2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?

[westwall]

Ian -

SSDD has REFUSED to read the scientific studies on the Antarctic - despite having actually promised to do so.

Perhaps start by acknolweding that before pretending that this establishes my inflexibility!

what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.

I have never understood why any poster would have any reluctance to be proven wrong, admit that they were wrong, or express doubt about whatever topic is under discussion. Sure, it's never easy to admit that we are wrong, but it is not only a sign of basic honesty, but I also find other posters respect it more than the usual lying and running away!

Where doubt exists, let's by all means discuss that, but for my money the only aspects of climate change science that I would say are not proven beyond any reasonable doubt are ocean pH levels, and the role played by solar acitivity.

You mean like this one that shows the Antarctic has cooled 2 degrees over the last 7,000 years?


Abstract. The West Antarctic ice sheet is particularly sensitive to global warming and its evolution and impact on global climate over the next few decades remains difficult to predict. In this context, investigating past sea ice conditions around Antarctica is of primary importance. Here, we document changes in sea ice presence, upper water column temperatures (0–200 m) and primary productivity over the last 9000 yr BP (before present) in the western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) margin from a sedimentary core collected in the Palmer Deep basin. Employing a multi-proxy approach, we derived new Holocene records of sea ice conditions and upper water column temperatures, based on the combination of two biomarkers proxies (highly branched isoprenoid (HBI) alkenes for sea ice and TEXL86 for temperature) and micropaleontological data (diatom assemblages). The early Holocene (9000–7000 yr BP) was characterized by a cooling phase with a short sea ice season. During the mid-Holocene (~ 7000–3000 yr BP), local climate evolved towards slightly colder conditions and a prominent extension of the sea ice season occurred, promoting a favorable environment for intensive diatom growth. The late Holocene (the last ~ 3000 yr) was characterized by more variable temperatures and increased sea ice presence, accompanied by reduced local primary productivity likely in response to a shorter growing season compared to the early or mid-Holocene. The stepwise increase in annual sea ice duration over the last 7000 yr might have been influenced by decreasing mean annual and spring insolation despite an increasing summer insolation. We postulate that in addition to precessional changes in insolation, seasonal variability, via changes in the strength of the circumpolar Westerlies and upwelling activity, was further amplified by the increasing frequency/amplitude of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). However, between 4000 and 2100 yr BP, the lack of correlation between ENSO and climate variability in the WAP suggests that other climatic factors might have been more important in controlling WAP climate at this time.

CPD - Abstract - Holocene climate variations in the western Antarctic Peninsula: evidence for sea ice extent predominantly controlled by insolation and ENSO variability changes

 

[IanC]

Ian -

SSDD has REFUSED to read the scientific studies on the Antarctic - despite having actually promised to do so.

Perhaps start by acknolweding that before pretending that this establishes my inflexibility!

what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.

I have never understood why any poster would have any reluctance to be proven wrong, admit that they were wrong, or express doubt about whatever topic is under discussion. Sure, it's never easy to admit that we are wrong, but it is not only a sign of basic honesty, but I also find other posters respect it more than the usual lying and running away!

Where doubt exists, let's by all means discuss that, but for my money the only aspects of climate change science that I would say are not proven beyond any reasonable doubt are ocean pH levels, and the role played by solar acitivity.

I may be mistaken but I believe SSDD said he read the articles and was left unconvinced. why do you keep accusing him of something you have no proof of, and can never prove?

and as far as basic honesty, you are a poster child for ad hom and dishonesty. I am still pissed off at this whopper of a slimy attack that you leveled at me.

saigon said-

Ian -

Quote:
I am a conspiracy theorist for being concerned that there are very few temp stations in northern canada.
Indeed.

which was a sentence fragment from my response to edthecynic who called me a conspiracy theorist.

IanC said-

and yet you think I am a conspiracy theorist for being concerned that there are very few temp stations in northern canada. there is obviously no opportunity for bias and shading with so many northern thermometers, right?

if you, saigon, can so easily twist a direct quote of me, and then refuse to acknowledge it as deceptive, what else are you willing to misrepresent? your ethical lapse was bad enough when you quoted me out of context wildly. but then you even refused to admit it when it was pointed out to you, which is surely worse.

saigon said-

Ian -

I didn't adjust your statement at all - anyone can go back and read your original comment. I merely took one sentence from it because that was the sentence I was replying to.

However, this seems to be a conveniant way of you avoiding addressing the point.

obviously you have been taking lessons from Mann and Gleick. just brazen it out because the people who like you wont notice or care unless it is jammed down their throat. personally I think you are a scumbag. and you have the nerve to act as if you are preaching from the high moral ground.

 

[SSDD]

saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.

Phony equivalence bullshit. It's like declaring a round-earther is just "inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence" as a flat-earther. Might be true, but it's because the round-earther is FREAKIN' CORRECT.

SSDD and all the denialists suck hard at the science. They don't have a clue about the physics, statistics, logic, history, chemistry, geology, anything. The get it all wrong. Yes, we are inflexible in pointing out how awful they are, and that's a good thing.

It is because I have a grasp of the science that I don't buy the pseudoscience that climate science is pushing. It is laughable that you would say that anyone, warmer or skeptic does or doesn't understand the science because you have proven again and again that you have no grip whatsoever on the science and your position is one of belief, not any sort of inherent knowledge.

If you would like to prove otherwise, then by all means, lets talk about the science. You might start by providing some hard evidnece that trenberth's energy budget is spot on correct because that energy budget, and resulting model is the basis for the entire field of climate science as it stands today. If that budget is off by any amount whatsoever, it calls all of climate science into question. Do tell me how an energy budget and resulting model that portrays the earth as a flat disk, that doesn't rotate, has no day / night cycle, and is bathed in a weak twilight 24 hours a day might possibly accurately represent the earth as it exists in reality?

My bet is that you didn't even know what sort of earth the present crop of climate models represent since it is clear that you really don't have any sort of grasp at all on the science.

 

[SSDD]

Ian -

SSDD has REFUSED to read the scientific studies on the Antarctic - despite having actually promised to do so.

You are a bald faced liar siagon. You have proven that beyond question in your behavior with both me and Ian. I read what was posted and described why it was unconvincing and why it was completely innefective at pointing the finger at man. If you won't even make an attempt at honesty in the discussion, then I am not interested. It is one thing to be misled, and another thing entirely to be a liar.

 

[IanC]

Ian -

SSDD has REFUSED to read the scientific studies on the Antarctic - despite having actually promised to do so.

You are a bald faced liar siagon. You have proven that beyond question in your behavior with both me and Ian. I read what was posted and described why it was unconvincing and why it was completely innefective at pointing the finger at man. If you won't even make an attempt at honesty in the discussion, then I am not interested. It is one thing to be misled, and another thing entirely to be a liar.

I concur.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ian -

SSDD has REFUSED to read the scientific studies on the Antarctic - despite having actually promised to do so.

Perhaps start by acknolweding that before pretending that this establishes my inflexibility!

what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.

I have never understood why any poster would have any reluctance to be proven wrong, admit that they were wrong, or express doubt about whatever topic is under discussion. Sure, it's never easy to admit that we are wrong, but it is not only a sign of basic honesty, but I also find other posters respect it more than the usual lying and running away!

Where doubt exists, let's by all means discuss that, but for my money the only aspects of climate change science that I would say are not proven beyond any reasonable doubt are ocean pH levels, and the role played by solar acitivity.

You mean like this one that shows the Antarctic has cooled 2 degrees over the last 7,000 years?


Abstract. The West Antarctic ice sheet is particularly sensitive to global warming and its evolution and impact on global climate over the next few decades remains difficult to predict. In this context, investigating past sea ice conditions around Antarctica is of primary importance. Here, we document changes in sea ice presence, upper water column temperatures (0–200 m) and primary productivity over the last 9000 yr BP (before present) in the western Antarctic Peninsula (WAP) margin from a sedimentary core collected in the Palmer Deep basin. Employing a multi-proxy approach, we derived new Holocene records of sea ice conditions and upper water column temperatures, based on the combination of two biomarkers proxies (highly branched isoprenoid (HBI) alkenes for sea ice and TEXL86 for temperature) and micropaleontological data (diatom assemblages). The early Holocene (9000–7000 yr BP) was characterized by a cooling phase with a short sea ice season. During the mid-Holocene (~ 7000–3000 yr BP), local climate evolved towards slightly colder conditions and a prominent extension of the sea ice season occurred, promoting a favorable environment for intensive diatom growth. The late Holocene (the last ~ 3000 yr) was characterized by more variable temperatures and increased sea ice presence, accompanied by reduced local primary productivity likely in response to a shorter growing season compared to the early or mid-Holocene. The stepwise increase in annual sea ice duration over the last 7000 yr might have been influenced by decreasing mean annual and spring insolation despite an increasing summer insolation. We postulate that in addition to precessional changes in insolation, seasonal variability, via changes in the strength of the circumpolar Westerlies and upwelling activity, was further amplified by the increasing frequency/amplitude of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). However, between 4000 and 2100 yr BP, the lack of correlation between ENSO and climate variability in the WAP suggests that other climatic factors might have been more important in controlling WAP climate at this time.

CPD - Abstract - Holocene climate variations in the western Antarctic Peninsula: evidence for sea ice extent predominantly controlled by insolation and ENSO variability changes

Why yes. The Earth had started the descent into another ice age, normal Milankovic Cycle. However, by the massive infusion of GHGs from the use of fossil fuels, we have altered that pattern, and probably have prevented the next ice age completely.

Nice of you to post the peer reviewed article demonstrating what Traker and I have stated here many times, however.

 

[SSDD]

Why yes. The Earth had started the descent into another ice age, normal Milankovic Cycle. However, by the massive infusion of GHGs from the use of fossil fuels, we have altered that pattern, and probably have prevented the next ice age completely.

Nice of you to post the peer reviewed article demonstrating what Traker and I have stated here many times, however.

Proof? Or is this just some pap you picked up from someone willing to spoon feed koolaid to the members of the church of AGW? I mean, there are some glaringly obvious problems with that claim. The earth decended into a hard ice age half way through the ordovician period with atmospheric CO2 levels over 4000ppm. Another decent into an ice age began half way through the denovial period when atmospheric CO2 levels were about 3000ppm. Then there was the ice age that began half way through the tertiary period with atmospheric CO2 levels at about 500ppm. Doesn't it strike you as odd that ice ages could begin with atmospheric CO2 levels in excess of 4000ppm while you claim that the 100ppm that we have theoretically added to the atmosphere is enough to curtail a cooling period? Somehow your claim doesn't seem to jibe with the facts....what a surprise.

 

[Saigon]

In my own defense, I do read the contrary evidence....I just don't find it particularly convincing.....

I did laugh at this....if you were smarter it could have been meant is irony!!!

I love how you read, for instance, the research conducted by the British Aantarctic Survey!!!

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

SSDD has REFUSED to read the scientific studies on the Antarctic - despite having actually promised to do so.

You are a bald faced liar siagon. You have proven that beyond question in your behavior with both me and Ian. I read what was posted and described why it was unconvincing and why it was completely innefective at pointing the finger at man. If you won't even make an attempt at honesty in the discussion, then I am not interested. It is one thing to be misled, and another thing entirely to be a liar.

No, you scoffed at the source.

At no point did you fault the material, the research methodolgy, the data, nor the results or conclusions.

At no point did you describe why it was "unconvicing" scientifically.

I very strongly doubt you read any of the scientific material posted. There were three academic studies there, after all.

Or perhaps, for instance, you can explain why you reject the British Antarctic Survey as a source?

 

[Saigon]

I may be mistaken but I believe SSDD said he read the articles and was left unconvinced. why do you keep accusing him of something you have no proof of, and can never prove?

Because I anyone - and I mean anyone - actually read the three scientific studies posted, they would be able to discuss them sensibly and openly. They might not agree, but they would be able to discuss the conclusions sensibly.

Posting "that isn't science!" is not an adult review of a peer-reviewed academic paper written by a group of very highly regarded and highly qualified scientists.

It is a child's response on finding himself trapped - no more, no less.

btw. I have never attacked you for anything. I have addressed this issue before, honestly and openly. I get that you do not accept this, but I won't address this topic again.

 

[Saigon]

It is because I have a grasp of the science that I don't buy the pseudoscience that climate science is pushing.

Really?

And yet you questioned why the Antarctic would have a different experience of climate change to the Arctic.

One is a continent, one is ocean.

That is an odd mistake for someone familiar with science to make.

You also ridiculed the idea that warmer, wetter weather could mean more snow in Russia.

Another strange error for someone from a science background to make.

Or was this irony as well?

 

[SSDD]

In my own defense, I do read the contrary evidence....I just don't find it particularly convincing.....

I did laugh at this....if you were smarter it could have been meant is irony!!!

I love how you read, for instance, the research conducted by the British Aantarctic Survey!!!

You claimed it was a first class paper...it was not. In short, you lied.....again.

You know siagon, the only thing that you have ever, or will ever have that is inherently your own, is your integrity. Why would you so willingly damage such a precious thing lying on an internet board?

 

[SSDD]

I very strongly doubt you read any of the scientific material posted. There were three academic studies there, after all.

No there weren't...there weren't any academic studies. Clearly you don't even know what constitutes an academic study.

 

[SSDD]

And yet you questioned why the Antarctic would have a different experience of climate change to the Arctic.

No I didn't. Are you ever able to be honest? I simply pointed out that cliamte science claimed the antarctic was going to rapidly melt till it didn't at which time it claimed that a cooling antarctic was proof of global warming. Why do you find it necessary to lie about every single thing? Are you that unsure of your position that you must constantly lie about your opponents?

Building straw men to lie about is just stupid....is that really the best you can do?

 

[SSDD]

btw. I have never attacked you for anything. I have addressed this issue before, honestly and openly. I get that you do not accept this, but I won't address this topic again.

To date, you haven't discussed anything honestly. I don't believe honesty still holds a place in your poor wasted character. You have repeatedly lied, altered quotes, and mischaracterized the materials you have presented. Don't even try to claim that you have been honest at any time.

 

[Saigon]

I very strongly doubt you read any of the scientific material posted. There were three academic studies there, after all.

No there weren't...there weren't any academic studies. Clearly you don't even know what constitutes an academic study.

Actually, yes, there were three.

Honestly - you have to laugh, don't you?

 

[Saigon]

And yet you questioned why the Antarctic would have a different experience of climate change to the Arctic.

No I didn't. Are you ever able to be honest? I simply pointed out that cliamte science claimed the antarctic was going to rapidly melt till it didn't at which time it claimed that a cooling antarctic was proof of global warming. Why do you find it necessary to lie about every single thing? Are you that unsure of your position that you must constantly lie about your opponents?

Building straw men to lie about is just stupid....is that really the best you can do?

Yes, you did - and I am willing to provide the full and exact quote for you if you like. It is the quote that inspired the Arctic vs Antarctic thread, and may even appear in the OP of that thread if I remember rightly.

And here it is, on a thread about Arctic ice:

While at the same time antarctic sea ice is far above normal. Square that with the GLOBAL warming hypothesis.

Agauin - if you are familiar with science, why do you compare the climate of a continent with that of the ocean? Why would you expect the Arctic and Antarctic to behave the same way?

 

[Saigon]

You claimed it was a first class paper...it was not. In short, you lied.....again.

You know siagon, the only thing that you have ever, or will ever have that is inherently your own, is your integrity. Why would you so willingly damage such a precious thing lying on an internet board?

Wonderful posting, SSDD - absolutely first class!! I really did laugh out loud at that - again!!

Unfortunately, the British Antarctic Survey do terrific work, and have an excellent reputation. It is run by very highly trained professionals with amazing careers.

If you had read the report, you'd know that of course.

As it is, you have absloutely no idea at all WHY you deny it, do you?!

 

[Saigon]

British Antarctic Survey:

British Antarctic Survey (BAS) is a component of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). Based in Cambridge, United Kingdom, it has, for over 60 years, undertaken the majority of Britain's scientific research on and around the Antarctic continent. It now shares that continent with scientists from over thirty countries.

BAS employs over 400 staff, and supports three stations in the Antarctic, at Rothera, Halley and Signy, and two stations on South Georgia, at King Edward Point and Bird Island. The Antarctic operations and science programmes are executed and managed from Cambridge, and rely on a wide-ranging team of professional staff.


Professor Alan Rodger, Interim Director & BAS Board Member, Science Strategy - Chair
Mrs Gill Alexander, Science Support Office - Secretary
Dr Alistair Crame, PSPE Science Leader
Dr John King, PSPE Science Leader
Dr Michael Meredith, PSPE Science Leader
Professor Eugene Murphy, PSPE Science Leader
Professor David Vaughan, PSPE Science Leader
Dr Eric Wolff, PSPE Science Leader
Mr Mike Pinnock, BAS Board Member, Science Delivery
Professor John Shepherd, Independent BAS Board Member

Science Board - British Antarctic Survey

I count 4 Professors and 4 PhD's on that list. so yes, I'd call their work 'academic' and no, I wouldn't call it an "opinion piece"!!!

 

[Saigon]

.there weren't any academic studies. Clearly you don't even know what constitutes an academic study.

GSAC comprises eight programmes totalling 19 projects. Its components are highly interconnected so that the sum will be greater than the parts. The content makes full use of the BAS Antarctic infrastructure and builds on the successes of previous BAS research, survey and monitoring while shifting our focus to exciting new areas. The quality of the programme’s content was assured through competition and by independent, rigorous, international peer review. Carrying it out involves over 120 national and international collaborations. As opportunities arise, new scientific and technical knowledge will be transferred to the private sector for the commercial benefit of the UK. Getting the public interested and engaging them in discourse will be a major priority.

Science disciplines

Scientists in the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) work across many scientific disciplines, including:

Chemistry
Physics
Biology (including ecology and evolutionary biology)
Earth Sciences (including atmospheric science, geology, geophysics, glaciology and oceanography)

http://www.bas.ac.uk/about_bas/our_organisation/directorate/index.php

So....how is this NOT an academic study exactly?

I mean - you read it, right? So you must know why it isn't academic....?