It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Antarctica Melting FASTER!

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by loner007
Its all lies all lies the antartica isnt melting........I wonder how long before someone posts a comment like this.......


Is this how low you people turn to?...
Well, I guess you are the expert we must turn to on that subject EU.


Could you please show us who is saying NATURAL Climate Change is not happening??.....
Read the comment left by loner007, EU.
"Its all lies all lies the antartica isnt melting". There is no mention of Natural climate change. None.


Please show us where I, or some of the other members are saying this...
The poster has not made any claims. The poster is predicting by way of a question. "Its all lies all lies the antartica isnt melting........I wonder how long before someone posts a comment like this.......".


This is part of what gets me with the AGW fans..... To them is like Climate Change can ONLY be manmade....
What gets you EU is the things you see that are not there.
"Its all lies all lies the antartica isnt melting........I wonder how long before someone posts a comment like this......."
But you saw this-"who is saying NATURAL Climate Change is not happening??.....".
-"Climate Change can ONLY be manmade...."



Whenever you two, and a few others learn to grow up, and learn how to properly make an argument then you might realise the idiocity of what you two have been claiming all along...
When you grow up and learn to comprehend what people are saying and not creating a whole argument up in you head you may emerge from your own "idiocity" (Is that even a word? I guess it proves my point!).


Already loner007 has shown me in his U2U that he can't make an intelligent argument, all he does is send insults in U2Us just like the spoiled child he is...

I suggest you alert the Mods if there is a personal problem you have with another member concerning U2U's EU.
Don't bring your personal spats into the thread thanks if you can't deal with them in private.


loner007 said this:"Its all lies all lies the antartica isnt melting........I wonder how long before someone posts a comment like this".
And this is what happened.
"So some areas are melting faster than others? HMM and I love the "appear" to be seeing line."- this one a response to the article that the Ice appears to be melting.
"Yes they are perpetrating a fraud and you are helping them."- this one was a reply to my comment regarding the scientist must have made the data up regarding the melts.

"It is summer in the southern hemisphere at present.

Ice will melt when it gets warmer but then it freezes again come winter."
A poster saying it is not melting in general, but it is a summer/winter thing. Ignoring the OP articles time frame.

"So, by focusing on ice loss in the western antarctic, they just "forget" to mention ice thickening in the Eastern antarctic, which is much bigger.

Cherry picking details again?"

This comment came with a link to a blog with an old reference to a study that claimed the eastern area was stable. The article I sourced in the OP mentions these previous findings and the reason why this new study is significant is that it finds that the eastern areas are melting.
The poster above questions the findings and accuse that the study "cherry picks", forgetting to mention data when it does not and by focusing incorrectly on one area so as to manipulate findings when the whole study was designed to get a much better overall understanding of the entire Ice mass.

Or we could simply and concisely parody the above in other words, perhaps those of loner007;"ts all lies all lies the antartica isnt melting".


That is why he wrote it dude.
And he was right.
That is what upsets you.

[edit on 25/11/09 by atlasastro]




posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


I expect answers Mel.
After all, they seem sure it is there.
After all, the Uni verified the e-mails. So we should be seeing the "proof" now.
Well soon.
I mean I did ask for it yesterday, and the day before that.
There are alot of e-mails full of "proof" to go through after all Mel.
I am sure they will post it soon.
I mean the media have said its there, they could have shown it!
All the blogs say it is there.
All the threads say it is there.
All the deniers have said it is there.

So it should be easy to post.

Anyway, here is some waiting music.



"Fools" said i, "you do not know"
Silence like a cancer grows.
Hear my words that I might teach you,
Take my arms that I might reach you.
But my words like silent raindrops fell,
And echoed
In the wells of silence





[edit on 25/11/09 by atlasastro]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Smoking gun????

From the FOIA.zip FOIA/documents/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro


;
; PLOTS 'ALL' REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry's regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; "all band" timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;


Let's see what is extremely wrong with what is going on here...

First thing that pops out at me.... In all caps it says:

"****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********"

The second thing that pops out at me is a comment at the end of the variable "valadj" that reads "fudge factor".


Yep, whatever it is completely clear at this point that the only "deniers" are the ones that are refusing to accept the truth that the whole basis and supposed "science" of CO2 driven AGW is completely false.

There it is in black in white.

Edit to add - The code in source tags.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


What have they artificially altered that was in decline?
Do tell.
What did they fudge?
What research paper did they publish it in?
Please link it.

Should be easy.

Here, I'll give you a head start.
www.uea.ac.uk...!k_briffa_formatted.pdf

and another hint-en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 25/11/09 by atlasastro]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   
From the same program on line 55


; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
;
;


This is the part in the code that applies the "ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION"

Not looking good for the alarmist.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Here is another e-mail:

Which is located in \FOIA\documents\briffa-keigwing.email.txt


X-Sender: lkeigwin@xxxx.xxx
>Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:18:19 +0100
>To: Keith Briffa
>From: lkeigwin@xxxx.xxx (Lloyd Keigwin)
>Subject: Re:
>
>Dear keith,
> The data follow (age, cal yrs; d18-O of G. ruber; 3-pt avg). I've
>decided to present the data in a slightly different manner than which they
>were originally published. Here, now, I have taken the two series of
>measurements (two subcores of same box core), each with their own age model
>based on AMS 14C, and lumped them. Next, I've run a 3-pt avg through the
>combined series.
> The final figure of the published data (1996) attenuated the signal
>by lumping the data into 50yr boxes, whereas this way we see the fuller
>amplitude of the signal and the good agreement between the two series.
>However, I only calculated the SST for the "boxcar" data. If the following
>are suitable, that's Ok with me. If you want SSTs, either you go with the
>original figure or give me more time.
Best wishes, Lloyd


Note: I edited out the last have of the e-mail adresses

So I have more questions why wouldn't they go with the original figure? I mean this is science after all, you should only be using the original data. There are some other things in this e-mail that jumps out of me too.

Also, why don't they release the methods they used to come to the conclusions that have? They haven't released methods or Data for YEARS instead they have stonewalled releasing the data and methods.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Okay here is another e-mail from Greenpeace:


From: "paul horsman"
To: m.kelly@xxxx.xxx
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:45:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: climate negotiations/wto etc.
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b)
Status: O

Hi Mick,

It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly. One particular
thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and
the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation
agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question
is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything
particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?

My second question is that I am invovled in a working group
organising a climate justice summit in the Hague and I wondered if
you had any contacts, ngos or individuals, with whom you have
worked especially from the small island States or similar areas,
who could be invited as a voice either to help on the working group
and/or to invite to speak?

All the best,

Paul


---------------
Paul V. Horsman
Oil Campaigner
Greenpeace International Climate Campaign
Greenpeace,
Canonbury Villas
London N1 2PN


This one is complete proof of them working to help "agenda driven groups" like the WTO towards "globalization".

Oh yea, this e-mail is found in FOIA\documents\greenpeace.txt



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Its the code that deals with the tree temp data, I think. That Mann used for the "hockey stick".
I think it is anyway.
I am sure this is the "trick" they also talk about in the other emails.
I think they used it due to a problem in the tree ring temp data that did not match real data. In lay mans terms. I could be off. I think the trick is assumed to create the Up trend no matter what. I could be mistaken. I think critics have been referring to this for years anyway, so this is no 'smokin gun'.

But to me this raises some serious points to consider regardless if you think the above reeks of fraud or not.

It is not crystal clear that these emails contain evidence of fraud, illegal activity or that the research is invalid.
Another point is that it hasn’t been proven that ALL emails, and the material is genuine and has not been change or edited or altered.
All the consensus on anthropogenic climate change spans beyond JUST ONE INSTITUTE. Why are people simply dismissing everything on suspicion about one group?
It is based on many, many forms and sources of evidence that support the same basic conclusions.
This cannot be said about alternative hypotheses, such as that nothing is happening or that it is not greenhouse gases, like solar, or volcanic causes etc. etc.

This is pure gold for the deniers and fair enough, enjoy it as I am sure you will be all regurgitating this for years. I think though that most reasonable people, including those we have chosen to lead us, have taken heed of the science and see the current scandal for what it is.


[edit on 25/11/09 by atlasastro]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   
And here is a relevant e-mail from the same month that the program has,

The URL to the e-mail

If they Link doesn't work then the e-mail title in the FOIA.zip is 906136579.txt


From: Keith Briffa
To: "Jenkins, Geoff"
Subject: Re: palaeo data
Date: Fri Sep 18 12:36:19 1998

Dear Geoff
it good to hear from you. By now you may know that we had a small working meeting to consider the current draft of the thematic bid yesterday in London. Simon Tett , Nick Shackleton , Paul Valdes and I really did get to grips with a lot of the important details concerning the way in which such a project might actually run. We are going for a joint Earth science/Atmospheric Science Board application for 8 million to run over 5 years. Simon told us about your offer of some support - perhaps as money , perhaps as some equivelent- and the spirit of the offer is much appreciated. Frankly, the fact that you consider this a worthy and valid scientific exercise is what really gives me cheer. We have a long way to go to really sort out many of the problems with the palaeo data and with the methodology of using them in a validation and/or detection context, but I genuinely believe this approach will yield rewards somewhere down the line. I think our support from the earth science side is very probable. The politics of the Atmospheric Board - and the potential clash with other initiatives coming from Reading - mean that their support ( in any meaningful sense) can't be thought of as more than possible. I suppose we may have something like a near 50 % chance of eventually getting some money , but 50% is pretty good. I will now ammend the document to show an explicit requirement for formal supervisory input on the programme from the Hadley Centre and I acknowledge that there will be no blanket release of data whatever happens. I will forward the application to you soon. If we get through the outline agreement stage with NERC , we will surely revisit these practical details , along with others. For now I simply say thanks to you and John for your support , and thanks for the input of Simon and Peter Cox. I will stay in touch as and when things develop. Even if we fail here, the science imperative will mean that we find other means of working with you -most likely through an EC grant - on these issues.
Thanks again and I hope you are bearing up under the strain of recent troubles
Keith

At 11:53 AM 9/14/98 +0100, you wrote:
>Keith
>
>Im afraid I dont have your original email abou you proposal for oa thematic
>programme on palaeo data - we just got converted to Windows NT and I have
>wiped my old emails by mistake.
>
>We would be very supportive of a programme which delivered better estimates
>of natural variability of climate over the past 1000 yrs globally and
>regionally which, as I recall, is the main aim.
>
>What do you want me / us to do, ie a letter to someone in NERC or you from
>me/ Dave Carson/ Paul Mason saying ho w important the topic is and that we
>would be immediate users of deliverables etc?
>
>Let me know and I will draft something. Can you re-email what you set please
>- sorry.
>
>Cheers
>Geoff
>



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 




Gold.

So what is the Agenda.
To reduce to negotiate under IPCC recomendations on carbon emissions in a way that won't destabilize global economies driven by the WTO agenda.
The nerve! I tell ya. The nerve!
Globalisation has already happened fool. Its called economics.
The WTO is the world trade organization. Economics I tell ya. The IPCC is negotiating its terms and has to deal with the WTO way of doing business. Or in other words the 134 countries that are in the WTO.





[edit on 25/11/09 by atlasastro]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
i say... hoax. The earth isn't warming up anymore. Read the hacked e-mails from the IPCC and one knows enough...

So dont worry. Antarctica was without ice already in the past. Maybe because the huge SUV's with turbo's and factories of 2 million years ago



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by sossa77
 


Thanks for the laugh dude, SUV's haha.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Okay, whatever helps you sleep at night. The fact is, the e-mails show them colluding to stack the peer-review process and to also delete e-mails that people have requested through FOI acts. Which means the "consensus" is false. I'm still going through all this stuff, but the fact remains that the "scientist" from all these other "institutions" have also failed to release the data and methods they used to come to their conclusions.

Their is no scientific basis for their conclusions. And I'm going to call a duck here a duck, and CO2 driven AGW is nothing more than a religion. There are these "scientist" that say the "science is sound", but won't release the data and methods, instead they say, for simplicity sake, "Just trust us, we have a consensus". Just because a few thousands "scientist" say something is doesn't make it true. I can find a few million people that say will argue with you to their dieing breath that God does exist(that is just an example).

Science doesn't work on faith. Science works on verifiable and repeatable results. When the "scientist" refuse to release the data and methods they used to come to their conclusion to even their most strict detractors to obtain those verifiable and repeatable results, then there is no "science" involved it is nothing more than faith based conclusions.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
So many passionate environmentalists and politicians around (with the occassional valid reason too) but none of them do anything to expose the suppression of technology that has been denied to the general public for decades.

Perhaps they need to visit the US Patent office and read the legal documents that hold up in a court of law to prove how these technologies exist and then maybe actually promote them.

But alas we can't have people knowing the truth can we?

Let's just keep the public ignorant by blaming them for Global Warming...I mean Climate Change.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Show show me the published work that is wrong. It was released dude. It is in the public domain.
Show me how they colluded in this work. All of the work. All of it.

What about your naff emails from green peace. Please!

If you had anything other than allegations, you'd show it.
You need to infer all your allegations from the e-mails.
You need to assume because some FOI were rejected it MUST mean they "cheated".

Just point to the research that was false.
That is all you have to do bro.
Should be easy.



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
No doubt the emails are indisputable, unalterable facts. I mean, it is completely impossible to suspect that anyone could change the wording and why would they? After all, no-one other than those involved in the Great Gore Hoax would stoop to such nefarious means, would they?



So, now that the hacked emails have been waved about frantically, maybe we should look again at what's happening at the bottom of the world:


Over 100 icebergs that were first spotted off the coast of the Macquarie Island, an Australian territory around 900 miles south east of Tasmania, are now thought to be only 200 miles away from New Zealand's south coast.

edition.cnn.com...


Ships warned over icebergs drifting toward New Zealand


Some really scientific jargon to sift through, but, hey, they mention El Nino
:


A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season. The 30-year record confirms that significant negative correlations exist at regional and continental scales between austral summer melting and both the ENSO and SAM indices for October–January. In particular, the strongest negative melting anomalies (such as those in 2008 and 2009) are related to amplified large-scale atmospheric forcing when both the SAM and ENSO are in positive phases. Our results suggest that enhanced snowmelt is likely to occur if recent positive summer SAM trends subside in conjunction with the projected recovery of stratospheric ozone levels, with subsequent impacts on ice sheet mass balance and sea level trends.

www.agu.org...


(Bolding mine)

A chart showing the recent drop mentioned above:




The Pine Island Glacier:


Located in one of the more inaccessible regions of Antarctica, it has only recently become the subject of observations from scientists. Prof. Andrew Shepherd, a co-author of the research at the University of Leeds, said the new estimates were based on continuous satellite measurements over the past 15 years.

Shepherd suggested warming waters around the continent are likely responsible for the thinning of the glacier. The resulting ice melt could have implications on estimates of sea level rise around the world, he said.

"Because the Pine Island Glacier contains enough ice to almost double the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] best estimate of 21st century sea level rise, the manner in which the glacier will respond to the accelerated thinning is a matter of great concern " he said in a statement.

www.cbc.ca...



Analysis of millions of NASA satellite laser images showed the biggest loss of ice was caused by glaciers speeding up when they flowed into the sea, according to scientists at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and Bristol University.

"We were surprised to see such a strong pattern of thinning glaciers across such large areas of coastline -- it's widespread and in some cases thinning extends hundreds of kilometers inland," said Hamish Pritchard of BAS who led the study.

"We think that warm ocean currents reaching the coast and melting the glacier front is the most likely cause of faster glacier flow," he said in a statement.

www.reuters.com...






[Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates. The study, which incorporates geologic records and computer simulations, provides new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions that are overpowering natural climate patterns.

www.ucar.edu...


Oh, and about the Arctic, here is a chart of what's happening there:





Woot... (?)

 


Replaced last 2 graphs - silly mistake

[edit on 25/11/09 by masqua]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Take a look at this thread! It is related and new information from CRU that gives further evidence that the case for man-caused global warming is not substantiated:

Thread



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   
bishophill.squarespace.com...

ecotretas.blogspot.com...

these are the hacked e-mails of the IPCC. Dont know if they were posted yet, but here they are..

Enjoy reading and waking up to the consperacy


[edit on 25-11-2009 by sossa77]



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


So why are they melting?

You have one article that says it is warming ocean currents. You have another that says it's "Man-made Global Warming" err.. "Climate Change",

It just all goes to show that, we don't know what is going on when it comes to the climate, the Ice is melting, okay fair enough, the poles do have seasons and in the Summer time the ice is going to melt.

But simply stating that the Ice is melting we are all going to die, and it is all Humans fault isn't going to cut it. I want to see the data methods and have it all explained by the scientist that blame it on humans. However, the people that blame it on humans refuse to release the data and methods. That isn't going to cut it.

Somebody posted an article earlier in the thread from a Colorado University that mentioned that there are warm and cold waters that flow around the polls that melt the ice in spurts. It was also mentioned how even colder weather can actually melt the ice too.

As far as the e-mails go the back-story matches with the e-mails. And nobody has come out and stated otherwise that they are not genuine. Instead they have tried to spin what is in the e-mails in a positive light. Also if they start going around saying stuff was added to the code and e-mails then they would have to release everything that was leaked to prove their point. Which I would love for them to say the e-mails were altered, just release all the unaltered files then.

So what are these people hiding? Why haven't they simply released the data and methods to back up their claims? That is how science has always worked, so why does it not apply to Climatology?



posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Why persist in looking at emails when evidence is floating by New Zealand?

Facts, not hacked emails... undeniable visible facts that sinks ships like the Titanic.

This thread. I thought, was about the melting of the Antarctic, not the emails gained through criminal activity, no matter how damning they may be to those who have taken up the banner of global climate change.

How about refuting the facts presented by the evidence supporting glacial melting? Where are the statistics showing that glaciers are NOT melting and speeding their descent to the sea. Are the waters around Antarctica warming or not? Is sea level rising or not?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join