[Daniel1960]

billw55, on 2015-February-25, 12:36, said:

Arctic sea ice did not "start increasing" in 2013. It's just short term mean regression embedded in a long term decline. This is easy to understand if you actually look at the long term data.

Billw,
Over the long term, the short term increase is smaller, but not insignificant (+1.2 vs. -3.1 million sq. km). Over the intermediate term (2007-2015), there is no discernable trend. While the sea ice has expanded and contracted over that timeframe, quite erradicately, the extent is comparable to where it was eight years ago (there was a large one-year decline from 2006 to 2007). One could argue that the large decline in 2007 was an overshoot, and the sea ice has simple corrected for it over the past eight years. This did not stop several scientists from using that short-term decline to make bold predictions about an ice-free Arctic sometime this decade.

In the decade prior, Arctic sea ice was declinely slowly. Using the current regression since 1998, which amounts to the highest projected loss rate, the Arctic would be ice-free (< 1M sq. km.) in ~25 years. Employing longer-term regression analyses, it would take significantly longer.

Before the 1990s, sea ice had reached a maximum, and was holding steady for at least a decade. Prior to the satellite data in 1979, sea ice data is less certain, although evidence suggests that the ice increased from ~1940-1970. If the sea ice extent is on a more cyclical pattern, then an ice-free Arctic would not occur this century, if ever.

If you examine the data, the sea ice anomaly has remained in a much tigher range over the past three years, compared to the previous six. Whether the sea ice resumes its downward spiral or regenerates, is uncertain. However, the recent hiatus (to borrow the global warming term) in sea ice decline is evident from the data:

http://arctic.atmos....maly.arctic.png

[Al_U_Card]

Indeed, we rely on the satellite observational data to describe the polar sea-ice extents, from 1979 on. That year was during the period of greatest expanse of Arctic since recent non-satellite, observations and appeared to follow previous oceanic cycles in terms of growth and loss. Are we at the nadir of that cycle yet? Has [CO2] caused an calamitous change towards total Arctic sea-ice loss? The models project that, but they also projected that Antarctic sea-ice would go into decline... We are certainly living in interesting times as well as gradually warming climes.

Actual measurement and observation tends towards moderation and modulation. Modeled studies present catastrophic eventualities that, as they have shown thus far, fail to come about. Sometimes zealous belief in a cause clouds the minds of the intelligent and rational. Sometimes their hubris and ignorance serves them as expected. Just taking the factual observations at face-value is often a sufficient wake-up call. Sometimes, not so much.

[PassedOut]

Although satellite measurements confirm the acceleration of global sea level rise to the present 3 mm per year, it is interesting to see how much variation there is across the globe. Here is an interesting map of the changes from 1993-2010. One particularly striking example was this rise in two years: US sea level north of New York City 'jumped by 128mm'.

Quote

This study identifies a record breaking high sea level event that occurred along part of the US east coast in 2009-10. There is strong evidence that the likelihood of such events has been increased by climate change, and that we should expect more such events in the future. This example illustrates how individual extreme events are influenced by multiple factors - in this case the global rise of sea levels, regional changes in ocean circulation, and wind patterns.

Dr Dan Hodson, also from the University of Reading, said the analysis underlined the importance of understanding the connections between surges in sea levels and ocean currents. "Sea level change is a complex phenomenon, especially on the regional scale, where changes to the global ocean circulation can play a major role," he said. "The east coast of North America is quite close to an area of active, fast ocean currents, and so is quite sensitive to changing ocean circulation."

Earlier in this thread, Daniel1960 gave a link explaining that a sea level rise of 6 feet by the year 2100 has only a 1 in 20 chance of happening, but clearly the problem, even if the rise is only 3 feet, will be much greater for some and much less for others.

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on 2015-February-26, 12:26, said:

Although satellite measurements confirm the acceleration of global sea level rise to the present 3 mm per year, it is interesting to see how much variation there is across the globe. Here is an interesting map of the changes from 1993-2010. One particularly striking example was this rise in two years: US sea level north of New York City 'jumped by 128mm'.


Earlier in this thread, Daniel1960 gave a link explaining that a sea level rise of 6 feet by the year 2100 has only a 1 in 20 chance of happening, but clearly the problem, even if the rise is only 3 feet, will be much greater for some and much less for others.

So, NATURAL VARIATION ([CO2] is NOT responsible for ocean currents...yet?) can raise the sea-level almost 43 times the current annual rate which is supposed to cause, by 2100, 3x85=255mm or about half that "projected" amount. How did those people thusly affected adapt? Was it a catastrophe? Did we even hear about it? (|And they only had 12 months to deal with it. let alone 42.5 years...)

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2015-February-26, 16:03, said:

So, NATURAL VARIATION ([CO2] is NOT responsible for ocean currents...yet?) can raise the sea-level almost 43 times the current annual rate which is supposed to cause, by 2100, 3x85=255mm or about half that "projected" amount. How did those people thusly affected adapt? Was it a catastrophe? Did we even hear about it? (|And they only had 12 months to deal with it. let alone 42.5 years...)

As I recall, New York city "adapted" by submerging itself underwater during hurricane Sandy and then spending tens of billions of dollars to rebuild.

The Philippians "adapted" by burying thousands of people after typhoon Haiyan.

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2015-February-26, 16:17, said:

As I recall, New York city "adapted" by submerging itself underwater during hurricane Sandy and then spending tens of billions of dollars to rebuild.

The Philippians "adapted" by burying thousands of people after typhoon Haiyan.

Florida residents have adapted by building hurricane shetlers (although they have gotten little use recently). New Orleans adapted by evacuating the city. In the past, people were not ready for the destruction potential of these storms.

The residents of Long Island were caught offguard in 1938. Galveston was completely unprepared in 1900. Miami was the most foolish, where residents went outside into the eye in 1926, believing that the storm had passed.

These storms are nothing new. They have occurred thoughtout history, with no distinct pattern. The recent lull in tropical storm activity may only be temporary, or could last for a decade or more, like the previous one. Thus far, no connection has been made between tropical cyclonic activity and global warming, so claiming a particle storm is the result of global warming or that the lull in activity is proof against is foolhardy and appears politically motivated.

When comparing hurricane strength, look to Camillie, whose full intensity may never be known, because the hurricane destroyed the landfall measuring equipment when the winds topped 190 mph.

[hrothgar]

Daniel1960, on 2015-February-27, 06:26, said:

Thus far, no connection has been made between tropical cyclonic activity and global warming, so claiming a particle storm is the result of global warming or that the lull in activity is proof against is foolhardy and appears politically motivated.

Learn to read ass wipe. I was not making general claims based on a specific storms.

Al-U-Card asked a specific question. "How do those affected people adapt?"

I found it telling that the specific area that was called out in this article also experience catastrophic flooding costing billions of dollars during this precise same period. The irony was too much to refrain from posting.

[Al_U_Card]

And since the "effect" of [CO2] has no ascertainable relationship to these disasters, it is truly ironic (perhaps moronic) that zealots and alarmists would ask that we expend our resources in such a foolish manner as to try to control the weather through carbon credits and trading/taxation schemes.

Factual observation and reasoned argument are lost on those with the fervent belief that they can somehow save the planet by impoverishing the potential victims with schemes and scams related to the current "bogey-man". This is revealed by their vehement and vitriolic response to any questioning of the "party" line. Consensus "science", indeed!

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2015-February-27, 08:12, said:

And since the "effect" of [CO2] has no ascertainable relationship to these disasters,

Bullshit

Complete, unadulterated bullshit

You come here, week after week, and you lie and you lie and you lie and somehow the idiot moderators that we have prefer to pretend that you are valued member of the community than the equivalent of another spammer pushing penis enhancement.

How about it Ben? How about it Barry?

Al hasn't posted bridge related content in decades.
Daniel openly admits that he only participates in these forums to "debate" climate change?

How are these whackjobs any different than commercial spammers?

[billw55]

hrothgar, on 2015-February-27, 08:31, said:

How are these whackjobs any different than commercial spammers?

Because they aren't spreading their posts at random. They are confined to one thread, that nobody is obligated to read. They are not making multiple new IDs to circumvent blocks by the site or by individual users.

So while I usually disagree with the content of their posts, I don't think banning/blocking/etc is necessary or even a good idea.

[Al_U_Card]

Here viz: Overall I’m very pleased with the way this panel went. In terms of audience reaction, the panel organizer emailed this comment:

He and I have been to many, many NARUC conferences, and we agreed afterwards that your panel was the first time we saw the entire audience riveted and not having side conversations or working on their phones. One east-coast commissioner made a point of thanking me for organizing it and said it was the best session on the topic that he had ever heard. Finally, I must say that XXX was very pleased and commented that your panel was an example of what NARUC should encourage — thoughtful, smart discussion of important topics.


Just the facts and the uncertainties. is as balanced and germane a presentation of the viewpoints. Reading the arguments and explanations will provide the proper perspective for evaluating appropriately the nature of this debate. Well worth the time required to get through it.


As for the approach to those that hold opposing views, it is clear which side cannot or will not discuss and compare. Calls for banishment and punitive measures are the mark of the desperate and/or inadequate.

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2015-February-27, 08:31, said:

Bullshit

Complete, unadulterated bullshit

You come here, week after week, and you lie and you lie and you lie and somehow the idiot moderators that we have prefer to pretend that you are valued member of the community than the equivalent of another spammer pushing penis enhancement.

How about it Ben? How about it Barry?

Al hasn't posted bridge related content in decades.
Daniel openly admits that he only participates in these forums to "debate" climate change?

How are these whackjobs any different than commercial spammers?

And yet, we have to deal with your profanity day in and day out.

You have shown no evidence that these events are tied to atmospheric increases of carbon dioxide, but still claim that they are. Even scientist cannot show any connection.

I agree with Bill. Who are you to enforce censorship? Especially when the ideas presented are sound scientifically.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2015-February-27, 09:40, said:

Calls for banishment and punitive measures are the mark of the desperate and/or inadequate.

In general, I agree, however, you're a pathological narcissist who continually introduced factual incorrect information into any discussion that you take part in. You've openly admitted that you lie in these threads and tried to present a moral defense for doing so.

Individuals like you deserve to be banned because you don't contribute anything other than incessant paranoid noise.

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2015-February-27, 10:52, said:

In general, I agree, however, you're a pathological narcissist who continually introduced factual incorrect information into any discussion that you take part in. You've openly admitted that you lie in these threads and tried to present a moral defense for doing so.

Individuals like you deserve to be banned because you don't contribute anything other than incessant paranoid noise.

You may want to consider the words of Voltaire, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”

You may also like, “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

[hrothgar]

Daniel1960, on 2015-February-27, 12:45, said:

You may want to consider the words of Voltaire, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.”

You persist in acting as if you and Al are engaging in "speech".
You're not.

You're masturbating in public. I'm pointing out that it is unseemly.

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2015-February-27, 13:19, said:

You persist in acting as if you and Al are engaging in "speech".
You're not.

You're masturbating in public. I'm pointing out that it is unseemly.

Are you really content to have such posts attributed to your name?

I actually thought we were debating this issue. It appears that I have been mistaken. You seem to be interested only in verbally attacking those with whom you disagree, as if only your opinion is the only one that matters. I see no others engaging in such actions.

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2015-February-27, 07:52, said:

Learn to read ass wipe. I was not making general claims based on a specific storms.
Al-U-Card asked a specific question. "How do those affected people adapt?"
I found it telling that the specific area that was called out in this article also experience catastrophic flooding costing billions of dollars during this precise same period. The irony was too much to refrain from posting.

hrothgar, on 2015-February-27, 08:31, said:

Bullshit
Complete, unadulterated bullshit
You come here, week after week, and you lie and you lie and you lie and somehow the idiot moderators that we have prefer to pretend that you are valued member of the community than the equivalent of another spammer pushing penis enhancement.
How about it Ben? How about it Barry?
Al hasn't posted bridge related content in decades.
Daniel openly admits that he only participates in these forums to "debate" climate change?
How are these whackjobs any different than commercial spammers?

hrothgar, on 2015-February-27, 13:19, said:

You persist in acting as if you and Al are engaging in "speech". You're not.
You're masturbating in public. I'm pointing out that it is unseemly.

Descending to ad hominem attack is widely judged to be a tacit admission that you've lost the argument. Climate-change is important as an issue. The debate is still on. The matter is by no means decided. Discussion of it should not be demeaned and curtailed in this way.

[hrothgar]

Daniel1960, on 2015-February-27, 13:28, said:

Are you really content to have such posts attributed to your name?

I actually thought we were debating this issue. It appears that I have been mistaken. You seem to be interested only in verbally attacking those with whom you disagree, as if only your opinion is the only one that matters. I see no others engaging in such actions.

Perhaps the fact that (almost) no one else bothers to respond to your idiocy can be taken as a signal regarding the value of your postings.
I tend to be more active in my belligerence.

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2015-February-27, 13:41, said:

Descending to ad hominem attack is widely judged to be a tacit admission that you've lost the argument.

The rules of classic rhetoric and debate really don't apply to the internet.

In my experience, complaining about "ad hominem attacks" is a tactic that stupid people use when they object to having been labeled as idiots and still want equal time spent on their opinions.

(The reason that ad hominem attack crops up so often on the internet is that its a lot easier to point out that a given individual (say Al) constantly posts inaccurate information than trying to refute the ridiculous number of inane claims that he posts)

FWIW, Krugman has a nice defense of ad hominem attacks in his column today.

Quote

People who declared back in 2009 that Keynesianism was nonsense and that monetary expansion would inevitably cause runaway inflation are still saying exactly the same thing after six years of quiescent inflation and overwhelming evidence that austerity affects economies exactly the way Keynesians said it would.

And we’re not just talking about cranks without credentials; we’re talking about founders of the Shadow Open Market Committee and Nobel laureates.

Obviously this isn’t just a story about economics; it covers everything from climate science and evolution to Bill O’Reilly’s personal history.

Quote

3. Point out the wrongness in ways designed to grab readers’ attention — with ridicule where appropriate, with snark, and with names attached. This will get read; it will get you some devoted followers, and a lot of bitter enemies. One thing it won’t do, however, is change any of those closed minds.

So is there a reason I go for door #3, other than simply telling the truth and having some fun while I’m at it? Yes — because the point is not to convince Rick Santelli or Allan Meltzer that they are wrong, which is never going to happen. It is, instead, to deter other parties from false equivalence.

[Al_U_Card]

nige1, on 2015-February-27, 13:41, said:

Descending to ad hominem attack is widely judged to be a tacit admission that you've lost the argument. Climate-change is important as an issue. The debate is still on. The matter is by no means decided. Discussion of it should not be demeaned and curtailed in this way.

Likely THE most important issue of our time, as it impacts our wallets as well as our futures. McCarthy and Lysenko appealed to authority to stifle debate and discussion. Happily we are still in a free society that allows for the exchange of ideas as well as the ridicule of those with whom we disagree. I have no problem with others showing their true colors, it makes it easier to discard the chaff (cry-babies and misanthropes included) and deal with the wheat, as it were.