Antarctic and Arctic gaining ICE.. Not Melting...

[Crick]

Or that you either do not know or do not care that, as Mamooth told you, Benny Peiser has ZERO qualifications to say jack shite about AGW and, given who pays him, every reason to lie.

 

[Crick]

as per usual, crick and old rocks simply ignore anything that doesnt fit into their view of things.

I actually found it quite interesting going through borehole papers, there are links to some of them in message #40. a few things I found out-

boreholes can be quite different even when they are only kilometers apart.

there are thousands of borehole samples.

the patterns and shapes of borehole composites seem to be very malleable. a large sample paper from the late 70's just happened to perfectly match Lamb's temperature reconstruction (the one from FAR, large MWP and LIA). Huang's 1997 version from above actually went back 20,000 years BP, showing the last Ice Age. it used over 6000 samples from around the world.

Huang 2000 seems to have been published to support the new millenium Mannian paradigm, using a 600 sample subset to show (something?) with an embarrassingly high certainty level.

Huang 2008 seems to be a return to a more typical shape. with explanations as to why the whole temp series was lowered, and why they accidentally thought 1900 was 1980 in previous papers. hahahahahaha.


I have said it before and I will say it again. proxy reconstructions are dependent on which samples are selected (preselected usually), the methodologies used to 'enhance' the temperature signal (Mann often gives certain series 100+ times the weighting, or even flips the series upsidedown if need be), and the arbitrary scaling and offsets used to combine different types of proxies.


I am not against reconstructions using proxies. they can give us useful information about the past and they are all we have. what I am against is data mining to support preconceived conclusions. the Gergis paper is a glaring example of this. they gave a methodology in their paper that would minimize the risk of only selecting proxy data that showed hockeystick shapes. when it was shown that in reality they had data mined for hockeysticks (after the paper was accepted for publication but before being published) the Journal insisted that they follow their stated methodology. Gergis et al decided to withdraw their paper rather than publish embarrassing results.

I'm a little old for Sesame Street but I had watch it sometimes with nieces and nephews. They had a game of 'one of these things is not like the others'. The graph has three versions of borehole data. Can you pick out which one is not like the others? I knew you could. Can you pick out the one that the scientists at IPCC decided would look the best in their report? I knew you could.
.

Read Ian's text here and count the number of times he uses the word "seems".

 

[Roadrunner]

So what if they do shrink? Whose to say what is the proper size? Opening trade routes through the arctic would be a very good thing.

Ocean levels rise and fall, modern man has survived Ice Ages and warm periods.

People get so paranoid about shit over which they have no control.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OK, take the 2 decades of no warming, then add the imaginary warming of the deep ocean, square it, then add the heat from the volcanoes on Jupiter's Moon Io, and we have a chart that EXACTLY matches Mann's Tree Rings!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

as per usual, crick and old rocks simply ignore anything that doesnt fit into their view of things.

I actually found it quite interesting going through borehole papers, there are links to some of them in message #40. a few things I found out-

boreholes can be quite different even when they are only kilometers apart.

there are thousands of borehole samples.

the patterns and shapes of borehole composites seem to be very malleable. a large sample paper from the late 70's just happened to perfectly match Lamb's temperature reconstruction (the one from FAR, large MWP and LIA). Huang's 1997 version from above actually went back 20,000 years BP, showing the last Ice Age. it used over 6000 samples from around the world.

Huang 2000 seems to have been published to support the new millenium Mannian paradigm, using a 600 sample subset to show (something?) with an embarrassingly high certainty level.

Huang 2008 seems to be a return to a more typical shape. with explanations as to why the whole temp series was lowered, and why they accidentally thought 1900 was 1980 in previous papers. hahahahahaha.


I have said it before and I will say it again. proxy reconstructions are dependent on which samples are selected (preselected usually), the methodologies used to 'enhance' the temperature signal (Mann often gives certain series 100+ times the weighting, or even flips the series upsidedown if need be), and the arbitrary scaling and offsets used to combine different types of proxies.


I am not against reconstructions using proxies. they can give us useful information about the past and they are all we have. what I am against is data mining to support preconceived conclusions. the Gergis paper is a glaring example of this. they gave a methodology in their paper that would minimize the risk of only selecting proxy data that showed hockeystick shapes. when it was shown that in reality they had data mined for hockeysticks (after the paper was accepted for publication but before being published) the Journal insisted that they follow their stated methodology. Gergis et al decided to withdraw their paper rather than publish embarrassing results.

I'm a little old for Sesame Street but I had watch it sometimes with nieces and nephews. They had a game of 'one of these things is not like the others'. The graph has three versions of borehole data. Can you pick out which one is not like the others? I knew you could. Can you pick out the one that the scientists at IPCC decided would look the best in their report? I knew you could.
.

Read Ian's text here and count the number of times he uses the word "seems".

Seems like you still have no lab evidence showing us how even an instantaneous increase of 120PPM into a closed system can affect either temperature or pH

That's how it seems to me.

We ask you for lab work relating CO2 to temperature and it seems like you post charts that don't even grade temperature

So it seems like you're a liar, a fraud and a moron

That's how it seems to me

 

[IanC]

another figure from Huang 2008

this type of proxy gives very little in the way of resolution but is useful to buttress the general shape and direction of other proxies. does anyone besides me think that the IPCC's use of borehole data was misleading? they took a long term proxy and chopped the last couple of hundred years worth from thousands of years, and the piece that they used doesnt seem to match most borehole reconstructions. odd, that

 

[Crick]

What is the upper end of the time scale on that graph Ian?

Ahh, never mind, finally caught the kabp (thousands of years before present. "Before Present" refers to 1950. I strongly suspect that a graph of instrumental data carrying that forward to, say 2014, would show a continuation of the rather dramatically rising temps with which your graph ends.

And, of course, Huang and Pollock did precisely what you complain about the IPCC doing: a shorter term reconstruction, shown here:

And, in perusing Huang & Pollock, I came across text equating 1800 BP with AD 200. Therefore, they are using 2000 AD as the "Present".

 

[IanC]

What is the upper end of the time scale on that graph Ian?

Ahh, never mind, finally caught the kabp (thousands of years before present. "Before Present" refers to 1950. I strongly suspect that a graph of instrumental data carrying that forward to, say 2014, would show a continuation of the rather dramatically rising temps with which your graph ends.

read the paper and find out! see if you find their 'explanation' of revised dating to be believable.

edit- why do you always edit your comments. I respond to one thing and I come back and see something else, so it sometimes looks like I am ducking when I am not.

 

[IanC]

What is the upper end of the time scale on that graph Ian?

Ahh, never mind, finally caught the kabp (thousands of years before present. "Before Present" refers to 1950. I strongly suspect that a graph of instrumental data carrying that forward to, say 2014, would show a continuation of the rather dramatically rising temps with which your graph ends.

And, of course, Huang and Pollock did precisely what you complain about the IPCC doing: a shorter term reconstruction, shown here:

And, in perusing Huang & Pollock, I came across text equating 1800 BP with AD 200. Therefore, they are using 2000 AD as the "Present".

changed yet again? while I am glad you now know what date the present is in that study, could you tell me where your original 1950 came from? was it in one of the other HP papers?

 

[IanC]

I just skimmed Huang 2000 and it didnt mention 1950. it is interesting that the paper only used 600 boreholes out of 20,000 and then came up with a graph that is at odds with papers that they published both before and after the H2000 presentation in the spagetti graph. interesting.

 

[IanC]

BTW crick, I hope you dont feel I am attacking you in any way with this stuff. mostly I am just trying to figure out how you think and what evidence is important to you. of course I am trying to get you to look at all the evidence with a skeptical eye so that you form a more scientific concept of the whole climate change scenario. lukewarm makes the most sense to me but it does get attcked by both extreme sides.

 

[jc456]

as per usual, crick and old rocks simply ignore anything that doesnt fit into their view of things.

I actually found it quite interesting going through borehole papers, there are links to some of them in message #40. a few things I found out-

boreholes can be quite different even when they are only kilometers apart.

there are thousands of borehole samples.

the patterns and shapes of borehole composites seem to be very malleable. a large sample paper from the late 70's just happened to perfectly match Lamb's temperature reconstruction (the one from FAR, large MWP and LIA). Huang's 1997 version from above actually went back 20,000 years BP, showing the last Ice Age. it used over 6000 samples from around the world.

Huang 2000 seems to have been published to support the new millenium Mannian paradigm, using a 600 sample subset to show (something?) with an embarrassingly high certainty level.

Huang 2008 seems to be a return to a more typical shape. with explanations as to why the whole temp series was lowered, and why they accidentally thought 1900 was 1980 in previous papers. hahahahahaha.


I have said it before and I will say it again. proxy reconstructions are dependent on which samples are selected (preselected usually), the methodologies used to 'enhance' the temperature signal (Mann often gives certain series 100+ times the weighting, or even flips the series upsidedown if need be), and the arbitrary scaling and offsets used to combine different types of proxies.


I am not against reconstructions using proxies. they can give us useful information about the past and they are all we have. what I am against is data mining to support preconceived conclusions. the Gergis paper is a glaring example of this. they gave a methodology in their paper that would minimize the risk of only selecting proxy data that showed hockeystick shapes. when it was shown that in reality they had data mined for hockeysticks (after the paper was accepted for publication but before being published) the Journal insisted that they follow their stated methodology. Gergis et al decided to withdraw their paper rather than publish embarrassing results.

I'm a little old for Sesame Street but I had watch it sometimes with nieces and nephews. They had a game of 'one of these things is not like the others'. The graph has three versions of borehole data. Can you pick out which one is not like the others? I knew you could. Can you pick out the one that the scientists at IPCC decided would look the best in their report? I knew you could.
.

Read Ian's text here and count the number of times he uses the word "seems".

seems it's no big deal!

Seems you fail again!!!

Seems you're wrong and, it seems we're still WiNniNg

 

[jc456]

as per usual, crick and old rocks simply ignore anything that doesnt fit into their view of things.

I actually found it quite interesting going through borehole papers, there are links to some of them in message #40. a few things I found out-

boreholes can be quite different even when they are only kilometers apart.

there are thousands of borehole samples.

the patterns and shapes of borehole composites seem to be very malleable. a large sample paper from the late 70's just happened to perfectly match Lamb's temperature reconstruction (the one from FAR, large MWP and LIA). Huang's 1997 version from above actually went back 20,000 years BP, showing the last Ice Age. it used over 6000 samples from around the world.

Huang 2000 seems to have been published to support the new millenium Mannian paradigm, using a 600 sample subset to show (something?) with an embarrassingly high certainty level.

Huang 2008 seems to be a return to a more typical shape. with explanations as to why the whole temp series was lowered, and why they accidentally thought 1900 was 1980 in previous papers. hahahahahaha.


I have said it before and I will say it again. proxy reconstructions are dependent on which samples are selected (preselected usually), the methodologies used to 'enhance' the temperature signal (Mann often gives certain series 100+ times the weighting, or even flips the series upsidedown if need be), and the arbitrary scaling and offsets used to combine different types of proxies.


I am not against reconstructions using proxies. they can give us useful information about the past and they are all we have. what I am against is data mining to support preconceived conclusions. the Gergis paper is a glaring example of this. they gave a methodology in their paper that would minimize the risk of only selecting proxy data that showed hockeystick shapes. when it was shown that in reality they had data mined for hockeysticks (after the paper was accepted for publication but before being published) the Journal insisted that they follow their stated methodology. Gergis et al decided to withdraw their paper rather than publish embarrassing results.

I'm a little old for Sesame Street but I had watch it sometimes with nieces and nephews. They had a game of 'one of these things is not like the others'. The graph has three versions of borehole data. Can you pick out which one is not like the others? I knew you could. Can you pick out the one that the scientists at IPCC decided would look the best in their report? I knew you could.
.

Read Ian's text here and count the number of times he uses the word "seems".

Seems like you still have no lab evidence showing us how even an instantaneous increase of 120PPM into a closed system can affect either temperature or pH

That's how it seems to me.

We ask you for lab work relating CO2 to temperature and it seems like you post charts that don't even grade temperature

So it seems like you're a liar, a fraud and a moron

That's how it seems to me

that seems right to me!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Antarctic Sunlight, DOY = 22.

Solar radiation at Top of Atmosphere (TOA) = 1405 watt/m^2, this date (whole earth exposure)

Declination Angle = -0.347, Tau (the Day Angle) = 0.36

At the edge of the Antarctic sea ice, at -67.5latitude, sunrise occurs at 02:00 AM, sunset at 22:00 PM.

At noon, at -67.5 latitude, air mass = 1.482; direct sunlight on a flat surface = 1104 watts/m^2

At noon today, peak radiation on the sea surface = 744 watts/m^2 at a 42.4 solar elevation angle

At noon today, Sea Ice albedo = 0.823; 132 watts are absorbed, 612 watts are reflected into space

At noon today, Open ocean albedo = 0.043; 712 watts are absorbed, 32 watts are reflected.

Today, this day of year, for every “excess” meter of Antarctic sea ice, you can see that 581 watts/m^2 are reflected back into space (clear day, at noon). And “sunlight” occurs for 20 of the 24 hours down south at latitude -67.5."

Now this is one hell of a statement about the heat loss the earths systems are taking. The 1 Million Sq KL increase is affecting total system heat loss through reflection while the open oceans in the arctic are increasing heat loss from the Northern hemisphere. We are cooling at a massive rate in both hemispheres. Yet even with this empirical evidence fools think we are warming.

source

 

[Billy_Bob]

And then the explanation for a sunless arctic region.. Increased open ocean allows IR escape and convection above 800 w/m^2.

"Today, this day of year, for every “lost” square meter of sea ice, the open Arctic ocean loses more energy from increased long wave radiation from the open ocean water, from increased convection and conduction losses up to the sea surface, and from increased evaporation losses. In all cases, at this latitude at all hours of the day, more energy is lost from the open Arctic Ocean water than from ice-covered Arctic waters."

The loss in open ocean is greater than the reflected losses.

 

[IanC]

Yup, I've tried to point out a few times now that the Antarctic sea ice has a larger effect because it is at a latitude where insolation is greater.

 

[Crick]

What is the upper end of the time scale on that graph Ian?

Ahh, never mind, finally caught the kabp (thousands of years before present. "Before Present" refers to 1950. I strongly suspect that a graph of instrumental data carrying that forward to, say 2014, would show a continuation of the rather dramatically rising temps with which your graph ends.

And, of course, Huang and Pollock did precisely what you complain about the IPCC doing: a shorter term reconstruction, shown here:

And, in perusing Huang & Pollock, I came across text equating 1800 BP with AD 200. Therefore, they are using 2000 AD as the "Present".

changed yet again? while I am glad you now know what date the present is in that study, could you tell me where your original 1950 came from? was it in one of the other HP papers?

It was standard practice in paleo-fill-in-the-blank. What did you think BP meant?

From Dictionary.com
B.P.
1.
Bachelor of Pharmacy.
2.
Bachelor of Philosophy.
3.
Finance. basis point.
4.
Archaeology. before the present: (in radiocarbondating) in a specified amount of time or at aspecified point in time before a.d. 1950:
between 2 and 3 million years b.p.; humangroups living in cities by 5000 b.p.
5.
Commerce. bills payable.

 

[Crick]

And then the explanation for a sunless arctic region.. Increased open ocean allows IR escape and convection above 800 w/m^2.

"Today, this day of year, for every “lost” square meter of sea ice, the open Arctic ocean loses more energy from increased long wave radiation from the open ocean water, from increased convection and conduction losses up to the sea surface, and from increased evaporation losses. In all cases, at this latitude at all hours of the day, more energy is lost from the open Arctic Ocean water than from ice-covered Arctic waters."

The loss in open ocean is greater than the reflected losses.

Increased open ocean allows increased IR escape and convection? That's good. It does. And that IR and convection goes both ways, doesn't it Billy Bob.

 

[Crick]

And then the explanation for a sunless arctic region.. Increased open ocean allows IR escape and convection above 800 w/m^2.

"Today, this day of year, for every “lost” square meter of sea ice, the open Arctic ocean loses more energy from increased long wave radiation from the open ocean water, from increased convection and conduction losses up to the sea surface, and from increased evaporation losses. In all cases, at this latitude at all hours of the day, more energy is lost from the open Arctic Ocean water than from ice-covered Arctic waters."

The loss in open ocean is greater than the reflected losses.

What is the source of your quote Billy Bob?

 

[Billy_Bob]

And then the explanation for a sunless arctic region.. Increased open ocean allows IR escape and convection above 800 w/m^2.

"Today, this day of year, for every “lost” square meter of sea ice, the open Arctic ocean loses more energy from increased long wave radiation from the open ocean water, from increased convection and conduction losses up to the sea surface, and from increased evaporation losses. In all cases, at this latitude at all hours of the day, more energy is lost from the open Arctic Ocean water than from ice-covered Arctic waters."

The loss in open ocean is greater than the reflected losses.

Increased open ocean allows increased IR escape and convection? That's good. It does. And that IR and convection goes both ways, doesn't it Billy Bob.

Not when there is no sun to fuel incoming heat. Hotter to colder is the flow of energy. Unless you have found a way to create heat out of thin air and force it back into the deep oceans. Trenbreth is that you?