Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered

Clippo · 27-08-2008, 07:35 PM

BVL wrote:-

Quote:

What gets me is they come out with a statement like saying it will get 4 degrees hotter without telling us how or why they have come to this conclusion. Especially in this country, they just ……………………………. opinion. Now if their computer models were open source we could see exactly how they work. We could have some independence, and it would be scientific once again.

BVL, there are NO SECRETS. Whether you like it or not, the almost unanimous consensus of world governments, including our own and the USA, is that the IPCC is impeccably analysing all the diverse RELIABLE scientific information relating to Climate Change and reaching conclusions that are so persuasive to those governments of the forthcoming consequences of AGW.
This is what the IPCC was set up to do, - independently of other ‘pressure’ groups.

If you continue to think the IPCC is a tool of some corrupt New World Order, you are only condemning your own credibility.

As Besoeker has suggested to you many times, go and read the IPCC report TAR 4 but, IMPORTANTLY, with your scientific hat on, and then you may see from the multiple scenarios the IPCC suggest, where the ‘numbers’ come from.

I am fairly certain that if you dug deeply enough in the peer-reviewed literature you would also find the ‘computer models’ – again there’s no secret. I’ll bet you a pint, if we ever meet one day, that you wouldn’t understand even 10% of them though. You might try, as a starting point, going to the Hadley centre website where, I think you may be able to access Hadcrut.

Finally, today the DT (& as a close watcher of it, it has been prone to contrarianism) has published a ‘GW’ sea level rise article :-
Coast beauty spots will be given up to the sea - Telegraph

Quote:

………………………… Last week the British-based Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory forecast a sea level rise of up to 1.5 metres by 2100. …………………….

Besoeker · 27-08-2008, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

No I knew you were being sarcastic - it just isn't funny.

Then you obviously knew that I didn't take it as a compliment which rather negates your post #67.

Clippo · 27-08-2008, 08:24 PM

From:- Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
(yesterday)

Quote:

Overview of conditions
With several weeks left in the melt season, sea ice extent dipped below the 2005 minimum to stand as the second-lowest in the satellite record. The 2005 minimum, at 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles), held the record-low minimum until last year.
Recent ice retreat primarily reflects melt in the Chukchi Sea off the Alaskan coast and the East Siberian Seas off the coast of eastern Russia.

Update 9:15 am MT August 27:
Arctic sea ice extent on August 26 was 5.26 million square kilometers (2.03 million square miles), a decline of 2.06 million square kilometers (795,000 square miles) since the beginning of the month. Extent is now within 430,000 square kilometers (166,000 square miles) of last year's value on the same date and is 1.97 million square kilometers (760,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

Besoeker · 27-08-2008, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

You really are incredible Besoeker.

The point I was trying to make is that there is a scientific claim of the icecaps melting so scientific counter-evidence is presented to disprove the hypothesis.

I said it was a scientific claim because it a claim(based on science) that the initial scientific claim is wrong.

In your post #24 it was a scientific claim. In post #29 you said it wasn’t.

It’s largely water under the bridge. Goddard has since accepted that he was in error. However, it does show the difference between the collection and analysis of data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

You argue that scientific claims for or against the icecaps melting or MMGW don't exist yet when it comes to exactly the same subject you're harp on about quantitative methods, data collection etc etc.

Prior to this post, I mentioned data collection exactly once. I don’t recall that I have ever mentioned quantitative methods. No doubt you will correct me if I’m wrong. If that's your take on harping on, that's fine.

There is a more important point here. Scientists are not claiming that AGW exists. They assign a probability that it may. Pedantic you might think. But it is an important distinction for science in general, not just for climatology.

paullotion · 28-08-2008, 01:17 AM

Help me boaby, how many many times are going to here this rubbish about the ice caps melting and how large parts of the UK are going to under water, can`t they predict anything.

youcanhandlethetruth · 28-08-2008, 02:07 AM

Oh they can predict, just they're never right - so much for the "experts" that Clippo supports.

But Clippo and Besoeker will still argue the toss and tell you that they're still right though(and avoid the issues they would rather not address for good measure.)

If then the predictions are wrong they can always argue that is was due to "probabality"

Besoeker · 28-08-2008, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youcanhandlethetruth

Oh they can predict, just they're never right - so much for the "experts" that Clippo supports.

But Clippo and Besoeker will still argue the toss and tell you that they're still right though(and avoid the issues they would rather not address for good measure.)

If then the predictions are wrong they can always argue that is was due to "probabality"

Given that I haven't argued that the predictions are right, I can't possibly still tell anyone that they are right.

Clippo · 28-08-2008, 08:47 AM

paullotion wrote:-

Quote:

Help me boaby, how many many times are going to here this rubbish about the ice caps melting and how large parts of the UK are going to under water, can`t they predict anything.

&
YCHTT wrote:-

Quote:

Oh they can predict, just they're never right - so much for the "experts" that Clippo supports.

Both still inhabiting a micro-fantasy world, I see.

paullotion · 28-08-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

Both still inhabiting a micro-fantasy world, I see.

Both living in the real world, heard the same rubbish in the eighties and i am still waiting for massive flooding, they said Norfolk would be under water by the early part of this century, so when they can actually predict something that actually happens, then and only then will i take them seriously, i used to believe in all this nonsense.

Baron von Lotsov · 28-08-2008, 05:42 PM

It's the same deal with food 'science'. Everything that is good for you is bad for you and vice versa. The latest one is that the traditional English breakfast has been discovered to cause cancer! Now it’s the same kind of deal with corrupt science often in this division as well. Soya is cheap and means big profits to the food cartel, so obviously it is the healthy option, whereas meat, which is expensive is really really bad for you! They forget to mention Soya has women’s sex hormones and neurotoxins in it that can really screw you up, but that's marketing for you. The greens and their 208 year payback solar heating businesses are doing fine under New Labour. Those three items of spam you get awarded each week through the post are increasingly about selling you green money making scams. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out either.

28-08-2008, 01:17 AM	#75 (permalink)
paullotion Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 340	Help me boaby, how many many times are going to here this rubbish about the ice caps melting and how large parts of the UK are going to under water, can`t they predict anything. __________________ Learn more about Virgin Media, BT and Carphonewarehouse deal with Phorm and how this affects your privacy. http://www.badphorm.co.uk/page.php?2 Still not convinced, see Here I want nothing to do with Phorm, in anyway, shape or Phorm.

28-08-2008, 02:07 AM	#76 (permalink)
youcanhandlethetruth Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,378	Oh they can predict, just they're never right - so much for the "experts" that Clippo supports. But Clippo and Besoeker will still argue the toss and tell you that they're still right though(and avoid the issues they would rather not address for good measure.) If then the predictions are wrong they can always argue that is was due to "probabality" __________________ Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed. cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

28-08-2008, 05:42 PM	#80 (permalink)
Baron von Lotsov Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,082	It's the same deal with food 'science'. Everything that is good for you is bad for you and vice versa. The latest one is that the traditional English breakfast has been discovered to cause cancer! Now it’s the same kind of deal with corrupt science often in this division as well. Soya is cheap and means big profits to the food cartel, so obviously it is the healthy option, whereas meat, which is expensive is really really bad for you! They forget to mention Soya has women’s sex hormones and neurotoxins in it that can really screw you up, but that's marketing for you. The greens and their 208 year payback solar heating businesses are doing fine under New Labour. Those three items of spam you get awarded each week through the post are increasingly about selling you green money making scams. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out either. __________________ "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode