Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Were a student in any class that I have attended to try to use Watt, Drudge, or Briebart as a referance, it would be an automatic fail on the paper. Yet we have someone that is suppose to be a Phd Geologist doing just that. Hmmmmm..........................................?
Image 2 of 4 (play slideshow) Download
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
Right on the edge of two standard deviations, about 2 1/2 % chance of being natural.
Why do you say that? It's been much lower in the last 50 years.
The lowest it has been in recorded history was in 2007.
Oh, I wouldn't bet on that. The record keeping started in 1970 and amazingly enough those records are never shown but they were lower than the present day, and by quite a bit. And then we have this study, one of many that say otherwise.
Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years BP) compared to present day conditions. This sea ice minimum has been attributed to the northern hemisphere Early Holocene Insolation Maximum (EHIM) associated with Earth's orbital cycles. Here we investigate the transient effect of insolation variations during the final part of the last glaciation and the Holocene by means of continuous climate simulations with the coupled atmosphere–sea ice–ocean column model CCAM. We show that the increased insolation during EHIM has the potential to push the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover into a regime dominated by seasonal ice, i.e. ice free summers. The strong sea ice thickness response is caused by the positive sea ice albedo feedback. Studies of the GRIP ice cores and high latitude North Atlantic sediment cores show that the Bølling–Allerød period (c. 12,700–14,700 years BP) was a climatically unstable period in the northern high latitudes and we speculate that this instability may be linked to dual stability modes of the Arctic sea ice cover characterized by e.g. transitions between periods with and without perennial sea ice cover.
Arctic Ocean perennial sea ice breakdown during the Early Holocene Insolation Maximum
Proxies are not part of recorded human history, though they are part of natural history. Moreover, the sea ice minimum discussed in the paper above is associated with Earth's orbital cycles. The present day reduction in Arctic sea ice is not.
So you are good with drinking poison every day?
What does that have to do with your idiotic theory on peer review?
Nothing but you brought up drinking poison, so the question remains.
I brought up whether you can know whether it's smart to drink poison. You haven't answered the question.
You tried to deflect the issue by posting an obtuse comment. Get over yourself.
I posted an analogy, moron. Liberal turds think their inability to comprehend analogy makes a good argument. All it does is make you look stupid.
hahahahahahaha, Peer review is ok as long as all ideas are allowed. As stated over and over and over on here that isn't how it works today. With the Internet available and other means of getting information at one's finger tips, to disregard opposing views is disingenuous and leaves the public tasting bull shit repeatedly as good ideas and valuable data are pushed aside because opposing ideas and data are not allowed in today's peer review. That's definitely too bad. Valuable input ignored is not good for anyone. But hey, the money can only go the true believers. LOLdo you always ignore what info you get from us? Just curious. how many fnn times have we all said to take your peer review and throw it away. It means absolutely nothing today. The good old boys club is exposed, so it is no longer valuable to the discussion. So, getting back to the OP, I see you didn't have any follow up on the antarctic ice shelf history I provided and lack of validation it gives your beliefs. So, I assume then you agree that there really is no credibility to the 2020 date projection? Good, finally somewhere.One of many graphs that show lower sea ice in the late 60's, early 70's. Then there was a deluge of sea ice that topped out in 1978. Funny how your alarmist graphs never include the earlier dated material.
Care to explain what that graph is suppose to be showing? Watt? Really? Got anything that is peer reviewed?
I asked wally a question to which he didn't respond. But others did in spades, and proved that he was having a spas attack with his silly claim. So I left the issue alone because it was already addressed. Of course you want peer review to go away. We can't have people who actually know what they are talking about looking at those papers, can we? Yes, I know it is less expensive for you to hire a mechanic do your brain surgery, but I believe that suicide is still illegal in most states.
Nonsense. Peer review is intended to make sure the paper meets the requirements of the scientific method, not to be used as a sounding board for every crackpot who wants to promote an agenda.
Image 2 of 4 (play slideshow) Download
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
Right on the edge of two standard deviations, about 2 1/2 % chance of being natural.
Why do you say that? It's been much lower in the last 50 years.
The lowest it has been in recorded history was in 2007.
Oh, I wouldn't bet on that. The record keeping started in 1970 and amazingly enough those records are never shown but they were lower than the present day, and by quite a bit. And then we have this study, one of many that say otherwise.
Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years BP) compared to present day conditions. This sea ice minimum has been attributed to the northern hemisphere Early Holocene Insolation Maximum (EHIM) associated with Earth's orbital cycles. Here we investigate the transient effect of insolation variations during the final part of the last glaciation and the Holocene by means of continuous climate simulations with the coupled atmosphere–sea ice–ocean column model CCAM. We show that the increased insolation during EHIM has the potential to push the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover into a regime dominated by seasonal ice, i.e. ice free summers. The strong sea ice thickness response is caused by the positive sea ice albedo feedback. Studies of the GRIP ice cores and high latitude North Atlantic sediment cores show that the Bølling–Allerød period (c. 12,700–14,700 years BP) was a climatically unstable period in the northern high latitudes and we speculate that this instability may be linked to dual stability modes of the Arctic sea ice cover characterized by e.g. transitions between periods with and without perennial sea ice cover.
Arctic Ocean perennial sea ice breakdown during the Early Holocene Insolation Maximum
Proxies are not part of recorded human history, though they are part of natural history. Moreover, the sea ice minimum discussed in the paper above is associated with Earth's orbital cycles. The present day reduction in Arctic sea ice is not.
The historical record is in a state that fluxes of less than 300 years are not seen. Thus your statement is at least a deception and at worst intentional fraud. You simply do not have the data to prove your assertion.
The geological records however shows us that the ice levels have come and gone millions of times. many far worse than today's low ice levels
hahahahahahaha, Peer review is ok as long as all ideas are allowed. As stated over and over and over on here that isn't how it works today. With the Internet available and other means of getting information at one's finger tips, to disregard opposing views is disingenuous and leaves the public tasting bull shit repeatedly as good ideas and valuable data are pushed aside because opposing ideas and data are not allowed in today's peer review. That's definitely too bad. Valuable input ignored is not good for anyone. But hey, the money can only go the true believers. LOLdo you always ignore what info you get from us? Just curious. how many fnn times have we all said to take your peer review and throw it away. It means absolutely nothing today. The good old boys club is exposed, so it is no longer valuable to the discussion. So, getting back to the OP, I see you didn't have any follow up on the antarctic ice shelf history I provided and lack of validation it gives your beliefs. So, I assume then you agree that there really is no credibility to the 2020 date projection? Good, finally somewhere.Care to explain what that graph is suppose to be showing? Watt? Really? Got anything that is peer reviewed?
I asked wally a question to which he didn't respond. But others did in spades, and proved that he was having a spas attack with his silly claim. So I left the issue alone because it was already addressed. Of course you want peer review to go away. We can't have people who actually know what they are talking about looking at those papers, can we? Yes, I know it is less expensive for you to hire a mechanic do your brain surgery, but I believe that suicide is still illegal in most states.
Nonsense. Peer review is intended to make sure the paper meets the requirements of the scientific method, not to be used as a sounding board for every crackpot who wants to promote an agenda.
Peer review as it stands today is a farce.. Good Ol Boys Club... Paid shill... Pass your paper to the guy who is gonna give you grant money so long as you give him the nod for grant money back..
Too much bull shit from the left.. PAL REVIEW is not scientific in any way shape or form.
hahahahahahaha, Peer review is ok as long as all ideas are allowed. As stated over and over and over on here that isn't how it works today. With the Internet available and other means of getting information at one's finger tips, to disregard opposing views is disingenuous and leaves the public tasting bull shit repeatedly as good ideas and valuable data are pushed aside because opposing ideas and data are not allowed in today's peer review. That's definitely too bad. Valuable input ignored is not good for anyone. But hey, the money can only go the true believers. LOLdo you always ignore what info you get from us? Just curious. how many fnn times have we all said to take your peer review and throw it away. It means absolutely nothing today. The good old boys club is exposed, so it is no longer valuable to the discussion. So, getting back to the OP, I see you didn't have any follow up on the antarctic ice shelf history I provided and lack of validation it gives your beliefs. So, I assume then you agree that there really is no credibility to the 2020 date projection? Good, finally somewhere.
I asked wally a question to which he didn't respond. But others did in spades, and proved that he was having a spas attack with his silly claim. So I left the issue alone because it was already addressed. Of course you want peer review to go away. We can't have people who actually know what they are talking about looking at those papers, can we? Yes, I know it is less expensive for you to hire a mechanic do your brain surgery, but I believe that suicide is still illegal in most states.
Nonsense. Peer review is intended to make sure the paper meets the requirements of the scientific method, not to be used as a sounding board for every crackpot who wants to promote an agenda.
Peer review as it stands today is a farce.. Good Ol Boys Club... Paid shill... Pass your paper to the guy who is gonna give you grant money so long as you give him the nod for grant money back..
Too much bull shit from the left.. PAL REVIEW is not scientific in any way shape or form.
And of course, you would know because you've published in peer reviewed publications. Oh wait, you haven't.
hahahahahahaha, Peer review is ok as long as all ideas are allowed. As stated over and over and over on here that isn't how it works today. With the Internet available and other means of getting information at one's finger tips, to disregard opposing views is disingenuous and leaves the public tasting bull shit repeatedly as good ideas and valuable data are pushed aside because opposing ideas and data are not allowed in today's peer review. That's definitely too bad. Valuable input ignored is not good for anyone. But hey, the money can only go the true believers. LOLdo you always ignore what info you get from us? Just curious. how many fnn times have we all said to take your peer review and throw it away. It means absolutely nothing today. The good old boys club is exposed, so it is no longer valuable to the discussion. So, getting back to the OP, I see you didn't have any follow up on the antarctic ice shelf history I provided and lack of validation it gives your beliefs. So, I assume then you agree that there really is no credibility to the 2020 date projection? Good, finally somewhere.
I asked wally a question to which he didn't respond. But others did in spades, and proved that he was having a spas attack with his silly claim. So I left the issue alone because it was already addressed. Of course you want peer review to go away. We can't have people who actually know what they are talking about looking at those papers, can we? Yes, I know it is less expensive for you to hire a mechanic do your brain surgery, but I believe that suicide is still illegal in most states.
Nonsense. Peer review is intended to make sure the paper meets the requirements of the scientific method, not to be used as a sounding board for every crackpot who wants to promote an agenda.
Peer review as it stands today is a farce.. Good Ol Boys Club... Paid shill... Pass your paper to the guy who is gonna give you grant money so long as you give him the nod for grant money back..
Too much bull shit from the left.. PAL REVIEW is not scientific in any way shape or form.
And of course, you would know because you've published in peer reviewed publications. Oh wait, you haven't.
I'm fairly sure it's in this threadDo you have a link to that post? I'd like to see it.he don't know, he's just a geologist who gets paid to be a consultant writer on message boards. he's admitted it today!!!!!You drink poison every day and don't even know it.
Non sequitur. Your theory in peer review is stupid, obviously.
So you are good with drinking poison every day?
What does that have to do with your idiotic theory on peer review?
WowWhy do you say that? It's been much lower in the last 50 years.
The lowest it has been in recorded history was in 2007.
Oh, I wouldn't bet on that. The record keeping started in 1970 and amazingly enough those records are never shown but they were lower than the present day, and by quite a bit. And then we have this study, one of many that say otherwise.
Arctic Ocean sea ice proxies generally suggest a reduction in sea ice during parts of the early and middle Holocene (∼6000–10,000 years BP) compared to present day conditions. This sea ice minimum has been attributed to the northern hemisphere Early Holocene Insolation Maximum (EHIM) associated with Earth's orbital cycles. Here we investigate the transient effect of insolation variations during the final part of the last glaciation and the Holocene by means of continuous climate simulations with the coupled atmosphere–sea ice–ocean column model CCAM. We show that the increased insolation during EHIM has the potential to push the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover into a regime dominated by seasonal ice, i.e. ice free summers. The strong sea ice thickness response is caused by the positive sea ice albedo feedback. Studies of the GRIP ice cores and high latitude North Atlantic sediment cores show that the Bølling–Allerød period (c. 12,700–14,700 years BP) was a climatically unstable period in the northern high latitudes and we speculate that this instability may be linked to dual stability modes of the Arctic sea ice cover characterized by e.g. transitions between periods with and without perennial sea ice cover.
Arctic Ocean perennial sea ice breakdown during the Early Holocene Insolation Maximum
Proxies are not part of recorded human history, though they are part of natural history. Moreover, the sea ice minimum discussed in the paper above is associated with Earth's orbital cycles. The present day reduction in Arctic sea ice is not.
The historical record is in a state that fluxes of less than 300 years are not seen. Thus your statement is at least a deception and at worst intentional fraud. You simply do not have the data to prove your assertion.
The geological records however shows us that the ice levels have come and gone millions of times. many far worse than today's low ice levels
No sir, there is no evidence whatsoever that the current ice loss in the Arctic is due to the Earth's orbital cycles. You can try and spin it, but you cannot get around this fact.
The evidence keeps pouring is, and SS Denier is listing hard to port.
Antarctic Peninsula in dramatic ice loss - BBC News
---
Satellites have seen a sudden dramatic change in the behaviour of glaciers on the Antarctica Peninsula, according to a Bristol University-led study.
The ice streams were broadly stable up until 2009, since when they have been losing on the order of 56 billion tonnes of ice a year to the ocean.
Warm waters from the deep sea may be driving the changes, the UK-based team says.
The details of the satellite research are published in Science Magazine.
They include more than 10 years of space observations of a broad swathe of coastline roughly 750km in length, on the south-western sector of the peninsula.
Here there is a multitude of glaciers slipping down mountainous terrain and terminating in the Bellingshausen Sea.
"Around 2009/2010, the surface in this part of the southern Antarctic Peninsula started to lower at a really quite dramatic rate, of 4m per year in some places. That's a pretty big signal," said Bristol's Prof Jonathan Bamber.
---
Are you sure? Which volcano? Which area are you referring to?"Warm waters from the deep sea may be driving the changes, the UK-based team says."
Right, because of underwater volcanoes, numskull.
The ones already posted in the thread go readAre you sure? Which volcano? Which area are you referring to?"Warm waters from the deep sea may be driving the changes, the UK-based team says."
Right, because of underwater volcanoes, numskull.
Says you, nobody. HahahahaIf volcanoes were heating the water, the high-temperature water plume would stand out like a spotlight.
We measure such things. There aren't there. Claiming "it's volcanoes" is 100% crackpottery.
If volcanoes were heating the water, the high-temperature water plume would stand out like a spotlight.
We measure such things. There aren't there. Claiming "it's volcanoes" is 100% crackpottery.
