• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Less ice in the Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 years ago

Please explain how we can control the sun and the orbit of the planet?
So, you're changing the subject? It was almost ten years ago now that anyone considered changes in solar activity as a plausible explanation for global warming. Even before that theory was falsified, it couldn't explain the measured change in athmospheric CO2 levels.

The orbit of the planet? I think you lost me on that one. But as I said: you'll happily accept any position, no matter how far-fetched or how scant the evidence, as long as it leads you to the conclusion you wanted in the first place.

It's called the teleological fallacy.
 
It was almost ten years ago now that anyone considered changes in solar activity as a plausible explanation for global warming. Even before that theory was falsified, it couldn't explain the measured change in athmospheric CO2 levels.
Not ten years ago.

The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing (PDF) (The Danish National Space Center, 2007)

Over the past 20 years the solar cycle remains fully apparent in variations both of tropospheric air temperature and of ocean subsurface water temperature. [...]

When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record. For whatever reason, it is a poor guide to Sun-driven physical processes that are still plainly persistent in the climate system. [...]

...one cannot distinguish between the effects of anthropogenic gases such as carbon dioxide and of natural greenhouse gases. For example, increased evaporation means that infrared radiation from water vapor, by far the most important greenhouse gas, will tend to provide positive feedback for any global warming, ... In any case, the most recent global temperature trend is close to zero. [...]

The continuing rapid increase in carbon dioxide concentrations during the past 10-15 years has apparently been unable to overrule the °attening of the temperature trend as a result of the Sun settling at a high, but no longer increasing, level of magnetic activity. Contrary to the argument of Lockwood and FrÄohlich, the Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.

There is extensive scientific evidence supporting this.

100,000-Year Climate Pattern Linked To Sun's Magnetic Cycles (Dartmouth College)
Breathing Cycles in Earth's Upper Atmosphere Linked to Solar Wind Disturbances (University of Colorado at Boulder)
Changes In Sun’s Intensity Tied To Recurrent Droughts In Maya Region (University of Florida)
Evidence For Sun-climate Link Reported By UMaine Scientists (University of Maine)
Flares From Sun's Far Side May Affect Space Weather Of Inner Planets (Swedish Institute of Space Physics)
Greater Solar Activity May Bring United States More Gray Days (NASA)
Holes In Sun's Corona Linked To Atmospheric Temperature Changes On Earth (Long Island University)
NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records (NASA)
NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate (NASA)
New Analysis Shows Earth's Lower Stratosphere In Synch With Solar Cycle (National Center for Atmospheric Research)
Northern Climate, Ecosystems Driven By Cycles Of Changing Sunlight (University Of Illinois)
Regional Variation In Warming From Sun During Solar Cycle Shown By Satellite (University of Colorado)
Scientists Determine Biological And Ecosystem Changes In Polar Regions Linked To Solar Variability (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
Sun's Direct Role In Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report (Duke University)
Sun's Magnetic Field May Impact Weather And Climate: Sun Cycle Can Predict Rainfall Fluctuations (University of New England, Australia)
Sun's Past Strength Took Toll On Tropical Glaciers, Worsens Today's Outlook (University of Alberta, Canada)
Surface Warming And The Solar Cycle (University of Washington)
The Sun's Chilly Impact On Earth (NASA)

The orbit of the planet? I think you lost me on that one.
Milankovitch Cycles and the Ice Ages (NASA)
Milankovitch Cycles (Video) (3min)

you'll happily accept any position, no matter how far-fetched or how scant the evidence, as long as it leads you to the conclusion you wanted in the first place.
No I just do not accept virtual reality. But what you are describing is exactly what those who believe AGW do.
 
Last edited:
The current Interglacial is over 10,000 years old and is not based on 50 year trends.

Your point being?


Only in the virtual world.

In the real world. Glaciers are retreating, ecological ranges are changing, Arctic sea-ice is receding, permafrost is melting, rain-belts are migrating away from the Equator, oceans are warming. All as predicted by scientists. Thiry years ago your sources were claiming that what has happened wouldn't happen. They got a lot more traction in those days, obviously.

Who says a majority are concerned?

All the major scientific institutions across the world (including the Royal Society) and the very fact of the Copenhagen Conference later this year. This is not because these people are uninformed.
 
Your point being?
That your assertion of a 50 year trend being significant in a 10,000 year record. Not to mention the magnitude of the trend is not outside natural variability.

In the real world. Glaciers are retreating,
Yes some are mostly in the northern hemisphere since the little ice age and before industrialization.

Arctic sea-ice is receding
This is not new

Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago (Geological Survey of Norway)

and the Antarctic is gaining ice...

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking (The Australian)
Antarctic sea ice increasing: study (ABC News, Australia)
Satellites Show Overall Increases In Antarctic Sea Ice Cover (NASA)

oceans are warming.
Actually the oceans are cooling.

Oceans are cooling according to NASA (The Baltimore Weather Examiner, January 21, 2009)
 
Yes the poor are less educated. Public education keeps getting worse and higher education more expensive due to government interference.

The poor have always been less-educated, even before there was free public education or indeed any government interference in education at all. (I am, of course, talking in global terms here, not just with regard to the US)

Stupid in America (Video) (40min) (John Stossel, 20/20)

The stupid are with us everywhere, but that has nothing to with education. Stupidity survives that experience unscathed, albeit with better spellinng.

As for Ireland, you might want to understand what caused the problem, which was not the free market but government.

I have long wanted to understand what caused the Famine, and have gone to the trouble of finding out.

What Caused the Irish Potato Famine? (Mark Thornton, Ph.D. Economics)

Was the Potato Famine an ecological accident, as historians usually say? Like most famines, it had little to do with declines in food production as such. Adam Smith was right that "bad seasons" cause "dearth," but "the violence of well-intentioned governments" can convert "dearth into famine."

Idiocy of the first order. Nobody claims it was an ecological accident - it was caused by potato blight. People lived off the potatoes they grew and when that crop failed they fell back on their hard-made savings (as peasants always have done) and charity. When it failed again they sold what they had and overwhelmed the charity. When it failed again they died in droves. It was all about a collapse in food production.

The British government refused to intervene in the free market. At the time there was great faith in the free market in the British establishment. It was working very well for them, after all.

In fact, the most glaring cause of the famine was not a plant disease, but England's long-running political hegemony over Ireland.

It's clear why this chap became an economist.

The root (sic) problem was the Irish system of land-tenure, and the great majority of the land was owned by Irish gentry. British rule had nothing to do with it. The owners of the land chose what it was used for (something which I doubt you have any objection to) and they chose for it to produce potatoes to feed the workforce cheaply and the better land to produce grain and cattle for export. Which export continued while the workforce died. By the inexorable logic of the free-market they just dropped labour-intensive grain in favour of more cattle.

Read it up. Your source obviously didn't.
 
That your assertion of a 50 year trend being significant in a 10,000 year record.

That it what?

Not to mention the magnitude of the trend is not outside natural variability.

Oh yes it is.


Yes some are mostly in the northern hemisphere since the little ice age and before industrialization.

The vast majority of glaciers are retreating : there happen to be more glaciers in the NH than the SH because there's more land-mass there. And they weren't retreating (and in some cases disappearing) before industrialisation. If anything they were very gradually advancing.



This is not new

Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago (Geological Survey of Norway)

But not since. Then suddenly it happens now, as predicted before the event. Makes you think, doesn't it?


The Arctic and Antarctic are very different places. One's an ocean at sea-level and one's a high continent. Guess which is which.


Actually the oceans are cooling.

Oceans are cooling according to NASA (The Baltimore Weather Examiner, January 21, 2009)

I'm afraid they're not, the Baltimore Weather Examiner notwithstanding. You'd be better off going directly to what NASA has to say about it.
 
Oh yes it is.
No it is not outside natural variability

The vast majority of glaciers are retreating :
In the northern hemisphere.

there happen to be more glaciers in the NH than the SH because there's more land-mass there. And they weren't retreating (and in some cases disappearing) before industrialisation. If anything they were very gradually advancing.
Yet they started to retreat before hydrocarbon use.

Slide2.png


But not since.
You do not know that and maybe it has...

NorthPole1987.jpg


The Arctic and Antarctic are very different places. One's an ocean at sea-level and one's a high continent. Guess which is which.
Which is why the land based ice and sea ice in the Antarctic is increasing?
 
Last edited:
No it is not outside natural variability

Oh yes it is.

In the northern hemisphere.

And the southern. And the eastern and the western. It's a global phaenomenon.


Yet they started to retreat before hydrocarbon use.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/Slides/Presentation/Slide2.png

Where did you get picture that from?

"Hydrocarbon use" only increased after 1940? It started at close to nothing in 1700 and first got going in the early 19thCE, the beginning of the Steam Age (which you've surely have heard of). And this "glacial shortening" - what glacier does that refer to?


Another picture. You are surely not implying that there was less Arctic sea-ice than today anytime in the Submarine Age so your point escapes me.

You don't know that there was less Arctic sea-ice six or seven thousand years ago. There's certainly no sign of it since then, otherwise your sources wouldn't have to reach back so far based on one Norwegian paper they're probably misrepresenting. And it's still going down.

Which is why the land based ice and sea ice in the Antarctic is increasing?

It's why they're not easily comparable. Think about it. The Arctic is an ocean almost surrounded by continent while the Antarctic is a continent completely surrounded by ocean. Since most of the heat-transfer in the global system depends on the oceans, which do not penetrate the Antarctic (it being a continent), the responses are unlikely to be similar.

That's simple logic when you think about it.
 
Which is why the land based ice and sea ice in the Antarctic is increasing?
WRONG!

You KNOW nothing


Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Up, Nearly Matches Greenland Loss

January 23, 2008

Ice loss in Antarctica increased by 75 percent in the last 10 years due to a speed-up in the flow of its glaciers and is now nearly as great as that observed in Greenland, according to a new, comprehensive study by NASA and university scientists.
where the hell do you think the glacial acceleration is ending up - in your bathtub......:mgbanghead

There is a minor gain in the interior Antarctic desert as there is on the west coast of Alaska....why is that oh brilliant one.....perhaps there is more humidity in the air??

Why is that oh brilliant one???

what a naif.....

Do you know the latent energies to melt 500 cu km of ice??? Per year ( Greenland and Antarctica - that does not include mid lats )
Calculate it some time.....others here have done so....even Gavin was surprised at the number

Use Hiroshima sized thermonuclear units just for reference...it's sort of a good visual...there's a few here that can help you grasshopper.....

Show us your physical understanding of the cryosphere.....

•••

Oh yeah - when you finish that little exercise in math and physics....you can explain the source of that energy gain.....we're all ears.....:popcorn1
 
Last edited:
Oh yes it is.
Nope

And the southern. And the eastern and the western. It's a global phaenomenon.
Actually it is not, it is in the northern hemisphere mainly the arctic.

"Hydrocarbon use" only increased after 1940? It started at close to nothing in 1700 and first got going in the early 19thCE, the beginning of the Steam Age (which you've surely have heard of). And this "glacial shortening" - what glacier does that refer to?
Coal is a hydrocarbon and it was not widely used until around the 1850s which is after the glaciers started to retreat. It refers to 169
historic glacier length records.

Another picture. You are surely not implying that there was less Arctic sea-ice than today anytime in the Submarine Age so your point escapes me.
My point is that arctic ice cover has fluctuated throughout history. All current conclusions based on the Arctic begin in the late 1970s (a cool period) when Satellite measurements started and yet not that exciting.

Arctic Winter Ice 1979-2006 (Animation) (NASA)

While the evidence of volcanic activity in the arctic is telling.

Arctic Volcanoes Found Active at Unprecedented Depths (National Geographic)
Hydrothermal Vents Found in Arctic Ocean (National Geographic)
Hotbed of Volcanic Activity Found Beneath Arctic Ocean (National Geographic)
Scientists Find Northernmost Arctic Hydrothermal Field Venting Water at 570 Degrees F (University Of Washington)
Under Icy Arctic Waters, A Fiery, Unexpected Find (The New York Times)

You don't know that there was less Arctic sea-ice six or seven thousand years ago. There's certainly no sign of it since then, otherwise your sources wouldn't have to reach back so far based on one Norwegian paper they're probably misrepresenting. And it's still going down.
Just as no one knows the current arctic ice loss is unique or significant. Of course it is easy to make claims of misrepresentation when evidence does not agree with your established conclusions.

It's why they're not easily comparable. Think about it. The Arctic is an ocean almost surrounded by continent while the Antarctic is a continent completely surrounded by ocean. Since most of the heat-transfer in the global system depends on the oceans, which do not penetrate the Antarctic (it being a continent), the responses are unlikely to be similar.
So why would the sea-ice be increasing then? It does not add up.
 
Last edited:
That study begins in 1996, if you begin in 1966 it is cooling.

No Major Changes Seen In Stability Of Antarctic Ice Sheet (Ohio State University)
Pondering A Climate Conundrum In Antarctica; Unique, Distinct Cooling Trend Discovered On Earth's Southernmost Continent (National Science Foundation)
Scientists Detect Thickening Of West Antarctic Ice Sheet (University Of California Santa Cruz)
The Antarctic deep sea gets colder (Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research)

Show us your physical understanding of the cryosphere.....
Your esteemed climate modelers don't understand the cryosphere.

Antarctic Temperatures Disagree With Climate Model Predictions (Ohio State University)
Climate Models Overheat Antarctica, New Study Finds (National Center for Atmospheric Research)
 
Did you do your exercise in physics and math grasshopper ???- or just like to ignore the real world......:popcorn1

Where is the energy coming from.....how much are we talking about.....

All blather and regurgitated denier crap from your own compilation of nonsense on your site.....

1966?? do you know the term "global dimming"......do you know ANYTHING about aerosols??? clearly not

•••

Your esteemed climate modelers don't understand the cryosphere.
yes and they will be the first to admit that the crysosphere modelling is very difficult and still be worked on - that's what YOU don't understand.

What you don't get is the physical evidence is extremely clear and the models are behind on the pacing.....that's normal for models to offer a range and then refine as greater understanding of the principles enable more refined modelling.

You on the other hand have not got a clue....

We have massive observed accelerating net glacial loss since 1985 ....where is the energy coming from and what is the scale......??
macdoc, please remember that the Membership Agreement calls for you to attack the argument, not the person making the argument. Suggesting someone is clueless and/or ignoring the real world, etc, etc is neither. Further violations may result in escalating moderation actions.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This absolute idiot does not EVEN know what a "lead" is. And he expects that we are equally ignorant. Open water ANYWHERE in the arctic in summer has ALWAYS been expected. It had been reported by explorers since there WERE explorers. It is caused by WIND most often, and you can see the effects of moving weather systems in the satellite data.

And the conditions he presents in his "postcard" would show on the data sets as 100% ice cover.

And worse, if he had bothered to use the "search" function here and read past threads, he would have already had all the data he is asking for, and I see no reason why, until he does this, that we ought to do more for him that refer him to the postings in the history here, which he just might understand, or to the scientific literature which he appears to not be intelligent enough to understand.

Pathetic.

BenBurch, please remember that the Membership Agreement calls for civility and politeness to be the norm. Calling someone an "absolute idiot" is neither. Further violations may result in escalating moderation actions.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
purely free market.
:dl:

Koolaid poisoning I do believe.....a free market is an oxymoron and as pointed out does not exist....this is a science forum....

Poptech pontificated....
No I just do not accept virtual reality.

you don't accept actual reality is the problem....where is the energy coming from???

How is your slide rule doing on the energy question????/
 
Last edited:
Did you do your exercise in physics and math grasshopper ???- or just like to ignore the real world......
I am not the one constantly presenting virtual reality as real world evidence.

Where is the energy coming from.....
Heat From Earth's Magma Contributing To Melting Of Greenland Ice (Ohio State University)

All blather and regurgitated denier crap from your own compilation of nonsense on your site.....
Of course all scientific evidence you do not agree with is "denier crap".

yes and they will be the first to admit that the crysosphere modelling is very difficult and still be worked on - that's what YOU don't understand.

What you don't get is the physical evidence is extremely clear and the models are behind on the pacing.....that's normal for models to offer a range and then refine as greater understanding of the principles enable more refined modelling.
You have a lot to learn about computer modeling. The models are wrong, have always been wrong and will continue to be wrong. Keep trying though it is fun watching you go spastic.
 
Last edited:
This absolute idiot does not EVEN know what a "lead" is. And he expects that we are equally ignorant. Open water ANYWHERE in the arctic in summer has ALWAYS been expected. It had been reported by explorers since there WERE explorers. It is caused by WIND most often, and you can see the effects of moving weather systems in the satellite data.
Your ability to insult is clear, you ability to defend your positions with science is not. Please tell me how far back does the satellite record of the arctic ice extent go?

There is no such thing as a free market. Just another idea fervently brewing in your overheated brain.
Currently no there is not a true free market which is the problem. But you would have to study economics to understand this.
 
Why don't YOU tell ME how far back it goes? Can you? Or would that be stretching the grey matter too much for you?

And why don't you, while you are at it, give me a brief history of the search for a Northwest Passage?

Because, as may be clear, I don't have much patience for people clearly ignorant of science who claim to be wanting us here to produce all sorts of research when they won't even acknowledge when we do it, and you are CLEARLY in that category.

Because this is a Skeptics board, we here accept the scientific consensus. And that consensus is that AGW is real and a serious threat to human civilization.

If *you* can prove otherwise, proffer that proof forthwith. So far, all you have done is cutting and pasting from right-wing web sites information you CLEARLY didn't comprehend and NEVER checked any of against current scientific knowledge.

Your masters will be so proud.

But understand the rules of debate HERE; You are making the extraordinary claims, and the burden of proof is on YOU, not us.

Clear, Truther?
 
Hey Poptop - reality advocate....care to explain this ????

Where is the energy coming from
l1.jpg


Figure L1. Spatial distribution of trends in May to Aug photosynthetic activity across the northern high latitudes from 1981 through 2005. Significant positive trends in photosynthetic activity are shown in green, and negative trends are shown in rust. (From Bunn et al. 2007.)
c'mon show your smarts...

One little simple observed phenomena..... from this...

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/land.html

Why are the fish moving, the birds and animals moving, the treelines changing, the tundra and taiga melting and forests moving polarward... the diseases moving......urban heat islands?????.....:garfield:

Cmon hotshot - one little explanation ....where is the energy gain coming from???
This IS reality.....observed..sometimes with enormous observed databases over time.....explain THIS reality.......
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom