Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Topics of a general nature regarding snowsports, which don't easily fit into one of our other Liftlines categories. This is also the place to post Letters to the Editor.

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Tony Crocker » Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:58 am

rfarren wrote:3. Oceans do store much of the heat on this planet, unfortunately, arctic ice trends mean that there are and will be more ocean to capture heat.

This is the most worrisome trend IMHO. The temperature plateau has been going on for 14 years yet the momentum from the 80's and 90's warming is continuing to set arctic ice melt records. One would expect the arctic ice melt to stabilize at some point if temperatures stay flat.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9801
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Marc_C » Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:34 pm

Tony Crocker wrote:
3. Oceans do store much of the heat on this planet, unfortunately, arctic ice trends mean that there are and will be more ocean to capture heat.

This is the most worrisome trend IMHO. The temperature plateau has been going on for 14 years yet the momentum from the 80's and 90's warming is continuing to set arctic ice melt records. One would expect the arctic ice melt to stabilize at some point if temperatures stay flat.

For dog's sake Tony, learn how to use the quote function already!!!! That handy-dandy quote button has the magic to include the poster's name that you're quoting!!!!! Or simply put the name of the person being quoted in dbl quote marks preceded by an equal sign in the quote opening tag. It's a PITA to figure out who you're quoting, especially when you put multiple quotes in the same post!!!!
-marc
User avatar
Marc_C
 
Posts: 3173
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:32 am
Location: A Sandy place south of a Great Lake

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby SnowbirdDevotee » Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:50 pm

Tony Crocker wrote:
3. Oceans do store much of the heat on this planet, unfortunately, arctic ice trends mean that there are and will be more ocean to capture heat.

This is the most worrisome trend IMHO. The temperature plateau has been going on for 14 years yet the momentum from the 80's and 90's warming is continuing to set arctic ice melt records. One would expect the arctic ice melt to stabilize at some point if temperatures stay flat.


Tony, arctic sea ice is so much more complex than air temperature. Before get to that, look at the "experts" and their call on Antarctica. The best place to start is the 2007 IPCC report and I assume you know who the IPCC is and what they represent. Go right to the horses mouth, their 2007 report.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... 4s4-5.html
scroll down to Section 4.5 or search for for their words
" These new estimates are about 40% higher than those given in IPCC (2001) "

then read above those words - It's a little confusing because they say excluding Greenland/Antarctica then including ....
but my point is they admit they were off by 40%in mass!! since the 2001 IPCC report. So we have the world thinking the ice caps are melting(and the Arctic has in the summer and less so in the winter), but the worlds best experts appear to have revised their former estimates by almost 40% of how much ice there actually ice is!!! Yet we are frightened of rising sea levels and Bloomberg is calling for us to "fix" the problem to protect his city. Of course that ice cap mass is different from sea ice which melts each summer.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur ... c-ice.html
yet... my young 12 year old nephew says to me, "how come the ice capS are melting" of course that is the drivel he is FED in his science books. And the drivel we are fed on TV, like 60 minutes, penguin problems etc etc etc blah blah blah.

This article
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/03/y ... -increase/
covers in-depth the chicanery and "trickery" by the worlds foremost experts regarding their predictions and assessment of antarctica

The sea ice anomaly maps show a small but steady increase in Antarctica ice.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... .south.jpg
w/o a trend line, my eye sees the anomalies being much greater since 2000 than before.

and.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/ ... -high.html

and especially this. this is super interesting. this is from a greenie alarmist web site.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ipcc ... -now-15340
From this Blog: Projection: In 1995, IPCC projected "little change in the extent of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets… over the next 50-100 years." In 2007 IPCC embraced a drastic revision: "New data… show[s] that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003."

Could someone please tell me how they know ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about the mass/size of these ice sheets when they, the IPCC, admit in the same report(2007) they were off by 40%.
They write in that 2007 report referenced above:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... #table-4-3
"volume estimates differ considerably from 51 × 103 to 133 × 103 km3, " Yet apparently from the blog quote right above they have new data that ice loss led to sea level rise when they have no idea how much ice there is in the first place!!!

so since apparently loss of arctic ice is not going to cause sea level rise, and they don't even know how much other ice we have, and at least antarctic sea ice is definitely GROWING, how can they tell us that we have anything whatsoever to worry about sea level rise using current data, which is not data, but only projections?

The more I have looked into this the more I think WTF, these people have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER what they are doing!!!!
i take that back, they know exactly what they are doing, and they plod inexorably forward...

back later regarding Arctic.
SnowbirdDevotee
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:42 pm
Location: Poconos, Pa

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Tony Crocker » Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:10 pm

MarcC wrote:For dog's sake Tony, learn how to use the quote function already!!!!

Fixed. That's probably the first time I've forgotten that in over a year. A bit cranky today, are we? Why don't you go out and get some of the powder that's dumping this week and mellow out a little?

I think the sea level rise projections are mostly conjecture and BS for many of the reasons listed by SnowbirdDevotee. It is also correct that while the Arctic is warming, most of the Antarctic is not. Nonetheless Arctic summer ice melt is different from Antarctic ice melt because it's cumulative and a potential source of positive feedback.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9801
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby SnowbirdDevotee » Mon Dec 17, 2012 4:55 pm

Interesting that the Bering straight, right next door to the Arctic, had a record winter sea ice high last winter.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... ion.2.html
I am not sure if the CO2 arctic amplification theory has any standing in the Bering straight, but the last 4 out of the last 5 yrs had record (or close to) winter sea ice, and once again it is trending at a positive anomaly.

There are a few reasons modern climate science has become what it is.
1st, thermometers came into widespread use in 1880, right at the end of the LIA, so all land based thermometers show an increasing trend since then. The gullible public can easily be fooled into thinking that the temps in 1880 were the "right" temps, and when they see that increasing scary increase since then, which is not disputed, that something is not right.
The 2nd reason is that satellites went up in the mid-70's and arctic ice began to be measured in 1979, just a little after the global cooling and the low global temp.'s in the mid 70's. So again, like temp, people look at the starting point of the ice graph and think that the beginning of the right was the "right" and normal measurement.
There are many old newspaper articles on the web warning of Arctic warming and melting. Here's one from 1922.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/y ... ergs-melt/
there are many, many others.

I don't see how a few extra degrees of temperature are causing the ice to melt in the arctic. Look at the daily arctic temp graph.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
It's hard to read because it's in Kelvin. But the blue line is freezing. So for about 80 days per years the temp averages above freezing. call it 274K or 34F. And I wonder if there is really much diurnal variation in that, because there is no night, only day. So maybe it is rare for it to get even over 40F in the summer.

Go here
http://www.climate4you.com/
and click on Polar Temperatures on left. There are a bunch of different data sets but they all show Arctic warming of about 3-4F.
In the winter, when there is no sun, what I wonder is how much greenhouse effect can there be, because there is no heatsource for warming, that's why it is so cold? Is there even a greenhouse effect??? So is the ice loss caused by less water freezing thicker in the winter or because of heavy melt in the summer, compared to priors years of satellite data that we have. Good question i think.

Will a higher temp of 3-4F cause all that ice to melt in the summer? To me the other theories make more sense.
The first one is the thickness of the arctic ice is tied more to the ocean currents, specifically the Atlantic MO and the Arctic Osc. Or the PDO as Bastardi says, didn't he start this thread? And if you look at this guys bottom graph of arctic temp with the AMO
http://notrickszone.com/2010/09/25/arct ... d-not-co2/
they very neatly coincide.

Just as shown in these references
https://www.google.com/search?q=arctic+ ... lr=lang_en

Of course the "scientists" take all the worry and research away and just say it's fossil fuel use, end of story! And the media or popular science TV never even gives a hint there could be other factors than CO2.

The other theory of why the globe has warmed a degree since the mid 1970's (but it has stopped since 1998) is the cloud theory. Some papers show we have less clouds the past couple decades and that they are getting lower.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-ar ... -response/
and more recent
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-046
then there is an article by NASA saying clouds are getting lower which may be causing cooling, maybe they were higher from 1975-1998??
and then there is a study showing the sun's output (irradiance) could be a factor in European glaciers decreasing in mass.
google this paper
A geochronological approach to understanding the role of solar activity on Holocene glacier length variability in the Swiss Alps

Another thing is wind. Even NASA admits that the wind caused some of the Arctic sea ice to melt in the record low season of 2012.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogal ... =152489941
And I vaguely recall they might of? said the same thing about 2007? For sure a bad storm could be a factor in causing decreased iced in a given year or a few years after, but it wouldn't affect a long-term trend.

Now as a skier, what is more important to the snow melting, a 2-4F of temperature difference between 36-40F or more sun? To me, it's the sun.
When we have a good snow year here in Pa, melting proceeds as the temp.'s go over about 40F. Not much melting happens until then. What really causes the melting is when it's over 40F and in a sunny spot. I can have snow in the shady spots or the north sides of hills for many weeks after ALL of the snow has melted. If it's 40F and cloudy, there won't be much melting. The difference between 40F cloudy or 40F sunny is dramatic.

Have the world's glaciers melted since 1850 because the world has warmed by 2F, is it more likely that we have less clouds?? Same for arctic?

Now here is something interesting. In the Fagan's books I referred to above regarding historical climate change. And he writes he is a "believer" in the so-called consensus view of AGW, (of course he has to be - or he would get nowhere in the academic world!!!) but he gives a few paragraphs in The Little Ice Age to a researcher who looked at thousands of painting through the ages that had landscapes in them. What that researcher found was that in the historically warmer times of climate the paintings showed less clouds and in the cooler periods more clouds. Of course, that's not good "evidence", but I think the study was done before modern day climate science became such a political and overwhelming frenzy. It was just a harmless study in the "good ole days" of science. When people tried to find the truth of things and millions/billions of dollars and career aspirations were at stake if you didn't come up with the right stuff to fit the current consensus model.
SnowbirdDevotee
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:42 pm
Location: Poconos, Pa

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Marc_C » Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:27 pm

Tony Crocker wrote:
MarcC wrote:For dog's sake Tony, learn how to use the quote function already!!!!

Fixed. That's probably the first time I've forgotten that in over a year. A bit cranky today, are we? Why don't you go out and get some of the powder that's dumping this week and mellow out a little?

Actually, I've been skiing all last week. Sunday was a day to make up for everything I didn't do while friends were in town and a desperate need for my legs to recover. It was also a day of computer woes (both the main home machine and the primary computer - the PCM, ie: engine flight computer - in the Jeep).
-marc
User avatar
Marc_C
 
Posts: 3173
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:32 am
Location: A Sandy place south of a Great Lake

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby SnowbirdDevotee » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:17 pm

rfarren wrote:The following piece is the type of news that makes me think Joe Bastardi will ultimately be on the wrong side of this debate.
http://grist.org/news/if-youre-27-or-yo ... age-month/


And if you're 15 years or younger, you've never experienced "global warming".
SnowbirdDevotee
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:42 pm
Location: Poconos, Pa

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Tony Crocker » Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:08 pm

Tony Crocker wrote:To a NY Times ski writer the sun rises in New England and sets in Colorado. :-({|=

As of Christmas here are regional ballpark percents of normal snowfall:

Northeast 70% Patrick's underrepresented eastern Canada places may be doing better than that
Northern and Central Colorado 70% Holiday skiing may be mediocre but I'd be surprised if it's not up to the usual standards within a month
Southwest 70% It may take a little longer for many of these places (just ask GPaul!)

Meanwhile:
Sierra 140%
Pacific Northwest 150%
Western Canada 155%
US Northern Rockies 120%
Utah 100%


The regions/ski terrain having good early seasons outnumber those starting slowly, and by a larger margin vs. average than the laggards are behind.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9801
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby jamesdeluxe » Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:12 am

More climate-change propaganda from the NY Times! 8-[
User avatar
jamesdeluxe
 
Posts: 3319
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:19 pm
Location: South Orange, NJ

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Tony Crocker » Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:48 pm

It is interesting (and sadly not surprising for the NY Times) how extreme cold in Russia, China and the Middle East is being spun as supportive of "climate change." You gotta have some sympathy for the Aussies though: 800 square miles of fires and an average temperature for the entire country of 104F!
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9801
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby SnowbirdDevotee » Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:05 pm

This trickery had been going on for thousands of years!
Climate change is likely part of the reason the pyramids in Egypt and the Mayan temples were created on the backs of thousands of slave laborers.
Here is one of my favorites. The 1974 CIA report warning of the dangers of the coming global cooling.
http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content ... 2/1974.pdf
That report, which certainly appears authentic, although it's a scanned photocopy, tells of recent droughts, floods (page 5/6) because of the cold climate suffered over the previous decade. Looks like the evening news!! But now we have droughts and floods because of supposed record heat.
The 1974 report above reports it is a situation we don't want to face!! (the record cold)
"The economic and political impact of a major climate shift is almost beyond comprehension" - Oh yes it is!!!
Interesting the report writes of below ave temps in the Arctic for the past 19 months, most people have no idea that this was report was written right at the bottom of the cooling phase. And right after this, satellites went up and started to measure Arctic ice, which was very likely at a multi decadal high.
"Scientists are confident that unless man is effectively able to modify the climate, the northern regions will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow".
Thank Goodness for fossil fuels. We fixed it!
"For the future there is a high probability of increased variability in a number of features of climate..." Wow! what a revelation. Please tax us so we can get warm.
Another revelation - "Leaders in climatology are in agreement that a climatic change is taking place..."
"Climatology is a budding science". oh yeah, sort of like the science of reading tarrot cards. Just now they've become very sophisticated in stealing our money and poisoning our brains with nonsense.
SnowbirdDevotee
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:42 pm
Location: Poconos, Pa

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby jamesdeluxe » Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:57 pm

Admin wrote:Speaking of "one sided," take a look at this drivel today from "the paper of record"

"The paper of record" is in the belly of the beast.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us/ut ... ml?hp&_r=0
User avatar
jamesdeluxe
 
Posts: 3319
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:19 pm
Location: South Orange, NJ

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby SnowbirdDevotee » Wed Feb 27, 2013 9:15 pm

>>Admin wrote:
Speaking of "one sided," take a look at this drivel today from "the paper of record"

"The paper of record" is in the belly of the beast.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us/ut ... ml?hp&_r=0

-------------
Are you saying that article regarding bad air pollution in SLC is not true? Seems true to me, but I don't live there.
SnowbirdDevotee
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:42 pm
Location: Poconos, Pa

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Marc_C » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:06 pm

SnowbirdDevotee wrote:>>Admin wrote:
Speaking of "one sided," take a look at this drivel today from "the paper of record"

"The paper of record" is in the belly of the beast.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us/ut ... ml?hp&_r=0

-------------
Are you saying that article regarding bad air pollution in SLC is not true? Seems true to me, but I don't live there.

Please pay attention to who you are quoting - and you might want to go back and fix your cheesetitted post.
-marc
User avatar
Marc_C
 
Posts: 3173
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:32 am
Location: A Sandy place south of a Great Lake

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby SnowbirdDevotee » Sat Mar 02, 2013 8:34 pm

>>Please pay attention to who you are quoting - and you might want to go back and fix your cheesetitted post.

now i am really confused?
cheesetitted post?? - i had to google that word. something to do about a women not washing under her titties? who didn't wash??

what does whom i quoting have to do with this?? i guess this thread has wandered from Joe Bastardi and the PDO, but it seemed to this SLC tourist that the pollution was terrible when i was out there in January, in fact, wasn't that particulate matter snizel that i had to brush off my car in the am when it wasn't even snowing? just trying to figure out why the locals seemed to think that NY Times article had some bunk in it??? or maybe that's not what they were saying??
SnowbirdDevotee
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:42 pm
Location: Poconos, Pa

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


All content herein copyright © 1999-2017 First Tracks!! Online Media

Forums Terms & Conditions of Use