AGW: atmospheric physics

[Saigon]

When asked, I support my claims with actual evidence.

Isn't it sad when a couple of postcards can prove all of climate science wrong?

So postcards ARE hard evidence, are they?

And you claim to know something about what science is and what it looks like?

Honestly - have you ever sounded more like a spanked child than you do now?

 

[Old Rocks]

Seems to be no doubt in the minds of these research scientists as to what the future holds.

http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/download/6172/6851

Abstract
Sediment cores from the Norwegian Sea were studied to evaluate interglacial
climate conditions of the marine isotope stage 5e (MIS 5e). Using planktic
forminiferal assemblages as the core method, a detailed picture of the evolution
of surface water conditions was derived. According to our age model, a steplike
deglaciation of the Saalian ice sheets is noted between ca. 135 and
124.5 Kya, but the deglaciation shows little response with regard to surface
ocean warming. From then on, the rapidly increasing abundance of subpolar
forminifers, concomitant with decreasing iceberg indicators, provides evidence
for the development of interglacial conditions sensu stricto (5e-ss), a period that
lasted for about 9 Ky. As interpreted from the foraminiferal records, and
supported by the other proxies, this interval of 5e-ss was in two parts: showing
an early warm phase, but with a fresher, i.e., lower salinity, water mass, and a
subsequent cooling phase that lasted until ca. 118.5 Kya. After this time, the
climatic optimum with the most intense advection of Atlantic surface water
masses occurred until ca. 116 Kya. A rapid transition with two notable climatic
perturbations is observed subsequently during the glacial inception. Overall,
the peak warmth of the last interglacial period occurred relatively late after
deglaciation, and at no time did it reach the high warmth level of the early
Holocene. This finding must be considered when using the last interglacial
situation as an analogue model for enhanced meridional transfer of ocean heat
to the Arctic, with the prospect of a future warmer climate.

 

[SSDD]

You claimed that the Arctic had been ice-free within the past hundred years, which is obviously laughable, and you have not even attempted to defend it for obvious reasons.

Open water at the pole qualifies as ice free. Sorry you lack the requisite knowledge to understand that.

Still waiting on that proof that you claimed existed. If you were honest, you woud simply admit that you have none. When asked, I support my claims with actual evidence.

Again, the oldest ice ever found in the arctic is 5000 years old. That means that prior to that time, the arctic was ice free.

Once again, you are full of shit. The ice often opens and creates large areas of open ocean. Polynyas;

All About Sea Ice, Polynyas :: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Read for comprehension....Polynyas are areas of "PERSISTANT OPEN WATER" where one would expect to find sea ice. The north pole is not an area of persistent open water and the photos are not of ships coming up through polynyas. You are seeing open water at the north pole and it is nothing new.

 

[Saigon]

You claimed that the Arctic had been ice-free within the past hundred years, which is obviously laughable, and you have not even attempted to defend it for obvious reasons.

Open water at the pole qualifies as ice free. Sorry you lack the requisite knowledge to understand that.

Still waiting on that proof that you claimed existed. If you were honest, you woud simply admit that you have none. When asked, I support my claims with actual evidence.

Again, the oldest ice ever found in the arctic is 5000 years old. That means that prior to that time, the arctic was ice free.

Once again, you are full of shit. The ice often opens and creates large areas of open ocean. Polynyas;

All About Sea Ice, Polynyas :: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Exactly that, Old Rocks.

I can well imagine areas of ice opening up here and there every summer - that they do so hardly means the ocean is "ice free".

SSDD -

You are seeing open water at the north pole and it is nothing new.

And yet all of the studies suggest that it is has not happened for 5,400 years.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey, SSDD, thanks once again. Academy of Sciences, Humanities and Literature, Mainz, and Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, IFM-GEOMAR, Wischhofstr. 1-3D-24148 Kiel, Germany, has a wealth of information comparing the present warming to the past warmings. And how differant they are both in cause and effects.

 

[Old Rocks]

Open water at the pole qualifies as ice free. Sorry you lack the requisite knowledge to understand that.

Still waiting on that proof that you claimed existed. If you were honest, you woud simply admit that you have none. When asked, I support my claims with actual evidence.

Again, the oldest ice ever found in the arctic is 5000 years old. That means that prior to that time, the arctic was ice free.

Once again, you are full of shit. The ice often opens and creates large areas of open ocean. Polynyas;

All About Sea Ice, Polynyas :: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Read for comprehension....Polynyas are areas of "PERSISTANT OPEN WATER" where one would expect to find sea ice. The north pole is not an area of persistent open water and the photos are not of ships coming up through polynyas. You are seeing open water at the north pole and it is nothing new.

How long are you going to insist on such nonsense? You have only a few more years until there is a period in the summer that has no Arctic Ice.

 

[SSDD]

So postcards ARE hard evidence, are they?

Those are. The same photos have been used in research....photos are evidence without regard to the format in which they are printed.

Here is a postcard proving that the sun doesn't set on at least one day in Nordkapp. Does the fact that it is a post card make it untrue? Now you are relying on logical fallacies. It just doesn't get any better for you, does it.

And you claim to know something about what science is and what it looks like?

Not only what it looks like...but how it is done as well. So far, all you have is lies and now you have added logical fallacies.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. And the clouds are in a differant position in every photo.

 

[Saigon]

You are seeing open water at the north pole and it is nothing new.

Really?

Because this link shows that current levels of Arctic ice are unprecedented during the past 50 years, anyway.

Arctic sea ice before satellites | Icelights: Your Burning Questions About Ice & Climate

This seems strange given your postcards apparently "proved" that the area was ice free.

 

[Saigon]

Does the fact that it is a post card make it untrue?

No, the fact that your postcards are contradicted by real evidence makes it untrue.

Now you are relying on logical fallacies. It just doesn't get any better for you, does it.

No, I am relying on solid, observational data, which completely disproves your postcards.

 

[jon_berzerk]

LOL. And the clouds are in a differant position in every photo.

yes clouds tend to move

appear and disappear over time

check it out sometime

 

[SSDD]

Once again, you are full of shit. The ice often opens and creates large areas of open ocean. Polynyas;

All About Sea Ice, Polynyas :: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Read for comprehension....Polynyas are areas of "PERSISTANT OPEN WATER" where one would expect to find sea ice. The north pole is not an area of persistent open water and the photos are not of ships coming up through polynyas. You are seeing open water at the north pole and it is nothing new.

How long are you going to insist on such nonsense? You have only a few more years until there is a period in the summer that has no Arctic Ice.

More doom and gloom based on computer models. The problem is that reality just won't cooperate.

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Current Arctic Sea Ice is More Extensive than Most of the past 9000 Years

A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that western Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that the western Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since. The paper also demonstrates that even though western annual sea ice extent has been less than the present throughout most of the last 9000 years, low sea ice has consistently failed to cause a planetary albedo 'tipping point' claimed by warmists.

http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf

 

[SSDD]

LOL. And the clouds are in a differant position in every photo.

You ever hear of time lapse? Clouds just don't wait around for the next shot.

 

[Saigon]

Here is a postcard proving that the sun doesn't set on at least one day in Nordkapp.

So these pictures COULD NOT have been taken on different days?

And you call THIS science? This is why you reject peer-reviewed and published research?

Honestly...you are the most gullible person in the world, aren't you?

 

[Saigon]

The problem is that reality just won't cooperate.

Well, reality just proved your postcards false, didn't they?

NASA records, and others, confirm that the Arctic was NOT ice free in the years your claim.

 

[SSDD]

You are seeing open water at the north pole and it is nothing new.

Really?

Because this link shows that current levels of Arctic ice are unprecedented during the past 50 years, anyway.

Unprecedented for the past 50 years? Are you joking? I am literally laughing in your face. We are talking about global climate any you say unprecedented in the past 50 years? How much more idiotic can you possibly get?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Try and focus.

YOU claimed the arctic had been ice free within the past 50 years.

I just proved that your claim was false.

How much more idiotic can you possibly get?

Well, you could rely on postcards as evidence instead of solid data.

I am literally laughing in your face.

You do not know what "literally" means.

 

[Old Rocks]

SSDD, every scientist dealing with the Arctic states that the current ice levels are unprecedented for a few thousand years. The first person to actually transit the Northwest Passage took three years. In the past few years, small sailboats have been transitting the Northwest Passage in a matter of weeks. In fact, some have even circluled the whole of the Arctic Ice Pack.

The person here, as I have amply illustrated with articles from real scientists, making idiotic statements is you.

 

[Saigon]

OK, so let's review -

SSDD claimed that the Arctic had been ice-free within the past century, but presented no scientific evidence to back up this claim.

He then claimed 'ice free' does not actually mean 'ice free', but means an area of water. This is patently NOT the definition used by scientific organisations.

He then claimed unsourced postcards constituted scientific proof.

The NSIDC data suggests that the Arctic has not been ice-free for around 5,400 years.

I think we can leave it there.

Anyone interested in actual science - as opposed to holiday snaps - could do worse than peruse this site:

National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)

 

[SSDD]

Here is a postcard proving that the sun doesn't set on at least one day in Nordkapp.

So these pictures COULD NOT have been taken on different days?

No, they were taken on the same day.

From the back of the card: The midnight sun over the Arctic Ocean, seen from North Cape. The photo montage shows the sun's course from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. - postmarked in Feb. 2007 with Norge (Norway) Svalbard

Which day they were taken on is not the point of the photo. Again, you miss even the most basic principles.

And you call THIS science? This is why you reject peer-reviewed and published research?

Yes it is science. The science is called astronomy. Observe from the same point at different times...or on different days to observe astronomical movement. Stonehenge works on the same principle and is still an accurate astronomical instrument. It is you who doesn't recognize science and that is precisely why you are a bleiver. You are easily fooled because you don't see science all around you all the time.

Honestly...you are the most gullible person in the world, aren't you?

No, I am afraid that dubious honor goes to you and your fellow believers. As reality diverges further and further away from the model predictions you have placed your faith in, you will eventually have to admit that you were wrong. The real entertainment value lies in seeing exactly how stupid you are by how long it takes for you to acknowledge that you were wrong. Some of the smarter rats are already jumping ship. Will you hang on till you literally become a flat earther?