Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

[Supercilious]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

I put at the video section a clip explaining the global warming scam.

By the way nobody has explained to me yet why the ice caps on Mars are shrinking too... Is it because of the greenhouse gas emissions ?

Guess what? They made a new fudged computer model and now they blame the Martian warming on dust storms.... like Mars had dust storms only in recent years years:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264082,00.html

If they really want to look for phony motives and refuse to see the real motive shining brightly in the sky they should also add a cupola model ... maybe it helps with the bullshit :rolleyes:

If the ice caps on Mars are shrinking due to increased solar output wouldn't be logical to admit the climate on Earth is affected by the same increased solar output?

[santafe2]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

...I made fair disclosure in so far as to not having done any due diligence on the article nor the website in regard to further research, which I posted having found it on a random google search...

Diarmuid, I appreciate skepticism. But it's not OK to post random pictures and statements that suit your point of view and then claim innocence because you did no due diligence. It is your responsibility to vet everything you post on iTulip. Because almost everyone here takes that seriously, this site is not a load of crap like most sites on the Internet. Please help us keep it that way.

Here's one problem with being too much the idealogue. After you posted several items that anyone on the other side of the argument knew were at best inflammatory and at their worst, simply false, you posted statements by Roy Spencer. He's a conservative, an evangelical, he works with the Heartland Institute and he's the "official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show".

But here's the rub...he's also a serious scientist with a valid point of view. I find it just as aggravating that you would post his statements along with unfounded gibberish as I do Barabra Boxer damning him with the Limbaugh association because she didn't understand 1% of what he was talking about in his testimony, didn't think she agreed with him and took a cheap shot at the end to put him in his place.

The science of this issue is difficult enough without having to endure the political side of it. Let's agree to work toward something more important that being right.

[santafe2]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

I put at the video section a clip explaining the global warming scam.

By the way nobody has explained to me yet why the ice caps on Mars are shrinking too... Is it because of the greenhouse gas emissions ?

Guess what? They made a new fudged computer model and now they blame the Martian warming on dust storms.... like Mars had dust storms only in recent years years:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264082,00.html

If they really want to look for phony motives and refuse to see the real motive shining brightly in the sky they should also add a cupola model ... maybe it helps with the bullshit :rolleyes:

If the ice caps on Mars are shrinking due to increased solar output wouldn't be logical to admit the climate on Earth is affected by the same increased solar output?

Symbols, we're trying to parse out what's happening in Antarctica, how can Mars innuendos help us understand this? Do I need to mention that it's late and that's a rhetorical question?...;)

[Supercilious]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Sorry santafe, I'm so late to the game but I wanted to advertise the clip I put in the video forum

After that I would like to post that famous interview and global warming debate between Alex Jones and David de Rothschild... where Rothschild is the great saviour from the global warming apocalypse and advocates for the introduction carbon tax credits ;) I guess this is his personal Waterloo...:rolleyes:

[Chris Coles]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

My "take" on the variability of any climate, Mars or Earths is that all vary by some degree for reasons we cannot know about. Take this winter. Yes, there has been a variation in temperatures with a harder winter than recently, (but nothing like as hard as others before). But yet we have had a very warm month end February into March and just last night the weather man commented we have Bluebells in flower early due to the earlier warming period in the year.

Again, we are still in April but temperatures are forecast over the next few days to exceed the average by some seven degrees centigrade and thus we expect to have good "summer" weather for a few days ahead. It is just like a summer morning outside as I type.

There is a lot going on that shows us here in the UK, (where our weather has always varied to a much greater degree than on any continent due to the proximity of both an ocean on the one side and and a continent on the other), there is a very clear perception that the climate is warming very strongly indeed. Our rainfall is about 25% greater year on year than when I was a child in the 1950's. We now very seldom see snow here in the South of England, when before, it was a common event during at least a part of our winter.

Finally Santafe2 is correct to point out that we are very proud of the quality of the debate here on iTulip. Yes, I am wrong from time to time, and have had to backtrack, or even apologise; but railing or verbally stamping our feet or even walking out is not taking the debate forward at all and I counsel anyone to work towards maintaining the debate in a manner that will keep iTulip up to standard. We stand out and others take notice, of both sides of any debate if we remember that.

[*T*]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

water is actually one of those things that expands when it gets colder... that's how you get your pipes exploding in the winter...

Perhaps I was too opaque. Melting ice will only change the sea level when the ice is on land.

[*T*]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Nice, thank you for spelling it out for my deeply challenged intellect.
Actually D the last two graphs you post I agree with.

[*T*]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Crollary: Mathematics. a proposition that is incidentally proved in proving another proposition.

A corollary implies proof, there is no proof in science.

i.e you can say with authority sun activity or any other myriad of factors acting in concert or otherwise including the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon (Southern Oscillation), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, is incindental to temperature increases on the planet in the last 100 years

No. But you can't say with authority it is. You offer evidence for a correlation, but no mechanism. I require a mechanism.

yet you will say definitively the CAUSATIVE is CO2 and other green house gasses without any further debate beyond the pedantic?

Where did I say that? Now you misrepresent my position. I was just helping you improve your reasoning. You should be grateful.

If so please keep posting your intellectually stunted arguments using comic pictures and blatantly false characature graphs puporting to reperesent the position I put forward.

Why the incivility? Insulting me hardly improves your case. You are making it hard for me to take you seriously with comments like that. Anyway I don't think it was a misrepresentation. You offered an interesting correlation, but no mechanism. Correlation does not imply causation.

I take it you did not find the cartoon funny. Clearly my attempt at humour has fried your remaining brain cell (see, I can do it too! Not very nice, is it).

It is a good repersentation of the modus operandi of religious AGW zealots.

ditto

Here is another source on the info I posted in my previous post or does this not meet your source standard requirements (i.e agree with what you think).

Thanks for telling me what I think, I might have had trouble knowing otherwise.

And no it doesn't. Peer reviewed papers, please.

Testimony of Roy W. Spencer before the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 22 July 2008

Quote

Despite decades of persistent uncertainty over how sensitive the climate system is to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, we now have new satellite evidence which strongly suggests that the climate system is much less sensitive than is claimed by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Another way of saying this is that the real climate system appears to be dominated by “negative feedbacks” — instead of the “positive feedbacks” which are displayed by all twenty computerized climate models utilized by the IPCC. (Feedback parameters larger than 3.3 Watts per square meter per degree Kelvin (Wm-2K-1) indicate negative feedback, while feedback parameters smaller than 3.3 indicate positive feedback.)


If true, an insensitive climate system would mean that we have little to worry about in the way of manmade global warming and associated climate change. And, as we will see, it would also mean that the warming we have experienced in the last 100 years is mostly natural. Of course, if climate change is mostly natural then it is largely out of our control, and is likely to end — if it has not ended already, since satellite-measured global temperatures have not warmed for at least seven years now.

One necessary result of low climate sensitivity is that the radiative forcing from greenhouse gas emissions in the last century is not nearly enough to explain the upward trend of 0.7 deg. C in the last 100 years. This raises the question of whether there are natural processes at work which have caused most of that warming.
On this issue, it can be shown with a simple climate model that small cloud fluctuations assumed to occur with two modes of natural climate variability — the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon (Southern Oscillation), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation — can explain 70% of the warming trend since 1900, as well as the nature of that trend: warming until the 1940s, no warming until the 1970s, and resumed warming since then.

[we_are_toast]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Here's one problem with being too much the idealogue. After you posted several items that anyone on the other side of the argument knew were at best inflammatory and at their worst, simply false, you posted statements by Roy Spencer. He's a conservative, an evangelical, he works with the Heartland Institute and he's the "official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show".

But here's the rub...he's also a serious scientist with a valid point of view. I find it just as aggravating that you would post his statements along with unfounded gibberish as I do Barabra Boxer damning him with the Limbaugh association because she didn't understand 1% of what he was talking about in his testimony, didn't think she agreed with him and took a cheap shot at the end to put him in his place.

The science of this issue is difficult enough without having to endure the political side of it. Let's agree to work toward something more important that being right.

SF2, I understand what you are saying here, but I urge you to consider that a persons current relationships do speak to their credibility.

iTulip has repeatedly separated itself from some of the posts and links on this board, without removing the posts. By doing so they maintain there credibility and do not give, through lack of denunciation, a tacit endorsement of those views.

If Roy Spencer chooses to be the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh show and does not denounce the unethical behavior, and the misinformation campaign which defines that show, he gives tacit endorsement to those views and his credibility should indeed be called into question.

If I were associated with a Bernie Madoff, and refused to forcefully denounce his views and activities, would you not immediately question just about every statement I made on any subject?

"Stay away from the pigsty if you don’t want to stink."

[Diarmuid]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Diarmuid, I appreciate skepticism. But it's not OK to post random pictures and statements that suit your point of view and then claim innocence because you did no due diligence. It is your responsibility to vet everything you post on iTulip. Because almost everyone here takes that seriously, this site is not a load of crap like most sites on the Internet. Please help us keep it that way.

Here's one problem with being too much the idealogue. After you posted several items that anyone on the other side of the argument knew were at best inflammatory and at their worst, simply false, you posted statements by Roy Spencer. He's a conservative, an evangelical, he works with the Heartland Institute and he's the "official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh Show".

But here's the rub...he's also a serious scientist with a valid point of view. I find it just as aggravating that you would post his statements along with unfounded gibberish as I do Barabra Boxer damning him with the Limbaugh association because she didn't understand 1% of what he was talking about in his testimony, didn't think she agreed with him and took a cheap shot at the end to put him in his place.

The science of this issue is difficult enough without having to endure the political side of it. Let's agree to work toward something more important that being right.

Mea Culpa fair enough

[santafe2]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

SF2, I understand what you are saying here, but I urge you to consider that a persons current relationships do speak to their credibility.

iTulip has repeatedly separated itself from some of the posts and links on this board, without removing the posts. By doing so they maintain there credibility and do not give, through lack of denunciation, a tacit endorsement of those views.

If Roy Spencer chooses to be the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh show and does not denounce the unethical behavior, and the misinformation campaign which defines that show, he gives tacit endorsement to those views and his credibility should indeed be called into question.

If I were associated with a Bernie Madoff, and refused to forcefully denounce his views and activities, would you not immediately question just about every statement I made on any subject?

"Stay away from the pigsty if you don’t want to stink."

Thanks Toast, I'm glad I didn't respond this morning when I first read your post. A little more research reveled this article which obviously shows Spencer to be as much in love with the limelight he receives from Limbaugh as he is dedicated to his work. He's definitely marginalized by this man-love for Limbaugh article. He's not only the official climatologist for Limbaugh he's an unofficial segment producer. I'll avoid further comment and let the piece stand on it's own merits.

The following is a reprint from the National Review.

20 Years of Rush Limbaugh
by Roy Spencer

Rush Limbaugh’s 20 years of masterminding a wildly successful syndicated radio talk show proves many things about America that the mainstream media just doesn’t seem to get.

We don’t want a steady stream of bad news all the time. We don’t need a daily dose of new crises to wring our hands over. And in a country with abundant opportunities for success - where your creativity and ambition not only benefit you, but benefit everyone else - we sure don’t need our politicians telling us that we need them in order to be successful in life.

What Rush Limbaugh has provided this country far exceeds his lucrative income, the result of what Rush calls “confiscatory advertising rates.” For every dollar he has earned over the years, his encouragement to millions of loyal Dittoheads has surely generated much more in new wealth for us all.

And, yes, that even means more wealth for those humorless do-gooders who are so concerned about humanity’s unsolved problems that they generously throw as much of your money at those problems as they can get their hands on. While they try to give away your fish to others so that they might have purpose in life, Rush encourages everyone to learn to fish for themselves.

Rush’s on-air talents are numerous, combining to provide a wonderful vibe three hours a day, five days a week, that we will probably never again experience in talk radio. He articulates those underlying truths of life of which we are only dimly aware, bringing them out in the open and discussing them in the context of the news of the day.

Many of us remember the first time we heard Rush as the moment when we finally found someone who was able to express the things that we were thinking. His humor is subtle, devious, cutting, clever.

Despite 15 hours of material each week, Rush’s enemies still have trouble finding anything he’s said to damage him on the public stage. And then, they only do so at their peril. When Harry Reid and 41 Democrat senators sent a letter of complaint to Clear Channel last October lambasting Limbaugh’s use of the term “phony soldiers,” Rush auctioned the letter on eBay for $2.1 million, personally matched that amount, and then sent the proceeds to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation.

Later, on the floor of the senate, Reid surrendered and offered that he would have gotten even more signatures if he had known the good cause the letter would be used for. Rush wins again. Trying to claim that Rush does not support our troops is a little like calling Al Gore a global warming denier.

Rush’s knowledge is encyclopedic. His memory is nothing short of amazing - the secret of which he once confided in me . . . but which I dare not disclose.

A dinner and house guest of presidents, honorary member of the House of Representatives, friend to countless celebrities and CEOs, and now a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, one would think Rush’s ego would have long ago outrun his good sense. And to be sure, those whose knowledge of Rush only comes from rumors consider him a pompous blowhard.

But a couple of weeks of listening to The Rush Limbaugh Show will reveal Rush to be a gracious host. If callers do not clearly express themselves, he takes the time to understand what they are trying to say.

He makes even the worst phone calls work to advance the show. That’s how good he is. Rush suffers the most irritating of callers, and seldom loses his temper even though thousands of impatient listeners are likely yelling and throwing their lunches at their radios and computer speakers.

As someone who occasionally provides Rush with “late arriving show prep” during commercial breaks, I have been amazed at how quickly Rush can assimilate new material. In a matter of seconds he can change gears and launch into an impromptu ten-minute dissertation on some issue he had not planned on addressing that day.

Some on the Left think Rush needs to be balanced by one or more voices on the other end of the political spectrum. A few politicians are even floating the idea of resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine. While conservatives consider most of the news media in America as decidedly liberal, those working in the media believe that they are the ones who really represent mainstream America, and they want equal time.

Does the mainstream media have a liberal bias? How can anyone determine the truth in such a matter of personal perception? The question is easily answered. In the free market of ideas, a widespread demand for views that have little or no supply will result in a huge market for anyone who steps up to meet that demand. Rush’s show remains popular partly because he meets a need that is not being met elsewhere.

When Air America Radio tried to counter Rush’s conservative views on-air, they failed simply because the market was already saturated with liberal views - from the mainstream media. When supply exceeds demand, the value of those views plummets. In stark contrast, Rush just signed a new $400 million contract. This is clear evidence of a continuing demand for something that still does not have a sufficient supply.

And this is what most in the mainstream media do not get. Rush is America. Its ideals and aspirations, work ethic and patriotism. A people who would rather focus on all that is right with our country rather than complain about what is wrong.

And as long the old media continues to deny that reality, Rush will continue to rally the hearts and minds of the people who make this nation work.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He is author of the new book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor. He serves as official climatologist for The Rush Limbaugh Show.

[Guest]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Santafe2 - I can percieve the barnacles encrusted all over this "piece de resistance" (aka "rusting hulk") from Roy Spencer. Rising out of the depths, miraculously, like a long lost shipwreck. :eek:

Thanks Toast, I'm glad I didn't respond this morning when I first read your post. A little more research reveled this article which obviously shows Spencer to be as much in love with the limelight he receives from Limbaugh as he is dedicated to his work. He's definitely marginalized by this man-love for Limbaugh article. He's not only the official climatologist for Limbaugh he's an unofficial segment producer. I'll avoid further comment and let the piece stand on it's own merits.

The following is a reprint from the National Review.

[santafe2]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

Perhaps I was too opaque. Melting ice will only change the sea level when the ice is on land.

T - As I think you're saying, my understanding with regard to the melting of sea ice in the Antarctic Peninsula is that while the sea ice may be emblematic of an overall trend of warming in western Antarctica, it is only a symptom and not problematic like the follow-on effects.

Once the sea ice has melted, if indeed this is what's happening, the glaciers will not slide off the Antarctic land mass onto a sea ice formation but will move into the ocean further desalinating the local ocean water and raising sea level, eventually raising it measurably.

Again, for readers with a non-AGW point-of-view, I'm attempting to be specific with my points. I'm not talking about global warming but well documented warming within a portion of Antarctica and the possible effects were that warming to expand to other portions of Antarctica.

Do we really care about global warming as much as we do about warming in the place with 70% of our fresh water resources? If someone here has access to a peer reviewed paper on where fresh water resources exist that would be a great add here.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

If someone here has access to a peer reviewed paper on where fresh water resources exist that would be a great add here.

The largest quantity of fresh water is in Lake Baikal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Baikal

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/754

[Chris Coles]

Re: Antarctic Peninsula is warming quickly

To further the debate this has just turned up on New Scientist about the increase of ice on Antarctica with a direct reference at the bottom.

Why Antarctic ice is growing despite global warming

• 17:50 20 April 2009 by Catherine Brahic
• For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...l-warming.html