Antarctic sea ice headed for new record minimum

[Abraham3]

the CERES data on upwards and downwards radiation can easily be used to poke holes in AGW theory.

Do you still think the rocket launch of temperatures since 1880 is a rebound from the LIA? I couldn't talk a grade school student into believing that.

If you think the CERES data refutes AGW, let's see what you're looking at.

A rocket launch from the 1880s eh? Not enough CO2 addition until the 1930s to matter. So the first 50 years of that was NOT largely man made. And 1.2degC is a rocket? From 1880 to 1980 would be 0.12degc per decade. We saw that kind of wimpy rate all the way to the current pause.. At that rate, there is no immediate crisis.

The rate from 1880 to the present is FIVE TIMES the rate from 1650-1880. Explain to me first, what drove us out of the LIA and next, why the warming rate from that factor increased five fold as it entered the 20th century and drove temperature well above the temperature PRIOR to the LIA.

Anyone trying to tell us that the warming of the last 150 years is a some magically unforced rebound from the LIA is completely full of shit.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you still think the rocket launch of temperatures since 1880 is a rebound from the LIA? I couldn't talk a grade school student into believing that.

If you think the CERES data refutes AGW, let's see what you're looking at.

A rocket launch from the 1880s eh? Not enough CO2 addition until the 1930s to years of that was NOT largely man made. And 1.2degC is a rocket? From 1880 to 1980 would be 0.12degc per decade. We saw that kind of wimpy rate all the way to the current pause.. At that rate, there is no immediate crisis.

The rate from 1880 to the present is FIVE TIMES the rate from 1650-1880. Explain to me first, what drove us out of the LIA and next, why the warming rate from that factor increased five fold as it entered the 20th century and drove temperature well above the temperature PRIOR to the LIA.

Anyone trying to tell us that the warming of the last 150 years is a some magically unforced rebound from the LIA is completely full of shit.

Thats a specious claim that the modern rate is 5 times the rate from the 1600s. Since all those GLOBAL proxy temp studies have time resolutions of greater thqn 100 yrs. We simply have no reliable record from 1600s that could FIND a 50 or 60 yr spike and measure it accurately enough to find 0.5degC in 50 years. I think Marcott himself was much less generous than I am describing the accuracy of our abilities to measure ancient RATES of warming. This is a myth thats been propagated by press releases that dont match the science reports.

 

[Abraham3]

Tell us you see no change in warming rate at about 1880. Go ahead, tell us.

We know the rate seen in the instrumented data is correct. If there's been no change in that rate since the bottom of the LIA, it would have had to have been a freaking snowball Earth.

 

[SwimExpert]

The rate from 1880 to the present is FIVE TIMES the rate from 1650-1880.

Prove it.

Explain to me first, what drove us out of the LIA

First you stop calling it the "little ice age." Earth is in the same ice age it has been in since the first humans walked the earth.

 

[flacaltenn]

Tell us you see no change in warming rate at about 1880. Go ahead, tell us.

We know the rate seen in the instrumented data is correct. If there's been no change in that rate since the bottom of the LIA, it would have had to have been a freaking snowball Earth.

Didnt think you were completely following any of this. I just told you that THE CHART YOU POSTED comes from data that lacks the ability to find and accurately record a 50 year spike or a fast rise and fall. Not the Mann studies nor the Marcott studies. Please ask if you dont understand that statement. I gave you Marcotts own words not too long ago..

 

[westwall]

Do you still think the rocket launch of temperatures since 1880 is a rebound from the LIA? I couldn't talk a grade school student into believing that.

If you think the CERES data refutes AGW, let's see what you're looking at.

A rocket launch from the 1880s eh? Not enough CO2 addition until the 1930s to matter. So the first 50 years of that was NOT largely man made. And 1.2degC is a rocket? From 1880 to 1980 would be 0.12degc per decade. We saw that kind of wimpy rate all the way to the current pause.. At that rate, there is no immediate crisis.

The rate from 1880 to the present is FIVE TIMES the rate from 1650-1880. Explain to me first, what drove us out of the LIA and next, why the warming rate from that factor increased five fold as it entered the 20th century and drove temperature well above the temperature PRIOR to the LIA.

Anyone trying to tell us that the warming of the last 150 years is a some magically unforced rebound from the LIA is completely full of shit.

Hmmmm, comparing the present day to the LIA period with all the problems of having nothing better than proxies for your estimates.

Let's deal with facts. We know that the global temperature was much warmer during the Holocene Thermal maximum, the Cretan Warming, the Roman Warming, and the medieval Warming Periods. We absolutely KNOW this to be true.

We also know that in between those periods the global temperature was cooler. Sometimes much cooler sometimes not so much. We KNOW these facts to be true.

That means that the current temperatures are not remarkable in any way.

 

[Abraham3]

You're being an idiot. You are rejecting butt-ton-loads of valid evidence - enough evidence to have convinced almost every one of the world's climate scientists. And you're preferred hypothesis? You don't really have one.

The rate of warming since 1880 is unprecedented in human history. You ignore this fact by simple pretending. That human activity is the primary cause is undisputable. You believe you can dispute it. Human GHG emissions and deforestation haven't slowed in the least. You pretend the points are irrelevant.

Live long and prosper. I really want you to see how incredibly wrong you are.

 

[SSDD]

You're being an idiot. You are rejecting butt-ton-loads of valid evidence - enough evidence to have convinced almost every one of the world's climate scientists. And you're preferred hypothesis? You don't really have one.

The rate of warming since 1880 is unprecedented in human history. You ignore this fact by simple pretending. That human activity is the primary cause is undisputable. You believe you can dispute it. Human GHG emissions and deforestation haven't slowed in the least. You pretend the points are irrelevant.

Live long and prosper. I really want you to see how incredibly wrong you are.

Evidence that convinced scientists who depend on crisis to continue their funding? Surely it must be true (sarc). You guys have fallen for the biggest hoax in history. How does it feel?

 

[SwimExpert]

You're being an idiot. You are rejecting butt-ton-loads of valid evidence - enough evidence to have convinced almost every one of the world's climate scientists. And you're preferred hypothesis? You don't really have one.

If a million scientists say a false thing, it is still a false thing.

And if you repeat a fallacy a million times, it is still a fallacy.

 

[Abraham3]

You're being an idiot. You are rejecting butt-ton-loads of valid evidence - enough evidence to have convinced almost every one of the world's climate scientists. And you're preferred hypothesis? You don't really have one.

If a million scientists say a false thing, it is still a false thing.

And if you repeat a fallacy a million times, it is still a fallacy.

You have not shown that what they agree on is false. YOU haven't even tried. And what, in my statement above, do you believe to be a fallacy?

 

[SwimExpert]

You're being an idiot. You are rejecting butt-ton-loads of valid evidence - enough evidence to have convinced almost every one of the world's climate scientists. And you're preferred hypothesis? You don't really have one.

If a million scientists say a false thing, it is still a false thing.

And if you repeat a fallacy a million times, it is still a fallacy.

You have not shown that what they agree on is false. YOU haven't even tried. And what, in my statement above, do you believe to be a fallacy?

Ad populum. But you already knew that.

 

[flacaltenn]

You're being an idiot. You are rejecting butt-ton-loads of valid evidence - enough evidence to have convinced almost every one of the world's climate scientists. And you're preferred hypothesis? You don't really have one.

If a million scientists say a false thing, it is still a false thing.

And if you repeat a fallacy a million times, it is still a fallacy.

You have not shown that what they agree on is false. YOU haven't even tried. And what, in my statement above, do you believe to be a fallacy?

But we HAVE.. And you IGNORED it.. I gave Marcotts own description of his Global Proxy study and the fact that the SHORTEST spike it can detect is on the order of CENTURIES.
There is no reliable source of determining ancient RATES of warming. The papers and results presented are actually clear on that concept in their contents. It's only the Press Releases and the Warmer zealots that misinterpret the power of that work..

EDIT --- To be fair -- any INDIVIDUAL proxy study from one particular region may have better time resolution.. So if you REALLY wanted to make your case about "unprecedented rates" --- you should toss out SINGLE studies covering ONE region with ONE proxy for the 1600s.

But all of these "hockey sticks" look flat not because the temperatures were that flat --- but because of the IMMENSE amount of averaging and diddling with the data to cook up a GLOBAL result on various weak proxies in very sparse geographical samplings..

 

[Abraham3]

If a million scientists say a false thing, it is still a false thing.

And if you repeat a fallacy a million times, it is still a fallacy.

You have not shown that what they agree on is false. YOU haven't even tried. And what, in my statement above, do you believe to be a fallacy?

But we HAVE.. And you IGNORED it.. I gave Marcotts own description of his Global Proxy study and the fact that the SHORTEST spike it can detect is on the order of CENTURIES.
There is no reliable source of determining ancient RATES of warming. The papers and results presented are actually clear on that concept in their contents. It's only the Press Releases and the Warmer zealots that misinterpret the power of that work..

EDIT --- To be fair -- any INDIVIDUAL proxy study from one particular region may have better time resolution.. So if you REALLY wanted to make your case about "unprecedented rates" --- you should toss out SINGLE studies covering ONE region with ONE proxy for the 1600s.

But all of these "hockey sticks" look flat not because the temperatures were that flat --- but because of the IMMENSE amount of averaging and diddling with the data to cook up a GLOBAL result on various weak proxies in very sparse geographical samplings..

I haven't ignored it. I have refuted it.

Number One: that it has gotten warm in the past really has NOTHING to do with it getting warm today. We weren't there in the past, we weren't putting gigatons of GHGs into the atmosphere or clearing enough land to see the damage from orbit, and we weren't there to suffer what such dramatic and catastrophic changes will do to our physical culture.

I an others have pointed out to you that for an event such as what the Earth's climate has undergone in the last 150 years to have occurred in the past AND NOT BE VISIBLE, requires that temperatures rise as rapidly as they have currently and then turn right around and descend just as quickly so that all is back to normal in less than the chronological resolution of their data. There is NO known mechanism that could cause such behavior. None. You are postulating a fantasy.

Your complaint about averages is completely specious. A global temperature is, by definition, an average. In my opinion you're only attempting to throw a wrench into the works because you've no other way to attack the data it produces.

In calculating a global temperature today, thousands of measurements get averaged. If averaging over areas eliminates information needed to accurately assess the temperature of the Earth's entire climate, it would do it today as much as it would do it to proxy data from centuries past. The issue in proxies is not averaging, it is that the amount of data is severely reduced both in time and space and that proxies inherently have more variation than do direct measurements.

If you want to suggest that there are such significant errors in the global temperature data used for contemporary climate analyses that you believe we should ignore the clear evidence of warming we have been seeing for 150 years, then you aren't looking for the truth, you are running away from it.

 

[SSDD]

I haven't ignored it. I have refuted it.

Only in your own mind.

One: that it has gotten warm in the past really has NOTHING to do with it getting warm today. We weren't there in the past, we weren't putting gigatons of GHGs into the atmosphere or clearing enough land to see the damage from orbit, and we weren't there to suffer what such dramatic and catastrophic changes will do to our physical culture.

By now, it should be obvious, even to a dolt like you that the CO2 driven AGW hypothesis is a fraud. And what dramatic and catastrophic changes are you talking about? History has shown over and over that warm temps are great for society....it is cold (and stupidity) that are the real killers.

an others have pointed out to you that for an event such as what the Earth's climate has undergone in the last 150 years to have occurred in the past AND NOT BE VISIBLE, requires that temperatures rise as rapidly as they have currently and then turn right around and descend just as quickly so that all is back to normal in less than the chronological resolution of their data. There is NO known mechanism that could cause such behavior. None. You are postulating a fantasy.

What event? The only "event" is the amazing amount of data tampering among the "scientific" community.

Take a look at Hadcrut....In the period from 1894 -1953 there was a temperature increase of 0.48 degrees....in the period from 1954 - 2013 the time of so called "dangerous" levels of CO2, the temperature increase was 0.29 degrees. If that qualifies as some sort of "event" in your mind, then you don't get out enough.

complaint about averages is completely specious. A global temperature is, by definition, an average. In my opinion you're only attempting to throw a wrench into the works because you've no other way to attack the data it produces.

Your belief in a contrived and doctored "average" global temperature is an imaginary machine into which the wrench is being thrown.

 

[Abraham3]

Speaking of doctoring data, what you have there would constitute cherry-picking. You've ignored the mid-century hiatus.

Explain the hiatus from 1941-1979. Give us the numbers from 1880 to 1940 and 1980 to 2000.

 

[SSDD]

Don't like my cherries, go pick your own. The fact remains that less than a degree in over 100 years hardly constitutes an "event" no matter how you present it. Hysterical hand flapping doesn't make you look educated...it just proves that you are a kook.

 

[Abraham3]

That statement proves that your understanding of climate and science in general is inadequate.

 

[SwimExpert]

Don't like my cherries, go pick your own.

 

[SSDD]

That statement proves that your understanding of climate and science in general is inadequate.

And the fact that you think a fraction of a degree in 100 years is an "event" proves that you are an idiot.....a hand waving, hysterical idiot.

 

[Abraham3]

You've already made that statement. That was the one that demonstrated your inadequate grasp of basic climatology.