Tuesday September 8, 2009, 5:23 pm


Thnx Tom hun!

Tuesday September 8, 2009, 5:30 pm
Oh, Tom...why do you fall for this. The PDO switched to its warm phase in 1977....and then it got warmer. the Arctic has two currents that effect it. The is also the influence of both the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. The interaction of the phases of these currents very complex and barely understood
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=127

And.. sea ice is up 19% over the low of 2007.

Remember, just because its happening doesn't mean we are doing it.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JAXAICE.JPG

Tuesday September 8, 2009, 8:54 pm
Icecaps ... prppaganda site yawn....

Here is the graph which puts Judy's celebrated "recovery" in perspective - look at the green line ... what kind of trend do YOU see (and see that TINY blip in 2008 - that is the celebrated "recovery" ....

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg

so why does your Icecaps graph ONLY have three years of data - cause that is CHERRYPICKING to support your dogma - that is dishonest, and since you are well aware of this fact that makes YOU dishonest ...

here are the FACTS (and that annoying - to Judy- Figure S3)

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html

Thanks Tom for the FACTS - the best antidote to the resident denilists disinformation campaign :)

Tuesday September 8, 2009, 9:48 pm
Any time facts about the climate change are posted we can be sure Judy will show up with myth rather then reality. Once again Chris offers truth over nonsense. Science cannot bend to whims of the few but must report the real facts. This is critical information, and we must pay attention and take serious action before we become fossils. (a little dramatic, or is it?) Thanks Tom.

Tuesday September 8, 2009, 11:03 pm
Scientist knew this many years ago and only now they want to do something. Why wait when it is almost too late.

Tuesday September 8, 2009, 11:29 pm
Thanks everyone for your comments, and thanks Chris for putting Judy's celebrated "recovery" in perspective :)

Tuesday September 8, 2009, 11:51 pm
Poor Chris. I think he hates http://www.icecap.us/ because it is far too complicated for him. He tends to like site which keep things on a more simple level like CO2 BAD----Suicide GOOD!

Now, the reason only 3 years were shown Christopher dear, is that the lowest ice level was in 2007 and they just wanted to show how it has recovered in the years since. OK? Got it? They are not being bad deniers, they just wanted to simplify things.

Would you like to see more years . It's not as clear, but since that is the way you like it how about this one?

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

It comes all the way from Japan because the more local product tends not to be so reliable anymore...Something to do with politics. Pity about that.

I found something else you might like. This one comes from Denmark. The Danes used to own Iceland and Greenland....so they know a lot about temperatures in the Arctic. This one is animated and you can see it run from 1958 to 2009. It is really neat!
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/dmi_arctic_temp-vs-era40climate_animation.gif

Then this one is from the good old USA. You will like this one. It is based on GISS records...where James Hansen hangs out. It is really really, really neat since the time span is so long.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Arctic1880-2004_GHCN.gif

Tuesday September 8, 2009, 11:58 pm
I just noticed you did it again. You posted a graph that only goes to 2007. That's why it doesn't show a recovery. You see. You still don't quite get it.

Wednesday September 9, 2009, 12:00 am
I read the full report out aloud to my husband & both of us are feeling very disturbed & wondering about the welfare of our grandchildren. We view this report very seriously.

Wednesday September 9, 2009, 2:17 am
Oh man.
I can't understand why there are still people out there denying Global Warming
You can't see recovery,because there isn't recovery
Maybe you should read some more articles from researches/scientist that are actually spending years in antarctic lands and are witnessing the meltings

Thank you TOM

Wednesday September 9, 2009, 3:02 am
WELL SAID CLAUDIA

Wednesday September 9, 2009, 3:05 am
"Remember, just because its happening doesn't mean we are doing it."

So, the earth is warming, today? On some days it's warming and some days it's cooling, according to the contradictory posts of someone here.


See post here:
http://www.care2.com/news/member/957135930/1239656:

"...the Earth IS warming over the long term...we are still coming out of the Little Ice Age.

It is WHAT'S CAUSING IT THAT IS THE QUESTION"

Wednesday September 9, 2009, 4:00 am
"I just noticed you did it again. You posted a graph that only goes to 2007. That's why it doesn't show a recovery. You see. You still don't quite get it."

You are a LIER again - the data I present is indeed up to date - the green line goes through 2008 - and 2009 data will not be available until the end of this month - LOOK AGAIN:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg

In a previous thread you "owned" that misstatement and admittted that it was wrong - now you come back and say THE SAME THING - why do you keep saying the data are out of date when you KNOW YOU ARE WRONG??? You are desparate to make it look like I am trying to deceive by using out of date data - but in fact it is YOU who are deceptive because you keep making the same "mistake" yet again. If you make the same "mistake" over and over again when you know it is wrong that is called LIEING!!!!!

Would you like to appologise for that "mistake" again like you did before????

Your data here:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

are COMPLETELY CONSISTANT with the graph I presented - that is 2007 the lowest year, followed by 2008. However, your graph ONLY goes back 8 years which is only PART of the data - the record goes back much further. My graph does just that - and puts the data in proper context.

As to this graph:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/dmi_arctic_temp-vs-era40climate_animation.gif

What exactly do you think it shows????

and here is your GISS data:

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Arctic1880-2004_GHCN.gif

Note that it shows AN INCREASE in temp of about 1.75 degrees between 1880 and 2004. And you are claiming it says what???? IT shows WARMING ARTIC TEMPRATURES SINCE 1880!!!!! Also note that the last graph you presented ONLY GOES TO 2004 and YOU tell me that MY data are out of date and then use a data set which is MISSING the last four years of data???? HALARIOUS to the extreem!!!! You LIE by saying my materials are out of date (which they are not) and then use dated materials yourself - Judy doubble standard liberaly applied yet again LMAO!!!!!!!!!

Here are the COMPLETE data set from GISS:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif

note the red line representing the northern hemisphere - by including the data from 2005 -2008 (which YOU left out) the warming trend is EVEN MORE PRONOUNCED than in the one you presented. That is why Icecaps "chose" to stop at 2004 - they are trying to DISTORT the facts by CHERRY PICKING only PART of the data - that is they are doing the EXACT thing you were (wrongly) accusing me of doing!!!!!

Whould you like to appologise for that "mistake" too??????

Wednesday September 9, 2009, 5:14 am
Ummm... it would be very sad to see these areas taking off their "winter blankets"...

Wednesday September 9, 2009, 6:29 am
I agree, because that of course makes climate change worse - for as the sea ice melts dark water replaces the white surface of the snow which in turn leads to more warming - a nasty feedback loop can start...

Oh another point about that "meracilous recovery" that Judy continues to "leave out" (just a mistake, right) is that the ice which is comming back is SINGLE year ice as opposed to the ice which is being melted (which is multi-year ice). Multi-year ice is thicker than single year ice. Thus, the "recovered" ice is much thinner than what is being lost and therefore it is subject to rapid loss in the future ... So the "coat" is not only disappearing but becomming thinner too...

Judy, you might want to consider spending less time making childish remarks and actually LOOKING at the information YOU provide (I know you ignore what I present, but I would think you would at least look at what YOU post :) ).

Wednesday September 9, 2009, 8:55 am
This is what you posted, my dear fellow, at 8:54 PM yesterday. Early Alzheimers is a terrible thing, but I understand there are things you can do about it now,

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg

I guess that's why you keep forgetting that warming is not in dispute....only the cause is. New understanding just makes the CO2 paradigm look silly. You don't want to look silly, do you?

August 31, 2009 |
How Sunlight Controls Climate
New computer models begin to suggest how changes in the sun's strength might change weather patterns


Small changes in the sun's brightness can have big impacts on our planet's weather and climate. And now scientists have detailed how that process might work, according to a new study published August 28 in Science.

For decades some scientists have noted that certain climate phenomena—warmer seas, increased tropical rainfall, fewer clouds in the subtropics, stronger trade winds—seem to be connected to the sun's roughly 11-year cycle, which causes ebbs and flows in sunspots that result in variations in solar output.

That variation is roughly equal to 0.2 watt per meter squared—far too little to explain, for instance, actual warming sea-surface temperatures. A variety of theories have been proposed to explain the discrepancy: ozone chemistry changes in the stratosphere, increased sunlight in cloudless areas, even cosmic rays. But none of these theories, on its own, explains the phenomenon.

Now, using a computer model that pairs ozone chemistry with the fact that there are fewer clouds in the subtropics when the sun is stronger, climate scientist Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., and colleagues have reproduced all the observed cyclical climate phenomena as sunlight waxed and waned in intensity over the course of the last century. "Even though [sunlight variability] is a very small number on a global average, regionally or locally it can be much bigger," Meehl explains. Changes to stratospheric ozone chemistry and cloud cover in the subtropics "kind of add together and reinforce each other to produce a bigger amplitude of this small solar forcing signal," he says.

If the model is correct, the mechanism works like this when the sun is at maximum strength: Ozone in the tropical stratosphere traps slightly more heat under the increased ultraviolet sunlight, warming its surroundings and, in turn, allowing increased ozone production. (Warmer temperatures make it easier for ultraviolet light to break up O2 molecules, thereby allowing the resulting free oxygen ions to hook up with other molecules of their kind to create ozone.) That ozone also warms and the cycle continues, resulting in roughly 2 percent more ozone globally. But this change also begins to affect the circulation of the stratosphere itself, which then alters the circulation in the lowest layer of the atmosphere, known as the troposphere, by reinforcing certain wind patterns that then affect the weather we experience.

Meanwhile, the increased radiance during the solar max also adds slightly more heat to the ocean in areas that are already relatively cloudless because of sinking, cooler air. That produces a little more evaporation, which is carried by the trade winds back into the tropics where it comes down again as increased rainfall, but also helps strengthen the upward convection that causes the subtropical cloudless skies. That, in turn, further increases downward pressure back in the subtropics, resulting in even fewer clouds—again roughly 2 percent less clouds over these parts of the Pacific. "You basically spin up this whole system," Meehl says.

But the model did not exactly reproduce real-world conditions. Whereas sea-surface temperatures in the actual eastern Pacific typically decline by roughly 0.8 degree Celsius under a stronger sun, the model could only replicate about 0.6 degree C of cooling. Nor did the model predict changes where they actually occur on the planet. Other factors are likely at work, Meehl says, and even the best computer model can only begin to approximate the complexity of the actual climate.

Right now, the sun is stuck in a period of extremely low sunspot activity, not unlike the "Maunder Minimum" that may have been responsible for the Little Ice Age that cooled Europe in the late 17th century as well as the fall of imperial dynasties in China. And, for the latter half of the 20th century, the sun's output remained relatively constant as global temperatures rose—ruling out our star itself as the direct source of global warming.

Nevertheless, the research begins to explain the physical mechanisms by which changes in the sun's radiance can have outsized impacts on the planet. And that means that the next uptick in the solar cycle, and thereby the sun's brightness, might bring La Niña conditions—unusually cold surface waters—in the equatorial Pacific. "Whenever it happens," Meehl predicts, "chances are it would behave like a weak La Niña–like pattern."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-sunlight-can-control-climate

Wednesday September 9, 2009, 9:27 am
Thank you Tom

Wednesday September 9, 2009, 10:21 am
Thank you Tom serious stuff here.

Wednesday September 9, 2009, 12:17 pm
Thanks, Judy, for showing us what blind denial looks like. Hornby Island is pretty low. I suggest you move to higher ground and bury your head in sand that will remain above sea level.

Wednesday September 9, 2009, 5:52 pm
Judy - I guess BLINDNESS is a terrible thing LMAO!!! (I guess that is litterally true as well as being figratively true in Judy's case)

you just posted:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg


That is EXACTLY the link I posted TWICE above - and that IS the one which contains the 2008 data (LOOK AT THE GREEN LINE it goes through 2008) - and it is the one you "owned" as a lie yesterday (but now apparently you forgot about that too) - you are indeed HALARIOUS - care to appologise now??? As I said, you need to concentrate on LOOKING and READING and spending less time making childish comments (which only show a weak arguement)....

and of course you simply gloss over your other distortions by simply moving on to your next cut and paste - not even pausing to cop to your LIE that you got caught in ...

and there is NO DEBATE that the sun INFLUENCES climate - but that is a FAR CRY fro CAUSES - it is a factor just a green house gas concentrations is ANOTHER FACTOR - how many freaking times do you have to be told this before you "get it" (obviously do don't WANT to get it" ... where in your article does it say that green house gas is NOT a contributing factor too the current warming trend - it DOES NOT SAY THAT the conclusion is MADE UP BY YOU (yet again) ... geez, and called me a robot LMAO!!!!

as to the solar influence (which of course is completely off topic, but since when has that stopped you???) the intellegent readers can check out these materials (and Judy can IGNORE them yet again LOL )

Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Climate myths: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650-climate-myths-global-warming-is-down-to-the-sun-not-humans.html

Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/fact4.html

You can close your eyes (and stomp your feet and hold your breath till you turn blue) but the facts just don't go away :)

Tuesday September 22, 2009, 4:50 pm
Thank you Judy.
These people will have icicles hanging from them soon, that will be our fault too, because everything is our fault, right? Can you say "puritan"?