Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Books are usually better resources than blogs.

OK pretty much always.

The online paper I pointed you to is not about ships logs. That comes from vastly many other sources. A paper isn't going to lay out all the background they are building on.
 
Once more, in regards to the arctic sea ice you should already know it has decreased since the LIA, we have actual records of this, ships logs, port records, maps even. And of course Bering and Cook and arctic explorers and even nuclear submarine records, all of which is why it's no mystery.

If you think arctic sea ice is some mystery that nobody knows anything about, I can't help you.
 
r-j said:
Books are usually better resources than blogs.

OK pretty much always.

The online paper I pointed you to is not about ships logs. That comes from vastly many other sources. A paper isn't going to lay out all the background they are building on.
Click to expand...

The claim that Monckton credulously accepted about the Chinese navy came from a book. The skeptical science blog is by scientists and invariably backed up by peer reviewed science. I would believe them before any claim in a book that wasn't backed up with solid evidence.
BTW I still can't see anything in that book to suggest that ice extent has been diminishing for centuries.
What is relevant is that the Arctic ice extent is diminishing rapidly, the speed of decline has accelerated and all the scientific evidence suggests it is due to greenhouse gas emissions.
 
The current decline in arctic sea ice is for sure a really bad thing.
 
r-j said:
Books are usually better resources than blogs.

OK pretty much always.

The online paper I pointed you to is not about ships logs. That comes from vastly many other sources. A paper isn't going to lay out all the background they are building on.
Click to expand...

Unless its a peer-reviewed book, it is exactly no more reliable or dependable as evidence than a blog.
 
r-j said:
It's obvious you didn't read it still. The information you are ignorant of, the very thing you are questioning me about, like you know enough to challenge what I said, is contained in the first ref on that page.

http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf
Click to expand...

Apparently it is you who either have not read (or did not comprehend) this paper.

...The last low-ice event related to orbital forcing (high insolation)was in the early Holocene, after which the northern high latitudes cooled overall, with some superimposed shorter-term (multidecadal to millennial-scale) and lower-magnitude variability. The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities...
Click to expand...

Nothing in this supports your contention that arctic sea ice has been declining since the last glaciation period (pre-Holocene). In fact, it says, quite the opposite, and supports the evidences I submitted earlier.
 
r-j said:
It talks about the LIA multiple times, which anyone who actually read the document would know.
Click to expand...

Really? I didn't recall reading anything mentioning the so-called LIA, a re-skim through didn't turn it up, and searches of the document using the terms LIA and "Little Ice Age" turned up empty as well. Now there are time scales that cover the various date periods that are most often accorded as being part of the so-called LIA, but they cover both sea ice increases and sea ice decreases. Please reference the specific pages and sections you feel support your contentions.

((The biggest struggle in discussing what some call the little ice age, is that there are almost as many different date ranges given for the regional cool period as there are people who want to use it as their personal hobby horse))

Edit- I did finally find one mention, curious that it didn't turn up in searches but it is peculiar document formatting:
...Variations in the volumes of IRD in the subarctic North Atlantic indicate several cooling and warming intervals during Neoglacial time (late Holocene),similar to the so called ‘‘Little Ice Age’’ and ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ cycles of greater and lesser areas of sea ice known from the last millennium (Jennings and Weiner,1996; Bond et al.,1997;Jenningsetal., 2002; Morosetal.,2006). Southward polar-water excursions have been reconstructed at several sites in this region as multi-century to multidecadal-scale variations superimposed on the longer-term trend(Andersen etal., 2004; Giraudeauetal., 2004; Jenningsetal., 2002).
Click to expand...

But nothing that seems to support your contentions that the "LIA" was any type of high artic sea ice period, or that arctic sea ice has steadily declined since that period. We can see that the most recent history high arctic sea ice period was actually in the 1800s.
 
Last edited:
r-j said:
I said I was JOKING!
Click to expand...

It’s pretty clear you were caught in a lie and are trying to cover it up by claiming the lie was somehow a joke. Given the first lie I don’t think it’s unreasonable for anyone to believe the second lie.
 
r-j said:
Try these for a realistic and science based studies of the arctic sea ice.
Click to expand...

Please provide a summary of what they say and how that supports your position, you have to long a track record of referencing things you haven’t read and don’t support you position for the sole purpose of wasting people time as a “joke” for us to bother with your references otherwise.
Without such we are fully justified in assuming it’s just another “joke” on your part.
 
Trakar said:
Apparently it is you who either have not read (or did not comprehend) this paper.



Nothing in this supports your contention that arctic sea ice has been declining since the last glaciation period (pre-Holocene). In fact, it says, quite the opposite, and supports the evidences I submitted earlier.
Click to expand...

Section 4.4 explicitly says current conditions are the warmest in at least 2000 years and ice shelves stable for over 5000 have disintegrated in a very short period of time.

It's pretty clear he is once again linking to things he hasn't read and just saying there is something in it that somehow supports his claim.
 
r-j said:
Try these for a realistic and science based studies of the arctic sea ice.

Polyakov, I.V., Proshutinsky, A.Y. and Johnson, M.A. 1999. Seasonal cycles in two regimes of Arctic climate. Journal of Geophysical Research 104, No. C11, 25761-25788.
Click to expand...

Relevance to the assertion that arctic sea ice has been declining since LIA period or even from last glaciation period.


r-j said:
Polyakov, I. , Akasofu, S.-I., Bhatt, U., Colony, R., Ikeda, M., Makshtas, A., Swingley, C., Walsh, D. and Walsh, J. 2002a. Trends and Variations in Arctic Climate Systems. Transactions, American Geophysical Union (EOS) 83, 547-548.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not seeing the relevance or support for your contentions

r-j said:
Polyakov, I. V., Alekseev, G. V., Bekryaev, R. V., Bhatt, U., Colony, R. L., Johnson, M. A., Karklin, V. P., Makshtas, A. P., Walsh, D. and Yulin, A. V. 2002b. Observationally based assessment of polar amplification of global warming. Geophysical Research Letters 29(18), 1878, 25-1 – 25-4.
Click to expand...

Once more, while this series of papers all the rage in the deniosphere regarding polar amplification issues (though they and he have lost favor among that group more recently as his research and public statements over the last decade have strongly supported unusual arctic warming issues he resisted in these earlier papers), they really do not address the issues we are discussing. Please explain the relevance you perceive in them.

r-j said:
Polyakov, I.V., Alekseev, G.V., Bekryaev, R.V., Bhatt , U.S. , Colony, R., Johnson, M.A., Karklin, V.P., Walsh, D. and Yulin, A.V. 2003. Long-Term Ice Variability in Arctic Marginal Seas . Journal of Climate 16, 2078-2085.
Click to expand...

Again, relevance?

how about:

"One more step toward a warmer Arctic" - Polyakov, I. V., et al. (2005), One
more step toward a warmer Arctic, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32,
L17605, doi:10.1029/2005GL023740

...While the causes of the observed changes will require further
investigation, our conclusions are consistent with prevailing ideas suggesting the Arctic Ocean is in transition towards a new, warmer state.
Click to expand...

Polyakov, I. V., and Coauthors, 2010: Arctic Ocean warming contributes
to reduced polar ice cap. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 40, 2743–2756, doi:10.1175/2010JPO4339.1.


Again, not really directly relevant to current discussion, but if we are going to toss irrelevant papers from Polyakov back and forth, lets at least see what he is saying in more recent time frames.
 
Trakar said:
Really? I didn't recall reading anything mentioning the so-called LIA, a re-skim through didn't turn it up, and searches of the document using the terms LIA and "Little Ice Age" turned up empty as well.
Click to expand...

Then you are doing it wrong, or have the wrong document in front of you.
http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf

"Little ice age" appears four times, it's right there.

At first I thought you must be trolling, because I can't imagine you could find the clear and easy to find terms.

Also see
Otto-Bliesner et al(2006)
Simulating Arctic climate warmth and icefield retreat in the Last Interglaciation.
Science 311, 1751–1753.

Kaufman et al(2009)
Arctic Lakes
 
Trakar said:
Relevance to the assertion that arctic sea ice has been declining since LIA period
Click to expand...

What he seems to be trying to argue (Guessing since he won’t tell us what we are even supposed to find) is that since there is less ice now that 160 years ago we don’t need to worry that we are at a 2000 – 5000 year low. As I said I’m just guessing, but it does appear to be yet another nonsensical argument on his part.
 
r-j said:
Then you are doing it wrong, or have the wrong document in front of you.
http://bprc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf

"Little ice age" appears four times, it's right there.

At first I thought you must be trolling, because I can't imagine you could find the clear and easy to find terms.

Also see
Otto-Bliesner et al(2006)
Simulating Arctic climate warmth and icefield retreat in the Last Interglaciation.
Science 311, 1751–1753.

Kaufman et al(2009)
Arctic Lakes
Click to expand...

If you can't read a complete messageboard post, and comprehend it properly, I don't know why I or anyone else should expect that you retrieve accurate understanding from 20 page scientific papers.

note that the edit occurred more than an hour and a half before you responded to the post.

Edit- I did finally find one mention, curious that it didn't turn up in searches but it is peculiar document formatting:

Quote:
...Variations in the volumes of IRD in the subarctic North Atlantic indicate several cooling and warming intervals during Neo glacial time (late Holocene),similar to the so called ‘‘Little Ice Age’’ and ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ cycles of greater and lesser areas of sea ice known from the last millennium (Jennings and Weiner,1996; Bond et al.,1997;Jennings et al., 2002; Morosetal.,2006). Southward polar-water excursions have been reconstructed at several sites in this region as multi-century to multi decadal-scale variations superimposed on the longer-term trend(Andersen et al., 2004; Giraudeau et al., 2004; Jennings et al., 2002).

But nothing that seems to support your contentions that the "LIA" was any type of high artic sea ice period, or that arctic sea ice has steadily declined since that period. We can see that the most recent history high arctic sea ice period was actually in the 1800s.
__________________
Trakar AKA/formerly TShaitanaku

"Dubitanda quippe ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus."
(By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth.)
— Peter Abelard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Trakar; Today at 09:15 AM.
Click to expand...
 
Belz... said:
I confirm that the term is in the PDF linked. I searched for "little" by itself.
Click to expand...

Actually, in redoing my search it is quite easy to find if you merely search for "so called" without the parentheses.

searching the paper from the website instead downloading and searching the pdf locally seems to be the source of the formatting issue.
 
greybeard said:
It's interesting that r-j asked me to back up my assertion that most of Monckton's claims have been debunked. Monckton once claimed that centuries ago the Chinese navy sailed through an ice free arctic. Possibly r-j didn't know that claim had been debunked and that's what he is thinking of. Understandable mistake under the circumstances.
Click to expand...
Taking anything Monckton says on face-value is not an understandable mistake. Just look at that face, apart from anything else :eek:.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom