Re: Polar Pressure, Snowstorms and Sea Ice
JohnM
wrote:
> December 31, 2009, 11:50 am
> Polar Pressure, Snowstorms and Sea Ice
> By ANDREW C. REVKIN
>
> The unusual pattern of atmospheric high and low pressure over and
> around the Arctic that has contributed to the recent snow and cold
> from Alabama to Washington, to East Anglia, England (and rain and
> warmth along the west coast of Greenland) is also an important
> influence on the shifting sheath of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean.
>
> Several specialists studying Arctic sea ice told me that there’s a
> good chance that, if current conditions persist, the ice this spring
> could be in better shape than it has been over the last few years. In
> all of this, though, it’s important to step back from the lure of the
> moment, which quickly attracts bursts of attention from climate
> commentators when conditions favor one view or another, and examine
> long-term trends.
>
> The polar pressure pattern, called the Arctic Oscillation (often
> abbreviated as A.O.), is deep in its negative phase at the moment — a
> depth not seen since the 1980s, according to Ignatius Rigor of the
> Polar Science Center at the University of Washington. Look at the
> lower right-hand corner of the graph above to see a blue dot
> signifying current conditions. But also be sure to note the red line
> indicating the running trend, which is slowly toward the positive
> side.
>
> The fate of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is determined by a complicated
> mix of factors, including the pressure changes, with the biggest loss
> of old thick ice resulting more from a great “flush” of floes than
> melting, Dr. Rigor and many other scientists tracking the region say.
> (Watch the animation below, provided by Dr. Rigor, to see the
> importance of motion in shaping ice conditions.)
>
> Over all, Dr. Rigor says, the enduring trend is toward diminishing sea
> ice in summers. He and many other Arctic specialists say that
> human-caused climate change is undoubtedly playing a role, but one
> still largely hidden amid layers of complex natural influences and
> variability.
>
> Florence Fetterer of the National Snow and Ice Data Center referred me
> to the results of a recent symposium on sea ice (pdf), described in
> the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society:
>
> Another natural atmospheric climate pattern that impacts sea-ice
> extent is the Arctic Oscillation (A.O.); the 2007 and 2008 winter A.O.
> index was more positive than in previous years (a positive phase of
> the A.O. is typically associated with warmer temperatures and export
> of ice from the Arctic Ocean), although not as strongly positive as in
> the early 1990s when sea-ice loss was less. It remains to be seen
> whether a future return to a consistently strongly negative A.O.
> (typically associated with cooler temperatures and sequestered ice in
> the Arctic) would be sufficient to reverse the trend of the recent
> warming and ice decline. Although it would seem that increasing
> temperatures and ice-ocean feedbacks leave the Arctic climate more
> susceptible
> to natural atmospheric variability, it is unclear to what extent
> global climate change influences changes in the atmospheric
> circulation.http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/polar-pressure-snow-stor...
Err... Seems you forget to snip this bit before posting, Lenny.
"Over all, Dr. Rigor says, the enduring trend is toward diminishing
sea
ice in summers. He and many other Arctic specialists say that
human-caused climate change is undoubtedly playing a role, but one
still largely hidden amid layers of complex natural influences and
variability."
Last Post
> On Jan 1, 7:16 pm, First Post <last_p...@LyingLeftistsare.invalid>
> wrote:
> > December 31, 2009, 11:50 am
> > Polar Pressure, Snowstorms and Sea Ice
> > By ANDREW C. REVKIN
• ROTFLMAO — Andrew Revkin and NYTimes
two oracles of George Soros' fascism.
BTW Morgan I did not post the NYT article that
was another guy in Australia, one of the few
places where I have never been.
>
> > The unusual pattern of atmospheric high and low pressure over and
> > around the Arctic that has contributed to the recent snow and cold
> > from Alabama to Washington, to East Anglia, England (and rain and
> > warmth along the west coast of Greenland) is also an important
> > influence on the shifting sheath of sea ice on the Arctic Ocean.
• I am not prepared to accept "rain and warmth
along the west coast of Greenland"
>
> > Several specialists studying Arctic sea ice told me that there’s a
> > good chance that, if current conditions persist, the ice this spring
> > could be in better shape than it has been over the last few years. In
> > all of this, though, it’s important to step back from the lure of the
> > moment, which quickly attracts bursts of attention from climate
> > commentators when conditions favor one view or another, and examine
> > long-term trends.
••Bullshit!!!
>
> > The polar pressure pattern, called the Arctic Oscillation (often
> > abbreviated as A.O.), is deep in its negative phase at the moment — a
> > depth not seen since the 1980s, according to Ignatius Rigor of the
> > Polar Science Center at the University of Washington. Look at the
> > lower right-hand corner of the graph above to see a blue dot
> > signifying current conditions. But also be sure to note the red line
> > indicating the running trend, which is slowly toward the positive
> > side.
• Of course that red line came from a computer
that only shows warming.
> > The fate of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is determined by a complicated
> > mix of factors, including the pressure changes, with the biggest loss
> > of old thick ice resulting more from a great “flush” of floes than
> > melting, Dr. Rigor and many other scientists tracking the region say.
> > (Watch the animation below, provided by Dr. Rigor, to see the
> > importance of motion in shaping ice conditions.)
>
> > Over all, Dr. Rigor says, the enduring trend is toward diminishing sea
> > ice in summers. He and many other Arctic specialists say that
> > human-caused climate change is undoubtedly playing a role, but one
> > still largely hidden amid layers of complex natural influences and
> > variability.
•• Dr Rigor Mortis is vested in producing warming
no matter what the climate does
>
> > Florence Fetterer of the National Snow and Ice Data Center referred me
> > to the results of a recent symposium on sea ice (pdf), described in
> > the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society:
>
> > Another natural atmospheric climate pattern that impacts sea-ice
> > extent is the Arctic Oscillation (A.O.); the 2007 and 2008 winter A.O.
> > index was more positive than in previous years (a positive phase of
> > the A.O. is typically associated with warmer temperatures and export
> > of ice from the Arctic Ocean), although not as strongly positive as in
> > the early 1990s when sea-ice loss was less.
• More CYA bullshit . Those that actually were in
the Arctic, see it differently
> > It remains to be seen
> > whether a future return to a consistently strongly negative A.O.
> > (typically associated with cooler temperatures and sequestered ice in
> > the Arctic) would be sufficient to reverse the trend of the recent
> > warming and ice decline. Although it would seem that increasing
> > temperatures and ice-ocean feedbacks leave the Arctic climate more
> > susceptible to natural atmospheric variability, it is unclear to what extent
> > global climate change influences changes in the atmospheric
> > circulation.
• That is a CYOA clause if I have ever seen one
— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural phenomena
Zerkon
> | In real science the burden of proof is always
> | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
> | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
> | iota of valid data for global warming nor have
> | they provided data that climate change is being
> | effected by commerce and industry, and not by
> | natural phenomena
Yes well data is usually not the issue is it? The issue is what the data
means. Also it seems the septics agree that something called 'climate
change' is or does happen the only question is cause. Here the skeptics,
to be skeptics, must claim that commerce and industry does not have one
iota of influence upon the global environment.
Certainly this same skepticism can not be applied rationally any longer
to countless local environments. But to stay skeptic, somehow the
totality of all local consequences just dissipate into nothingness
leaving what is called natural phenomena to exist. A base reality jolt
seems to be felt.
We might look back not too long ago on another proposer claim: Smoking
cigarettes cause cancer. Skeptics, free from the burden of proof,
denounced this claim also with counter studies delivered by expert
scientists. Here natural human biological phenomena also step in as cause.
This went on for decades and may still have legal cred.
Fred Weiss
> Yes well data is usually not the issue is it? The issue is what the data
> means. Also it seems the septics agree that something called 'climate
> change' is or does happen the only question is cause. Here the skeptics,
> to be skeptics, must claim that commerce and industry does not have one
> iota of influence upon the global environment.
That is NOT what they claim. However it is typical of enviroHysterics,
esp. these days, to raise strawmen which can easily be shot down so as
to make their own arbitrary assumptions look good.
> We might look back not too long ago on another proposer claim: Smoking
> cigarettes cause cancer. Skeptics, free from the burden of proof,
> denounced this claim also with counter studies delivered by expert
> scientists.
Look, for every example like this I can give you at least one counter
example where the prevailing consensus view has in fact been proven
false, .e.g the cause of ulcers.
If you break down your argument, you should see clearly how absurd it
is.
1. Here is an example where mounting scientific evidence pointed to a
particular conclusion.
2. Some/many people rejected it.
3. They were proven wrong.
4. Therefore anyone opposing a scientific view - even a consensus view
- must be wrong.
Fred Weiss
1Z
> Look, for every example like this I can give you at least one counter
> example where the prevailing consensus view has in fact been proven
> false, .e.g the cause of ulcers.
Here's a scientific fact that was for decades obscured and
denied by those with a financial stake: smoking causes cancer.
> If you break down your argument, you should see clearly how absurd it
> is.
>
> 1. Here is an example where mounting scientific evidence pointed to a
> particular conclusion.
>
> 2. Some/many people rejected it.
>
> 3. They were proven wrong.
>
> 4. Therefore anyone opposing a scientific view - even a consensus view
> - must be wrong.
Not must be, but is likely to be. Since there a N>1
alternatives to any prevailing view, the likelihood is that all
or most of them are wrong,
Chip
> On Jan 2, 9:34 am, Zerkon <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes well data is usually not the issue is it? The issue is what the data
> > means. Also it seems the septics agree that something called 'climate
> > change' is or does happen the only question is cause. Here the skeptics,
> > to be skeptics, must claim that commerce and industry does not have one
> > iota of influence upon the global environment.
>
> That is NOT what they claim. However it is typical of enviroHysterics,
> esp. these days, to raise strawmen which can easily be shot down so as
> to make their own arbitrary assumptions look good.
Typical ignorance.
We have 36 national science academies, every scientific organization,
over 90% of articles in scientific journals, and 97% of climate
science researchers. You have bloggers, right-wing columnists, and
your own paranoia.
leona...@gmail.com
> > | In real science the burden of proof is always
> > | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
> > | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
> > | iota of valid data for global warming nor have
> > | they provided data that climate change is being
> > | effected by commerce and industry, and not by
> > | natural phenomena
>
> Yes well data is usually not the issue is it? The issue is what the data
Oh, just another oh so clever one, citing a snippet
from a signature, divorced from context and
without any reference to the subject.
> means. Also it seems the septics agree that something called 'climate
> change' is or does happen the only question is cause. Here the skeptics,
> to be skeptics, must claim that commerce and industry does not have one
> iota of influence upon the global environment.
• Yes, Jerkon, tell me what proof you have of
anthropogenic global warming? So far NO
scientist has provided any convincing evidence
that AGW does not exist nor can it exist
• Jerk off, Jerk On.
—— ——
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.
2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling to
that belief even if it means their death.
3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince
the anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.
Leonard Pulver
> Oh, just another oh so clever one, citing a snippet
>
ROTFLMAO!! Another stupid socialist Canadian pinhead.
Is it time for your beating yet? Old man!
Read my lips, you old fool.
There are three types of people that you can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1-The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very simple terms. If they don't agree,
then you'll never be able to change their mind.
2- the right wing fanatic?If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that religious belief even if it means
their death."
3- There is no way to reform Conservative evil- Not in a million years
?There is no way to convince the right wing terrorists, vile, antiscience,
superstitious anthropogenic global warming deniers, serial killers,
paedophiles, and predators to change their evil ways. They knew what they were
doing was wrong, but that knowledge didn't stop them. It only made them more
careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.
Why not call me or drop by?
416-785-3044
99 Marlee Ave
Toronto, ON M6E 3B3
Jon Smith
> On Jan 2, 4:48 pm, Chip <chaotica...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > We have 36 national science academies, every scientific organization,
> > over 90% of articles in scientific journals, and 97% of climate
> > science researchers. You have bloggers, right-wing columnists, and
> > your own paranoia.
>
>
> At the moment truth is winning.
>
> "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the
> moment and it is a travesty that we can’t." - Kevin Trenberth
>
> Speaking of truth, ClimateGate is an Inconvenient Truth, isn't it?
ROTFLMAO!
You sure dazzeled him with your redneck science, didn't ya bubba! Is
that your evidence of the big conspiracy?
Stick to getting what you know from Limbaugh and Fox News, it's all
that empty headed old fools like you know. And don't forget to get
that tinfoil deflector beanie of yours repaired.
Michael Gordge
>
> Here's a scientific fact that was for decades obscured and
> denied by those with a financial stake: smoking causes cancer.
So how come all smokers dont get cancer?
Were / are the so called scientists, who claim smoking causes cancer,
Kantians by any chance?
MG
Viejo Vizcacha
And the following article proves, without a coubt, that if you are
going to jump from an airplane, it is better not to wear a parachute.
VV
Neil K
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ce7920fe-5e47-4ff1...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 3, 3:12 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Here's a scientific fact that was for decades obscured and
> denied by those with a financial stake: smoking causes cancer.
So how come all smokers dont get cancer?
==================================================================================================
Its not possible to even exchange 'hellos' with one as dense as Michael
George; to exchange in conversation would be exausting and pointless.
His BCI date is ∞
BCI Best Cease Ignoring
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SaPeIsMa
"Zerkon" <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.01...@erkonx.net...
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 12:23:31 -0800, Last Post wrote:
>
>> | In real science the burden of proof is always
>> | on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
>> | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
>> | iota of valid data for global warming nor have
>> | they provided data that climate change is being
>> | effected by commerce and industry, and not by
>> | natural phenomena
>
> Yes well data is usually not the issue is it? The issue is what the data
> means. Also it seems the septics agree that something called 'climate
> change' is or does happen the only question is cause. Here the skeptics,
> to be skeptics, must claim that commerce and industry does not have one
> iota of influence upon the global environment.
>
NOPE !
A totally FALSE standard to claim that the skeptics need to claim ANYTHING
AT ALL
They don't have to claim ANYTHING AT ALL
All they have to say is:
You made the claim that "commerce and industry have the a MAJOR CAUSAL
effect on Climate change"
YOU prove it !
PERIOD.
And this is where the human-caused global warmist fall gibbering to the
ground.
Because all the evidence is circumstantial or based on (now we discover)
falsified and cherry-picked data
That is the reason why the East Anglia SCAMMERS refused to release their
data to other researchers for so long. And when finally, they were forced to
do so, a large amount of it was "accidentally" destroyed..
> Certainly this same skepticism can not be applied rationally any longer
> to countless local environments. But to stay skeptic, somehow the
> totality of all local consequences just dissipate into nothingness
> leaving what is called natural phenomena to exist. A base reality jolt
> seems to be felt.
>
False standard
The skeptics NEVER claimed or need to claim ANYThING at all.
What they have done is ask for proof.
And like good scientists, unlike the FRAUD-artists at East Anglia, they
wanted the data so that they could themselves ANALYZE and REVIEW how the
data was processed.
As soon as they got hold of some of the data, the cat was out of the bag and
the MASSIVE FRAUD of the data used by the IPCC came to light
> We might look back not too long ago on another proposer claim: Smoking
> cigarettes cause cancer. Skeptics, free from the burden of proof,
> denounced this claim also with counter studies delivered by expert
> scientists. Here natural human biological phenomena also step in as cause.
> This went on for decades and may still have legal cred.
>
So what ?
UNTIL those making the claims PROVIDE the data, and DEMONSTRATE CLEARLY the
CAUSALITY of the data to their claims, the ONUS OF PROOF remains on those
making the claims, not those who said: PROVE IT.
What you are trying to do is put the onus of DISPROOF on the skeptics
Doesn't work that way
YOU make the claim, then the ONUS OF PROOF is ON YOU !
PERIOD !