How fast can glaciers respond to climate change?

Sep 13, 2012
This shows University at Buffalo students Elizabeth Thomas, Sean McGrane and Nicolás Young on Baffin Island (left to right). They were members of a team studying the historical extent of glaciers on the Arctic island. Credit: Jason Briner

A new Arctic study in the journal Science is helping to unravel an important mystery surrounding climate change: How quickly glaciers can melt and grow in response to shifts in temperature.

According to the new research, on Canada's Baffin Island expanded rapidly during a brief cold snap about 8,200 years ago. The discovery adds to a growing body of evidence showing that ice sheets reacted rapidly in the past to cooling or warming, raising concerns that they could do so again as the Earth heats up.

"One of the questions scientists have been asking is how long it takes for these huge chunks of ice to respond to a phenomenon," said study co-author Jason Briner, PhD, a University at Buffalo associate professor of geology. "People don't know whether glaciers can respond quickly enough to matter to our grandchildren, and we're trying to answer this from a geological perspective, by looking at Earth's history."

"What we're seeing," he added, "is that these ice sheets are surprisingly sensitive to even short periods of temperature change."

This shows Ayr Lake, Baffin Island, Canada. UB geologists studying this remote region found that the island's glaciers reacted rapidly to past climate change, providing a rare glimpse into glacier sensitivity to climate events. Credit: Jason Briner

Briner's colleagues on the study included lead author Nicolás Young, who worked on the study as part of his PhD at UB and is now a postdoctoral researcher at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory; Dylan H. Rood of the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre and the University of California, Santa Barbara; and Robert C. Finkel of UC Berkeley.

The research, scheduled to appear in Science on Sept. 14, found that on Baffin Island, along with a massive North American ice sheet, expanded quickly when the Earth cooled about 8,200 years ago.

The finding was surprising because the cold snap was extremely short-lived: The temperature fell for only a few decades, and then returned to previous levels within 150 years or so.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

"It's not at all amazing that a small local glacier would grow in response to an event like this, but it is incredible that a large ice sheet would do the same," Young said.

To conduct the research, Briner led a team to Baffin Island to read the landscape for clues about the pre-historical size and activity of glaciers that covered the island.

Moraines—piles of rocks and debris that glaciers deposit while expanding—provided valuable information. By dating these and other geological features, the scientists were able to deduce that glaciers expanded rapidly on Baffin Island about 8,200 years ago, a period coinciding with a short-lived .

The researchers also found that Baffin Island's glaciers appeared to have been larger during this brief period of cooling than during the Younger Dryas period, a much more severe episode of cooling that began about 13,000 years ago and lasted more than a millennium.

University at Buffalo Associate Professor Jason Briner (right) and students Sean McGrane and Elizabeth Thomas (in orange) studied boulders on Baffin Island to learn about glaciers' past activity there. Credit: Nicolás Young

This counterintuitive finding suggests that unexpected factors may govern a glacier's response to .

With regard to , the study's authors say that while overall cooling may have been more intense during the Younger Dryas, summer temperatures may have actually decreased more during the shift 8,200 years ago. These colder summers could have fueled the glaciers' rapid advance, decreasing the length of time that ice melted during the summer.

Detailed analyses of this kind will be critical to developing accurate models for predicting how future climate change will affect glaciers around the world, Briner said.

Explore further: NASA sees intensifying typhoon Phanfone heading toward Japan

More information: "Glacier Extent During the Younger Dryas and 8.2-ka Event on Baffin Island, Arctic Canada," by N.E. Young, Science, 2012. www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6100/1330.abstract

Related Stories

Greenland's pronounced glacier retreat not irreversible

Jan 31, 2012

In recent decades, the combined forces of climate warming and short-term variability have forced the massive glaciers that blanket Greenland into retreat, with some scientists worrying that deglaciation could become irreversible. ...

Recommended for you

Sculpting tropical peaks

11 hours ago

Tropical mountain ranges erode quickly, as heavy year-round rains feed raging rivers and trigger huge, fast-moving landslides. Rapid erosion produces rugged terrain, with steep rivers running through deep ...

Volcano expert comments on Japan eruption

12 hours ago

Loÿc Vanderkluysen, PhD, who recently joined Drexel as an assistant professor in Department of Biodiversity, Earth and Environmental Science in the College of Arts and Sciences, returned Friday from fieldwork ...

User comments : 99

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NotParker
1.8 / 5 (20) Sep 13, 2012
So if it cools like the Little Ice Age then glaciers grow. And when it warms up again after a period like the Little Ice age they shrink.

Nothing to do with CO2.
djr
3.9 / 5 (18) Sep 13, 2012
"Nothing to do with CO2" Well - aren't we all lucky to have happy Parker on the board - always ready and willing to say something stupid. Wonder what Parker thinks actually causes the earth to cool, and to warm. Maybe Milankovitch cycles - aided by C02 feedback effect? Parker may want to check out this graph - http://www.ncdc.n...ange.jpg The source article for this graph makes an interesting read - if you are interested in looking at the relationship between C02 and temperatures over the past 400,000 years. http://www.ncdc.n...nge.html

"Nothing to do with C02" - jeesh....
rubberman
3.6 / 5 (16) Sep 13, 2012
So if it cools like the Little Ice Age then glaciers grow. And when it warms up again after a period like the Little Ice age they shrink.

Nothing to do with CO2.


How do you know? The article doesn't stipulate any causes....
runrig
3.8 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2012
So if it cools like the Little Ice Age then glaciers grow. And when it warms up again after a period like the Little Ice age they shrink.

Nothing to do with CO2.


That WAS correct Parky back in the Younger Dryas and the LIA ( disregarding natural CO2 cycles ). Unfortunately atmospheric CO2 is being added by mankind and is rising dangerously - so things are different today.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (20) Sep 13, 2012
Sane people can agree that the LIA existed.

Sane people can agree that glaciers grew during the LIA.

Sane people can agree that the LIA slowly came to an end starting in the 1800s.

Sane people can not that glaciers started shrinking at the end of the 1800s as the LIA came to an end.

Sane people can read this article and note the similarities to the LIA.

Those who disagree are not sane.
VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (17) Sep 13, 2012
Only the insane, the criminal, and the mentally diseased claim that the earth is not warming due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2.

Arctic ice extent reached a new record low today. 2 weeks after ParkerTard claimed that the arctic ice had reached bottom and was increasing.

Poor ParkerTard. Reality never seems to agree with him.
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (19) Sep 13, 2012
Sane people understand why increasing atmospheric CO2 content on a planet that is in a warming phase will severely mess up established climatic variance (throw another log on the fire so to speak). Again we are back to your lack of belief that CO2 causes warming...essentially you're back to your water isn't wet argument. We can keep posting about it until you prove once again how much you actually understand about the topics you're trying to debate...these are always good for a chuckle.
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (14) Sep 13, 2012
Not to mention the instantaneous deflection imposed by NutPecker from the subject matter of the article, which was concerned with just how rapidly glaciers responded to warming/cooling.

No mention was made of cause for warming/cooling. The EFFECT upon glacier growth was the whole point of interest.

NutPecker. What a maroon.

djr
4.4 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2012
Here is data for the past 2,000 years. I hope the comparison between the end of the little ice age, and today is clear. Nothing out of the ordinary happening there!! We have had 8 more years of warming since the end of this graph...

http://en.wikiped...ison.png
eachus
3.3 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2012
Here is data for the past 2,000 years. I hope the comparison between the end of the little ice age, and today is clear. Nothing out of the ordinary happening there!! We have had 8 more years of warming since the end of this graph...

http://en.wikiped...ison.png


You just stepped in it. Read a little further down the page, and find a nice graph going back 12 thousand years, and showing that current temperatures are still lower than (just after) the period studied in this present article. And this chart goes back to when Micheal Mann and company were trying to sell the hockey stick.

By the way, I personally believe that we need to reduce CO2 levels due to the health effects on humans, which will reach crisis levels before global warming. So build new nuclear power plants and switch from coal or oil to natural gas whenever and wherever possible. Your kids and grandkids health may depend on it.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2012
eachus: I suggest you take a look a the Milankovitch cycles and better understand their forcing:

http://en.wikiped...h_cycles

If you notice, you will see that we are in a section of the cycle that could be cooling us a bit. However, you do have to be careful because the many-body problem of the planet orbits is not predictable for longer than a few hundred thousand years. That leads to more uncertainty in the forcing as you go back in time. In fact, there are a lot of open issues with the cycles (as noted in the link). However, this appears to be the reason for the changes you are looking at. I like the math and physics for this approach but we are tossing a wrench in the gears when we change the planet's albedo and emission characteristics.
djr
4 / 5 (15) Sep 13, 2012
"You just stepped in it" Not really - I was responding to a comment that said the current melting is similar to the little ice age - so the time frame I referenced was appropriate. Earlier I referenced a chart that goes back 400,000 years - and shows a very close fit between temperature and C02 levels. Any suggestion that C02 has "nothing to do" with glacier melt (Parkers suggestion) is just crazy...
etudiant
3 / 5 (10) Sep 13, 2012
Thank you, djr, for the helpful links.
If I read the longer term chart correctly, it seems to show the temperature change leads the CO2 change, by several hundred years
in some cases. What is the explanation for this?
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2012
EachieTard doesn't appear to be able to read a graph.

A line drawn horizontally from the 2004 position stays above the black line for the entire graph. That black line shows the best estimates of Global Temperature so far.

"Read a little further down the page, and find a nice graph going back 12 thousand years, and showing that current temperatures are still lower" - EachieTard

Not being able to read a simple graph is a failure to understand grade 4 level math.

Shameful ignorance.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (12) Sep 13, 2012
"What is the explanation for this?' - Eludiant

You can see a delay of 800 years in a chart covering 400,000 years?

You claim to have detected an offset of 1 part in 500 on a chart consisting of maybe 500 pixels?

Clearly you are lying about that.

But I will ignore your lie for the moment because the 800 year delay is real.

It is both caused by and is the cause of ocean warming that are largely due to changes in the earth's orbital and rotational parameters.

Now I ask you.. What event occurred 800 years ago that you think is causing warming today?

NotParker
2 / 5 (16) Sep 13, 2012
Not to mention the instantaneous deflection imposed by NutPecker from the subject matter of the article, which was concerned with just how rapidly glaciers responded to warming/cooling.


Yes. Glaciers in the LIA responded quickly to warming and cooling during the LIA and responded to warming at the end of the LIA.

Which is exactly on point.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) Sep 13, 2012
Only the insane, the criminal, and the mentally diseased claim that the earth is not warming due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2.


Only the truly insane believe the earth warms and cools only when CO2 changes.

kochevnik
3.6 / 5 (14) Sep 13, 2012
Only the truly insane believe the earth warms and cools only when CO2 changes.
Non-sequitur the earth isn't a test tube.
Caliban
4 / 5 (16) Sep 13, 2012
Only the insane, the criminal, and the mentally diseased claim that the earth is not warming due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2.


Only the truly insane believe the earth warms and cools only when CO2 changes.


And only NutPecker claims that anyone commenting here claims that the Earth only warms or cools when CO2 changes.

Which makes the Pecker insane.

Sorry bout the 1 kochevnik --sposed to be a 5.

But not you, NutPecker --you get a 1.

cdt
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 14, 2012
It seems pretty clear to me that there is exactly one person posting on this article who repeatedly ignores counterarguments to his claims, article after article, and who is contributing absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. I say it's time to ignore him on a large scale. Follow any other comments, but leave his alone. Address the content indirectly if need be, but don't address the person. Maybe then we can have a science site with a higher level of science and a lower level of trolling. Also, maybe then we can start to get rid of attacks on people and their intelligence and focus entirely on the value of their comments. It would make for a much nicer discussion all around.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (18) Sep 14, 2012
We have had 8 more years of warming since the end of this graph...
Patently false. There's been no significant global warming in at least 10 years.

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (12) Sep 14, 2012
One wonders how that would be possible given ParkerTard's lunatic assertion that there are over 3 million active volcano's erupting on the ocean floor.

"Glaciers in the LIA responded quickly to warming and cooling during the LIA and responded to warming at the end of the LIA." - ParkerTard

Who turned them all off during the regional cooling known as the LIA?
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (12) Sep 14, 2012
Then denialists like yourself are truly insane by your own admission.

After all, that assumption underlies your collective snide comments about previous interglacials occurring without the existence of SUV's.

"Only the truly insane believe the earth warms and cools only when CO2 changes." - ParkerTard

Now ParkerTard. Can you name a single climate scientist who has claimed that the earth only warms due to CO2?

Don't forget to support your name with facts.

Poor mentally diseased ParkerTard.

Wanna bet that there isn't a new Arctic sea ice area minimum today?

Are you ready to be a man?
VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (16) Sep 14, 2012
And again UbVonTrd trots out his usual lie.

His graphic is from a data set that does not include most of the polar regions and hence does not include most of the polar warming which has occurred.

He has also been told somewhere around 50 times now that his time period is so short that there is no statistical significance to the trend he presents as statistically significant.

In fact the 2 sigma error in the slope he presents is actually ten times larger than the slope he claims.

"Patently false. There's been no significant global warming in at least 10 years." - UbVonTard

So UbVonTard cherry picks his data and then misrepresents the results, and does so even though he has been corrected over 50 times.

That makes him as much of a mentally diseased liar as ParkerTard, in my books.

Meanwhile in a LESS biased data set...

http://www.woodfo...04/trend
djr
4.1 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2012
"Patently false. There's been no significant global warming in at least 10 years."

So here is an interesting question. As you know - I acknowledge temperature data currently show a plateau - going back about 15 years.

So here is an article referenced by Claudius - that claims that temperatures are leading C02 levels, not the other way round. http://www.scienc...12001658

But C02 levels are still going up - while temperatures appear to be on a plateau. So which is it Uba? Are temperatures not going up - in which case Claudius is full of it right? Or are you wrong - and the globe is in fact continuing to warm?
runrig
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 14, 2012
It seems pretty clear to me that there is exactly one person posting on this article who repeatedly ignores counterarguments to his claims, article after article, and who is contributing absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. I say it's time to ignore him on a large scale. Follow any other comments, but leave his alone. Address the content indirectly if need be, but don't address the person. Maybe then we can have a science site with a higher level of science and a lower level of trolling. Also, maybe then we can start to get rid of attacks on people and their intelligence and focus entirely on the value of their comments. It would make for a much nicer discussion all around.


I agree cdt - ( although there are two regular miscreants ). Nothing said or linked by us will make a jot of difference to their thinking. All we can hope is that others who come on here will see the sense of the science as we deny ignorance.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 14, 2012
It seems pretty clear to me that there is exactly one person posting on this article who repeatedly ignores counterarguments to his claims, article after article, and who is contributing absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. I say it's time to ignore him on a large scale.


Yes. VD is a disruptive force. But there are more than one.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 14, 2012


Yes. VD is a disruptive force. But there are more than one.


Only disruptive to a minority - you and one other.
And there would be more than one because the consensus is with the science - which you are against viewed from your parallel universe.
cdt
4.1 / 5 (10) Sep 14, 2012

Yes. VD is a disruptive force.


No, he bases his posts on real science and on scientific methodology, providing a much needed counterbalance to a lot of cr*p that a very small number of people try to pass off as informed. (I admit, though, that I could do without the ad hominem parts of his posts.)
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 14, 2012


Yes. VD is a disruptive force. But there are more than one.


Only disruptive to a minority - you and one other.
And there would be more than one because the consensus is with the science - which you are against viewed from your parallel universe.


So your cult believes CO2 causes less Arctic Sea Ice and more Antarctic Sea Ice - 1,000,000 sq km above average.

Please explain how CO2 can do both.

http://nsidc.org/...ries.png
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2012
"Please explain how CO2 can do both." - ParkerTard

The Antarctic is showing a loss of ice volume on the continent. This ice does not simply vanish, but flows off the continent and onto the ocean surface where it maintains and extends the various Antarctic ice shelves.

How does a lump of butter left on a warm counter top cover more area after it is warmed then it does when it is cool.

This has been explained to you at least three times.

Yet you continue to ask for the explanation, less than a day after it was provided to you by another.

Such is the depth of your Mental Disease.
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2012
More bad News for ParkerTard...

On Friday, Arctic sea ice area reached a new record low, never before recorded in human history. The new low is 2.24 million square kilometers.

This record low is down from the 2.7 million kilometers of sea ice area that existed when ParkerTard claimed 2.5 weeks ago that Arctic sea ice had reached it's minimum for the season.

The current sea ice area is 2.5 million square kilometers lower than historical norms, and is now past the half way mark to a total ice free Arctic.

An ocean covered with ice absorbs virtually no sunlight, while one that is ice free absorbs 80 percent or more of the sunlight that falls upon it. As a result melting sea ice begats more melted sea ice.

The pattern over the last several decades has been for a new minimum to be reached that is a good fraction of a million square kilometers less than previous and for that minimum to be approximately maintained for another 4 to 5 years until a new dramatically lower minimum is reache
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2012
If that Pattern persists, then an ice free arctic can be expected to occur in approximately 25 years.

However, as a result of acceleration in the rate of ice loss, due to the enhanced Arctic ice loss that results from the previous ice loss, an ice free Arctic should be realized in a shorter time frame, of 20 years, or perhaps 15.

At that point, all energy falling upon the Arctic ocean will go to heating the water as opposed to melting ice. Since the heat of fusion of ice is 80 cal/g while the energy needed to raise the temperature of water 1'C is only 1 cal/g the 2.2 million square kilometers of what is now ice covered ocean will be increasing it's temperature at a rate that is 80 times higher than it is now.

Winter ice formation will be substantially delayed and the higher temperatures will greatly accelerate the loss of Greenland ice.

Climatological winter will essentially vanish from North America and the ongoing Desertification of the U.S. grain belt will accelerate.

VendicarD
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2012
How should ParkerTard and his filthy, Conservative, denialist brethren be punished for their crimes against nature and man?

Public Execution is simply not sufficient.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 15, 2012

Please explain how CO2 can do both.

http://nsidc.org/...ries.png


You have been told countless times that the Arctic and Antarctic are very different. Ice extent is not the same as ice VOLUME. Antarctic ice is flowing off land and does not melt from below until in the sea. As VD has explained, and the melting butter analogy is apt. Please try not to think of the world in such simplistic terms. Just because it is ice doesn't mean it will behave the same way in both places. Yes a warming world will do both things.
djr
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2012
"You have been told countless times" What is amazing is that a 2 second google search will address this kind of issue - here is an example - http://en.wikiped...troversy

Yet we have to keep re-litigating this stuff over and over.... Thanks runrig and Vendi.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2012

Please explain how CO2 can do both.

http://nsidc.org/...ries.png


You have been told countless times that the Arctic and Antarctic are very different.


How are they different? Other than being at different poles. And the geography is different. Otherwise they are formed exactly the same way. It gets cold. Ice forms.

NotParker
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2012
You have been told countless times


Tell me again.

CO2 causes record sea ice in Antarctica because ...
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 15, 2012
Runrig: Antarctic ice is flowing off land and does not melt from below until in the sea.


Nonsense. Both are Sea Ice. It gets cold. Ice forms. Antarctic Sea Ice is not "flowing" from the land.

So much for science.
full_disclosure
1.9 / 5 (13) Sep 15, 2012
How should ParkerTard and his filthy, Conservative, denialist brethren be punished for their crimes against nature and man?

Public Execution is simply not sufficient.


VendicarD.....this is simply not acceptable......what good are the 'Terms and Conditions' on this site. Death threats....there is no reasonable moderation on this site. Wretched......
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2012
Runrig: Antarctic ice is flowing off land and does not melt from below until in the sea.


Nonsense. Both are Sea Ice. It gets cold. Ice forms. Antarctic Sea Ice is not "flowing" from the land.

So much for science.


Do you not agree that the vast majority of ice in Antarctica is on land ? Surely you do.

Given that fact the edges of the icecap will "flow" away from the interior (as do glaciers down valleys ). Some ice does extend over the surrounding sea and of course it grows over sea in the winter. However the melting effect is not the same as over the arctic ( save close to Greenland ) as in the summer in Antarctica there is calving at the edges all around the icecap but especially in the Antarctic peninsula. I refer you to this article ... http://www.antarc...p?id=838
Yes, it is science and yes it is complicated, with feed-backs both ve and -ve. It's not a case of a "one size fits all" warming.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2012
So here is an interesting question. As you know - I acknowledge temperature data currently show a plateau - going back about 15 years.

So here is an article referenced by Claudius - that claims that temperatures are leading C02 levels, not the other way round.

But C02 levels are still going up - while temperatures appear to be on a plateau. So which is it Uba? Are temperatures not going up - in which case Claudius is full of it right? Or are you wrong - and the globe is in fact continuing to warm?

This is a false dichotomy argument. Temperatures are what they are.

That CO2 has been observed to lead and/or follow global temperatures in no way demonstrates CO2 is the cause of these temperature changes. Historically, it does appear it may be an artifact of temperature changes, but there are a lot of artifacts of temperature changes.

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2012
Nothing said or linked by us will make a jot of difference to their thinking. All we can hope is that others who come on here will see the sense of the science as we deny ignorance.
You only say this as an excuse NOT to show the science, because you know the current science supports the fact there has been no global warming in at least 10 years.

NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2012

Do you not agree that the vast majority of ice in Antarctica is on land ?


Yes. And the 2nd largest ice sheet is on land too. Greenland.

http://arctic.atm....000.png

"Antarctic sea ice does not reach the South Pole, extending only to about 75 degrees south latitude (in the Ross and Weddell Seas), because of the Antarctic continent. However, Arctic sea ice can extend all the way to the North Pole. Here, the Arctic sea ice receives less solar energy at the surface because the sun's rays strike at a more oblique angle, compared to lower latitudes.

Water from the Pacific Ocean and several rivers in Russia and Canada provide fresher, less dense water to the Arctic Ocean. So the Arctic Ocean has a layer of cold, fresh water near the surface with warmer, saltier water below. This cold, fresh water layer typically allows more ice growth in the Arctic than the Antarctic."

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2012
By the way, I personally believe that we need to reduce CO2 levels due to the health effects on humans, which will reach crisis levels before global warming. So build new nuclear power plants and switch from coal or oil to natural gas whenever and wherever possible. Your kids and grandkids health may depend on it.
CO2 is an inert gas. Generally speaking, it has no known negative health effects, unless it is breathed in concentrations sufficient to displace oxygen and thereby cause oxygen deprivation. We naturally exhale CO2 when we breathe.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2012
"dir: Thanks runrig and Vendi.


Vendi: "Public Execution is simply not sufficient."

Its all about the science ....
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Sep 15, 2012

Do you not agree that the vast majority of ice in Antarctica is on land ?


Yes. And the 2nd largest ice sheet is on land too. Greenland.



That is true but a very poor second ( 6.46 times ).
http://mapfight.a...tarctica
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 15, 2012
No, he bases his posts on real science and on scientific methodology, providing a much needed counterbalance to a lot of cr*p that a very small number of people try to pass off as informed. (I admit, though, that I could do without the ad hominem parts of his posts.)
Actually, no. He (it, actually) uses very little real science. He appears to be a word generator.

He uses many fallacious argument styles (denialism, ad hominem, poisoning the well, abusive fallacy, argumentum ad baculum, argumentum ad populum, ...to name a few). But most notably he is the master of argument of verbosity.

He just runs on an on, repeating the same fallacious arguments over and over again, ad nauseam, even when it's been demonstrated his arguments are patently false.

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Sep 15, 2012
How should ParkerTard and his filthy, Conservative, denialist brethren be punished for their crimes against nature and man?

Public Execution is simply not sufficient.


VendicarD.....this is simply not acceptable......what good are the 'Terms and Conditions' on this site. Death threats....there is no reasonable moderation on this site. Wretched......
And here runrig, cdt, rubberman, Caliban, and thermodynamics et al. sing his praises. They all ought to be ashamed.

djr
4 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2012
"This is a false dichotomy argument. Temperatures are what they are."

It is not a false dichotomy argument. Current science says that the emission of green house gases is trapping heat into our atmosphere and at least in part responsible for the warming we have seen over the past 100 years or so. The strong historical relationship between C02 and temperature is clear. http://www.ncdc.n...nge.html Claudius' article was a clear attempt to debunk the idea that C02 causes temperature change - by establishing that temperatures actually lead C02 levels. This would of course cause a problem for you argument about no warming over the past 15 years- being that C02 levels are continuing to rise. You can't have it both ways - and it is not a false dichotomy argument.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2012
Runrig: Antarctic ice is flowing off land and does not melt from below until in the sea.
Nonsense. Both are Sea Ice. It gets cold. Ice forms. Antarctic Sea Ice is not "flowing" from the land.

So much for science.
Do you not agree that the vast majority of ice in Antarctica is on land ? Surely you do.

Given that fact the edges of the icecap will "flow" away from the interior (as do glaciers down valleys ). Some ice does extend over the surrounding sea and of course it grows over sea in the winter. However the melting effect is not the same as over the arctic ( save close to Greenland ) as in the summer in Antarctica there is calving at the edges all around the icecap but especially in the Antarctic peninsula.
You two are talking apples and oranges.

"Sea ice" generally forms in the open ocean water. "Shelf ice" generally flows off from, and is attached to, the land. Here's a cool video:

http://www.nasa.g...06877491

djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2012
"CO2 causes record sea ice in Antarctica because ..."

If Parker would stop spreading rubbish - and read up on the subject - this issue would not be being discussed. There is a very complete discussion of the whole issue in this link - that has been presented many times.

http://en.wikiped...troversy
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2012
runrig, cdt, rubberman, Caliban, and thermodynamics et al. sing his (VD) praises. They all ought to be ashamed.

He just runs on an on, repeating the same fallacious arguments over and over again, ad nauseam, even when it's been demonstrated his arguments are patently false.

There is an old northern English idiom. "Pot calling kettle black" ... http://en.wikiped...le_black

And in no way ".... when it's been demonstrated his arguments are patently false." is this the case. In your alternative universe but no other. Remember the science is the consensus, you (2) are in the minority. Sorry if it does not fit your world view, but, you know, shit happens.
I'm no defender of Ad Hominem comments but I have not found his science in any way lacking.
It seems he has been trying to teach you guys climate science for longer than the rest of us. I suggest he has become tired of beating his head against a wall. I would. I have. But I will keep things civil
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2012
"CO2 causes record sea ice in Antarctica because ..."

If Parker would stop spreading rubbish - and read up on the subject - this issue would not be being discussed. There is a very complete discussion of the whole issue in this link - that has been presented many times.

http://en.wikiped...troversy


Wikipedia is not to be relied upon on controversial issues. The VD's of the world rule there.

But maybe YOU have an explanation for why there is a huge amount of extra sea ice in the Antarctic.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2012
Wikipedia is not to be relied upon on controversial issues. The VD's of the world rule there.

But maybe YOU have an explanation for why there is a huge amount of extra sea ice in the Antarctic.


If you do not accept Wiki as a reliable source, what do you? not including Blogs that is.

Huge! I don't think so - anyway I again refer you to this article ....http://www.antarc...p?id=838

I can do no more. That is the current scientific reasoning.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 15, 2012
It is not a false dichotomy argument.
Claiming it's not false dichotomy doesn't make it not a false dichotomy.

Current science says that the emission of green house gases is trapping heat into our atmosphere and at least in part responsible for the warming we have seen over the past 100 years or so.
This is a hypothesis, it's not necessarily true. Have you read any of the science this is based upon?

The strong historical relationship between C02 and temperature is clear.
Isn't it interesting they took out the color key for the lines on this famous chart? Why do you think they did that?

And from this very same reference:

"While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult."

You should probably read your references before posting them.

Cont...
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2012
Claudius' article was a clear attempt to debunk the idea that C02 causes temperature change - by establishing that temperatures actually lead C02 levels.
It's a valid argument to make.

This would of course cause a problem for you argument about no warming over the past 15 years- being that C02 levels are continuing to rise.
How so? Temperatures are what they are, and CO2 levels are what they are. To suggest either CO2 concentrations absolutely must cause temperature changes or, if false, temperatures absolutely must drive CO2 changes, is the false dichotomy.

You can't have it both ways - and it is not a false dichotomy argument.
"A false ...dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking,...) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option."

http://en.wikiped..._dilemma

cdt
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2012
How should ParkerTard and his filthy, Conservative, denialist brethren be punished for their crimes against nature and man?

Public Execution is simply not sufficient.


VendicarD.....this is simply not acceptable......what good are the 'Terms and Conditions' on this site. Death threats....there is no reasonable moderation on this site. Wretched......
And here runrig, cdt, rubberman, Caliban, and thermodynamics et al. sing his praises. They all ought to be ashamed.



You obviously neglected the last part of my comment, so I'll repeat it for you. Try reading it this time so you don't have to embarrass yourself again.

(I admit, though, that I could do without the ad hominem parts of his posts.)


VD does repeat arguments, but they tend to be arguments that are denied by 2 others without being refuted, and upon being repeated they are often spelled out in further detail with more backing evidence. Our local denialists simply refuse to see.
djr
4.1 / 5 (7) Sep 15, 2012
To suggest either CO2 concentrations absolutely must cause temperature changes or, if false, temperatures absolutely must drive CO2 changes, is the false dichotomy.

I will yield on the false dichotomy issue - I see what you are saying. However - if two variables are correlated - it is valid and appropriate to explore the nature of the correlation - and to ask if there is causation involved. Current science believes there is correlation between C02 increase - and temperature increase and provides an explanation for the mechanisms involved. If you wish to argue that there is no causation - you must surely provide an alternative hypothesis. The IPCC ascribes a probability of 90% to the likelihood of C02 being the driver of recent warming http://en.wikiped...e_change

What is your explanation for the warming?
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2012
the science is the consensus, you are in the minority.
Science is not a popularity contest.

I have not found his science in any way lacking.
I guess you haven't been paying attention then. But what should I expect from someone who doesn't know the difference between decadal and multi-decadal?

It seems he has been trying to teach you guys climate science for longer than the rest of us. I suggest he has become tired of beating his head against a wall. I would. I have. But I will keep things civil
LOL! You? ...Civil? LOL!

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2012
You obviously neglected the last part of my comment, so I'll repeat it for you. Try reading it this time so you don't have to embarrass yourself again.


(I admit, though, that I could do without the ad hominem parts of his posts.)
So you think this makes it all okay? Really? Death threats and all?

VD does repeat arguments, but they tend to be arguments that are denied by 2 others without being refuted, and upon being repeated they are often spelled out in further detail with more backing evidence.
LOL! You are a fool if you believe this. Vendibot can't even read the dates on these posts.

Our local denialists simply refuse to see.
Yeah, what's up with the science deniers anyway?

Here's the science:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

There's been no global warming for at least the last 10 years.

NotParker
2 / 5 (8) Sep 15, 2012

And the Ozone hole over the Artic, now the same size as the Antarctic Ozone Hole (both probably natural) doesn't cause any change in arctic ice?

"About a year ago, the scientists detected that ozone degradation above the Arctic for the first time reached an extent comparable to that of the ozone hole above the South Pole."

"According to the study, occurrence of the Arctic ozone hole was mainly due to the extraordinarily cold temperatures in the ozone layer that is located at about 18 km height in the stratosphere, i.e. the second layer of the earth's atmosphere."

http://www.dailym...her.html

Two ozone holes. Both the same size. But one is being used by AGW cult members as an excuse for why sea ice is increasing in the Antarctic and the other causes no changes at all?

ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (9) Sep 15, 2012
I will yield on the false dichotomy issue - I see what you are saying.
Thank you.

However - if two variables are correlated - it is valid and appropriate to explore the nature of the correlation - and to ask if there is causation involved.
Indeed.

Current science believes there is correlation between C02 increase - and temperature increase and provides an explanation for the mechanisms involved.
It's pretty flimsy, actually.

If you wish to argue that there is no causation - you must surely provide an alternative hypothesis.
Another false dichotomy. Just because I have doubts about one suggested cause does not obligate me to come to another conclusion.

The IPCC ascribes a probability of 90% to the likelihood of C02 being the driver of recent warming
I think there are many valid reasons to doubt the IPCC conclusions.

What is your explanation for the warming?
Confluences of chaos.

cdt
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2012

Here's the science:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

There's been no global warming for at least the last 10 years.


You obviously didn't read VD's posts about how the standard deviation drowns out the signal. So I guess the only resort left is to fight cherry picking with cherry picking. Compare your graph with the graphs -- generated at the same site using the same software -- starting at 2000, and then starting at 2008. You'll see that both graphs trend upward.

http://www.woodfo...08/trend
http://www.woodfo...00/trend

I understand VD's claims about statistics well enough to know not to put too much store in either of these graphs, and hence know to put just as little store in the graph that you plotted.

(continued)
cdt
4 / 5 (8) Sep 16, 2012
(continued)

You should also, of course, embrace all of the following conclusions, given that you already proclaimed the second:

There HAS been global warming for the last 12 years.
There has been NO global warming for the last 10 years.
AND
There HAS been global warming for the last 4 years.

I'll let you run the numbers for the years in between to you can fill in your own irrationality to make it closer to complete. That should give you a large number of cherries to pick from for your future denialist posts. Don't expect anyone to be impressed, though.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2012
"Confluences of chaos." Interesting. The recent C02 level graph - and the historical correlation of the two variables would surely not indicate pure chaos. The temperature record of the last few years gives cause for pause - and concern about the causation between the two variables. I guess we still have so much left to understand. Perhaps we have prematurely jumped to conclusions. Thanks.
NotParker
2 / 5 (8) Sep 16, 2012


There HAS been global warming for the last 12 years.
There has been NO global warming for the last 10 years.
AND
There HAS been global warming for the last 4 years.



Essentially a flat line for 15 years. A few wobbles. Scientists know a flat line when they see one. Fanatics (like you and VD) deny the existence of contrary data (and VD usually throws in a death threat).

"Day 256 Antarctic ice is the highest ever for the date, and the eighth highest daily reading ever recorded. All seven higher readings occurred during the third week of September, 2007 – the week of the previous Arctic record minimum."

http://stevengodd...-silent/

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Sep 16, 2012

Here's the science:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

There's been no global warming for at least the last 10 years.
You obviously didn't read VD's posts about how the standard deviation drowns out the signal.
This isn't applicable. "Standard deviations" apply to projections, not actual, empirical data sets. The facts aren't variables.

So I guess the only resort left is to fight cherry picking with cherry picking. Compare your graph with the graphs -- generated at the same site using the same software -- starting at 2000, and then starting at 2008. You'll see that both graphs trend upward.
So? When did I claim anything about these time periods?

I understand VD's claims about statistics well enough to know not to put too much store in either of these graphs, and hence know to put just as little store in the graph that you plotted.
Obviously not.

(continued)
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Sep 16, 2012
(continued)

You should also, of course, embrace all of the following conclusions, given that you already proclaimed the second:

There HAS been global warming for the last 12 years.
There has been NO global warming for the last 10 years.
AND
There HAS been global warming for the last 4 years.
False dichotomy. Just because there has been no global warming in at least 10 years does not require no warming to show up in either of the other data sets.

I'll let you run the numbers for the years in between to you can fill in your own irrationality to make it closer to complete. That should give you a large number of cherries to pick from for your future denialist posts. Don't expect anyone to be impressed, though.


Here's he science:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Here's even better science (consistency matters):

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 16, 2012
"Confluences of chaos." Interesting. The recent C02 level graph - and the historical correlation of the two variables would surely not indicate pure chaos. The temperature record of the last few years gives cause for pause - and concern about the causation between the two variables.
Indeed.

A consideration:

If we assign a high degree of CO2 influence to man, and natural CO2 variances are artifacts of (and not primary drivers of) temperature change, then for there to be a deviation in the pattern now shouldn't be unexpected.

I guess we still have so much left to understand.
Indeed.

Perhaps we have prematurely jumped to conclusions.
Possibly, but this is in our nature. Being moderately concerned is still reasonable. And a general (and healthy) concern for the environment is always appropriate.

Thanks.
You're welcome.

P.S. You got 5 stars from me.

runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2012
Science is not a popularity contest.


Science observes the world and makes theories that fit it. People the world over are educated to do that for us. It is a popularity contest in that a majority of those scientists have explained things this way. Ockam's razor (and common sense) says a group of people who are knowledgeable about something are more likely to be correct than a group of people who are not.

I have not found his science in any way lacking.
I guess you haven't been paying attention then.
I have - but then I have "decades" ( I am an astounding 58 remember) of accumulated knowledge on the subject. Some on here haven't.

But what should I expect from someone who doesn't know the difference between decadal and multi-decadal?


What should I expect from someone who doesn't know that you/your are plural possessive pronouns?

As civil as I could manage.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Sep 16, 2012
Science observes the world and makes theories that fit it. People the world over are educated to do that for us. It is a popularity contest in that a majority of those scientists have explained things this way. Ockam's razor (and common sense) says a group of people who are knowledgeable about something are more likely to be correct than a group of people who are not.
It's "Occam's razor," moron.

I have "decades" of accumulated knowledge on the subject. Some on here haven't.
Says the self-proclaimed expert who states the PDO is a decadal cycle. LOL

Claiming you're an expert, and being an expert aren't the same thing.

What should I expect from someone who doesn't know that you/your are plural possessive pronouns?
And what should I expect from someone who thinks two people can have a (single) one-track mind or a (single) prejudice.

As civil as I could manage.
Typically uncivil, full of obvious lies, and off topic.

djr
4.5 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2012
Ockam's razor (and common sense) says a group of people who are knowledgeable about something are more likely to be correct than a group of people who are not.

I agree with you run - I think we should be paying attention to the data and the science. I am reading an interesting book - Dyson "The Scientist as Rebel" There are certainly plenty of examples of mainstream science getting stuck in a singular explanation - and being very wrong. I am very vulnerable to the tendency to form a conclusion - and then become unwilling to consider information that contradicts that opinion. So I think it is hard to push yourself into staying open to other possibilities. I definitely don't find that I learn much when I am in fight mode. Much better to take a break - and see if I can check my own bias. I think there is a difference between staying open - and concluding that there is some grand conspiracy of scientists to exploit science for personal gain. Just some thoughts as I turn in.
thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2012
ubavontuba: You said:

"This isn't applicable. "Standard deviations" apply to projections, not actual, empirical data sets. The facts aren't variables."

Can you please enlighten us on how you don't think standard deviation applies to data? Why do you think that your Excel spreadship lets you find standard deviations for data?

http://en.wikiped...eviation

I think you are confusing the concept of standard deviation with "confidence interval."

http://en.wikiped...interval

I find standard deviations for my data every time I take any. I determine confidence intervals for my fits. Are you doing something else or have you just never analyzed data?

In any case, standard deviation of data is easy to calculate for anyone who has ever passed a statistics course. So, either you did not pass a course or never took one.
VendicarD
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2012
It is, "It is" not "It's", Moron.

"It's "Occam's razor," moron. " - UbVonTard
VendicarD
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2012
Poor UbVonTard. Everyone hears his ignorant laughter and thinks to themselves.. "What a moron".

"20th century PDO "events" persisted for 20-to-30 years, while typical ENSO events persisted for 6 to 18 months" - http://jisao.wash...edu/pdo/

"Says the self-proclaimed expert who states the PDO is a decadal cycle. LOL" - UbVonTard
VendicarD
3 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2012
Mindless Drivel, based on mindless ignorance of reality.

"If we assign a high degree of CO2 influence to man, and natural CO2 variances are artifacts of (and not primary drivers of) temperature change, then for there to be a deviation in the pattern now shouldn't be unexpected." - UbVontard
VendicarD
3 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2012
Poor UbVonTard. He presents a video of continental ice flow onto the ocean surrounding the Antarctic as proof that ice is not flowing off of the continental Antarctic.

""Sea ice" generally forms in the open ocean water. "Shelf ice" generally flows off from, and is attached to, the land." - UbVonTard

And once on the sea how do you determine the difference, Tard boy?

In my wildest dreams I could not make up such monstrous UbVonTard stupidity. I will have to be dead and buried 20 years before I have his near zero Conservative IQ.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2012
98 percent of all scientists accept anthropogenic global warming.

There is only a controversy in your diseased, denialist, Imagination.

"Wikipedia is not to be relied upon on controversial issues." - ParkerTard
VendicarD
3 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2012
It's been explained to you 4 times in the last 2 days.

Whats da matter boy? No short term memory left? Has your mental disease has taken it?

Or have you been eating your own poop again?

"But maybe YOU have an explanation for why there is a huge amount of extra sea ice in the Antarctic." - ParkerTard
VendicarD
3 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2012
CO2 enhanced global warming is an experimentally verified fact.

CO2 absorbs IR that would otherwise radiate it to space, and re-emits a portion of it back to the ground.

It immediately follows that the ground is warmer as a result.

Grade School science baffles Conservatives like ParkerTard.

"This is a hypothesis, it's not necessarily true." - ParkerTard

"Have you read any of the science this is based upon?" - ParkerTard

Of course, and every public school student does these days.

But then the typical 10 year old is vastly smarter than you are Parker my little Tard.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2012
Poor UbVonTard. He posts a quote from the NOAA concerning the difficulties in determining precision dating and employs it without context to lend support to his idiotic assertion that the attribution of current climate change is "difficult to determine".

The full statement that UbVonTard dishonestly uses can be found here...

NOAA - Paleoclimatology

http://www.ncdc.n...nge.html

"While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult." - UbVonTard

Lies, lies, lies, lies.

That is all UbVonTard and the other Conservative climate change denialsits have.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2012
But trends are not since they are statistical entities, not measured data points.

"Temperatures are what they are, and CO2 levels are what they are." - UbVonTard

7 average people walk though a door followed by two shorter people. From this you have concluded that the average height of the world's population is on the decline.

You are perpetually caught engaging in that kind of non-science Idiocy...

VendicarD
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2012
The only death threats that have been made are in your own imagination.

"Death threats and all?" - UbVonTard

Having said that your crimes are worthy of public execution.

And that day of retribution for those crimes is fast approaching.

VendicarD
3 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2012
Yup. Ozone depletion denialism goes hand in hand with Global Warming denialism, smoking causing cancer denailism, and all other forms of denialism.

When you live on planet Conservadopia, you don't have any contact with planet reality.

"And the Ozone hole over the Artic, now the same size as the Antarctic Ozone Hole (both probably natural). - ParkerTard

Thanx for reminding us from which ideology your idiocy comes from Parker my little Tard...
djr
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2012
"But trends are not since they are statistical entities, not measured data points."

True enough Vendi - but does it not give us pause - to see current C02 levels trending up, but temperatures on a plateau. Also - historically C02 has lagged temperature. So clearly the relationship between these two variables is complex. I think it is fair to say that the science is far from complete - and there may be some surprises in store for us as we continue to study. I am not saying we should be conducting this grand experiment - let's pump a few billion tons of green house gases up and see what happens. Wisdom should come down on the side of prudence - but I am not seeing too much wisdom being spread around these days. Thanks.
full_disclosure
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 17, 2012
The only death threats that have been made are in your own imagination.

"Death threats and all?" - UbVonTard

Having said that your crimes are worthy of public execution.

And that day of retribution for those crimes is fast approaching.



Appalling....you know your position has gone off the rails when this is your end run....wretched childishness.
rubberman
2 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2012
"It seems he has been trying to teach you guys climate science for longer than the rest of us. I suggest he has become tired of beating his head against a wall. I would. I have. But I will keep things civil".

Yup. (except I will be less civil)

"Appalling....you know your position has gone off the rails when this is your end run....wretched childishness."

There were manners abound on the deck of the Titanic. "Pardon me sir, is that seat taken?"
"Why yes but you can have mine! Ta Ta. I'm going for a cool dip."

Science is nothing more than a conspiracy to control... in the minds of those who don't accept the conclusions it arrives at or the observations it makes. To attempt to maintain etiquette when debating lunacy is equally lunatic.
full_disclosure
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 17, 2012
Apologist nonsense.....advocating public execution as a remedy for people with whom you disagree just belies your true motivations politically....and has no place in scientific discourse...ridiculous...
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2012
Can you please enlighten us on how you don't think standard deviation applies to data? Why do you think that your Excel spreadship lets you find standard deviations for data?

I think you are confusing the concept of standard deviation with "confidence interval."
Actually, it is Vendibot who seems confused. He keeps talking of standard deviations in regard to confidence in the mean (average) for fixed data series.

Max daily temperatures are like rolling dice. If you roll a thousand dice a thousand times, carefully recording each result, then average the results in a time series, the mean will be fixed. It cannot vary, as the data is fixed.

either you did not pass a course or never took one.
Says the one who thought sea ice and continental ice had the same melting point.

ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2012
It is, "It is" not "It's", Moron.

"It's "Occam's razor," moron. " - Uba
LOL Vendibot doesn't understand standard English abbreviations. LOL

Let me help:

it's:
1. Contraction of it is.

http://www.thefre...com/it's

Try again, chatbot.

ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2012
"20th century PDO "events" persisted for 20-to-30 years, while typical ENSO events persisted for 6 to 18 months" - http://jisao.wash...edu/pdo/

"Says the self-proclaimed expert who states the PDO is a decadal cycle. LOL" - Uba
LOL. Another Vendibot blunder. Vendibot just supported my ridicule of runrig, and he doesn't even know it. LOL

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2012
Sea ice" generally forms in the open ocean water. "Shelf ice" generally flows off from, and is attached to, the land. - Uba
Poor Uba. He presents a video of continental ice flow onto the ocean surrounding the Antarctic as proof that ice is not flowing off of the continental Antarctic.
Poor Vendibot. It thinks stating "ice flows off from the land" means I'm trying to prove ice is not flowing off from the land. LOL

And once on the sea how do you determine the difference?
Poor Vendibot can't understand a simple explanation regarding the difference.

In my wildest dreams I could not make up such monstrous stupidity.
Don't be so hard on yourself. It seems you're doing a very good job of it. LOL
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2012
Poor Uba. He posts a quote from the NOAA concerning the difficulties in determining precision dating and employs it without context to lend support to his idiotic assertion that the attribution of current climate change is "difficult to determine".

The full statement that Uba dishonestly uses can be found here...

NOAA - Paleoclimatology

http://www.ncdc.n...nge.html

"While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult." - Uba
So what relevant context are you claiming is missing?

Lies, lies, lies, lies.
So now you claim the NOAA are liars?

That is all Uba and the other Conservative climate change denialsits have.
LOL. Vendibot has difficulty with context.

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2012
"Temperatures are what they are, and CO2 levels are what they are." - Uba
But trends are not since they are statistical entities, not measured data points.
But they are fixed strictly for the time series being examined.

7 average people walk though a door followed by two shorter people. From this you have concluded that the average height of the world's population is on the decline.
False analogy argument. Try again.

You are perpetually caught engaging in that kind of non-science Idiocy...
LOL. The false analogy is yours. For fun, let's see how it applies to your case:

Vendibot takes 7 average temperature readings followed by two higher temperatures. From this he concluded the world is warming. LOL.

runrig
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2012
I have "decades" of accumulated knowledge on the subject. Some on here haven't.
Says the self-proclaimed expert who states the PDO is a decadal cycle. LOL

Only because no proof can be shown. BTW the "decades" was meant as sarcasm ( clue - it's in quotes ).
BTW can you please tell me the word beginning with D in PDO?
Claiming you're an expert, and being an expert aren't the same thing.
They are not the same thing no, but they are not mutually exclusive either.
And what should I expect from someone who thinks two people can have a (single) one-track mind or a (single) prejudice.
This English usage natural to me - the reference of a group as a singular entity. Some googling has revealed a difference in American English usage. I suggest you investigate yourself.
Typically uncivil, full of obvious lies, and off topic.

Not uncivil ( no use of "moron" for instance ). No lies, and on topic because all comments directly addressed yours.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Sep 17, 2012
BTW the "decades" was meant as sarcasm.
So now you're admitting you have no accumulated knowledge?

can you please tell me the word beginning with D in PDO?
Is this the source of your confusion? It's "Decadal," but it's misnamed. An expert would have known this.

They are not the same thing no, but they are not mutually exclusive either.
In your case, they appear to be mutually exclusive.

Some googling has revealed a difference in American English usage. I suggest you investigate yourself.
I call bull. Show references demonstrating "prejudice" and "one-track mind" are common plural forms.

Not uncivil
Your ad hominem attacks are decidely uncivil.

No lies,
This is a lie in itself.

and on topic because all comments directly addressed yours.
In typical chatbot fashion.

Let's get back to the science:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

runrig
4 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2012
BTW the "decades" was meant as sarcasm.
So now you're admitting you have no accumulated knowledge?


No it is sarcasm in reference to you harping on about "decadal"

can you please tell me the word beginning with D in PDO?
Is this the source of your confusion? It's "Decadal," but it's misnamed. An expert would have known this.

and
They are not the same thing no, but they are not mutually exclusive either.
In your case, they appear to be mutually exclusive.

Appear is all it will ever be over the internet. If you are not prepared to give people credit for who they say they are on a reputable science website - then why bother posting at all? Attack the science if you must and not (perceived) inconsequential slips.

Some googling has revealed a difference in American English usage.
I call bull. Show references demonstrating "prejudice" and "one-track mind" are common plural forms.
.

cntd
runrig
4 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2012
cntd
No, there appears to be a genuine cultural difference between the addressing of groups. Here it is quite reasonable to use either actually. But I naturally fall into the assignment of the group as singular and hence use singular nouns.

Not uncivil
Your ad hominem attacks are decidely uncivil.
Please ( in the last 2 posts ) refer to an Ad Hominem attack I have made that isn't a direct reply to your Ad Hominem attack. You can't have it both ways.

No lies,
This is a lie in itself.
I repeat. No lies.

and on topic because all comments directly addressed yours.
In typical chatbot fashion.
You will find it takes more words to remain civil.

Let's get back to the science:
Indeed lets. There we can agree to differ.