10,000-year-old Antarctic ice shelf will disappear by 2020

[Old Rocks]

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.

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.

The graph you linked doesn't show sea ice levels. It shows sea ice export rates through the Fram Strait.

I could not find a link on Walleyes post, could you post a link to the source of that graph?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

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.

The graph you linked doesn't show sea ice levels. It shows sea ice export rates through the Fram Strait.

I could not find a link on Walleyes post, could you post a link to the source of that graph?

Click on image, select "search google for this image"

 

[Old Rocks]

Fig. 7. Annual mean Fram Strait sea ice area export values as driven by NCEP surface pressure difference. Values are averages for 1 September through 31 August. Dashed lines indicate the 95 % confidence interval of the trend. Linear trends are added onwards from 1970, 1980 and 1990 (different colours). Values from Kwok (2009) are added for comparison.

New Paper “Recent Wind Driven High Sea Ice Export In The Fram Strait Contributes To Arctic Sea Ice Decline” By Smedsrud Et Al 2011

What Walleyes stated about the graph;

"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."

LOL. A Phd Geologist, indeed!

 

[Old Rocks]

Recent wind driven high sea ice export in the Fram Strait contributes to Arctic sea ice decline

L. H. Smedsrud1, A. Sirevaag1,2, K. Kloster3, A. Sorteberg1,2, and S. Sandven3
1Bjerknes Center for Climate Research, Bergen, Norway
2Geophysical Institute, Univ. of Bergen, Norway
3Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre, Bergen, Norway

Received: 05 April 2011 – Accepted: 18 April 2011 – Published: 05 May 2011

Abstract. Arctic sea ice area decrease has been visible for two decades, and continues at a steady rate. Apart from melting, the southward drift through Fram Strait is the main loss. We present high resolution sea ice drift across 79° N from 2004 to 2010. The ice drift is based on radar satellite data and correspond well with variability in local geostrophic wind. The underlying current contributes with a constant southward speed close to 5 cm s−1, and drives about 33 % of the ice export. We use geostrophic winds derived from reanalysis data to calculate the Fram Strait ice area export back to 1957, finding that the sea ice area export recently is about 25 % larger than during the 1960's. The increase in ice export occurred mostly during winter and is directly connected to higher southward ice drift velocities, due to stronger geostrophic winds. The increase in ice drift is large enough to counteract a decrease in ice concentration of the exported sea ice. Using storm tracking we link changes in geostrophic winds to more intense Nordic Sea low pressure systems. Annual sea ice export likely has a significant influence on the summer sea ice variability and we find low values in the 60's, the late 80's and 90's, and particularly high values during 2005–2008. The study highlight the possible role of variability in ice export as an explanatory factor for understanding the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice the last decades.

My goodness, that doesn't look at all like what Walleyes posted. Where do you suppose he got the idea that this indicated that the ice was lower in the 60's and 70's?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Recent wind driven high sea ice export in the Fram Strait contributes to Arctic sea ice decline

L. H. Smedsrud1, A. Sirevaag1,2, K. Kloster3, A. Sorteberg1,2, and S. Sandven3
1Bjerknes Center for Climate Research, Bergen, Norway
2Geophysical Institute, Univ. of Bergen, Norway
3Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre, Bergen, Norway

Received: 05 April 2011 – Accepted: 18 April 2011 – Published: 05 May 2011

Abstract. Arctic sea ice area decrease has been visible for two decades, and continues at a steady rate. Apart from melting, the southward drift through Fram Strait is the main loss. We present high resolution sea ice drift across 79° N from 2004 to 2010. The ice drift is based on radar satellite data and correspond well with variability in local geostrophic wind. The underlying current contributes with a constant southward speed close to 5 cm s−1, and drives about 33 % of the ice export. We use geostrophic winds derived from reanalysis data to calculate the Fram Strait ice area export back to 1957, finding that the sea ice area export recently is about 25 % larger than during the 1960's. The increase in ice export occurred mostly during winter and is directly connected to higher southward ice drift velocities, due to stronger geostrophic winds. The increase in ice drift is large enough to counteract a decrease in ice concentration of the exported sea ice. Using storm tracking we link changes in geostrophic winds to more intense Nordic Sea low pressure systems. Annual sea ice export likely has a significant influence on the summer sea ice variability and we find low values in the 60's, the late 80's and 90's, and particularly high values during 2005–2008. The study highlight the possible role of variability in ice export as an explanatory factor for understanding the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice the last decades.

My goodness, that doesn't look at all like what Walleyes posted. Where do you suppose he got the idea that this indicated that the ice was lower in the 60's and 70's?

He didn't do his homework.though all anyone needed to do was look at the y axis label to know the graph didn't depict what he said it does.

 

[jc456]

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.

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?

do 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.

 

[Old Rocks]

You have yet to give us any real info. Just unsupported flap yap and professional liars.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

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?

do 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.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

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?

do 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.

Peer review is pretty important to real scientists. Hacks, liars, and shills seem to not need it though. And "good ole boys" clubs don't have merit based membership requirements.

 

[jc456]

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.

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?

do 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.

Peer review is pretty important to real scientists. Hacks, liars, and shills seem to not need it though. And "good ole boys" clubs don't have merit based membership requirements.

oh sure they do. They must comply to the group, not to the facts and why it's the good ole boys club.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

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?

do 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.

Peer review is pretty important to real scientists. Hacks, liars, and shills seem to not need it though. And "good ole boys" clubs don't have merit based membership requirements.

oh sure they do. They must comply to the group, not to the facts and why it's the good ole boys club.

You're just spouting bullshit out your ignorant ass.

 

[jc456]

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.

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?

do 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.

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. LOL

 

[jc456]

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?

do 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.

Peer review is pretty important to real scientists. Hacks, liars, and shills seem to not need it though. And "good ole boys" clubs don't have merit based membership requirements.

oh sure they do. They must comply to the group, not to the facts and why it's the good ole boys club.

You're just spouting bullshit out your ignorant ass.

now turn the channel back to reality and how it is really done. walking with your eyes closed resolves nothing. But it is preferred by you and your peer team.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

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?

do 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.

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. LOL

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.

 

[jc456]

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?

do 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.

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. LOL

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.

I'll argue with you until the sun falls out of the sky that is not true. So, I disagree. Peer review makes sure any submitted document meets a specific criteria and scientific is far from the requirement. Dude, we know this, there is now the internet and papers still get published and everyone interested can find out why papers are rejected and most often it is due to opposing views rather than scientific knowledge.

 

[orogenicman]

Care to explain what that graph is suppose to be showing? Watt? Really? Got anything that is peer reviewed?

do 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.

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. LOL

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.

I'll argue with you until the sun falls out of the sky that is not true. So, I disagree. Peer review makes sure any submitted document meets a specific criteria and scientific is far from the requirement. Dude, we know this, there is now the internet and papers still get published and everyone interested can find out why papers are rejected and most often it is due to opposing views rather than scientific knowledge.

Have you ever been through the peer review? Ever? Of course you haven't. I have. So stop yer sniveling lies, you pos.

 

[Wuwei]

I'll argue with you until the sun falls out of the sky that is not true. So, I disagree. Peer review makes sure any submitted document meets a specific criteria and scientific is far from the requirement. Dude, we know this, there is now the internet and papers still get published and everyone interested can find out why papers are rejected and most often it is due to opposing views rather than scientific knowledge.

That is so absolutely not true. Where did you get "papers are rejected and most often it is due to opposing views rather than scientific knowledge"? Did you just make that up? Read it in a blog?
I think you have a total naivety about the whole publication process from paper submission, reviewer selection, assessment of reviewers critique, rewrite suggestions another review, and publication decision. If a reviewer wants to reject a paper, he must scientifically support his rejection to the same extent that the paper must be scientifically valid. It more often happens that bad papers get accepted than good papers rejected.

 

[orogenicman]

I'll argue with you until the sun falls out of the sky that is not true. So, I disagree. Peer review makes sure any submitted document meets a specific criteria and scientific is far from the requirement. Dude, we know this, there is now the internet and papers still get published and everyone interested can find out why papers are rejected and most often it is due to opposing views rather than scientific knowledge.

That is so absolutely not true. Where did you get "papers are rejected and most often it is due to opposing views rather than scientific knowledge"? Did you just make that up? Read it in a blog?

He made it up.

 

[jc456]

do 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.

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. LOL

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.

I'll argue with you until the sun falls out of the sky that is not true. So, I disagree. Peer review makes sure any submitted document meets a specific criteria and scientific is far from the requirement. Dude, we know this, there is now the internet and papers still get published and everyone interested can find out why papers are rejected and most often it is due to opposing views rather than scientific knowledge.

Have you ever been through the peer review? Ever? Of course you haven't. I have. So stop yer sniveling lies, you pos.

nope, I don't submit docs since it isn't my field. I don't play baseball, football, basketball or hockey and yet I know the rules and can follow along. One doesn't need to belong to analyze and review. funny how you all can't grasp that.

Although I understand your limitations.

 

[Wuwei]

He made it up.

I have to agree with that. The amazing thing about this Environment forum is that some (you know who you are) come up with crap they make up, and shout it with such a force of conviction that it makes it difficult to have a reasonable dialog.
That sort of behavior is so prevalent in conservative circles that Stephen Colbert gave it a name, truthiness.

a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.​