3
Is global warming bogus?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cord-high.html
More on the site.Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high with 2.1million square miles more than is usual for time of year
The levels of Antarctic sea-ice last week hit an all-time high – confounding climate change computer models which say it should be in decline.
America’s National Snow And Ice Data Center, which is funded by Nasa, revealed that ice around the southern continent covers about 16million sq km, more than 2.1 million more than is usual for the time of year.
It is by far the highest level since satellite observations on which the figures depend began in 1979.
In statistical terms, the extent of the ice cover is hugely significant.
It represents the latest stage in a trend that started ten years ago, and means that an area the size of Greenland, which would normally be open water, is now frozen.
The Antarctic surge is so big that overall, although Arctic ice has decreased, the frozen area around both poles is one million square kilometres more than the long-term average.
In its authoritative Fifth Assessment Report released last year, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted that the computer models on which scientists base their projections say Antarctic ice should be in decline, not increasing.
The report said: ‘There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979, due to… incomplete and competing scientific explanations for the causes of change.’
I used to think it was real, but at this point I think it's either vastly exaggerated or else the effect is being cancelled out by the coming ice age we are long overdue for.
I have to cringe at things like this because (as is typical) it shows most 'scientists' fail at the most basic kind of logic. The first day taking graduate level courses on simulations, the professor gave a little talk about what you can and cannot simulate. Simulations only work for things you can actually calculate but you can't calculate things that you don't know all the rules for or which rely on observed values, like drag and lift. So if for example some clever kid comes to you and says "I want to simulate the amount of lift that my aircraft design will produce so I can have hyper-realistic control responses on my f-117a simulator!" you can immediately know what's wrong with this idea. Of course he won't listen and will call you a stupid asshole, but you can rest assured that he won't be putting the JPL wind tunnel team out of business any time soon.
This is the same mistake they made here, giving the benefit of the doubt it's not outright fraud. The weather patterns of a planet are probably more complicated than an aircraft, and we can't really calculate even the small details let alone the big picture. All we can do is look at measured values which we have no conception of how to calculate. That being the case, simulation is utterly impossible.
So it's no surprise it's off. And even if the seas rise 7 inches a year for 300 years, so what? Half the ancient cities of the earth seem to be underwater or else far away from the sea now. Things change. They also won't change forever as there's only so much oil in the first place. I guess more and more, though, that these things simply go up and down regardless of anything done by humans or animals. So much worrying about this nonsense when half the cities on earth don't have enough fresh water, the world population is busting at the seems and 10% of them have AIDS, and muslim 'refugees' are moving into Europe en masse and doing their best to bring it to its knees.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Vasconcelos
Bookmarks