.....EXPAND since 1985

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/16481189/antarctic-sea-ice-is-expanding-study/

Global warming has led to more ice in the sea around Antarctica and could help insulate the southern hemisphere from atmospheric warming.

A Dutch study says that unlike in the Arctic region, sea ice around Antarctica has expanded at a significant rate since 1985.

Published online in Nature Geoscience, the article suggests cool freshwater from melt beneath the Antarctic ice shelves has insulated offshore sea ice from the warming ocean beneath.

Richard Bintanja of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and colleagues say the Antarctic sea ice expands during southern hemisphere autumn and winter in response to this fresh, cool surface layer that freezes easily.

"Against the background of global climate warming, the expansion of Antarctic sea ice is an exceptional feature, which seems to be associated with decreasing sea surface temperatures in the Southern Ocean," they write.

"We predict that this mechanism will be a sizable contributor to the factors that regionally and seasonally offset greenhouse warming and the associated sea ice retreat."

They say the expanding sea ice may constitute a "feedback" that has the potential to oppose southern hemisphere atmospheric warming and amplify increases in global sea level.

Changes in sea ice can significantly modulate climate change because of its high reflective and strong insulating nature, the paper says.

my daughter has just arrived in Copenhagen to snow and frozen lakes..they said the locals are grumbling because spring started two weeks ago..

do you think it has anything to do with CLIMATE CHANGE? ;)

cods wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:00am:

my daughter has just arrived in Copenhagen to snow and frozen lakes..they said the locals are grumbling because spring started two weeks ago.. do you think it has anything to do with CLIMATE CHANGE? ;)

You'll note they are using the term "climate change" now - not AGW

Maybe we can change the wording to reflect reality.

Global Warming to
Climate Change to
Hemispheric warming

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:02am:

cods wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:00am: my daughter has just arrived in Copenhagen to snow and frozen lakes..they said the locals are grumbling because spring started two weeks ago.. do you think it has anything to do with CLIMATE CHANGE? ;) You'll note they are using the term "climate change" now - not AGW

It's like nailing jelly to a wall... they change their explanations constantly to fit inconvenient new conflicting "facts". It's getting hotter...well the heat is hiding in the ocean...and on and on. You could have half the northern hemisphere under glaciers and you would get "the heat is hiding under the ice"...and yes...I think it's shrinking...a little bit...if you look close...close one eye and then look away and back real quick....
They're a constant source of amusement.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:09am:

Maybe we can change the wording to reflect reality. Global Warming to Climate Change to Hemispheric warming

The last name is....

"Ah sh1t we got it wrong"

And why is the Antarctic ice significant?

The climate alarmists have long told us there are "climate refugees" from low lying  islands impacted by rising sea levels due to Global warming

We know that freshwater mixed with sea water will cause sea levels to rise

Antarctic is full of freshwater

Not only that - the IPCC is telling us that melting Antarctic ice contributed 0.21mm to sea level increase with an error rate of (+/-) 0.35mm

we are talking about 0.21 MILLIMETRES

Since we now know that Antarctic sea ice is expanding - therefore it's next to impossible to blame melting Antarctic ice for sea level increases

But you will have the climate alarmists tell you this is due to Global Warming

It's too cold - blame it on global warming

It's too hot - blame it on global warming

It's a nice day - that's global warming

There's a cyclone - yep Global warming

There are no cyclones - you bet Global warming again

Actually increasing sea ice in Antarctica is perfectly consistent with what should happen during AGW. Its mainly due to the freshening of the water due to increased precepitation and glacial runoff (caused by AGW).

Quote:

(Reuters) - Global warming is expanding the extent of sea ice around Antarctica in winter in a paradoxical shift caused by cold plumes of summer melt water that re-freeze fast when temperatures drop, a study showed on Sunday. "Sea ice around Antarctica is increasing despite the warming global climate," said Richard Bintanja, lead author of the study at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. "This is caused by melting of the ice sheets from below," he told Reuters of the findings in the journal Nature Geoscience. Among other scientists, Paul Holland of the British Antarctic Survey stuck to his findings last year that a shift in winds linked to climate change was blowing a layer of melt water further out to sea and adding to winter ice. "The possibility remains that the real increase is the sum of wind-driven and melt water-driven effects, of course. That would be my best guess, with the melt water effect being the smaller of the two," he said.

Neither of these two studies is suggesting that our planet is not warming. The melting of the ice from below is actually caused by a warmer Southern Ocean. The only good news is that there may be a negative feedback effect. Which of course is going to be absolutely swamped by our increasing emissions of CO2, if the delayers aren't thwarted.

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8468358.stm The vice-chairman of the UN's climate science panel has admitted it made a mistake in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included the date in its 2007 assessment of climate impacts. A number of scientists have recently disputed the 2035 figure, and Jean-Pascal van Ypersele told BBC News that it was an error and would be reviewed. The claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 appears to have originated in a 1999 interview with Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, published in New Scientist magazine. The figure then surfaced in a 2005 report by environmental group WWF - a report that is cited in the IPCC's 2007 assessment, known as AR4. An alternative genesis lies in the misreading of a 1996 study that gave the date as 2350. AR 4 asserted: "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world... the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high."

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:27am:

Actually increasing sea ice in Antarctica is perfectly consistent with what should happen during AGW. Its mainly due to the freshening of the water due to increased precepitation and glacial runoff (caused by AGW).

I think you forgot to put the little graph on your reply and the link to precepitation data.

We're not allowed to call it global warming anymore.

It used to be called that - then they realised the world was not universally warming - so we now have to call it "climate change".

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:45am:

We're not allowed to call it global warming anymore. It used to be called that - then they realised the world was not universally warming - so we now have to call it "climate change".

Next week it'll be called "Ohshitdisisbad!"

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:23am:

Since we now know that Antarctic sea ice is expanding - therefore it's next to impossible to blame melting Antarctic ice for sea level increases

So we'll just ignore the rapid melting of arctic ice.

increased antarctic ice under AGW has been known for a long time, and it has been modelled. The really silly thing about this is that it is perfectly consistent with AGW.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:08am:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:23am: Since we now know that Antarctic sea ice is expanding - therefore it's next to impossible to blame melting Antarctic ice for sea level increases So we'll just ignore the rapid melting of arctic ice. increased antarctic ice under AGW has been known for a long time, and it has been modelled. The really silly thing about this is that it is perfectly consistent with AGW.

We haven't even got the the Arctic Ice yet

In this thread I am highlighting the links the climate alarmists are trying to make

(1) AGW causing Antarctic ice to melt
(2) Causing sea level to rise
(3) Displacing low lying islands
(4) Causing climate change refugees
(5) Therefore we have to spend money on AGW

does it ever end??? now GW is causing MORE ICE???? it seems the climate hysterics want to claim everything and I do mean EVERYTHING as evidence for global warming. now it is more ice or less ice or more or less rain or hotter or cooler


ugh.  credibility: ZERO.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:24am:

does it ever end??? now GW is causing MORE ICE???? it seems the climate hysterics want to claim everything and I do mean EVERYTHING as evidence for global warming. now it is more ice or less ice or more or less rain or hotter or cooler ugh.  credibility: ZERO.

Was that your brain just popping, longy. Perhaps you should have a lie down and come back to it later.

There is actually far less ice in the world. Even if we look at the volume of ice in Antarctica, it too is shrinking.

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:22am:

We haven't even got the the Arctic Ice yet

Yes, a little inconvenient for your agenda I know.


Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:22am:

In this thread I am highlighting the links the climate alarmists are trying to make (1) AGW causing Antarctic ice to melt (2) Causing sea level to rise

Nope. Try again.


longweekend58 wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:24am:

now GW is causing MORE ICE????

No. I know its difficult for you numbskulls to believe that climate science is actually complex and can't be reduced to your simplistic formulas.

All you need to know is 1. yes global warming causes sea ice to melt - overall and 2. this melting is happening - notwithstanding one notable exception - for reasons that are - funnily enough - consistent with the AGW effect.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:36am:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:22am: We haven't even got the the Arctic Ice yet Yes, a little inconvenient for your agenda I know. Maqqa wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:22am: In this thread I am highlighting the links the climate alarmists are trying to make (1) AGW causing Antarctic ice to melt (2) Causing sea level to rise Nope. Try again.

Lets talk about "fit your agenda" and Nope try again.

First - global warming melts ALL ice (Arctic and Antarctic)

Now confronted with the fact that Arntarctic ice is expanding - you've revised your claims to fit your agenda by saying Global Warming is selective about the type of ice it will melt

You are saying Global warming will only melt Arctic Ice and not Antarctic ice  ;D ;D ;D

The sea extent is increasing, due to the reasons outlined in the report you posted. You do remember how it starts with more ice melt, don't you, Maqqa. But have a look at the volume of Antarctic ice.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XZcVBAjN7VU/UTETOX8YTJI/AAAAAAAAG-A/DuQcyb3dBj8/s1600/antarctica_ice-volume-loss.png

Perhaps you need to go back and read the article again without an agenda.

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:41am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:36am: Maqqa wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:22am: We haven't even got the the Arctic Ice yet Yes, a little inconvenient for your agenda I know. Maqqa wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:22am: In this thread I am highlighting the links the climate alarmists are trying to make (1) AGW causing Antarctic ice to melt (2) Causing sea level to rise Nope. Try again. Lets talk about "fit your agenda" and Nope try again. First - global warming melts ALL ice (Arctic and Antarctic) Now confronted with the fact that Arntarctic ice is expanding - you've revised your claims to fit your agenda by saying Global Warming is selective about the type of ice it will melt You are saying Global warming will only melt Arctic Ice and not Antarctic ice  ;D ;D ;D

The goal posts will always move to fit the agenda.

They justify this by "but we are smarter now"
"we know more now". No you are not and no you dont.

All it is is an enabler to get to the end game. You guys can make up your mind to what that end game is, but they will do everything to get their and will see you as the loser and wrong.

MOTR wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:44am:

The sea extent is increasing, due to the reasons outlined in the report you posted. You do remember how it starts with more ice melt, don't you, Maqqa. But have a look at the volume of Antarctic ice. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XZcVBAjN7VU/UTETOX8YTJI/AAAAAAAAG-A/DuQcyb3dBj8/s1600/antarctica_ice-volume-loss.png Perhaps you need to go back and read the article again without an agenda.

Your obsession with climate change borders on paranoia you know.

You're absolutely deranged on the subject!!

MOTR wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:44am:

The sea extent is increasing, due to the reasons outlined in the report you posted. You do remember how it starts with more ice melt, don't you, Maqqa. But have a look at the volume of Antarctic ice. Perhaps you need to go back and read the article again without an agenda.

So now we are moving to the Arctic ice extent?

We are not talking about the Antarctic now? Doesn't fit your agenda?

So now you are walking away from claims of climate refugees dues to rise in sea levels due to melting Antarctic ice

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:48am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:44am: The sea extent is increasing, due to the reasons outlined in the report you posted. You do remember how it starts with more ice melt, don't you, Maqqa. But have a look at the volume of Antarctic ice. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XZcVBAjN7VU/UTETOX8YTJI/AAAAAAAAG-A/DuQcyb3dBj8/s1600/antarctica_ice-volume-loss.png Perhaps you need to go back and read the article again without an agenda. Your obsession with climate change borders on paranoia you know. You're absolutely deranged on the subject!!

And this is why they have all walked away from the term Global Warming

If it is GLOBAL WARMING then ice would be melting equally everywhere

But under current data - Antarctic ice is growing rapidly

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:48am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:44am: The sea extent is increasing, due to the reasons outlined in the report you posted. You do remember how it starts with more ice melt, don't you, Maqqa. But have a look at the volume of Antarctic ice. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XZcVBAjN7VU/UTETOX8YTJI/AAAAAAAAG-A/DuQcyb3dBj8/s1600/antarctica_ice-volume-loss.png Perhaps you need to go back and read the article again without an agenda. Your obsession with climate change borders on paranoia you know. You're absolutely deranged on the subject!!

I'm not the one denying the science, sport.

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:53am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:44am: The sea extent is increasing, due to the reasons outlined in the report you posted. You do remember how it starts with more ice melt, don't you, Maqqa. But have a look at the volume of Antarctic ice. Perhaps you need to go back and read the article again without an agenda. So now we are moving to the Arctic ice extent? We are not talking about the Antarctic now? Doesn't fit your agenda? So now you are walking away from claims of climate refugees dues to rise in sea levels due to melting Antarctic ice

No, Maqqa. This post was entirely about the Antarctica. This graph shows the volume of ice.

[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XZcVBAjN7VU/UTETOX8YTJI/AAAAAAAAG-A/DuQcyb3dBj8/s1600/antarctica_ice-volume-loss.png[/img]

Didn't you read the bit in the report about the melting ice.

MOTR wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:57am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:48am: MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:44am: The sea extent is increasing, due to the reasons outlined in the report you posted. You do remember how it starts with more ice melt, don't you, Maqqa. But have a look at the volume of Antarctic ice. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XZcVBAjN7VU/UTETOX8YTJI/AAAAAAAAG-A/DuQcyb3dBj8/s1600/antarctica_ice-volume-loss.png Perhaps you need to go back and read the article again without an agenda. Your obsession with climate change borders on paranoia you know. You're absolutely deranged on the subject!! I'm not the one denying the science, sport.

We spent over $700m on cleaner environment friendly energy R&D delivery last year.
I'm part of the solution.

It's idiots who want Government forced actions which hinder the situation.
I think man is impacting climate, I just don't see the reds under the bed like you.

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:41am:

Now confronted with the fact that Arntarctic ice is expanding - you've revised your claims to fit your agenda by saying Global Warming is selective about the type of ice it will melt You are saying Global warming will only melt Arctic Ice and not Antarctic ice

No one is revising anything. You made the claim that AGW advocates try and link global warming with antarctic sea ice melting - show me where. And yes - the fact that AGW is selective in what ice it melts is self evident. The fact is actual climate scientists have known for a long time that antarctic sea ice expands during AGW - a fact that you and long weekend seem to have only just caught on to.

The prediction that climate scientsts have been making however is that AGW causes a net decrease in the ice caps overall. This is undeniably happening when you add the melting of both the northern ice caps plus the rapidly melting land ice in Antarctica. Also antarctic sea ice almost completely melts during summer anyway - so the effect on sea rise has never been strong anyway. Unlike arctic sea which is still frozen all year round (though not for long).

MOTR wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:00am:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:53am: MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:44am: The sea extent is increasing, due to the reasons outlined in the report you posted. You do remember how it starts with more ice melt, don't you, Maqqa. But have a look at the volume of Antarctic ice. Perhaps you need to go back and read the article again without an agenda. So now we are moving to the Arctic ice extent? We are not talking about the Antarctic now? Doesn't fit your agenda? So now you are walking away from claims of climate refugees dues to rise in sea levels due to melting Antarctic ice No, Maqqa. This post was entirely about the Antarctica. This graph shows the volume of ice. Didn't you read the bit in the report about the melting ice.

As one set of data is disprove - you produce another set of data to hang your hat on

Arctic sea ice is floating, as are the antarctic shelfs. It is only the land based glaciers that affect sea level.

MOTR wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:30am:

Quote: (Reuters) - Global warming is expanding the extent of sea ice around Antarctica in winter in a paradoxical shift caused by cold plumes of summer melt water that re-freeze fast when temperatures drop, a study showed on Sunday. "Sea ice around Antarctica is increasing despite the warming global climate," said Richard Bintanja, lead author of the study at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. "This is caused by melting of the ice sheets from below," he told Reuters of the findings in the journal Nature Geoscience. Among other scientists, Paul Holland of the British Antarctic Survey stuck to his findings last year that a shift in winds linked to climate change was blowing a layer of melt water further out to sea and adding to winter ice. "The possibility remains that the real increase is the sum of wind-driven and melt water-driven effects, of course. That would be my best guess, with the melt water effect being the smaller of the two," he said. Neither of these two studies is suggesting that our planet is not warming. The melting of the ice from below is actually caused by a warmer Southern Ocean. The only good news is that there may be a negative feedback effect. Which of course is going to be absolutely swamped by our increasing emissions of CO2, if the delayers aren't thwarted.

I thought you denied in a previous thread that negative feedbacks exist in relation to AGW/ACC and "the shrinking ice" I'll have another look later...it could have been Upton.
Anyway beside the point...you admit the possibility that there "may be a negative feedback effect/effects" that you a) can't identify, b) can't quantify and c) have no clue as to whether it is increasing in effect BUT d) you are absolutely positive that it will be swamped by "our increasing emissions of CO2". Number  of problems with d). You admit our CO2 will continue to increase regardless of Gillard's carbon tax. And you can't prove AGW or anthropogenic CO2 is causing the effects you claim or the alternatives will not have similar effects...discounting depopulating the planet. You can put forward a hypothesis based on evidence and I mean evidence that does not constantly pull up short or morph to suit new facts and apply different standards of proof to alternative hypotheses...but that's all .

Firstly, of course I don't deny negative feedbacks. So don't try and set up some sort of straw man argument. Climate scientists are very aware of positive and negative feedbacks.

Secondly, are you talking about your imaginary negative feedbacks or are you talking about the ones identified in this study.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:05am:

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:41am: Now confronted with the fact that Arntarctic ice is expanding - you've revised your claims to fit your agenda by saying Global Warming is selective about the type of ice it will melt You are saying Global warming will only melt Arctic Ice and not Antarctic ice No one is revising anything. You made the claim that AGW advocates try and link global warming with antarctic sea ice melting - show me where. And yes - the fact that AGW is selective in what ice it melts is self evident. The fact is actual climate scientists have known for a long time that antarctic sea ice expands during AGW - a fact that you and long weekend seem to have only just caught on to. The prediction that climate scientsts have been making however is that AGW causes a net decrease in the ice caps overall. This is undeniably happening when you add the melting of both the northern ice caps plus the rapidly melting land ice in Antarctica. Also antarctic sea ice almost completely melts during summer anyway - so the effect on sea rise has never been strong anyway. Unlike arctic sea which is still frozen all year round (though not for long).

The highlighted sentence is indicative of the whole AGW fiasco

AGW has an awareness now - like Skynet

AGW: I don't like Arctic ice so I'll melt you first - then I am coming for you Antarctic ice

MOTR wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:10am:

Of course I don't deny negative feedbacks. So don't try and set up some sort of straw man argument. Climate scientists are very aware of positive and negative feedbacks.

hence the complete Global Warming model

Anything that supports Global Warming such as crashing ice and cyclones - call it negative feedback

Anything that disprove the Global Warming - dismiss it as positive feedback  :D :D

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:11am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:05am: Maqqa wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:41am: Now confronted with the fact that Arntarctic ice is expanding - you've revised your claims to fit your agenda by saying Global Warming is selective about the type of ice it will melt You are saying Global warming will only melt Arctic Ice and not Antarctic ice No one is revising anything. You made the claim that AGW advocates try and link global warming with antarctic sea ice melting - show me where. And yes - the fact that AGW is selective in what ice it melts is self evident. The fact is actual climate scientists have known for a long time that antarctic sea ice expands during AGW - a fact that you and long weekend seem to have only just caught on to. The prediction that climate scientsts have been making however is that AGW causes a net decrease in the ice caps overall. This is undeniably happening when you add the melting of both the northern ice caps plus the rapidly melting land ice in Antarctica. Also antarctic sea ice almost completely melts during summer anyway - so the effect on sea rise has never been strong anyway. Unlike arctic sea which is still frozen all year round (though not for long). The highlighted sentence is indicative of the whole AGW fiasco AGW has an awareness now - like Skynet AGW: I don't like Arctic ice so I'll melt you first - then I am coming for you Antarctic ice

[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XZcVBAjN7VU/UTETOX8YTJI/AAAAAAAAG-A/DuQcyb3dBj8/s1600/antarctica_ice-volume-loss.png[/img]

MOTR wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:57am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:48am: MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:44am: The sea extent is increasing, due to the reasons outlined in the report you posted. You do remember how it starts with more ice melt, don't you, Maqqa. But have a look at the volume of Antarctic ice. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XZcVBAjN7VU/UTETOX8YTJI/AAAAAAAAG-A/DuQcyb3dBj8/s1600/antarctica_ice-volume-loss.png Perhaps you need to go back and read the article again without an agenda. Your obsession with climate change borders on paranoia you know. You're absolutely deranged on the subject!! I'm not the one denying the science, sport.

Selectively producing data to fit an agenda is not "science" sport.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:05am:

And yes - the fact that AGW is selective in what ice it melts is self evident.

This is just classic leftist

AGW is now Skynet - gaining awareness in August 29 1997  :-? :-?

The Terminator was sent back to selectively kill targets - AGW will selectively melt the ice of its choice to fit the Greens political agenda  ;D ;D ;D

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:11am:

The highlighted sentence is indicative of the whole AGW fiasco AGW has an awareness now - like Skynet AGW: I don't like Arctic ice so I'll melt you first - then I am coming for you Antarctic ice

Using the term "selective" implies no such thing. Thats just ridiculous. It merely acknowledges the fact that some ice melts during AGW (ie most of it), while one particular set of ice does not - for reasons that are perfectly consistent with the AGW effect.

If you want to ask the question - 'does AGW cause global ice to melt?' - the answer is an unequivocal 'yes' based on the common sense logic that the net effect is that global ice overall is melting. The expanse of Antarctic sea ice is not in any way negating the overall trend of global ice being reduced. Thats the only important point here.

MOTR wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:10am:

Firstly, of course I don't deny negative feedbacks. So don't try and set up some sort of straw man argument. Climate scientists are very aware of positive and negative feedbacks. Secondly, are you talking about your imaginary negative feedbacks or are you talking about the ones identified in this study.

What are they (negative feedbacks)?
Are they all known, comprehensive and fully understood?
Are they changing in magnitude?

Of course you don't deny them now when you can no longer do so. But now that you mention it I think I do remember it was you saying they were imaginary then when I said that the historical data supports negative feedbacks. You know like the ones that went from about 4 degrees hotter than now to ice ages...so I don't think they were either "swamped" or small.

Nam I think you are talking about positive feedback loops.

Show me where I have ever denied negative feedbacks. I've spent hundreds of hours reading about this issue. Of course I recognise negative feedbacks.

namnugenot wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:28am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:10am: Firstly, of course I don't deny negative feedbacks. So don't try and set up some sort of straw man argument. Climate scientists are very aware of positive and negative feedbacks. Secondly, are you talking about your imaginary negative feedbacks or are you talking about the ones identified in this study. What are they (negative feedbacks)? Are they all known, comprehensive and fully understood? Are they changing in magnitude? Of course you don't deny them now when you can no longer do so. But now that you mention it I think I do remember it was you saying they were imaginary then when I said that the historical data supports negative feedbacks. You know like the ones that went from about 4 degrees hotter than now to ice ages...so I don't think they were either "swamped" or small.

That's right you put it down to Milankovitch cycles...which is bollocks...worth the laugh though.

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:31am:

Nam I think you are talking about positive feedback loops.

In that example he is.

MOTR wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:10am:

Firstly, of course I don't deny negative feedbacks. So don't try and set up some sort of straw man argument. Climate scientists are very aware of positive and negative feedbacks. Secondly, are you talking about your imaginary negative feedbacks or are you talking about the ones identified in this study.

except that they neither understand them nor take them into account in their models.

yay science...

namnugenot wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:28am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:10am: Firstly, of course I don't deny negative feedbacks. So don't try and set up some sort of straw man argument. Climate scientists are very aware of positive and negative feedbacks. Secondly, are you talking about your imaginary negative feedbacks or are you talking about the ones identified in this study. What are they (negative feedbacks)? Are they all known, comprehensive and fully understood? Are they changing in magnitude? Of course you don't deny them now when you can no longer do so. But now that you mention it I think I do remember it was you saying they were imaginary then when I said that the historical data supports negative feedbacks. You know like the ones that went from about 4 degrees hotter than now to ice ages...so I don't think they were either "swamped" or small.

Freediver is right. What you are suggesting is a positive feedback loop. Perhaos you can identify when the planet was 4 degrees warmer than today and then perhaps you can identify the climate driver which reversed it.

freediver wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:31am:

Nam I think you are talking about positive feedback loops.

No...not that they don't exist...in complex systems...and I think everyone would agreed that the planet is a complex system...effects go in both directions constantly and reactively seeking equalibrium. Only someone with a blinkered, myopic one sided agenda would pretend otherwise.

namnugenot wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:45am:

freediver wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:31am: Nam I think you are talking about positive feedback loops. No...not that they don't exist...in complex systems...and I think everyone would agreed that the planet is a complex system...effects go in both directions constantly and reactively seeking equalibrium. Only someone with a blinkered, myopic one sided agenda would pretend otherwise.

Exactly, nams. So don't assume that just because people disagree with you they're not aware of these complexities. When you're talking about peer reviewed climate scientists, Occam's Razor suggests otherwise.

MOTR wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:49am:

namnugenot wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:45am: freediver wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:31am: Nam I think you are talking about positive feedback loops. No...not that they don't exist...in complex systems...and I think everyone would agreed that the planet is a complex system...effects go in both directions constantly and reactively seeking equalibrium. Only someone with a blinkered, myopic one sided agenda would pretend otherwise. Exactly, nams. So don't assume that just because people disagree with you they're not aware of these complexities. When you're talking about peer reviewed climate scientists, Occam's Razor suggests otherwise.

The peer review missed the mistake about the Himalaya ice caps melting by 2035 as well

MOTR wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:44am:

namnugenot wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:28am: MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:10am: Firstly, of course I don't deny negative feedbacks. So don't try and set up some sort of straw man argument. Climate scientists are very aware of positive and negative feedbacks. Secondly, are you talking about your imaginary negative feedbacks or are you talking about the ones identified in this study. What are they (negative feedbacks)? Are they all known, comprehensive and fully understood? Are they changing in magnitude? Of course you don't deny them now when you can no longer do so. But now that you mention it I think I do remember it was you saying they were imaginary then when I said that the historical data supports negative feedbacks. You know like the ones that went from about 4 degrees hotter than now to ice ages...so I don't think they were either "swamped" or small. Freediver is right. What you are suggesting is a positive feedback loop. Perhaos you can identify when the planet was 4 degrees warmer than today and then perhaps you can identify the climate driver which reversed it.

http://www.usq.edu.au/course/material/eng8001/carbon/Vostoktempplot.gif

Unlike you I don't know everything about everything and am happy to admit it. I do know however Milankovitch cycles are a steaming pile of horse nuggets and don't come close to explaining magnitudes. So what I also know is you don't have a clue as to what caused it either. But to say it does not exist or that it is minor in effect is lunacy. CO2 also continues to rise after temperature falls.

MOTR wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:49am:

namnugenot wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:45am: freediver wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:31am: Nam I think you are talking about positive feedback loops. No...not that they don't exist...in complex systems...and I think everyone would agreed that the planet is a complex system...effects go in both directions constantly and reactively seeking equalibrium. Only someone with a blinkered, myopic one sided agenda would pretend otherwise. Exactly, nams. So don't assume that just because people disagree with you they're not aware of these complexities. When you're talking about peer reviewed climate scientists, Occam's Razor suggests otherwise.

Ahhh the rule of best guess...still is no answer to "garbage in, garbage out".

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 10:59am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:49am: namnugenot wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:45am: freediver wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:31am: Nam I think you are talking about positive feedback loops. No...not that they don't exist...in complex systems...and I think everyone would agreed that the planet is a complex system...effects go in both directions constantly and reactively seeking equalibrium. Only someone with a blinkered, myopic one sided agenda would pretend otherwise. Exactly, nams. So don't assume that just because people disagree with you they're not aware of these complexities. When you're talking about peer reviewed climate scientists, Occam's Razor suggests otherwise. The peer review missed the mistake about the Himalaya ice caps melting by 2035 as well

What mistake, Maqqa? Not that scientists never make mistakes, but there is a big difference between a mistake and the wilful ignorance that nams is suggesting.

namnugenot wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:09am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:49am: namnugenot wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:45am: freediver wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:31am: Nam I think you are talking about positive feedback loops. No...not that they don't exist...in complex systems...and I think everyone would agreed that the planet is a complex system...effects go in both directions constantly and reactively seeking equalibrium. Only someone with a blinkered, myopic one sided agenda would pretend otherwise. Exactly, nams. So don't assume that just because people disagree with you they're not aware of these complexities. When you're talking about peer reviewed climate scientists, Occam's Razor suggests otherwise. Ahhh the rule of best guess...still is no answer to "garbage in, garbage out".

Is it more likely that climate scientists are wilfully ignoring the complexities we expect them to study, or is it more likely your assumption of wilful ignorance made by some conspiracy charged nuff nuff is wrong. Hint: I've read plenty of the scientific literature so I'm not guessing.

namnugenot wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:02am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:44am: namnugenot wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:28am: MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:10am: Firstly, of course I don't deny negative feedbacks. So don't try and set up some sort of straw man argument. Climate scientists are very aware of positive and negative feedbacks. Secondly, are you talking about your imaginary negative feedbacks or are you talking about the ones identified in this study. What are they (negative feedbacks)? Are they all known, comprehensive and fully understood? Are they changing in magnitude? Of course you don't deny them now when you can no longer do so. But now that you mention it I think I do remember it was you saying they were imaginary then when I said that the historical data supports negative feedbacks. You know like the ones that went from about 4 degrees hotter than now to ice ages...so I don't think they were either "swamped" or small. Freediver is right. What you are suggesting is a positive feedback loop. Perhaos you can identify when the planet was 4 degrees warmer than today and then perhaps you can identify the climate driver which reversed it. http://www.usq.edu.au/course/material/eng8001/carbon/Vostoktempplot.gif Unlike you I don't know everything about everything and am happy to admit it. I do know however Milankovitch cycles are a steaming pile of horse nuggets and don't come close to explaining magnitudes. So what I also know is you don't have a clue as to what caused it either. But to say it does not exist or that it is minor in effect is lunacy. CO2 also continues to rise after temperature falls.

Identify the period in time and I'll have a look at it.

MOTR wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:30am:

namnugenot wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 11:09am: MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:49am: namnugenot wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:45am: freediver wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 10:31am: Nam I think you are talking about positive feedback loops. No...not that they don't exist...in complex systems...and I think everyone would agreed that the planet is a complex system...effects go in both directions constantly and reactively seeking equalibrium. Only someone with a blinkered, myopic one sided agenda would pretend otherwise. Exactly, nams. So don't assume that just because people disagree with you they're not aware of these complexities. When you're talking about peer reviewed climate scientists, Occam's Razor suggests otherwise. Ahhh the rule of best guess...still is no answer to "garbage in, garbage out". Is it more likely that climate scientists are wilfully ignoring the complexities we expect them to study, or is it more likely your assumption of wilful ignorance made by some conspiracy charged nuff nuff is wrong. Hint: I've read plenty of the scientific literature so I'm not guessing.

OK...in order that's a yes.
...a no...
and I guess your reading material falls into the garbage in, garbage out category....Milankovitch cycles...you're a crack-up...

What about Milankovitch cycles are rubbish. Are you denying they exist. Or are you denying they influence global temperatures.

To speed things up, how about you link me to who you are parroting.

MOTR wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:47am:

What about Milankovitch cycles are rubbish. Are you denying they exist. Or are you denying they influence global temperatures. To speed things up, how about you link me to who you are parroting.

I read widely rather than selectively from lots of sources. Milankovitch cycles exist although what they do, when they do it and what they are responsible for are a source of considerable debate and widely conflicting senarios on apparently the same data even among ardent advocates eg Imbrie v Berger and Loutre. And yes they have temperature effects but the magnitude is tiny compared the solar cycle and ocean configuration so in terms of explaining ice ages they are absolutely 100% garbage...ask any astronomer.
The only parrot here is you.

namnugenot wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 12:32pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 11:47am: What about Milankovitch cycles are rubbish. Are you denying they exist. Or are you denying they influence global temperatures. To speed things up, how about you link me to who you are parroting. I read widely rather than selectively from lots of sources. Milankovitch cycles exist although what they do, when they do it and what they are responsible for are a source of considerable debate and widely conflicting senarios on apparently the same data even among ardent advocates eg Imbrie v Berger and Loutre. And yes they have temperature effects but the magnitude is tiny compared the solar cycle and ocean configuration so in terms of explaining ice ages they are absolutely 100% garbage...ask any astronomer. The only parrot here is you.

So what is it that magnifies these orbital forcings, nams?

MOTR wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 2:08pm:

namnugenot wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 12:32pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 11:47am: What about Milankovitch cycles are rubbish. Are you denying they exist. Or are you denying they influence global temperatures. To speed things up, how about you link me to who you are parroting. I read widely rather than selectively from lots of sources. Milankovitch cycles exist although what they do, when they do it and what they are responsible for are a source of considerable debate and widely conflicting senarios on apparently the same data even among ardent advocates eg Imbrie v Berger and Loutre. And yes they have temperature effects but the magnitude is tiny compared the solar cycle and ocean configuration so in terms of explaining ice ages they are absolutely 100% garbage...ask any astronomer. The only parrot here is you. So what is it that magnifies these orbital forcings, nams?

Who said anything about orbital forcing being magnified or that they had anything to do with climate other than very, very small discrete effects...you are familiar with small and big arn't you Motr...small and far away...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh5kZ4uIUC0

So you start with considerable debate and end with absolute certainty. What makes you so certain?

Let's be specific. What does Imbrie say. Does he believe orbital forcings are insignificant.

MOTR wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 3:43pm:

So you start with considerable debate and end with absolute certainty. What makes you so certain? Let's be specific. What does Imbrie say. Does he believe orbital forcings are insignificant.

No he doesn't and nor do the other 2 dopes...what does that matter...the fact is they totally agree that Milankovitch cycles cause an effect but they are worlds apart in respect of looking at the same cyclical events as to when things occur....which means probably the three people with what could be expected as the best knowledge of Milankovich cycles interpret them in ways that make reading the entrails of sheep or reading tea leaves an exact science. Or are you saying they are in total agreement having read them. Milankovicth cycles do not explain the MAGNITUDE of the effects, in some instances the absence of effects and events that preceed the "forcings" that caused them. THEY ARE UTTER AND COMPLETE CRAP AS EXPLANATIONS FOR ANYTHING ABOVE MINOR CLIMATE EFFECTS.

namnugenot wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 6:30pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 3:43pm: So you start with considerable debate and end with absolute certainty. What makes you so certain? Let's be specific. What does Imbrie say. Does he believe orbital forcings are insignificant. No he doesn't and nor do the other 2 dopes...what does that matter...the fact is they totally agree that Milankovitch cycles cause an effect but they are worlds apart in respect of looking at the same cyclical events as to when things occur....which means probably the three people with what could be expected as the best knowledge of Milankovich cycles interpret them in ways that make reading the entrails of sheep or reading tea leaves an exact science. Or are you saying they are in total agreement having read them. Milankovicth cycles do not explain the MAGNITUDE of the effects, in some instances the absence of effects and events that preceed the "forcings" that caused them. THEY ARE UTTER AND COMPLETE CRAP AS EXPLANATIONS FOR ANYTHING ABOVE MINOR CLIMATE EFFECTS.

So all of them accept the orbital forcing effect. So nothing to do with small and far away.

MOTR wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:19pm:

namnugenot wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 6:30pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 3:43pm: So you start with considerable debate and end with absolute certainty. What makes you so certain? Let's be specific. What does Imbrie say. Does he believe orbital forcings are insignificant. No he doesn't and nor do the other 2 dopes...what does that matter...the fact is they totally agree that Milankovitch cycles cause an effect but they are worlds apart in respect of looking at the same cyclical events as to when things occur....which means probably the three people with what could be expected as the best knowledge of Milankovich cycles interpret them in ways that make reading the entrails of sheep or reading tea leaves an exact science. Or are you saying they are in total agreement having read them. Milankovicth cycles do not explain the MAGNITUDE of the effects, in some instances the absence of effects and events that preceed the "forcings" that caused them. THEY ARE UTTER AND COMPLETE CRAP AS EXPLANATIONS FOR ANYTHING ABOVE MINOR CLIMATE EFFECTS. So all of them accept the orbital forcing effect. So nothing to do with small and far away.

It must be hard for you being such a ardent know-it-all when you have such large deficits in comprehension and facts...maybe we could have a benefit or fund-raising of some kind.

I don't know it all, nam. How about you explain why you believe orbital forcings are insignificant. All you've done is refer me to scientists who believe they are significant.

MOTR wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 5:47pm:

I don't know it all, nam. How about you explain why you believe orbital forcings are insignificant. All you've done is refer me to scientists who believe they are significant.

And of course it was YOU that published all the work on orbital forcing.

right

Well let's hear what you have to say chimp.
You are at Mawson Base right? I don't know, you might be a scientist, in which case your views would be interesting, on the other hand you might be an electrician or an IT person.

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:09am:

Maybe we can change the wording to reflect reality. Global Warming to Climate Change to Hemispheric warming

The status quo doesn't like change , oh  noes  :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-?  ;D  ::) ::)  ;)  :)

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:55am:

And this is why they have all walked away from the term Global Warming

Who has " walked away from the term Global Warming"?!?!?

It is still a term very much in current use.   The IPCC certainly still uses it:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html

THis is because the globe is still clearly and unambiguously warming.

And global warming is causing climate to change.


Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:55am:

If it is GLOBAL WARMING then ice would be melting equally everywhere

Ice will melt when it goes above 0 degrees C.
You never learnt this at school?


Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:55am:

But under current data - Antarctic ice is growing rapidly

Antarctic SEA ICE is growing rapidly.

Ice is made of fresh water and, when ice shelves on the fringes of Antarctica thaw in summer because of upwellings of warming sea water, the meltwater forms a cool layer that floats on the denser, warmer salty sea water below, the study said.

In winter, the melt water readily turns to ice because it freezes at zero degrees Celsius, above sea water at -2C (28.4F).

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/global-warmings-paradox-more-antarctic-sea-ice-20130401-2h262.html#ixzz2PO7rKs9u

Overall however:
Antarctica was losing about 250 billion tonnes of ice a year - equivalent to 0.07 millimetre (0.003 inch) of sea level rise a year, Bintanja said. "Antarctic mass loss seems to be accelerating,"

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/global-warmings-paradox-more-antarctic-sea-ice-20130401-2h262.html#ixzz2PO8AOdxc


THis is because the planet is warming.
Global warming.

MOTR wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 5:47pm:

I don't know it all, nam. How about you explain why you believe orbital forcings are insignificant. All you've done is refer me to scientists who believe they are significant.

FFS...based on the same data where there is high predictability in those cycles, so they say, you would expect repeatability or very close results from people...whoopsie "scientists" who have studied these cycles ad nausium.
Imbrie has cooling from 6,000 years ago and continuing for about 23,000 years.
Berger and Loutre have warming for the next 50,000 years.
Quite a margin of error don't ya think...applying Occam's razor, as you so helpfully suggested, and choosing between inexplicable results (not to mention the other host of problems with this particular theory) and being a load of bollocks...I'm going for load of bollocks.
Now I have better things to do with my time Dougal.

the warmest decade on record is 2000 to 2009
the second warmest decade on record is 1990 to 1999
the 3rd warmest decade on record is 1980 to 1989
the 4th warmest decade on record is 1970 to 1979
the 5th warmest decade on record is 1960 to 1969

I wonder what is happening here?

I better check with Andrew Bolt and Lord Monckton - they will know how to analyse this trend in an honest and scientific manner

I'm not a scientist but I guess the first question I would ask is, over what period of time do we have decade on decade records of global temperature?
Do we have them, for example, for periods when the existence of half the globe was not known?

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

I'm not a scientist but I guess the first question I would ask is, over what period of time do we have decade on decade records of global temperature? Do we have them, for example, for periods when the existence of half the globe was not known?

Climate Proxies.

The AGW alarmists will tell you that (among other things) ice cores and tree rings provide us with an accurate picture of past climates and temperatures.

They manage to keep a straight face too.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 1:35pm: I'm not a scientist but I guess the first question I would ask is, over what period of time do we have decade on decade records of global temperature? Do we have them, for example, for periods when the existence of half the globe was not known? Climate Proxies. The AGW alarmists will tell you that (among other things) ice cores and tree rings provide us with an accurate picture of past climates and temperatures. They manage to keep a straight face too.

MEASUREMENT AY!

HOW DOES ONE MEASURE A COMPLEX SYSTEM??

THIS BLOKE CALLED GREG IS A TRUE BONE-A-FIDE FALSE GOD....................  ;D ;D ;D

'ACCURACY' IS A WORD GREG CHOSE TO USE AND IT WILL BE HIS DOWNFALL AS HE CANNOT DEFINE ITS MEANING!!

MATHEMATICS IS A TOOL. TOOLS ARE USED FOR A PURPOSE AND, THE THING IS, GREG CANNOT ENTERTAIN THAT THE PURPOSE MAYBE TO DEFINE A TREND. IF SO, THEN HOW DOES THE WORD 'ACCURACY' LEGITIMATELY DEFINE ITSELF??

GREG CANNOT KEEP UP,....

BYE BYE GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS: YOU'VE ALL GOT KIDS AND REALISE YOUR TIME IS NOW SHORT!

  :o :o :o :o :o  :D

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:23am:

And why is the Antarctic ice significant? The climate alarmists have long told us there are "climate refugees" from low lying  islands impacted by rising sea levels due to Global warming We know that freshwater mixed with sea water will cause sea levels to rise Antarctic is full of freshwater Not only that - the IPCC is telling us that melting Antarctic ice contributed 0.21mm to sea level increase with an error rate of (+/-) 0.35mm we are talking about 0.21 MILLIMETRES Since we now know that Antarctic sea ice is expanding - therefore it's next to impossible to blame melting Antarctic ice for sea level increases But you will have the climate alarmists tell you this is due to Global Warming It's too cold - blame it on global warming It's too hot - blame it on global warming It's a nice day - that's global warming There's a cyclone - yep Global warming There are no cyclones - you bet Global warming again

Where do you get your argumentative rationality from?

The flat earth society?

The foul stench that wafts in here is nostril singeingly putrid

You should be utterly ashamed of yourself you freak clown maggot slothed weasel

Maqqa likes to pretend he/she/it has the power to be dismissive!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:45am:

We're not allowed to call it global warming anymore.

Why do you idiots keep repeating this nonsense?

It is called global warming.  Anthropogenic global warming.  Has been for decades.  Still is.




Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:45am:

It used to be called that -

And it still is moron.


Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:45am:

then they realised the world was not universally warming.

Who realisied this?

The planet as a whole is warming.
This is beyond doubt.

The evidence for this comes not only from the observed increase in average surface temperature over a period of decades, but also from icreased ocean temperature and decrease in glacial mass balance.

THe earth is warming.

Global warming.

Anthropogenic global warming.

You can call it that.

Everyone calls it that

That is what it is.

Nobody told you not to call it that you retard.

Stop telling lies.


Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:45am:

- so we now have to call it "climate change".

No you don't you brain-dead liar.

Climate change is an impact of global warming.

Both terms have been in concurrent use for decades.

Only the really, really really stupid do not understand this.

The type of morons that write crap like:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 8:45am:

We're not allowed to call it global warming anymore.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 3:04pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 4th, 2013 at 1:35pm: I'm not a scientist but I guess the first question I would ask is, over what period of time do we have decade on decade records of global temperature? Do we have them, for example, for periods when the existence of half the globe was not known? Climate Proxies. The AGW alarmists will tell you that (among other things) ice cores and tree rings provide us with an accurate picture of past climates and temperatures. They manage to keep a straight face too.

Could you tell us what is wrong with using ice cores and tree rings as climate proxies Greggery?

Is that something you heard Alan Jones say?

Come on Greggery.  Explain to us why ice cores and tree rings can not be used as climate proxies.  Can you do that?

Or is this just an article of faith for you?

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:22am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 9:08am: Maqqa wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 8:23am: Since we now know that Antarctic sea ice is expanding - therefore it's next to impossible to blame melting Antarctic ice for sea level increases So we'll just ignore the rapid melting of arctic ice. increased antarctic ice under AGW has been known for a long time, and it has been modelled. The really silly thing about this is that it is perfectly consistent with AGW. We haven't even got the the Arctic Ice yet In this thread I am highlighting the links the climate alarmists are trying to make (1) AGW causing Antarctic ice to melt

Yes.  AGW is causing Antarctic ice to melt.  It is melting 10 times faster than it was  600 years ago
A report has found that the Antarctic summer ice melt is now occurring 10 times faster than it did 600 years ago.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-15/antarctic-melting-ten-times-faster-than-600-years-ago/4628404

Though, warming is also causing more ice to form in Antartca due to increased precipitation from the warmer air
The new analyses are based on climate models and sea-surface temperature and precipitation observations from 1950 to 2009. They show that, in the 20th century, ocean warming boosted precipitation in the upper atmosphere over the Antarctic region, which fell as snow.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2010/08/100816-global-warming-antarctica-sea-ice-paradox-science-environment/


Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:22am:

(2) Causing sea level to rise

Yes - sea level is rising, but most of it to this point is being caused by the thermal expansion of water.  Further melting of teh Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, as well as the world's glaciers will increase this.

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:22am:

(3) Displacing low lying islands

Yes.  Since sea levels are rising - it stands to reason that low lying islands become more marginal for human society as the fresh water lens' which support them are subject to saline intrusion


Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:22am:

(4) Causing climate change refugees

Yes.  People can't live without fresh water.  Countries like Kiribat recognise this:
Climate change could force the entire nation of Kiribati to re-locate to Fiji, the nation’s president has warned.  Speaking to the Associated Press today, Kiribati President Anote Tong said his Cabinet had agreed a plan to buy around 6,000 acres of land on Fiji’s main island, Viti Levu.
http://www.rtcc.org/kiribati-cabinet-approves-plan-to-buy-land-in-fiji-for-climate-refugees/

Maqqa wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 9:22am:

(5) Therefore we have to spend money on AGW

Therefore we need to reduce emissions.  If this is done by using renewable energy sources, it will actually save money in the long run.

rabbitoh07

why do you even bother with these holy Bolt priests and self deluding con artists?

They just love cherry picking narrow data ranges within this trend line and claiming that the earth's mean temperature is static or decreasing, when in reality the clear long term trend is one of distinct warming

And the RATE of change in this thermal retention within the earths various systems is the greatest seen since the Dinosaurs were wiped out by Mass extinction event 63 million years ago.

(there has only been one other period where the earths temperature changed so rapidly - and that was during a major clathrate release at about 55 million year ago. And even that event occurred over larger time scales than what we are witnessing now)

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2008/9/22/1222102567922/climate-change-graph.jpg

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2013 at 8:16pm:

rabbitoh07 why do you even bother with these holy Bolt priests and self deluding con artists? They just love cherry picking narrow data ranges within this trend line and claiming that the earth's mean temperature is static or decreasing, when in reality the clear long term trend is one of distinct warming And the RATE of change in this thermal retention within the earths various systems is the greatest seen since the Dinosaurs were wiped out by Mass extinction event 63 million years ago. (there has only been one other period where the earths temperature changed so rapidly - and that was during a major clathrate release at about 55 million year ago. And even that event occurred over larger time scales than what we are witnessing now) http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2008/9/22/1222102567922/climate-change-graph.jpg

I take perverse please by realising how lucky I am to be not as ignorant as these retards.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2013 at 8:55pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 22nd, 2013 at 8:16pm: rabbitoh07 why do you even bother with these holy Bolt priests and self deluding con artists? They just love cherry picking narrow data ranges within this trend line and claiming that the earth's mean temperature is static or decreasing, when in reality the clear long term trend is one of distinct warming And the RATE of change in this thermal retention within the earths various systems is the greatest seen since the Dinosaurs were wiped out by Mass extinction event 63 million years ago. (there has only been one other period where the earths temperature changed so rapidly - and that was during a major clathrate release at about 55 million year ago. And even that event occurred over larger time scales than what we are witnessing now) http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/columnists/2008/9/22/1222102567922/climate-change-graph.jpg I take perverse please by realising how lucky I am to be not as ignorant as these retards.

that is perverse

How does one assess a sub-zero IQ level and a sociopathic tendency to lie in public?

good luck