Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Coss

The Prediction Thread

Recommended Posts

To me, the very best skewering of the global warming activists, as they whine about "unprecedented warming of the Arctic" is delivered by simply sending them to read at literature and press clippings at https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/polar-meltdown/ It is really worth scrolling down all ten meters or so of web-page, to see the full display of virtually continual hysteria at "unprecedented warming" over several hundreds of years.

 

Cheers!

SS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another observation worth noting is that the Polar Bear, poster child for extinction, due to sea ice disappearing, is still around.

 

Things to consider are:

 

Polar Bears traditionally roam south on land, to forage during summer and have, throughout time, been a significant and dangerous problem for Humans. Ask any Eskimo.

 

At any one point in time, there will be Polar Bears that are fat and healthy, and those that are sick or starving, this is natural in all populations of all animals.

 

A recent docco I saw, a David Attenborough/BBC one, showed a very thin bear hunting on sea ice as it broke up for the summer. To their credit they did not say this was global warming, but the inference was there, broken up ice = thin bear. Later, in the bit where they showed the cameramen and the difficulties they faced doing the filming, there were plenty of other fat bears they didn't use for the docco, as the other bears hadn't demonstrated the hunting behaviour they were seeking to film.

 

In the same docco, they noted one bear who was doing quite well. What happens every summer when the polar ice cap , diminishes, is that the water opened up provides access to the fish underneath and billions of birds (and whales and so on) arrive to feed and breed around the arctic, even Godwits migrate from NZ to feed there, they've been doing this for millennia. One bear was filmed about 300 metres up a 600 metre cliff, feeding on eggs and chicks and seabirds breeding there. The bear was in a precarious position, with rocks falling down with his every move, but apparently he stayed there for a couple of months, doing quite well.

 

Most of the study is done on the population around Hudson Bay. See this map below for an idea of other populations. The Hudson Bay population is interesting because that's where the fur trade was centred back in the day, because the ships could sail out when the ice melted in the summer, and the bears found easy pickings from discarded seal carcases et al.

 

 

 

Objective observation is science.

 

Modelling seems to be flawed.

 

If people persist in the popular = true, belief

 

The Trump will be president, even if that is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then there's this - 150,000 penguins die after giant iceberg renders colony landlocked. http://www.theguardi...lony-landlocked

 

Major news outlets ran with a widely mischaracterized study from Australian and New Zealand researchers in Commonwealth Bay, Antarctica, saying enough penguins to fill three Yankee Stadiums had been trapped by an iceberg and, unable to fend for themselves, died.

 

The Guardian issued a death notice, saying “150,000 Penguins Die After Giant Iceberg Renders Colony Landlocked.†Other news sources issuing death certificates included the Daily Mail, The Telegraph, and CNN.

 

Bit of a problem: The research paper doesn’t—and never did—say that. Some penguins may have died, because penguins aren’t immortal. Others probably just moved.

 

http://www.americant...l#ixzz40vmaAIdF

_____

 

It is also hard to equate the excess sea ice, that Antartica is experiencing , purportedly caused by supercooled streams of water, being caused by warming. To me hotter = hotter and colder = colder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now more misinformation. I'll just make a quick prediction, the islands referred to below are subsiding and being eroded. However the report is all about Antropogenic warming induced seal level rise. Using it's own words, it is easy to see the bull shit.

 

"What's more, the sea-level rise observed in this study - at about a fourth to two-fifths of an inch a year - is triple the global average. In most places, the added water from melting polar glaciers raise the sea level just slivers of an inch annually. But if the ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica were to dissolve into the ocean, by 2100 the oceans could rise by as much as 15m."

 

>> triple the global average.<< Again, the oceans are one pond. Is there no gravity in this part of the world? How can the seal level rise be higher here than elsewhere? Or is the land getting lower?

 

>>But if the ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica were to dissolve into the ocean, by 2100 the oceans could rise by as much as 15m<< and yet they haven't.

 

For more on and if you can be bothered to read - "a recent paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the scientists link the destructive sea level rise to anthropogenic - that is, human-caused - climate change. The study is the first time anyone has concretely analysed the loss of Solomon Island shoreline in the context of global warming, they say." go to http://www.nzherald....jectid=11636499

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, mate, ignoring tides obviously, logically it would make you think that all the oceans be one pond, but they aren't, the Pacific is 20cm higher than the Atlantic, it's less salty too, so I'm seeing more denial than bullshit. Both which flow through Egypt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the Pacific is 20cm higher than the Atlantic,"

 

​if this is the case, and Google tends to agree with you, it still doesn't explain why the Solomon Islands referred to are apparently experiencing water rises, when place like Fiji, Auckland and Sydney are not.

 

​The subsidence and erosion of Islands happens all the time, but you can get more aid if it's Global Warming doing it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for balanced argument, using facts and Science, please note that I don't single out the people or media as promoters or, that most religious of descriptors, deniers. I do have issues however with the concept of truth by popularity, i.e. if everyone believes something it must be true.

 

Here's an article that seemingly supports my point of view with what Dr. Simon Albert, the study’s author, has to say.

 

-----

 

A prominent liberal news outlets was forced to walk back an article that “exaggerated†the link between man-made global warming and Pacific islands getting swallowed up by sea level rise.

 

The UK Guardian was one of many media outlets jumping to the conclusion that a study published Friday showed how Pacific islands were being submerged by global warming-driven sea level rise. The study’s author disagreed.

 

“All these headlines are certainly pushing things a bit towards the ‘climate change has made islands vanish’ angle,†Dr. Simon Albert, the study’s author, told the Guardian in a subsequent article correcting the paper’s alarmism.

 

“I would prefer slightly more moderate titles that focus on sea-level rise being the driver rather than simply ‘climate change’,†Albert said.

 

Albert’s study “identified five vegetated reef islands that have vanished over this time period and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession.†The study attributed the sea level rise to trade winds forcing more water into the region. Natural ocean cycles, particularly the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, are causing islands to sink regardless of man-made warming.

 

“These trade winds have basically pushed water up into western Pacific and have driven these exceptionally high rates of [sea-level rise] in the Solomons,†Albert said. “The trade winds are partly a natural cycle but also the recent intensification is related to atmospheric warming.â€

 

Coastal erosion from high wave energy has also been a major problem for these reef islands, which has made adapting to rising sea levels harder for some low-lying Solomon Islands.

 

“The key aspect I stand by is that these observations from the Solomons are a warning of things to come irrespective of if climate change alone caused it or a range of factors,†he said.

 

Albert’s message to the media, however, didn’t get out in time. Several news outlets ran with headlines suggesting global warming was the main culprit behind sinking islands. A Solomon Islands official even used the study to call for more aid from the United Nations.

 

“This ultimately calls for support from development partners and international financial mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund,†Melchior Mataki, who heads the Solomon Islands’ National Disaster Council, said in a commentary published on the study.

 

Scientists and environmentalists have warned for years that global warming will exacerbate sea level rise and storms, causing Pacific island communities to be wiped out. But the real story seems to be more complicated.

 

The islands identified by Albert were low-lying reef islands that tended not to have year-round communities living on them. The tropical Pacific region also has lots of variability in terms of sea level rise due to natural ocean cycles and El Ninos.

 

In fact, research has also found some reef islands are growing in size despite rising sea levels. Ironically, the same high energy waves that erode the coasts of some islands actually bring more sediment and coral debris to others, causing them to grow. Humans have also contributed to growth by artificially expanding islands.

 

Scientists from Australia and New Zealand found in 2015 that despite the Funafuti Atoll seeing “some of the highest rates of sea-level rise… over the past 60 [years]†the island chain has actually enlarged.

 

“Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013),†according to the study published in the journal Geology. “There is no evidence of heightened erosion over the past half-century as sea-level rise accelerated.â€

 

Albert’s study acknowledges another 2015 study finding “little evidence of heightened erosion or reduction in island size†in Pacific islands.

 

“These islands were located across the Central Pacific in areas with 1–5 mm yr−1 sea-level rise where net accretion occurred on most islands and only small (<1 ha) islands were actively eroding,†Albert wrote in his study.

 

Read:

http://dailycaller.c...-totally-wrong/

 

-----

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly it also supports my original statement, that the oceans aren't level at all, but rather at different heights for different reasons.

 

In Tahiti I see bugger all tides, where as in FSM and Palau I see far more tidal activity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...