Antarctic ice

[jc456]

You'd have to be totally bereft of honesty to deflect with tales of political wrangling when the topic is the science.

But then, if all the science disagrees with you, your choices are either deflect, fudge madly, or invoke a conspiracy theory. Hence, Westwall's posts.

We KNOW that you're intellectually dishonest based on the fact that you have no science to back you up. The ONLY thing you have, are political statements and science fiction stories called GCM's.

And the wacked out insanity of the hard core denier cult nutjobs is once again clearly revealed.

"No science"......LOLOLOLOL.......

Scientific opinion on climate change

But it is you and yours who are the true deniers. you deny:

• That the atmosphere has continued to warm for the past 17 years
• That Antarctica is melting
• That the melting in West Antarctica is caused by a warming atmosphere
• That 97% of scientists are in agreement with the notion that warming is due to manmade CO2
• That models accurately represent the climate of the earth
• That climate models accurately model the behavior of so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere
• That around the turn of the century CO2 decided to warm the oceans instead of the air
• That manmade CO2 is responsible for climate "disasters"

 

[westwall]

You'd have to be totally bereft of honesty to deflect with tales of political wrangling when the topic is the science.

But then, if all the science disagrees with you, your choices are either deflect, fudge madly, or invoke a conspiracy theory. Hence, Westwall's posts.

We KNOW that you're intellectually dishonest based on the fact that you have no science to back you up. The ONLY thing you have, are political statements and science fiction stories called GCM's.

And the wacked out insanity of the hard core denier cult nutjobs is once again clearly revealed.

"No science"......LOLOLOLOL.......

Scientific opinion on climate change

For the brain dead imbecile....OPINION. Show me where opinions are facts.

 

[Old Rocks]

In Barrow Alaska climate change in action NOAA Climate.gov

Average October temperatures in Barrow, Alaska, since 1920. Over the past nine decades, Barrow has experienced both warm and cold Octobers, with a string of warm Octobers in the last decade. Graph based on data provided by Rick Thoman.

One of the key areas as the earth warms.

 

[SwimExpert]

And that's why the world is ignoring your cult. Given all the bonehead errors, self-contradictions, the lack of reason and the outright fabrications in the statements of your cult, it all comes across as the jabbering of crazy people.

For the rest of your lives, you'll be screaming in your meaningless echo chambers here on message boards, frantically preaching to the ever-shrinking choir. The world has moved on without you. Enjoy the irrelevance that you've so richly earned.

which world are you refering to?

He's referring to the world inhabited by sane, intelligent, rational people who understand science. A world that would be very alien to you, you poor befuddled anti-science retard.

Translation: You have less than nothing. You would have been better off by saying nothing at all.

 

[Crick]

For the brain dead imbecile....OPINION. Show me where opinions are facts.

I've got a better idea: teach you what is and what is not science.

 

[Crick]

You would have been better off by saying nothing at all.

Let's try that where it actually fits:

SwimExpert, you'd have been better off saying nothing at all.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I'm surprised Ian. I wouldn't touch the "work" of Bob Tisdale with a ten-foot pole.

Latest Southern Ocean research shows continuing deep ocean change mdash Australian Antarctic Division


Comparing detailed measurements taken during the Australian Antarctic program’s 2012 Southern Ocean marine science voyage to historical data dating back to 1970, scientists estimate there has been as much as a 60% reduction in the volume of Antarctic Bottom Water, the cold dense water that drives global ocean currents.

In an intensive and arduous 25-day observing program, temperature and salinity samples were collected at 77 sites between Antarctica and Fremantle. Such ship transects provide the only means to detect changes in the deep ocean.

The new measurements, which have not yet been published, suggest the densest waters in the world ocean are gradually disappearing and being replaced by less dense waters.

“The amount of dense Antarctic Bottom Water has contracted each time we’ve measured it since the 1970s,” said Dr Steve Rintoul, the voyage leader and oceanographer with the CSIRO and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC. “There is now only about 40% as much dense water present as observed in 1970.”

The ocean profiles also show that the dense water formed around Antarctica has become less saline since 1970.

and

Recall hearing that a great portion of the surface cooling witnessed recently is due to warmed surface waters being replaced by cooler waters from the depths (the flip side of which would be responsible for the drop in the density of bottom waters observed in the article above). Well...:

You posted a version of this yourself. Did you not wonder what would have driven surface temperatures downward when your air temps were doing no such thing?

Crick accusing Tisdale of lying.... When he uses publicly available data from their respective sources so that his work can be replicated and verified. Guess what Crick, your the lying ass... Tisdale has not manipulated the data.. GO back crying to your handlers at the EPA and Obama's communist government... Keep on digging you communist fool!

 

[IanC]

I'm surprised Ian. I wouldn't touch the "work" of Bob Tisdale with a ten-foot pole.

Latest Southern Ocean research shows continuing deep ocean change mdash Australian Antarctic Division


Comparing detailed measurements taken during the Australian Antarctic program’s 2012 Southern Ocean marine science voyage to historical data dating back to 1970, scientists estimate there has been as much as a 60% reduction in the volume of Antarctic Bottom Water, the cold dense water that drives global ocean currents.

In an intensive and arduous 25-day observing program, temperature and salinity samples were collected at 77 sites between Antarctica and Fremantle. Such ship transects provide the only means to detect changes in the deep ocean.

The new measurements, which have not yet been published, suggest the densest waters in the world ocean are gradually disappearing and being replaced by less dense waters.

“The amount of dense Antarctic Bottom Water has contracted each time we’ve measured it since the 1970s,” said Dr Steve Rintoul, the voyage leader and oceanographer with the CSIRO and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC. “There is now only about 40% as much dense water present as observed in 1970.”

The ocean profiles also show that the dense water formed around Antarctica has become less saline since 1970.

and

Recall hearing that a great portion of the surface cooling witnessed recently is due to warmed surface waters being replaced by cooler waters from the depths (the flip side of which would be responsible for the drop in the density of bottom waters observed in the article above). Well...:

You posted a version of this yourself. Did you not wonder what would have driven surface temperatures downward when your air temps were doing no such thing?

Crick accusing Tisdale of lying.... When he uses publicly available data from their respective sources so that his work can be replicated and verified. Guess what Crick, your the lying ass... Tisdale has not manipulated the data.. GO back crying to your handlers at the EPA and Obama's communist government... Keep on digging you communist fool!

crick has a fundemental misunderstanding about science. conclusions drawn from weak arbitrary evidence is not science. for example, crick thinks that the TOA energy imbalance bolsters his case even though I have pointed out that it is artificially adjusted at 0.85W/m2 by hand. the satellites do not come up with this figure, Hansen's crew simply assumed this number and then continued on with their calculations. crick knows this but has repeatedly stated that 'satellites say....' since then.

mamooth's Manatabe91 is only being cited by him. and only because it was an outlier that sorta, kinda matches what is going on now. climate science is confused and disturbed by what is happening in the Antarctic because it goes against their predictions.

 

[mamooth]

Dr. Manabe, regarded as the father of climate science, is an "outlier"? A very curious claim, given how Manabe (1991) has been mainstream with the IPCC since the AR2 in 1995.

Here's a thought. Instead of endlessly saying decreasing Antarctic sea ice was predicted, why not, for the first time ever, actually back up that claim? If you're not just making shit up, that should be easy for you.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Dr. Manabe, regarded as the father of climate science, is an "outlier"? A very curious claim, given how Manabe (1991) has been mainstream with the IPCC since the AR2 in 1995.

Here's a thought. Instead of endlessly saying decreasing Antarctic sea ice was predicted, why not, for the first time ever, actually back up that claim? If you're not just making shit up, that should be easy for you.

How about EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.... It shows the man was WRONG...

 

[Crick]

WHAT empirical evidence?

 

[jc456]

For the brain dead imbecile....OPINION. Show me where opinions are facts.

I've got a better idea: teach you what is and what is not science.

that's a hoot. You know very little about what is science.

 

[jc456]

You would have been better off by saying nothing at all.

Let's try that where it actually fits:

SwimExpert, you'd have been better off saying nothing at all.

I see how you did that!

 

[jc456]

I'm surprised Ian. I wouldn't touch the "work" of Bob Tisdale with a ten-foot pole.

Latest Southern Ocean research shows continuing deep ocean change mdash Australian Antarctic Division


Comparing detailed measurements taken during the Australian Antarctic program’s 2012 Southern Ocean marine science voyage to historical data dating back to 1970, scientists estimate there has been as much as a 60% reduction in the volume of Antarctic Bottom Water, the cold dense water that drives global ocean currents.

In an intensive and arduous 25-day observing program, temperature and salinity samples were collected at 77 sites between Antarctica and Fremantle. Such ship transects provide the only means to detect changes in the deep ocean.

The new measurements, which have not yet been published, suggest the densest waters in the world ocean are gradually disappearing and being replaced by less dense waters.

“The amount of dense Antarctic Bottom Water has contracted each time we’ve measured it since the 1970s,” said Dr Steve Rintoul, the voyage leader and oceanographer with the CSIRO and the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC. “There is now only about 40% as much dense water present as observed in 1970.”

The ocean profiles also show that the dense water formed around Antarctica has become less saline since 1970.

and

Recall hearing that a great portion of the surface cooling witnessed recently is due to warmed surface waters being replaced by cooler waters from the depths (the flip side of which would be responsible for the drop in the density of bottom waters observed in the article above). Well...:

You posted a version of this yourself. Did you not wonder what would have driven surface temperatures downward when your air temps were doing no such thing?

Crick accusing Tisdale of lying.... When he uses publicly available data from their respective sources so that his work can be replicated and verified. Guess what Crick, your the lying ass... Tisdale has not manipulated the data.. GO back crying to your handlers at the EPA and Obama's communist government... Keep on digging you communist fool!

crick has a fundemental misunderstanding about science. conclusions drawn from weak arbitrary evidence is not science. for example, crick thinks that the TOA energy imbalance bolsters his case even though I have pointed out that it is artificially adjusted at 0.85W/m2 by hand. the satellites do not come up with this figure, Hansen's crew simply assumed this number and then continued on with their calculations. crick knows this but has repeatedly stated that 'satellites say....' since then.

mamooth's Manatabe91 is only being cited by him. and only because it was an outlier that sorta, kinda matches what is going on now. climate science is confused and disturbed by what is happening in the Antarctic because it goes against their predictions.

Crick's a nutjob that's all.

 

[jc456]

WHAT empirical evidence?

The one that shows what 120PPM of CO2 does to temperature and climate to start with. Got that one yet, or do you still need another decade? WiNNiNg......

 

[Crick]

Scientific opinion on climate change
But it is you and yours who are the true deniers. you deny:

Before we get in to your attempt to define our position for us - an attempt you flub thoroughly when you mix up things we'd advocate and things we'd deny, I'd like to point out that for Mamooth, Old Rocks, Orogenicman, me and several others here, our positions are effectively defined by whatever is currently held by mainstream science as the dominant theory. Given that, we find...

• That the atmosphere has continued to warm for the past 17 years

The atmosphere, the surface of the continents and the oceans and, of course, the oceans themselves, have all continued to warm. The rate of warming for the surface has declined. The rate of warming of the deep ocean has accelerated. The radiative imbalance at the ToA continues unabated.

• That Antarctica is melting

Antarctica is losing ice mass to the sea. The entire WAIS has irreversibly destabilized. Greenland is also melting into the sea.

• That the melting in West Antarctica is caused by a warming atmosphere

I have never heard anyone say this. Air temperatures in West Antarctica are elevated, but, for some time now, the destabilization of the WAIS has been attributed to warmer waters deep in the Southern Ocean .

• That 97% of scientists are in agreement with the notion that warming is due to manmade CO2

97% or more of active climate scientists accept AGW as valid.

• That models accurately represent the climate of the earth

Models are the only way in which predictions or projections of future climate behavior can be made. There is no alternative. They have performed better than you and yours give them credit and they continue to improve. Folks like Roy Spencer and Bob Tisdale have LIED about the performance of common models but none of you seem interested in giving those charges the least examination because you like what Spencer says.

• That climate models accurately model the behavior of so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere

Accurate models of the behavior of greenhouse gasses have been created.

• That around the turn of the century CO2 decided to warm the oceans instead of the air

Around the turn of the century (and possibly about 1941 as well) warming altered tropical wind patterns and began driving warmed surface waters into the deep and bringing up colder, deep water to the surface in its place. The CO2 did not "decide" to do anything. CO2 is inanimate matter.

• That manmade CO2 is responsible for climate "disasters"

Anthropogenic CO2 and human deforestation are the primary cause for the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years.

 

[Crick]

Crick's a nutjob that's all.

Ask Ian his opinion of the scientific merits of posters jc456, Kosh, SSDD and Billy Bob.

 

[jc456]

Scientific opinion on climate change
But it is you and yours who are the true deniers. you deny:

Before we get in to your attempt to define our position for us - an attempt you flub thoroughly when you mix up things we'd advocate and things we'd deny, I'd like to point out that for Mamooth, Old Rocks, Orogenicman, me and several others here, our positions are effectively defined by whatever is currently held by mainstream science as the dominant theory. Given that, we find...

So I get it, only you are allowed to define individuals. Still Practicing your control issues I see.

That the atmosphere has continued to warm for the past 17 years

The atmosphere, the surface of the continents and the oceans and, of course, the oceans themselves, have all continued to warm. The rate of warming for the surface has declined. The rate of warming of the deep ocean has accelerated. The radiative imbalance at the ToA continues unabated.

You keep telling yourself that.

That Antarctica is melting

Antarctica is losing ice mass to the sea. The entire WAIS has irreversibly destabilized. Greenland is also melting into the sea.

Sure, proof to which you have zero. It is still not understood. Yet you believe you know what is happening at the Poles. Hilarious.

That the melting in West Antarctica is caused by a warming atmosphere

I have never heard anyone say this. Air temperatures in West Antarctica are elevated, but, for some time now, the destabilization of the WAIS has been attributed to warmer waters deep in the Southern Ocean .

But not verified. Still hasn’t it’s too cold for anything to really understand why the WAIS may be changing. We do know there is volcanic activity on that side of the continent. You I supposed challenge that, correct? Hah!!!

That 97% of scientists are in agreement with the notion that warming is due to manmade CO2

97% or more of active climate scientists accept AGW as valid.

All agree global warming was happening when asked the questions. However, I and several others have asked for the list of questions asked. In none of the questions was human causes. Not saying some of those 97% don’t think that, but that number shrinks adding just that one question. The total I am aware of is 75 of 77. Feel free to update that number and the questions when you feel like it.

That models accurately represent the climate of the earth

Models are the only way in which predictions or projections of future climate behavior can be made. There is no alternative. They have performed better than you and yours give them credit and they continue to improve. Folks like Roy Spencer and Bob Tisdale have LIED about the performance of common models but none of you seem interested in giving those charges the least examination because you like what Spencer says.

No, I know that the models the IPCC used for AR5 were wrong. The report stated so. But unlike normal science, they did not request those models be re-evaluated, instead they still go with them and still predicting when previous predictions were wrong. But Hey, what do I know about science. Except that, in real science, when the observed does not match the models scrap the models and re-evaluate new ones with added scenarios. Not done.

That climate models accurately model the behavior of so called greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere

Accurate models of the behavior of greenhouse gasses have been created.

And are wrong, next!

That around the turn of the century CO2 decided to warm the oceans instead of the air

Around the turn of the century (and possibly about 1941 as well) warming altered tropical wind patterns and began driving warmed surface waters into the deep and bringing up colder, deep water to the surface in its place. The CO2 did not "decide" to do anything. CO2 is inanimate matter.

Sure they did, you have that evidence? I and others have asked what 120 PPM will do to temperature and climate, and to date, none have been provided. Seems like if there were actual science in all of this someone would have done an experiment to prove out the hypothesis’. Not having one, dissolves any attempt to consider what you stand behind as science.

That manmade CO2 is responsible for climate "disasters"

Anthropogenic CO2 and human deforestation are the primary cause for the warming we've experienced over the last 150 years.

Still waiting on that experiment. Which you can’t provide. LoSiNg

 

[Crick]

God are you stupid, Every single statement you've made here is factually incorrect. You couldn't have fucked it up any worse if you'd tried.

 

[jc456]

Crick's a nutjob that's all.

Ask Ian his opinion of the scientific merits of posters jc456, Kosh, SSDD and Billy Bob.

not sure your point here. I have never stated I was a science major. Never, stated such in other threads. So what exactly do you think that proves?

I know one thing you can't prove your claim. Or provide any argument against this