But not recorded at levels seen in last two years.”

And? We haven’t been recording for very long at all. We have no idea what it might have done 100 years ago, 200, 300, 1000, etc.

But not recorded at levels seen in last two years.

Maybe leebert couldn’t post the links because there are none! If soot is responsible for the extreme melting event we are now witnessing then it should have happened on a regular basis since the industrial revolution, especially as soot levels aould have been much higher then. Therefore soot is not to blame!

What extreme melting event? Umm, arctic ice HAS melted on a regular basis.

Could you post the links for the ice melt in the Arctic in the late 19th to early 20th century?

Does anyone know about the Liquid-Like effect at metal/ice interfaces? I would guess that the positional stability of a plane in ice is more complex than relative differences in density!

> Maybe now that it is in blackand white the rediculous folly of
> blaming soot for the rapid melting at the north pole will finally
> be tucked up and put to sleep….forever

Then why then is V. Ramanathan, James Hansen & Charlie Zender continuing to point out that even ongoing sootfall in the Arctic is significant?

So significant, in fact, that it’s the equivalent of CO2’s effect?

This is really nothing new, it’s been long understood that soot’s effects were more profound in the late 19th & early 20th C, with a great deal of “net” global warming caused by soot deposition in the boreal environs.

Add surface ozone’s effect and CO2 is the minority warming agent in the Arctic.

Second result from pasting:

Temperature saving due to full implementation of Kyoto

into a google search.

I’ve heard it would be 0.15 by 2100, but that’s still pretty darn small. Around 6 years’ worth according to IPCC projections.

All theories are models, although not necessarly computer models. This is also true in climate studies. Climatologists simply write software to emulate their paper model and let it run, trying to extrapolate the consequences. Any failure here isn’t in the software (unless there are bugs of course) but in the paper model, i.e. the underlying understanding. Any understanding of anything requires a mental model merely to understand it… hence everything we think we know about everything is a model of sorts. Everything.

That said, I have a problem with this in that I don’t believe that a computer simulation ought to be substituted for real life observation nor let out of a lab to see the light of day. It’s purpose is to play with guesses re behaviours that are consequential to changes in the physical understanding. Using these for policy is silly, especially until such time as the physical properties are so well understood that everyone agrees that this is so. There should not be large magnitude changes of any sort e.g. “we used to use a flat parameter of X to substitute SH oceanic currents and upwelling and we found out later that this was inadequate” (this is similar to the changes in models used by GISS in 1988 vs the ones in use now.)

It’s one thing to claim that the science is improving as the GCM defenders like to claim, likening model changes as V 1.2 vs 1.0. This however is misleading and plain wrong. A revision indicates upgrade of a process such as incorporating newer data feeds or a slight algorithmic enhancement. It is absolutely *not* a revision change to admit that the entire SH oceanic system was added to the model rather than use a flat parameter. It is *not* a revision to completely add new aerosol handling or Svensmark’s cloud formation stuff. That is a re-thinking of the paper model that underlies the software. Claiming otherwise is just crap.

My guess is that since most people really don’t get models or software that we see all sorts of claims Pro and Con. My observation is that the most thoughtful commentary re models comes from engineers who work with this type of thing daily, and it’s telling that as a rule the more technical background you have the more dubious you are of claims using GCMs as the basis of the claim. It’s pure irony that the loudest claims of appeal to authority (e.g. claims of peer reviewed papers trumping all) are by the people with the least understanding of how all of this stuff works.

The pictures of them recovering that plane are just incredible.

Nuclear plants don’t use any more water than a coal plant does.

What science? All I can find behind the AGW scare is a couple of deeply flawed computer models. And computer models, even when they work, are not science.

They didn’t just try, it was at OshKosh this year.

However, did the planes sink in the ice, or, were they covered by snow and ice? Perhaps a combination of the two processes.

It’s solid ice, I don’t see how anything could “sink” in it.