UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
go sleep it off, rebecca. try again tomorrow when you're sober.
Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013
- Thread starter tryingtogrow89
- Start date
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
and as promised i am back with a few citations showing that our current climate is the result of a Interglacial period chracterized by a GLOBAL WARMING from the historic norm of the earth being as cold as a witch's tit in a brass brasiere.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/297/5585/1287.summary
Interglaciations are real, and we are IN ONE? amazing
http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/inconvenient-graphic/
evidence of a general trend of warming for some time as we depart a persistent and extended period of Glaciers reaching almost to mexico, through a period of 100% Non-Anthropgenic Glomal Climate Change in a Decidedly Upward Direction
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/21/5/831.abstract
uhh ohh, looks like the Holocene warm period may not be done yet.. it could last a LOT longer, and get CONSIDERABLY warmer even if you assume Co2 production by man ceases...
http://profhorn.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/climate/earthorbit.html
a fun model which demonstrates the Milankovic cycle correlating to past glaciations, and indicating MORE WARMING TO COME until the cycle once again moves in the other direction and a general cooling trend begins which will be followed by another warming cycle and a new interglacial...
this source:
http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/25/milankovic-cycles-and-climate-change/
argues that in fact the Holocene Era is over, and a new glaciation has already begun (some 6000 years ago he asserts, but i disagree)
but thats cool, im not angry because he disagrees.
so yeah the funny little lines on the graph show we are approaching (or may be past) the peak of an interglacial which has been uncharacteristically mild and stable by the standards of the previous several episodes, but eventually the glaciers WILL come back.
http://www.am.ub.edu/~jmiralda/fsgw/lect5.html
it's not just pretty pictures. the Low points are Glacial Maximums (more ice), the high points are Glacial Minimums (less ice).
using your brain always works better than borrowing somebody else's.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/297/5585/1287.summary
Interglaciations are real, and we are IN ONE? amazing
http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/inconvenient-graphic/
evidence of a general trend of warming for some time as we depart a persistent and extended period of Glaciers reaching almost to mexico, through a period of 100% Non-Anthropgenic Glomal Climate Change in a Decidedly Upward Direction
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/21/5/831.abstract
uhh ohh, looks like the Holocene warm period may not be done yet.. it could last a LOT longer, and get CONSIDERABLY warmer even if you assume Co2 production by man ceases...
http://profhorn.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/climate/earthorbit.html
a fun model which demonstrates the Milankovic cycle correlating to past glaciations, and indicating MORE WARMING TO COME until the cycle once again moves in the other direction and a general cooling trend begins which will be followed by another warming cycle and a new interglacial...
this source:
http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/25/milankovic-cycles-and-climate-change/
argues that in fact the Holocene Era is over, and a new glaciation has already begun (some 6000 years ago he asserts, but i disagree)
but thats cool, im not angry because he disagrees.
so yeah the funny little lines on the graph show we are approaching (or may be past) the peak of an interglacial which has been uncharacteristically mild and stable by the standards of the previous several episodes, but eventually the glaciers WILL come back.
http://www.am.ub.edu/~jmiralda/fsgw/lect5.html
it's not just pretty pictures. the Low points are Glacial Maximums (more ice), the high points are Glacial Minimums (less ice).
using your brain always works better than borrowing somebody else's.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yep, that we've gained nearly a full degree in the last 30 years alone is consistent with the warming kkkynes speaks of.
let's see, we've ticked up .75 degrees in the last 30 or so years, so in order for that to be consistent with the natural variation which assistant professor kkkynes speaks of over the last 10,000 years, then we've warmed about 250 degrees fahrenheit.
that sounds right, doesn't it?
ok, let's go with the last 100 years, where we've warmed 1.25 degrees or so. over 10,000 years, that gives us a raise in temps of 125 degrees.
again, that sounds perfectly accurate, doesn't it? just natural variations of 125 degrees per 10,000 years. no way human activities have pushed down the accelerator over the last century, and especially over the last half century.
that's just silly talk. roy spencer will tell you that dinosaur (jesus pony) ghosts in the atmosphere eat all of the pollutants we fire out, and the increase in warming is just simple cyclical dinosaur (jesus pony) flatulence.
let's all keep listening to assistant professor kkkynes, no way he would ever lie straight to our faces shamelessly and whatnot, like he has time after time after time again.
let's see, we've ticked up .75 degrees in the last 30 or so years, so in order for that to be consistent with the natural variation which assistant professor kkkynes speaks of over the last 10,000 years, then we've warmed about 250 degrees fahrenheit.
that sounds right, doesn't it?
ok, let's go with the last 100 years, where we've warmed 1.25 degrees or so. over 10,000 years, that gives us a raise in temps of 125 degrees.
again, that sounds perfectly accurate, doesn't it? just natural variations of 125 degrees per 10,000 years. no way human activities have pushed down the accelerator over the last century, and especially over the last half century.
that's just silly talk. roy spencer will tell you that dinosaur (jesus pony) ghosts in the atmosphere eat all of the pollutants we fire out, and the increase in warming is just simple cyclical dinosaur (jesus pony) flatulence.
let's all keep listening to assistant professor kkkynes, no way he would ever lie straight to our faces shamelessly and whatnot, like he has time after time after time again.
FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
Al Gore said that the North Pole should have been melted by now. He explained that in his nobel peace prize speach. What I don't understand is; if ice is supposed to be melting, then why is it expanding?
[video=youtube;56Q4Bl4EvVM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56Q4Bl4EvVM&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
[video=youtube;56Q4Bl4EvVM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56Q4Bl4EvVM&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
amazingly enough i found ginjas amazing disappearing citations list:
its in post #119
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/723331-earth-gains-record-amount-sea-12.html
concealed in a shameless reprint of YET ANOTHER regurgitation from Skeptical Science.
between the broken HTML tags, ad hominems and numerous returns to the well at Skeptical Science, ginja posted 1 (One, Singular, Uno) citation which did not lead directly to Skeptical Science, or come directly from them.
and that one was from Noaa, and did not uphold his assertion beyond the usual "Blah Blah Blah "Thermodynamic Input" blah blah blah, "must be anthropogenic", blah blah blah" nonsense.
on a world which has been warming got 11000 years from a deep freeze, more warming is not unexpected. warmer water has more energy to fuel storms, it's true, but that water has been getting warmer for a long as time, and the slope has not changed dramatically unless you limit yourself to looking solely at the trend since yep, you guessed it, 1979, the peak of the last major cooling anomaly.
amazing how that works out, 1979 is the bottom of the trough with temps falling well below the historic mean, so THATS the new normal (despite the trend for warmer temps before and after the anomaly) and any deviation from That New Normal must be a catastrophe, and that catastrophe must in fact be caused by MAN.
uhh oh sounds like i just made the case for more ignorant assertions about the Holocene not being Stable, and there not being an 11000 year up-trend in temps because if you edit out the word ANOMALY, or pretend it means something different, then you can make more retarded statements.
its in post #119
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/723331-earth-gains-record-amount-sea-12.html
concealed in a shameless reprint of YET ANOTHER regurgitation from Skeptical Science.
between the broken HTML tags, ad hominems and numerous returns to the well at Skeptical Science, ginja posted 1 (One, Singular, Uno) citation which did not lead directly to Skeptical Science, or come directly from them.
and that one was from Noaa, and did not uphold his assertion beyond the usual "Blah Blah Blah "Thermodynamic Input" blah blah blah, "must be anthropogenic", blah blah blah" nonsense.
on a world which has been warming got 11000 years from a deep freeze, more warming is not unexpected. warmer water has more energy to fuel storms, it's true, but that water has been getting warmer for a long as time, and the slope has not changed dramatically unless you limit yourself to looking solely at the trend since yep, you guessed it, 1979, the peak of the last major cooling anomaly.
amazing how that works out, 1979 is the bottom of the trough with temps falling well below the historic mean, so THATS the new normal (despite the trend for warmer temps before and after the anomaly) and any deviation from That New Normal must be a catastrophe, and that catastrophe must in fact be caused by MAN.
uhh oh sounds like i just made the case for more ignorant assertions about the Holocene not being Stable, and there not being an 11000 year up-trend in temps because if you edit out the word ANOMALY, or pretend it means something different, then you can make more retarded statements.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
And your point is?
Do I need to go back and QUOTE where I repeated said no one was arguing natural variation didn't happen?
Apart from the fact it's a denialist blog
What part shows this evidence you claim?
hang on you were saying we were heading into ice age...
Will not work on this device
You really should let climatologists know about that graph..so yeah the funny little lines on the graph show we are approaching (or may be past) the peak of an interglacial which has been uncharacteristically mild and stable by the standards of the previous several episodes, but eventually the glaciers WILL come back.
http://www.am.ub.edu/~jmiralda/fsgw/lect5.html
of course no point deferring to people who have trained and studied this I should use my brain and ignore the experts advice
Need urgent surgery? No need to goto hospital to see doctor use your brain!!!
Important law case? Don't get a lawyer just use your brain?
Need a new computer? Don't buy one at the store, use your brain build if
Or you could just goto Roy Spencer or watts up and use their brains....
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
They are so amazing that they only disappear when your not looking at the post...
Were you never taught honesty as a child?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
1.25 degrees per 100 years?
nope.
.75 degrees over 30 years?
nope.
if the earth were warming at those rates, it would be 125 degrees hotter or 250 degrees hotter, respectively.
you are making the flimsiest, stupidest, most easily defeated argument ever.
but at least you cited a creationist for good measure and comic value.
oh, wait. you were serious when you cited the creationist. well, that's just dumb, but still amusing for me at least.
carry on, assistant toilet scrubber kkkynes.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
I see you missed the day at class where they told you the difference between "should" and "could"
Knowing that you struggle with those simple words I won't bore you with the fact that as the artic ocean is (mostly) enclosed the only way ice could be "expanding" is if it had previously disappeared from the area
Now if you want to know why it's expanding instead of always shrinking? Well that's because there are natural variation cycles (ask Keynes he knows all about them)
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
why do you think it's expanding when it is doing anything but?
notice how the line goes down, not up? that should be a hint.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
figured out how to work them quote tags i see...
so lets see. 200-300 more years of warming and then back to cooling, which is MY STATEMENT, while others suggest cooling has already begun, and still others insist that the warming will continue for a extended period of time, before eventually turning back to a cooling cycle.
what part of UP AND DOWN is confusing you? the lack of "Consensus" on an issue so complex that REAL climatologists still cant make up their minds if we will drown in a flood, die in a desert or the atmosphere will just cook off into space like mars' did?
the field of climatology is still NEW and as such is is a confusing place with no real dogma established, which must then eventually be torn down to make way for new ideas, but the Global Warming believers are doing their damnedest to create a dogma, one in which heretics are pilloried for even the mildest apostasy.
you have not refuted the arguments, except by making the ad hominem assertion that all who disagree are "Climate Deniers", an accusation so fraught with subtext, it nearly approaches the phrase "Holocaust Denier" in its potency, just before pointing at your OWN fringey Blogs and screaming about how im LYING when in fact i am stating positions held by scientists, not making shit up myself.
copy and pasting "citations" from a fringey blog on your side does not impeach the actual science done by people with a different theory, not does that qualify as YOUR citations, since you have clearly not even read the material presented. that sort of shabby activity is considered Intellectual Dishonesty, and in some cases Academic Fraud.
Citation Inflation does not make your case stronger, it makes your case WEAKER, and when those citations are simply a copy/paste of somebody else's bibliography... well thats what we call Plagiarism...
your wholesale posting of the Skeptical Science blog is not Many citations it is ONE citation, and that one being right shakey.
meanwhile, you dismiss EVERYTHING from news reports, to peer reviewed studies, to the words of actual scientist with actual published reports, infavour of the mad claims of ONE SHITTY BLOG, and their fervent assertions that they got it all stiched up tight, and everybody else MUST be wrong, even as the IPCC revises down their previous "Scientific Consensus" on the "Global Climate Change" Doomsday Scenario by 50%.
for being the BEST OF THE BEST, and the people who are EXPERTS in their feild they seem to be revising a lot of shit DOWN now that their data is being examined more closely thanks to Climate Gate (who's participants were not "Exonerated" they were simply not indicted for fraud.)
so, were their Brilliant Consensus (consensuses, consensii consensibus?) wrong Then or are they wrong Now?
the primary question still remains, as it has since the science of Climatology was first born "If we assume man effects the environment (which is logical) HOW MUCH?" (a sentiment expressed in one of my citations much earlier in the thread)
and you could always google "Milankovic Cycle" and see it for yourself.
stop whining and citing the same dubious source, "Skeptical Science", (which is two lies right there, they are completely non-skeptical of "AGW", and their science is so bad it stinks on ice. the imaginary ice, from all the ice ages we will Never Ever Ever have again.) and exercise your own brain instead of simply swallowing whatever some shitty blog serves up with a smirk.
edit, and yes... "Need a new computer? Don't buy one at the store, use your brain build if <sic>"
thats what i do. i havent bought a computer since 1992.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
yes. Al Gore said it "could be all melted" but then Al Gore has ZERO climate science education, he is a divinity school drop out (couldnt even master a course with ONE book in the syllabus, and based entirely on simply agreeing that "God Did It"), and yet his word is gospel (apparently divinity school taught him a trick or two). his "hockeystick graph" was entirely fake, in fact his who "Academy Award Winning Documentary" was based on arbitrarily (that means Faked) assigned numbers, and designed solely to "spread the message" regardless of the fact that it contained NO FACTS.
when the observations go all "stopped Clock" in gore's favour, he is a "GENIUS!", a "Modern Day Prometheus" and a "Visionary"
buuuuuuuut... when the spinning wheel lands NOT upon the numbers he has picked, well he's just a politician, not an expert.
umm, seriously. what "enclosure" seals off the arctic, ensuring that the only water available to make New ice is water that melted from Old Ice? i seem to recall that Nukular Subs used to sail under the polar ice pretty regularly.
in fact the onlt thing that separates the "Arctic Ocean" from the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, The Sea of Japan, and the Bo Hai Sea and in fact EVERY sea not surrounded by land form the rest is ARBITRARILY DRAWN LINES ON A MAP.
still not grasping the idea that yes, there are fluctuations, and there are LONG TERM TRENDS, and still not fully cogniscent of the seemingly obvious fact that my name has Only One "E"...
but it looks like you figured out the Quote Tags, so at least you got that going for you.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Hmm right
Cute you think that handfull of links disproves the actual consensus
Really how interesting you gonna write a book on it?
[Quote
you have not refuted the arguments, except by making the ad hominem assertion that all who disagree are "Climate Deniers", an accusation so fraught with subtext, it nearly approaches the phrase "Holocaust Denier" in its potency, just before pointing at your OWN fringey Blogs and screaming about how im LYING when in fact i am stating positions held by scientists, not making shit up myself.
[/QUOTE]
Did you notice the question I asked about that blog
Cause I read it and it ​did not say ​what you claimed
That had nothing to do with it being a denialist site hence the "aside"
You lied about its contents no need of any ad hominem
Beautiful you lie about what your links say then accuse others of intellectual dishonesty
I have read the material, I've been doing this for years now
Your arguments are so old and predictable that people have had enough time to list them all up and debunk with real science
You expect me to write an essay for every retard who gets confused about it being cold in winter
yes Keynes hand wave the studies linked for every argument they make.....
Correction I dismiss your interpretation of them
Big distinction...
Right sceptical science is now anti ippc now? Cite?
I use them for convenience as I said above your arguments are old tired and debunked
I'm not wasting my time writing essays every single time
Yeah climate gate was shown by multiple investigations to be nothing more than denialist wet dream
But apart from that the rest of paragraph is bullshit too
Er no and no
I'd post you the modelled data but sceptical science might have linked to it first.....
ooooooooh Keynes yet again brings up natural variation as if he's the only fucker to ever discover it
Stuck much are you?
As you only have ad hominem against sceptical science and not once debunked even slightest of claim
No
Making shit up again?
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Hmmm arbitary lines on the map? Or the Russian continent, north American continent and Greenland?
Care to show how artic ocean joins onto the Indian ocean? Which arbitrary lines on map does it need to step over?
There is only so much area for ice to fill right?
Obviously if that area is full it cannot increase in area as there is land in the way (remember I said mostly)
So for artic sea ice to cover 60% more area (I think it was 60) then it has to be covering area thAt previously melted
joe macclennan
Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
Hmmm arbitary lines on the map? Or the Russian continent, north American continent and Greenland?
Care to show how artic ocean joins onto the Indian ocean? Which arbitrary lines on map does it need to step over?
There is only so much area for ice to fill right?
Obviously if that area is full it cannot increase in area as there is land in the way (remember I said mostly)
So for artic sea ice to cover 60% more area (I think it was 60) then it has to be covering area thAt previously melted
your specious assumption is that arctic sea ice levels at X are normal, and any reduction below X is a disaster, and any increases above X is just proof that X is still too low!
increases in the polar ice cap size, extent, volume, and yes, MASS are predicated on previous melting, just as glacial retreat is predicated on previous freezing, and yet the concept that glacial retreat is part of an Ongoing Trend is an excuse for scoffing and demands for evidence (but only from those of whom you approve, and then the data shall be interpreted ONLY in the way you approve)
you assert that you do not deny the natural cycles exist, yet snort in derision whenever they are discussed, and make vague non specific criticisms, which naturally allows for many, many opportunities for Goal Post Redistribution, to ensure that every discussion is tilted to exactly where you want it.
your illogic is stunningly simplistic.
examples:
a trend means only continuous movement in one direction, and any reversal, no matter how short or long is proof that the trend does not exist
stability means absolute static immobility, any fluctuation or variation proves that the stability does not exist, not even in relation to previous phemonena's radical fluctuations.
fluctuations and anomalies are proof of your assertions, even when they contradict your assertions.
when EVERY citation you make is draw from one source, thats proof that this source is unimpeachable, yet ANY citation form any source not approved by you comes pre-impeached by it's lack of your Seal Of Approval
water can only freeze if it has been melted, thus the natural state of water is assumed to be ICE, yet more water returning to it's assumed normal state is proof of even moar global warming ZOMG.
glacial epochs are only real if their existence bolsters your assertions, any examination of glaciation outside the narrow confines of approved discussion is HERESY and "Climate Denial"
so in essence your entire reasoning is: "Im right, and Everybody else is wrong, because I use the Bandwagon Fallacy!"
and really, did you just challenge me to Connect The Drops between the arctic and the indian oceans?
imma git my crayons doofus.
BRB.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Say it again keynes
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
Wow you blew down your own straw man you must be so very very proud....
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
im not the one who implied that the arctic ocean was somehow landlocked, and then doubled down on the assertion...
it''s really not my fault that particular man (constructed SOLELY by you), was made of straw.
i just happened to be Huffing and Puffing (as stoners are wont to do) in the vicinity of his Chinny Chin Chin...