Subscribe: Comments on Kerplunk - Common sense from Down Under: Who are the real Climate Deniers now?
http://ker-plunk.blogspot.com/feeds/363675856095022956/comments/default
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
arctic ice  arctic  back  climate  data  fucky  fudgie  graph  ice coverage  ice  knock  much  proof  records  temperature  understand 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on Kerplunk - Common sense from Down Under: Who are the real Climate Deniers now?

Comments on Jack Lacton: Who are the real Climate Deniers now?





Updated: 2018-04-17T16:38:56.725+10:00

 



Proof that anyone can put together a legitmate loo...

2008-08-30T01:54:00.000+10:00

Proof that anyone can put together a legitmate looking web site, but at the end of the day it still has the same tired old denialist hooey.

- Why are so many "skeptical" scientists retired and/or submit work for conservative/libertarian "think tanks"?
- Why do so many "skeptical" scientists spend so much time being pundits/armchair critics versus doing peer reviewed research that is published in legitimate journals?
- Why do "skeptics" like to produce "petitions" that are not verified or are puffed up with non scientists ot TV weatherman?
- Why do "skeptics" like to dispute AGW by routinely using logical fallacies, i.e. cooling since 1998?
- Why is John Coleman relevant other than he can claim to have created the idea for the Weather Channel (he was ousted 19-months later)?



Proof that anyone can put together a legitmate loo...

2008-08-30T01:48:00.000+10:00

Proof that anyone can put together a legitmate looking web site, but at the end of the day it still has the same tired old denialist hooey.

- Why are so many "skeptical" scientists retired and/or submit work for conservative/libertarian "think tanks"?
- Why do so many "skeptical" scientists spend so much time being pundits/armchair critics versus doing peer reviewed research that is published in legitimate journals?
- Why do "skeptics" like to produce "petitions" that are not verified or are puffed up with non scientists ot TV weatherman?
- Why do "skeptics" like to dispute AGW by routinely using logical fallacies, i.e. cooling since 1998?
- Why is John Coleman relevant other than he can claim to have created the idea for the Weather Channel (he was ousted 19-months later)?



Fucky! Can you hear me, fucky? Accurate direct-m...

2008-05-17T00:41:00.000+10:00

Fucky! Can you hear me, fucky? Accurate direct-measurement temperature records go back to the 1880s. Got that? Temperature records show that 1970s temperatures were about average for the 20th century.

Still with me? Hello? Helloooo?

Oh well.



Knock. Knock. Knock.Earth to Fudgie.The records on...

2008-05-16T20:27:00.000+10:00

Knock. Knock. Knock.

Earth to Fudgie.

The records only go back to the 1970s and those beforehand are not valid as a comparison, as they come from a different method.



If you're referring to the 1970s, then as I alread...

2008-05-16T19:05:00.000+10:00

If you're referring to the 1970s, then as I already showed you, the temperature then was close to the average for the 20th century. Did you understand that?



Fudgie,Are you comfortable relying on information ...

2008-05-16T08:20:00.000+10:00

Fudgie,

Are you comfortable relying on information that starts just after a cold point in 20th century temperature as a comparison point?



You don't understand the graphs we're looking at. ...

2008-05-16T05:05:00.000+10:00

You don't understand the graphs we're looking at. Mine showed three curves, all of which (obviously) declined during the summer. One was the 1979-2000 mean ice coverage, one was the 2007 record low, and one was the 2008 measurements. It showed that 2008 has been well below the mean in terms of ice coverage, clearly proving wrong the claim that in 2008, ice coverage is now at huge levels.

You claim that 'in this last decade, it has been well-above the mean', but your graph shows that in fact exactly the opposite is true. Ice coverage has been below the mean for all of the last decade except for three brief periods between 2001 and 2003.

You claim that secular changes happen in any system, which is so vague as to be meaningless. Presuming you mean a closed system, it's complete nonsense.

The move back to the mean this winter was pretty dramatic. And how could that possibly have happened with yet increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere? - why should increasing CO2 stop the weather? Interannual fluctuations are hardly going to stop, are they? Do you know the difference between climate and weather?

None of your claims, or those of Lacton, are supported by the available evidence.



I understand the graph fully well. If it's your p...

2008-05-16T01:15:00.000+10:00

I understand the graph fully well. If it's your point that the Arctic ice recovery this winter was still below the mean....well...duh! It was only my purpose to call you on your dishonesty in splashing up some image showing plunging ice levels from winter into summer...as if that was somehow significant.

I offered a 365 time scale to put your hysteria in perspective.

Yes, the mean northern ice is slightly below the mean since 1979. So what? In 2008, during the winter, the ice made a very nice recovery almost back to the mean. The ice has often been much further below the mean than it is today. And in this last decade , it has been well-above the mean.

This graph shows the deviation from the mean in more detail. You looselugnut libs want to get all squirrely about this, but secular changes happen in any system.

The move back to the mean this winter was pretty dramatic. And how could that possibly have happened with yet increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere?

I thought that wasn't supposed to happen.

Here is a graph from 1900. Normally, a graph in this shape would look alarming until your read the caveats from Cryosphere about the data sets.

Please note that much of the pre-1953 data is either climatology or interpolated data and the user is cautioned to use this data with care.

What they are trying nicely to say to the dim bulbs who try to make so much of secular patterns is that satellite data...or indeed, any good data... doesn't go back very far so it's hard to get a long term accurate view.

Similarly, the temperature record, as Jack has frequently discussed, is fraught with inaccuracies, fudge-factors and proxies that can't possibly be compared to temperature records today that are accurate to a tenth of a degree.

Snarky moonbats can try to achieve their social agendas through bogus science, but increasingly, people are catching on. And, obviously, the climate isn't co-operating very well, is it?

-- Krumhorn



Oooh, you've worked out how to make links! Well d...

2008-05-15T09:31:00.000+10:00

Oooh, you've worked out how to make links! Well done. But you clearly don't understand the graph you've posted, or perhaps you don't know what you're arguing for, because it very nicely shows, as my graph also did, that the current ice coverage is below the 1979-2000 mean.



...Try this--Krumhorn

2008-05-15T08:40:00.000+10:00

...

Try this

--Krumhorn



....Just a guess, buddy, but the ice will likely d...

2008-05-15T08:34:00.000+10:00

....

Just a guess, buddy, but the ice will likely decline from January and into the summer. Why pick a chart that only shows a few months.

Try this one instead.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

Why do I always get the feeling that you global warming husters are nothing so much as 3-card monty sharks?

--Krumhorn



Give us links to back up your claims, fucky. No e...

2008-05-15T00:30:00.000+10:00

Give us links to back up your claims, fucky. No evidence means no argument.



Ahh, now I see.. the climate alarmists only have h...

2008-05-14T22:11:00.000+10:00

Ahh, now I see.. the climate alarmists only have half a brain... people with full brains see things differently



Jesus wept, Fudgie, you really don't get it do you...

2008-05-14T21:55:00.000+10:00

Jesus wept, Fudgie, you really don't get it do you?

Go and look at the NYT archives and see what was being reported in the 20s...



It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain t...

2008-05-14T21:26:00.000+10:00

It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that increasing ice mass could not cause the loss of large areas of ice in collapse events. In fact, the collapse of Larsen B may have been unprecedented in the Holocene.

The 1970s were not the coldest period of the 20th century. There were no huge melts of arctic ice in the 1920s. Arctic sea ice this year is not at huge levels.

Is Jack Lacton simply painfully ignorant or does he know he's talking absolute nonsense?



Jack, you can be sure that if the Arctic ice conti...

2008-05-14T14:04:00.000+10:00

Jack, you can be sure that if the Arctic ice continues to grow, those that commune at the altar of the church of Global Warming will just claim that, of course, that's just more proof of looming climate catastrophe.

They take it either way it comes.

Silly dopes.

--- Krumhorn



warhorse,Honest answer to an honest question.Antar...

2008-05-14T12:53:00.000+10:00

warhorse,

Honest answer to an honest question.

Antarctica is a huge land mass that is covered in ice. Ice mass has been increasing not only recently but for many, many decades. This increase creates ice shelves that jut out into the ocean for tens of miles. Over time they get so big and heavy that they break off such as Larson B did recently. Have a look at what the Antarctic Peninsula is. Antarctica is still increasing its ice cover to record levels.

The Arctic is represented differently by the Climate Faithful. Records only go back to the 70s, which is pretty much the coldest period of the 20th century, so any comparison with them looks bad. However, if you read the literature including what was reported in newspapers of the day in the 1920s you find that huge melts of Arctic sea ice was entirely normal. In fact, they made a lot of dire predictions about the consequences. Sound familiar?

What's also widely under-reported is that Arctic sea ice cover increased massively during the last Arctic winter and is now at huge levels. Given the melt appeared to have been caused by anomalous warm ocean currents and that the world's oceans are being shown to be in a cooling phase it's not clear that the Arctic will have a repeat performance this year.



Okay, honest question for you: I recall reading re...

2008-05-14T12:34:00.000+10:00

Okay, honest question for you: I recall reading recently that at least one of the major Antarctic ice sheets is sliding into the sea at an alarmingly high rate. Is it possible that this is why, at least in part, there is so much sea ice this April?



Provide a link, please, to where a scientist has u...

2008-05-14T08:49:00.000+10:00

Provide a link, please, to where a scientist has used data from one day and claimed it as proof of global warming.



Fudgie,Your lot use one day as proof of warming ye...

2008-05-14T07:53:00.000+10:00

Fudgie,

Your lot use one day as proof of warming yet 10 years is not enough to measure change?

Your lot truly are lunatics.



It's almost over anonymous. Sorry mate.

2008-05-14T07:41:00.000+10:00

It's almost over anonymous. Sorry mate.



Yep, more of the usual idiocy. Some simple points...

2008-05-14T03:41:00.000+10:00

Yep, more of the usual idiocy. Some simple points for your simple mind:

1. 10 years is not a long enough period over which to measure climate change.
2. Nevertheless, temperatures over the past 10 years have neither been flat nor declined. Check the data.
3. Oceanic oscillations cannot explain the secular upward trend in temperatures, by definition.
4. Solar minimum is not unusual, it happens every 11 years, and its effect on climate is barely discernible.
5. The Arctic sea ice minimum extent last year shattered all previous records, far outstripping even the most pessimistic predictions up until then.

You cannot understand this simple science. Your writing is full of basic misconceptions. Give it up.