Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[frigidweirdo]

I disagree with you, in fact I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

You have two things. One is the oceans are warming and less CO2 is being taken up. Yeah, and? The other is the oceans aren't warming. Yeah, and? You haven't said which one you agree with, you've made statements and nothing more. So..... what do I say? I don't have anything to say.

Doesn't matter which I agree with...the point is that you can't have it both ways....

What data do I use to suggest we should be going through a period of natural cooling?

Do you see the time scale on those graphs?....with time scales like that do you really believe that you can say that we should be cooling now? What do you think the resolution on those graphs is?...and can you use that resolution to make 100 year predictions?

I didn't say I was having it either way. I haven't said which is either, and nor have you, which is why I'm a little confused as to why you're talking about it.

Do I think I can say something? Yes, I do. I might not be right. I'm not saying WE ARE HAVING NATURAL COOLING. I'm saying there is a possibility. I'm saying that any climate change model is going to have to deal with NATURAL change as well as man made change, and to predict what it SHOULD BE compared to what it is, is impossible.

So.....

However anyone can see from those charts what they believe happened with the temperatures, and anyone with eyes can see a pattern, and anyone with eyes can see the pattern seems to have been broken and we're seeing a rise when it looks like a fall.

So....

The potential for natural cooling is there, isn't it. Can you say for certain there is no natural cooling going on with man made warming that is making the man made warming look less? No you can't.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What the fuck are you talking about, you ignorant ass?

CO2 Levels for February Eclipsed Prehistoric Highs

February is one of the first months since before months had names to boast carbon dioxide concentrations at 400 parts per million.* Such CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have likely not been seen since at least the end of the Oligocene 23 million years ago, an 11-million-year-long epoch of gradual climate cooling that most likely saw CO2 concentrations drop from more than 1,000 ppm. Those of us alive today breathe air never tasted by any of our ancestors in the entire Homo genus.

You guys just flap your silly yaps, and never research anything that you claim. You are dead wrong, at the beginning of the last ice age, the CO2 levels were between 280 and 300 ppm.

Sorry rocks...I keep forgetting that you are one of those poor dupes who believes that the earth has exited the ice age that began at the mid point of the tertiary period and continues today and will continue till such time as there is no ice at the poles....as you can see from the graph below, when the decent into the ice age that continues today began, atmospheric CO2 was at about 1000ppm...

Do yourself a quick google of the term "current ice age" and read some of the 15,000 odd hits you get...learn something rocks...

Lordy, lordy, Cannot read a simple graph, eh. The current ice ages began about 2 million years ago. And the CO2 level was considerably less than 1000 ppm at that time. Since the Tertiary is roughly 65 millions years in length, two million years ago is hardly the midpoint.

So rocks....in order to melt the ice at one or both poles, and effectively end the ice age, the average mean temperature would need to reach about 18C...when has that happened?

My goodness, SSDD, you do enjoy playing the complete idiot. Melt enough ice to raise the sea level three feet, and most of the seaports in the world are in major trouble. With just on increase of 20 ppm over the normal 280, during the eemian period, about 130,000 years ago, the sea level was at least 20 feet higher than today. We have not even began to see the results of the present 400+ ppm in the atmosphere today. But that same inertia in the system means that when we do see it, we will be seeing it for a long time.

huh? Melting ice where?

Antarctica, where it matters.

Let me guess, you'll pull charts of ice covering a wider areas as "evidence" that there's MORE ice, even though it fails to take into account the thickness of that ice.

 

[jc456]

You've made a claim, but will you back it up?

Sure...it's basic chemistry.....refer to Henry's Law. Henry's law says that the solubility of a gas in a liquid depends on temperature, the partial pressure of the gas over the liquid, the nature of the solvent and the nature of the gas...if atmospheric temperatures increase, then the resulting warmer oceans will outgas more CO2 than they take up which will make the oceans more basic, not more acidic.

It's like this...either the oceans are getting warmer due to atmospheric warming in which case, the CO2 concentration in sea water is decreasing and therefore acidification from manmade CO2 is just more alarmist gibberish, or the oceans are cooling and absorbing manmade CO2 causing an insignificant amount of acidification which means that the increased CO2 level in the atmosphere is not causing warming, and not causing sea level rise....

so take your pick...you can't have both...warmer oceans due to CO2 induced warming which results in less acidic oceans or cooler oceans in spite of more atmospheric CO2 which results in slightly more acidic oceans but puts the lie to the claim of warming due to more atmospheric CO2...

As per normal, you don't have a fucking clue as to what you are talking about.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2009.95
DOI
10.5670/oceanog.2009.95
The uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the global ocean induces fundamental changes in seawater chemistry that could have dramatic impacts on biological ecosystems in the upper ocean. Estimates based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) business-as-usual emission scenarios suggest that atmospheric CO2 levels could approach 800 ppm near the end of the century. Corresponding biogeochemical models for the ocean indicate that surface water pH will drop from a pre-industrial value of about 8.2 to about 7.8 in the IPCC A2 scenario by the end of this century, increasing the ocean’s acidity by about 150% relative to the beginning of the industrial era. In contemporary ocean water, elevated CO2 will also cause substantial reductions in surface water carbonate ion concentrations, in terms of either absolute changes or fractional changes relative to pre-industrial levels. For most open-ocean surface waters, aragonite undersaturation occurs when carbonate ion concentrations drop below approximately 66 μmol kg-1. The model projections indicate that aragonite undersaturation will start to occur by about 2020 in the Arctic Ocean and 2050 in the Southern Ocean. By 2050, all of the Arctic will be undersaturated with respect to aragonite, and by 2095, all of the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Pacific will be undersaturated. For calcite, undersaturation occurs when carbonate ion concentration drops below 42 μmol kg-1. By 2095, most of the Arctic and some parts of the Bering and Chukchi seas will be undersaturated with respect to calcite. However, in most of the other ocean basins, the surface waters will still be saturated with respect to calcite, but at a level greatly reduced from the present.

Good old rocks...you have a failing model, or a prediction based on a failing model for every occasion, don't you...Your link is chock full of could, estimates, suggestions, models, indications based on models, and on and on...Once again, no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW.....just more models and baseless predictions founded upon them. Good job....not.

It must be great when you go into a debate and you know what you're going to say to any evidence presented. You just say it's a model that doesn't work based on evident that isn't good. Then you feel like you can't lose.

The problem happens when things go wrong, I mean, like the world goes wrong, then what?

well, why is it when it is proven to be a model and not observed, do the warmers continue to post the same exact material. What is it that you all can't understand about the word Observed? Have you looked that word up and if so, do you even understand its meaning? I have to say, you are truly funny that you can't figure out the difference between what is modeled data and observed data. Funny. Hey, can you science? I didn't think so, cause you have no clue.

 

[jc456]

Sorry rocks...I keep forgetting that you are one of those poor dupes who believes that the earth has exited the ice age that began at the mid point of the tertiary period and continues today and will continue till such time as there is no ice at the poles....as you can see from the graph below, when the decent into the ice age that continues today began, atmospheric CO2 was at about 1000ppm...

Do yourself a quick google of the term "current ice age" and read some of the 15,000 odd hits you get...learn something rocks...

Lordy, lordy, Cannot read a simple graph, eh. The current ice ages began about 2 million years ago. And the CO2 level was considerably less than 1000 ppm at that time. Since the Tertiary is roughly 65 millions years in length, two million years ago is hardly the midpoint.

So rocks....in order to melt the ice at one or both poles, and effectively end the ice age, the average mean temperature would need to reach about 18C...when has that happened?

My goodness, SSDD, you do enjoy playing the complete idiot. Melt enough ice to raise the sea level three feet, and most of the seaports in the world are in major trouble. With just on increase of 20 ppm over the normal 280, during the eemian period, about 130,000 years ago, the sea level was at least 20 feet higher than today. We have not even began to see the results of the present 400+ ppm in the atmosphere today. But that same inertia in the system means that when we do see it, we will be seeing it for a long time.

huh? Melting ice where?

Antarctica, where it matters.

Let me guess, you'll pull charts of ice covering a wider areas as "evidence" that there's MORE ice, even though it fails to take into account the thickness of that ice.

but, where is it melting? Show us.

 

[Old Rocks]

• 
  Explore this journal >

1. Previous article in issue: Middepth circulation of the eastern tropical South Pacific and its link to the oxygen minimum zone
   
   
   
2. Next article in issue: Temporal and spatial dynamics of CO2 air-sea flux in the Gulf of Maine
   

View issue TOC
Volume 116, Issue C1
January 2011

Heat sources for glacial melt in a sub-Arctic fjord (Godthåbsfjord) in contact with the Greenland Ice Sheet
Authors


Abstract
[1] Recent warming of Subpolar Mode Water off Greenland has been suggested to accelerate the mass loss from tidal outlet glaciers of the Greenland Ice Sheet. We present a comprehensive analysis of water masses, dynamics, and interannual hydrographic variability in Godthåbsfjord, a sill fjord in contact with tidal outlet glaciers on the west coast of Greenland. Through seasonal observations we recognize an intermediate baroclinic circulation mode driven by tidal currents and an associated important local heat source for the fjord. During summer this results in significant warming and freshening of the intermediate layer of the main fjord, and the increase in heat content is equivalent to melting of ∼2.1 km3 of glacial ice. This is comparable to ∼8 km3 glacial ice discharge estimated from the Kangiata Nunâta Sermia calving front per year. During winter the external heat source in the West Greenland Current enters the fjord as intermittent inflows of either cold (<2°C) or warm (>2°C) dense water in pulses of 1 to 3 months duration. Four distinct circulation modes are observed in the fjord, of which all can contribute to glacial ice melt. An important aspect of the ice distribution in the fjord is that only a minor fraction is exported out of the fjord.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JC006528/full

Full text if you really want to find out.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You've made a claim, but will you back it up?

Sure...it's basic chemistry.....refer to Henry's Law. Henry's law says that the solubility of a gas in a liquid depends on temperature, the partial pressure of the gas over the liquid, the nature of the solvent and the nature of the gas...if atmospheric temperatures increase, then the resulting warmer oceans will outgas more CO2 than they take up which will make the oceans more basic, not more acidic.

It's like this...either the oceans are getting warmer due to atmospheric warming in which case, the CO2 concentration in sea water is decreasing and therefore acidification from manmade CO2 is just more alarmist gibberish, or the oceans are cooling and absorbing manmade CO2 causing an insignificant amount of acidification which means that the increased CO2 level in the atmosphere is not causing warming, and not causing sea level rise....

so take your pick...you can't have both...warmer oceans due to CO2 induced warming which results in less acidic oceans or cooler oceans in spite of more atmospheric CO2 which results in slightly more acidic oceans but puts the lie to the claim of warming due to more atmospheric CO2...

As per normal, you don't have a fucking clue as to what you are talking about.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2009.95
DOI
10.5670/oceanog.2009.95
The uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the global ocean induces fundamental changes in seawater chemistry that could have dramatic impacts on biological ecosystems in the upper ocean. Estimates based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) business-as-usual emission scenarios suggest that atmospheric CO2 levels could approach 800 ppm near the end of the century. Corresponding biogeochemical models for the ocean indicate that surface water pH will drop from a pre-industrial value of about 8.2 to about 7.8 in the IPCC A2 scenario by the end of this century, increasing the ocean’s acidity by about 150% relative to the beginning of the industrial era. In contemporary ocean water, elevated CO2 will also cause substantial reductions in surface water carbonate ion concentrations, in terms of either absolute changes or fractional changes relative to pre-industrial levels. For most open-ocean surface waters, aragonite undersaturation occurs when carbonate ion concentrations drop below approximately 66 μmol kg-1. The model projections indicate that aragonite undersaturation will start to occur by about 2020 in the Arctic Ocean and 2050 in the Southern Ocean. By 2050, all of the Arctic will be undersaturated with respect to aragonite, and by 2095, all of the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Pacific will be undersaturated. For calcite, undersaturation occurs when carbonate ion concentration drops below 42 μmol kg-1. By 2095, most of the Arctic and some parts of the Bering and Chukchi seas will be undersaturated with respect to calcite. However, in most of the other ocean basins, the surface waters will still be saturated with respect to calcite, but at a level greatly reduced from the present.

Good old rocks...you have a failing model, or a prediction based on a failing model for every occasion, don't you...Your link is chock full of could, estimates, suggestions, models, indications based on models, and on and on...Once again, no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW.....just more models and baseless predictions founded upon them. Good job....not.

It must be great when you go into a debate and you know what you're going to say to any evidence presented. You just say it's a model that doesn't work based on evident that isn't good. Then you feel like you can't lose.

The problem happens when things go wrong, I mean, like the world goes wrong, then what?

well, why is it when it is proven to be a model and not observed, do the warmers continue to post the same exact material. What is it that you all can't understand about the word Observed? Have you looked that word up and if so, do you even understand its meaning? I have to say, you are truly funny that you can't figure out the difference between what is modeled data and observed data. Funny. Hey, can you science? I didn't think so, cause you have no clue.

Scientists do their thing. What they then publish gets reported. What people do with information after the fact is not the fault of the scientists, is it?

You keep going on about "observed", I understand what it means, however you seem to be using it as some kind of tool to be able to ignore everything.

Observed is what is seen. Observed can be seen in a variety of different ways. Ice core is observed. But maybe you'd say this isn't observed. Words often convey what people THINK they convey, and two people might have different views on what this word is saying in a specific context.

As for me having no clue. This is the last warning, if you continue to try and use silly tricks like this, i'm out of this conversation with you.

 

[Old Rocks]

The influence of North Atlantic atmospheric and oceanic forcing effects on 1900–2010 Greenland summer climate and ice melt/runoff
Authors
Correlation analysis of Greenland coastal weather station temperatures against the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) indices for the summer season (when Ice Sheet melt and runoff occur) reveals significant temporal variations over the last 100 years, with periods of strongest correlations in the early twentieth century and during recent decades. During the mid-twentieth century, temperature changes at the stations are not significantly correlated with these circulation indices. Greenland coastal summer temperatures and Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) runoff since the 1970s are more strongly correlated with the Greenland Blocking Index (GBI) than with the NAO Index (NAOI), making the GBI a potentially useful predictor of ice-sheet mass balance changes. Our results show that the changing strength of NAOI–temperature relationships found in boreal winter also extends to summer over Greenland. Greenland temperatures and GrIS runoff over the last 30–40 years are significantly correlated with AMO variations, although they are more strongly correlated with GBI changes. GrIS melt extent is less significantly correlated with atmospheric and oceanic index changes than runoff, which we attribute to the latter being a more quantitative index of Ice Sheet response to climate change. Moreover, the four recent warm summers of 2007–2010 are characterised by unprecedented high pressure (since at least 1948—the start of the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis record) in the tropospheric column. Our results suggest complex and changing atmospheric forcing conditions that are not well captured using the NAO alone, and support theories of an oceanic influence on the recent increases in Greenland temperatures and GrIS runoff. Copyright © 2012 Royal Meteorological Society

The influence of North Atlantic atmospheric and oceanic forcing effects on 1900–2010 Greenland summer climate and ice melt/runoff - Hanna - 2012 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library

Translation just for jc, a warming atmosphere is melting the ice.

 

[jc456]

• 
  
  
  • 
    Explore this journal >

1. 
   
   
   • Previous article in issue: Middepth circulation of the eastern tropical South Pacific and its link to the oxygen minimum zone
     
   • Next article in issue: Temporal and spatial dynamics of CO2 air-sea flux in the Gulf of Maine

View issue TOC
Volume 116, Issue C1
January 2011

Heat sources for glacial melt in a sub-Arctic fjord (Godthåbsfjord) in contact with the Greenland Ice Sheet
Authors


Abstract
[1] Recent warming of Subpolar Mode Water off Greenland has been suggested to accelerate the mass loss from tidal outlet glaciers of the Greenland Ice Sheet. We present a comprehensive analysis of water masses, dynamics, and interannual hydrographic variability in Godthåbsfjord, a sill fjord in contact with tidal outlet glaciers on the west coast of Greenland. Through seasonal observations we recognize an intermediate baroclinic circulation mode driven by tidal currents and an associated important local heat source for the fjord. During summer this results in significant warming and freshening of the intermediate layer of the main fjord, and the increase in heat content is equivalent to melting of ∼2.1 km3 of glacial ice. This is comparable to ∼8 km3 glacial ice discharge estimated from the Kangiata Nunâta Sermia calving front per year. During winter the external heat source in the West Greenland Current enters the fjord as intermittent inflows of either cold (<2°C) or warm (>2°C) dense water in pulses of 1 to 3 months duration. Four distinct circulation modes are observed in the fjord, of which all can contribute to glacial ice melt. An important aspect of the ice distribution in the fjord is that only a minor fraction is exported out of the fjord.

Heat sources for glacial melt in a sub-Arctic fjord (Godthåbsfjord) in contact with the Greenland Ice Sheet - Mortensen - 2011 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans - Wiley Online Library

Full text if you really want to find out.

It is a seasonal event. Not sure what your point is from this document. can you explain?

 

[Skull Pilot]

You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong!

When will I be wrong?
1. IF we see a moderate nina year that turns out to be .56 or .58c...That is wrong. Rip me a part as a idiot!
2. If we see below .64c in a weak nina! Rip me apart as a idiot!

3. On the other hand it is a possibility that we may hit or break last years record in a neutral year so a high side prediction is wrong but it only proves a warming world!
-------------------------------------------------------
These are the ranges that the means should fall into. All data points GISS(Nasa)!

I will predict that Neutral years will avg near .75c-.80c for 2017-2020 and .77 to .83c for 2021 to 2024. The possibility is there that one could get over .85c during the later part of the period during a neutral year.

Weak ninas(-.5 to -.9c) could see global avg temperatures between .69-.74c. In comparison, 2005's .69 or 2014's global yearly temperature.

Moderate ninas(-1 to -1.4c) will probably see global avg yearly temperatures near .66c +- .3c. Probably warmer then 1998!

Strong Nina's(-1.5c to -2.0) will probably see .58 to .65c depending on how strong. Likelyhood of a .5c yearly global temperature will only occur in a -1.8c or above nina.

Every prediction has been wrong so far.

Why should we believe this one?

 

[Old Rocks]

Didn't read even the abstract, jc? It is not seasonal, the water is warmer than 2 C for much of the winter, that will melt the ice. You asked for just one place where the ice was melting. You got it in spades. You are simply too stupid too understand what you are reading.

 

[Old Rocks]

You skeptics and deniers often say why don't we warmers make predictions that are in the short term so we can be called out for them? Well, I am going to make a few and tie them in with the enso. I am making a assumption that the global temperature will be .05-.1c warmer based on the giss dataset then we were pre-2015-2016 nino. I will put my credibility on the line and I want a mod to pin this at the top of this forum for skeptics/deniers to rip me apart when I get it wrong!

When will I be wrong?
1. IF we see a moderate nina year that turns out to be .56 or .58c...That is wrong. Rip me a part as a idiot!
2. If we see below .64c in a weak nina! Rip me apart as a idiot!

3. On the other hand it is a possibility that we may hit or break last years record in a neutral year so a high side prediction is wrong but it only proves a warming world!
-------------------------------------------------------
These are the ranges that the means should fall into. All data points GISS(Nasa)!

I will predict that Neutral years will avg near .75c-.80c for 2017-2020 and .77 to .83c for 2021 to 2024. The possibility is there that one could get over .85c during the later part of the period during a neutral year.

Weak ninas(-.5 to -.9c) could see global avg temperatures between .69-.74c. In comparison, 2005's .69 or 2014's global yearly temperature.

Moderate ninas(-1 to -1.4c) will probably see global avg yearly temperatures near .66c +- .3c. Probably warmer then 1998!

Strong Nina's(-1.5c to -2.0) will probably see .58 to .65c depending on how strong. Likelyhood of a .5c yearly global temperature will only occur in a -1.8c or above nina.

Every prediction has been wrong so far.

Why should we believe this one?

Now that is one really stupid thing to state. You people were first stating that it was not warming, and when it became so evident that it is warming, you changed your tune to 'it's natural variability'. Is is you asshole deniers that have failed completely in your predictions.

You were all talking about no warming since 1998, yet here we are with 2015 totally blowing away the warming in 1998. The ice continues to melt to in the Arctic, Greenland, and Antarctic, the alpine glaciers worldwide continue to retreat. Why the lies, Skull? What are you gaining by that, other than loosing any credibility that you have left?

 

[jc456]

Sure...it's basic chemistry.....refer to Henry's Law. Henry's law says that the solubility of a gas in a liquid depends on temperature, the partial pressure of the gas over the liquid, the nature of the solvent and the nature of the gas...if atmospheric temperatures increase, then the resulting warmer oceans will outgas more CO2 than they take up which will make the oceans more basic, not more acidic.

It's like this...either the oceans are getting warmer due to atmospheric warming in which case, the CO2 concentration in sea water is decreasing and therefore acidification from manmade CO2 is just more alarmist gibberish, or the oceans are cooling and absorbing manmade CO2 causing an insignificant amount of acidification which means that the increased CO2 level in the atmosphere is not causing warming, and not causing sea level rise....

so take your pick...you can't have both...warmer oceans due to CO2 induced warming which results in less acidic oceans or cooler oceans in spite of more atmospheric CO2 which results in slightly more acidic oceans but puts the lie to the claim of warming due to more atmospheric CO2...

As per normal, you don't have a fucking clue as to what you are talking about.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2009.95
DOI
10.5670/oceanog.2009.95
The uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the global ocean induces fundamental changes in seawater chemistry that could have dramatic impacts on biological ecosystems in the upper ocean. Estimates based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) business-as-usual emission scenarios suggest that atmospheric CO2 levels could approach 800 ppm near the end of the century. Corresponding biogeochemical models for the ocean indicate that surface water pH will drop from a pre-industrial value of about 8.2 to about 7.8 in the IPCC A2 scenario by the end of this century, increasing the ocean’s acidity by about 150% relative to the beginning of the industrial era. In contemporary ocean water, elevated CO2 will also cause substantial reductions in surface water carbonate ion concentrations, in terms of either absolute changes or fractional changes relative to pre-industrial levels. For most open-ocean surface waters, aragonite undersaturation occurs when carbonate ion concentrations drop below approximately 66 μmol kg-1. The model projections indicate that aragonite undersaturation will start to occur by about 2020 in the Arctic Ocean and 2050 in the Southern Ocean. By 2050, all of the Arctic will be undersaturated with respect to aragonite, and by 2095, all of the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Pacific will be undersaturated. For calcite, undersaturation occurs when carbonate ion concentration drops below 42 μmol kg-1. By 2095, most of the Arctic and some parts of the Bering and Chukchi seas will be undersaturated with respect to calcite. However, in most of the other ocean basins, the surface waters will still be saturated with respect to calcite, but at a level greatly reduced from the present.

Good old rocks...you have a failing model, or a prediction based on a failing model for every occasion, don't you...Your link is chock full of could, estimates, suggestions, models, indications based on models, and on and on...Once again, no actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW.....just more models and baseless predictions founded upon them. Good job....not.

It must be great when you go into a debate and you know what you're going to say to any evidence presented. You just say it's a model that doesn't work based on evident that isn't good. Then you feel like you can't lose.

The problem happens when things go wrong, I mean, like the world goes wrong, then what?

well, why is it when it is proven to be a model and not observed, do the warmers continue to post the same exact material. What is it that you all can't understand about the word Observed? Have you looked that word up and if so, do you even understand its meaning? I have to say, you are truly funny that you can't figure out the difference between what is modeled data and observed data. Funny. Hey, can you science? I didn't think so, cause you have no clue.

Scientists do their thing. What they then publish gets reported. What people do with information after the fact is not the fault of the scientists, is it?

You keep going on about "observed", I understand what it means, however you seem to be using it as some kind of tool to be able to ignore everything.

Observed is what is seen. Observed can be seen in a variety of different ways. Ice core is observed. But maybe you'd say this isn't observed. Words often convey what people THINK they convey, and two people might have different views on what this word is saying in a specific context.

As for me having no clue. This is the last warning, if you continue to try and use silly tricks like this, i'm out of this conversation with you.

yes ice cores are observed. why are scientists changing the records off of those ice cores?

 

[Old Rocks]

Link, or be shown to be a lying asshole.

 

[jc456]

Didn't read even the abstract, jc? It is not seasonal, the water is warmer than 2 C for much of the winter, that will melt the ice. You asked for just one place where the ice was melting. You got it in spades. You are simply too stupid too understand what you are reading.

did you read it? It says right here in your own abstract:

"Through seasonal observations we recognize an intermediate baroclinic circulation mode driven by tidal currents and an associated important local heat source for the fjord. During summer this results in significant warming and freshening of the intermediate layer of the main fjord, and the increase in heat content is equivalent to melting of ∼2.1 km3 of glacial ice. This is comparable to ∼8 km3 glacial ice discharge estimated from the Kangiata Nunâta Sermia calving front per year. During winter the external heat source in the West Greenland Current enters the fjord as intermittent inflows of either cold (<2°C) or warm (>2°C) dense water in pulses of 1 to 3 months duration. Four distinct circulation modes are observed in the fjord, of which all can contribute to glacial ice melt. An important aspect of the ice distribution in the fjord is that only a minor fraction is exported out of the fjord.

What is it you think I missed. And did you read the full article? I read 75% of it. Now there is nothing there making any claim that floods are a likely outcome. Nope!

Freshwater is a big word you should also understand. Freshwater is from the melt. It happens every year in summer. Wow dude.

Oh, Calving is normal.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why yes, freshwater is from the ice melt. And it freezes to ice in the winter on the surface. And is subject to melting during the winter from below by the pulses of ocean water that are at 2 degrees Celsius. Just for your information, fresh water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. Now you know something you didn't before.

Poor jc, really has some catching up to do. Reading comprehension and basic science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Where's the link to the change in the interpretation of the ice cores?

 

[jc456]

Why yes, freshwater is from the ice melt. And it freezes to ice in the winter on the surface. And is subject to melting during the winter from below by the pulses of ocean water that are at 2 degrees Celsius. Just for your information, fresh water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius. Now you know something you didn't before.

Poor jc, really has some catching up to do. Reading comprehension and basic science.

so still don't see how that is going to make 3 feet of sea level increase. it is all been happening in the arctic since it first froze over. So, still socks no point except that nothing you presented is evidence that a sea wall of water is headed south. so, again, you failed.

 

[jc456]

Where's the link to the change in the interpretation of the ice cores?

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special

Excerpt:
"NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special"

 

[SSDD]

No doubt that the bulk of warmer wacko claims are the result of data manipulation...the rest are based on the output of failed climate models.

 

[Old Rocks]

Where's the link to the change in the interpretation of the ice cores?

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special

Excerpt:
"NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special"

jc, nothing about ice cores in that, you lying SOB. And John Coleman has zero credentials or credibility.

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special

NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special
Press Release From: KUSI-TV
Posted: Thursday, January 14, 2010

Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as "THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD." KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on Jan.14 at 9 p.m. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14th at www.kusi.com.

In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. Government's two primary climate centers: the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) in Ashville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D'Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf.