Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013

[ginjawarrior]

It is funny. My Dad can tell these stories. Being 85 now, he has been through a full day and a half of orbital precession. Every 56 years, we move a full day, back in the weather cycle. No wonder it seems to every generation the climate is crazy.

This precession along with the polar wooble precession accounts nicely for the Ice Age periods. Can you imagine, a day per lifetime, colder sooner and hotter sooner, by a full DAY? It constantly stresses the system and indeed created the System.

Hey rabbbit, a hint. We are talking about Sidereal Real Time, not calendar time, we made up.

Man the fuck up and stop lying like a little bitch

 

[cannabineer]

Yes, every 57 years, we need new sky charts, also.

The 57-year period, like the 50-year convention, is arbitrary. Now however printed charts are becoming obsolete, and the correction interval becomes moot.

 

[Doer]

So the earth is in a natural warming cycle, thereby creating more sea ice from glaciers melting and such...got it.

No you don't. You seem to be dismissing from a kind of veiled sarcasm of fear?

We ARE warming in the cycle, naturally. Some glacier are gaining but they don't mention those. And in the Berkeley Climate Report, latest, they saw cooling in fully 1/3 of the stations reporting.

So, of course, these natural cycles are not ON/OFF. And it is impossible to say how broad the period is where there is some warming and some cooling. The mid-cycle. Are we beginning/ending/riding the Mid-cycle? No way to say. But, it is mid-cycle surely. No Ice Sheet over Montreal.

So, in the face of all evidence or not, people can still say what they want for Power, and that is called Politics, not Science.

Oh, and the climate will precess one full day in a usual life span. Tell you kids that. Do them a favor.

 

[Doer]

The 57-year period, like the 50-year convention, is arbitrary. Now however printed charts are becoming obsolete, and the correction interval becomes moot.

Sir, the 50 years is arbitray, The 57 years is calculated from Sideral Real Time, and not in the least arbitrary.

I imagine that it drives a lot of calculations in actual Science as does the .98 day.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I said I calculated it and I listed the simple math. It isn't magic, and it isn't even orbital calculus. It is the reality of the System. It is the pump of the 2ond Law of Thermodynamics. It is why we must add leap year. It is the Climate Change engine.

And it is such a change, a full day in the energy balance, we observe the change within a lifetime. That's the point.

I'm not making a contention. I am stating facts and you seem to be barely reading it.

Hey rabbbit, a hint. We are talking about Sidereal Real Time, not calendar time, we made up.

Oh, and the climate will precess one full day in a usual life span. Tell you kids that. Do them a favor.

Yeah I don't think repeating your bullshit to kids will do them any favours at all..

 

[Flaming Pie]

Keynes posts way more than enough links and key terms that a simple google search should show you the science he is talking about.

 

[Flaming Pie]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

This helped me understand it better.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Keynes posts way more than enough links and key terms that a simple google search should show you the science he is talking about.

You mean this?

• 

  Originally Posted by Dr Kynes
  and no, you are reading that wrong, the equinoxes (and the solstices which are linked to them) budge over one day every ~71 years.
  
  
  
  ​
  
  
  
  

 

[Dr Kynes]

Cool story bro/ epic back peddling...

Need your posts dragging out from the last 30pages?

i was talking about the Celestial calendar the entire time, not the annual calendar you buy in the Tesco.

unfortunately you cannot comprehend that our calendar does not equal one full solar orbit, it is SHORT.

this is caused by the milankovic cycles (and other shit too) resulting in a slow and steady disconnection from the actual celestial calendar, and simultaneously also causing slow gradual climate change over millennia

explaining this to you has been an epic struggle because you are so intensely obtuse, while you squawk and bitch TLDR at every turn.

you read the summary of a scientific report than profess to understand it's contents, you chirp about "how much you know" about the milankovic cycles while simultaneously discounting them as irrelevant, and post endless repetitious copy/paste diatribes from"skeptical science" while demanding peer reviewed studies to "Prove" that there is even a glacial cycle, or that we are in an interglacial.

youre not even a good troll. you have failed to rustle my jimmies, but clearly your own are HIGHLY disturbed.

you may now continue with the namecalling and the reposting of your favorite blog.

 

[Dr Kynes]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

This helped me understand it better.

shh shh shh... no honey.. it's all a fiction.

see Ice Ages are a myth created by the "Deniers" to fool us, and all the geological evidence for them was created just before the beginning of Time in 1979, by our Saviour Al Gore, to test the Faithful..

if you embrace the One True Faith, you will be taken up during the Rapture to a Carbon Neutral Paradise where the Priuses run on the sound of childrens laughter, and emit rainbows and butterflies.

those who refuse to accept the Noble One-Fold Path as revealed by Al Gore are doomed to live in a hellish firestorm earth dominated by hurricanes, droughts, floods, nuclear contamination and simultaneous "Droughtfloods" which is when torrential rain wahses away everything but there is still no precipitation... somehow.

 

[ginjawarrior]

i was talking about the Celestial calendar the entire time, not the annual calendar you buy in the Tesco..

• 

  Originally Posted by ginjawarrior
  
  
  So it's a change in the sidereal year rather than calender year (tropical) and does not change solstice date on earth​
  
  
  ​
  
  
  
  

  

  Originally Posted by Dr Kynes
  and no, you are reading that wrong, the equinoxes (and the solstices which are linked to them) budge over one day every ~71 years.
  
  
  
  ​
  
  [/FONT][/COLOR]
  
  

I said it was sidereal (celestial)

You said I misread it

You now claim you meant celestial all along




Man the fuck up and stop lying

 

[Dr Kynes]

you keep chriping and declaring victory.

you have still failed to disprove your assertion that The Holocene Epoch is not an Warming Trend which will come to a close resulting in a return to a Glacial Age,

you have still not demonstrated that you understand the Glacial Cycle and it's powerful influences on climate, particularly our current 11000 year warming trend which is ongoing.

you still have not provided any support for your assertion that Global Warming is even "mostly" anthropogenic, even by the extremely loose manner in which you use the word "mostly"

 

[ginjawarrior]

you keep chriping and declaring victory.

you have still failed to disprove your assertion that The Holocene Epoch is not an Warming Trend which will come to a close resulting in a return to a Glacial Age,

you have still not demonstrated that you understand the Glacial Cycle and it's powerful influences on climate, particularly our current 11000 year warming trend which is ongoing.

you still have not provided any support for your assertion that Global Warming is even "mostly" anthropogenic, even by the extremely loose manner in which you use the word "mostly"

for the last 30 pages I have been trying to get to the bottom of yours and doers claim of calender shift

Now that we have gotten to the bottom you like a spineless little girl now pretends you were saying the opposite to what you posted

 

[Dr Kynes]

for the last 30 pages I have been trying to get to the bottom of yours and doers claim of calender shift

Now that we have gotten to the bottom you like a spineless little girl now pretends you were saying the opposite to what you posted

really.. so the celestial calendar, and the Full Orbital Year arent off by one full day every 71 years?

cool story sister.

 

[ginjawarrior]

really.. so the celestial calendar, and the Full Orbital Year arent off by one full day every 71 years?

cool story sister.

that's even more pathetic than your usual standards.....

 

[Dr Kynes]

that's even more pathetic than your usual standards.....

i tell you what, ill concede that you have "won" your attempt to sidetrack the argument into a picayune pissing match over the details of the language used, however you have failed miserably at accepting the clearly expressed fact that every 71 years the winter solstice moves 1 day closer to Aphelion, and the summer solstice one day closer to Perahelion, resulting in a long term trend towards warmer winters and cooler summers throught the northern hemisphere, concurrent with a similar but opposite effect in the southern.

you have also failed to understand that this IS the glacial cycle, and thus the Holocene Epoch is on a warming trend and has been for a very long time, but like all things, eventually it WILL reverse and return us to a cooling trend and eventually another Glacial Maximum.

this well understood (except by you, the Skeptical Science Blog, and al gore) cycle fully explains the gradual reduction in overall glacial and icecap coverage, as well as a slow and steady (less than 2 degrees F over the last hundred years) warming of the entire earth.

now if only you could demand that landmasses and continents be evenly distributed between the northern and southern hemispheres you could totally end Global Warming.

but Plate Tectonics Be racist.

 

[ginjawarrior]

i tell you what, ill concede that you have "won" your attempt to sidetrack the argument into a picayune pissing match over the details of the language used

the basic language used clearly meant something that wasn't true

However I'll accept the acknowledgment that's hiding in the butthurt

, however you have failed miserably at accepting the clearly expressed fact that every 71 years the winter solstice moves 1 day closer to Aphelion, and the summer solstice one day closer to Perahelion, resulting in a long term trend towards warmer winters and cooler summers throught the northern hemisphere, concurrent with a similar but opposite effect in the southern.

You might have noticed my repeatedly saying that I do not deny those cycles

For the last 30pages I have been trying to get to the bottom of the calendar shift claim

See

Move back a day every 56 years Lol.

Cite?

I was talking purely about the extra day every 57 years that doer suggested...

 

[heckler73]

Scarfetta would have steered this debate differently 25 pages ago...

[HR][/HR]The existence of a 60-year natural cycle in the climate system, which is clearly proven in multiple studies and herein in Figs. 2, 6, 10 and 12, indicates that the AGWT promoted by the IPCC (2007), which claims that 100% of the global warming observed since 1970 is anthropogenic, is erroneous. In fact, since 1970 a global warming of about 0.5 °C has been observed. However, from 1970 to 2000 the 60-year natural cycle was in his warming phase and has contributed no less than 0.3 °C of the observed 0.5 °C warming, as Fig. 10B shows. Thus, at least 60% of the observed warming since 1970 has been naturally induced. This leaves less than 40% of the observed warming to human emissions. Consequently, the current climate models, by failing to simulate the observed quasi-60 year temperature cycle, have significantly overestimated the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic GHG emissions by likely a factor of three. Moreover, the upward trend observed in the temperature data since 1900 may be partially due to land change use, uncorrected urban heat island effects (McKitrick and Michaels, 2007; McKitrick, 2010) and to the bi-secular and millennial solar cycles that reached their maxima during the last decades (Bond et al., 2001; Kerr, 2001; Eichler et al., 2009; Scafetta, 2010).
[HR][/HR]
Fig 2 Fig 6 Fig 10 Fig 12



Someone out there must have an exhaustive list of papers that directly refutes this one.
I can't imagine a claim such as the one above getting by without twisting many panties into knots.
Surely some budding climatologists must have destroyed him by now?

 

[ginjawarrior]

Scarfetta would have steered this debate differently 25 pages ago...

[HR][/HR]The existence of a 60-year natural cycle in the climate system, which is clearly proven in multiple studies and herein in Figs. 2, 6, 10 and 12, indicates that the AGWT promoted by the IPCC (2007), which claims that 100% of the global warming observed since 1970 is anthropogenic, is erroneous. In fact, since 1970 a global warming of about 0.5 °C has been observed. However, from 1970 to 2000 the 60-year natural cycle was in his warming phase and has contributed no less than 0.3 °C of the observed 0.5 °C warming, as Fig. 10B shows. Thus, at least 60% of the observed warming since 1970 has been naturally induced. This leaves less than 40% of the observed warming to human emissions. Consequently, the current climate models, by failing to simulate the observed quasi-60 year temperature cycle, have significantly overestimated the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic GHG emissions by likely a factor of three. Moreover, the upward trend observed in the temperature data since 1900 may be partially due to land change use, uncorrected urban heat island effects (McKitrick and Michaels, 2007; McKitrick, 2010) and to the bi-secular and millennial solar cycles that reached their maxima during the last decades (Bond et al., 2001; Kerr, 2001; Eichler et al., 2009; Scafetta, 2010).
[HR][/HR]
View attachment 2834220Fig 2 View attachment 2834221Fig 6 View attachment 2834222Fig 10 View attachment 2834223Fig 12



Someone out there must have an exhaustive list of papers that directly refutes this one.
I can't imagine a claim such as the one above getting by without twisting many panties into knots.
Surely some budding climatologists must have destroyed him by now?

Yes they have....
http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

 

[Flaming Pie]

ginja, did you even READ the link I provided?