Triassic extinction event coincided with a warming event, is it?

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Sea ice was at record lows for 2012 (6th all time, IIRC). 2013 it was the lowest summer minimum recorded.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... t-science/

Don't pick 'em if you can't research 'em.

Right back at ya. In fact if you're going to puff out your chest and boast about what a great researcher you are, at least get your facts right.

Start by telling me why you post me to a link from 2012 to support some lie concerning the sea ice in 2013.

The 2013 sea ice minimum was the largest annual sea ice increase on record. This was the year sea ice melt supposedly drove the Polar Vortex out of wack. How is an increased melt supposed to affect something if it's actually a decrease?

Here ya go. You like graphs, right?
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/sat ... ce_ext.png

[bootlegga]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Sea ice was at record lows for 2012 (6th all time, IIRC). 2013 it was the lowest summer minimum recorded.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... t-science/

Don't pick 'em if you can't research 'em.

Right back at ya. In fact if you're going to puff out your chest and boast about what a great researcher you are, at least get your facts right.

Start by telling me why you post me to a link from 2012 to support some lie concerning the sea ice in 2013.

The 2013 sea ice minimum was the largest annual sea ice increase on record. This was the year sea ice melt supposedly drove the Polar Vortex out of wack. How is an increased melt supposed to affect something if it's actually a decrease?

Here ya go. You like graphs, right?
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/sat ... ce_ext.png

One year of increased ice after almost a decade of decreasing ice isn't proof of anything, although it is heartening.

Did it go back to 1984 levels? You know, like this;



If it did AND it stays that way, then great. If 2013 was an anomaly, then it's irrelevant.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Start by telling me why you post me to a link from 2012 to support some lie concerning the sea ice in 2013.

You seem to have gotten the impression again that my purpose is to convince you of something. It's not. Someone else has already told you what to think, so there is no point in my trying to change that. You yourself found the data that I pointed to about 2012 and 2013 sea ice extents, so calling me a liar only verifies I already won the debate.

I'm only here to try to convince the 2 or 3 people on the fence which side to egress on to. The science is in my friend!

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The 2013 sea ice minimum was the largest annual sea ice increase on record. This was the year sea ice melt supposedly drove the Polar Vortex out of wack. How is an increased melt supposed to affect something if it's actually a decrease?

An increase is a decrease is the biggest polar vortex minimum on record? Wut?

Short answer: Polar ice is the moderator for the arctic vortex. Less ice = less moderation = more arctic highs headed south. We went over this already. Feel free to review that thread.

Brakes stop your car. Less brakes = less things stopping you = increased accidents.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Here ya go. You like graphs, right?

Everyone likes graphs. It's the way we humans see patterns easier. That graph should tell you everything we've been saying. Notice the dotted line for 1976 - 2009 is so far above the others? Less sea ice now than there ever has been = less of the thing holding the polar vortex in the arctic latitudes = more cold snaps.

How you doing in Toronto today? Liking them polar vortexes? 3000 Manhattans (156,000 km^2) doesn't mean jack according to that graph, when we're already missing 4,000,000 km^2 in 40 years.

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's what you said.

$1:

2013 it was the lowest summer minimum recorded.

It wasn't. That would be a lie. Look at the graph above. Let's agree on that, and we can move on to how a one year increase in ice should not affect the polar vortex for that year if the hypothesis relies on melting ice for that year.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Here's what you said.

$1:

2013 it was the lowest summer minimum recorded.

It wasn't. That would be a lie. Look at the graph above. Let's agree on that, and we can move on to how a one year increase in ice should not affect the polar vortex for that year if the hypothesis relies on melting ice for that year.

That was a typo. 2013 was the 6th lowest on record, not 2012. 2012 was the lowest ever recorded, not 2013. A fact you pointed out, and as your graph shows!

If you wish to debate that a low ice pack does indeed affect the polar vortex, as has been observed for decades, I suggest you take it up with the various meteorological and cryological societies that publish such studies.

Our opinion on what should or should not happen is irrelevant. It does affect the polar vortex.

[N_Fiddledog]

Oh, it's a typo now is it? And what was it last time when you tried to tell me HadCrut4 was satellite temps? That was a copy and paste error wasn't it? I think, maybe, if I was having all those problems I'd be a little less haughty about mocking other people's research techniques. Also I think I might be tempted to offer an apology. I know I'd at least say oops. Especially when it turned out the other person was once again proven correct.

Got some links to all these studies over the decades showing the melting arctic ice causing the Polar Vortex to stick around late and freeze the mid-west? I'm thinking maybe no, because this isn't the first time I asked to see all this data that's supposed to show the hypothesis working, but that time the data did not appear. If you can get these studies to me this time I promise you a thank you. I can't find them. I know there's that one recent paper just putting the hypothesis out there, but if this through the decades stuff exists I can't find it.

So far I've only seen 2 studies on the subject and they both said the evidence appeared to suggest the supposed inhibiting effect on the breakup of the Polar Vortex did not exist. Remember those? I actually produced them.

[ShepherdsDog]

So all the other cold spells(citrus crops freezing in Florida) experienced in the past were the fault of global warming destabilizing the polar vortex, or were they just the odd arctic air mass riding the jet stream? Seems to me that was the regular explanation for cold and warm spells, used by meteorologists before `consciencus` came into being.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

andyt andyt:

What I do know is that we're not going to reduce CO2 output to the levels recommended. Just not going to happen, so we should stop kidding ourselves.

I think you'd like this bit:

$1:

Neil Young is probably no more, and no less, a moral coward than the next person. But he is a moral coward.

That’s because – like most of the rest of us – he declines to face the logical consequences of his beliefs. He fails to extend. The failure to extend is endemic in the broadening debate about sources of energy, their cost and follow-on effects. It reduces this debate, for the most part, to hyperbolic babble, in which combatants trade volleys like medieval theologians arguing over whether angels have mass.

Does Young have the right to use his celebrity to stick it to Big Oil? Clearly he does. As Stephen Maher of Postmedia News has pointed out, this is a poet’s classic role — to act as goad, inciter and rabble-rouser. Artists are like Shakespearean court jesters. They get away with saying things no one else will or can, and they should. But let us, for a moment, talk turkey about the politics of oil, and energy, and the related moral choices that we each make.

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/ ... story.html

Read it, agreed with it. We should stop kidding ourselves. Nobody is prepared to do what it takes to make a real dent in CO2 emissions, and that idiot Neil Young is trying to play holier than thou, but he's putting out more carbon than the average person $1,000,000 biofuel electric car or not. Like his music, but he's really pushing me toward becoming a "drill baby drill" type.

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

Neil Young has a monstrous tour bus.
And, when he had his Canadian concerts, he had five such buses, all burning diesel, all idling while the concert was on.

http://neilyounglies.ca/truth-about-neil/



Apparently Karma doesn't like hypocrisy.

Hybrid car converted by Neil Young sparks fire that causes £690,000 of damage in memorabilia warehouse