More proof Climate Change is a hoax

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by Stev0, Aug 16, 2011.

  1. Stev0

    Stev0 Honorary Hong Kong Cavalier

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    7,108
    1,060
    Northampton, MA
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
  2. cyclopathic

    cyclopathic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2011
    2,588
    392
    2014 Prius c
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    This is what mojo had to say about NASA study of accelerated ice loss in Antarctica; question is what is wrong with MIT study??

     
  3. Stev0

    Stev0 Honorary Hong Kong Cavalier

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    7,108
    1,060
    Northampton, MA
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Oh, I would be shocked if he doesn't find something. Maybe the margins they used on the report were 1/8th of an inch too narrow, which would invalidate the whole thing.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. tochatihu

    tochatihu Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    4,537
    779
    Kunming Yunnan China
    Vehicle:
    2001 Prius
    "Arctic Ice Melt Could Pause for Several Years, Then Resume Again"

    Arctic ice melt could pause for several years, then resume again

    leads to a GRL paper and those are "a bit complicated" for me to acquire for free.

    But I suppose that people who are working directly in this field recognize complicated interplay of air temperatures and ocean circulation patterns. "Every year ice will be less than the year before" would not, I think, be a claim based on evidence. Every decade? yes maybe that could work.

    We need a real sea-ice worker to explain it to all of us at the 'PriusChat' level. Not me; I just do terrestrial carbon.
     
  5. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    10,569
    2,121
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Absolute crap writing in those articles. How do these people get hired as scientific journalist. The key verb "will" instead of "may" should send you screeming to a valid source. Here is the MIT site

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/arctic-ice-melt-0810.html

    notice the different tone
    Now what science do the researchers think IPCC models get wrong

    In other words, according to Rampal's model there will be significant arctic ice loss even if there is no additional warming.
     
  6. mojo

    mojo Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    4,276
    362
    San Francisco
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Yes, but its attributed to AGW ,without any additional warming.
    Does not compute.
     
  7. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    10,569
    2,121
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    That was part of the bad journalism in the OP sited. The MIT research indicated that the NCAR and other IPCC related models are incomplete. The article then saying the additional melt was due to human causes, is not supported nor even pertinent to the MIT criticism. If you start with a bad model, you try to make it better, not assign blame to human causes. But models of ice melting need to incorporate both mechanical and temperature drivers, not only the air and sea surface temperatures NCAR and most IPCC data looks at. Since melting sea ice causes less reflection, this quicker loss should also increase the temperatures in the arctic faster than current models show.

    There is strong evidence that human causes are responsible for some of the 0.75 degree rise in global temperatures, and these higher temperatures along with other factors are partially responsible for melting arctic ice.