Arcadia Discussion Zone

It seems that the American Physical Society is not alone in its efforts to keep the gravy train rolling. But, unlike the Brit's Royal Society, it hasn't completely demonstrated basic incompetence in its arithmetic - it, at least, can count the votes needed to keep dissenting voices at bay.

Whereas, it seems the quaintly named "Royal Society" needs a primer on how to do its sums!

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6467

If this is correct then no wonder there is growing scepticism.

How can any advice from this organisation be taken seriously?

Please, let's see the Royal Society's refutation.

Here's its Home Page.

http://royalsociety.org/

I can't seem to see a headline pointing to a refutation. Can you?

Enough to make the pigeons flutter. Those 1400 so-called "outstanding individuals" need to start asking some seriously objective questions.

Regards to all

Wombat.

NOAA: Warming Arctic unlikely to return to how it was

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/10/21/102421/noaa-warming-arctic-unlikely-to.html#ixzz13307S2wq

WASHINGTON — New observations this year about snow, ice and temperatures support the conclusion that the Arctic is unlikely to return to the conditions known in the 20th century — and that's likely to affect the weather in the lower 48 United States.

That was this year's key message in the annual update of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Arctic report card, released Thursday. The key points, a video and links to scientific reports by 69 scientists from eight countries are available from NOAA online.

The report card is one way that scientists share information about trends they're seeing in the Arctic as a result of the region's warming cycle: Higher air temperatures melt snow and ice, leaving the ocean and land darker, and they then absorb more solar energy, causing more heating and melting.

In the past year:

— There was a link between changes in the Arctic and the severe cold weather last winter in eastern North America, northern Europe and eastern Asia. Usually, cold air is bottled up in the Arctic, but this year the cold was blown south.

"As we lose more sea ice, we'll probably see more of that," said Jim Overland, an oceanographer with NOAA in Seattle. Many scientists are studying the link, but they don't fully understand it yet, he said.


Wombat this just shows you scientists and historians have something in common
they like to argue

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/movies/new-documentary-recounts-bizarre-climate-changes-seen-by-inuit-elders/article1763952/

New documentary recounts bizarre climate changes seen by Inuit elder
Imagine how this feels: The land and weather are turning erratic and dangerous. Warmer, unpredictable winds are coming from strange directions. Severe floods threaten to wash away towns. And native animals, the food supply, aren’t behaving as they used to, their bodies less capable in the changing climate.

Even stranger is the fact that the sun now appears to set many kilometres off its usual point on the horizon, and the stars are no longer where they should be. Is the Earth shifting on its axis, causing the very look of the sun and stars to change?

These are the drastic conditions Northern Canadians, whose lives depend from childhood on their knowledge of the most minute details of the Arctic land and skies, say they see all around them. These observations by Inuit elders are detailed in a groundbreaking new documentary, Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change, by acclaimed Nunavut filmmaker Zacharias Kunuk (The Fast Runner, The Journals of Knud Rasmussen) and environmental scientist Ian Mauro.


Interesting about the theory of axis tilt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjmHMSv2Amk

Arctic Report Card 2010 report by NOAA

Well, maybe this article says it all, lovuian.

http://thegwpf.org/best-of-blogs/1125-s ... ow-up.html

How many of those emotively manipulative words and phrases did you detect in your NOAAPMEL video ?

How many statements of non-fact?

For example: does this sound like intellectually objective reporting to you?

at 1.26

Not so , 2007 was the low. This is this situation in 2010:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

No shrinking there.

We really do need to have these frauds consistently outed. So thanks for bringing another fraud to light.

Regards to all

Wombat.

OK. Enough of that. Here's something else to consider:

Scientific American gets some reader feedback via its Climate Change poll. Five of its eight questions give a flavour of what’s happening to public opinion.

3. What is causing Climate Change?
Answer: Natural Processes. (77.7%)

4. The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is:
Answer: a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda. (83.6%)

5. What should we do about climate change?
Answer: Nothing, we are powerless to stop it.( 69.3%).

7. Which policy options do you support?
Answer: keeping science out of the political process (67.8%).

8. How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?
Answer: nothing (79.5%).

http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm= ... IA03DqU_3d

This is further confirmation that last year’s (2009) Pew Research was on the money, and early too.
http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming

It would seem that unlike the Polar Bears, support for the Warmists is slowly dying as the world’s population better understands the appalling state of the so-called science, and the corruption it contains.

Regards to all

Wombat.

Roger says:
Agreed. However, if Q3 in the SA survey is any guide there are only 6.4% of the respondents who suffer from the denial malady. Granted, the SA readership is unlikely to be a “normal” sample of the general population (the “livestock”, as you classify them). Nevertheless, this hardly constitutes a significant rump of resistance.

On this basis your propaganda war has been well and truly won (in terms of the acceptance that the climate is changing).

The unknown is what is causing this change? If it is 3b. “solar variation” (32%) or 3c. “natural processes” (77.8%) then great care needs to be taken with the prescription of a remedy. The wrong remedy here may be disastrous. How many people will die through starvation, malnutrition and disease if governments redirect scarce national resources into wasteful, inefficient, bureaucratic programs aimed at reducing atmospheric CO2-e by the miniscule amounts that can be achieved?

On the other hand, the minority just might be correct; it might be a result of ”greenhouse gasses from human activity” (26.3%). If so, does anybody really think that developing nations are likely to sacrifice their futures on the altar of non-nuclear renewables? And at a greater relative cost to the developed world? As Bjorn Lomborg says:

"China is unwilling to do anything that might curtail the economic growth that has enabled millions of Chinese to clamber out of poverty. This development can be seen in the ever-expanding Chinese domestic market".

And:

"The cost of drastic, short-term carbon cuts is too high. The results of all major economic models reveal that the much-discussed goal of keeping temperature increases below 2 C would require a global tax of 71 a ton to start (or about 0.12 a liter of gasoline), increasing to 2,800 a ton (or 6.62 a liter of gasoline) by the end of the century. In all, the actual cost to the economy would be a phenomenal 28 trillion a year. According to most mainstream calculations, that is 50 times more expensive than the climate damage it would likely prevent".

http://www.china.org.cn/environment/Cop ... 268108.htm

And others hold that the benefits are likely to move North:

http://chimalaya.org/2010/09/06/global- ... cher-says/

Regards to all

Wombat.

they are already doing weather engineering with HAARP and Seeding clouds
China did it for the Bejing Olympic games

Russia to with Chernobyl

I agree with you guys this is more than just CO2 emissions but CO2 is going to be a major component in this change
I think HAARP is a player in this equation

I hate to harp on this lovuian but it’s finally come out, as Euripides knew, when he said:
Euro under siege after Portugal hits panic button

Paragraph 14

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... utton.html

George Papandreou, the Greek prime minister, said new European-wide taxes might now be needed to fund bail-outs.

“We need a mechanism which can be funded through different forms and different ways,” he said. “My proposal is that taxes such as a financial tax or carbon dioxide taxes could be important revenues and resources for funding such a mechanism.”

Carbon Dioxide taxes. Did that register with anyone?

Not to halt Global Warming. Not to halt Climate Change. Not to halt Global Climate Disruption.

No. None of these great moral imperatives of our time. Rather, to pay for the grubby, wildfire expenditures of governments.
I'd prefer a window tax personally, it'd be just like living in caves again. Oh, those fond memories of the Dordogne, when we all had long hair and knew the family names of Peter, Paul and Mary.

Regards to all

Wombat.

To remember:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t4g_1VoGw4

Wombat.

Yes I see Wombat
they need money to help pay for these bailouts


using CO2 tax seems to the politicians a good excuse to get revenues

Why don't they not deregulate their banks so they don't buy American MERS
because somebody made trillions off of these countries


No one is prosecuting the crooks
they have money ...billions that will help Portugal and Ireland andGreece

I read it last year. Seems it was planned on a long term. Now we are ripe for the rip off.
The crisis is in a state of coma, just like the israelian president Sharon. The end is yet to come.

Just to note the predictive capacities of our friends at the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University. You know, the ones of the misinterpreted email scam.

Well, here's their prediction made in 2000 about snow in Britain - courtesy of "The Independent".

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 24017.html

"According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become 'a very rare and exciting event'. "

Your taxes at work.

Regards to all

Wombat.

Something I really don't wanna hear. Next week I'll start for my skiing season ... my finest 150 days!

Never mind Eginolf. It won't happen. The quote was his prediction in March 2000. They're just so good these climate fraudsters.

Enjoy your skiing and the snow. There's plenty more to come.

And remember: bend ze knees.

Regards to all

Wombat.

Austria's welcome to it. If I never see another snowflake for a decade that wont be too soon.

I am seriously pissed off with the snow we've been getting here, the heaviest snow-fall in my living memory.

Now what was that about global WARMING ????

Thanx for your advice. But don't worry. A friend and skiing comrade has been coach of the Austrian Olympic Team in Nagano, Japan - and he's my "coach" too.



Bien sur. Porsche and so, you know.



You can't wait? Well, before that it seems we're going to have a little ice decade.

What was it they say to actors again?

Ah yes! skiing the practice of going up a freezing mountain slowly so you can come back down again quickly.

WE HAVE RECORD LOW TEMPERATURES HERE AT THE MOMENT.

The saying "Break a leg" represents a corruption of an originally Yiddish expression (hazlacha uwracha) and actually means good luck and is a wish to someone who's about to take an examination or something not easy to manage.

From "hazlacha uwracha" it turned to the yiddish „hatslokhe u brokhe“ which sounds like the german "hals und beinbruch". You should remind the fact that yiddish is closer to german than to any other language (except hebrew of course) then you see how it got misunderstood.
And the British copied it from the Germans and made "break a leg".

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hals-_und_Beinbruch

http://vimeo.com/5414354

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/01/13/pol-glaciers-time-lapse-environment.html

Glacier time-lapse images reveal 'epochal change'

"In some cases we're finding trees that were overrun sometime in the geologic past.... These trees were killed by a glacier advancing into a valley some five or six sometimes even 7,000 years ago," says Menounos.

The amount of water a retreat of that magnitude represents is overwhelming. Menounos uses satellites to calculate how much water B.C.'s ice sheets are losing every year.

"We could take the city of Ottawa and essentially flood it with about seven metres or 22 feet of water each year," reveals Menounos.

Balog scouted the Bridge Glacier about 90 kilometres northwest of Whistler. Between 2005 and 2010, the glacier pulled back 1,100 metres — that's more than 200 metres a year.

"When I went over it, it was just mind-boggling. There was this huge tongue of ice that was in the process of just collapsing into this lake. It's a spot I would really like to go back to," said Balog.

"And for that matter, put a time-lapse camera up there and watch the successive changes of that ice tongue over the next five years, because it is really an epic change that is ongoing right now."

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANIZATION CONFIRMS CLIMATE CHANGE ACCELERATED IN PAST 10 YEARS; 2011 WAS 11TH WARMEST ON RECORD

U.S. records warmest March; more than 15,000 warm temperature records broken

First quarter of 2012 also warmest on record; early March tornado outbreak is year's first "billion dollar disaster"

Record and near-record breaking temperatures dominated the eastern two-thirds of the nation and contributed to the warmest March on record for the contiguous United States, a record that dates back to 1895. More than 15,000 warm temperature records were broken during the month.

The average temperature of 51.1°F was 8.6 degrees above the 20th century average for March and 0.5°F warmer than the previous warmest March in 1910. Of the more than 1,400 months (117+ years) that have passed since the U.S. climate record began, only one month, January 2006, has seen a larger departure from its average temperature than March 2012.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47180096/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.T5iL_FzQPvU

Warmer seas behind Antarctic ice shelf melt, study finds

Now, a new satellite survey of Antarctica places the blame largely on the water. "In most places in Antarctica, we can't explain the ice-shelf thinning through melting of snow at the surface," said study team member Hamish Pritchard of the British Antarctic Survey in a statement. "So it has to be driven by warm ocean currents melting them from below."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/01/us-climate-sealevel-idUSBRE8600EG20120701

Rise in sea level can't be stopped: scientists
Rising sea levels threaten about a tenth of the world's population who live in low-lying areas and islands which are at risk of flooding, including the Caribbean, Maldives and Asia-Pacific island groups.

I’ve resisted playing tag with you on this fraud, lovuian, for some time now.

Nevertheless, against my better judgement I’ll respond on this occasion.

The errors in the article you quote are many. Let me give you a couple of examples.

1. “as ice caps and glaciers melt” says the article…..

Well, it might not have been a lie if the singular ‘icecap’ were used, as the Antarctic Ice Cap is not melting, it’s growing. As it stands the statement in the article is a lie.

See here:

Widespread Persistent Thickening of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet by Freezing from the Base

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6 ... 2.abstract

And here:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... arctic.png

No diminution there is there?

And as far as the North Pole is concerned this might also be of interest:


USS Skate at the North Pole 1959.

A crew member aboard the “USS Skate” which surfaced at the North Pole in 1959 and numerous other locations during Arctic cruises in 1958 and 1959 said:



And we know how badly wrong the IPCC was on the Himalayan glaciers don't we. Remember "Glaciergate". That's not to say that some glaciers are not retreating - they are, and have been ever since the end of the Little Ice Age.

2. “low-lying areas and islands which are at risk of flooding, including the Caribbean, Maldives and Asia-Pacific island groups” says the article. This is a straight out lie.

Please read Nils-Axel Morner's open letter to President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives again:

viewtopic.php?p=49828#p49828

Edited to add this address as the forum link seems to have given up the ghost!

http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-666906-1-1.html

And this:

http://www.climatescienceinternational. ... cle&id=563

Nothing has changed.

3. “A lot of climate research shows that rising greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for ……..a sea level rise of about 2.3mm a year from 2005-2010” says the article.

This is refuted in many pieces of work, including that of P. J. Watson, Principal Coastal Specialist, NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water , Australia, who says in a peer reviewed article published just last year:

“The Australasian region has four very long, continuous tide gauge records, at Fremantle (1897), Auckland (1903), Fort Denison (1914), and Newcastle (1925), which are invaluable for considering whether there is evidence that the rise in mean sea level is accelerating over the longer term at these locations in line with various global average sea level time-series reconstructions. These long records have been converted to relative 20-year moving average water level time series and fitted to second-order polynomial functions to consider trends of acceleration in mean sea level over time. The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000. Short period trends of acceleration in mean sea level after 1990 are evident at each site, although these are not abnormal or higher than other short-term rates measured throughout the historical record.”
P. J. Watson (2011) Is There Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia? Journal of Coastal Research: Volume 27, Issue 2: pp. 368 – 377.

Climate modelling always seems to produce a much more alarmist result than the empirical evidence ever shows. The figures in the article are a forecast of a future rise on the back of the consistently demonstrated failure of climate models’ projections to match the eventual empirical measurements. It's not the first time. None of the models work.

Here is an example of just how good the “climate” scientist’s predictions are:



Fifteen years from 1986 is 2001. The Medieval Warm Period still holds the record.

The so-called climate 'scientists" are very bad at their jobs. The lousy quality research is a product of the post-modern education systems that infect most western nations and the corruption and hegemony that comes with big government research funding.

Regards to all

Wombat.