A discussion on the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) and its consequences

[abu afak]

ding said:
That's really odd because You guys plot one curve for the Whole planet. Weird, huh?

It's not odd/weird, it's THE Topic.
GW/AGW. G is for 'Global.'
You lost and now admitted it.

Of course, it's uneven for a myriad of reasons. ie, places near the Ice mass, might get cooler due to cold run-off.
Since you two have Now backhandedly CONCEDED on GW, feel free to tell us about all the little anomalies you like!
Start a thread:
"GW/AGW has happened/is happening but there are regional exceptions for a time"
Because that's all you've done/claim here.

I'm done with you again!
You LOST AGAIN! In fact permanently with your concession here.
Last-Word away
Bye.
`

 

[ding]

Careful staking your bets on that comparison,. Aint no 5000 year old thermometers. Those are ice cores. And Antarctic ice is a MUCH POORER thermometer.

It's an actual precipt DESERT down there. Not much ice/decade can get built even in the most frigid conditions. So you might have 400 years in a cmeter of Antarctic ice, while Greenland ice -- that centimeter is maybe only 50 years.

So -- you're just not gonna SEE any variances under 400 or 600 years in Antarctic ice. You WILL see 100 or 200 year variations from N,Hemi ice cores.

When this started to get widely known publicly, some of the Greenland core data got "rare" on the internet. But it's still in original papers.

You can see a similar disparity in sensitivity between the poles during the last glacial cycle. And given that the poles have different thresholds for glaciation and the effect and sensitivity to albedo I would expect the poles to be disconnected from one another.

Dansgaard–Oeschger event - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

It's not odd/weird, it's THE Topic.
GW/AGW. G is for 'Global.'
You lost and now admitted it.

Of course, it's uneven for a myriad of reasons. ie, places near the Ice mass, might get cooler due to cold run-off.
Since you two have Now backhandedly CONCEDED on GW, feel free to tell us about all the little anomalies you like!
Start a thread:
"GW/AGW has happened/is happening but there are regional exceptions for a time"
Because that's all you've done/claim here.

I'm done with you again!
You LOST AGAIN! In fact permanently with your concession here.
Last-Word away
Bye.
`

There is no average temperature of the planet. It's a dishonest practice that smooths out the variations in climate and hides the volatility of the climate.

It's the polar regions that show the variability in climate because it's the polar regions which change the most.

 

[Crick]

Sea level was 26 ft higher during the previous interglacial cycle. Why is it we would expect it to be less during this interglacial cycle?

Because the rates at which CO2 and sea level are rising or oders of magnitude faster than the previous interglacial cycle.

 

[ding]

Because the rates at which CO2 and sea level are rising or oders of magnitude faster than the previous interglacial cycle.

You can't make that assumption without dismissing pre-industrialization drivers which led to temperature fluctuations. And clearly sea levels did not rise faster than the previous interglacial cycle if the sea level was 26 ft higher than the present interglacial.

What caused these temperature fluctuations? Because you are literally dismissing those causes as possible causes for the recent warming.

The past is the key to the future: Temperature history of the past 10,000 years – Archiv Klimanachrichten

kaltesonne.de

 

[ding]

Crick can't even bring himself to acknowledge the vast overwhelming evidence of a pre-industrialized fluctuating climate. One would have to assume he believes the climate has never changed until man changed it given his denial in acknowledging past climate fluctuations.

 

[ding]

sea level are rising orders of magnitude faster than the previous interglacial cycle.

You will be hard pressed to prove that.

 

[jc456]

Because the rates at which CO2 and sea level are rising or oders of magnitude faster than the previous interglacial cycle.

you can't prove that at all. Let's see where that data depository is at.

 

[ding]

you can't prove that at all. Let's see where that data depository is at.

I don't think Crick knows what orders of magnitude means. An order of magnitude is ten times. Orders of magnitude would be at least 100 times or more.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Because the rates at which CO2 and sea level are rising or oders of magnitude faster than the previous interglacial cycle.

LINK

What a truly stupid statement you made you guzzling beer today?

 

[flacaltenn]

Because the rates at which CO2 and sea level are rising or oders of magnitude faster than the previous interglacial cycle.

You dont KNOW that. Even tho a lot of activists asserted that MIGHT be the case. Because the proxies used as thermometers for past millennia cant SEE fast temp variations. They are no better than looking at 400 yr avgs. Our little 100 yr event would NOT EVEN SHOW in the same proxies a couple thousand years from now.

The MEDIA took a suggestion from some paper authors that NEVER EVEN ADDRESSED spatial and temporal resolution of their results in the original papers. But in DEFENDING the papers, the facts about not measuring rapid variance became clear. AFTER the media splashed this shit on the front pages/covers for years.

Tree rings, Ice cores, assays of fossilized mud bugs are not available or uniform over the surface of the earth. And they are LOUSY thermometers when trying to devine quick short changes in temperatures on a climate scale.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You dont KNOW that. Even tho a lot of activists asserted that MIGHT be the case. Because the proxies used as thermometers for past millennia cant SEE fast temp variations. They are no better than looking at 400 yr avgs. Our little 100 yr event would NOT EVEN SHOW in the same proxies a couple thousand years from now.

The MEDIA took a suggestion from some paper authors that NEVER EVEN ADDRESSED spatial and temporal resolution of their results in the original papers. But in DEFENDING the papers, the facts about not measuring rapid variance became clear. AFTER the media splashed this shit on the front pages/covers for years.

Tree rings, Ice cores, assays of fossilized mud bugs are not available or uniform over the surface of the earth. And they are LOUSY thermometers when trying to devine quick short changes in temperatures on a climate scale.

It was his statement:

"Because the rates at which CO2 and sea level are rising or orders of magnitude faster than the previous interglacial cycle."

red bolding mine

That made him look foolish to several of us as he doesn't understand his large math error.

 

[flacaltenn]

It was his statement:

"Because the rates at which CO2 and sea level are rising or orders of magnitude faster than the previous interglacial cycle."

red bolding mine

That made him look foolish to several of us as he doesn't understand his large math error.

If you use the "rate of rise" as the measurement - sure -- COULD BE an order of magnitude faster faster than ANYTHING seen in a hockey stick study.. But the HStick data does not have the TIME RESOLUTION TO SEE anything faster than 400 yr event.

So youre comparing our "real time -- raw/precise" measurements to highly processed and homogenized proxies that don't line up and the result is no better than 400 yr averaged modern records. That's why they SPLICED the modern record onto the hockey sticks. Because WITHOUT them -- they wouldn't be hockey sticks. --- Just sticks.

And that's pretty unethical. Playing to people's fears always is.

 

[mamooth]

You dont KNOW that. Even tho a lot of activists asserted that MIGHT be the case. Because the proxies used as thermometers for past millennia cant SEE fast temp variations. They are no better than looking at 400 yr avgs. Our little 100 yr event would NOT EVEN SHOW in the same proxies a couple thousand years from now.

"You can't absolutely positively _prove_ global climate didn't vary wildly on short time scales in the past, therefore it did!"

Needless to say "You need to prove my crazy unsupported theory is false, or you have to accept it's true!" is not how science works. It is how the deniers work.

 

[flacaltenn]

"You can't absolutely positively _prove_ global climate didn't vary wildly on short time scales in the past, therefore it did!"

Needless to say "You need to prove my crazy unsupported theory is false, or you have to accept it's true!" is not how science works. It is how the deniers work.

Dont need to prove it. I have the scientific debate with the authors that drew out those facts. I've posted here about 6 or 8 times. Even remember posting it for you before you ignored the science and went back to your childish name calling. Which is what you do here mostly.

Just like you ignore the science and toss a predictable tantrum everytime the science upsets your simplistic views of GW...

 

[flacaltenn]

"You can't absolutely positively _prove_ global climate didn't vary wildly on short time scales in the past, therefore it did!"

Needless to say "You need to prove my crazy unsupported theory is false, or you have to accept it's true!" is not how science works. It is how the deniers work.

Point is -- NOBODY has a GLOBAL temperature record from 1000s of years ago that could SHOW any variability of temperature on time scales less than 400 or 500 years. And it wouldn't be ACCURATE to 0.1DegC until you were looking at events longer than 800 years or so.

So "what's NOT PROVEN" is that there WAS NO GLOBAL variability of temperature for 10,000 or 20.000 years. You've got that bass-ackwards Squidward. Not on a GLOBAL scale.

You can find HIGH RESOLUTION INDIVIDUAL proxies in single locations that show MAJOR temperature variation. So we KNOW it existed.

 

[whitehall]

The earth depends on that big nuclear reactor in the sky. Thousands of years ago northern hemisphere humans celebrated the date that the Sun stopped it's decline and returned to it's place in the sky. Antarctica was once a tropical environment. Shit happens in geological terms. The 20,000 year span from the last Ice Age is a drop in the bucket in geological time but New York was under a 200 foot deep glacier in the last ice age. What happened to the Sun? Is it possible that the geological time for humans is part of a retreat from the second ice age and extreme cold is the norm in geological history? Left wing political activists never have a nice day but they should celebrate every warm day that God gave us without crazy paranoid extortion games.

 

[jc456]

If you use the "rate of rise" as the measurement - sure -- COULD BE an order of magnitude faster faster than ANYTHING seen in a hockey stick study.. But the HStick data does not have the TIME RESOLUTION TO SEE anything faster than 400 yr event.

So youre comparing our "real time -- raw/precise" measurements to highly processed and homogenized proxies that don't line up and the result is no better than 400 yr averaged modern records. That's why they SPLICED the modern record onto the hockey sticks. Because WITHOUT them -- they wouldn't be hockey sticks. --- Just sticks.

And that's pretty unethical. Playing to people's fears always is.

In other words it isn’t practical

 

[jc456]

"You can't absolutely positively _prove_ global climate didn't vary wildly on short time scales in the past, therefore it did!"

Needless to say "You need to prove my crazy unsupported theory is false, or you have to accept it's true!" is not how science works. It is how the deniers work.

It isn’t supported, you can’t prove it

 

[jc456]

"You can't absolutely positively _prove_ global climate didn't vary wildly on short time scales in the past, therefore it did!"

Needless to say "You need to prove my crazy unsupported theory is false, or you have to accept it's true!" is not how science works. It is how the deniers work.

Hey, one question for you: why can the sun shine full one day and be 60 degrees and the very next day full sun shine be 10 degrees?