Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

More on Arctic warming

  1. Oct 31, 2004 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 1, 2004 #2
    In some forums it's policy not allowing a thread start with a simple quote. What's the point here? Must we argue that the poles are not warming? Well the hemisphere does but the Eastern stations in Siberia show an overal cooling trend.

    The point is that all this scaramonger messages dogmatically report "It's getting warm here because of Carbon Dioxide". Another post hoc. It's getting warm.full stop, period, basta. No "because of.."

    Because of more haze and soot, changing albedo, solar activity, interference and resonance between the Arctic oscilation and the North Atlantic oscilation with a period of 42 years,

    And besides the http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Arctic.jpg [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  4. Nov 1, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    In this week's Science there's a discussion of improvements in climate foresacting. Basically they have reduced the number of driving cycles in the northern temperate and polar zones to two, one is a temperature alternation betrween concentric bands around the pole, and the other is a band across the northern Pacific and North America. Cycling through their patterns, together with ENSO, they drive the northern hemisphere climate. Apparently all by themselves they can bring arctic warming; there was a photo with the article of a Soviet era building in Siberia crumbling because the permafrost was no longer solid.
  5. Nov 2, 2004 #4

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    ...clearly a conspiracy of scaremongers, otherwise known as a consensus among credible experts. I don't suppose they might actually know about any other data cited here???
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2004
  6. Nov 2, 2004 #5
    Thanks for your demonstration, "mr A"

    No conspiracy just psychology or idiology. But I'm happy to start all over again.

    I suppose that's implying that I'm lying with that http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Arctic.jpg [Broken]?

    Dare me.

    In idiology it's no matter anymore how solid counter evidence is. You simply ignore it.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  7. Nov 17, 2004 #6
    Well I guess there is science and there is science.

    Here is the real science:

  8. Nov 17, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    How much of this science is political? some governments refuse
    to sign up for reduced emissions, or are willing to trade output
    of harmful chemicals to the environment.
  9. Nov 17, 2004 #8
    Welcome to the Ministery of truth where the truth is generated to suit the wishes of big brother, regardless of the real truth.

    Global warming is no more science, just idiology. But please check all the available links and see who is generating the idiology.
  10. Nov 19, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    FWIW, from the snippets I caught of that testimony to McCain (on C-SPAN perhaps?), those scientists were telling him that at least a portion of the observed global warming is due to human activity.

    I still need to read that new Arctic climate report.
  11. Nov 28, 2004 #10
    Perhaps this helps too.

    Found this somewhere:

  12. Nov 30, 2004 #11
    Where would it be suggested I gather more information on the computer models used by the IPCC? A lot has been said on these boards about them, but I'm having trouble compiling them. I'm a little reluctant to just do a net search and hope for the best.

    Thanks in advance
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: More on Arctic warming
  1. More signs of warming (Replies: 9)