Global Warming

[Rorschach]

http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/scientist ... ge-on-way/

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot ... warns.html

[Super Nova]

http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/scientist ... ge-on-way/

Now I expect this will be a good reason (if it is true and that has not be confirmed) for us to SFA because carbon and pollution is the new good things for the planet.

It is to laugh... ha ha.

[Rorschach]

http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/scientist ... ge-on-way/

Now I expect this will be a good reason (if it is true and that has not be confirmed) for us to SFA because carbon and pollution is the new good things for the planet. Dangerous Anthropogenic global warming hasn't even been proven... you could win a Noble Prize for doing it SN.

It is to laugh... ha ha.

Nice photo pity you can't see the CO2 since it is a colourless gas eh

[Rorschach]

Antarctic sea ice at record levels
GRAHAM LLOYD THE AUSTRALIAN MAY 12, 2014 12:00AM

ANTARCTIC sea ice has expanded to record levels for April, increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometres.

The National Snow and Ice Data Centre said the rapid expansion had continued into May and the seasonal cover was now bigger than the record “by a significant margin’’.

“This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000sq km, which was set in April 2008,’’ the centre said.

Increased ice cover in Antarctic continues to be at odds with falling Arctic ice levels, where the summer melt has again pushed levels well below the average extent for 1981-2010. The centre said while the rate of Arctic-wide retreat was rapid through the first half of April, it had slowed.

The April Arctic minimum was 270,000sq km higher than the record April low, which occurred in 2007. The Antarctic sea ice extent anomalies were greatest in the eastern Weddell and along a long stretch of coastline south of Australia and the southeastern Indian Ocean. The centre said the increased ice extent in the Weddell Sea region appeared to be associated with a broad area of persistent easterly winds in March and April, and lower-than-average temperatures.

Changing wind patterns are increasingly cited to explain the expanding Antarctic sea ice.

Research suggests that the changes in Antarctic sea ice, both where it is increasing and where it is decreasing, are caused in part by the strengthening of the westerly winds that flow unhindered in a circle above the Southern Ocean.

[Rorschach]

Antarctic Sea Ice Hits Record ... High? Does that mean Earth isn't warming up?
Daniel Stone
National Geographic News
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 13, 2012

Despite frequent headlines about a warming planet, melting sea ice, and rising oceans, climate analysts pointed to a seeming bright spot this week: During Southern Hemisphere winters, sea ice in the Antarctic, the floating chunks of frozen ocean water, is actually increasing.

In fact, in late September, satellite data indicated that Antarctica was surrounded by the greatest area of sea ice ever recorded in the region: 7.51 million square miles (19.44 million square kilometers), the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center announced Thursday. Even so, it's a slow rate of growth—about one percent over last year—not nearly enough to offset melting in the Arctic, which broke records just weeks ago.

National Geographic asked Eric Rignot, a NASA researcher and earth systems professor at UC Irvine, whether the data is good news, and what it means for the rise of global sea levels, which are fueled by melting ice.

This Antarctic record seems counter to what we often hear about sea ice shrinking. How can we explain growing sea ice?

If the world was warming up uniformly, you would expect the sea ice cover to decrease in the Antarctic, but it's not. The reason for that is because the Antarctic is cooler than the rest of the world. It's warming up as well but not as fast as other places.

So you have the warming world and a cold Antarctica, and the difference between the two is increasing. That makes the winds around Antarctica move a little bit faster. There's also a difference that comes from the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere in the Antarctic, which makes the stratosphere colder.

That's the leading explanation for what we're seeing in the Antarctic, but you have to acknowledge that the effect is very small.

How does this news relate to other studies showing that the melting of Antarctic continental ice is contributing to a rise in sea level?

[Growing sea ice] has no effect whatsoever on sea level, because sea ice is already floating on the ocean. It does not displace sea level. It's frozen seawater, so whether it's frozen or liquid, it doesn't change the sea level.

While Arctic sea ice is decreasing, the Antarctic is now slightly increasing. Why is there so much variation between Arctic and Antarctic ice?

Well we have a continent on the South Pole. On the North Pole we have nothing but ocean. In the Arctic you see full-fledged warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, plus increased ice transport [out of the region, which removes cold air and water]. So all of these effects contribute to reduce the sea ice cover in the Arctic.

In the Antarctic, you have to think of it as its own climate system. It's a big continent isolated from the rest of the world. It has ocean all around it. It has wind regimes that blow clockwise around it and isolate it. It acts differently from the Arctic, which is completely connected to the rest of the North Hemisphere.

Considering we regularly hear about the planet's stressed climate system, is this good news?

Really, it's consistent with our understanding of a warming world. Some of the regional details are not something we can easily predict. But the general trends of decay of the sea ice cover and decay of the Greenland ice sheets and ice caps is in line with what we expect.

The Antarctic has not been warming up as fast as the models thought.

[Super Nova]

Unbelievable.

Now my bible's teachings indicate the only true element of this article is "his research was rejected for publication because two independent reviewers found errors in the paper and that the work did not represent a “significant advancement" statement.

Global warming research suppressed due to intolerance of scepticism, claims scientist

A professor claims his paper questioning the speed of climate change was deliberately rejected for publication due to intolerance of views seen as "sceptical"

A climate change researcher has claimed that scientists are confusing their role as impartial observers with green activism after his paper challenging predictions about the speed of global warming was rejected because it was seen as “less than helpful.”

Professor Lennart Bengtsson says recent McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics forced him to resign from his post on a climate sceptic think-tank.

The research fellow from the University of Reading believes a paper he co-authored was deliberately suppressed from publicatoin in a leading journal because of an intolerance of dissenting views about climate change by scientists who peer-reviewed the work.

“The problem we have now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist,” he told the Times.

Professor Bengtsson claims a scientist advised that the paper, which challenged findings that global temperature would increase by 4.5C if greenhouse gases were to double, should not be published in a respected journal because it was “less than helpful.”

The unnamed scientist, who was asked to peer review Professor Bengtsson’s paper, said in his comments: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics side.”

The paper, co-authored with four other scientists, challenged the findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but was rejected by Environmental Research Letters published by the Institute of Physics, one of the most highly regarded journals in the area.

Professor Bengtsson said he accepted emissions would increase the global temperature but questioned the rate at which this would take place and suggested more work needed to be done to determine this.

However he said it was unacceptable that a paper was rejected on the basis it might advance the argument of climate sceptics, as he suggested scientists were losing their impartial role.

He added: “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views.”

IOP Publishing, which publishes Environmental Research Letters, did not respond directly to Professor Bengtsson’s comments.

A spokesman for the journal said his research was rejected for publication because two independent reviewers found errors in the paper and that the work did not represent a “significant advancement” in the field.

He said: "As a consequence the independent reviewers recommended that the paper should not be published in the journal which led to the final editorial decision to reject the paper."

The professor, who is a former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, resigned as a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s academic advisory council this week after spending just a month in the post.

In his resignation letter he described “enormous group pressure” which had become “unbearable.”

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), which was founded by former chancellor of the exchequer Lord Lawson, was established because of concerns that government policies to combat climate change may be too radical.

The think tank describes itself as 'open-minded on the contested science of global warming'.

Lord Lawson has agreed that Professor Bengtsson’s reference to McCarthyism were “fully warranted.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... ument.html

[IQS.RLOW]

It's attitudes such as yours in this thread previously that are part of the problem.

Your zealotry for your religion gives the other "believers" support and licence with your "something MUST be done NAOoooo or we will all be roooooooned"

[Super Nova]

It's attitudes such as yours in this thread previously that are part of the problem.

Your zealotry for your religion gives the other "believers" support and licence with your "something MUST be done NAOoooo or we will all be roooooooned"

Noit true.

If the independences of the scientific process and peer review is corrupt and bias this is a bigger concern for me than the whole climate change debate.
If it is true that the scientific process has been compromised.... this needs to be addressed as the biggest risk to humanity. They have broken the 5th commandment.

You only live by the 10th commandment and never the 9th.... sinner.

1. Thou Shalt Ask a Measurable Question
Scientific questions ask for answers that can be measured.
Ask a question whose potential answer can be stated in a way that others can measure. Any "who, what, when, where, why, how or how much" question is vallid, but it must ask for something quantifiable. Questions that ask for numbers are best.

2. Thou Shalt Write a Hypothesis
A hypothesis is based on observation and prior knowledge. It is not a wild guess.
A hypothesis is an educated guess that suggests an answer to the question. It is based on some kind of information the scientist already has. The best way to write a hypothesis is by creating an "if/then" statement. Example: "If eggs are kept 10 percent warmer than the mother usually keeps them in the nest, then they will hatch sooner than they do naturally."

3. Thou Shalt Do Research
Research is a vital part of doing good science.
A scientist seeks to avoid mistakes by finding out how others have tried to answer the same or similar questions in the past. It helps to know what did or did not work for others. This research can be done at the library or on the Internet. It need not be exhaustive, but it should be thorough enough to tell the scientist that the hypothesis is reasonable.

4. Thou Shalt Experiment
Results of an experiment must be observable.
Create an experiment that will test the hypothesis. The experiment must conclude with clear, definite answers that can be related to others in terms of measurements. Example: "Seventy percent of the people interviewed said they would not vote for the candidate."

5. Thou Shalt Not Lie
Never lie or mislead about the results.
Report all results of the experiment. Even results that disprove the hypothesis are valid -- they show what did not work. Never lie, mislead or slant the results to make the experiment look better.

6. Thou Shalt Analyze the Data
The conclusion from your data must be conclusive and repeatable by others.
This is where you decide if the hypothesis was true or false. Either answer is considered a valid result. Draw whatever conclusions the evidence will support.

7. Thou Shalt PublishScience is a team effort. Others have to approve your results.
You must share your results with others, including the complete details of your experiment, so they can repeat it on their own. You might call this the Golden Rule of science: others must be able to do your experiment and get the same results.

8. Thou Shalt Form Another Hypothesis
Your scientific answers should lead to more questions.
If the results were mixed or negative, a good scientist adjusts the hypothesis for further experimentation. Even if the results are positive, you should try another angle, a new hypothesis that can deepen understanding of the question.

9. Thou Shalt Take CriticismListen with an open mind when others question or critcize your findings.
When others question your results or even refute them, as a scientist you welcome the opportunity to find the truth. Listen to others' questions, and read their critiques. This will help you learn to be a better scientist.

10. Thou Shalt Remain Skeptical
Doubt is considered a healthy trait among scientists.
Skepticism is considered the mainstay of the scientific mind. Scientists doubt all claims

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/info_8131431_10-com ... z31szcWexP

[Rorschach]

Well all the Alarmists are breaking 10 just for starters.

[Super Nova]

Well all the Alarmists are breaking 10 just for starters.

Good comeback potsie.

More on this issue.

Climate scientist forced from position after 'McCarthy" style pressure'

Swedish climate scientist says he was subjected to a witch-hunt reminiscent of the McCarthy era
In his resignation letter Professor Bengtsson said he could see no end to the pressure, which he compared to the McCarthy era

An eminent climate scientist says he was forced to leave his position on the advisory board of a think-tank after he was subjected to "McCarthy" style pressure from other scientists.

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading, said he was worried about his own "health and safety" as a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s academic advisory council.

In his resignation letter Professor Bengtsson said he could see no end to the pressure, which he compared to the McCarthy era.

He said that colleagues had begun to withdraw as co-authors of academic papers, and that the scientific community has been "transformed" in recent years.

He added: "I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) was established because of concerns that government policies to combat climate change may be too radical. It describes itself as 'open-minded on the contested science of global warming'.

The founder of the think-tank, former chancellor of the exchequer Lord Lawson, called Bengtsson's treatment "appalling".

In a letter to Professor Bengtsson he wrote: " It is an appalling state of affairs, and your reference to McCarthyism is fully warranted".

"I am very sorry that your brief association with the GWPF has, as a result of the disgraceful behaviour of others, caused you such distress."

The director of the GWPF Benny Peiser said: "This is a huge embarrassment to the climate science community. Why should people believe them if their critics are treated in that way? It will be self destructive if they do not stand up for free speech and discussion."

Described by the GWPF as 'one of Sweden’s leading climate scientists', Professor Bengtsson joined the advisory council last month. He is a former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and has authored more than 220 papers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... ssure.html