Arctic ice thins dramatically

[IanC]

I know Old Rocks refuses to comment on data manipulation but perhaps RollingThunder will.

Hansens lastest paper admits that the GCMs dont do a very good job. did that make you any less certain of the reliability of the models or the IPCC projections built from them, RollingThunder? likewise for Trenberth's admission that the projected error bars for the models will certainly get larger once they add additional factors like ENSO and other ocean multidecadal systems?

is anyone on the CAGW side having second thoughts about the stated climate sensitivity for CO2 now that more and more studies are showing that it must be less that IPCC projections?

 

[Old Rocks]

Data manipulation. The latest fad with the denial cult.

You damned dumb asses. Virtually everybody in every nation that is studying this problem now have the same conclusions, with only minor variations. They are come up with a bumpy hockey stick, no matter what the proxies.

And the ice continues to melt, from alpine glaciers to continental ice caps. How the hell does one manipulate that?

 

[IanC]

Data manipulation. The latest fad with the denial cult.

You damned dumb asses. Virtually everybody in every nation that is studying this problem now have the same conclusions, with only minor variations. They are come up with a bumpy hockey stick, no matter what the proxies.

And the ice continues to melt, from alpine glaciers to continental ice caps. How the hell does one manipulate that?

actually data manipulation has always been the sticking point with the skeptical side. you are doing it now. ice melts when it gets warmer but that is in no way evidence that man is the cause.

 

[wirebender]

Data manipulation. The latest fad with the denial cult.

You damned dumb asses. Virtually everybody in every nation that is studying this problem now have the same conclusions, with only minor variations. They are come up with a bumpy hockey stick, no matter what the proxies.

And the ice continues to melt, from alpine glaciers to continental ice caps. How the hell does one manipulate that?

No actual rebuttal other than to discount the blatant evidence before your eyes. Typical and entirely unsurprising.

As to the ice, it has been melting for 14,000 years now. Once more, what do you find surprising, or upsetting about the fact that it continues to melt? When might you get a clue that proof of an event does not even begin to rise to the level of evidence of what caused the event?

Rather than bloviate endlessly about this happening or that happening or this or that may or might happen, how about you provide some actual hard evidence of what is causing this or that to happen. Since you want to change the way the entire world lives (except the third world), the onus lies upon your shoulders to provide evidence of cause and alas, there is none. That is what makes the rampant data manipulation, omission, and fabrication necessary for your priests.

 

[Big Fitz]

...you're another clueless retard. You make that very clear.




LOLOLOLOL....rightwingnut insanity and projection.

The world scientific community is practically unanimous in warning the world that we're facing a very serious climate crisis that we have created by burning fossil fuels and deforestation. Those who understand the science are trying to get the world to deal with the problem by limiting carbon emissions but those with a vested financial interest in selling fossil fuels are trying to confuse the public about the reality and dangers of AGW in order to delay any restrictions on carbon emissions because those restrictions or taxes would also curtail the profit stream from the sale of fossil fuels. You're one of the scientifically ignorant dupes and stooges of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.

Fossil fuels? Have you heard of the US Space Program? The latest discovery of lakes of hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon Titan has totally demolished the cute notion that you need dead dinosaurs to produce hydrocarbons

Oh, that "science" thingy strikes again!

Tis why I have him on ignore. His psychosis is nothing short of mental leprosy. If you handle it too much, you could catch it.

 

[Big Fitz]

I reitertate, since the flurry of activity of competing science.....

It's an emotional issue more akin to religion than science for the Chicken Littles.

My challenge for a non-governmental solution to a non-existent crisis continues untouched.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...you're another clueless retard. You make that very clear.




LOLOLOLOL....rightwingnut insanity and projection.

The world scientific community is practically unanimous in warning the world that we're facing a very serious climate crisis that we have created by burning fossil fuels and deforestation. Those who understand the science are trying to get the world to deal with the problem by limiting carbon emissions but those with a vested financial interest in selling fossil fuels are trying to confuse the public about the reality and dangers of AGW in order to delay any restrictions on carbon emissions because those restrictions or taxes would also curtail the profit stream from the sale of fossil fuels. You're one of the scientifically ignorant dupes and stooges of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign.

Fossil fuels? Have you heard of the US Space Program? The latest discovery of lakes of hydrocarbons on Saturn's moon Titan has totally demolished the cute notion that you need dead dinosaurs to produce hydrocarbons

And because you're so ignorant about science, someone has fooled you into thinking that this has any significance. Hydrocarbons are very common in the universe but you denier cult nutjobs don't even know what 'hydrocarbon' means. The fossil fuels we use here on Earth are in fact the decomposed remnants of ancient biological materials from plants.

Formation of Petroleum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Petroleum is a fossil fuel derived from ancient fossilized organic materials, such as zooplankton and algae.[19] Vast quantities of these remains settled to a sea or lake bottoms, mixing with sediments and being buried under anoxic conditions. As further layers settled to the sea or lake bed, intense heat and pressure built up in the lower regions. This process caused the organic matter to change, first into a waxy material known as kerogen, which is found in various oil shales around the world, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons via a process known as catagenesis. Formation of petroleum occurs from hydrocarbon pyrolysis in a variety of mostly endothermic reactions at high temperature and/or pressure.[20]

There were certain warm nutrient-rich environments such as the Gulf of Mexico and the ancient Tethys Sea where the large amounts of organic material falling to the ocean floor exceeded the rate at which it could decompose. This resulted in large masses of organic material being buried under subsequent deposits such as shale formed from mud. This massive organic deposit later became heated and transformed under pressure into oil.[21]

Geologists often refer to the temperature range in which oil forms as an "oil window"[22]—below the minimum temperature oil remains trapped in the form of kerogen, and above the maximum temperature the oil is converted to natural gas through the process of thermal cracking. Sometimes, oil formed at extreme depths may migrate and become trapped at a much shallower level. The Athabasca Oil Sands is one example of this.

So Saturn's Moon Titan, which clocks in at -290F must have had lots of this "warm nutrient-rich environments" to make its lakes of hydrocarbons too, right?

Also, can you show me one single time where decomposed animals turned into stuff other than methane?

We have labs that can add the heat and pressure necessary, can you show me one time when animal carcasses were turned into light, sweet crude oil?

 

[skookerasbil]

Data manipulation. The latest fad with the denial cult.

You damned dumb asses. Virtually everybody in every nation that is studying this problem now have the same conclusions, with only minor variations. They are come up with a bumpy hockey stick, no matter what the proxies.

And the ice continues to melt, from alpine glaciers to continental ice caps. How the hell does one manipulate that?

Who cares what you think s0n? What matters is what the public thinks

 

[westwall]

Data manipulation. The latest fad with the denial cult.

You damned dumb asses. Virtually everybody in every nation that is studying this problem now have the same conclusions, with only minor variations. They are come up with a bumpy hockey stick, no matter what the proxies.

And the ice continues to melt, from alpine glaciers to continental ice caps. How the hell does one manipulate that?

Explain the thousands of feet of ice added to the bottom of the Antarctic ice sheet and the dozens of advancing glaciers worldwide.

Come on I dare you!

 

[RWatt]

Your point here is well reasoned, but I wonder could man be responsible for recent changes even if changes have happened naturally in the past? Are the two really mutually exclusive? I can't see why they would be, after-all man can be responsible for a whole number of things that have happened naturally in the past. Forest fires are a prime example.

Occam says.........no. The fact that the climate change we are experiencing today is no way unprecedented or even slightly unusual is strong evidence that man is not responsible. Logic suggests that if man were altering the climate that would be a new thing and in all likelyhood, look quite different from past climate change.

I would think man could cause changes that are nevertheless not unprecedented in Earth's history. I don't think a forest arsonist in court would get away with the crime with the defense that he can't be to blame because the fire wasn't unprecedented in Earth's history!

In fact isn't it more plausible that human changes would be comparable or lower in magnitude to the biggest changes in Earth's history? If man can warm the climate by 2 degree C for example that would have past precedent and yet it would be a human caused warming nevertheless.

I would think CO2 being a greenhouse gas must in some form or another be contributing to the significant warmth that the greenhouse effect affords the Earth, whether or not that be described in terms of trapping or by other words.

The greenhouse effect is little more than a piss poor hypothesis. Not a shred of empirical evidence exists to support its existence.

I am rather convinced of the greenhouse effect as the atmosphere operating as a sort of insulating blanket. The Earth's average surface temperature is a lot warmer than it should be given the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs alone, so some an additional source of energy is needed to explain why the surface is so warm and there is a significant amount of measured radiation emitted by the atmosphere being absorbed by the Earth's surface.

Other examples in the solar system, venus is far warmer than Mercury even though Mercury is closer to the Sun. The only difference is the composition of the atmosphere and the expected greenhouse effect on Venus.

 

[Old Rocks]

Data manipulation. The latest fad with the denial cult.

You damned dumb asses. Virtually everybody in every nation that is studying this problem now have the same conclusions, with only minor variations. They are come up with a bumpy hockey stick, no matter what the proxies.

And the ice continues to melt, from alpine glaciers to continental ice caps. How the hell does one manipulate that?

Explain the thousands of feet of ice added to the bottom of the Antarctic ice sheet and the dozens of advancing glaciers worldwide.

Come on I dare you!

Thousands of feet of added ice? Damn, that is a whopper, even for you, Walleyes. Grace satellite data shows that Anarctica is losing ice by the tens of cubic miles per year now, and that loss is accelerating.

Sure, you can show a couple of dozen glaciers that are growing, or at least surging, but USGS counts the rest worldwide, thousands, that are in rapid retreat.

USGS Release: Glaciers Retreating in Asia (8/25/2010 10:33:00 AM)

USGS Repeat Photography Project Documents Retreating Glaciers in Glacier National Park | Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center (NOROCK)

USGS Release: Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, and Stagnating, Says Major USGS Report (10/6/2008 11:44:25 AM)

Global glacier retreat

http://www.uregina.ca/geology/People/Dale/Student presentations/Meegan Glacial.ppt

Almost all the glaciers, worldwide are retreating, both Anarctica and Greenland are losing ice at an accelerating rate, and none of your line and misdirection will change any of that.

 

[Big Fitz]

Data manipulation. The latest fad with the denial cult.

You damned dumb asses. Virtually everybody in every nation that is studying this problem now have the same conclusions, with only minor variations. They are come up with a bumpy hockey stick, no matter what the proxies.

And the ice continues to melt, from alpine glaciers to continental ice caps. How the hell does one manipulate that?

Who cares what you think s0n? What matters is what the public thinks

if that's the case, we should still be believing that eels spawn from rivermud, flies from rotted meat, baths cause 'the flux', bleeding heals disease, the earth is flat, witches cause drought, famine and 'dry' cows, and other old wives tale science.

But in this age of weather phrenology... we're beyond such hoaxes.

Today... we have magic manmade CO2 that will destroy all life as we know it if we don't end all industrialization and capitalism in the next 60 minutes.

 

[IanC]

hahaha, exactly. Old Rocks wants us to save the world by pre-emptively adopting the same shitty conditions that may or may not happen in the future. its kinda like the cults who commit mass suicide to escape th2 end of the world.

the world will go on. conditions will change no matter what we do. warmer conditions and moreCO2 just mean we can feed the billions of people here now. just wait until the next ice age comes, and it will, and you'll see conditions that we cant adapt to.

 

[RollingThunder]

Data manipulation. The latest fad with the denial cult.

You damned dumb asses. Virtually everybody in every nation that is studying this problem now have the same conclusions, with only minor variations. They are come up with a bumpy hockey stick, no matter what the proxies.

And the ice continues to melt, from alpine glaciers to continental ice caps. How the hell does one manipulate that?

if that's the case, we should still be believing that eels spawn from rivermud, flies from rotted meat, baths cause 'the flux', bleeding heals disease, the earth is flat, witches cause drought, famine and 'dry' cows, and other old wives tale science.

Gee, BigFritz, I thought that you anti-science denier cultists still believed all that stuff.

 

[wirebender]

I would think man could cause changes that are nevertheless not unprecedented in Earth's history. I don't think a forest arsonist in court would get away with the crime with the defense that he can't be to blame because the fire wasn't unprecedented in Earth's history!

In fact isn't it more plausible that human changes would be comparable or lower in magnitude to the biggest changes in Earth's history? If man can warm the climate by 2 degree C for example that would have past precedent and yet it would be a human caused warming nevertheless.

We might dance this dance indefinately and neither of us would gain an advantage. While it passes the time, I really don't have the time to spare so I will move forward an infinite numbr of steps and gain an insurmountable advantage and simply put the issue to bed.

Show me some hard, observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man, and the changing climate. Unequivocal is defined as - not equivocal; unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation

The warmist side claims man is responsible and prescribes incredible alterations in the way a very many people live thier lives; changes that would cause inestimable damage to world economies. The onus, therefore lies with the warmists to prove the case. Lets see the hard, unequivocal evidence that demands the change.

I am rather convinced of the greenhouse effect as the atmosphere operating as a sort of insulating blanket. The Earth's average surface temperature is a lot warmer than it should be given the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs alone, so some an additional source of energy is needed to explain why the surface is so warm and there is a significant amount of measured radiation emitted by the atmosphere being absorbed by the Earth's surface.

There is blatant evidence available before your eyes that your estimation is incorrect. The atmosphere does act as a blanket of sorts, but clearly it doesn't behave as you believe.

First, the earth's average temperature is a result of the blanket effect. During the daytime, the surface of the earth is far cooler than it would be were there not an atmosphere. Look at the daytime temperature of the surface of the moon which recieves roughly the same amount of radiation per square meter from the sun as the earth. The surface temperature there is over 200 degrees F. Clearly, the atmosphere is keeping the earth cool in the face of the sun, not warmer as your blanket hypothesis suggests.

It is when the surface turns away from the sun that the blanket effect takes hold. The atmosphere slows the escape of heat absorbed by the earth during the daylight hours; and like a blanket, the atmosphere can not provide additional heat as is claimed by the greenhouse hypothesis. The vast bulk of the "blanket" effect is provided by water vapor.

This may be readily observed by choosing two points on a map at the same lattitude and roughly the same altitude. One coastal, and one desert. The coastal area will be considerably cooler than the desert during the day due to the presence of more water vapor. The cooling effect is undeniable. When night comes on, the coastal area will lose heat far more slowly than the desert. Again due to more humidity. The "blanket" effect is striking in the difference in heat loss overnight. Note that the night time temperatures in the coastal area are never higher during the night than they are during the day even though the "blanket" effect is easily observed. Like a blanket, the atmosphere can not create heat, only slow its escape.

Other examples in the solar system, venus is far warmer than Mercury even though Mercury is closer to the Sun. The only difference is the composition of the atmosphere and the expected greenhouse effect on Venus.

I really can't believe you just made that comparison. Mercury has almost no atmospheric pressure while the atmospheric pressure on venus is over 1300 psi. If you want to discover the difference between the two, you need not look any further than that. The atmosphere on venus is over 90 times more dense than that of the earth so no comparison may be drawn between earth, venus and mercury with regard to the compositiosition of their resepective atmospheres and temperatures.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Data manipulation. The latest fad with the denial cult.

You damned dumb asses. Virtually everybody in every nation that is studying this problem now have the same conclusions, with only minor variations. They are come up with a bumpy hockey stick, no matter what the proxies.

And the ice continues to melt, from alpine glaciers to continental ice caps. How the hell does one manipulate that?

if that's the case, we should still be believing that eels spawn from rivermud, flies from rotted meat, baths cause 'the flux', bleeding heals disease, the earth is flat, witches cause drought, famine and 'dry' cows, and other old wives tale science.

Gee, BigFritz, I thought that you anti-science denier cultists still believed all that stuff.

Can you show us one, single, scientific laboratory experiment where a 60PPM increase in CO2 does ANY of things you allege? If not, why not?

 

[Old Rocks]

I would think man could cause changes that are nevertheless not unprecedented in Earth's history. I don't think a forest arsonist in court would get away with the crime with the defense that he can't be to blame because the fire wasn't unprecedented in Earth's history!

In fact isn't it more plausible that human changes would be comparable or lower in magnitude to the biggest changes in Earth's history? If man can warm the climate by 2 degree C for example that would have past precedent and yet it would be a human caused warming nevertheless.

We might dance this dance indefinately and neither of us would gain an advantage. While it passes the time, I really don't have the time to spare so I will move forward an infinite numbr of steps and gain an insurmountable advantage and simply put the issue to bed.

Show me some hard, observed evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the activities of man, and the changing climate. Unequivocal is defined as - not equivocal; unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation

The warmist side claims man is responsible and prescribes incredible alterations in the way a very many people live thier lives; changes that would cause inestimable damage to world economies. The onus, therefore lies with the warmists to prove the case. Lets see the hard, unequivocal evidence that demands the change.

Very simple, the absorption spectra for CO2

http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/spectrum.htm

I am rather convinced of the greenhouse effect as the atmosphere operating as a sort of insulating blanket. The Earth's average surface temperature is a lot warmer than it should be given the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs alone, so some an additional source of energy is needed to explain why the surface is so warm and there is a significant amount of measured radiation emitted by the atmosphere being absorbed by the Earth's surface.

There is blatant evidence available before your eyes that your estimation is incorrect. The atmosphere does act as a blanket of sorts, but clearly it doesn't behave as you believe.

First, the earth's average temperature is a result of the blanket effect. During the daytime, the surface of the earth is far cooler than it would be were there not an atmosphere. Look at the daytime temperature of the surface of the moon which recieves roughly the same amount of radiation per square meter from the sun as the earth. The surface temperature there is over 200 degrees F. Clearly, the atmosphere is keeping the earth cool in the face of the sun, not warmer as your blanket hypothesis suggests.

It is when the surface turns away from the sun that the blanket effect takes hold. The atmosphere slows the escape of heat absorbed by the earth during the daylight hours; and like a blanket, the atmosphere can not provide additional heat as is claimed by the greenhouse hypothesis. The vast bulk of the "blanket" effect is provided by water vapor.

This may be readily observed by choosing two points on a map at the same lattitude and roughly the same altitude. One coastal, and one desert. The coastal area will be considerably cooler than the desert during the day due to the presence of more water vapor. The cooling effect is undeniable. When night comes on, the coastal area will lose heat far more slowly than the desert. Again due to more humidity. The "blanket" effect is striking in the difference in heat loss overnight. Note that the night time temperatures in the coastal area are never higher during the night than they are during the day even though the "blanket" effect is easily observed. Like a blanket, the atmosphere can not create heat, only slow its escape.

All it takes to falsify a really dumbass hypothesis is on example. The coastal area of Chile is a desert, and exhibits all the features of a desert in spite of being next to the ocean. You hypothesis is falsified.

Other examples in the solar system, venus is far warmer than Mercury even though Mercury is closer to the Sun. The only difference is the composition of the atmosphere and the expected greenhouse effect on Venus.

I really can't believe you just made that comparison. Mercury has almost no atmospheric pressure while the atmospheric pressure on venus is over 1300 psi. If you want to discover the difference between the two, you need not look any further than that. The atmosphere on venus is over 90 times more dense than that of the earth so no comparison may be drawn between earth, venus and mercury with regard to the compositiosition of their resepective atmospheres and temperatures.

At one time the atmosphere of the Earth was considerably denser than it is today. The weathering of rock and the action of life is what gave us the present atmosphere. While I do not believe the Venus hypothesis is possible here, a repeat of the Permiam-Triassic Extinction is quite possible, were all the clathrates to let go.

However, just a very rapid change in the weather patterns is enough to make life very difficult for the 7 billion on this planet, enough difficult to significantly reduce that number.

 

[wirebender]

Very simple, the absorption spectra for CO2

I can only surmise in your near complete ignorance of the actual science, you failed to note that the emission spectra of the CO2 molecule proves beyond question that the precise amount of energy absorbed by a given CO2 molecule is immediately emitted proving that CO2 does not, and can not retain or trap energy.

All it takes to falsify a really dumbass hypothesis is on example. The coastal area of Chile is a desert, and exhibits all the features of a desert in spite of being next to the ocean. You hypothesis is falsified.

You doofus. Are you referrring to the Atacama Desert? In your zeal to try to win an argument, you invariably fail to familiarize yourself with the very information that would prevent a rational person from arguing in the first place. Clearly, you are completely unaware of the Humbolt current that runs just off shore of the land. The presence of this current prevents clouds from making landfall and thus creates the desert in the first place. The Humbolt current is as obvious a barrier to the normal coastal humidity as the miles of land one might encounter between most coastal areas and inland deserts. Observe

Aso, I clearly stated that one should pick a coastal area and a desert area in the same lattitude and roughly the same ALTITUDE. I suppose you are equally unaware that the elevation of the Atacama desert is about 25,000 feet. Had you a hint of geography, you would have known that the land assends almost immediately into high mountains. Mountain areas almost universally have less humidity than lowlands.

Geez guy, learn something and you won't be subject to nearly so much public humiliation.

At one time the atmosphere of the Earth was considerably denser than it is today. The weathering of rock and the action of life is what gave us the present atmosphere. While I do not believe the Venus hypothesis is possible here, a repeat of the Permiam-Triassic Extinction is quite possible, were all the clathrates to let go.

So tell me what you believe the maximum atmospheric pressure to have been during this time of a "considerably" denser atmosphere?

And the Permian extinction happened during a time of catastrophic volcanic activity. I suppose if you get volcanoes the likes of which we have never seen to go unabated for a few thousand years, and were somehow able to bring most of the continents into a single land mass agin along with the accompanying sluggish ocean currents, and the low atmospheric oxygen content of the time, you might get the same sort of extinction as during the permian, but then again, man wouldn't be responsible.

However, just a very rapid change in the weather patterns is enough to make life very difficult for the 7 billion on this planet, enough difficult to significantly reduce that number.

There is no rapid change in weather patterns. Neither the weather nor the climate is in any way exceptional nor unprecedented when viewed in the context of the climate for the relatively recent past. Wringing your hands hysterically is not going to alter the observable facts and bring about your imagined catastrophe. You should be more concerned about the present cooling trend and the effects that will bring on. A warmer climate would be welcome everywhere while an extended cooling trend is something to be genuinely concerned about. Cold kills far more than warm.

 

[konradv]

I can only surmise in your near complete ignorance of the actual science, you failed to note that the emission spectra of the CO2 molecule proves beyond question that the precise amount of energy absorbed by a given CO2 molecule is immediately emitted proving that CO2 does not, and can not retain or trap energy.

You're missing the point. Instead of all reflected energy going off into space, it has the chance of being absorbed by CO2 and then re-emitted. Since statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space, the other 50% must be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it. Couple that with the increase of CO2 and other GHGs since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and we would get more re-emission and, thereby, more heat. It's simple logic, really!!!

 

[IanC]

I can only surmise in your near complete ignorance of the actual science, you failed to note that the emission spectra of the CO2 molecule proves beyond question that the precise amount of energy absorbed by a given CO2 molecule is immediately emitted proving that CO2 does not, and can not retain or trap energy.

You're missing the point. Instead of all reflected energy going off into space, it has the chance of being absorbed by CO2 and then re-emitted. Since statistically only 50% would be re-emitted towards space, the other 50% must be re-emitted towards earth, thereby warming it. Couple that with the increase of CO2 and other GHGs since the advent of the Industrial Revolution and we would get more re-emission and, thereby, more heat. It's simple logic, really!!!

if a rockslide blocks a river do you think the water just stays uphill? or does it find a new route?