16 years 9 months, crazy fast global warming
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
FHL, we know you are an idiot. You don't have to keep reminding us.
And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year
A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year â an increase of 29 per cent.
The rebound from 2012âs 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 Russiaâs northern shores.
Continued at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...LING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html
- 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
- BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
- Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month
A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year â an increase of 29 per cent.
The rebound from 2012âs 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 Russiaâs northern shores.
Continued at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...LING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html
And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year
- 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than in 2012
- BBC reported in 2007 global warming would leave Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013
- Publication of UN climate change report suggesting global warming caused by humans pushed back to later this month
A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year â an increase of 29 per cent.
The rebound from 2012âs 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 Russiaâs northern shores.
Continued at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...LING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html
Oh wow Lucrum, one year? Maybe with twenty more like that it will be back to normal!
Oh wow Lucrum, one year? Maybe with twenty more like that it will be back to normal!
Lol, quite.
Oh wow Lucrum, one year? Maybe with twenty more like that it will be back to normal!
Yes, another bs chart that has no doubt had the raw data 'adjusted' umpteen times to show what you want.
Just like the other ones.
The so called scientists who put this together should be in jail and people like you should be ridiculed into oblivion.
I would have to agree with this statement. Here is an example of one of the more recent discoveries as reported by NBC : http://www.nbcnews.com/science/envi...lcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers-below-n126631
One of the defects underlying FC's arguments is the implication that one can conclude from the fairly good match between 20th century CO2 rise and the amount of CO2 released by fossil fuel burning that one can assume, or that it is probable, that the former is caused by the latter. An idea with great popular appeal. Even those with no scientific training can grasp it.
It's true, there is a wonderfully appealing agreement between observed increase in CO2 and the amount that comes from our fossil fuel burning! But of course one has to include the natural sourcing and sinking in "elementary" mass balance equations to make them valid. Unfortunately we can't calculate a useful number from a simple mass balance. The natural terms in the equation are very large, constantly changing, and our best estimates incorporate large relative errors. The only term we have a reliable number for is the anthropomorphic CO2 term.
So there arises a major difficulty in extracting, from a mass balance equation, just how much of the net observed increase is due to man. The difficulty is caused by the natural sourcing and sinking terms being two orders larger than the anthropomorphic CO2 terms. These natural source and sink terms are so large that even relatively small differences swamp the anthropomorphic term. Furthermore, small relative errors in these large natural source and sink terms( the relative errors themselves are uncertain, but we know they aren't small) make matters worse. When we subtract two large nearly equal numbers, unless we have extremely good precision in both numbers, we will lose most or all of the significant figures.
Sadly, for us, we can not use these appealingly-simple mass balance equations to give a useful value for man's net contribution. We are tempted, of course, to conclude that it is apparently quite insignificant. But we can't even conclude that with confidence, because we have insufficient precision in the very large source and sink terms to get a useful result from what would otherwise be a trivially simple , "elementary" calculation.
What has happened then is that an extremely naive conclusion has been popularized: since the observed 20th century increase matches up petty well with our estimates of CO2 from fossil fuel burning, the latter must account for the increase! But, as I have pointed out, we can't draw any such conclusion from such a simple-minded observation. I have just explained why.
The the carbon-13 analysis has been thoroughly discussed in the literature. Once more our initial enthusiasm has been dampened. Carbon-13, It turns out, has now been shown to be an unreliable marker for anthropomorphic CO2.
One of the difficulties FC is having to wrestle with is the recent data and analysis by Murry Salby, the prominent atmospheric physicist trained at Georgia Tech. It seems FC wants to simply dismiss his work as that of a con-artist, one who's had a major fight with the NSF over allegations of misappropriating of funds, and a further fight involving his chaired position at McQuarie University in Australia. It seems he may be a rather difficult person to get along with. Nevertheless one can not use these personal matters to discredit his science. That has to be done using valid scientific argument. I have looked at his work fairly carefully, and I must say I find it impressive, particularly his work on ice core diffusion. [I, by training, am an expert in solution diffusion, but the same first and second Fick's laws govern diffusion in the solid state.] If anyone thinks that good scientific work and being an SOB are mutually exclusive, let me disabuse you of that thought. I can give you examples of a number of SOBs that made wonderful contributions to science!