Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster than Forecast?

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.c...dline=s2i17341

Wolfowitz's girlfriend also shagged Gordon Brown

image for Wolfowitz's girlfriend also shagged Gordon Brown
Rizla is a hooker whose job entailed fellating foreign finance
ministers into upping Iraq war budgets

Washington DC - (Ass Mess): UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon
Brown's frequent trips to the International Bank for Deconstruction
and Embezzlement - a.k.a. the World Bank - may have been more for
pleasure than purely business according to private investigators'
reports into Paul Wolfowitz's lovelife which found that the two men
were both shagging the same woman currently mired in controversy over
salary earnings way above her remit as an IMF hooker.

The World Bank CEO has been accused of ensuring his girlfriend Shaha
Rilza - a scion of the eponymous cigarette paper manufacturing company
- was systematically promoted into high-flyer salaried jobs after
initially being hired as a manicurist in the World Bank's laundry
division.

Part of her duties entailed customer liaison which in Washington-speak
meant fellating foreign finance ministers into making favorable
budgetary adjustments to fund the Iraq war.

Wolfowitz was so pleased with the results that he got Rizla a top-paid
sinecure at the State Department where her legendary oral skills were
soon recognised and utilised across the diplomatic spectrum.

This weekend Gordon Brown met with President Bush in Washington in a
desperate bid to shore up the mess which threatens to hit the
international headlines ahead of Monday's Senate Committee
interrogation of witless US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

What his wife Sarah will say when the UK tabloids get hold of the pics
of her husband being pleasured in a Washington sauna by the sultry
Rizla is anybody's guess.

Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade wrote:
On May 1, 12:50 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck wrote:



On Apr 30, 11:17 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Exxon Liars and Crooks wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:21 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Exxon Liars & Thieves wrote:
On Apr 30, 6:10 pm, kT wrote:
Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster than Forecast?
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/529498/
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU20...01362.pdf?PHPS...
People that pay attention to the data already knew this. People in
academia who play video games with models are the ones surprised.
Where did those who don't play video games with models get their
forecasts from? You can't get a forecast from just the data - you need a
model.
Sylvia.
You need a broad and deep understanding.
You mean a model.
Then the data makes
trajectories which you can anticipate through the points in time.
Yes, by applying the data to the model.
Science makes predictions all the time without constructing computer
models. I predict water will boil at 100 degrees C at standard test
conditions (STP). I don't need a model for that, at least not a
computer model. Mental models are totally satisfactory for a great
deal of science without constructing any computer models.
That's certainly true in some situations. Have you demonstrated that it
is true for climate forecasting?
Sylvia.
Werner Von Braun said "The Human Brain is the most powerful computer
in the universe, and the only one that can be made by unskilled
labor".
I've demonstrated that I can select out of 80,000 satellite images
snipped irrelevant stuff about weather forecasting

I'll take that as a "no".

Sylvia.

Climate cannot be forecast when the human race is powerful enough to
change climate but powerless to change it's behaviors. Nobody can
accurately predict climate while people can't control their zippers
leading to population increase, nor control their passions for big
cars. We can't predict why they will vote for people like Bush a
SECOND TIME after seeing the first time.

We can't predict why you are a dumb blond. Does peroxide drain brain
cells?

Predict a reason? What does that mean?

Never mind.

Sylvia.

On May 1, 1:26 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
Ignore the Exxon Crackpot Brigade wrote:



On May 1, 12:50 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
Saddam's Noose, Exxon's Neck wrote:

On Apr 30, 11:17 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Exxon Liars and Crooks wrote:
On Apr 30, 9:21 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Exxon Liars & Thieves wrote:
On Apr 30, 6:10 pm, kT wrote:
Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster than Forecast?
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/529498/
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/seaice.shtml
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU20...01362.pdf?PHPS...
People that pay attention to the data already knew this. People in
academia who play video games with models are the ones surprised.
Where did those who don't play video games with models get their
forecasts from? You can't get a forecast from just the data - you need a
model.
Sylvia.
You need a broad and deep understanding.
You mean a model.
Then the data makes
trajectories which you can anticipate through the points in time.
Yes, by applying the data to the model.
Science makes predictions all the time without constructing computer
models. I predict water will boil at 100 degrees C at standard test
conditions (STP). I don't need a model for that, at least not a
computer model. Mental models are totally satisfactory for a great
deal of science without constructing any computer models.
That's certainly true in some situations. Have you demonstrated that it
is true for climate forecasting?
Sylvia.
Werner Von Braun said "The Human Brain is the most powerful computer
in the universe, and the only one that can be made by unskilled
labor".
I've demonstrated that I can select out of 80,000 satellite images
snipped irrelevant stuff about weather forecasting

I'll take that as a "no".

Sylvia.

Climate cannot be forecast when the human race is powerful enough to
change climate but powerless to change it's behaviors. Nobody can
accurately predict climate while people can't control their zippers
leading to population increase, nor control their passions for big
cars. We can't predict why they will vote for people like Bush a
SECOND TIME after seeing the first time.

We can't predict why you are a dumb blond. Does peroxide drain brain
cells?

Predict a reason? What does that mean?

Never mind.

Sylvia.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.c...dline=s2i18111

May Day Is VECO Day
Written by queen mudder
Story written: 30 April 2007
Rated 5 out of 5Rated 5 out of 5Rated 5 out of 5Rated 5 out of 5Rated
5 out of 5

Email this story Print this story
image for May Day Is VECO Day
May Day is Bush's VECO day

Washington DC - (Ass Mess): President George Bush says he will rescue
the VECO Corrupt *******s Club catastrophe tomorrow, but wants to work
with Democrats to find a compromise on getting Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales off the hook for Justice Department cover-ups about
big oil graft and kickbacks.

Bush has vowed to work with Democrats on the next step to craft a
compromise that will allow Gonzales to stay in office while the
Alaskan *******s are indicted and subjected to Due Process.

"I made my position very clear," Bush said today, "but the Congress
chose to ignore it, so I will make sure that VECO isn't what finally
brings down this fine wartime Administration during the country's
greatest ever need for graft and corruption concealment by the
lawyers," Bush said in a press conference in the White House Rose
Garden on Monday.

"That's not to say that I'm not interested in their opinions - I am.
Anybody who knows me knows my total dedication to graft and corruption
in a bi-partisan atmosphere of mutual distrust.

"I look forward to working with members of both parties to get VECO
and my Attorney General off the hook without setting artificial
timetables and micromanaging the headlines while the Feds do their
work up in Alaska.

"There's a lot of Democrats that understand that I need to get the
money to the presidential election fun raisers as soon as possible.
I'm optimistic that we can get something done in a positive way," Bush
said.

kT wrote:
Arctic Sea Ice Decline: Faster than Forecast?

And, of course, nothing gets the point across like a little Landsat
interactive view over the past three decades:
http://www.everybodysweather.com/Sta...lter/index.htm
"Well...Superman, I was always a bit fond of the Fortress Of Solitude
myself, but it might be a good time to look into diving gear or huge
pontoons."
Meanwhile, in Metropolis:
"Miss Tessmacher, consider the possibilities! Thousands of miles of
beach-front property north of the Arctic Circle itself!"
"Lex, thousands of miles of cold, barren, beach-front property..."
"Well....heh-heh.... a little added CO2 could change all that."
"ARE WE GOING TO ADD GREENHOUSE GASES TO THE ATMOSPHERE, MR. LUTHOR?!"
"I wouldn't count that out as a possibility, Otis...I wouldn't count
that out as a possibility at all." ;-)

Pat

"john fernbach" wrote in message
oups.com...
Was it Nirvana who sang, "It's the end of the world, and I feel
fine"? Or am I thinking of some other group?

Was Google broken when you posted this? With a decent search engine, it
would have taken you about 30 seconds to find out that it was R.E.M. who
wrote this song.

http://www.lyrics007.com/R.E.M.%20Ly...%20Lyrics.html

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

"Bonzo" wrote in message
...
ADDENDUM:
The rising of the oceans due to the melting of the polar caps -- the
single
biggest fear from global warming -- isn't continuing. The only large
potential
source of ocean water is Antarctica and the only way to determine if
Antarctica
is thinning is through the use of satellites. Duncan Wingham, Professor of
Climate Physics at University College London and Principal Scientist of
the
European Space Agency, has unrefuted data that Antarctica, on the whole,
is
actually thickening, and will "lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm" per
year.

The oceans are thus not about to swallow up the low-lying islands and
deltas of
the southern hemisphere, as so many fear. Unlike the
several-kilometre-thick ice
in the Antarctic, the Arctic has ice only a few metres thick. Even if the
alarming predictions for ice loss there are correct --and Wingham doubts
it --
an Arctic ice melt cannot trump a thickening Antarctic.

If the low-lying countries of the southern hemisphere don't experience
economic
losses from the ocean's rise, the logic of economic ruin changes. The
northern
hemisphere, Tol has found, would generally gain economically from a
warming,
while the south would lose. But without losses in the south, global
warming
might well bring net economic gains in both hemispheres.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...ca730-10f0-461
4-9692-fc37d99cbac3

Antarctica isn't melting faster
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_An...Qs/faq_02.html

Antarctica is melting faster
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4228411.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0922-02.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030201712.html

A quick search does not indicate that there is a consensus on this topic.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

Jeff Findley wrote:

Antarctica isn't melting faster
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_An...Qs/faq_02.html

Antarctica is melting faster
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4228411.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0922-02.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030201712.html

A quick search does not indicate that there is a consensus on this topic.

There is no lack of consensus that Antarctic *is* melting, and that
global warming is responsible.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Bonzo" wrote in message
...
ADDENDUM:
The rising of the oceans due to the melting of the polar caps -- the
single
biggest fear from global warming -- isn't continuing. The only large
potential
source of ocean water is Antarctica and the only way to determine if
Antarctica
is thinning is through the use of satellites. Duncan Wingham, Professor
of
Climate Physics at University College London and Principal Scientist of
the
European Space Agency, has unrefuted data that Antarctica, on the whole,
is
actually thickening, and will "lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm" per
year.

The oceans are thus not about to swallow up the low-lying islands and
deltas of
the southern hemisphere, as so many fear. Unlike the
several-kilometre-thick ice
in the Antarctic, the Arctic has ice only a few metres thick. Even if the
alarming predictions for ice loss there are correct --and Wingham doubts
it --
an Arctic ice melt cannot trump a thickening Antarctic.

If the low-lying countries of the southern hemisphere don't experience
economic
losses from the ocean's rise, the logic of economic ruin changes. The
northern
hemisphere, Tol has found, would generally gain economically from a
warming,
while the south would lose. But without losses in the south, global
warming
might well bring net economic gains in both hemispheres.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...ca730-10f0-461
4-9692-fc37d99cbac3

Antarctica isn't melting faster
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_An...Qs/faq_02.html

Antarctica is melting faster
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4228411.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0922-02.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030201712.html

A quick search does not indicate that there is a consensus on this topic.

Jeff
=========================

There once was a consensus that the Earth was heading for a Cooling
Disaster.
And since Consensuses are nto science, we know the Global Warming Consensus
is doomed to blow up all over the k00ks faces too.

The cooling world
Newsweek Magazine





There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to
change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in
food production -- with serious political implications for just about every
nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps
only 10 years from now.
The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing
lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of
marginally self-sufficient tropical areas -- parts ofIndia,Pakistan,
Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia -- where the growing season is dependent
upon the rains brought by the monsoon.
The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate
so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In
England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks
since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at
up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature
around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree -- a fraction that in
some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most
devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more
than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13
U.S. states.
To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance
signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree
about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact
on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that
the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.
If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the
resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would
force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent
report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of
food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on
the climate of the present century."
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in
average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and
1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos
indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the
winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists
notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental
U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.
To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine
can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points
out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only
about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras -- and that the
present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice
Age average.
Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age"
conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern
America between 1600 and 1900 -- years when the Thames used to freeze so
solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the
Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.
Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a
mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as
fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report.
"Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many
cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."
Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of
the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight
drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers
in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds
over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an
increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry
spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature
increases -- all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. "The
world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center
for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the
weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth
of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it
impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as
they did during past famines.
Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any
positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its
effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed,
such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or
diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they
solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are
even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of
introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections
of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult
will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim
reality.

"The Cooling World": From Newsweek, April 28, 1975. ?1975 Newsweek Inc.
All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission.

On May 1, 9:18 am, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
"john fernbach" wrote in message

oups.com...

Was it Nirvana who sang, "It's the end of the world, and I feel
fine"? Or am I thinking of some other group?

Was Google broken when you posted this? With a decent
search engine, it would have taken you about 30 seconds
to find out that it was R.E.M. who wrote this song.


Frankly, Jeff, I didn't care whether it was Nirvana
or R.E.M. or Johnny Cash or Pavarotti or Madonna.

I was a nerd in high school about 2 million years ago, which
is why I've spent a lot of my life worrying about stuff like
global climate change rather than being current on the
latest music. And I feel fine about the choice.

I also think getting the song attribution wrong was one of the best
things I've ever done in this usenet group. For a long time,
I've been posting news items about global warming and
drought, and often no one except Bawana, Ray Lopez
or sometimes Roger Coppock responds.

But I get the R.E.M and Nirvana issue wrong, and -- presto!
- half a dozen people are responding passionately to my posts.

!!!! FAME AT LAST !!!!

But that reminds me -- wasn't this whole message string orginally
about rates of Arctic melting, and not the urgent
R.E.M./Nirvana controversy? :-)

On Apr 30, 8:55 pm, Exxon Liars & Thieves
wrote:

Data trumps theory. Data trumps models.

http://h2-pv.us/Temp_4/Arctic_Ice_Me...Tornadoes.html

Exxon Liars -- I just looked at one of your hyperlinks on the 2006
heat engine "Bebinca."

Wow. Thank you for the information.

And no, I hadn't seen that set of satellite photos or
the accompanying text.

BTW, a picky point of English grammar - the link got the
word "it's" wrong in describing Bebina and what it means.

When we're writing about possession, about "belonging to it,"
the correct spelling is "its." Whenever we write "it's," the
meaning being conveyed is "it is."

But this is me, as a writer, picking fly **** out of the pepper --
focusing on minutiae. The information on "Bebinca" is
important, and ominous. Again, thanks for the scientific scoop.