Arctic ice thins dramatically

[Trakar]

...You have shown what is happening this time...using "your facts".
How do you know it's different than in this past? It could very well have had the same effects each time Earth warms up after an ice age.....just sayin...

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but facts are universal. The evidences indicate that the current warming in abnormal and predominantly the result of humanity's addition of previously sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere. It is greatly similar to the PETM in this respect, except that it is currently happening at a vastly accelerated rate compared to the PETM event.

 

[konradv]

Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces.[3][4] He has said:
the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers (e.g. see [http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf]). [1]

That does not alter the fact that he is convinced that the surface record is not reliable.

I'll give you that, as long as you go along with what he said about the "human fingerprint" being on climate change. Deal?

 

[RollingThunder]

Here ya go, you silly braindead retard.

Arctic sea ice minimum is decreasing 11.5% per decade.

So that has never happened before? Lets see the evidence.

- Sea levels are rising at a current rate of about 3.27mm per year and accelerating.

Aside from being a lie, that also would not be unprecedented. Of course, feel free to provide evidence to support your claim that such a rise is outside the boundries of natural variability

Again, a lie, but even if there were such a rise in 130 years, again it would not be unprecedented.

Once again, a lie, but that also would not be outside the borders of natural variability.

And that is outside of natural variability how?

The glaciers have been melting back for 14,000 years now and have receeded almost 2,000 miles along with a corresponding sea level rise of nearly 500 feet by the way. How exactly, does the piddling melting you claim achieve the status of unprecedented?

And that is a new thing on earth how? Face it guy, for the bulk of earth history, there has been no ice at all at one, or both of the poles.

And you believe that is unprecedented? Laughing in your face thunder. Laughing in your face.

Again, a lie, but 50 years? WOW. That is certainly a basis to claim "unprecedented" You get more pathetic the harder you try.

Again, a lie, but oceanic CO2 levels have been far higher thunder. Hell, corals evolved when atmospheric CO2 levels measured in the thousands of ppm.

Going back 40 years. Again. WOW. How exactly do you suppose that qualifies as unprecedented? How many peer reviewed studies would you like to see showing far more extensive droughts of longer duration way before man's CO2 was a factor?

Laughing at you thunder. Still laughing at you.

Again, a lie. You sure lie a lot, but even that, if it were true would not be unprecedented or outside the realm of natural variability. You are so weak.

- Since the 1980s, the United States has also experienced more intense single-day storms that are dumping a lot more rain or snow than usual.

More lies, but even if they were true, do you believe that at no time in history has the north american continent experienced more intense single day storms? Lets see the proof of such a claim.

- The global warming induced rise in ocean temperatures has caused more water to evaporate, raising water vapor levels in the atmosphere by about 4% and, as a result, the world is, on average, already getting more precipitation now than it did 100 years ago: 6 percent more in the United States and nearly 2 percent more worldwide.

Again, are you claiming that this is unprecedented? Geez guy, you struck out completely. About half your claims are lies but even if they were true, they would not even approach the limits of natural variability.

I strongly suggest that you grab yourself one of those hand wringing avatars before the best ones have been taken.

Laughing at you thunder. Laughing real loud at you.

The laughter of retards like you is like music to my ears. It only reflects how confused and ignorant you are, you poor deluded moron.

The list of evidence that I posted indicating that the changes the world is currently experiencing are beyond the limits of natural variability represents the conclusions of the world science community so your calling them all lies without any kind of backing for that claim (or trying to switch the goalposts from 'beyond natural variability' to "unprecedented") just shows how crazy and deluded you are. And of course you don't actually have any backing or evidence to support your retarded claims although one of your delusions is that you do. The pseudo-scientific drivel that you imagine is evidence supporting your denial of reality gets totally debunked every time you post it but you are too lost in your denier cult fantasyland to ever understand that fact. And that, wired&bent, is because you are an almost unbelievably stupid, misinformed and very pathetically gullible fool, severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and totally brainwashed by right wing/fossil fuel industry propaganda. You and your pretensions of scientific knowledge are a joke, and a bad one at that, to anyone who actually knows anything about science.

 

[saveliberty]

...You have shown what is happening this time...using "your facts".
How do you know it's different than in this past? It could very well have had the same effects each time Earth warms up after an ice age.....just sayin...

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but facts are universal. The evidences indicate that the current warming in abnormal and predominantly the result of humanity's addition of previously sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere. It is greatly similar to the PETM in this respect, except that it is currently happening at a vastly accelerated rate compared to the PETM event.

You really over emphasize the impact of humans on the atmosphere. Periods of heavy volcanic activity dwarf our modest percentages. CO2 does not and cannot retain heat for extended periods of time. Shifting ocean currents can and will melt ice however.

 

[Trakar]

Climate veriability ( winds currents and the like) are also brreaking down the ice.

A predicted and expected occurence when they majority of the ice is new, thin ice as opposed to the thicker, multiyear ice accumulations that used to make up the majority of the Arctic sea ice.

 

[Trakar]

7 to 10 degrees? I am laughing at you again thunder. Perhaps your priests haven't informed you that there is a signifigant warming bias in the data they use. Seems that any paper that used ERA-40 as a basis for claimed arctic warming isn't worth the paper it is printed on. That covers about every paper written since 1997.

Indictment Of The ERA-40 Reanalysis In A New Paper “Erroneous Arctic Temperature Trends in the ERA-40 Reanalysis: A Closer Look” By Screen and Simmonds 2011 | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

It is all falling down around your ears thunder. Keep on waving those pom poms though, it is hilarious and truely pathetic at the same time.

Are you aware of what causes the highlighting of the terms in the abstract you link to (aside from cherry-picking biases)?

Regardless, I'm curious to understand exactly how your beliefs concerning what this paper demonstrates squares with statements like these from the actual paper (as opposed to perversions of the abstract and interpretations from those with a political axe to grind):

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

...One specific problem that has been identified in the
40-yr European Centre for Medium-Range Weather
Forecasts (ECMWF) Re-Analysis (ERA-40) product is
a shift of temperature bias in 1997. The ECMWF Web
site (www.ecmwf.int/research/era/Data_Services/section3.
html) states that:
"a problem of concern is cold bias in the lower troposphere
(below about 500 hPa) over the ice-covered oceans
in both the Arctic and the Antarctic . . . These polar cold
biases arise from the assimilation of HIRS [High Resolution
Infrared Radiation Sounder] radiances. Changes to
the thinning, channel-selection and quality control of the
infrared data that were introduced for analyses from 1997
onwards to reduce tropical precipitation bias have also
virtually eliminated the cold polar biases."
The lower-tropospheric cold bias in ERA-40 was first
documented by Bromwich et al. (2002). Its elimination
in 1997 is mentioned by Bromwich and Wang (2005) and
is discussed in more detail by Bromwich et al. (2007).
The problem is specifically mentioned in the ERA-40
documentation (Uppala et al. 2005). However, despite
this ‘‘known’’ shortcoming, ERA-40 has been recently
used to assess Arctic temperature trends and their vertical
structure...

...We stress that it is not our intention to evaluate the
conclusions of all the numerous studies that have used
ERA-40 in the Arctic, many of which likely were, and
remain, valid. However, here we briefly mention two
examples to help illustrate our concerns with ERA-40
temperature trends and the conclusions derived from
them.

...In the case of Yang et al. (2010), their analysis
of TMT trends was undertaken with MSU, ERA-40,
and NNR data—all of which were in broad agreement.
We also find agreement between datasets for the TMT
trends (Fig. 1) and therefore have no reason to question
the validity of their results pertaining to the evolution
of TMT temperature.

...While our results reiterate problems with using reanalyses
to examine trends (Bengtsson et al. 2004; Sterl
2004; Thorne and Vose 2010), they do not imply that all
reanalyses are unsuitable for studying Arctic temperature
trends and their vertical structure. Indeed, we have
shown that ERA-40 is unique among a series of alternative
reanalyses in displaying statistically significant errors.
We conclude that with the exception of ERA-40,
current reanalyses are in broad-scale agreement with
observed Arctic temperature change and encourage their
discerning use instead of ERA-40, and in conjunction
with observations where possible.

I await your explanation.

 

[RollingThunder]

...You have shown what is happening this time...using "your facts".
How do you know it's different than in this past? It could very well have had the same effects each time Earth warms up after an ice age.....just sayin...

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but facts are universal. The evidences indicate that the current warming in abnormal and predominantly the result of humanity's addition of previously sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere. It is greatly similar to the PETM in this respect, except that it is currently happening at a vastly accelerated rate compared to the PETM event.

You really over emphasize the impact of humans on the atmosphere.

No, you're just blind to the evidence that humans are having an enormous effect on the atmosphere and the Earth's climate.

Periods of heavy volcanic activity dwarf our modest percentages.

Unless you're referring to the Deccan Traps (60 million years ago) or the Siberian Traps (250 million years ago), you are either sadly misinformed, lying or just plain full of shit.

Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions
United States Geological Survey
(excerpts)

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

For additional information about this subject, please read the American Geophysical Union's Eos article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" written by USGS scientist Terrence M. Gerlach.

CO2 does not and cannot retain heat for extended periods of time.

LOLOL....you are obviously soooo confused.

CO2 molecules do pass on the energy of the infrared radiation that they absorb very quickly but so what. That is not an issue at all. The important fact is that the extra CO2 mankind has added to the atmosphere has a residency time of decades to centuries and will continue to affect world temperatures and climate patterns for a very long time.

 

[Trakar]

...You have shown what is happening this time...using "your facts".
How do you know it's different than in this past? It could very well have had the same effects each time Earth warms up after an ice age.....just sayin...

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but facts are universal. The evidences indicate that the current warming in abnormal and predominantly the result of humanity's addition of previously sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere. It is greatly similar to the PETM in this respect, except that it is currently happening at a vastly accelerated rate compared to the PETM event.

You really over emphasize the impact of humans on the atmosphere. Periods of heavy volcanic activity dwarf our modest percentages. CO2 does not and cannot retain heat for extended periods of time. Shifting ocean currents can and will melt ice however.

Slow release of fossil carbon during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum
Slow release of fossil carbon during the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum : Nature Geoscience : Nature Publishing Group

The transient global warming event known as the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum occurred about 55.9 Myr ago. The warming was accompanied by a rapid shift in the isotopic signature of sedimentary carbonates, suggesting that the event was triggered by a massive release of carbon to the ocean–atmosphere system. However, the source, rate of emission and total amount of carbon involved remain poorly constrained. Here we use an expanded marine sedimentary section from Spitsbergen to reconstruct the carbon isotope excursion as recorded in marine organic matter. We find that the total magnitude of the carbon isotope excursion in the ocean–atmosphere system was about 4‰. We then force an Earth system model of intermediate complexity to conform to our isotope record, allowing us to generate a continuous estimate of the rate of carbon emissions to the atmosphere. Our simulations show that the peak rate of carbon addition was probably in the range of 0.3–1.7 Pg C yr−1, much slower than the present rate of carbon emissions.

Ocean acidification is diurectly related to the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and it is currently far greater than during the PETM, and is seems to be unprecedented in the geological record for at least the last 65 million years, and there are compelling indications that global oceanic acidification rates are greater than has been seen in the last half billion years.

"Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release"---- http://pages-142.unibe.ch/science/scor/gfx/Ridgwell&Schmidt2010NGeo-PastOceanAcidification.pdf

 

[gslack]

Ah now we see the alter ego... New we would sooner or later..

BTW clone... Ocean acidification is no longer popular and cool with the AGW crowd. Seems a few of their own too eager to blame yet another thing on CO2 went and discovered the oceans uptake of CO2 is slowing and limited.... SO wont be able to make them acidic after all...

 

[Trakar]

Ah now we see the alter ego... New we would sooner or later..

BTW clone... Ocean acidification is no longer popular and cool with the AGW crowd. Seems a few of their own too eager to blame yet another thing on CO2 went and discovered the oceans uptake of CO2 is slowing and limited.... SO wont be able to make them acidic after all...

Got reference?

Tracking single coccolith dissolution with picogram
resolution and implications for CO2 sequestration
and ocean acidification
http://anpron.eu/wp-content/uploads...CO2-sequestration-and-ocean-acidification.pdf

Effect of ocean acidification on early life
stages of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus L.)
http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/8/7097/2011/bgd-8-7097-2011.pdf

The atmospheric CO2 concentration is constantly increasing primarily due to human activities causing an acidification of the ocean (Feely et al., 2004). While the CO2 concentration over the last 650 000 years ranged between 180 and 300 ppm the recent
global mean is 5 391 ppm (Conway and Tans, 2011) and a further rise up to 450 respectively 1100 ppm by the end of the century, depending on the emission scenario, is
predicted (IPCC, 2007). As a result the seawater carbonate chemistry is changing and
the present mean oceanic surface pH of 7.9–8.25 is expected to decrease by 0.3–0.5
units (Caldeira and Wickett, 2005)...

Global declines in oceanic nitrification rates as a consequence of ocean acidification
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/1/208.full

Ocean acidification produced by dissolution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in seawater has profound consequences for marine ecology and biogeochemistry. The oceans have absorbed one-third of CO2 emissions over the past two centuries, altering ocean chemistry, reducing seawater pH, and affecting marine animals and phytoplankton in multiple ways. Microbially mediated ocean biogeochemical processes will be pivotal in determining how the earth system responds to global environmental change;...

IMPACT OF SURFACE OCEAN ACIDIFICATION ON THE CO2 ABSORPTION RATE
http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/swin:14542/SOURCE2

Many more available upon request

 

[wirebender]

The laughter of retards like you is like music to my ears. It only reflects how confused and ignorant you are, you poor deluded moron.

Predictably stupid answer thunder. Completely unsurprising.

The list of evidence that I posted indicating that the changes the world is currently experiencing are beyond the limits of natural variability represents the conclusions of the world science community so your calling them all lies without any kind of backing for that claim (or trying to switch the goalposts from 'beyond natural variability' to "unprecedented")

In case you didn't notice, you failed to provide even a shred of evidence that any of the events you named are approaching the limits of natural variability. For the most part, your claims are no more than the output of computer models that we are frequently learning are based on bad, fraudulent, or manipulated data and have nothing at all to do with real world observations.

The pseudo-scientific drivel that you imagine is evidence supporting your denial of reality gets totally debunked every time you post it but you are too lost in your denier cult fantasyland to ever understand that fact.

Really? Do feel free to point to any post where someone pointed out a mathematical error or misapplied physical law on my part. Again, you are caught lying.

For a while thunder, I thought that you were just a dupe like so many of the faithful on this board. I am coming to believe, however, that you aren't a dupe. I am coming to think that you are an "ends justify the means" sort of guy who simply believes it is fine to fabricate, dissemble, falsify, prevaricate, misstate, distort, and flat out lie if you believe it will achieve a certain goal. Sad for you but not unsurprising.

And that, wired&bent, is because you are an almost unbelievably stupid, misinformed and very pathetically gullible fool, severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and totally brainwashed by right wing/fossil fuel industry propaganda. You and your pretensions of scientific knowledge are a joke, and a bad one at that, to anyone who actually knows anything about science.

And yet, you remain unable to even answer my least difficult questions. Instead, you retreat to your fat kid fantasy of being the toughest kid on the playground and hurl impotent insult as if that might intimidate me. I beat you at every exchange thunder and you are so focused on your objective that you fail to see that you are losing.

You might save some face by admitting that nothing that is going on in the climate today even approaches the limits of natural variability or actually providing some evidence to support your claims. Simply making appeals to authority is hardly a suitable substitute for rational argument. Before you attempt to put togethersome shabby "evidence", bear in mind that I am prepared to offer up peer reviewed study after peer reviewed study on the paleoclimate that will prove beyond question that nothing in the climate today even begins to approach the limits of natural variability. Before you try to support your stupid claims consider the fact that about 450 of the past 600 million years, the average temperature on planet earth has been 17 degrees C or above as compared to the present gloabal average of about 14 degrees C and for a great deal of those 450 million years the average global temperature has been closer to 20 degrees C. To make a claim that the present, with its relatively cool global average is unprecedented, and approaching the limits of natural variability indicates that you are either stupid, or a bald faced liar. Which is it?

 

[gslack]

Ah now we see the alter ego... New we would sooner or later..

BTW clone... Ocean acidification is no longer popular and cool with the AGW crowd. Seems a few of their own too eager to blame yet another thing on CO2 went and discovered the oceans uptake of CO2 is slowing and limited.... SO wont be able to make them acidic after all...

Got reference?

Tracking single coccolith dissolution with picogram
resolution and implications for CO2 sequestration
and ocean acidification
http://anpron.eu/wp-content/uploads...CO2-sequestration-and-ocean-acidification.pdf

Effect of ocean acidification on early life
stages of Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus L.)
http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/8/7097/2011/bgd-8-7097-2011.pdf

The atmospheric CO2 concentration is constantly increasing primarily due to human activities causing an acidification of the ocean (Feely et al., 2004). While the CO2 concentration over the last 650 000 years ranged between 180 and 300 ppm the recent
global mean is 5 391 ppm (Conway and Tans, 2011) and a further rise up to 450 respectively 1100 ppm by the end of the century, depending on the emission scenario, is
predicted (IPCC, 2007). As a result the seawater carbonate chemistry is changing and
the present mean oceanic surface pH of 7.9–8.25 is expected to decrease by 0.3–0.5
units (Caldeira and Wickett, 2005)...

Global declines in oceanic nitrification rates as a consequence of ocean acidification
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/1/208.full

Ocean acidification produced by dissolution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in seawater has profound consequences for marine ecology and biogeochemistry. The oceans have absorbed one-third of CO2 emissions over the past two centuries, altering ocean chemistry, reducing seawater pH, and affecting marine animals and phytoplankton in multiple ways. Microbially mediated ocean biogeochemical processes will be pivotal in determining how the earth system responds to global environmental change;...

IMPACT OF SURFACE OCEAN ACIDIFICATION ON THE CO2 ABSORPTION RATE
http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/swin:14542/SOURCE2

Many more available upon request

Don't need one clone there is a thread here in this forum that was posted by one of you algorians that told all about it. IF you want to know then look it up, I do not jump for clones or the cowards that create them.

 

[wirebender]

Just because you're so ignorant about all this does not mean that the scientists who study this professionally are equally ignorant and clueless.

Of course they are clueless as evidenced by their long string of failed prophecies.

Please cite and reference these "failed prophecies" of which you speak.

What area of prophecy would you like? Atmospheric temperatures, extreme weather, cyclones, hurricaines, ocean temperatures, precipitation, changes in seasons....... The fact is that none of the prophecies made have matched physical observations. You name the prediction and the actual observations prove the prediction wrong. But feel free to name the topic of prediction you would like to see. It will be the easiest argument to win all day.

 

[Trakar]

Of course they are clueless as evidenced by their long string of failed prophecies.

Please cite and reference these "failed prophecies" of which you speak.

What area of prophecy would you like? Atmospheric temperatures, extreme weather, cyclones, hurricaines, ocean temperatures, precipitation, changes in seasons........

Yes, all please.

Cite and reference specific published predictions

and then an accompanying confirmation listing of failure to meet/match those predictions.

 

[Trakar]

Don't need one clone there is a thread here in this forum that was posted by one of you algorians that told all about it. IF you want to know then look it up, I do not jump for clones or the cowards that create them.

Your inability/unwillingness to provide evidences in support of your own baseless assertions and wild accussations is noted.

 

[wirebender]

Please cite and reference these "failed prophecies" of which you speak.

What area of prophecy would you like? Atmospheric temperatures, extreme weather, cyclones, hurricaines, ocean temperatures, precipitation, changes in seasons........

Yes, all please.

Cite and reference specific published predictions

and then an accompanying confirmation listing of failure to meet/match those predictions.

Here is a comprehensive site that lists the major climate models up to year 2006, their predictions and the observed data. As you can clearly see, they failed miserably.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

Here is the latest peer review regarding the failure of the oceans to heat up in spite of hansen's demand that they do so.

http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/katsman_voldenborgh_grl_all.pdf

Here is a quick chart showing hansen's predicted rate of ocean warming.

Here is a quick chart showing the three primary IPCC predictions of temperature increase vs UAH and Hadcrut:

Here is a quick chart showing hansen's personal failure vs GISS and Hadcrut temperatures

Here is some peer review regarding the failure of the prediction of more and greater floods.

http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1128/2/documents/2011EGU_DailyDischargeMaxima_Pres.pdf

Taylor & Francis Online :: Trend detection in river flow series: 1. Annual maximum flow / Détection de tendance dans des séries de débit fluvial: 1. Débit maximum annuel - Hydrological Sciences Journal - Volume 50, Issue 5

Here is a running total of tropical cyclones and huricaines:

Certainly not the increase predicted by the IPCC.

If you want more, then ask for specifics. The fact that you are unaware of the abject failure of climate models says much about you.

 

[Trakar]

What area of prophecy would you like? Atmospheric temperatures, extreme weather, cyclones, hurricaines, ocean temperatures, precipitation, changes in seasons........

Yes, all please.

Cite and reference specific published predictions

and then an accompanying confirmation listing of failure to meet/match those predictions.

Here is a comprehensive site that lists the major climate models up to year 2006, their predictions and the observed data. As you can clearly see, they failed miserably.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

Unfortunately, the links here do not reference the actual models, claimed predictions, or link to the data so that the assertions they make can be examined or verified, if you care to present legitimate journal published references and/or links to the information that supports these assertions and claims I would be happy to examine them and if reasonable and accurate, accept and acknowledge the claims as supportive of your claims.

Here is the latest peer review regarding the failure of the oceans to heat up in spite of hansen's demand that they do so.

http://www.knmi.nl/publications/fulltexts/katsman_voldenborgh_grl_all.pdf

Please reference or link to Hansen's "prediction" and/or the model he used and the data which you claim represents a prediction which failed to resolve. Additionally, please clarify and explain how your claims square with the following statements in the above paper you present as evidence supportive of your claims:

...The analysis reveals that an
8-yr period without upper ocean warming is not exceptional.
It is explained by increased radiation to space (45%), largely
as a result of El Ni˜no variability on decadal timescales, and
by increased ocean warming at larger depths (35%), partly
due to a decrease in the strength of the Atlantic meridional
overturning circulation. Recently-observed changes in these
two large-scale modes of climate variability point to an up-
coming resumption of the upward trend in upper ocean heat
content...

Here is a quick chart showing hansen's predicted rate of ocean warming.

You are citing an anonymous blogger made graph with no link to the data which it is supposed to represent or indication that it even attempted to use legitimate methodology or practices in its construction. What exactly do you see this graph as an indication of?

please cite the science from which the data this graph is supposed to represent was derived, and the quote or reference to the asserted prediction by Hansen.

Here is a quick chart showing the three primary IPCC predictions of temperature increase vs UAH and Hadcrut:

Again an anonymous blogger graph with no link to the data it represents or definition of methodologies used in its construction. Please present the science and legitimate references and links

Here is a quick chart showing hansen's personal failure vs GISS and Hadcrut temperatures

More blogger scribbles without links or reference to data or actual science,...seriously, Nigerian princes who want you to help them with money transfers and promise to handsomely reward your efforts provide more verifiable supportive evidence than this.

Here is some peer review regarding the failure of the prediction of more and greater floods.

http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/1128/2/documents/2011EGU_DailyDischargeMaxima_Pres.pdf

Please reference the prediction you assert this paper refutes

Certainly not the increase predicted by the IPCC.

Another blog scribble without reference to the data, data treatment or methodology of construction, utterly useless in determining whether or not it is valid. Please cite the mentioned IPCC "prediction."

If you want more, then ask for specifics.

I asked for all the details and specifics you are aware of and you send me more unsupported assertions, reposted blog graphic scribbles without reference to data or the predictions you claim the data refutes. Please do try to provide any legitimate, peer-reviewed science that actually supports your assertions. I would be most interested in reviewing any information that compellingly refutes or overturns any actual mainstream scientific opinon or consideration.

 

[Meister]

I knew this was going to end bad. Trakar's info = Good, well documented amoungst the peer reviewed groupies on the take.
Wirebender' info = bad, not documented amoungst the peer reviewed groupies on the take.

This is why I won't jump through those hoops.

 

[saveliberty]

Faithers are soooooo predictable. Force their hand on CO2 and they bring up methane or ozone. Rarely will one ever look at ocean currents influenced by shifts in jet stream as a reason for sea ice melt. The Earth runs in cycles Faithers. Always has and always will. For most of it we weren't even on the planet.

I am really looking forward to the day you start screaming about an ice age returning. That should start about 2028.

 

[RollingThunder]

What area of prophecy would you like? Atmospheric temperatures, extreme weather, cyclones, hurricaines, ocean temperatures, precipitation, changes in seasons........

Yes, all please.

Cite and reference specific published predictions

and then an accompanying confirmation listing of failure to meet/match those predictions.

Here is a comprehensive site that lists the major climate models up to year 2006, their predictions and the observed data. As you can clearly see, they failed miserably.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm

LOLOLOLOLOL......more hypocritical 'cut and paste' from ol' wiredup&bentover.....and predictably, nothing but deceptional denier cult blogs and other sources of misinformation and pseudo-science. Of course ol' W&B can't actually meet the challenge Trakar gave him to "cite and reference specific published predictions" or find actual scientific confirmations that the prediction failed because he had no clue about the actual science and only goes by and parrots the lies and misinterpretations of the science that he gleans from braindead denier cult blogs.

Let's look at the first one he cites, warwickhughes.com, a really idiotic denier cult blog full of misinformation and lies. Let's take one example of the lies there as an indicator of the general lack of accuracy or truth displayed by these fossil fuel industry stooges.

Type of prediction -- Arctic warming

Model prediction -- 1.0 to 3.0 C/decade warming (IPCC 1995)

Actual measurements -- Temperatures now are nearly the same as they were in 1940, consistent with large oscillations rather than a trend.

Comments -- The arctic is probably warming due to ocean currents rather than greenhouse gases. A trend outside normal variations has not yet happened.

And now the reality:

Arctic Temperatures Are Warmest in 2,000 Years
LiveScience
03 September 2009
(excerpts)

Arctic air temperatures in the 1990s were the warmest in the last 2,000 years and were a result of rising greenhouse gas levels, a new study concludes. The findings, detailed in the Sept. 4 issue of the journal Science, also suggest that if it weren’t for these manmade pollutants, temperatures around the North Pole would actually be cooling as a result of natural climate patterns. The researchers uncovered this masked cooling trend by reconstructing Arctic temperatures over the past two millennia with data from Arctic lake sediments, glacial ice and tree rings, all of which provide records of the changes in temperatures up there.

Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. "If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said team member Bette Otto-Bliesner, also of NCAR.

The study found that the 10 years from 1999 to 2008 was the warmest in the Arctic in two millennia. Arctic temperatures are now 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 C) warmer than in 1900.

The new study follows previous work showing that temperatures over the last century warmed almost three times faster in the Arctic than elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. This phenomenon, called Arctic amplification, occurs as highly reflective Arctic ice and snow melt away, allowing dark land and exposed ocean to absorb more sunlight.
***

Here's some more recent info from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado:
1/5/11 - Air temperatures over eastern Siberia were 6 to 10 degrees Celsius (11 to 18 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal in December. Over the eastern Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Baffin Bay/Davis Strait and Hudson Bay, temperatures were at least 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. Southern Baffin Island had the largest anomalies, with temperatures over 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than normal.

7/18/11 - To date in July, air temperatures over the North Pole (at the 925 millibar level, or roughly 1,000 meters or 3,000 feet above the surface) were 6 to 8 degrees Celsius (11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than normal, while temperatures along the coasts of the Laptev and East Siberian seas were 3 to 5 degrees Celsius (5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average.


So, it turns out that the denier cult blog is lying, no surprise there, and the climate model predictions were, if anything, underestimating the speed with which temperatures in the Arctic would increase.


***