About sea ice and anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW)
To prove AGW, scientists have to:
(1) Prove there is GW The null hypothesis is that there is none, climate didn't change (2) Prove that humans are doing it The null hypothesis is that humans have nothing to do with it (3) Prove that AGW will get worse. The null hypothesis is the problem will go away on its own (4) Prove that AGW is bad The null hypothesis is it’s not bad (5) Prove that humans can fix it The null hypothesis says we can’t (6) Prove that fixing it would be cost-effective The null hypothesis says malaria prevention would be cheaper
To get to (6) scientists must prove (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) first. Unless they can prove them all, they have no case. That’s why global warming is a crock. They would need at least 10 times more confirmatory evidence than they have, to get to (6). Furthermore almost all the data would have to point to (6).
Instead, every new piece of climate evidence is ambiguous, won’t replicate, or outright disproves global warming. I’ll show you that with the sea ice issue in a minute.
The AGW warmers have a backlash strategy. They try to declare AGW is actually the null hypothesis, and make every other scientist disprove it. Of course that’s silly, they are trying to make science run backwards! This explains why so many reputable scientists are jumping off the band wagon. They don’t want people laughing at them after they’re dead.
Specifically About The Sea Ice
The data is full of massive variance. A good statistician would either (A) average out the variance, because the mean is the most important thing. Or (B) they would treat the variance as the actual data of interest. When we study earthquakes, the seismic variance IS the data. If scientists averaged out the seismic data, it would be useless. Why do people assume humans cause changes in average temperature? Maybe we cause changes in temperature variance! Until you know for sure, don’t throw out the variance!
Statisticians hate it when scientists blithely “average out the variance” before they even think about what’s causing the variance. Variance isn’t garbage, it usually comes from somewhere. That’s what “Analysis of Variance” is all about. Analyze the variance to see what’s causing it. Multiple Regression is another way to explore and understand what causes the variance. Nooo, nooo, say the climate scientists, variance is bad, get rid of it! Why?
The Antarctic ice seems to be growing and nobody knows why. We know the atmosphere is cooling, but it’s too soon to say that’s why the Antarctic ice is growing.
The Arctic ice mass is more complex. Huge variance is present. Good data is available only from about 1980. Every time an AGW fanatic declares the ice is melting, it eventually turns out their data is baloney. Every time. So right now someone is crying about ice loss. But every time the ice mass increases, they shut up. So the media just hear intermittent crying about ice loss, and think there’s a solid story there.
Last summer David Suzuki and a bunch of crazies declared the lowest Arctic summer ice on record. Then scientists found the wind had just blown it into a corner, there was no ice loss.
In fact, there may or may not be any Arctic ice loss, and if there is, it’s small and buried in variance. There is too much variance and not enough good data to know for sure.
Here’s what we do know:
(i) Only satellite data has any hope of validity. How else would one do it accurately? We only have satellite data since about 1980. But also, satellite data is getting better, so maybe there are differences in measurements over time.
(ii) There may be a downward trend, but it bounces around like crazy, and ice levels are on the rise in the last few years.
(v) Here is my own little shtick about sea ice loss. It’s a simple argument, but ignored by the AGW warmers. The last ice age isn’t over. For sure, the ice mass in Canada is still declining. What is this, as soon as the ice recedes from New York City, everyone forgets about the last ice age? For sure there are parts of the Canadian ice sheets that are still receding from the last ice age. This must also be happening in Russia.
And there is another big ongoing post-ice age event. Post-Glacial Rebound. Trillions of tons of ice melted in Canada in the last 15,000 years. In some places, Canadian ice was 3,000 meters thick! Most of it's gone. But the ice was so heavy, the continental plate that Canada sits on, got smushed down into the mantle underneath. Mantle is about like plasticine, and if you put weight on it, it smushes down.
So now the ice is mostly gone, and Canada is rebounding, springing back up. It’s called post-glacial rebound. This is happening all over Canada. The Arctic sea levels are actually dropping, about a meter per century, because of this rebound. So it’s bizarre that the global warming people are crying about sea level rise, while Canada pops up like a piece of toast!
Graph from Wikipedia
As the land pops up, the sea level goes down, and the shorelines move farther out. For example in Hudson’s Bay. The shorelines move farther out, and so Hudson’s Bay will probably get smaller because of it. The Bay will also get shallower, especially near the land.
This post-glacial rebound is happening everywhere in the Arctic, including Russia, Sweden, and Norway. Boing! So why would the Arctic sea ice be receding slightly? Well, for one thing, there is just more land in the Arctic, so of course there will be less ocean! Areas that used to be water are now land. Also the shallow coastal areas (the “littoral”) are bound to get more shallow, so they will warm up faster in Summer.
(vi) SO the KEY PROBLEMS for the warmers is that the global air temperature is dropping, and Antarctica ice is increasing. At he same time, CO2 levels are going through the roof, which was supposed to heat things up, but it didn't There is no correlation anymore between CO2 levels and air temperature. Why not? And their “climate models” are so wrong they’re funny.
The warmers are trying to distract the MSM away from their epic failures of theory and data by crying about Arctic sea ice. But if the arctic ice is diminishing at all, this may have nothing to do with global warming.
(IsraelNN.com) As IAF strikes and terrorist rocket attacks continued Monday, Defense Minister Ehud Barak ordered the Kerem Shalom crossing remain open in order to allow the transfer of supplies to Gaza. Dozens of Egyptian trucks entered Gaza with basic food items and humanitarian aid.
The Erez crossing was also opened in order to allow ambulances donated by Turkey to enter Gaza. The ambulances carried medicine, medical equipment, food and thousands of units of blood. The supplies were donated by the United Nations' World Food Program, the UN's Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and Doctors Without Borders.
Defense officials said the crossings would be opened on Tuesday as well.
In addition to opening crossings to allow medical supplies to Gaza, Israel has brought dozens of Gaza residents to Israel for treatment. Egyptian officials said Monday that they had offered to treat those wounded in IAF strikes as well, but that Hamas had prevented the transfer of patients to Egyptian hospitals.
Hamas denied delaying patients' transfer, and said it was facing difficulty in moving the patients due to Israeli airstrikes. Relations between Hamas and Egypt have deteriorated lately, with Hamas failing to attend Egyptian-mediated meetings and Egyptian officials blaming Hamas for Israeli operations in Gaza.
Egyptian officials said Monday that doctors, ambulances and helicopters would be on standby at the Gaza border, waiting for patients to be transferred out.
Nothing that I can think of. They are Israeli soldiers. These people don't look so bad to me. They look like the sort
of people who want to improve their education, to find a good husband,
to have a family, a career, and a safe place to live, for them and their
family. They want to help their kids grow up and have good lives.
They want to live a normal life without someone constantly trying to
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble with the logic in the Koran. What is it, exactly, that makes it necessary to kill these people? OK, to Islamists, the Koran is the literal word of Allah. And the Koran says it's necessary to kill these people. So apparently that's what Allah said. Allah himself said this , not just a "helper" or a scribe, or Mohammad in some sort of bad mood. Furthermore, when Hamas and other Islamists set out to kill Jews, they cite the Koran as the justification for doing it. They take the Koran literally, and they believe they have a lawful right to kill Jews.
Graph: Rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel for 2008, up to Dec 21. In June, Hamas agreed to a "tadhiya" or lull. They unilaterally broke the agreement just after Obama was elected on Nov 4. Since the 21st of Dec, the attacks have more than quadruped.
So then the Islamists attack Jews. But if the Islamists get killed instead, the Islamists want us to feel sorry for them. But why do we have to feel sorry for them? Especially, the Islamists want the Christians of the West to feel sorry for them. They want us to stop the Jews, when the Jews kill Islamists. But the Jews only kill Islamists if the Islamists try to kill Jews. So why is this our problem?
Islamists aren't really victims, they're just genocidal murderers who want help to get the job done. But the Koran tells Muslims to kill Christians too! Honestly, for my part, I don't want to help Islamists kill Christians and Jews. ["Hamas Legalizes the Crucifixion of Christians and other Enemies "] I don't understand why anyone would expect me to do so.
I'm sorry Hamas, I don't get it. And no, I'm not going to cry for you at night. You just want to kill Jews, because Arabs have been hating and killing Jews for at least 2,000 years, long before Islam came along. It's just another common, garden variety tribal conflict. The Arabs tribes don't like the Hebrew tribe.
I don't do blood feuds. I don't like them. They make no sense. And stop trying to convince me that you're right. You're wrong, and you've been wrong for 2,000 years.
Like this one for instance. It's obviously staged, with the fire in exactly the right place to frame the picture, and add color and urgency. One man is helping another, while the third and fourth men just stand by doing little or nothing.
The man in the lower left is the give-away. His head is just stuck into the photograph, in a ridiculous position.
This head was almost certainly just pasted into the picture with photo shop. Given his head and neck posture, he would have to be standing up to his neck in rubble, with pink cheeks and a passive expression. Certainly he seems to be still alive. If this man was truly buried up to his neck, and still alive, I have no idea why there are two other men in the picture who are just standing around watching.
USA Today published an interesting poll on Dec 26. Gallup has done the same survey every year since 1948. This year the data were collected by phone Dec 12 -- 14, with 1,008 respondents.
For the last seven years, Bush has been the country's most-admired man. In Dec 2001, a few months after 9/11, Bush received the highest support in the history of the survey, at 39%.
The MSM didn’t report this until now. These data change the way I understand Bush’s role in the leadership of America.
This survey reveals that Bush mainly sustained his popularity over a long grueling, thankless time period. The MSM and other socialist groups were constantly trashing Bush for “invading Iraq for no reason”, “losing the Iraq war”, "killing millions of innocent Afghani's and Iraqi's", “violating the Constitution,” “not doing enough to stop terrorism,” etc., etc. But through all this, the average American regarded Bush as "the most admired man in America.”
John McCain, Billy Graham, Sarah Palin, and Condoleezza Rice have also been highly ranked in this survey. This December, Palin was ranked the second most admired woman in America. This is amazing, given that she was virtually unheard of last year.
The Democrat-controlled Senate and Congress, however, still have an approval rating less than 10%.
These findings strongly reinforce another set of findings which are robust and hold steady year after year. The average American is a center-right conservative.