Jones: No Warming For 15 Years

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

TDPerk
Posts: 904
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Postby TDPerk » Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:50 am

What? It's not a good visual?
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Postby seedload » Mon Feb 22, 2010 2:37 pm

Josh Cryer wrote:seedload, your inability to look at The Climate Skeptic's claims critically makes you a denier. Your making claims that I said something when I didn't makes you a liar.


Josh, I expressed to you that the term denier was personally offensive to me because of the obvious origins in the climate debate and because of some personal stuff. I believe that I was pretty clear. The fact that you respond by purposefully using it again directly to me is a demonstration of your character.

I did not lie about what you had said. I misattributed and I posted a correction.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Postby seedload » Tue Feb 23, 2010 5:04 pm


sd_matt
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:55 pm

Postby sd_matt » Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:25 pm

Hi everyone

Long time listener, first time caller.

Even before reading some of MSimons comments about measurements there was something that I read between the lines.

Gore's approach compared to what I thought would be more common sense.

Lets assume GW was happening and maybe it is. So lets just put some reward $$ for whomever invents green oil at $2 a gallon at the pump, in California. Lets say about five to ten prizes (redundancy) at a few billion $$ a pop. Lets face it, money motivates. Hell we should give a couple billion of play $$ to those who worked on the Polywell or even Learner focus fusion........if, and only if, those ideas work.

Of course that would transform the USA into the Saudia Arabia of energy without plunging us deeper into this "recession".
Gore's moronic approach tells me that he really does not buy into GW himself.

Betruger
Posts: 2284
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Postby Betruger » Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:31 pm

Or he's too busy promoting his political agenda to think of such a plan.

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Postby seedload » Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:15 pm

sd_matt wrote: Lets assume GW was happening and maybe it is. So lets just put some reward $$ for whomever invents green oil at $2 a gallon at the pump, in California. Lets say about five to ten prizes (redundancy) at a few billion $$ a pop. Lets face it, money motivates. Hell we should give a couple billion of play $$ to those who worked on the Polywell or even Learner focus fusion........if, and only if, those ideas work..


The reward is already there. It is called the free market.

jmc
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Ireland

Postby jmc » Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:21 pm

Josh Cryer wrote:MSimon, you are a liar, and I have no respect for you since you distorted Jones' statements and lied about what he actually said. I don't respect outright liars.

The very link you posted to support your claim that "Arctic ice is not declining. Glad we have established that" discusses sea ice.

The image I posted shows total ice mass is down. Significantly.

Image


seedload, your inability to look at The Climate Skeptic's claims critically makes you a denier. Your making claims that I said something when I didn't makes you a liar.


wwb, the article you posted is lying in that quote. Antarctica has net ice mass loss. That is fact. In the very link you posted Ed Ring admits it in the comments, downplays it, and doesn't correct his lie. If I made a statement like that and a commentator told me that I was wrong, I would fix it.

Disinformation indeed, Robert. You state “Overall the mass balance of ice in antarctica which has implications for sea level rise, shows a reduction in ice by 25 cubic kilometers of ice each year.”

The total ice mass of Antarctica is well over 20 MILLION cubic kilometers. Your statement regarding 25 km3 of net ice loss is phrased as though this is a large amount of ice and therefore we should be concerned. But even if Antarctica is displaying a net loss of 25 km3 per year, this is a negligible quantity – it is well within margins for error. It is such a minute quantity of ice relative to the total ice mass of Antarctica that it has no significance whatsoever.


God I hate dishonesty.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2 ... 0222.shtml



I'm guessing the graph you chose was in a location which the most dramatic reduction in ice occurred and not representative of the average reduction of ice around the globe.

The loss of ice from the West Antarctic Ice shelf is also not proof of global warming taken by itself.

Apparently there's a volcano under this ice-shelf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/22/s ... rctic-ice/

Which might add some noise to the effect which global warming has to the melting ice (if global warming has any effect at all)

seedload
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:16 pm

Postby seedload » Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:13 pm

Josh Cryer wrote:The image I posted shows total ice mass is down. Significantly.

No, the image shows that rate of mass loss is increasing. It says very little about the total ice mass. Surely it is not true that the total ice mass is down significantly.
Josh Cryer wrote:Image


For some reason, I love the fact that Josh called me a liar because I made a mistake and misattributed reliance on a short term trend to him and then he follows it up by posting a graphic of a short term trend.
Josh Cryer wrote:short term trends have very high error bars, you can't trust them to represent a long term trend

Josh Cryer wrote:seedload, ... Your making claims that I said something when I didn't makes you a liar.

Josh Cryer wrote:God I hate dishonesty.


There is something ironic in there somewhere.

mad_derek
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:08 am
Location: UK (mostly)

Postby mad_derek » Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:40 pm

Yes, well ... selection of data on all sides.

Flinging epiphets around does no good to any discussion ... perhaps Josh (and others) should go and cool his (their) heels for a while?
Insanity Rules!

TallDave
Posts: 3113
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Postby TallDave » Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:19 am

Antarctica is losing massive ice volume.

http://maps.grida.no/library/files/stor ... sheet.jpeg


That's WEST Antarctica, which is tiny compared to E Ant.

Furthermore, I don't know why an AGWer would make this argument, because given that sea level rise is not accelerating it implies sea level rise is not affected by this massive ice volume loss and therefore massive ice volume loss is nothing much to worry about -- and sea level rise from ice loss is the primary harm AGW is supposed to cause.

In any case, all of this self-contradictory fun is a sideshow becausescientists in the field of evaluating forecasts have evaluated the GCMs and concluded they are not reliable forecasts. With the billions in taxpayer money being thrown around by AGWers, there's no reason someone can't put together a GCM that follows the basic tenets of scientific forecasting. If AGWers want to be taken more seriously they need to do more serious science and fewer agitprop films, scary graphs, and protests at coal plants.

Most skeptics are like me, seedload, and others here -- open to the possibility of AGW effects, skeptical of the evidence presented thus far for the claimed magnitude of those effects, exasperated with how the issue has been framed.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

KitemanSA
Posts: 6101
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:19 am

seedload wrote:
Josh Cryer wrote:The image I posted shows total ice mass is down. Significantly.

No, the image shows that rate of mass loss is increasing. It says very little about the total ice mass. Surely it is not true that the total ice mass is down significantly.
Good catch. I missed that myself. Anyone done a 1st order estimate of the total tonnage of the WAIS?

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Postby IntLibber » Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:53 am

KitemanSA wrote:
seedload wrote:
Josh Cryer wrote:The image I posted shows total ice mass is down. Significantly.

No, the image shows that rate of mass loss is increasing. It says very little about the total ice mass. Surely it is not true that the total ice mass is down significantly.
Good catch. I missed that myself. Anyone done a 1st order estimate of the total tonnage of the WAIS?


Above sea level or below sea level?. Most of the WAIS is below sea level and stuck in a depressed area of seabedrock. oh and yeah, there's a volcano under it causing the losses. Imagine that, must be global warming...

KitemanSA
Posts: 6101
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Postby KitemanSA » Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:32 pm

IntLibber wrote: Above sea level or below sea level?. Most of the WAIS is below sea level and stuck in a depressed area of seabedrock. oh and yeah, there's a volcano under it causing the losses. Imagine that, must be global warming...
I understand that much or the AREA of the WAIS would be below sealevel if the ice were to magically disappear (at least until the land sprang back up). None-the-less, there is still a LOT of ice above sea level. I was under the impression that it is MUCH more than below. I am curious as to how much is above sealevel, gigatonnage wise. If the WAIS is loosing 100Gt a year out of 10E15 Gt, then like, who cares?

PS: I am not talking about the Ross ice sheet which is floating.
PPS: I know about the volcano. Interesting, that. What happens if it lubes the WAIS and the whole thing slides into the ocean? There is your rapid sealevel rise!

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Postby Josh Cryer » Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:52 pm

seedload, the image posted is the mass balance of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.

The paper I posted showed the mass balance of all of Antarctica is decreasing.

Here is a better (more recent) paper: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n ... eo694.html

The image was posted because denialists have a hard time reading words.
Last edited by Josh Cryer on Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Postby Josh Cryer » Fri Feb 26, 2010 10:58 pm

jmc, thermodynamics. The ice cap is 2 miles thick. How much volcanic energy would need to be released to account for the melting? How much volcanic energy release is observed?

Massive volcanic eruptions have happened in the past under that sheet, but we would be seeing evidence of such an eruption.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests