Ice, again

[Old Rocks]

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/209/2014/tc-8-209-2014.pdf

Abstract.
We have extended the record of flow speed on Jakobshavn Isbræ through the summer of 2013. These new data reveal large seasonal speedups, 30 to 50% greater than previous summers. At a point a few kilometres inland from the terminus, the mean annual speed for 2012 is nearly three times as great as that in the mid-1990s, while the peak summer speeds are more than a factor of four greater. These
speeds were achieved as the glacier terminus appears to have retreated to the bottom of an over-deepened basin with a depth of 1300m below sea level. The terminus is likely to reach the deepest section of the trough within a few decades, after which it could rapidly retreat to the shallower regions
50 km farther upstream, potentially by the end of this century.

Well, SSDD, seems that mother nature is ***** slapping you.

 

[skookerasbil]

Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on those who claim that man made global warming is occurring. The burden is to demonstrate that it is occurring, and the magnitude of such. The burden is on them, because demanding proof of a negative is illogical.

Those who are making such claims continue to fail to meet their burden of proof. They argue causation from correlation. They argue ad populum And then they shift the burden. And then argue ad ignorantium. All the meanwhile mixing in the occasional ad nauseum.

well said.........theory dressed up as science isn't science. And they know it too.

 

[Old Rocks]

HotWhopper: 2013 the fourth hottest year in the UAH record

2013 was the fourth warmest year in the satellite era, trailing only 1998, 2010 and 2005, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. The warmest areas during the year were over the North Pacific and the Antarctic, where temperatures for the year averaged more than 1.4 C (more than 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal. There were small areas of cooler than normal temperatures scattered about the globe, including one area over central Canada where temperatures were 0.6 C (about 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than the 30-year norm.

Hmmmmmmmmmm............ Quite a jump for the Antarctic. Still well below freezing, but warming nonetheless. Hey Westwall, just how does that fit into your 'cooling' hypothesis?

 

[Old Rocks]

Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on those who claim that man made global warming is occurring. The burden is to demonstrate that it is occurring, and the magnitude of such. The burden is on them, because demanding proof of a negative is illogical.

Those who are making such claims continue to fail to meet their burden of proof. They argue causation from correlation. They argue ad populum And then they shift the burden. And then argue ad ignorantium. All the meanwhile mixing in the occasional ad nauseum.

well said.........theory dressed up as science isn't science. And they know it too.

Look up what theory means in scientific terms.

 

[SwimExpert]

That might have been true 25 years ago, when such a contention was an extraordinary claim.

No, it's always true. Period. That's the rules of logic. It doesn't change just for your convenience.

But at present, the vast majority of the experts in the field are fully satisfied with the evidence supporting AGW.

That's the ad populum.

The denier position has become the (extreme) minority view and it is your side that now has the burden of making an extraordinary case.

Shifting the burden.

Telling us that all the world's climatologists are ignorant crooks does not qualify. NOTHING the deniers have presented does.

And the ad ignorantum.

Congratulations, you've just spouted a plethora of fallacy.

 

[SSDD]

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/209/2014/tc-8-209-2014.pdf

Abstract.
We have extended the record of flow speed on Jakobshavn Isbræ through the summer of 2013. These new data reveal large seasonal speedups, 30 to 50% greater than previous summers. At a point a few kilometres inland from the terminus, the mean annual speed for 2012 is nearly three times as great as that in the mid-1990s, while the peak summer speeds are more than a factor of four greater. These
speeds were achieved as the glacier terminus appears to have retreated to the bottom of an over-deepened basin with a depth of 1300m below sea level. The terminus is likely to reach the deepest section of the trough within a few decades, after which it could rapidly retreat to the shallower regions
50 km farther upstream, potentially by the end of this century.

Well, SSDD, seems that mother nature is ***** slapping you.

Nah, it is you who is to be eternally ***** slapped by nature. The ice has survived much warmer periods....warmer periods brought on not by CO2 but like this time, natural causes. So long as you keep playing the part of an extremist wacko, nature is going to keep slapping you down. If you were able to moderate your tone and say that the ice is melting, but not as much this time as it has in the past when CO2 was at "safe" levels, and melting ice is part and parcel of the earth clawing its way out of an ice age towards its more natural temperature range, you would sound like a rational, thinking human being, and not like a panic stricken old lady.

Holocene Histories of Atmospheric CO₂ Concentration and West Greenland Air Temperature

http://helheim-glacier.org/xpdf/abstracts-helheim.pdf

Holocene temperature history at the western Greenland Ice Sheet margin reconstructed from lake sediments

 

[SSDD]

Logic dictates that the burden of proof is on those who claim that man made global warming is occurring. The burden is to demonstrate that it is occurring, and the magnitude of such. The burden is on them, because demanding proof of a negative is illogical.

Those who are making such claims continue to fail to meet their burden of proof. They argue causation from correlation. They argue ad populum And then they shift the burden. And then argue ad ignorantium. All the meanwhile mixing in the occasional ad nauseum.

well said.........theory dressed up as science isn't science. And they know it too.

Look up what theory means in scientific terms.

Already have and posted the results...AGW barely achieves hypothesis status....I say barely because a hypothesis is a starting point from which experimentation begins.....you guys are a bit short on expriments that prove your hypothesis...by a bit short, I mean you have nothing.

 

[IanC]

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/209/2014/tc-8-209-2014.pdf

Abstract.
We have extended the record of flow speed on Jakobshavn Isbræ through the summer of 2013. These new data reveal large seasonal speedups, 30 to 50% greater than previous summers. At a point a few kilometres inland from the terminus, the mean annual speed for 2012 is nearly three times as great as that in the mid-1990s, while the peak summer speeds are more than a factor of four greater. These
speeds were achieved as the glacier terminus appears to have retreated to the bottom of an over-deepened basin with a depth of 1300m below sea level. The terminus is likely to reach the deepest section of the trough within a few decades, after which it could rapidly retreat to the shallower regions
50 km farther upstream, potentially by the end of this century.

Well, SSDD, seems that mother nature is ***** slapping you.

just out of curiosity....is there a difference between natural temperature rise and CO2 induced temperature rise? if a glacier was retreating due to natural warming (and local conditions, of course), would it be different than now? was glacier retreat in the MWP a harbringer of doom? or a sign of good times for most species of life?

 

[SSDD]

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/209/2014/tc-8-209-2014.pdf

Abstract.
We have extended the record of flow speed on Jakobshavn Isbræ through the summer of 2013. These new data reveal large seasonal speedups, 30 to 50% greater than previous summers. At a point a few kilometres inland from the terminus, the mean annual speed for 2012 is nearly three times as great as that in the mid-1990s, while the peak summer speeds are more than a factor of four greater. These
speeds were achieved as the glacier terminus appears to have retreated to the bottom of an over-deepened basin with a depth of 1300m below sea level. The terminus is likely to reach the deepest section of the trough within a few decades, after which it could rapidly retreat to the shallower regions
50 km farther upstream, potentially by the end of this century.

Well, SSDD, seems that mother nature is ***** slapping you.

just out of curiosity....is there a difference between natural temperature rise and CO2 induced temperature rise? if a glacier was retreating due to natural warming (and local conditions, of course), would it be different than now? was glacier retreat in the MWP a harbringer of doom? or a sign of good times for most species of life?

That warming was different....there was no money to be made by hyping man made climate change back then although those people were as capable of altering the global climate as we are.

 

[Abraham3]

That might have been true 25 years ago, when such a contention was an extraordinary claim.

No, it's always true. Period. That's the rules of logic. It doesn't change just for your convenience.

It is NOT a rule of logic. It was an observation made by Carl Sagan and likely copied from Marcello Truzzi

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact". Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

— Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

But at present, the vast majority of the experts in the field are fully satisfied with the evidence supporting AGW.

That's the ad populum.

No, it is not. It is an appeal to authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate) and it is valid when the references actually are experts in the field and when there actually exists a consensus among them. Both are true and so the argument is valid.

That was a stupid mistake. I thought this was your field. No?

The denier position has become the (extreme) minority view and it is your side that now has the burden of making an extraordinary case.

Shifting the burden.

Hah! You don't actually know this stuff, do you. Shifting the burden, in logic, is another name for appeal to ignorance. This is not an appeal to ignorance. The burden has shifted because the consensus of the experts has shifted. What was once an extraordinary claim is now accepted science. What might have once been mundane (climate change is due to TSI changes) has now become little held and controversial.

Telling us that all the world's climatologists are ignorant crooks does not qualify. NOTHING the deniers have presented does.

And the ad ignorantum.

Holy cow, you really screwed this up. I thought perhaps you'd had a class or two in logic but I see that is just not the case (unless you flunked it). I had ONE class in logic, 32 years ago and I'm doing better than you. Ad Ignorantum is to claim that something is true because it has not been shown to be false. The appearance of the word "ignorant" in my statement does not qualify.

Congratulations, you've just spouted a plethora of fallacy.

Man... impressive. Two big words in one sentence. Wait... wait... let's check this out. Is there ANYONE here who does not know what the words P L E T H O R A or F A L L A C Y mean? No? What a freaking surprise.

You flubbed every single thing you wrote here: a perfect score.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/209/2014/tc-8-209-2014.pdf

Abstract.
We have extended the record of flow speed on Jakobshavn Isbræ through the summer of 2013. These new data reveal large seasonal speedups, 30 to 50% greater than previous summers. At a point a few kilometres inland from the terminus, the mean annual speed for 2012 is nearly three times as great as that in the mid-1990s, while the peak summer speeds are more than a factor of four greater. These
speeds were achieved as the glacier terminus appears to have retreated to the bottom of an over-deepened basin with a depth of 1300m below sea level. The terminus is likely to reach the deepest section of the trough within a few decades, after which it could rapidly retreat to the shallower regions
50 km farther upstream, potentially by the end of this century.

Well, SSDD, seems that mother nature is ***** slapping you.

Nah, it is you who is to be eternally ***** slapped by nature. The ice has survived much warmer periods....warmer periods brought on not by CO2 but like this time, natural causes. So long as you keep playing the part of an extremist wacko, nature is going to keep slapping you down. If you were able to moderate your tone and say that the ice is melting, but not as much this time as it has in the past when CO2 was at "safe" levels, and melting ice is part and parcel of the earth clawing its way out of an ice age towards its more natural temperature range, you would sound like a rational, thinking human being, and not like a panic stricken old lady.

Holocene Histories of Atmospheric CO₂ Concentration and West Greenland Air Temperature

http://helheim-glacier.org/xpdf/abstracts-helheim.pdf

Holocene temperature history at the western Greenland Ice Sheet margin reconstructed from lake sediments

Holocene Histories of Atmospheric CO₂ Concentration and West Greenland Air Temperature

As can be seen from the figure above, there is absolutely no rational relationship between the Holocene temperature history derived by Axford et al. and the air's CO2 content. Over the first 1800 years of the record, for example, when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rose by a sluggardly 10 ppm, Holocene temperatures rose, in the mean, by about 2.3°C. Then, over the following 2,400 years, when the air's CO2 content rose by about 20 ppm, mean summer air temperatures dropped by approximately 2.6°C. And over the next 1900 years, when the air's CO2 content rose by some 10 to 15 ppm, mean air temperature changed not at all. But over the final 300 or so years, when the atmospheric CO2 concentration rose by a whopping 125 ppm, summer air temperatures first declined by about 1.9°C and then rose by about 1.9°C, for essentially no net change. Clearly, the CO2 concentration of Earth's atmosphere would appear to have had no consistent impact on July air temperatures in the vicinity of North Lake, Greenland, over the past seven millennia.

This is not the article that was published in the Quaternary Science Reviews, but that blogs interpretation of it. And given their asinine interpretation of the graph above this paragraph, they are outright liars, just as you are for trying to pass this off as a real science article.

 

[Old Rocks]

well said.........theory dressed up as science isn't science. And they know it too.

Look up what theory means in scientific terms.

Already have and posted the results...AGW barely achieves hypothesis status....I say barely because a hypothesis is a starting point from which experimentation begins.....you guys are a bit short on expriments that prove your hypothesis...by a bit short, I mean you have nothing.

Really? Yet all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universites state otherwise. So, who to believe, an anamous poster on a message board, or the vast majority of scientists in the world? What a difficult decision!

 

[SSDD]

Look up what theory means in scientific terms.

Already have and posted the results...AGW barely achieves hypothesis status....I say barely because a hypothesis is a starting point from which experimentation begins.....you guys are a bit short on expriments that prove your hypothesis...by a bit short, I mean you have nothing.

Really? Yet all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universites state otherwise. So, who to believe, an anamous poster on a message board, or the vast majority of scientists in the world? What a difficult decision!

A thinking person would ask how it is that the political heads of all those societies make such claims with zero actual evidence to support them....a drone just accepts and then repeats a logical fallacy endlessly in an attempt to justify his drone status.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/8/209/2014/tc-8-209-2014.pdf

Abstract.
We have extended the record of flow speed on Jakobshavn Isbræ through the summer of 2013. These new data reveal large seasonal speedups, 30 to 50% greater than previous summers. At a point a few kilometres inland from the terminus, the mean annual speed for 2012 is nearly three times as great as that in the mid-1990s, while the peak summer speeds are more than a factor of four greater. These
speeds were achieved as the glacier terminus appears to have retreated to the bottom of an over-deepened basin with a depth of 1300m below sea level. The terminus is likely to reach the deepest section of the trough within a few decades, after which it could rapidly retreat to the shallower regions
50 km farther upstream, potentially by the end of this century.

Well, SSDD, seems that mother nature is ***** slapping you.

Nah, it is you who is to be eternally ***** slapped by nature. The ice has survived much warmer periods....warmer periods brought on not by CO2 but like this time, natural causes. So long as you keep playing the part of an extremist wacko, nature is going to keep slapping you down. If you were able to moderate your tone and say that the ice is melting, but not as much this time as it has in the past when CO2 was at "safe" levels, and melting ice is part and parcel of the earth clawing its way out of an ice age towards its more natural temperature range, you would sound like a rational, thinking human being, and not like a panic stricken old lady.

Holocene Histories of Atmospheric CO₂ Concentration and West Greenland Air Temperature

http://helheim-glacier.org/xpdf/abstracts-helheim.pdf

Holocene temperature history at the western Greenland Ice Sheet margin reconstructed from lake sediments

Natural History Museum
University of Copenhagen
Recent years’ rapid melting of the Greenland ice sheet has shown that the southern dome is the ice sheet’s most vulnerable part. The southern ice sheet dome, the area south of c. 67°N, is a highland ice cap with its base c. 500 m a.s.l. It contains c. 15% of the Greenland ice sheet’s volume, equal to c. 1 m global sea level, and is characterised by very high accumulation and melting. Two of the most active outlets from the ice sheet, Jakobshavn Isbræ and Helheim Gletscher drain the saddle between the northern and southern ice sheet domes.

Can the southern dome’s response to past warming give us a clue to its fate in the
future? ODP borings on the shelf have shown that the ice dome has existed, on and off, at least since the Miocene. Recent results from the DYE 3 ice core and other sources indicate that the dome
melted away, and gave way to forested mountains for the last time during marine isotope stage 11, c. 400,000 years ago. The southern dome, and of course the northern also, persisted in a reduced form during the warm Eemian interglacial (c. 125,000 years ago), when annual mean temperatures over Greenland were c. 5°C warmer than now for some millenia. During the last ice age the southeast coast of Greenland was one of the areas of major ice sheet growth, reaching the shelf edge at the last glacial maximum, c. 20,000 years ago, as shown by bathymetric studies. During the
Holocene thermal maximum, c. 8,000 years ago, when annual mean temperatures were c. 2°C warmer than now for some thousands of years, modelling and GPS altimetry show that the southern dome was the most sensitive part of the ice sheet, retreating as much as 80 km behind its present front in some areas. After this, during the neoglacial the ice margin readvanced. In spite of the large scale changes in ice cover in this area, the Holocene isostatic history is peculiarly muted and characterised by low uplift. This can be interpreted in several ways, but does show an abnormal ice load history, when compared to other sectors of the ice sheet.

So, the ice in this dome has melted completely away even when the CO2 level was far lower than it is today. Also when we did not have the massive amounts of soot in the air, falling on the glaciers and changing the albedo of the ice.

As for your comments about extremist whackos, the paragraph was directly from the article. Real scientists stating it like it is, not a dumb ass poster displaying his vast ignorance.

 

[Old Rocks]

Already have and posted the results...AGW barely achieves hypothesis status....I say barely because a hypothesis is a starting point from which experimentation begins.....you guys are a bit short on expriments that prove your hypothesis...by a bit short, I mean you have nothing.

Really? Yet all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universites state otherwise. So, who to believe, an anamous poster on a message board, or the vast majority of scientists in the world? What a difficult decision!

A thinking person would ask how it is that the political heads of all those societies make such claims with zero actual evidence to support them....a drone just accepts and then repeats a logical fallacy endlessly in an attempt to justify his drone status.

So, you are accussing millions of scientists of outright fraud. Oh, where is my little tin hat, little tin hat, little tin hat..............................

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Abraham3]

He has very seldom demonstrated the kind of depth of knowledge that I have known from Phd Geologists teaching the classes that I have taken.

I'm afraid I have to agree with you there.

 

[westwall]

Look up what theory means in scientific terms.

Already have and posted the results...AGW barely achieves hypothesis status....I say barely because a hypothesis is a starting point from which experimentation begins.....you guys are a bit short on expriments that prove your hypothesis...by a bit short, I mean you have nothing.

Really? Yet all the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universites state otherwise. So, who to believe, an anamous poster on a message board, or the vast majority of scientists in the world? What a difficult decision!

The word is ANONYMOUS. You drinking again?

 

[westwall]

He has very seldom demonstrated the kind of depth of knowledge that I have known from Phd Geologists teaching the classes that I have taken.

I'm afraid I have to agree with you there.

I do love it so when socks talk to each other!

 

[gnarlylove]

I am impressed with the deniers language skills (esp. Swim) given their utter misgivings with definitions. I am keen on fallacies and for someone to know what a fallacy is in its original Latin should imply some basic cognition associated with the fallacy. NOPE.

We see that is monumnetally lacking among the denial group upon scrutiny (which they fail to do for themselves obviously). Argumentum ad populum as SwimExpert applied it is exemplarly ineptitude. To say the high rate of agreement among experts is appeal to popularity is a fundamental disconnect between brain and consciousness. Yet Swim had such high confidence of his "axioms." This brainlessness is ruefully common among deniers.

Swim (and all your denial buddies) do you not see an overt patterns of shameless ignorance by yourselves? At some point you got to say these deniers have no capacity to see their own horse shit while it makes its presence evident in each post--often reaching a new "high score" of horse shit with each new post!

 

[SwimExpert]

It is NOT a rule of logic. It was an observation made by Carl Sagan and likely copied from Marcello Truzzi

You really don't know what you're talking about.

No, it is not. It is an appeal to authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate)

No. Your position is constantly that X% of scientists agree, therefore it must be true. That is ad populum.

Oh, and BTW, it's ad auctoritate.

and it is valid when the references actually are experts in the field and when there actually exists a consensus among them. Both are true and so the argument is valid.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy in deductive logic. ALWAYS. It is also fallacy when invoked to ignore evidence that is inconsistent with your position. You do both. So really, I could have included that in my list. But the ad populum sufficiently covered it in my opinion.

Hah! You don't actually know this stuff, do you. Shifting the burden, in logic, is another name for appeal to ignorance.

Your ignorance is showing. An ad ignorantiam is usually implied within, or follows, a fallacious shifting of the burden. But this is not always necessary.

Jake: I don't believe God exists.
Sally: But you don't have any proof. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe it either, but unless you can prove it we should still go to church and obey the church's teachings, just in case.

Here, Sally has shifted the burden of proof to demand proof of a negative. She has not actually included an argument claiming the contradiction of the God premise as true. In fact, she agrees with the premise. She does not make an ad ignorantiam argument. She merely shifts the burden of proof.

This is not an appeal to ignorance. The burden has shifted because the consensus of the experts has shifted.

False. You accept the conclusions as true because many people have said they are true. It remains an ad populum. If a million experts say a false thing, it is still a false thing.

Ad Ignorantum is to claim that something is true because it has not been shown to be false. The appearance of the word "ignorant" in my statement does not qualify.

Sad little man, your argument is that those who disagree with you have not proven AGW does not exist, therefore it must be true. That is an ad ignorantiam.

You really need to get the **** over yourself. You don't know what you are talking about. You are wrong. It's not that you have a difference of opinion. You are wrong. Irving Copi is turning in his grave every time you try to talk about logic.

Man... impressive. Two big words in one sentence. Wait... wait... let's check this out. Is there ANYONE here who does not know what the words P L E T H O R A or F A L L A C Y mean? No? What a freaking surprise.

Oh look and ad hominem.