The scientists involved believe changes in summer temperatures have greater impacts on ice than thought. But they say 2013 was a one-off and that climate change will continue to shrink the ice in the decades ahead....
२२ जुलै, २०१५
"The volume of Arctic sea ice increased by around a third after an unusually cool summer in 2013."
"Researchers say the growth continued in 2014 and more than compensated for losses recorded in the three previous years."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७८ टिप्पण्या:
But they say 2013 was a one-off and that climate change will continue to shrink the ice in the decades ahead...
Unless the ice pack continues to grow, which will also be the fault of climate change.
Meanwhile, that giant thermonuclear reactor at the center if the solar system continues to exhibit few Sun spots.
Sure it will!
The models have proven again and again that they are wrong. The famous hockey stick graph was based on cherry-picked data. The original temp/monitoring data was shown to be suspect. The world cooling period just happened to coincide with a cooler sun.
None of that matters because Al Gore says so.
This is just the latest cause du jour of those that know they can manage our lives better than we can.
As someone famous said: I will believe climate change is a problem when those that tell me it is a problem start acting like it is a problem.
When Al Gore and Bono start riding in coach, when Al moves out of his mega-McMansion and into a more reasonable sized house that doesn't use the same amount of electricity as a small town, when those in the movement start advocating for more nuclear power plants to be build, and when they start doing teleconferences for these climate summits instead of jet-setting to exotic places, maybe then I will start to believe that there might really be a problem.
Until then? Piss off.
Everything is a one-off with these people. If there's anything global warming consistently causes, it's one-offs.
Ohhhh....it's a one off. Pay no attention to the inability of our models to accurately predict anything.
These guys are about as accurate as the people who constantly predict the second coming for Christ.
As Glenn Reynolds says, "Fallen Angels is fiction guys. Right? RIGHT?"
Of course it will...until it doesn't.
Those who promote global warming theories seem to do as much as they can get away with to make them non-falsifiable, but when that fails one can be sure that any contradictory evidence will be explained away.
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." -- John Kenneth Galbraith
Like the East Anglia data and more recently, the NOAA data on the "pause", this here data is gonna need some manipulating. Oh, I mean "re-evaluating". Hell, it might need to be disappeared!
Send a ship of fools to check it out!
Follow the folks who put their money where their mouths are: oil exploration companies, shipping companies, insurance companies, militaries. They budget/invest for global warming.
I am reading these comments from an area of Wisconsin that was once covered by glaciers. However, I don't think mankind's use of fossil fuels had much to do with the glaciers melting in this area. Maybe global warming has been going on for a long time and has nothing to do with fossil fuel usage??? Just asking...
So wait, is the science now re-settled, de-settled?
Cornroaster --
Bingo, the argument doesn't have to go any farther than the facts you stated.
You can scratch the military from that list. They are under political orders. Show me the evidence for the others, beyond insurance companies raising rates to cover future contingencies (whether they happen or not since there is no trend for increasing losses from natural events). But they have political cover now so more money for their pockets.
Also, please document the string of killer hurricanes whose prediction was all the rage after Katrina. Cause, you know, every year was going to be terrible with future Katrinas. Because reasons. And predictions.
I have no doubt that this minute, the one that I'm currently in, will soon be pronounced to be the hottest minute, in the hottest hour, in the hottest day, in the hottest week, in the hottest month, in the hottest year in modern global average temperature records. And if it's not, the records will soon be adjusted to make it so.
These "climate scientists" and huckers like Al Gore should be tried at The Hague for crimes against humanity and when found guilty, executed. They have effected billions of lives.
It snows while Gore gives a speech. It's a one-off.
Tornado destroys town. It's climate change.
Sea ice melts. It's global warming.
Sea ice returns. It's a one-off.
It may not be warming, but we are seeing climate change. What does that mean exactly? It means more extreme weather. Except we aren't seeing it. Ask Warren Buffett. Insurance claims for extreme weather events is down and has been. There is no statistical evidence of climate extremes taking place. We should be viewing extreme events as the one-offs, which they are.
"But they say 2013 was a one-off and that climate change will continue to shrink the ice in the decades ahead."
"Researchers say the growth continued in 2014 and more than compensated for losses recorded in the three previous years."
So 2013 was a one-off, but the growth continued in 2014?
And 2014 made up for the loss in 2013?
If I were younger I would invest in companies which: Make "thermal" clothing; Provide home insulation, etc.
Please ignore all empirical data, instead look at these models and "adjusted" data.
Trigger warning: words.
Matthew Sablan said...
So wait, is the science now re-settled, de-settled?
The science is Colonized and Culturally Appropriated.
Curious George said...
They have effected billions of lives.
Global sperm donors?
Rendering, I worked for an oil company. All the "green" stuff we did was paid for by government subsidies. You're rather naive.
"Fernandinande said...
Curious George said...
They have effected billions of lives.
Global sperm donors?"
Affected heh. And even with all their millions, I doubt they get much pussy.
The scientists involved believe changes in summer temperatures have greater impacts on ice than thought. But they say 2013 was a one-off and that climate change will continue to shrink the ice in the decades ahead...
And when they are wrong, they will ignore it, and make more, similar predictions in the future.
The fact that global warming causes expansion of Arctic sea ice shows that Gaia has a sense of humor.
http://rightwingnews.com/liberals/arctic-global-warming-expedition-canceled-because-of-too-much-ice/
Ironic, isn't it?
> climate change will continue
Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?
"But they say 2013 was a one-off and that climate change will continue to shrink the ice in the decades ahead"
Our models predicted that.
of course they say that, expanding sea ice equals shrinking research grants
Well, we know that fossil fuels are affecting our sun. Why else would it be warming ?
Cooling ? Never heard of it.
Read the speech's from the 1st Earth Day gathering. The leading climate scientists of the day were so off base in all their predictions that the speech's are actually kinda comical.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
― Upton Sinclair
Why would climate scientists be special?
"The long-term trend of the ice volume is downwards and the long-term trend of the temperatures in the Arctic is upwards and this finding doesn't give us any reason to disbelieve that - as far as we can tell it's just one anomalous year."
Unless it isn't.
They were so sure 2013 wouldn't happen and that 2014 wouldn't either. Their predictive power is not as good as they want others to believe.
How about having 1/2 of these scientists compensation be based on accurate predictions?
Well, here's global sea ice extent and anomalies:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
I really do not see much of a trend either way. There was a low patch, now we are back to about the early 1980s. There are natural fluctuations.
I hope that the field of climate science doesn't morph into trying to explain why we should ignore the evidence!
The satellite data shows a recent cooling trend!
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2015/trend
Which, because of the lag, does seem to match with the global ice extent.
Cutting out the high and going from 2000 on, dead flat:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2015/trend
"But they say 2013 was a one-off" which extended into 2014, makign it, what, a "two off"?
Or marking these people as pathetic liars and hacks?
When I told a former co-worker that global warming was a joke, I was told "You obviously don't understand the difference between climate, and weather!!"
Did you guys read the part about how, despite the "rebound" in 2013, sea ice volume is down 40% overall? 2012 had an extremely low amount of sea ice, the lowest ever recorded. It "recovered" back to the steep trend downward we've seen over the last forty years.
Didn't think so. Talk about cherry-picking.
When people start demanding access to the raw research data (some already are) don't be shocked when their server 'crashed' and they list all the emails.
Mike,
The giant thermonuclear reactor at the center of the Solar System is on Line 1. Please pick up.
""The volume of Arctic sea ice increased by around a third after an unusually cool summer in 2013.""
This is scary. I drive my SUV home the long way as much as I can, but that apparently hasn't been enough to forestall the coming of the next Ice Age. Oh well, at least you won't be able to blame me when a polar bear eats your children.
We have realtime satellite imaging now, and the Arctic ice pack is still growing.
The current model fails to account for: ice and snow pack reflection, ocean thermal currents, atmospheric pressures (wind), urban sprawl on weather stations (black parking lots), solar activities (like the current sun spot 11 year cycle), latent heat of evaporation (trees, oceans, and lakes all cause evaporation and absorb heat), relative humanity (rain), cloud cover reflection, and the shifting of magnetic poles or earth axis. The model(a program written by graduate students over many decades to appease their mentor) does NOT address any of these condition. The boundary condition are just not known, yet they point to CO2? The model is hidden, for their eyes only. Their current data is cherry picked. These high priest who know better are called "scientist." These know all scientists have sold their integrity for grants (money). I know from sixth grade, that science is never ever settled. Currently this year is the coldest and wetness. 10 years ago Al and company were screaming. All this to obtain a tax/penalty on coal and oil. Yep, they knew who had the money, but is was all a lie.
Didn't think so. Talk about cherry-picking.
Your side is the one that relies on manipulated data that does not match the historical or satellite record.
Did you guys read the part about how, despite the "rebound" in 2013, sea ice volume is down 40% overall? 2012 had an extremely low amount of sea ice, the lowest ever recorded. It "recovered" back to the steep trend downward we've seen over the last forty years.
Didn't think so. Talk about cherry-picking.
Did you read the part about how Wisconsin used to be covered by glaciers that disappeared long before mankind used fossil fuels?
"Did you read the part about how Wisconsin used to be covered by glaciers that disappeared long before mankind used fossil fuels?"
Mmmm...this is not the "gotcha" you seem to think it is.
Those who assert climate change is happening do not assert that this is a unique or unprecedented occurrence; they know quite well the earth has experienced (and will continue to experience)ongoing cycles of cooling and warming over the millennia. These cycles occur because of various waxing and waning processes on the planet that influence the climate cycles. If humankind did not exist at all, the climate would continue its cycles of change from warmer to cooler to warmer, etc.
The argument is that humankind's activity--our burning of fossil fuels, etc.--is, in this period, influencing the cycle, that we are causing it to happen (if it is happening) sooner than than would be expected if we did not exist or were not burning fossil fuels.
These cycles occur because of various waxing and waning processes on the planet
Actually the biggest cause is that giant ball of burning hydrogen that isn't on the planet.
The argument is that humankind's activity--our burning of fossil fuels, etc.--is, in this period, influencing the cycle,
And the argument's only evidence is manipulated data that do not match up with the actual data.
A 'lone-wolf' ice pack.
They simply don't know as much as they say they know, so they have to add these assertions at the end of papers that don't support the narrative even though there is nothing in the scientists own work that support it.
They have to add these lines in the same as a Muslim must say "Allah be praised," in order to signal to their colleagues that they do not wish to be excommunicated from the church of global warming.
So basically their actual work in no way supports the theory, but they are part of the "consensus" anyway. Like a biologist who measures changes in fish populations, and somehow asserts that this supports the attribution of any changes in climate to human activity.
They have a logical problem and their solution is constant repetition of a mantra. Only a very small number of scientists actually work on attribution of climate change to humans, and these scientists are having a very difficult time making the first correct prediction.
Maybe Robert Cook could point me to a climate model that has performed within its own self declared margin of error for the past decade or so, to make it easy.
There are twenty or so climate models, none of which seem to agree, maybe he could explain which one of those has the physics correct?
If the answer is that we average them all, maybe he could point me to the mathematical proof that shows that averages of averages produces a solid result?
The argument is that humankind's activity--our burning of fossil fuels, etc.--is, in this period, influencing the cycle, that we are causing it to happen (if it is happening) sooner than than would be expected if we did not exist or were not burning fossil fuels.
I agree with you - it is an argument, not settled science.
Did you guys read
The echo chamber in here is too loud to allow reading.
MadisonMan said...
Did you guys read
The echo chamber in here is too loud to allow reading.
7/23/15, 8:10 AM
The self parody evident by some is amazing!
On this particular subject, there is ample documentation that the "proof" of man made global warming is anything but. The documentation on this subject is crystal clear that those few scientists that were "in charge" of the "global warming / climate change / man made climate change" efforts hid and manipulated data to get the results that they wanted, that they colluded with others in their "group" to stigmatize and ostracize any dissenting voices, and that the "consensus" was anything but. When the emails were finally leaked and some of the data finally released, it became obvious to anyone that cared that all of this was a sham. The question of "has man's activities affected the earth's climate" is not "settled science" but it leans in the directions of "no" to "yes but not enough to matter". It does not lean toward "we will all be dead in 10 years and the oceans will be 20 to 40 feet higher".
Talk about living in an echo chamber...
Computer models can be quite valuable. They can be quite accurate. They lose value when the system being modeled is complex. When variables are not included. When time frames stretch. When the data used is incomplete, cherry picked or estimated. They must, ultimately, mirror the real world to be of actual value.
Any honest practitioner knows this.
By the way, the movement began to lose me when they adopted the slogan, "The science is settled". Settled science based on (competing) computer models with the above limitations in spades? Horse hockey.
So when 10-15% of the arctic ice was melting it was a "crisis" and demanded "immediate action" but when it grows by 33% in one season then it's all "nothing to see here" and "move along."
Boy that sure sounds like rigorous scientific analysis there! Is the "one-off" aspect of this growing ice also "settled science"?
To follow up on Bobber at 3:58:
"The Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013, equaling the level set in 2003, scientists from" NOAA said just a few months ago. These are serious, dedicated scientists employed by our government/NGO/Democrat activist complex. Serious scientists!
Yet somehow during the "fourth warmest year" ever the arctic ice managed to regrow substantially. Interesting move Mother Nature! A few more "warm" years like this and we'll covered in ice before long.
"Maybe Robert Cook could point me to a climate model that has performed within its own self declared margin of error for the past decade or so, to make it easy."
No, I can't, because I'm not the one making the argument, and I'm not arguing it in my comment. I'm simply pointing out that the lamebrained "gotcha" that is so often pulled out--"hey, there wuz global warming before humas wuz even here, hyuck, hyuck!"--is lamebrained (did I say that already?) beyond words. The globe warms and cools and warms and cools. The argument made today by those who say climate change is happening is not that it's never happened before, not that we are the unique and novel cause of it now, but only that human activity is influencing the global climate, helping to bring about the next warming cycle sooner and more rapidly than would otherwise occur. In any warming (or cooling) cycle, there are global processes at work that drive the change over long time, and we are, the argument goes, part of these global processes this time around.
I don't pretend to have the expertise to claim certainty on the subject, (and so I usually don't participate in these braying arguments), but I'm more inclined to accept that the climate is warming and that we are influencing it than I am to reject it out of hand. Perhaps the climate change argument will turn out to be totally wrong, but I'm not convinced of that at this point.
I'm puzzled by the vehemence with which so many (who don't, like me, know enough to know) assert the whole thing is a fraud, some sort of "money-making scam" by scientists seeking grants, or a scheme by "libs/progs/lefties/commies" to destroy our capitalist paradise and force everyone back to pre-industrial societies, etc. I think too many people have come to their conclusions not on the basis of broad, inclusive reading, understanding, and analysis of all the science available on the subject, but have simply accepted the propaganda being pushed by the fossil fuel industry, (possibly because the propaganda has been tailored to appeal to their political biases). Most laypersons would be better served by recognizing (as I do) their own greater or lesser lack of expertise and refrain from assuming certainty on the subject.
I know word problems can be very difficult but could one of the global warming hysterics here (maybe that other Mike) please help me understand this equation?
2013 was the "4th warmest year on record" but the summer of 2013 was "unusually cool." So 2013 was in the top 2% as far as "warminess" but also had a very cool summer, so cool it reversed several years, perhaps decades, of melting. Therefore if 75% of a year is in the warmest top quintile and 25% of the year is "unusually cool" the result equals what?
Wait! Wait! I got it. "Settled science" is the answer. FTW!
And here's old Robert Cook to impersonate the voice of reason. Let me make it really clear for you Cook: The Chicken Little Warmist society is the one that plays fast and loose with the "denier" labels precisely because they try to obscure, elide and smart-ass their way around the FACT that there has been very significant warming and cooling.
Just what do you think the enviro-fascists on your side are saying when they say conservatives "deny climate change" and are "anti-science" for pointing out what you so casually call "lamebrained" above because it is so obvious? YOU are obscuring the argument not clarifying it. The warmists insist man is CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE. You must not read much or see TV because it is all about alramism and "worst ever" and "hottest on record" bullshit meant to convey exactly the OPPOSITE of what you suggest above. "Influencing" my ass! We are constantly told we are the problem. Cause and effect brother, that's what is being sold to the masses.
The last two ice ages happened in the geologic "blink of an eye" though. So you're wrong on the facts too. Algore has been warning us since 1998 that doom was imminent! Imminent! Yet the Little Ice Age got really cold really fast within months of a volcanic eruption. Maybe those pre-industrial humans were the cause and you are right. But then maybe you're just full of shit like every other warmist. Let me rewind a little to the year 2000 when we were told without IMMEDIATE action the world would be too warm to live in RIGHT NOW and remind you that we've had ZERO warming in that time. So if we are truly "influencing" Mother Nature then she is doing the opposite of what you'd expect (just like a woman).
"I don't pretend to have the expertise to claim certainty on the subject, ... but I'm more inclined to accept that the climate is warming and that we are influencing it than I am to reject it out of hand. Perhaps the climate change argument will turn out to be totally wrong, but I'm not convinced of that at this point."
Ah, Cookie. There is some real validity in this point of view. Of course you know the true believers will brand you as a science denier by even allowing that this could be totally wrong.
So I won't bother to list the predictions that have proven comically wrong. Nor bore you with how excuse/reasons have to be hastily conferred as the models prove inadequate. Instead I'll adopt your position. It might be "totally wrong".
Yet the Federal/State and International governmental bright boys are going to substantially disrupt whole industries, enriching some impoverishing others in the name of this thing that could be "totally wrong".
We will tax everyone, poor and minorities hardest hit, transfer wealth overseas or into the hands of Solyndra (and other purchasers of legislative and Executive largess), destroy the jobs of millions and force us to change lifestyle in the name of this thing that could be "totally wrong".
Seems like you should rail against the worst aspects of this effort even as you remain skeptical of the skeptical.
Cook: I'm puzzled by the vehemence with which so many (who don't, like me, know enough to know) assert the whole thing is a fraud, some sort of "money-making scam" by scientists seeking grants, or a scheme by "libs/progs/lefties/commies" to destroy our capitalist paradise and force everyone back to pre-industrial societies, etc.
1. "Fraud" because of "hide the decline" and the "hockey stick" bullshit. If it wasn't a scam then they would show their data sets unaltered and open the books.
2. Yes, "scientists seeking grants" create studies that show what their masters want the data to say. Maybe you could offer some counter-intuitive proof such as reasoned and articulate refutation of skeptical claims instead of thew wholesale railroading and black balling of ANY study that lands weight to the idea that the fucked up models aren't correct. Look what happens to esteemed scientists who mildly disagree with the "consensus" says. Show me one prominent skeptic that hasn't been personally and professionally attacked by the "establishment," Cook. Lomborg? Dyson? Happer? Plimer?
3. And "destroy our capitalist paradise and force everyone back to pre-industrial societies" is a pretty good description of the watermelons* who have captured the environmental movement. Listen the the respected leaders talk about restricting fuel and electricity and how we should all grow our own food and bike to work. Tell me these leftist idiots aren't trying to de-industrialize the world. Easily provable lies like yours are what they count on to fool the people who aren't paying attention to what the enviro-fascists are talking about.
*You know, GREEN on the OUTSIDE and RED on the INSIDE. If you doubt me then google the policies of Greenpeace, Earth First, the Sierra Club, the Tides Foundation, Tom Steyer, and about a billion other NGO/activists who subsist on the flood of liberal donor cash that powers the enviro-fascists machine. Loony limousine liberal cash far outweighs ALL sources of anti-Global Warming cash, including from fossil fuel companies and Koch donations combined. Look it up and weep.
The argument is that humankind's activity--our burning of fossil fuels, etc.--is, in this period, influencing the cycle, that we are causing it to happen (if it is happening) sooner than than would be expected if we did not exist or were not burning fossil fuels.
And yet the evidence that is proffered are multi-proxy studies with cherry-picked data sets extending back centuries that somehow magically show that the last handful of decades is somehow out of pattern. It's the somehow part where all the fraud-science takes place.
What should tip people off is that it is the lefties propagating this nonsense. Since when did any legitimate hard science get resolved on the left/right political battleground? That's the clue that something ain't right with this picture.
That big ball of burning hydrogen at the center of our solar system is the culprit. It's as simple as that.
– Krumhorn
I'm puzzled by the vehemence with which so many (who don't, like me, know enough to know) assert the whole thing is a fraud, some sort of "money-making scam" by scientists seeking grants, or a scheme by "libs/progs/lefties/commies" to destroy our capitalist paradise and force everyone back to pre-industrial societies, etc. I think too many people have come to their conclusions not on the basis of broad, inclusive reading, understanding, and analysis of all the science available on the subject, but have simply accepted the propaganda being pushed by the fossil fuel industry, (possibly because the propaganda has been tailored to appeal to their political biases). Most laypersons would be better served by recognizing (as I do) their own greater or lesser lack of expertise and refrain from assuming certainty on the subject.
You can't pretend the modesty of claiming not knowing "enough to know" and then parrot the leftie attack line about fossil fuel industry propaganda after miming a careful weighing of thoughtful considerations. You have no intention of informing yourself. It doesn't suit your political purpose. There are plenty of reputable scientists and statisticians who consistently uncover the fraud in the science of the warmingist hucksters, but either it's too complicated to flollow for the average attention span, or, for folks like Cook, runs counter to the leftie agenda. It's an essential dishonesty, but it serves the cause.
- Krumhorn
-
Robert Cook said...
I'm puzzled by the vehemence with which so many (who don't, like me, know enough to know) assert the whole thing is a fraud, some sort of "money-making scam" by scientists seeking grants, or a scheme by "libs/progs/lefties/commies" to destroy our capitalist paradise and force everyone back to pre-industrial societies, etc.
Ah, but it is! Just follow the money.
I think too many people have come to their conclusions not on the basis of broad, inclusive reading, understanding, and analysis of all the science available on the subject, but have simply accepted the propaganda being pushed by the environmental industry, (possibly because the propaganda has been tailored to appeal to their political biases).
There, fixed it for you.
Most laypersons would be better served by recognizing (as I do) their own greater or lesser lack of expertise and refrain from assuming certainty on the subject.
As should most of the "scientists" that have no expertise in climatology but have stepped in on the side of "consensus" with no more understanding of the subject than a Labrador.
Pride goeth before a fall...
"The last two ice ages happened in the geologic 'blink of an eye' though. So you're wrong on the facts too."
What "facts" did I state? What assertions did I make which are "wrong?"
What was it I said about "braying?" It's already started!
Bob.
Judging by what you post here and the responses you give to your interlocutors, there's a whole shitload of things that puzzle you.
MadisonMan said...
Did you guys read
The echo chamber in here is too loud to allow reading.
Yes I have. Both sides. There is no objective scientific proof that it is being caused by human activity world wide. There may be an argument for local heat pollution by human activity. The latest spread on NOAA sensors situated across the country and far away from heat pollution have indicated for the last ten years that there has been no warming in N. America.
Well Robert, a quick survey of the alternatives to our "capitalist paradise" that have been attempted over the 20th century, and more recently in Venezuela, for example, would tend to leave one a little skeptical of proposals for new ways of living. Especially when so many of the climate alarmists tend to be anti capitalist at the core, climate alarmists second, since climate alarm comes as a handy cudgel.
Your own comfort with economic and political systems that have led to such atrocities and even holocausts in the past, for instance like the genocide in the Ukraine, probably has more to do with your accepting such speculation as catastrophic climate change, than any honest assessment of the science.
Humans have always done better in warmer climates. Before the recent ice ages the planet was much warmer and there were something like 38 thriving species of great apes. So what we are saying is that even if it does warm, it is not that unusual and so what? Even if we caused it, it might have happened anyway absent us causing it, or we might have fallen into an ice age, which is where we were headed, if you believe the Hockey Stick.
Cook you said: The argument made today by those who say climate change is happening is not that it's never happened before, not that we are the unique and novel cause of it now, but only that human activity is influencing the global climate, helping to bring about the next warming cycle sooner and more rapidly than would otherwise occur
I specifically addressed your bullshit contentions about "sooner" and "more rapidly" because those are so obviously, self-evidently wrong. The math is:
1 year < 15 years
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/22/arctic-expedition-to-study-global-warming-put-on-hold-because-of-too-much-ice/
2013 was not a one-off. As of July 7th, current Arctic ice volume exceeds that of 2010 and nearly approaches that of 2007. Check the "Daily Arctic Ice Volume" graph at this page:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas
The data source is the Polar Science Center at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Scientific research in general, not just climate research, is in sad shape. Even cancer research is full of bullshit. Cancer research! Political bias and other biases in research can have dire consequences. Below are a few URLs with brief discussions and highlights of the basic problem.
http://tinyurl.com/cjucm38
http://tinyurl.com/pe49uw4
http://tinyurl.com/llrs3u4
http://tinyurl.com/pqmxfhd
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा