Climate Change V - More Evidence of Fraud

[finley]

Why is the conversation over?
Has Mick or anyone else proven that Morner or Gray do not have a point? They dismiss them as not scientists or not correct scientists but then never prove themselves why either is unacceptable or wrong. Have they done so here?

You've had three or four technical refutations from different people and you've taken no notice, or you've been unable to understand what's been said.

How much of global warming is due to man? does anyone have an exact figure? I would say 10-15% and if that is what it is and the likely scenarios are what they are then I don't DONT care.
Why then is my stance so ludicrous? are the sealevels rising? NO. I cannot see that they are and that fits in with Morner and Gray but they and their views cannot be accepted because x y or z

Your stance is ludicrous because you keep banging on about sea levels as if it were the be-all and end-all of everything. You're looking at a forty-foot mural and complaining about the colour of the artist's signature.

btw Mick, yes, that editorial was pretty interesting but I disagree with the writer's conclusion, which is basically that "liberals know how to think and conservatives don't". My beef with that is that I have no idea what a "liberal" or a "conservative" is. As far as I can make out, those groups seem to be defined by certain traits - a liberal is (apparently) someone who is good at applying acquired knowledge, while a conservative is not. So of course the experiment will have the results described. What's certainly interesting is that a lot of people are so convinced that others are trying to hoodwink them that they refuse to believe anything except some narrow range of views that has been placed into their heads by talkshow hosts.

NO ONE anywhere is doing anything about global warming along the lines that were demanded 20 years ago. Those who did sign up have no designed so who is the conservative here? Me or the entire political establishment in every country of the world?

Yes they are Fred, and mostly with private funding, but you don't know about them because you only read people like Vincent Gray. Besides, the whole thrust of your argument seems to be "we don't need to do anything". But there's no such thing as "not doing anything". We're doing all sorts of stuff. It all costs money. It just happens to be the wrong stuff. But again, you had no answer to that point (I think HH said the same thing a while back); instead, it's back to sea levels again. So if you're not going to move it forward, then yes, conversation over.

[fred smith]

Finley:

Humor me. Show me by cutting and pasting the relevant sections of whatever you think that was posted that REFUTED (proved them wrong) Morner and Gray's assertions.

NGOs are moving ahead on fighting global warming? What a mighty fall the global warming movement has taken. IF that is the extent of "action" now when our very survival was at stake mere years ago requiring massive government intervention and action, well then, I guess that I can hang up the victory sign. This is EXACTLY what people like me were fighting. I am not against new technology. I am the one who argued that it would ultimately solve whatever "problem" exists without the need of wasted resources to fund well-meaning types to attend worthless conferences to "achieve consensus." PRIVATE funding is what has always been used. That is why people like me had a beef. The government gets its money from tax payers so it has been and always will be PRIVATE funds. Are companies working to increase energy efficiency? Hell yes. And THIS is precisely what will lead to lower emissions not government czars with diktats. But this is what I have said all along... as to the spending on WRONG things... hahahahaahhaha yeah you betcha. That is the crux of the problem isn't it? smirk double smirk triple smirk.

I think that if this conversation is the extent of what the global warming alarmists' position has become, well then, you can keep saying I don't understand the science all you want. It is like a snooty waiter criticizing the billionaire as he sits over his La Tour d'Argent and mispronounces a word or two in French. Ultimately, the one who is enjoying the dinner with the nice wine is the one winning in my view no matter how many snarky minor ultimately irrelevent corrections (haha) that person can try to come up with... I can hear it now: but no one ever said ALL the polar bears were going to die... but no one ever said that it was 100 percent SURE that crop yields in Africa would be halved. No one ever said that sealevels were DEFINITELY going to rise to such a serious level that urgent action was required... No one ever said the ice caps were going to melt FOR SURE.... or they were merely one set of voices.... But I have said all along I am against the global warming alarmists and their alarmist projections so.... I can come back to you like the argument with the IPCC scenarios and say: you didn't read the fine print... I never said that NOTHING should be done about global warming... I never said there was NO cause for concern. I never said the sealevels would NEVER rise.... So right back at you with the same lame skirt the issue arguments...

[antarcticbeech]

Just read an article on the impact climate change is having on, of all things, ice-hockey in Canada. They may well have an identity crisis on their hands if things continue.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2012/04/climate-change-and-canadian-hockey

[fred smith]

warmer weather will mean less heating oil so this will be good for global warming as the warmer winters will mean less energy use and thus less CO2 emissions. Can't have it both ways, right?

[antarcticbeech]

I just hope curling can adapt in time.

[Jack Burton]

I have seen first hand no sealevel increases.

Has the bar been raised to this level? FS' first hand observations or bust? whoa. stop the presses.

In the end, the first hand observation is very important. No matter how many 'peer reviewed' articles and other theories exist, ultimately, the individual is able to determine whether this or that is true. Sanity is not statistical.

I think you entirely, by a wide margin, missed the thrust of my point.

can you just imagine FS sitting somewhere near the ocean with measuring equipment? lol.

[fred smith]

Oops much more on the subject of West Pacific sealevel increases and how any such concerns have largely been due to the the tampering with computer models rather than evidence from on-site readings.

School of Earth and Environment, The University of Western Australia, WA 6009, Australia
cliffol@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
Abstract: Graphs of sea level for twelve locations in the southwest Pacific show stable sea level for about ten years over
the region. The data are compared with results from elsewhere, all of which suggest that any rise of global sea level is
negligible. The Darwin theory of coral formation, and subsidence ideas for guyots would suggest that we should see
more land subsidence, and apparent sea level rise, than is actually occurring. Sea level studies have not been carried out
for very long, but they can indicate major tectonic components such as isostatic rebound in Scandinavia. Attempts to
manipulate the data by modelling to show alarming rates of sea level rise (associated with alleged global warming) are not
supported by primary regional or global data. Even those places frequently said to be in grave danger of drowning, such
as the Maldives, Tuvalu and Holland, appear to be safe.

www.auscsc.org.au/download/26

[fred smith]

And now for those all important glaciers in the Himalayas that were set to disappear in 2030 no 2300 er then maybe not even then...

The glaciers flowing between the towering peaks of the Karakoram range on the Pakistan-China border have grown in size in the last decade, according to new research.

The impact of climate change on the ice in the greater Himalaya range has been controversial because of an unfounded claim by the United Nations' climate science panel over the rate of melting in the region. In March, scientists showed that far less ice was being lost across the Himalayas than had been estimated from sparse ground surveys on the remote slopes.

The new study shows that glaciers in one important part of the mountain range are growing. "We provide a detailed glacier-scale evaluation of mass changes in the central Karakoram," said Julie Gardelle, at CNRS-Université Grenoble, who led the research published in Nature Geoscience on Sunday. "In our warming world, there are regions of the Earth where, for a few years or decades, the atmosphere is not warming or is even cooling. So it is not really a big surprise that there are some regions where the temperature is not rising and the Karakoram may be one of those."

Yes, the problem is always with those sparse surveys that are then used in computer modeling to provide estimates of the projections and then this is postulated over 100 years....

But then... naturally faced with a setback on the localized front that was trumpeted as PROOF of global warming, we are back to not really because the trend in the Himalayas is not "global." And I dispute the evidence of greenland, arctic sea ice and western antarctica... wonder why no mention is made of East Antarctica? but then when that it pointed out, we would be back to it reveals nothing because it is localized and therefore not indicative of a global trend... or the trend that was trumpeted is now suddenly not of sufficient time span to make accurate predictions?

laughable... pathetic... predictable...

Glaciers are one of the natural environments most often used to illustrate the impacts of climate change. It is fairly indisputable that in a warming world, glaciers melt faster. Yet two recent studies published in top scientific journals (more here and here) suggest that in the Himalayas the rate of mass loss has been small and overestimated, and that further west, in the Karakoram range, the glaciers are actually slightly gaining mass.

Is there a conflict between these studies and the wider body of research indicating that, worldwide, glaciers have been receding for several decades?

To answer this question, we need to look a little more carefully at what the studies show, and to place them in the context of global changes to land and sea ice. Both studies cover a relatively short period of time: eight to nine years, over roughly the last decade. The Himalayas experience large variations in snowfall from year to year depending on the strength of the monsoon. But in atmospheric sciences, trends in climate are generally determined from records that span at least 30.

Ooohhhhh AT LEAST 30!!!! But don't most climatologists insist that 60 years is the minimum required? er? Yeah, but 30 is more than 7/8 now that the findings are not cooperating... hope that no one finds anything longer to prove us wrong yet again and why 30? why would he want to emphasize 30... that would take us back to 1982 wouldn't it? at a time when record colds were being experienced and wouldn't this skew the results favorably toward warming? er? um? gee? golly? gosh? um penguins! polar bears! walruses!

[fred smith]

Our Guardian reporter was not happy about the glacier size increase and he pointed to but but but... there has been a loss of ice in West Antarctica. Well, here is the response to that little selective reading...

Ice expanding in much of Antarctica Eastern coast getting colder Western section remains a concern
ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast.
Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water, The Australian reports. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.
However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia.
East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades".
Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.
"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.
The melting of sea ice - fast ice and pack ice - does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland.
Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise.
Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. "I don't think there's any doubt it is contributing to what we've seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica," he said.
Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual.
"Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off - I'm talking 100km or 200km long - every 10 or 20 or 50 years."
Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.
A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded

http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is ... 5700043191