Antarctic ice reveals more about the consensus nonsense than the climate

[Crick]

I can readily access several thousand pages of peer reviewed scientific studies that fully support that contention. Whadda you got?

 

[miketx]

I can readily access several thousand pages of peer reviewed scientific studies that fully support that contention. Whadda you got?

4 billion years. What was the the ocean temperature in 1465?

 

[SSDD]

Do you have evidence that data has been unjustifiably manipulated? The only thing we have EVER seen here is that you claim it is being adjusted to make warming look worse that that that is proof that it's unwarranted. The truth is that most of the adjustments have reduced the amount of warming and that all of that has been perfectly justified. Your argument here is the same massive conspiracy that your desperation has led you to - you have no real argument so you've made this one up.

Really and truly pathetic.

Of course....do you think that they actually knew the temperature to the tenth of a degree back in the 1800's....and can you describe any scenario where altering temperature data from 40, 50, 60, even 100 years ago will make the record more accurate?

 

[SSDD]

I can readily access several thousand pages of peer reviewed scientific studies that fully support that contention. Whadda you got?

Several thousand pages of pal reviewed data...what is that worth? We sure didn't get our money's worth...we got a temperature record that is so f'ked up that it is worthless...but then, that is just what your guys wanted isn't it?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Climate Change Felt in Deep Waters of Antarctica | Science | Smithsonian

From the article:
In 1974, just a couple years after the launch of the first Landsat satellite, scientists noticed something odd in the Weddell Sea near Antarctica. There was a large ice-free area, called a polynya, in the middle of the ice pack. The polynya, which covered an area as large as New Zealand, reappeared in the winters of 1975 and 1976 but has not been seen since.
Scientists interpreted the polynya’s disappearance as a sign that its formation was a naturally rare event. But researchers reporting in Nature Climate Change disagree, saying that the polynya’s appearance used to be far more common and that climate change is now suppressing its formation.
And in Wikipedia, Weddell Polynya:
Weddell Polynya - Wikipedia
The Weddell Polynya or Weddell Sea Polynya is a polynya or irregular area of open water surrounded by sea ice in the Weddell Sea of the Southern Ocean off the Antarctica and near the Maud Rise.[1][2] The size of New Zealand, it re-occurred each winter between 1974 and 1976.[3] These were the first three austral winters observed by the Nimbus-5 Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR).[4] Since 1976, the polynya has never been seen again. Since the 1970s, the polar Southern Ocean south of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current has freshened and stratified, likely a result of anthropogenic climate change. Such stratification may be responsible for suppressing the return of the Weddell Sea polynya

So which is it? According to OldRocks etc a big hole in the antarctic ice = a 97% AGW consensus proof of CO2 f--king the climate and if there is no hole it`s also caused by the CO2 we have released that got us to the ~ 400 ppm we are at today
And as if to add insult to injury this huge hole shows up in recent Sat-pictures:

Which way will chicken little run now ?

Too Funny:

A known event from volcanic origins that reoccurs every 30-50 years as the volcanic cycle goes.. The water column swirl from this warmer water, heated by vulcanism, comes and goes with activity. Water circulations under the pack ice have been documented and the location of underwater volcanoes noted.

Funny how density and salinity will hold heat to very narrow bounds.

 

[Crick]

I can readily access several thousand pages of peer reviewed scientific studies that fully support that contention. Whadda you got?

4 billion years. What was the the ocean temperature in 1465?

What was the temperature of the ocean 100 meters off the shoreline of Dallas, Texas on Jun 11, 1974?

 

[miketx]

I can readily access several thousand pages of peer reviewed scientific studies that fully support that contention. Whadda you got?

4 billion years. What was the the ocean temperature in 1465?

What was the temperature of the ocean 100 meters off the shoreline of Dallas, Texas on Jun 11, 1974?

How would I know? Only the fact that Dallas has no shoreline, may be a clue that it was hot that day.There is NO WAY in hell anyone knows what the temperature was anywhere more than a couple of hundred years ago. Your graph that shows a so called temperature anomaly for a thousand years shows just what a charlatan you are. No such data exists.

 

[Crick]

I thought the data you had for the last 100 years was perfect.

 

[miketx]

I never said any such thing. You can't help but lie and distort can you? No wonder most people don't believe the BS climate crap. Just keep on twisting and lying, that's all you losers got.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate Change Felt in Deep Waters of Antarctica | Science | Smithsonian

From the article:
In 1974, just a couple years after the launch of the first Landsat satellite, scientists noticed something odd in the Weddell Sea near Antarctica. There was a large ice-free area, called a polynya, in the middle of the ice pack. The polynya, which covered an area as large as New Zealand, reappeared in the winters of 1975 and 1976 but has not been seen since.
Scientists interpreted the polynya’s disappearance as a sign that its formation was a naturally rare event. But researchers reporting in Nature Climate Change disagree, saying that the polynya’s appearance used to be far more common and that climate change is now suppressing its formation.
And in Wikipedia, Weddell Polynya:
Weddell Polynya - Wikipedia
The Weddell Polynya or Weddell Sea Polynya is a polynya or irregular area of open water surrounded by sea ice in the Weddell Sea of the Southern Ocean off the Antarctica and near the Maud Rise.[1][2] The size of New Zealand, it re-occurred each winter between 1974 and 1976.[3] These were the first three austral winters observed by the Nimbus-5 Electrically Scanning Microwave Radiometer (ESMR).[4] Since 1976, the polynya has never been seen again. Since the 1970s, the polar Southern Ocean south of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current has freshened and stratified, likely a result of anthropogenic climate change. Such stratification may be responsible for suppressing the return of the Weddell Sea polynya

So which is it? According to OldRocks etc a big hole in the antarctic ice = a 97% AGW consensus proof of CO2 f--king the climate and if there is no hole it`s also caused by the CO2 we have released that got us to the ~ 400 ppm we are at today
And as if to add insult to injury this huge hole shows up in recent Sat-pictures:

Which way will chicken little run now ?

Too Funny:

A known event from volcanic origins that reoccurs every 30-50 years as the volcanic cycle goes.. The water column swirl from this warmer water, heated by vulcanism, comes and goes with activity. Water circulations under the pack ice have been documented and the location of underwater volcanoes noted.

Funny how density and salinity will hold heat to very narrow bounds.

Source? Sounds like another stinky story pulled from your ass.

 

[Old Rocks]

I can readily access several thousand pages of peer reviewed scientific studies that fully support that contention. Whadda you got?

4 billion years. What was the the ocean temperature in 1465?

What was the temperature of the ocean 100 meters off the shoreline of Dallas, Texas on Jun 11, 1974?

How would I know? Only the fact that Dallas has no shoreline, may be a clue that it was hot that day.There is NO WAY in hell anyone knows what the temperature was anywhere more than a couple of hundred years ago. Your graph that shows a so called temperature anomaly for a thousand years shows just what a charlatan you are. No such data exists.

You know, Mikey baby, just because you are stupid and ignorant does not mean that the rest of us are.

Paleoclimatology: Climate Proxies

What is Paleoclimatology?

Show Credits
Paleoclimatology is the study of past climates. Since it is not possible to go back in time to see what climates were like, scientists use imprints created during past climate, known as proxies, to interpret paleoclimate. Organisms, such as diatoms, forams, and coral serve as useful climate proxies. Other proxies include ice cores, tree rings, and sediment cores (which include diatoms, foraminifera, microbiota, pollen, and charcoal within the sediment and the sediment itself).

Past climate can be reconstructed using a combination of different types of proxy records. These records can then be integrated with observations of Earth's modern climate and placed into a computer model to infer past as well as predict future climate.

 

[miketx]

That's the lib. When you are backed into a corner start the attacks.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Oldrocks, I am starting to believe that these conservatives really are inbreeds and have become a inferior species of humans incapable of compassion, critical thought and grunts lot. Pride in the environment or society in general is a bad thing to them.

They won't be looking at any research paper because their small minds couldn't wrap around the concept.

 

[miketx]

Oldrocks, I am starting to believe that these conservatives really are inbreeds and have become a inferior species of humans incapable of compassion, critical thought or grunts lot.

They won't be looking at any research paper because their small minds couldn't wrap around the concept.

Basing a claim of human caused climate change using a set of data barely 100 years old, on a planet 4 billion years old, is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

What was the arctic temperature in 1287? Atlantic ocean temperature in 1423? How far was the moon away from us? How much sun spot activity was there?

 

[mamooth]

Basing a claim of human caused climate change using a set of data barely 100 years old, on a planet 4 billion years old, is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

Except we don't have just 100 years of data. And we have the physics, in additional to the millions of years of historical data.

You're babbling the opposite of reality. You're acting like an idiot child. You shouldn't be bothering the grownups. Have a juice box, and go watch SpongeBob.

What was the arctic temperature in 1287? Atlantic ocean temperature in 1423? How far was the moon away from us? How much sun spot activity was there?

You yourself could look up the answers to all of those things, if your political/religious cult didn't forbid you from such heresy. But you won't. It scares you, the thought you might learn something that contradicts your cult's teachings.

 

[Crick]

I never said any such thing. You can't help but lie and distort can you? No wonder most people don't believe the BS climate crap. Just keep on twisting and lying, that's all you losers got.

You claimed that your data supported real science and that older data did not. Do you not understand what you yourself are saying?

 

[Old Rocks]

Oldrocks, I am starting to believe that these conservatives really are inbreeds and have become a inferior species of humans incapable of compassion, critical thought or grunts lot.

They won't be looking at any research paper because their small minds couldn't wrap around the concept.

Basing a claim of human caused climate change using a set of data barely 100 years old, on a planet 4 billion years old, is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

What was the arctic temperature in 1287? Atlantic ocean temperature in 1423? How far was the moon away from us? How much sun spot activity was there?

What is so damned funny about all of your questions is that I know how the proxies that give us that data are obtained. Yes, we can determined the temperature of the Arctic in 1287, the temperatures in various places in the Atlantic ocean in 1423. And physics will give us the distance to the moon in 1423. Sunspot activity can be determined for that date, also. Directly, from observations, and, indirectly from proxies.

Sorry that you are such a dolt, Mikey boi, but these are not new methods, were known in the 20th Century. What are you, about 13 years old?

 

[miketx]

Oldrocks, I am starting to believe that these conservatives really are inbreeds and have become a inferior species of humans incapable of compassion, critical thought or grunts lot.

They won't be looking at any research paper because their small minds couldn't wrap around the concept.

Basing a claim of human caused climate change using a set of data barely 100 years old, on a planet 4 billion years old, is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

What was the arctic temperature in 1287? Atlantic ocean temperature in 1423? How far was the moon away from us? How much sun spot activity was there?

What is so damned funny about all of your questions is that I know how the proxies that give us that data are obtained. Yes, we can determined the temperature of the Arctic in 1287, the temperatures in various places in the Atlantic ocean in 1423. And physics will give us the distance to the moon in 1423. Sunspot activity can be determined for that date, also. Directly, from observations, and, indirectly from proxies.

Sorry that you are such a dolt, Mikey boi, but these are not new methods, were known in the 20th Century. What are you, about 13 years old?

Typical lib reply, you can't supply any real facts so you attack the messenger. You cannot use "extrapolations" as facts. You have no observations on sunspots from hundreds of years ago.



Libtard ROE


1. Demand a link or an explanation of the truth you are objecting to.

2. Promptly reject all explanations as right wing lies.

3. Ignore any facts presented.

4. Ridicule spelling and typos.

5. Attack the person as being juvenile, ie: "are you 12 years old", question their education, intelligence.

6. Employ misdirection, smear people, attack religion

7. Lie, make false assumptions

8. Play race/gender card

9. Play gay/lesbian card

10. Play the Nazi card

11. Make up stuff

12. Deny constantly

13. Reword and repeat

14. Pretending not to understand when they have been posting about it for the last 2 days.

 

[miketx]

I never said any such thing. You can't help but lie and distort can you? No wonder most people don't believe the BS climate crap. Just keep on twisting and lying, that's all you losers got.

You claimed that your data supported real science and that older data did not. Do you not understand what you yourself are saying?

You are a liar. I claimed that using a barely 100 year old data set to come to conclusions on a 4 billion year old planets is is not right. And I never said I have any data. Can you not post without distorting and lying?

 

[SSDD]

I never said any such thing. You can't help but lie and distort can you? No wonder most people don't believe the BS climate crap. Just keep on twisting and lying, that's all you losers got.

You claimed that your data supported real science and that older data did not. Do you not understand what you yourself are saying?

You are a liar. I claimed that using a barely 100 year old data set to come to conclusions on a 4 billion year old planets is is not right. And I never said I have any data. Can you not post without distorting and lying?

No..he can't...that is his stock in trade...he is a one trick pony and that is his trick...impressive huh...his parents must be so proud.