US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?

This is a discussion on 2015, the beginning of ice free arctic? within the Environment forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon Wailing Wall - Right - you also know Frank doesn't post and discuss science. Thanks for that. Very few Fundamentalists ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Environment

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2013, 03:49 AM
SSDD's Avatar
Registered User
Member #40906
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,330
Thanks: 465
Thanked 1,075 Times in 816 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 620
SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet
Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon View Post
Wailing Wall -

Right - you also know Frank doesn't post and discuss science. Thanks for that.

Very few Fundamentalists are prepared to get into a free and open discussion about any real scientific evidence, because they know they will end up backing positions that are simly untenable. It's as simple as that.

Why do you think SSDD refused to read and comment on the British Antractic Survery data?

Because if he had done, he'd have had to admit that he was wrong - simple as that.
Ok...to prove that it is you who are the fundamentalist, lets debate the science. I say that a trace gas in the atmosphere can not recycle more energy to the surface of the earth than the surface of the earth receives from the sun. A situation like that would be a violation of both the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The present energy budget in use claims this is happening due to an incorrect use of the SB black body equations.

Show me the actual science that says I am wrong. Show me the observed, experimental evidence that proves that the energy budget upon which present climate models are based is correct.

So lets talk science of shut the hell up.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!
  #92 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2013, 03:52 AM
SSDD's Avatar
Registered User
Member #40906
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,330
Thanks: 465
Thanked 1,075 Times in 816 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 620
SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet
Quote: Originally Posted by IanC View Post
saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.
In my own defense, I do read the contrary evidence....I just don't find it particularly convincing....especially in light of recent hypotheses, models, and actual confirming experiments that demonstrate pretty convincingly that climate science based on trenberth's model simply is not, and never will be correct.
Reply With Quote
  #93 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2013, 04:06 AM
IanC's Avatar
Registered User
Member #21028
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,775
Thanks: 787
Thanked 1,552 Times in 1,170 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 434
IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness
Quote: Originally Posted by SSDD View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by IanC View Post
saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.
In my own defense, I do read the contrary evidence....I just don't find it particularly convincing....especially in light of recent hypotheses, models, and actual confirming experiments that demonstrate pretty convincingly that climate science based on trenberth's model simply is not, and never will be correct.

you know, i didnt really mean to do more than just show that you two are only at opposite ends of the spectrum. perhaps one of you is 'right'. but we cannot determine that by the available information.

what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.
__________________
There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain. -Whitehead

”The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” (Bertrand Russell).
Reply With Quote
  #94 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2013, 04:11 AM
SSDD's Avatar
Registered User
Member #40906
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,330
Thanks: 465
Thanked 1,075 Times in 816 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 620
SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet
Quote: Originally Posted by IanC View Post
you know, i didnt really mean to do more than just show that you two are only at opposite ends of the spectrum. perhaps one of you is 'right'. but we cannot determine that by the available information.

what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.
Till I see some actual evidence that points in the direction of my position being wrong, exactly why should I express doubt? The warmist position is nothing but evidence upon evidence upon evidence that their position IS wrong. Their models are wrong, their predictions are wrong, their sciecne is wrong because it is based on a flawed interpretation of physical laws beginning with the very foundation of their claims...that being the trenberth energy budget and model.

Even as a luke warmist you don't believe that model is correct do you?

Last edited by SSDD; 02-11-2013 at 04:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #95 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2013, 04:38 AM
IanC's Avatar
Registered User
Member #21028
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,775
Thanks: 787
Thanked 1,552 Times in 1,170 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 434
IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness
Quote: Originally Posted by SSDD View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by IanC View Post
you know, i didnt really mean to do more than just show that you two are only at opposite ends of the spectrum. perhaps one of you is 'right'. but we cannot determine that by the available information.

what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.
Till I see some actual evidence that points in the direction of my position being wrong, exactly why should I express doubt? The warmist position is nothing but evidence upon evidence upon evidence that their position IS wrong. Their models are wrong, their predictions are wrong, their sciecne is wrong because it is based on a flawed interpretation of physical laws beginning with the very foundation of their claims...that being the trenberth energy budget and model.

Even as a luke warmist you don't believe that model is correct do you?

I have never said that I believe in any of the climate models. that does not mean that there is no purpose in developing them. they just shouldnt be used to make dire predictions about the future because they are all wrong, to a greater or lesser degree.
__________________
There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain. -Whitehead

”The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” (Bertrand Russell).
Reply With Quote
  #96 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2013, 09:19 AM
CrusaderFrank's Avatar
Tuscany
Member #19448
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 50,116
Thanks: 20,213
Thanked 18,225 Times in 11,465 Posts
Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 11282
CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati
CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati CrusaderFrank gives orders to the Illuminati
Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon View Post
Frank -

Exactly. Nowhere on this board have you ever, or will you ever, enter into a debate about climate change.

Topics like farting and what to do with a gram of smack I dare say you're more likely to discuss at length.


Try debating this guy on his beliefs, you cant nobody can. It's the same way with you AGWCultists, there's no reasoning with you.

You have your beliefs and hold them as dearly as Applegate held his.
__________________
Sent from my Encryption defeating NSA Supercomputer made of Xbox and Nintendo parts sold to the Chinese using Tapatalk 2

"Democrats have been in Washington, D.C. only because of the Negro vote. They've been down there for years and all the legislation they wanted to bring up they brought up and got it out of the way, and now they bring up you. You put them first and they put you last, cause you are a chump (huge applause). A political chump." -- Malcolm X
Reply With Quote
  #97 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:49 AM
polarbear's Avatar
I eat morons
Member #27364
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,284
Thanks: 357
Thanked 796 Times in 553 Posts
Mentioned: 21 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 588
polarbear is faster than a speeding bullet polarbear is faster than a speeding bullet polarbear is faster than a speeding bullet polarbear is faster than a speeding bullet polarbear is faster than a speeding bullet polarbear is faster than a speeding bullet polarbear is faster than a speeding bullet polarbear is faster than a speeding bullet polarbear is faster than a speeding bullet polarbear is faster than a speeding bullet polarbear is faster than a speeding bullet polarbear is faster than a speeding bullet polarbear is faster than a speeding bullet polarbear is faster than a speeding bullet polarbear is faster than a speeding bullet
What can be determined

Quote: Originally Posted by IanC View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by SSDD View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by IanC View Post
saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.
In my own defense, I do read the contrary evidence....I just don't find it particularly convincing....especially in light of recent hypotheses, models, and actual confirming experiments that demonstrate pretty convincingly that climate science based on trenberth's model simply is not, and never will be correct.

you know, i didnt really mean to do more than just show that you two are only at opposite ends of the spectrum. perhaps one of you is 'right'. but we cannot determine that by the available information.

what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.
There is a whole lot that can and has been determined and none of it has anything to to with beliefs.
Examples are that only 43% of the IPCC data correlates and the other 53 % show that there is no correlation at all...
That the IPCC continues to bend the truth,...first the ARP3 hockey stick and now with IPCC`s ARP 4 where the IPCC chose to ignore a study conducted by a large body of scientists which showed that there is an 89% correlation with the so far OBSERVED global temperatures and the OBSERVED solar irradiance.
That the IPCC appoints global warming activists as "experts" who then get to "peer review" their own statements.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...WSJ_June12.pdf
Quote:
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
A major deception on 'global warming'
Seitz, Frederick;




Abstract:
Frederick Seitz asserts that the report on global warming released in Jun 1996 by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not the same version that was approved by the contributing body of scientists listed on the title page. Seitz explains how the events that led to the IPCC report are "a disturbing corruption of the peer-review process" and says the deleted passages removed "hints of the skepticism" with which many scientists regard claims about global warming


A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version.The scientists were assumingth at the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules --
The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to
anthropogenic[m an-made] causes."
-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

About Global Warming, United Nations Doubles Down On Ignorance - Forbes

Quote:
About Global Warming, United Nations Doubles Down On Ignorance


Although IPCC claims it only appoints scientists at the very top of their profession to oversee its reports, it appointed several people without Ph.D.’s, or even Masters Degrees, as Lead Authors for its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. IPCC also appointed scientists affiliated with environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace, Environmental Defense, and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) to steer the direction of the Report. Indeed, Laframboise documented formal connections between at least 78 IPCC scientists and the World Wildlife Fund environmental activist group.
WWF-affiliated scientists helped craft at least two-thirds of the Fourth Assessment chapters, Laframboise reported. WWF-affiliated scientists actually led one-third of the chapters. One chapter was crafted by at least eight WWF-affiliated scientists.
130 “leading climate scientists” have now joined WWF to work with the activist group, supplementing the 78 IPCC participants in the 2007 Report.
IPCC WG3 and the Greenpeace Karaoke « Climate Audit

Articles: IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

Quote:
On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had "complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world's science academies to provide advice to international bodies."


The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give "due consideration ... to properly documented alternative views" (p. 20), fail to "provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors" (p. 21), and are not "consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses" (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.
The IAC found that "the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors" and "the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents" (p. 18).
This much we do know for certain and all the above can and has been verified and with very little trouble You can verify that Yourself. Or perhaps You prefer not to..???
Quote:
but we cannot determine that by the available information.
what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.
Others have said here already...:
"You can`t debate with an occult"...and they may be right
__________________

I`m after the bear facts and don't give a damn about consensus opinion
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to polarbear For This Useful Post:
CrusaderFrank (02-11-2013), SSDD (02-11-2013), westwall (02-11-2013)
  #98 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2013, 03:49 PM
mamooth's Avatar
Registered User
Member #39072
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 4,228
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,510 Times in 1,056 Posts
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 1188
mamooth could be on the Supreme Court
mamooth could be on the Supreme Court mamooth could be on the Supreme Court mamooth could be on the Supreme Court mamooth could be on the Supreme Court mamooth could be on the Supreme Court mamooth could be on the Supreme Court mamooth could be on the Supreme Court mamooth could be on the Supreme Court mamooth could be on the Supreme Court mamooth could be on the Supreme Court mamooth could be on the Supreme Court mamooth could be on the Supreme Court mamooth could be on the Supreme Court mamooth could be on the Supreme Court
Quote: Originally Posted by IanC View Post
saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.
Phony equivalence bullshit. It's like declaring a round-earther is just "inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence" as a flat-earther. Might be true, but it's because the round-earther is FREAKIN' CORRECT.

SSDD and all the denialists suck hard at the science. They don't have a clue about the physics, statistics, logic, history, chemistry, geology, anything. The get it all wrong. Yes, we are inflexible in pointing out how awful they are, and that's a good thing.
Reply With Quote
  #99 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2013, 06:25 PM
RollingThunder's Avatar
Registered User
Member #22971
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,729
Thanks: 233
Thanked 477 Times in 382 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
RollingThunder is off the scale RollingThunder is off the scale RollingThunder is off the scale RollingThunder is off the scale RollingThunder is off the scale RollingThunder is off the scale
Quote: Originally Posted by SSDD View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by RollingThunder View Post

Ah yes....the "non existent evidence" that has managed to convince the entire world scientific community. LOL. It's really a shame that you're sooooo retarded.
Billions in grant money is what convinced the political heads of scientific organizations....the bodies of those organizations are not onboard the sinking ship AGW and the big rats are positioning themselves for an exit while they still have some credibility left.
Your retarded myths are hilarious. Your little cult of reality denial is dying and you are grasping at straws. Really retarded straws at that.
__________________
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;
that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
-- John Kenneth Galbraith

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences. - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
  #100 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:35 PM
Saigon's Avatar
Registered User
Member #37000
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 9,980
Thanks: 1,258
Thanked 2,405 Times in 1,793 Posts
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 401
Saigon may be on a path to greatness Saigon may be on a path to greatness Saigon may be on a path to greatness Saigon may be on a path to greatness Saigon may be on a path to greatness Saigon may be on a path to greatness Saigon may be on a path to greatness Saigon may be on a path to greatness Saigon may be on a path to greatness Saigon may be on a path to greatness Saigon may be on a path to greatness Saigon may be on a path to greatness Saigon may be on a path to greatness
Ian -

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

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


Quote:
what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.
I have never understood why any poster would have any reluctance to be proven wrong, admit that they were wrong, or express doubt about whatever topic is under discussion. Sure, it's never easy to admit that we are wrong, but it is not only a sign of basic honesty, but I also find other posters respect it more than the usual lying and running away!

Where doubt exists, let's by all means discuss that, but for my money the only aspects of climate change science that I would say are not proven beyond any reasonable doubt are ocean pH levels, and the role played by solar acitivity.
__________________
In the US, the federal government has paid US$74 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for nuclear power ($50 billion) and fossil fuels ($24 billion) from 1973 to 2003.During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion.

Last edited by Saigon; 02-11-2013 at 11:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #101 (permalink)  
Old 02-11-2013, 11:54 PM
westwall's Avatar
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Member #23239
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nevada
Posts: 18,945
Thanks: 16,292
Thanked 6,643 Times in 4,688 Posts
Mentioned: 219 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 10190
westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati
westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati westwall gives orders to the Illuminati
Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon View Post
Ian -

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

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


Quote:
what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.
I have never understood why any poster would have any reluctance to be proven wrong, admit that they were wrong, or express doubt about whatever topic is under discussion. Sure, it's never easy to admit that we are wrong, but it is not only a sign of basic honesty, but I also find other posters respect it more than the usual lying and running away!

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





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


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

CPD - Abstract - Holocene climate variations in the western Antarctic Peninsula: evidence for sea ice extent predominantly controlled by insolation and ENSO variability changes
__________________
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
'Yea, Though I Fly Through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I Shall Fear No Evil. For I am at 50,000 Feet and Climbing.'
- Sign over SR71 Wing Ops-

"He who asserts must also prove" Aristotle
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,

Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
Reply With Quote
  #102 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2013, 01:46 AM
IanC's Avatar
Registered User
Member #21028
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,775
Thanks: 787
Thanked 1,552 Times in 1,170 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 434
IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness
Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon View Post
Ian -

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

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


Quote:
what is perfectly obvious though is that neither one of you is willing to see the other's side or concede even the slightest doubt in your beliefs.
I have never understood why any poster would have any reluctance to be proven wrong, admit that they were wrong, or express doubt about whatever topic is under discussion. Sure, it's never easy to admit that we are wrong, but it is not only a sign of basic honesty, but I also find other posters respect it more than the usual lying and running away!

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


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

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

saigon said-
Quote:
Ian -

Quote:
I am a conspiracy theorist for being concerned that there are very few temp stations in northern canada.
Indeed.
which was a sentence fragment from my response to edthecynic who called me a conspiracy theorist.

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

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

saigon said-
Quote:
Ian -

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

However, this seems to be a conveniant way of you avoiding addressing the point.
obviously you have been taking lessons from Mann and Gleick. just brazen it out because the people who like you wont notice or care unless it is jammed down their throat. personally I think you are a scumbag. and you have the nerve to act as if you are preaching from the high moral ground.
__________________
There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain. -Whitehead

”The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” (Bertrand Russell).
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to IanC For This Useful Post:
SSDD (02-12-2013)
  #103 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2013, 03:42 AM
SSDD's Avatar
Registered User
Member #40906
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,330
Thanks: 465
Thanked 1,075 Times in 816 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 620
SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet
Quote: Originally Posted by mamooth View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by IanC View Post
saigon cannot seem to fathom that he is just as inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence as SSDD.
Phony equivalence bullshit. It's like declaring a round-earther is just "inflexible, fixed in his worldview, and dismissive of contrary evidence" as a flat-earther. Might be true, but it's because the round-earther is FREAKIN' CORRECT.

SSDD and all the denialists suck hard at the science. They don't have a clue about the physics, statistics, logic, history, chemistry, geology, anything. The get it all wrong. Yes, we are inflexible in pointing out how awful they are, and that's a good thing.
It is because I have a grasp of the science that I don't buy the pseudoscience that climate science is pushing. It is laughable that you would say that anyone, warmer or skeptic does or doesn't understand the science because you have proven again and again that you have no grip whatsoever on the science and your position is one of belief, not any sort of inherent knowledge.

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

My bet is that you didn't even know what sort of earth the present crop of climate models represent since it is clear that you really don't have any sort of grasp at all on the science.
Reply With Quote
  #104 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2013, 03:45 AM
SSDD's Avatar
Registered User
Member #40906
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,330
Thanks: 465
Thanked 1,075 Times in 816 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 620
SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet SSDD is faster than a speeding bullet
Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon View Post
Ian -

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

Last edited by SSDD; 02-12-2013 at 03:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SSDD For This Useful Post:
IanC (02-12-2013)
  #105 (permalink)  
Old 02-12-2013, 04:15 AM
IanC's Avatar
Registered User
Member #21028
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,775
Thanks: 787
Thanked 1,552 Times in 1,170 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 434
IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness IanC may be on a path to greatness
Quote: Originally Posted by SSDD View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon View Post
Ian -

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

I concur.
__________________
There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain. -Whitehead

”The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” (Bertrand Russell).
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Environment
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Search tags for this page

proffesor shepherds artic ice prediction for 2015

Click on a term to search our site for related topics.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:39 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.