Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric who wrote (4391)	1/21/2009 11:47:53 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 86356

OMG!! One degree of temperature change over the course of 50 years!!!! So I guess if temperatures drop 2 degrees (back to -1 degree over 50 years) they'll be predicting a new ice age? And heaven forbid let's ignore the fact that surface snow melt in Antarctica was 40% below the 20 year average Surface snowmelt in Antarctica in 2008, as derived from spaceborne passive microwave observations at 19.35 gigahertz, was 40% below the average of the period 1987–2007. climatesci.org So.. tell us why the snowmelt is 40% below the 20 year average (not an insignificant amount) despite your author's claim that the Antarctic continent has grown 1% hotter over the past 50 years? Here's a scientific article that states that the Western Antarctic ice sheet has been retreating for THOUSANDS OF YEARS, long before man's industrialization, yet in 2002, there was evidence that IT WAS GROWING!!: "The West Antarctic ice sheet has been retreating for several thousand years, so to look now and see that it is growing is staggering to me," Tulaczyk said. "Within the past 200 years, the ice sheet seems to have switched fairly rapidly from a negative mass balance to a positive mass balance." sciencedaily.com Oh.. and btw.. what happens when snow fails to melt on a glacier (which is essentially what all of Antarctica is)?? Doesn't it force the current snow shelf farther into the warm ocean waters? Hawk

To: Eric who wrote (4391)	12/7/2010 1:34:45 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Refutation of Steig et al. 2009 finally published The 'climate is falling' cause is failing. Back in the "good" old days, this kind of science could have been suppressed. Posted on 12/07/2010 by jblethen\| Leave a comment Ryan O’Donnell, Nicholas Lewis, Steve McIntyre (Climate Audit), and Jeff Condon (The Air Vent) have finally succeeded in running the gauntlet of reviewers (one hostile Hockey Team reviewer, actually) to publish their paper in the Journal of Climate refuting the results of Steig, et al., who had claimed statistically significant warming in West Antarctica in their 2009 Nature paper. Steve and Jeff had previously refuted Steig’s results in their blogs (links above), but publishing in a peer-reviewed journal will overcome the usual objections. Excerpt from Climate Audit: “Substantively, what is actually left of [Steig's] signature results about the West Antarctic, which were: Assessments of Antarctic temperature change have emphasized the contrast between strong warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and slight cooling of the Antarctic continental interior in recent decades… Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 deg C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Nothing. Steig’s West Antarctic warming results from a spreading of warming in the Peninsula to the West Antarctic through choices made in their principal components. Different choices – ones more plausible in the circumstances – lead to opposite results.” Even more interesting is the “abusive peer review process” which had to be overcome in order to get the paper published. Excerpt from Climate Audit: “After an abusive peer review process in which the Team were evidently involved, an article has been accepted by Journal of Climate (O’Donnell [Ryan O], Lewis [Nic L], McIntyre and Condon [Jeff Id]) refuting the West Antarctic claims of Steig et al 2009. … The gauntlet that had to be run shows that practices in climate science journals remain unchanged despite Climategate. … In this case, the Journal of Climate appointed a reviewer – or shall we say a representative of a Team of reviewers – whose energy in attempting to suppress the article went far beyond an unconflicted reviewer. Ultimately, the reviews and responses totalled 88 pages! And Andy Revkin and others blame critical authors for not running such gauntlets. … The gauntlet that was created in this particular incident had nothing to do with additional due diligence occasioned by perhaps overturning a well established result. Steig’s results, showing West Antarctic as a particular locus of warming, were themselves novel and, if anything, contradicted prior views of Peninsula warming. Our results were straightforward – the 88 pages of review and response were nothing more than obstruction, “going to town” on the comment rather than the original article.” heliogenic.net