Arctic vs Antarctic Ice

[skookerasbil]

 

[Saigon]

Skooks -

Again - please limit your braindead spamming to your own illiterate threads, so that no one has to see them.

 

[skookerasbil]

Skooks -

Would you mind keeping the illiterate spam to your own threads?

You haven't read the material posted, and you couldn't.

From BusinessInsider Magazine, December 2012

People Are Losing Hope For Green Energy - Business Insider

So....the science matters???

Really??

Anybody with half a brain can figure out what the above graph means AND why the whole global warming debate is nothing more than an exercise in group navel contemplation via the internet.

 

[SSDD]

You really are the stupidest person on this forum, aren't you?

The science behind climate change dates from the 1860's, genius.

And the basis of AGW is still based on quaint 19th century experimentation which, incidentally was quickly proven mistaken by Professor Woods, and in all that time, there has not been a single solitary measurement taken substantiating the physics behind the AGW hypothesis.

Nahle 2011: Repeatability of Professor Robert W. Wood?s 1909 Experiment on the Theory of the Greenhouse | The Drinking Water Advisor

In 1909 an experiment was conducted at Johns Hopkins University by Professor Robert W. Wood demonstrating that the greenhouse effect cannot cause global warming. The following researcher has repeated the experiment. Through a series of controlled experiments, the warming effect in a real greenhouse is demonstrated to not be caused by longwave infrared radiation trapped inside the greenhouse, but to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the surroundings, as proven by Professor Wood in his 1909 experiment.

This Professor Woods? Are you truly that fucking dumb? Tyndall, Arrnenius all based their ideas on the absorption spectra of the GHGs. Nobody claimed that it operated the same as a greenhouse. It was just a convenient image.

Wow rocks, you and yours don't even understand what the experiment was about. It wasn't to prove that the greenhouse effect couldn't cause global warming, it was to prove that there is no greenhouse effect.

Your quaint 19th century "scientists" thought that the glass in a greenhouse was trapping IR and causing warming. Professor woods made a greenhouse out of rock salt which is invisible to IR and produced the same warming. His experiment proved that the so called greenhouse effect was due to the glass blocking convection and conduction with the outside atmosphere and not some IR trapping property of glass which could then be ascribed to a trace atmospheric gas.

Typical warmist strawman garbage.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

I really don't understand why you are posting on this thread.

You promised to look at the material, and although I see you are now claiming to have done so, none of your posts suggest that you have read and digested the science posted. The British Antarctic Survey is probably the best material available anywhere, and dismissing out of hand establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that you are not interested in science.

I have read the material and told you why I don't find it convincing. Repeating a lie that I have not read the material over and over isn't going to make it true. Is this how journalism is done where you come from? Lie over and over in the hope that it will become true.

I have told you why the material didn't convince me that man is responsible for the changing climate...that you apparently aren't bright enough to defend the material you posted, or instinctively know that it isn't defensible isn't my fault. I have read your material and found it wanting for the reasons I posted. Lying isn't an effective debate strategy.

 

[SSDD]

brw, SSDD, I won't respond to any more of your comments until you read the material you promised to read, and come up with a sensible, on-topic response to the science. Start by acknowledging that you now understand the difference between the Artic and Antarctic geography, for one.

If you expect to talk to me, don't post material from SS. I won't respond to it because it has all been torn to shreds. Of course, you wouldn't know that because they delete and edit any and all posts that challenge thier claims.

Further, a blog hardly qualifies as actual science. If you believe that blog entries are science, then you really are out there.

The point regarding the antarctic siagon, was that not so long ago, climate science predicted rapid melting...that is till rapid melting failed to materialize at which time they predicted no rapid melting. No change in the basic pysics of the models that made the incorrect predictions in the first place...just a changed prediction. And they do it over and over.

Global warming causes less snow except when it causes more snow...global warming causes less rain except when it causes flooding....global warming causes warmer winters except when it causes colder winters...global warming causes more tropical clclones except when it causes fewer tropical cyclones...global warming causes more tornadoes except when it causes fewer tornadoes...global warming causes more wildfires except when it causes fewer wildfires...and on and on. And you wonder why climate science is suffering a credibility crisis?

 

[IanC]

SkS and stevenGoddard's blog can hardly be considered unbiased. but that doesnt mean that they cannot have interesting material at times. Goddard immediately corrected and acknowledged a mistake I pointed out, SkS not so much.

 

[SSDD]

SkS and stevenGoddard's blog can hardly be considered unbiased. but that doesnt mean that they cannot have interesting material at times. Goddard immediately corrected and acknowledged a mistake I pointed out, SkS not so much.

Anyone who references a blog and calls it science isn't posting science unless the blog is only a gateway to actual science as is the case with my postings from the hocky schtick.

SKS is a joke and after their treament of Pielkie Sr., I don't read any of the drivel that escapes the confines of that cesspool.

 

[IanC]

SkS and stevenGoddard's blog can hardly be considered unbiased. but that doesnt mean that they cannot have interesting material at times. Goddard immediately corrected and acknowledged a mistake I pointed out, SkS not so much.

Anyone who references a blog and calls it science isn't posting science unless the blog is only a gateway to actual science as is the case with my postings from the hocky schtick.

SKS is a joke and after their treament of Pielkie Sr., I don't read any of the drivel that escapes the confines of that cesspool.

you are missing out on some of the funniest self-immolations to be had if you ignore SkS. Cook and his buddy Lewandowsky have been taking turns proving their idiocy lately. it is quite entertaining. although their libels against scientists is scurrilous, you simply have to know how these cretins think to be able to understand how the media has been tricked into believing that the Emperor is lavishly attired.

 

[Oddball]

Global warming causes less snow except when it causes more snow...global warming causes less rain except when it causes flooding....global warming causes warmer winters except when it causes colder winters...global warming causes more tropical clclones except when it causes fewer tropical cyclones...global warming causes more tornadoes except when it causes fewer tornadoes...global warming causes more wildfires except when it causes fewer wildfires...and on and on. And you wonder why climate science is suffering a credibility crisis?

And Mamoonbat claims the "science" is falsifiable!

 

[Katzndogz]

The climate isn't changing. Not one climate zone has shown any propensity of becoming another climate zone.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The antarctic has had periods of being ice free since 1513.

I guess it was all those campfires way back then.

Piri Reis map of Antarctica- Antarctica ice free!

Yes, ignore ice cores that go back 160,000 years. It was really recently ice-free, because a 1513 map happened to copy other maps where the mapmakers made up the coast of the mythical southern continent. A coast on the map which actually doesn't resemble Queen Maud land much, despite the claims of the article.

That's how denialists think. If reality contradicts you, just manufacture an entirely new reality, based on tossing away mountains of real data in favor of some bizarre legend.

Once again, you should have some basic understanding of the Piri Reis maps before feeling free to comment on it. Otherwise, you run the risk of looking like a complete fucking idiot like Saigon

 

[mamooth]

Once again, you should have some basic understanding of the Piri Reis maps before feeling free to comment on it.

I seem to know a lot more about it than you, given how you got it so wrong. You ran from the discussion, but surely that must have been an oversight, so I'll give you another go at it.

You've got a 1513 map made from copying and combining other maps. The coast to the south it doesn't really look like the coast of Queen Maud land. It looks much more like the coast of present-day Argentina, which is one possibility of where that coastline came from. Another is that is came from someone's imagination of the mythical southern continent.

On top of that, you have the ice cores from the region going back 160,000 years.

So, do explain to us how that all translates into "this proves Antarctica was recently ice-free!". Must be some of that special alien denialist logic which so unfathomable to our mere earth logic.

 

[mamooth]

The climate isn't changing. Not one climate zone has shown any propensity of becoming another climate zone.

The USDA disagrees with you most strongly. As would the direct observations of anyone who has done any gardening over the years.

USDA Unveils New Plant Hardiness Zone Map | USDA Newsroom

And please don't move the goalposts by tossing out a special definition of "climate zone", like a forest changing directly to desert, because no one is claiming that's what's happening.

I can see it's no longer possible to grow a blue spruce or sugar maple in my region. The trees tend to die off in the warmer climate. Direct evidence, gathered with my own eyes over the years, that the climate change is affecting the distribution of species.

 

[skookerasbil]

The climate isn't changing. Not one climate zone has shown any propensity of becoming another climate zone.

The USDA disagrees with you most strongly. As would the direct observations of anyone who has done any gardening over the years.

USDA Unveils New Plant Hardiness Zone Map | USDA Newsroom

And please don't move the goalposts by tossing out a special definition of "climate zone", like a forest changing directly to desert, because no one is claiming that's what's happening.

I can see it's no longer possible to grow a blue spruce or sugar maple in my region. The trees tend to die off in the warmer climate. Direct evidence, gathered with my own eyes over the years, that the climate change is affecting the distribution of species.

O o o o o o p s

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I acknowledge that you have conceded the debate.

The material presented included three absolutely first class scientific studies, none of which have been questioned or criticised by anyone.

You refuse to read them.

I doubt you can admit this to yourself, but anyone who reads the thread can see that it is so.

For instance, on another thread you asked what the difference between Arctic and Antarctic ice was. On this thread, I explained that. You ignored that, presumably so that you can repeat the same question on other threads. This is just ignoring facts.

Honestly man - when I started this thread I KNEW that you wouldn't read things like a British Antactic Survey. I knew it, and so did anyone else who follows these threads. Why you are going through the song and dance about blogs and bad sources I have no idea. The overview is mine, with one bit of text from a blog that I thought explained some of the basic science clearly, and then I sourced THREE scientific surveys from impeccable sources. All contain exactly the kind of field work and data you pretended to be asking for, genius!

 

[Oddball]

He hasn't conceded jack schitt.

What, in your mind, would disprove (i.e. falsify) Goebbels warming?

Please be specific.

 

[Saigon]

He hasn't conceded jack schitt.

What, in your mind, would disprove (i.e. falsify) Goebbels warming?

Please be specific.

A dozen different phenomena during the past 30 years would have disproved climate change, and these have been discussed quite a lot.

For instance:

- strong re-growth of the worlds glaciers (97% are in decline)

- a significant and prlonged fall in global temperatures

- record breaking cold years globally

- growing Arctic ice mass


It's not difficult stuff this - it just involves breaking away from the politics and actually looking at the facts without politics.

 

[IanC]

typical alarmist bullshit.

the world has warmed up since the Little Ice Age and the ice has been melting for more than 150 years. those are two undeniable facts. since 1950 we have been putting large amounts of CO2 into the air and there is a physical mechanism that predicts that surface temperatures should rise. one more fact and one contestable mechanism that may or may not work in the atmosphere the same as it does in a lab setting and in calculations where other factors are ignored or guessed at.

then comes climate 'science' global warming theory and models that take a small effect from the CO2 mechanism and multiply it up by a factor of three. these models and theories have been shown to be incorrect at every step, and the dire consequences and predictions are far in the future so there is no penalty for the prognosticators for being wrong. during the 90's climate conditions appeared to support AGW theory by coincidence and a 'consensus' was formed that it was right. since then climate conditions have not supported AGW theory and the scientists involved have biased many of the data sets by using up the 'slack' in calculations and methodologies, in the hopes that reality would soon turn back in their favour and before they had to admit all their very pretty, very expensive, and very alarming conclusions were simply wrong.

in other words saigon a reasonable person can accept warming, ice melting, and perhaps even a little extra warming from CO2 without having to accept the preposterous predictions of doom eminating from climate 'science' conclusions.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

I acknowledge that you have conceded the debate.

Are you really that much of a child? You have proven that you are a bald faced liar, willing to misquote other posters and repeat misinformation in a manner that would make gobbels proud.

The material presented included three absolutely first class scientific studies, none of which have been questioned or criticised by anyone.

Really? In which journals were they published? The materials I have provided calling your claims into question have been published in the following:

Geophysdical Research Letters
Implications of Arctic sea ice changes for NorthAtlantic deep convection and the meridionaloverturning circulation in CCSM4-CMIP5simulations - Jahn - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Quaternary Science Reviews
ScienceDirect.com - Quaternary Science Reviews - New insights on Arctic Quaternary climate variability from palaeo-records and numerical modelling

Copenhagen Centre for Ocean and Ice of the Danish Meteorological Institute
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

American Geophysical Union
A 5,000 year alkenone-based temperature record from Lower Murray Lake reveals a

Nature Geoscience
http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf

Science (AAAS)
2.8 Million Years of Arctic Climate Change from Lake El?gygytgyn, NE Russia

Geophysical Research Letters
Implications of Arctic sea ice changes for NorthAtlantic deep convection and the meridionaloverturning circulation in CCSM4-CMIP5simulations - Jahn - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

There are 7 peer reviewed published papers in reference to our conversations on ice alone. There is no telling how many I have posted covering all the topics we have discussed.

You claimed to have produced 3 "absolutely first class" papers. Did you? Or was that just another lie? Lets take a look at what you produced.

The first was a blog entry by a staff writer for a blog called Life's Little Mysteries
Record-High Antarctic Sea Ice Levels Don't Disprove Global Warming | Ice Cap Melting | LifesLittleMysteries.com

I didn't see any reference to anyting that was peer reviewed or published in that opinion piece.

The second was a press release from the British Antarctic Survey. Whyile they may be a resepectable organization, a press release does not constite a "first class paper' of any sort.

The third was simply a home page for Antarctic CLimate & Ecosystems....it was just a description of sea ice and how it might be measured. Again, not peer reviewed, or published in any journal.

You refuse to read them.

I read them all...liar which is how I so easliy pointed out that first they were not first class papers and second they were little more than opinion pieces and third that they represented proof of nothing more than how easily you can be duped. You, on the other hand didn't make the first comment on the actual science that I posted....published peer reviewed papers calling your claims into question. You didn't comment on them because you didn't read them.

Typical journalist tactic....accuse your opponent of the thing that you are doing.....ie not reading the materials presented by your opponent.

I doubt you can admit this to yourself, but anyone who reads the thread can see that it is so.

Nothing for me to admit as I have accurately described the materials that you misrepresented as "first class papers". You on the other hand may not be able to admit to yourself that you failed to read the actual peer reviewed, published science that I provided to you. Being a liar must suck...having such a poor opinion of yourself that you can't be honest with others must be a terrrible way to go through life.

As I stated before, if you can't manage some honesty, I really am not intersted in talking to you. It is one thing to be misled and honestly believe what you believe...it is another thing entirely to be a bald faced liar who misrepresents materials, misquotes other posters (Ian C in particular) and repeats a lie over and over hoping on hope that it becomes true.

Being a proponent of free speech, I generally don't report anyone for saying anything, but if you say one more time that I have refused to read your materials after having provided descriptions of their content more than once, I am going to report your behavior to the moderators on this board.