Ice, again

[Abraham3]

What's the matter abraham? You really don't know whether or not the earth is exiting an ice age?

Imagine, spending two days waffling rather than answering such an easy question. My but you are weak. Rather look like a shuck and jive idiot than either admit that you deny that the earth is exiting an ice age, or acknowledge that it is.

Enjoy the spin.

 

[gnarlylove]

Westwall has no real arguements, so uses idiocy. Varies from taking a sentence totally out of context, to using photos like above. The Arctic is losing ice rapidly. It is having a clear affect on the climate. The jet stream meanders are moving more slowly, and have deeper troughs, north to south. That means in the summer, heat further north, and in the winter, cold further south.

Having open water for longer in the fall also means a warmer Arctic in the winter, as freezing ice warms the air. And that creates many of the effects we have seen this winter.

Climate Change and Extreme Weather: Prof. Jennifer Francis (2013) - YouTube

And, yes, Westwall, a real Phd scientist at a real science conferance, not a blog by undegreed idiots.

What you fail to understand Old Rocks, is that Westwall is not here to hear any counter evidence. If he watched even the first minute of your video he would realize it's against his views and would thusly tune it out. He would conclude it does not count as evidence therefore.

Little do we all know Westwall sets the standards for what is evidence and what is not among the scientific and academic community. That's what keeps him so busy from making any substantive point. Trust me, he's doing god's work. Mind you, his understanding is that of god's--omniscience and we must listen. Providing alternative ideas is counter to his methods of ignoring them.

BTW, thanks for the vid...

 

[westwall]

Westwall has no real arguements, so uses idiocy. Varies from taking a sentence totally out of context, to using photos like above. The Arctic is losing ice rapidly. It is having a clear affect on the climate. The jet stream meanders are moving more slowly, and have deeper troughs, north to south. That means in the summer, heat further north, and in the winter, cold further south.

Having open water for longer in the fall also means a warmer Arctic in the winter, as freezing ice warms the air. And that creates many of the effects we have seen this winter.

Climate Change and Extreme Weather: Prof. Jennifer Francis (2013) - YouTube

And, yes, Westwall, a real Phd scientist at a real science conferance, not a blog by undegreed idiots.

What, right now, is causing the Jet Stream to move south olfraud? It is a WELL KNOWN phenomenon. So tell us what it is.

 

[westwall]

Westwall has no real arguements, so uses idiocy. Varies from taking a sentence totally out of context, to using photos like above. The Arctic is losing ice rapidly. It is having a clear affect on the climate. The jet stream meanders are moving more slowly, and have deeper troughs, north to south. That means in the summer, heat further north, and in the winter, cold further south.

Having open water for longer in the fall also means a warmer Arctic in the winter, as freezing ice warms the air. And that creates many of the effects we have seen this winter.

Climate Change and Extreme Weather: Prof. Jennifer Francis (2013) - YouTube

And, yes, Westwall, a real Phd scientist at a real science conferance, not a blog by undegreed idiots.

What you fail to understand Old Rocks, is that Westwall is not here to hear any counter evidence. If he watched even the first minute of your video he would realize it's against his views and would thusly tune it out. He would conclude it does not count as evidence therefore.

Little do we all know Westwall sets the standards for what is evidence and what is not among the scientific and academic community. That's what keeps him so busy from making any substantive point. Trust me, he's doing god's work. Mind you, his understanding is that of god's--omniscience and we must listen. Providing alternative ideas is counter to his methods of ignoring them.

BTW, thanks for the vid...

I have watched everything these idiots have ever posted. And it is all correlation equals causation bull crap. Any scientist KNOWs that correlation DOES NOT equal causation but that's ALL these people trot out.

It's crap. It has always been crap, and it will always BE, crap.

 

[gnarlylove]

As an idiot I refer you to the scientific community that takes high levels of correlation as substantive reasoning to address our role in eroding ice and other climate features that cause harm to man.

But I'm trying to think differently. A view that understands problems not as mere problems but sees them as the chance to innovate. It's the innovate or perish idea. I'm not saying humans will die (that idea is wildly absurd and I apologize on behalf of the AGW cultists who instilled fear) but when we ignore problems till they blow up in our face, it tends to create great strides in technological innovation--just the sort we need! And I'm all for innovation in solving these problems, whether its as late as possible or a steady approach. Perhaps I should be rooting for Westwall's brand of ignorance so it blows up in our face and we are forced to innovate or suffer.

 

[westwall]

As an idiot I refer you to the scientific community that takes high levels of correlation as substantive reasoning to address our role in eroding ice and other climate features that cause harm to man.

But I'm trying to think differently. A view that understands problems not as mere problems but sees them as the chance to innovate. It's the innovate or perish idea. I'm not saying humans will die (that idea is wildly absurd and I apologize on behalf of the AGW cultists who instilled fear) but when we ignore problems till they blow up in our face, it tends to create great strides in technological innovation--just the sort we need! And I'm all for innovation in solving these problems, whether its as late as possible or a steady approach. Perhaps I should be rooting for Westwall's brand of ignorance so it blows up in our face and we are forced to innovate or suffer.

Tell me. What green energy programs have you worked on? I've actually worked on one. Dr. Carl Austin was a good friend of mine and recruited me to help him with the Coso Geothermal Plant at China Lake Naval Air Station back in the 1980's.

Your particular brand of ignorance rewards failure. Failure that is rewarded leads to continual treading of water, technology wise. Why strive for something revolutionary when you don't have to.

I want REAL technological innovation. You want to return to technologies that were rendered obsolete 100 years ago.

You're the Luddite here.

 

[SSDD]

What's the matter abraham? You really don't know whether or not the earth is exiting an ice age?

Imagine, spending two days waffling rather than answering such an easy question. My but you are weak. Rather look like a shuck and jive idiot than either admit that you deny that the earth is exiting an ice age, or acknowledge that it is.

Enjoy the spin.

I am enjoying watching you spin rather than acknowledge that the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age.

 

[SSDD]

What you fail to understand Old Rocks, is that Westwall is not here to hear any counter evidence. If he watched even the first minute of your video he would realize it's against his views and would thusly tune it out. He would conclude it does not count as evidence therefore.

I can't help but notice that you failed to answer the post in which I gave you another source of the historical temp/CO2 numbers which you asked for along with sources....That was the post where you tried to claim that CO2 at 400ppm perhaps killed the corals during the Pleistocene when in fact, the Pleistocene was when the current ice age reached its lowest temperatures and CO2 was in fact falling from over 1000ppm where the corals were doing just fine. Fact is that it is you and yours who won't see the hard historical facts that put your fearmongering in the trash where it belongs.

By the way, rock's video is trash produced by a climate activist who happens to have a pHd. Here are some peer reviewed, published papers (as opposed to a talk at a confrence) that find that "extreme" weather is just more envirowacko hand waving. I find it interesting that rocks would post some hysterical handwaving by an activist saying one thing in a speech when there is so much published material out there saying exactly the opposite. Maybe rocks is an activist as well.

Late-Holocene land surface change in a coupled social?ecological system, southern Iceland: a cross-scale tephrochronology approach

Revisiting the evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in midlatitudes - Barnes - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Extreme weather : Nature News & Comment

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

500 years of regional forest growth variability and links to climatic extreme events in Europe - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

Changes of regional climate variability in central Europe during the past 250 ye

Reconstructed drought variability in southeastern Sweden since the 1650s - Seftigen - 2012 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n6/full/nclimate1828.html

Paleofloods of the Mediterranean French Alps

A long-term perspective on a modern drought in the American Southeast - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

 

[Abraham3]

What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?

Hint: the date is on your desk calendar and you probably don't even have to flip a page.

 

[SwimExpert]

What's the matter abraham? You really don't know whether or not the earth is exiting an ice age?

Imagine, spending two days waffling rather than answering such an easy question. My but you are weak. Rather look like a shuck and jive idiot than either admit that you deny that the earth is exiting an ice age, or acknowledge that it is.

Enjoy the spin.

 

[SwimExpert]

What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?

Fail. Humans have been around for over two million years.

 

[Abraham3]

What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?

ESL?

CIVILIZATION:
1.
an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
2.
those people or nations that have reached such a state.
3.
any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group: Greek civilization.
4.
the act or process of civilizing or being civilized: Rome's civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable.
5.
cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation: The letters of Madame de Sévigné reveal her wit and civilization.

 

[IanC]

Any comments?

Abe- I understand why you have great faith in CAGW....you simply accept climate science papers that agree with your views as the unvarnished truth. To you, there is no need for any skeptical examination of the accuracy of the data, no need to question the legitimacy of the conclusions. it's peer reviewed, right?

I joined this MB before climategate but I only came to this forum afterwards. I was predisposed to disagreeing with CAGW for several reasons. I have lived through enough concensus paradigms to know that they often are mistaken, especially when they create a financial windfall to a bureaucratic cohort. I am also smart, with enough math and science training to notice logical deficits in many of climate science claims.



take your sea ice example....what does it have to do with CO2? are you using sea ice as a proxy for temperature? are you testing your climate model predictions? if so, then they fail miserably at both poles with one having too much and the other too little. sea ice is obviously driven by many natural factors besides just temperature and we have only weak understanding of many of them.

a few years ago I read an article from the early 1920's that described spectacular ice loss and warmed sea surface temperatures for the european arctic region. I then looked up the official history for that area. the warming wasn't there! why would fishermen make up a story about their stock disappearing because of warmer temps? how were coal deposits found unless the ice really did disappear?

I wondered why the large retreat of glaciers before 1900 was simply ignored! what about the supposed 'history' of sea ice in the 20th century? was it consistent or 'homogenized' like the temperature record? I bet most of you know the answer to that!

the Icelandic temp records have been so mangled that periods of ice retreat and advancement dont match up with the temperature! perhaps CO2 affects the freezing point of water, eh?

 

[SwimExpert]

What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?

ESL?

CIVILIZATION:
1.
an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
2.
those people or nations that have reached such a state.
3.
any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group: Greek civilization.
4.
the act or process of civilizing or being civilized: Rome's civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable.
5.
cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation: The letters of Madame de Sévigné reveal her wit and civilization.

You seriously don't know what you are talking about. Your ignorance is showing more and more every single day.

'The oldest work of art ever': 42,000-year-old paintings of seals found in Spanish cave | Mail Online


Where there's art, there's civilization.

 

[SSDD]

What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?

Hint: the date is on your desk calendar and you probably don't even have to flip a page.

Fisrst off, the ice age we are presently exiting has been going on for a hell of a lot longer than 10000 years.

Second...read em and weep...chemical analysis.... more accurate than the IR analysis being used by modern climate science.

 

[SSDD]

What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?

ESL?

CIVILIZATION:
1.
an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
2.
those people or nations that have reached such a state.
3.
any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group: Greek civilization.
4.
the act or process of civilizing or being civilized: Rome's civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable.
5.
cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation: The letters of Madame de Sévigné reveal her wit and civilization.

You seriously don't know what you are talking about. Your ignorance is showing more and more every single day.

'The oldest work of art ever': 42,000-year-old paintings of seals found in Spanish cave | Mail Online


Where there's art, there's civilization.

Funny thing is he claims to be worried about the earth and then only wants to know about CO2 concentrations for 10k years knowing that during that time the earth has been in an ice age and if one looks back to the beginning of the present ice age CO2 levels over 1000ppm are the norm and we know that the earth prior to the ice age wasn't that different from the one we live in now.....except for the ice age part.

 

[gnarlylove]

What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilizationn?

You seriously don't know what you are talking about.
'The oldest work of art ever': 42,000-year-old paintings of seals found in Spanish cave | Mail Online

Human ancestors have been around for roughly 2 million years. But Abraham obviously states civilization, which differs from pro-type humans.

Then you have the cajones to correct yourself by saying human civilization goes back to 42,000 years or so. That is distinctly different from 2 million years.

You celebrate your own correction as if you have just corrected Abraham. This is hilarious and it shows to what length you are willing to claim "victory" despite that victory really being your own stupidity being brought to light. I like your style, either way, you can't possibly loose. You win if youre right, you win if youre wrong!

 

[gnarlylove]

we know that the earth prior to the ice age wasn't that different from the one we live in now.....except for the ice age part.

Hmmm, I thought ice ages brought about significant change. TO you the only difference is the ice age, everything remains the same. How is that possible when ice is covering large swaths of land that weren't covered before? Doesn't this significantly impact that region and if large enough, the globe?

 

[Abraham3]

Abe- I understand why you have great faith in CAGW....you simply accept climate science papers that agree with your views as the unvarnished truth. To you, there is no need for any skeptical examination of the accuracy of the data, no need to question the legitimacy of the conclusions. it's peer reviewed, right?

I joined this MB before climategate but I only came to this forum afterwards. I was predisposed to disagreeing with CAGW for several reasons. I have lived through enough concensus paradigms to know that they often are mistaken, especially when they create a financial windfall to a bureaucratic cohort. I am also smart, with enough math and science training to notice logical deficits in many of climate science claims.

take your sea ice example....what does it have to do with CO2? are you using sea ice as a proxy for temperature? are you testing your climate model predictions? if so, then they fail miserably at both poles with one having too much and the other too little. sea ice is obviously driven by many natural factors besides just temperature and we have only weak understanding of many of them.

a few years ago I read an article from the early 1920's that described spectacular ice loss and warmed sea surface temperatures for the european arctic region. I then looked up the official history for that area. the warming wasn't there! why would fishermen make up a story about their stock disappearing because of warmer temps? how were coal deposits found unless the ice really did disappear?

I wondered why the large retreat of glaciers before 1900 was simply ignored! what about the supposed 'history' of sea ice in the 20th century? was it consistent or 'homogenized' like the temperature record? I bet most of you know the answer to that!

the Icelandic temp records have been so mangled that periods of ice retreat and advancement dont match up with the temperature! perhaps CO2 affects the freezing point of water, eh?

Abe- I understand why you have great faith in CAGW....you simply accept
climate science papers that agree with your views as the unvarnished
truth.

Wrong on all counts. I do not have "faith" in the theory of AGW. My
opinion, based on the overwhelming consensus of the experts, is that it
is extremely likely to be correct. I generally reserve the word
"truth" for mathematical axioms or other universally recognized, a
priori statements of principle or rule. I do not use the term for
theories of natural science.

To you, there is no need for any skeptical examination of the accuracy
of the data, no need to question the legitimacy of the conclusions. it's
peer reviewed, right?

Why do you waste time trying to tell me what I think? I
am a steadfast believer in the scientific method. That does NOT mean
that I think conclusions resulting from its exercise are infalliable
truths NOR that they should consistently be treated as suspect,
unsupported conjecture. The degree to which I hold any scientific
conclusion likely to be correct is based on the responses and
observations I read, see and hear from the scientific community on the
specific topic. And while I understand that scientists who feel they
have better explanations for given observations or that find
falsifications of accepted theory, should certainly bring them forward
(and do, as one of the best ways to enhance a career in science) -
I am not a scientist. I have neither the knowledge set
nor the time to do any more research than click a few links and read a
few articles. I have taken the time to note that a very strong
consensus exists among the world's climate experts regarding AGW and the
threat it presents to us and more so to our descendants. Based on that
consensus, I accept AGW as, by far, the likeliest description of what
this planet's climate is actually doing. Based on the threat it levels
against my children and theirs and the rest of humanity for many
generations, I choose to work to ameliorate the threat as I can. One of
the tasks with which those choices present me is to debate those who
reject AGW in public forums. Why are you here? What are you
protecting? What evil do you seek to stop? Excessive sensitivity to
environmental degradation?

I joined this MB before climategate but I only came to this forum
afterwards. I was predisposed to disagreeing with CAGW for several
reasons. I have lived through enough concensus paradigms to know that
they often are mistaken, especially when they create a financial
windfall to a bureaucratic cohort. I am also smart, with enough math and
science training to notice logical deficits in many of climate science
claims.

Consensus paradigms are often mistaken? I disagree. An examination of
consensus positions on matters of natural science since the time of
Francis Bacon would certainly show an improving batting average. How
much of the currently accepted set of natural and physical science
theories do you believe is in error? I think the notoriety of failed
theories may be leading you to give them more weight than they actually
possess. For every theory that fails, hundreds are solid as a rock.

And if you actually want to suggest that a group as large as the world's
climate scientists are consistently and sufficiently dishonest to lie to
the public through tens of thousands of peer reviewed journals, I think
this conversation can just end. The suggestion is both ignorant and
offensive. That you knew someone who might have such a moral lack or
that you might have felt such temptations yourself is NOT evidence that
it is commonplace.

"I am also smart"??? Not smart enough, apparently, to realize the very
disappointing impression such a comment gives. Your claim of expertise
is patent nonsense. You are not a publishing climate scientist. You are
not doing climate research. You are not reviewing journal submissions.
You may think you are sufficently knowledgeable to catch "logical
deficits" in research articles, but you do not have the real
qualifications to convince me - or anyone else lacking a denier's
mindset - that you have such abilities. If you believe you have noticed
logical deficits in AGW, please spell them out for us.

take your sea ice example....what does it have to do with CO2?

It is melting because the world - particularly the Arctic world - is
getting warmer. That is happening primarily due to the Greenhouse
Effect acting on human GHG emissions.

are you using sea ice as a proxy for temperature?

Of course. Local polar air and sea temperatures.

are you testing your climate model predictions?

Ian, neither of us are climate scientists. Neither of us have climate
models. Neither of us have climate model predictions. What test would
I perform by posting pretty pictures of these data on a public message
board Ian? I am using these data to support a contention that the Earth
continues to warm; that AGW did not cease in 1998 as many deniers would
like to argue.

if so, then they fail miserably at both poles with one having too much
and the other too little.

Then, gosh, I guess I'm glad I don't have any.

The Arctic will very likely be ice-free in summer in less than 20
years. That is a very signficant loss of albedo and it will have
serious impacts on walrus, seal and polar bear populations. It also
presents a risk to the AMOC which could have global consequences on the
world's sea food supplies. The sea ice in Antarctica is relatively
irrelevant. Almost all of it disappears every summer and, optically, it
is thoroughly overwhelmed by the land-based ice there. That is where
the risk lies. The sub-MSL base of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
presents the possibility of a horrendous environmental catastrophe.
It's the sort of event whose potential for enormous damage makes it
something to keep in mind even if you think the odds of it occurring are
slim.

sea ice is obviously driven by many natural factors besides just
temperature and we have only weak understanding of many of them.

That is all perfectly true. Just don't take it to mean that temperature
is not a MAJOR factor, because it is.

a few years ago I read an article from the early 1920's that
described spectacular ice loss and warmed sea surface temperatures for
the european arctic region. I then looked up the official history for
that area. the warming wasn't there! why would fishermen make up a story
about their stock disappearing because of warmer temps? how were coal
deposits found unless the ice really did disappear?

What are you trying to say? I have to tell you I am not fond of science
by anecdote and that's exactly what you're feeding us here.

I wondered why the large retreat of glaciers before 1900 was simply
ignored!

Ignored?!?! What is this Ian?
https://www.google.com/#q=retreat,+glaciers,+1800s. As
often as deniers claim their arguments are being suppressed, you'd think
they might be more cautious of appearing paranoid or trying too hard to
appear the victim. I don't say that I see this coming from you in
particular, but the number of times deniers with whom I argue claim that
this story or this fact or this trend is being suppressed by the mass
media or by some cabal of big name scientists is simply ludicrous.
Particularly when in virtually every instance a simple search yields
mass media references to the "suppressed" factoid hand over fist.

what about the supposed 'history' of sea ice in the 20th century? was it
consistent or 'homogenized' like the temperature record? I bet most of
you know the answer to that!

Once again, I don't know what you're trying to say. You may be too
involved in the denier internal dialogue. I'm not privvy to all your
references.

the Icelandic temp records have been so mangled that periods of ice
retreat and advancement dont match up with the temperature! perhaps CO2
affects the freezing point of water, eh?

Have I been making some point with Icelandic temperatures or melt rates?
Has anyone? Didn't you just get finished telling us that ice melt is
complex and that we don't yet know all the factors? And, if you're
going to bring up Iceland with comments like that (Mr Smart and
Full-of-Math-and-Science) you might want to think about geothermal
effects. Iceland? MAR? Ya know?

So, quite the ramble. But, are we clear?

1) The very strong consensus among climate experts supporting AGW makes
it extremely likely that AGW is a correct theory.
2) Neither you nor I are climate scientists; we have no models; we have
no predictions
3) I believe the world's ice is melting because the Earth is getting
warmer and that it is getting warmer primarily due to the Greenhouse
Effect acting on human GHG emissions.

 

[Abraham3]

What's the highest atmospheric CO2 levels you've found in the last 10,000 years, ie during the course of human civilization?

ESL?

CIVILIZATION:
1.
an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
2.
those people or nations that have reached such a state.
3.
any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group: Greek civilization.
4.
the act or process of civilizing or being civilized: Rome's civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable.
5.
cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation: The letters of Madame de Sévigné reveal her wit and civilization.

You seriously don't know what you are talking about. Your ignorance is showing more and more every single day.

'The oldest work of art ever': 42,000-year-old paintings of seals found in Spanish cave | Mail Online


Where there's art, there's civilization.

CIVILIZATION: a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.

Cave paintings don't qualify. Like you.

But, hey, I'm easy. When was the highest level of CO2 in the past 42,000 years? Oh, heck, make it 50,000 years. Eh?

Guess what? Same hint applies. It's on your desk calendar. It's on your watch. It's on your cell phone.