[opendtv] Re: What does it take to convince
- From: "John Willkie" <johnwillkie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:04:51 -0800
I think we're still trying to make a federal case out of noise. Imagine
trying to form long-term public policy about the climate from people who
can't predict tomorrow's weather with any degree of accuracy. Are they any
better in the long term?
John Willkie
_____
De: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] En
nombre de Mark A. Aitken
Enviado el: Monday, November 17, 2008 6:19 AM
Para: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [opendtv] Re: What does it take to convince
Am I chicken little for saying "The ice is growing, the ice is growing!"...
<http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article1
3385.htm>
<http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article1
3385.htm>
Rapid Rebound Brings Ice Back to Levels from the 1980s.
An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels. In
sharp contrast to the rapid melting seen last year, the amount of global sea
ice has rebounded sharply and is now growing rapidly. The total amount of
ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the fastest
pace since record-keeping began in 1979.
The actual amount of ice area varies seasonally from about 16 to 23 million
square kilometers. However, the mean anomaly-- defined as the difference
between the current area and the seasonally-adjusted average-- changes much
slower, and generally varies by only 2-3 million square kilometers.
That anomaly had been negative, indicating ice loss, for most of the current
decade and reached a historic low in 2007. The current value is again zero,
indicating an amount of ice exactly equal to the global average from
1979-2000.
Bill Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Center at the University
of Illinois, says the rapid increase is "no big deal". He says that, while
the Arctic has certainly been colder in recent months, the long-term
decrease is still ongoing. Chapman, who predicts that sea ice will soon stop
growing, sees nothing in the recent data to contradict predictions of global
warming.
Others aren't quite so sure. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of
Environmental
<http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article1
3385.htm> Science at the University of Virginia, says he sees some "very
odd" things occurring in recent years. Michaels, who is also a Senior Fellow
with the Cato Institute, tells DailyTech that, while the behavior of the
Arctic seems to agree with climate models predictions, the Southern
Hemisphere can't be explained by current theory. "The models predict a
warming ocean around Antarctica, so why would we see more sea ice?" Michaels
adds that large areas of the Southern Pacific are showing cooling
<http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article1
3385.htm> trends, an occurrence not anticipated by any current climate
model.
On average, ice covers roughly 7% of the ocean surface of the planet. Sea
ice is floating and therefore doesn't affect sea level like the ice anchored
on bedrock in Antarctica or Greenland. However, research has
<http://www.cpom.org/research/djw-ptrsa364.pdf> indicated that the
Antarctic continent -- which is on a long-term cooling trend -- has also
been gaining ice in recent years.
The primary instrument for measuring sea ice today is the AMSR-E
<http://wwwghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/AMSR/> microwave radiometer, an instrument
package aboard NASA's AQUA satellite
<http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article1
3385.htm> . AQUA was launched in 2002, as part of NASA's Earth Observing
System (EOS).
On 11/13/2008 9:14 AM, Craig Birkmaier wrote:
At 1:55 PM -0800 11/12/08, Dale Kelly wrote:
Yes, I read your postings with great interest. The Blogs have little or no
veracity: their conclusions are not even substantiated by their posted data.
We disagree, but we al;ready knew that.
You simply can not make a valid case regarding climate change or most other
natural phenomena, by cherry picking short term data*, which they do.
Thanks you! Seems that this is exactly what the new religion of
environmentalism has been doing for several decades. Have you ever looked at
some of the analyses of the claims in Gore's movie? Talk about cherry
picking!
Yes,
the arctic ice has thickened slightly in 2008, relative to 2007 (the lowest
year in recent history), but it remains at a very low level compared to the
charts base line level. How about inspecting your own data before attempting
to build a case.
I was simply using these reports to corroborate the FACT that we are now
entering a period of cooling...
By the way, did you see any of the Fox News Palin interview at her home in
Alaska - in particular the part where they were riding a snow mobile at
about 70 MPH on the bay behind here home?
*see Cliff's recent postings.
Professor Easterbrook's study very graphically documents that warming and
cooling cycle do occur naturally at an almost sinusoidal rate but then his
study is incorrectly used in attempts to invalidate global warming concerns.
In your opinion. I believe his work fully demonstrates the absurdity of the
claims made by Gore, the IPCC and NASA.
The irrefutable facts are: in concert with the natural warming and cooling
cycles, the global mean temperature is steadily rising: Each high is warmer
that the previous high and each low is warmer than the previous low and the
past fifty years has seen rapid changes in the mean temperature baseline.
Obviously you have not looked closely at this data. Please look at "chart b"
on the second page of the Easterbrook pdf that I posted yesterday. i do
agree that the trend line has been up, but even this should be placed in the
context of a 1000 year moving window, not a single century or just a few
decades.
We have been through a significant cooling period in the last 50 years. In
fact the short term data was so "compelling" that the same folks warning us
about global warming were warning us about global cooling just a few decades
ago.
This rapid temperature increase could at least partially be fueled by human
activities and dozens of scientific agencies/universities and thousands of
scientist's worldwide, believe this to be the case and Mr. Hansen of NASA
cannot have corrupted them all.
When i was a kid i had this wonderful naivety about science and engineering.
These were admirable professions since they are driven by the scientific
method and the need to apply physics, chemistry, et al to real world
problems.
When i participated in the US DTV process, that childhood vision was
shattered. I learned that you can buy scientists and engineers quite easily
and that you can spin the facts, and the physics to your purpose.
I shall never forget the NHK white papers in support of interlace...
:-(
Yes, global climate change "could" be related to human activity. It would be
absurd to think otherwise. In my lifetime I have seen the benefits of being
a good caretaker of our environment. We have cleaned up the air and rivers,
mitigated ground water contamination from those evil refineries, oil depots
and gas stations, and enriched the legal profession via the Superfund.
Clearly, climate change is also related to MANY other things that are far
easier to substantiate. Funny what happens when politicians with an agenda
start throwing money at "scientists" to provide research to support their
agendas.
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
--
Regards,
Mark A. Aitken
Director, Advanced Technology
===================================
"What you see and hear depends a
good deal on where you are standing;
it also depends on what kind of a
person you are"
><> ~ C. S. Lewis ~ <><
Things are only impossible until
they're not.
><> ~ J. L. Picard ~ <><
Other related posts:
