Study shows unprecedented warmth in Arctic

Oct 24, 2013
Study shows unprecedented warmth in Arctic
CU-Boulder Professor Gifford Miller is shown here collecting dead plant samples from beneath a Baffin Island ice cap. Credit: Gifford Miller, University of Colorado Boulder

(Phys.org) —The heat is on, at least in the Arctic. Average summer temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic during the last 100 years are higher now than during any century in the past 44,000 years and perhaps as long ago as 120,000 years, says a new University of Colorado Boulder study.

The study is the first direct evidence the present warmth in the Eastern Canadian Arctic exceeds the peak warmth there in the Early Holocene, when the amount of the sun's energy reaching the Northern Hemisphere in summer was roughly 9 percent greater than today, said CU-Boulder geological sciences Professor Gifford Miller, study leader. The Holocene is a geological epoch that began after Earth's last glacial period ended roughly 11,700 years ago and which continues today.

Miller and his colleagues used dead moss clumps emerging from receding caps on Baffin Island as tiny clocks.  At four different , show the mosses had not been exposed to the elements since at least 44,000 to 51,000 years ago.

Since radiocarbon dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years and because Earth's geological record shows it was in a glaciation stage prior to that time, the indications are that Canadian Arctic temperatures today have not been matched or exceeded for roughly 120,000 years, Miller said.

"The key piece here is just how unprecedented the warming of Arctic Canada is," said Miller, also a fellow at CU-Boulder's Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research. "This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural variability, and it has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

A paper on the subject appeared online Oct. 23 in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal published by the American Geophysical Union. Co-authors include CU-Boulder Senior Research Associate Scott Lehman, former CU-Boulder doctoral student and now Prescott College Professor Kurt Refsnider, University of California Irvine researcher John Southon and University of Wisconsin, Madison Research Associate Yafang Zhong.  The National Science Foundation provided the primary funding for the study.

Miller and his colleagues compiled the age distribution of 145 radiocarbon-dated plants in the highlands of Baffin Island that were exposed by ice recession during the year they were collected by the researchers. All samples collected were within 1 meter of the ice caps, which are generally receding by 2 to 3 meters a year. "The oldest radiocarbon dates were a total shock to me," said Miller.

Located just east of Greenland, the 196,000-square-mile Baffin Island is the fifth largest island in the world.  Most of it lies above the Arctic Circle. Many of the ice caps on the highlands of Baffin Island rest on relatively flat terrain, usually frozen to their beds. "Where the ice is cold and thin, it doesn't flow, so the ancient landscape on which they formed is preserved pretty much intact," said Miller.

To reconstruct the past climate of Baffin Island beyond the limit of radiocarbon dating, Miller and his team used data from ice cores previously retrieved by international teams from the nearby Greenland Ice Sheet. 

The ice cores showed that the youngest time interval from which summer temperatures in the Arctic were plausibly as warm as today is about 120,000 years ago, near the end of the last interglacial period. "We suggest this is the most likely age of these samples," said Miller.

The new study also showed cooled in the Canadian Arctic by about 5 degrees Fahrenheit from roughly 5,000 years ago to about 100 years ago – a period that included the Little Ice Age from 1275 to about 1900.

"Although the Arctic has been warming since about 1900, the most significant warming in the Baffin Island region didn't really start until the 1970s," said Miller. "And it is really in the past 20 years that the warming signal from that region has been just stunning. All of Baffin Island is melting, and we expect all of the ice caps to eventually disappear, even if there is no additional warming."

Temperatures across the Arctic have been rising substantially in recent decades as a result of the buildup of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere. Studies by CU-Boulder researchers in Greenland indicate temperatures on the ice sheet have climbed 7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1991.

A 2012 study by Miller and colleagues using radiocarbon-dated mosses that emerged from under the Baffin Island ice caps and sediment cores from Iceland suggested that the trigger for the Little Ice Age was likely a combination of exploding tropical volcanoes – which ejected tiny aerosols that reflected sunlight back into space – and a decrease in solar radiation.

Explore further: Strong quake hits east Indonesia; no tsunami threat

Related Stories

Image: IceBridge flight over Baffin Island

Apr 18, 2013

(Phys.org) —IceBridge closed out the fourth week of its Arctic campaign with a flight over the striking landscape of eastern Greenland's Geikie Peninsula and a survey of a Canadian ice cap before taking ...

Arctic sea ice avoids last year's record low

Oct 04, 2013

This September, sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean fell to the sixth lowest extent in the satellite record, which began in 1979. All of the seven lowest extents have occurred in the last seven years, since ...

Recommended for you

Strong quake hits east Indonesia; no tsunami threat

9 hours ago

A strong earthquake struck off the coast of eastern Indonesia on Sunday evening, but there were no immediate reports of injuries or damage, and authorities said there was no threat of a tsunami.

Scientists make strides in tsunami warning since 2004

Dec 19, 2014

The 2004 tsunami led to greater global cooperation and improved techniques for detecting waves that could reach faraway shores, even though scientists still cannot predict when an earthquake will strike.

Trade winds ventilate the tropical oceans

Dec 19, 2014

Long-term observations indicate that the oxygen minimum zones in the tropical oceans have expanded in recent decades. The reason is still unknown. Now scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research ...

User comments : 238

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

triplehelix
1.6 / 5 (31) Oct 24, 2013
This just in. Ice thickens as Arctic warms up.

Right.

One of them is wrong, and given one can view a realtime satellite of ice coverage, I am going to say this one is wrong.
no fate
4.2 / 5 (21) Oct 24, 2013
This just in. Ice thickens as Arctic warms up.

Right.

One of them is wrong, and given one can view a realtime satellite of ice coverage, I am going to say this one is wrong.


If you are viewing realtime satellite images of baffin island and don't understand why ice is currently forming, as compared with the time frame in the article, you are beyond help.
orti
1.4 / 5 (28) Oct 24, 2013
Huh. Wasn't all but the last 10K of that 44K, 120K years the last ice age? And wasn't it cleaver of those Neanderthals, paleo-, meso-, and neolithic people to leave us records. Oh, yes -- the moss did -- assuming you can interpret it right.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (29) Oct 24, 2013
Author Miller has a recent history of blatant deception via omitted variable bias:
http://wattsupwit...e-fraud/

Even Wired magazine exposed his extreme bias:
http://www.wired....ing-gun/
runrig
4.3 / 5 (18) Oct 24, 2013
This just in. Ice thickens as Arctic warms up.

Right.

One of them is wrong, and given one can view a realtime satellite of ice coverage, I am going to say this one is wrong.


Thickens up?

You mean the summer following an extreme outlier summer melt, Arctic ice has returned to the trend line.....Its called weather.

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

"September average sea ice extent for 2013 was the sixth lowest in the satellite record. "
runrig
4.3 / 5 (22) Oct 24, 2013
Author Miller has a recent history of blatant deception via omitted variable bias:
http://wattsupwit...e-fraud/


This is getting incestuous now Nik - err you use a denialist Blog on which there is a post written by an unqualified Rebublican activist, economist and journalist (who I have exchanged posts with on here - and suffice to say I disagree with) .... In order to refute a peer-reviewed paper by a climate scientist. And that is credible. Really?
His beef seems to be Cosmic Ray interaction with clouds - about which there has been recent papers on here from CERN saying that their observed affect is orders of magnitude too small for cloud nuclei formation and further research is needed.

http://www.blogge...99442588

Also
Even Wired magazine exposed his extreme bias:
http://www.wired....ing-gun/

Does no such thing.
It is your "extreme bias" that's exposed.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (17) Oct 24, 2013
For those interested - this is the thread that I had a "discussion" with Alec Rawls.

http://phys.org/n...nes.html
Shootist
1.2 / 5 (25) Oct 24, 2013
Study shows unprecedented warmth in Arctic


Good! Lots of precious metals, lots of petroleum, lots of mineral wealth of all kinds.

Dig here, dig now. And drill like madmen.

And remember, warm is better than cold: And the "polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson
Kashmir
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2013
Baffin Island is east of Greenland? Sounds like someone was lost.
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (19) Oct 24, 2013
Baffin Island is east of Greenland? Sounds like someone was lost.

It is if you go far enough.
Howhot
3.6 / 5 (14) Oct 24, 2013
New research shows that average summer temperatures in the Canadian Arctic over the last century are the highest in the last 44,000 years, and perhaps the highest in 120,000 years.

Yikes!
VENDItardE
1 / 5 (23) Oct 24, 2013
just have to loved it when Scott gets so pissed that he can't stop himself from signing in as all his trolls.....nein.....how......run....LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSERRRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSS
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (16) Oct 24, 2013
"just have to loved it when Scott gets so pissed" - VendiTard

As always, the TardMan is living in a land of self delusion.

VENDItardE
1 / 5 (22) Oct 24, 2013
At four different ice caps, radiocarbon dates show the mosses had not been exposed to the elements since at least 44,000 to 51,000 years ago.
Since radiocarbon dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years

so about 1000 years ago?....isn't that when the vikings were farming greenland?
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (21) Oct 25, 2013
just have to loved it when Scott gets so pissed that he can't stop himself from signing in as all his trolls.....nein.....how......run....LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSERRRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSS

Sorry, just signed in now all by myself after getting home, just to get my late night fix of VENDItardE dementia. It's getting stale. Just because YOU have multiple accounts doesn't mean everyone else does, but if that's how you pretend you're 'normal', go right ahead...
djr
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2013
VENDItardE: "Since radiocarbon dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years"

Source please. A quick google search suggests to me that you are way off the mark.

"Radiocarbon dating is especially good for determining the age of sites occupied within the last 26,000 years or so (but has the potential for sites over 50,000), can be used on carbon-based materials (organic or inorganic), and can be accurate to within ±30-50 years."

From - http://www.ncsu.e...iew.html
omatwankr
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 25, 2013
"outside any kind of known natural variability"

so it must be the ~*~uNkNoWn~*~,
Behind the unknow is always The "illuminati" (not to be confused with the illuminaughty how make all the porn on the web) and it cohorts of ultra-right-wing communists lizard people using harp to harp on and on and on about how this is all a corporate liberal media (GE, Viacom (run by Sumner Rothstein (Rothschild+Frankenstein, what a coincidence and he changed it to Red Stone to hide the fact)etc etc) lie, hiding the truth of the Terraforming to make the place habitable buy the lizard people elites.

The new drug KroKodil is bring them out of the woodwork as we speak.

All is going to plan, but whose plan...... da da da dumb

Om OuT
Neal Asher
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 25, 2013
Gosh, the accuracy of those Stone Age thermometers is astounding.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (23) Oct 25, 2013
runrig asserted: "This is getting incestuous now Nik - err you use a denialist Blog on which there is a post written by an unqualified Rebublican activist, economist and journalist (who I have exchanged posts with on here - and suffice to say I disagree with) .... In order to refute a peer-reviewed paper by a climate scientist. And that is credible. Really?"

Yes, really. You present here a series of debate losing logical fallacies meant to discount facts. Your ad hominem name calling extends to the whole class of people who simply disagree with you who have gone to great personal trouble to link together a series of big and small science blogs. Next you argue from authority to excuse the lack of mere *mention* by the author of this study of the two major solar minima that directly correspond to his claimed periods of volcano influence.

The author of this study was in fact caught red handed and properly exposed for behavior that days only climate "science" tolerates.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2013
"so about 1000 years ago?....isn't that when the vikings were farming greenland?" - VendiTard

The Vikings NEVER "farmed" Greenland. It has always been too cold. They did when and where possible grow some wheat and barley but the practice was insufficient and the Norse colonies died out, as did the previous groups of people who tried to inhabit the thin crescent of land to the south that was not covered in glaciers.

Why do you even pretend?

You know that you will just be exposed as the liar you are.

casualjoe
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2013
It's so obvious when someone is scientifically illiterate or merely misinformed through terrible choice of information source, they mock themselves in public and don't even realise.
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2013
Nikkietard is clearly suffering from a mental disorder. He is a psychopath.

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterised partly by enduring anti-social behavior, a diminished capacity for empathy or remorse, and poor behavioral controls.

"The essential feature of antisocial personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. This pattern has also been referred to as psychopathy, sociopathy, or dyssocial personality disorder." - Diagnostic and Statistical manual for mental disorders.

If this condition has developed recently I might suspect a brain tumor.

Have you been tested, TardieBoy?
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (24) Oct 25, 2013
Wow, runrig, the recently minted word 'denialist' finally made it into an actual dictionary, and though Webster's is still holding out, Oxford's defines:

"a person who does not acknowledge the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence; a denier: the small minority of very vocal climate change denialists"

Science spurned these "denialists too": critics of Piltdown Man, fixed continents, bare handed surgery, the cholesterol theory of heart disease, the ether theory of space, and the inability of a virus to cause an ulcer.

But notice the appeal in the definition is to *evidence*, not to consensus or authority.

Now add the continuous *false* assertion by Gore & Co. that "denialists" deny the old school greenhouse effect when in fact skeptics are loudly pointing out that it is *not* the classic greenhouse effect at work in computer models but a highly amplified version if it.

Is that an argument from evidence?
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2013
"Your ad hominem name calling extends to the whole class of people who simply disagree with you who have gone to great personal trouble to link together a series of big and small science blogs." - NikkieTard

NikkieTard is entitled to his own opinion.

Unfortunately he believes he is entitled to his own facts.

NikkieTard clearly isn't working as a chemist even though he has claimed that he has a PHD in chemistry.

Perhaps he will explain that fact to us.
casualjoe
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2013
http://news.scien...ce-spark
Its interesting how in every study taken on the relation between political affiliation and scientific literacy, there is always a right-leaning/less scientific trend, its beyond a coincidence now (and yes I am guilty of what the article talks about)
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2013
"and the inability of a virus to cause an ulcer." - NikkieTard

Helicobacter pylori\Campylobacter pyloridis isn't a virus, TardieBoy.

Do you suffer from violent or sexually inappropriate dreams? Have you considered seeing a Psychologist?
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2013
"Now add the continuous *false* assertion by Gore & Co. that "denialists" deny the old school greenhouse effect when in fact skeptics are loudly pointing out that it is *not* the classic greenhouse effect at work in computer models but a highly amplified version if it." - NikkieTard

The water vapor concentration of the atmosphere has been observed to have increased with increasing temperature, TardieBoy.

Atmospheric humidity increases global warming

Brian Soden at the University of Miami and his colleagues studied satellite data on thermal radiation from the Earth at wavelengths that are absorbed by water vapour. He found that moisture in the upper troposphere has increased by 6 per cent since 1982 in line with predictions (Science, DOI: 1/10.1126/science.1115602).

Does more water vapor produce greater warming through the same greenhouse process that you have just admitted CO2 is responsible for?

If so then you have just contradicted yourself.

Not then I will kick your ass.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2013
"Since radiocarbon dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years" - VendiTard

"As of 2007, the limiting age for a 1 mg sample of graphite is about ten half-lives, approximately 60,000 years." - http://en.wikiped...iability

VendiTard smells like BenGay and urine.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (21) Oct 25, 2013
casualjoe, I see near perfect symmetry between left and right wing extremism. Both attack genetics research, scientists trying to save lives by using modern methods to speed up ancient plant breeding progress and scientists trying to save lives by seizing upon existing stem cell techniques to create new therapies that work. The Unabomber even started a trend so even dorky nanotechnologists need to screen their mail these days!

Studies of separated identical twins show that political affiliation is highly heritable, the same ~50% influence as for most other personality traits.

Trying to drag anti-Republican sentiment into a science debate only works if the facts are on your side. Doubling down on the factually losing side of a debate by attaching it to politics will give anti-science Republicanism a great boost.

The fact is that the warming pause has extended long enough now to falsify the hypothesis that Earth massive water cycle that dominates climate is constrained by a trace gas.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2013
"The Unabomber even started a trend so even dorky nanotechnologists need to screen their mail these days!" - NikkieTard

You see TardieBoy, the more a person's sphere of influence grows, the more it intersects with others and the greater the need to regulate personal behavior in order to define where individual rights begin and end.

"The fact is that the warming pause has extended long enough now to falsify the hypothesis " - NikkieTard

Sorry TardieBoy, the current trend is well within the models error bars. and the interval is still too short to be able to average out climate noise.

In another 10 to 13 years, you will be able to make the claim you have just dishonestly made above.

If you actually had a PHD in chemistry you would actually have an understanding of basic statistics.

Clearly you don't.
casualjoe
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2013
whilst I get where you're coming from in terms of left/right extremism, you only need to read through physorg comments to see confirmation of the trend. and your trace gasses comment shows a lack of understanding of the balance within large systems over large timescales.
you're just not going to debunk the science in this comments section, simple.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2013
Looks like the Global average temperature for 2013 is going to come in as the 7th warmest years ever recorded.

Poor NikkieTard, Reality just keeps on contradicting his view of reality.

You were asked numerous questions, TardieBoy.

Why do you fear answering them?

VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2013
NikkieTard doesn't understand how a trace gas can raise the temperature of the earth's atmosphere.

He doesn't know enough about chemistry to realize that the gas is a pigment that alters the color of the atmosphere.

He should put 3 drops of food coloring in a 2 liter bottle of water and ask himself if doing so will change the temperature of the water if it is exposed to light.

The added color is in roughly the same dilution as CO2.

What happened to NikkieTard's claimed PHD in chemistry?
casualjoe
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2013
It's chemistry that provides the most convincing evidence for our climate change conundrum, so I wouldn't be surprised if nik is telling porkies.
Humpty
Oct 25, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2013
Now add the continuous *false* assertion by Gore & Co. that "denialists" deny the old school greenhouse effect when in fact skeptics are loudly pointing out that it is *not* the classic greenhouse effect at work in computer models but a highly amplified version if it.

Is that an argument from evidence?


A denialist is someone who will never change his stance on the subject of his denial. A skeptic will when consideration of the evidence makes it overwhelmingly likely that his skeptiism is unfounded. That is why there are few true skeptics.

When you can come up with a correlation backed up with causation physics and not continue to post character assassination and debunkings from unqualified ideologically driven bloggers that I can run rings around on here with simple facts that his ignorance of the subject of climate and weather begets - then you may be on firmer ground my friend. That's not going to happen. By the vast balance of probability.
arq
3.8 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2013
Maybe nikfromnyc is getting paid to do this.
NikFromNYC
1.7 / 5 (22) Oct 25, 2013
runrig wrote: "When you can come up with a correlation backed up with causation physics...."

Scream at the moon, runrig:
http://a2.img.mob...arge.jpg

You have become Vendicar(E), basically. This thread and others like it represent a few reasonable skeptical voices pointing to data driven arguments and a bunch of clear fanatics ranting away, whooping like mad. It's seriously effective for that contrast to play out these days as Phys.org threads are linked to directly by Drudge, Instapundit and WUWT.

Your rules of engagement are so freak formalized as to make you a wonderful "representative" for big-'G' global warming alarm.

The author if this study willfully LEFT OUT the biggest correlation of all in his work: solar activity. Were that activity in fact *not* so perfectly correlated, mere mention of this fact would have destroyed skeptical claims that solar cycles affect climate.

Joe: I would happily accept money to *stop* posting here.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (21) Oct 25, 2013
runrig, the trivially-exposed-as-fraudulent Marcott '13 "confirmation" of the hockey stick version of history was a game changer.

Seriously, your side of a great debate is now publicly supporting clear scientific *fraud*!

Yet you don't even see the walls tumbling down?!

It's popcorn time over the next few years as the story of Marcott's headlines works its way into popular books and then documentaries. Mann's sticks were always concealed a few layers deep under arcane statistics that required debunking few working scientists could risk in an age if activist R&D funding and vigorous Greenpeace/Climatology/IPCC incest. But Marcott is dirt simple re-dating of data with a hockey stick blade that is all artifact. It is now jaw dropping to watch the formerly effective Climatology insider group and their groupies actively self-destruct.

Roy Spenser who runs one of the satellite temperature records scoffs at your climate model claim:
http://www.drroys...pic-fail
Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (20) Oct 25, 2013
Nikkietard is clearly suffering from a mental disorder. He is a psychopath.

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterised partly by enduring anti-social behavior, a diminished capacity for empathy or remorse, and poor behavioral controls.

"The essential feature of antisocial personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. This pattern has also been referred to as psychopathy, sociopathy, or dyssocial personality disorder." - Diagnostic and Statistical manual for mental disorders.

If this condition has developed recently I might suspect a brain tumor.

Have you been tested, TardieBoy?


Wow. That describes you to the "T", Vendicar.
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (18) Oct 25, 2013
VENDItardE: "Since radiocarbon dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years"

Source please. A quick google search suggests to me that you are way off the mark.

"Radiocarbon dating is especially good for determining the age of sites occupied within the last 26,000 years or so (but has the potential for sites over 50,000), can be used on carbon-based materials (organic or inorganic), and can be accurate to within ±30-50 years."

From - http://www.ncsu.e...iew.html


He was quoting directly from the original article, paragraph 4, line 1.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 25, 2013
A new version of Spenser's climate model reality check exists: http://www.drroys...ter-all/

Roy Spenser and John Christy of the U of Alabama/Huntsville are behind one of the two satellite temperature data sets, naturally called UAH, seen in any plot of the handful of global average temperature sets. They use actual satellites instead of old school land records and floating ship data, both of which suffer from major artifacts of urban heating and instrumentation changes.

Roy new book is: "The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists."

Fanatics don't want you to know this, so they frantically raise smoke screens all over the Net.

Last year, 49 former NASA scientists wrote a letter about Jim Hansen & Co.:
http://www.livesc...ing.html

"The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming...."
full_disclosure
1.5 / 5 (24) Oct 25, 2013


Nikkietard is clearly suffering from a mental disorder. He is a psychopath.

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterised partly by enduring anti-social behavior, a diminished capacity for empathy or remorse, and poor behavioral controls.

"The essential feature of antisocial personality disorder is a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood. This pattern has also been referred to as psychopathy, sociopathy, or dyssocial personality disorder." - Diagnostic and Statistical manual for mental disorders.

If this condition has developed recently I might suspect a brain tumor.

Have you been tested, TardieBoy?


VD is a congenital IDIOT…..wanking his way through these forums….careful you got some on your face!
djr
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2013
Lrker: "He was quoting directly from the original article, paragraph 4, line 1."

It would have been helpful if he had indicated that - right?. And based on the statements -

"At four different ice caps, radiocarbon dates show the mosses had not been exposed to the elements since at least 44,000 to 51,000 years ago.
Since radiocarbon dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years"

How on earth does he now move to his next statement?

"so about 1000 years ago?....isn't that when the vikings were farming greenland?"
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2013
Nik: Spencer's examination was of mid Trop temp and as there is a well known variation in satellite data - estimates of it by different scientific groups vary wildly, despite using the same raw satellite data. Also the strat is cooling – an expected consequence of the increased GHE. But some of the cooling stratosphere bleeds into the TMT data, leading to another cool bias.
Quote from Spencer's co-author John Christy..

"This difference between models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second explanation is favoured, but the issue is still open."

Christy and Spencer always fail to mention the possibility that the problem could lie more in the measurements than the models - that's intellectually dishonest. Hence no peer acceptance.
Your rules of engagement are so freak formalized as to make you a wonderful "representative" for big-'G' global warming alarm.
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2013
Cont
Thanks for the complement. You really don't have to. Just calling your naked assertions and character assassination for what they are and giving a knowledgeable account of the science, easily exposing your paranoia, ignorance and denial. If they are freak it is because you have not encountered someone who can so easily gainsay you.
As I've said, give me causation physics – not untested theories by renegade scientists. Sage-like comments from Blogs and fake debunkings by ideologically motivated non-scientists. + other strange scribblings. They don't count my friend. Just as (presumably) you can spot bollocks talked of chemistry then I can of Met/climate. And believe me you do in spades. It is a characteristic of the phenomenon of denialism that those adherents think their number and advocacy is far stronger than reality. Reality lies elsewhere. You would need to put your head up out of the rabbit hole to see that and I fear it wouldn't fit through even if you wanted to.
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (21) Oct 25, 2013
Huh. Wasn't all but the last 10K of that 44K, 120K years the last ice age? And wasn't it cleaver of those Neanderthals, paleo-, meso-, and neolithic people to leave us records. Oh, yes -- the moss did -- assuming you can interpret it right.

It would have been more 'cleaver' of you to check before posting that, as you might have learned that Neanderthals never went anywhere near the Canadian arctic, or even the European arctic, and the other peoples peoples you vaguely allude to didn't either, or if they did, only in relatively recent times. As it is, it comes across as more June Cleaver than clever.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2013
This is (small section of) a comment put up on Spencer's website (lower down on Nik's link) - by Glen Tamblyn -To which Spencer did not reply .....

"Why didn't you also include the TTT product from RSS that is based on the methods of Fu & Johansson 2005 which is an alternative approach to showing a mid tropospheric temperature series with much of the stratospherics cool bias removed? This is giving a trend of 0.128/decade vs the TMT product from RSS which gives 0.091/decade – a significant difference......
Surely also you recognize that many researchers don't believe that the balloon data is terribly reliable, with upper atmosphere data particularly being biased cool due to equipment design issues. Are the model results single runs or do they represent multiple runs for each model?
If you used some of the approaches I suggest then up to 2000 you might actually see reasonable agreement between the models and data."

PS: I didn't search this out as I contributed to the thread (TonyB).
VendicarE
4 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2013
Maybe nikfromnyc is getting paid to do this" - arq

Na. He is just an anti-social, maladjusted, misfit who was probably weened too late, and tries to compensate for his perceived loss by exposing his genitals to "sexy, sexy", pre-teen girls on school playgrounds.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2013
"VD is a congenital IDIOT" - FullDiaper

We know from borehole temperature measurements that Full Diaper has a full diaper.
Lurker2358
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 25, 2013
Maybe nikfromnyc is getting paid to do this" - arq

Na. He is just an anti-social, maladjusted, misfit who was probably weened too late, and tries to compensate for his perceived loss by exposing his genitals to "sexy, sexy", pre-teen girls on school playgrounds.


Reported for Libel/Slander.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (23) Oct 25, 2013
The main skeptical clearinghouse blog WUWT has about 200 comments on this study now:
http://wattsupwit...so-fast/

Go over *there* runrig, and sail on, buddy, sail on, I'm just a bored guy with an iPhone taking my frustrations with Phys.org out on the locals, using you guys to garner Google rankings over time for my posting of basic skeptical tidbits, enough for a few more people a week to read a book such as Spenser's that cracks the whole edifice wide open.
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2013
The main skeptical clearinghouse blog WUWT has about 200 comments on this study now


200 ignorant rants about Obama I'll bet. Everyone knows WUWT is a extremist anti environment propoganda site paid for by dark-money Heartland institute. So excuse me if I'm skeptical about your claims against @runrig, @VD, @dir, or the believer crew, Hansen & Co, or anything even related to science!

From Noaa,
Global August temperature ties for fourth highest on record; global ocean temperature ties for record HIGHEST!
. Explain to me Mr. NY Propaganda Guy, how that
is possible if the climate is so all nice and normal?!?!

NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (24) Oct 25, 2013
runrig, you embody a lawyerly vibe that oddly characterizes climatology as a human endeavor. I take issue with the fighting nature of it much more than I presume to overextend myself, personally, into expert witness testimony. I point things out, add linky dinks, splash tidbits, free associate, use Google syntax tweaks to emulate long neglected mad regular expression skillz, and to my mind help give climate (model) skepticism a fair shake. I spent about eight months of 2010 on truly in-the-arena activist skepticism with a winner-take-all strategy to convert American Republicans into *competent* skeptics, and did so successfully. Yup, that was me, <*sigh*>, 30K topical posts worth.

But blah blah blah is no match for Marcott 2013.

The input data are fuzzy toothpicks.
The output is a headline-grabbing hockey stick.

That's fraud.

djr
4.1 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2013
Nik says " that cracks the whole edifice wide open."

Well - that could be debated. From what I see - the science community is moving right along - leaving the denialists in the dark ages. The science is pretty open and shut - and we are in the stage of figuring out what to do about it. The locomotive of alternative energy is gathering speed - and this is a most exciting time to be alive. From my perspective - all you are doing is crossing swords with a few truth tellers on Physorg - nothing changes - but no harm done either.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (24) Oct 25, 2013
Howhot: *zero* page search hits for "Obama." He's just another stage-strutting political genius, listening to scientific bodies that indeed continue to cheerlead supercomputers.

Bowie has a relevant song about this state if affairs called "Savior Machine":
"President Joe once had a dream
The world held his hand, gave their pledge
So he told them his scheme for a Saviour Machine

They called it the Prayer, its answer was law
Its logic stopped war, gave them food
How they adored till it cried in its boredom"

NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (24) Oct 25, 2013
Can you all find even *one* senior citizen on the streets of any town on planet Earth who defines our contemporary era as particularly HOT?!

No, you can *not* do that.

Thus...you insist on footnotes.
Howhot
3.9 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2013
Mr @Nick says
I presume to overextend myself, personally, into expert witness testimony. I point things out, add linky dinks, splash tidbits, free associate, use Google syntax tweaks to emulate long neglected mad regular expression skillz, ...blah blah blah... hockey stick ... fraud.

You must be blind or live in Texas if your not seeing environmental changes from the climate shift. If you look at just global atmospheric CO2 levels, if you don't see a hockey stick in the data from 1900 to now, you not even worthy of debate. If you do, then you have to also acknowledge CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can raise temperatures of the earths surface as is demonstrated in NASA's latest findings. They what fraud?

The fraud is YOU @NikFromNYC
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (24) Oct 25, 2013
Dude, it's not hot out.

Your brand of neurosis is NOT my problemmo, deary-oh.

There *is* no show-down, no smoking gun dual for you.

Just nihilism.
djr
4.2 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2013
Nikky: "Can you all find even *one* senior citizen on the streets of any town on planet Earth who defines our contemporary era as particularly HOT?!"

My wife's parents are old time Vermonters. They say that the winters there are positively balmy compared to back in the 50's when they were growing up.

When I grew up in the U.K. - it was unheard of to have A/C in your car or house. Today it is becoming more common - as summer temps are particularly HOT these days.

Did I just deliver the one two knock out punch? Will Nicky cease and desist? Sighhhhhh - fraid not. Actually I am finding Nicky kind of endearing these days - like a lost puppy or something.

NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (22) Oct 26, 2013
I meant "duel."

My tolerance of wine is way down. Damn new brick oven pizza joint on 110th/Columbus was such a yuppie vibe rip off that I extra-indulged, hoping to not so badly hate the whole idea of better-than-though posturing. It didn't work. It was like Salt Lake City starfucking LA. It made me miss the real Upper West Side.

You triumphalists are best defined now as "bitter enders."

Is runrig really TonyB?

That's cool.

-=Nik=-
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (22) Oct 26, 2013
Indeed, Tony Banton = TonyB on WUWT, two thousand hits worth.

A real person, over there, already.

My taunt was moot.
Howhot
3.9 / 5 (15) Oct 26, 2013
A WUWT lunatic fraud is still a fraud. The point being your source of data is suspect @Niik. So, no it's not *moot*, you only wish.

"The globally-averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for August 2013 tied with 2005 as the fourth warmest August since record keeping began in 1880, say NOAA scientists. It also marked the 35th consecutive August and 342nd consecutive month (more than 28 years) with a global temperature above the 20th-century average. The last below-average August global temperature was August 1978." NOAA
Howhot
3.9 / 5 (15) Oct 26, 2013
Don't worry @Nik, you too can also be a laughing stock, just as the WUWT site is! It's also joke to anyone serious about Atmospheric Sciience. I mean, the only reason WUWT exist is there are enough gullible stupid people that fancy fiction, That an there is an anonymous funding source laundered through the 501c Heartland Inst. paying Anthony Watt about $100K salary/year to run the site!

The Heartland Inst is a real charmer. Just your kind of people @Nik; It's a tax-exempt 501c(3) in 2010 had stated $6.07 million revenue of slush money. With ~70% of it's fund coming from other Rightwing foundations and ~16% from energy corporations, its a cog.

Its the environmental cog in the Rightwing propaganda machine. Half of the members on WUWT are Republican staffers just trying to be the *dicks* that they are.

That @Nik, is your source of material; bias, false, non-factual, crap.

VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 26, 2013
"TonyB on WUWT, two thousand hits worth." - NikkieTard

NikkieTard's source of information is a nobody posting a blog on a right wing propaganda site sponsored by the U.S. coal and Oil industry and the Corrupt Koch brothers.

One of the reasons why NikkieTard has done so poorly in science is that he never learned how to evaluate the quality of his sources.

Another reason is his mental disorder.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2013
"Dude, it's not hot out." - NikkieTard

And yet this year will clock in as roughly the 7th warmest year ever recorded.

Now go take your Depo-Provera and calm down.

VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2013
"Can you all find even *one* senior citizen on the streets of any town on planet Earth who defines our contemporary era as particularly HOT?!" - NikkieTard

Heatwave deaths: 760 lives claimed by hot weather as high temperatures continue

The elderly and the young, and those with chronic health conditions, have been urged to take extra care.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2013
"The main skeptical clearinghouse blog WUWT has about 200 comments on this study " - NikkieTard

How many of those comments are from truck drivers and window washers, and 0 are from Climate Scientists.

You still haven't answered the question TardieBoy.

If you have a PHD in Chemistry then why aren't you a chemist?

Have you spent time in prison or something?
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 26, 2013
...oh cursed muses and mavericks, "tonyb" is *also* the moniker of the creator of "Little Ice Age Thermometers" at ClimateReason.com who I indeed remember from back when skepticism was merely a gentleman's honorable pursuit rather than a political affair:
http://climaterea...ometers/

This is who is associated with "tonyb" on skeptic sites, not "runrig" of Phys.org who is UK MET office retiree Tony Banton.

Might Mike Mann's alleged Big Oil Money for skeptics really exist, my brief e-mails with TonyB about restoring fame to old *real* thermometer records might have been minted as a real brochure or a professional web site, but as I recall, TonyB's web site partner ran out of spare time. I had also looked into old T records after my regular mention of the oldest one of all (Central England) was mocked so badly by the likes of the other TonyB, resulting in the following infographics:

http://i.minus.com/idAOoE.gif

http://s9.postimg...mage.jpg
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2013
The main skeptical clearinghouse blog WUWT has about 200 comments on this study now:


So what? It's merely a watering hole for the thirsty. And there are few about. There is no need for the advocates of the science to do any such thing. As I said there is a perception that deniers have that their number is greater than reality - because you have to get together and express you frustration.This is all irrelevant in any scheme of things, let alone the grand scheme. The only reason I come on here is to deny the ignorant such as yourself for others. I know there are those here who do not post or score.

Long and short of it is Roy Spencer is trying to prove his agenda by doing things that cannot be done with satellite data of the tropical Mid Trop. You cannot pick out (an honest) signal there because of contamination from the cooling Strat above. And radiosonde data is not reliable to those tolerances
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 26, 2013
Howhot is an example of why identity thief and award winning Climatologist Peter Gleick *forged* a Heatland institute strategy memo after his social engineering hacking effort upturned...nothing:
http://www.google...eartland

But Gleick was *cleared* of forging documents...that...specifically mentioned an obscure climate scientist named Peter Gleick.

Yup.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2013


Is runrig really TonyB?
That's cool."

Tony Banton = TonyB on WUWT, two thousand hits worth.


What are you blathering on about now!?

I'm my own TonyB … There is another one I have encountered on Spencers site who posted this …..

"I see the 'other' TonyB is commenting here again.
It really would help if you were to choose another handle that differs to the one I have been using on blogs for many years, as it just causes confusion, especially as our views are poles apart.
Once again I disassociate myself from your comments"
Tonyb

Here (10th Oct) … http://www.drroys...comments

To which I replied..
"It's reciprocated.
And if you'd asked me before of course I would have done.
You didn't."

Do you see? B and b?
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 26, 2013
Witness today, runrig admitting that *BOTH* millions of weather balloons *and* decades of satellite data must be discounted in favor of Jim Hansen's destruction of the crazy hot dust bowl era based on continuous incremental flattening out of the past, or else Dr. Roy Spenser is correct that climate models are silly affairs.

Oh, but it's all just blog stuff, he here claims, er, I mean feigns, triumphantly.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2013
Nikky: "Can you all find even *one* senior citizen on the streets of any town on planet Earth who defines our contemporary era as particularly HOT?!"


http://www.theglo...1215305/
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2013
Just 5 seconds on Google elicited the fact that the "other" Tonyb is Tony Brown of Climate Reason.
Nik: Would it not have been logical for you to do the same? – rather than to jump to some sort of conspiratorial agenda. But I suppose if that's the way your mind works than it can't be avoided.

For others this is an example of his thing (debunked of course)….
http://blog.hotwh...and.html
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 26, 2013
runrig, the blog essay you linked to smearing the "other" TonyB claims Central England isn't a good proxy for the Global Average T, which is exactly why I overlap plotted it in my infographic:
http://s9.postimg...mage.jpg

But the real question is...what the FUCK are Grant Foster and Phil "Climategate" Jones all about in using mere smoothing filter end effect artifacts to argue their case for climate alarm?!
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2013
Witness today, runrig admitting that *BOTH* millions of weather balloons *and* decades of satellite data must be discounted in favor of Jim Hansen's destruction of the crazy hot dust bowl era based on continuous incremental flattening out of the past, or else Dr. Roy Spenser is correct that climate models are silly affairs.

Oh, but it's all just blog stuff, he here claims, er, I mean feigns, triumphantly.


Again the working of a non-scientific mind on display. No it does not discount the data - it just means there are limits to what that data can tell us. We're talking of 10ths of a deg C and radiosonde data can NEVER be that accurate at those heights. It's quite simple. Just as the Pioneer pics of the "face on Mars" have now been shown to be hilarious because of much greater resolution of imagery. Science evolves along with the technology. Still if you want to clutch at straws be my guest.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 26, 2013
An apologist for scientific fraud exactly defines you, tony "little" b.

In favor of *real* thermometers, Climatology members like you favor tea leaves and old Eskimos.

You know full well that if weather balloon data *did* support climate alarm instead of directly counter it, that talking heads like Mann and Gore would plaster that data all over the place. That if old T records themselves formed hockey sticks, those too would be supported instead of spurned.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2013
runrig, the blog essay you linked to smearing the "other" TonyB claims Central England isn't a good proxy for the Global Average T


That is of course correct. NOTHING regional ( and Central England is VERY small) is a good proxy for global temp of itself it needs to be linked to other proxies on a global scale.

However that's NOT what Brown said on the Watts Blog...
"The graph below is from my article but to it has been added the official co2 levels. CET is seen by many scientists as a reasonable but by no means perfect proxy for Northern Hemisphere and Global temperatures."

smearing the "other" TonyB

Just throwing things on the other side back at you Nik. If you cant take it then don't dish it out.
You don't have a monopoly on Blogs - we keep an eye on things to see how demented you've become.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 26, 2013
For the record then, Tony, do you consider the now 218 commenters about this study over on WUWT to represent dementia?

http://wattsupwit...so-fast/

Exactly what *is* it about an enthusiasts's quorum hashing out C14 dating footnotes that makes you bow out of debate over there where the party's at?
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 26, 2013
Over there, Dr. Tim Ball cites:

"Most of the Holocene was warmer than today as the Greenland ice cores show. However, if you are unconvinced by the ice core data, it is supported by physical evidence. Professor Ritchie (University of Toronto) identified and photographed a picea glauca (white spruce) stump on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula in tundra some 100km north of the current treeline (Figure 2). Radiocarbon date was 4940 ±140 years Before Present (BP). It was featured in Hubert Lamb's classic work Climate, Present, Past and Future. This means global temperatures at least 2-3°C warmer than today."

Is this demented, Tony?
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2013
"This is who is associated with "tonyb" on skeptic sites" - NikkieTard

Now we see some incoherent mouth froth from NikkieTard.

Soon he will be speaking in tongues.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2013
"But Gleick was *cleared* of forging documents." - NikkieTard

So your claim that he forged them has no validity. Yet in the previous sentence you make the false accusation that he is guilty of the crime.

If there is anyone here who should be concerned with criminality, shouldn't it be you NikkieTard?
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2013
"Witness today, runrig admitting that *BOTH* millions of weather balloons *and* decades of satellite data must be discounted" - NikkieTard

Radiosonde have a variety or problems. They have not been released at the same time every day which causes issues with regard to distinguishing long term changes with daily ones.

Balloon ascent times are variable as is atmospheric pressure.

The thermometers carried are not cross calibrated.

Etc. Etc. Etc.

They are designed for measurements for weather forecasting not climate forecasting.

Satellites have their own plethora of problems most significant being that they don't measure surface temperatures, but rather measure emission brightness through an entire air column.

Then there is satellite drift from east to west, causing the time of measure to drift from morning to evening, and the issue of altitude changes, sensor changes and again the lack of intercalibration of instruments that were not done because the satellites were intended CONT
VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2013
CONT

short term weather forecasts not long term climate studies.

Now go take your Meds Tardie Boy. Doing so will be more productive than demonstrating your ignorance here.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2013
"Over there, Dr. Tim Ball cites:" - NikkieTard

Who Cares? Dr. Tim Ball is a former geography teacher who dingenously claims to be a climatologist.

Ball has makes his living on the Global Warming Denial circuit that is funded by big oil and big Carbon.

Tim Ball was a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. He is a prolific speaker and writer in the skeptical science community.

He has been Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), "scientific advisor" to the Exxon-funded Friends of Science (FoS), and is associated with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP) as well as numerous other think tanks and right-wing organizations.

"CFC's were never a problem. . . . it's only because the sun is changing." - Tim Ball.

http://www.desmog...tim-ball
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2013
"Tony, do you consider the now 218 commenters about this study over on WUWT to represent dementia?" - NikkieTard

Yup. Pathalogical, self inflicted, ignorance.

Reminds me of you TardieBoy.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2013
"You know full well that if weather balloon data *did* support climate alarm" - NikkieTard

http://www.ncdc.n...1012.gif

These upper atmospheric temperatures show a rise of about 1.3 to 1.6'C per century.

http://www.skepti...dAT2.jpg

The lower troposphere shows warming of around 1.4'C per century.

These measures are in line with the models. Current warming has already produced a warming of around 0.74 'C at the earth's surface.

Poor NikkieTard. If only he knew some basic science.

runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2013
You know full well that if weather balloon data *did* support climate alarm instead of directly counter it, that talking heads like Mann and Gore would plaster that data all over the place. ....


That's just the point that you don't see. They would not if the instrumentation wasn't up to the task. As they would loose their credibility in the climate science community (I said science community - yours doesn't count). That's the difference. Your lot leave that behind with bad science - some getting bitter and twisted with the mainstream and make a nice self-comforting clique who live in a (yes - deluded) world of bloggy conspiracy and paranoia. There is no other way to describe the phenomenon. What is it that makes you so certain that your "scientists" (where they are and not simply agenda driven bloggers) are correct when they comprise such a small portion of the science? Incompetence? Conspiracy? Socialists?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 26, 2013
Temperatures refuse to climb:

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

Antarctic ice continues to creep northward:

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

And the Artic ice has recovered so abruptly scientists are begining to fear a period of global cooling is at hand:

http://www.telegr...sts.html

And STILL the AGW alarmists whine. What will it take to satisfy them?

runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2013
Radiocarbon date was 4940 ±140 years Before Present (BP).... This means global temperatures at least 2-3°C warmer than today."


No it doesn't.
"The study is the first direct evidence the present warmth in the Eastern Canadian Arctic exceeds the peak warmth there in the Early Holocene, when the amount of the sun's energy reaching the NH in summer was ~ 9 percent greater than today"

The Holocene Climate Optimum warm event consisted of increases of up to 4 °C near the North Pole .... The northwest of Europe experienced warming, while there was cooling in the south. The average temperature change appears to have declined rapidly with latitude so that essentially no change in mean temperature is reported at low and mid latitudes.

http://en.wikiped..._optimum

Global insolation compared to present 6000 bp
http://pmip.lsce...._big.jpg

In short a natural, NON global cycle. Nothing mysterious or AGW busting
djr
4 / 5 (12) Oct 26, 2013
Uba stated "And the Artic ice has recovered so abruptly scientists are begining to fear a period of global cooling is at hand:" LMFAO

Now everyone - go read Uba's article from the Daily Telegraph. The article sites "a leaked report - that was seen by 'The Mail.'

Now - you probably have to live in England to know what this means. If you live in the U.S. - look at some of the magazines like The Star - that you get at the check out counter - you will get a sense of the Daily Mail.

So Uba says - that a leaked report - that was SEEN by a tabloid rag - has scientists believing that one years worth of data from the Arctic ice - is suggesting we are headed for an ice age. HAHAHAHAHAHA LMFAO

Wonder if UBA and Nicky are drinking wine together.......
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2013
Temperatures continuing to climb.

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

UbvonTard's link uses hadCrut3 which he has been repeatedly told omits large areas of the North and South poles, where warming is greatest.

He persists in using biased sources and cherry picked dates because his only tactic is lying.

Lying is what he does.
Lying is what he lives for.
Lying is his life.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2013
"Wonder if UBA and Nicky are drinking wine together......" - djr

UbiVonTard is the one who dresses like a little girl and calls NikkieTard "daddy".
Neinsense99
2.5 / 5 (21) Oct 26, 2013
Don't worry, it was even warmer when the Earth was a seething ball of molten magma, fresh from accretion. What SUVs were around to cause that?
(Warning: this example of denier logic may be harmful to mental health when consumed without awareness of sarcasm!)
Neinsense99
2.4 / 5 (20) Oct 26, 2013
"Wonder if UBA and Nicky are drinking wine together......" - djr

UbiVonTard is the one who dresses like a little girl and calls NikkieTard "daddy".

Representative internal monologue: "Shame on those naughty little hussies that made me do it...."
Getting back to the subject, there are a lot of not-dissimilar excuses used to shift blame and continue inaction on environmental issues. In this case, it's more a correlation than a causation, but an interesting one.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2013
And the Artic ice has recovered so abruptly scientists are begining to fear a period of global cooling is at hand:

http://www.telegr...sts.html


This is merely a copy and paste of David Rose's shockingly ignorant (some would say blatant lies) piece in the Daily "Wail"

Watch…

https://www.youtu...D9P6KYfY

also…
http://www.carbon...xpected/

And STILL the AGW alarmists whine. What will it take to satisfy them?


And still the Deniers can't think scientifically and use critical thinking - whining about recovered ice in one year from a record low, and increasing ice around a warming Antarctic that obviously is not caused by cooling. It will take a new brain to shut em up. That would satisfy me.
runrig
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2013
Representative internal monologue: "Shame on those naughty little hussies that made me do it...."


Yeah shocking isn't it Neinsense? One could be (virtually) near you now.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2013
More on David Rose's lies .....

http://metofficen...er-2012/
runrig
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2013
For the record then, Tony, do you consider the now 218 commenters about this study over on WUWT to represent dementia?

http://wattsupwit...so-fast/

Exactly what *is* it about an enthusiasts's quorum hashing out C14 dating footnotes that makes you bow out of debate over there where the party's at?


I wouldn't be allowed to post on WUWT. Warmists are verboten.

The world's core Denialist idiots flock there - and you think you win the argument on numbers as well as science at 218? Of course you do.
There's only so much one can take. I value my sanity.
djr
4.1 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2013
Runrig - "Watch…

https://www.youtu...D9P6KYfY"

Thanks Runrig - great video - just nails it.

Wonder if the deniers (Uba et al) will watch this video - realize what complete idiots they are - mend there ways - and start reading actual science articles. I can dream can't I? The comments section of Physorg has actually become pretty entertaining. Uba and Niki give me some light entertainment on a rainy afternoon. I do understand why Pop Sci pulled it's comments section. Very little substance - lot's of rubbish - but entertaining....
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 26, 2013
Niki : "For the record then, Tony, do you consider the now 218 commenters about this study over on WUWT to represent dementia?"

Scientists peg the age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years. In general - scientists don't frequent young earth creationist web sites to rebut the comments of the faithful. What would be the point? However - our school science text books recognize the scientific consensus on the age of the earth. It is comforting to understand that WUWT is as marginal as any young earth creationist web site - and has about as much influence in the real world. Is it news that there are a large number of loonies in our world???? (that is rhetorical)....
runrig
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2013
Runrig - "Watch…

https://www.youtu...D9P6KYfY"

Thanks Runrig - great video - just nails it.

Wonder if the deniers (Uba et al) will watch this video - realize what complete idiots they are - mend there ways - and start reading actual science articles. I can dream can't I? The comments section of Physorg has actually become pretty entertaining. Uba and Niki give me some light entertainment on a rainy afternoon. I do understand why Pop Sci pulled it's comments section. Very little substance - lot's of rubbish - but entertaining....


My pleasure djr - I concur I find it all highly amusing now. Used to make my blood boil - now I just smile as it's all predictably lame.

PS: Seems even the other deniers cant be bothered to score Nikky up 1/5(12) 11 10's
usually those scores are reserved for Ad Hom attacks.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2013
The comments made by UnVonTard and the others are equivalent to someone proclaiming on a medical site that.

1. There is no such thing as cancer, isn't that right daddy?
2. Cancer is good for you, says my daddy.
3. Cancer is worm food according to daddy.
4. I love my daddy, he says I'm special. I can't tell my mommy cause she will get mad.

runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2013
You present here a series of debate losing logical fallacies meant to discount facts. Your ad hominem name calling extends to the whole class of people who simply disagree with you who have gone to great personal trouble to link together a series of big and small science blogs.


There's no Ad hom there – unless calling someone a denialist, blogger, unqualified Rebublican activist, economist and journalist is.

Shall we get the harps out? "great personal trouble"?
I have no respect for them because their motivation is denial. You need an open mind to do science.
One such Blog (HockeySchtick) even asserted that "GHG theory goes against the 2nd Law of thermodynamics" and says things like "it's basic high school science". Well blow me, the world's leading climate scientists don't know "basic high school science". Spencer's site too (to which I contributed) ***in fairness this is NOT Spencer's view***
http://www.drroys...shut-up/
VendicarE
4 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2013
Man I got a laugh at this comment/qestion from some mindless denialist on SpencerTard's website.

"A meteorologist isn't a scientist? What planet are you from?" - Denialist Moron

Oh man. You just can't fake that kind of stupidity.

NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (23) Oct 27, 2013
"the denier"

You LOSE the debate, hand down, this way, as Jim Hansen's former colleague who still runs RealClimate.org so very strongly pointed out:

http://tinypic.co...jSBD6vno

My word, you guys are utter misfits. And now runrig is cheering on mere RATINGS BOTS as a debate point! The PR leverage that a few minutes a day affords on Phys.org is beyond belief thanks to the oddball AGW enthusiasts here. You'll *defend* instead of run from Marcott 2013 every time because Mike Mann told you to. That's the end of it then. I don't need to debate you guys in detail as long as you keep doubling down on utter buffoonery. There's no hockey stick in the input data. The input data *falsifies* hockey sticks. And ANYBODY can see for themselves. After that, there's just no more debate, just exposure. Thanks for all the help, guys.
Neinsense99
2.3 / 5 (18) Oct 27, 2013


Is runrig really TonyB?
That's cool."

Tony Banton = TonyB on WUWT, two thousand hits worth.


What are you blathering on about now!?

I'm my own TonyB … There is another one I have encountered on Spencers site who posted this …..

"I see the 'other' TonyB is commenting here again.
It really would help if you were to choose another handle that differs to the one I have been using on blogs for many years, as it just causes confusion, especially as our views are poles apart.
Once again I disassociate myself from your comments"
Tonyb

Here (10th Oct) … http://www.drroys...comments

To which I replied..
"It's reciprocated.
And if you'd asked me before of course I would have done.
You didn't."

Do you see? B and b?

I'd rather pay attention to a 'TonyB' with 17 Grammy awards, but that's just me. ;) https://en.wikipe..._Bennett
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 27, 2013
Uba's link uses hadCrut3 which he has been repeatedly told omits large areas of the North and South poles, where warming is greatest.
Oh please. HadCRUT4 was intentionally manipulated to show increased warming in the late 20th century. It's not as valued as HadCRUT3, by the scientific community. Since 2012, papers citing HadCRUT3 only, outnumber HadCRUT4 (only) papers nearly two to one (and a lot of the HadCRUT4 papers are just trying to justify HadCRUT4).

Funny isn't it that HadCRUT4 also shows a pause? ...a pause lasting more than a dozen years:

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

LOL. Even when they TRIED to eliminate the pause, they just couldn't!

Poor Vendi-chatterbot. It just can't stop lying.
Lying is its programming
Lying is what it does.
Lying is how it defines itself.
Lying is the chatterbot way.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 27, 2013
And still the Deniers can't think scientifically and use critical thinking - whining about recovered ice in one year from a record low, and increasing ice around a warming Antarctic that obviously is not caused by cooling.
Imagine that, growing sea ice NOT caused by cooling! LOL! That must be why there is so much sea ice around Hawaii!

Science consensus definition of global warming:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

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

So, just who are the "deniers" now? LOL

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (21) Oct 27, 2013
Thanks Runrig - great video - just nails it.

Wonder if the deniers (Uba et al) will watch this video - realize what complete idiots they are - mend there ways - and start reading actual science articles. I can dream can't I? The comments section of Physorg has actually become pretty entertaining. Uba and Niki give me some light entertainment on a rainy afternoon. I do understand why Pop Sci pulled it's comments section. Very little substance - lot's of rubbish - but entertaining....
"2013 saw substantially more (Arctic) ice at summer's end ...in the Antarctic, sea ice reached the highest extent recorded in the satellite record."

"September 2013 (Arctic) ice extent was 1.72 million square kilometers (664,000 square miles) higher than the previous record low for the month"

"This summer saw air temperatures at the 925 hPa level that were 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than last summer."

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2013
"You LOSE the debate, hand down" - NikkieTard

NikkieTard tries to declare himself a winner because he feels that it is politically incorrect to label a liar a liar, and a denialist a denialist.

He forgets that classification is the first order of scientific analysis.

If NikkieTard were a "winner" he would be using his supposed PHD to do chemistry.

What is stopping you Nikkie? Is your PHD all in your imagination or did your mental disorder get you fired from your University?

Now go take your meds, come back and tell us your side of the story.

VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2013
"After that, there's just no more debate, just exposure." - NikkieTard

You really do need to stop exposing yourself Nikkie. UbvonTard is getting very hot and excited, and clamoring to put his Catholic school girl uniform on for you.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 27, 2013
My word, you guys are utter misfits. And now runrig is cheering on mere RATINGS BOTS as a debate point! The PR leverage that a few minutes a day affords on Phys.org is beyond belief thanks to the oddball AGW enthusiasts here. You'll *defend* instead of run from Marcott 2013 every time because Mike Mann told you to. That's the end of it then. I don't need to debate you guys in detail as long as you keep doubling down on utter buffoonery. There's no hockey stick in the input data. The input data *falsifies* hockey sticks. And ANYBODY can see for themselves. After that, there's just no more debate, just exposure. Thanks for all the help, guys.
Right, there's no real point in arguing with AGW zealots (religious believers), as their arguments aren't founded on logic and reason. Don't expect the unreasonable to suddenly become reasonable.

But it is fun to rile 'em up a bit...

VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2013
"2013 saw substantially more (Arctic) ice at summer's end .." - UbVonTard

Ya, it is only the 6th lowest level every recorded in human history.

http://nsidc.org/...x261.png

Give it up Moron. Your Denialist side lost decades ago.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2013
Right, there's no real point in arguing with religious believers" - UbvonTard

"Which is why I don't argue with you.

You are a well known, and well established liar.

My task is simply to continue to expose your non stop stream of lies.

Now go put your dress on and play the pre-teen girl of NikkieTard's fantasies.

Here is a suggestion...

http://images.cos...00,1,0,0
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 27, 2013
"2013 saw substantially more (Arctic) ice at summer's end .." - UbVonTard

Ya, it is only the 6th lowest level every recorded in human history.
Another Vendichatterbot lie. It's the sixth lowest in the SATELLITE history which only goes back 34 years. It's just as accurate to state it's the 29th highest ever recorded. There was a similar low ice extent observed in the 1930's, but the data is incomplete.

"It was also a cool summer compared to recent years over much of the Arctic Ocean, and even cooler than the 1981 to 2010 average in some regions, particularly north of Greenland." - http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

Give it up Moron. Your Denialist side lost decades ago.
"Lost?" ...lost what?

"Denialist?" ...what am I supposedly denying? ...global temperatures?
http://www.woodfo....6/trend

It seems quite clear ...you're the denialist.

runrig
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2013
Right, there's no real point in arguing with AGW zealots (religious believers), as their arguments aren't founded on logic and reason. Don't expect the unreasonable to suddenly become reasonable.

But it is fun to rile 'em up a bit...


Glad I logged on this am. That one comment made it worth it.
I don't suppose the irony was twigged.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2013
You'll *defend* instead of run from Marcott 2013 every time because Mike Mann told you to. That's the end of it then.


No the BEST study was the end of it. If a skeptic driven study can't elliminate the stick then it's there - as all the other dozens of study has found.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2013
"2013 saw substantially more (Arctic) ice at summer's end ...in the Antarctic, sea ice reached the highest extent recorded in the satellite record."

"September 2013 (Arctic) ice extent was 1.72 million square kilometers (664,000 square miles) higher than the previous record low for the month"

"This summer saw air temperatures at the 925 hPa level that were 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) lower than last summer."

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/


Good post Uba. Now can you please let us all know how those entirely correct and non-AGW busting facts came about. Scientifically?
In what way are they caused by a GLOBALLY cooling world.

The world is waiting to be enlightened.

AS regular posters know I shall not respond to any goal-post shifting reply.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2013
"It was also a cool summer compared to recent years over much of the Arctic Ocean, and even cooler than the 1981 to 2010 average in some regions, particularly north of Greenland." - http://nsidc.org/...icenews/


Indeed it was - but wait - I was under the impression that one season was ........ err.....weather?

Just as (I'm sure you said) last Summer's warmth was also weather.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Always supposing you don't dig up the goal post and plant it the centre circle (soccer analogy).
VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2013
"There was a similar low ice extent observed in the 1930's, but the data is incomplete." - UbVontard

Hmmm. Let's try applying UbVonTard's self contradictory non-logic to another situation?

I saw UbVontard wearing a school girls uniform outside of NikkieTard's place. But i'm not sure if it was him.

I added 1 to 1 and got 3, but I'm not sure if the first number was 1.

Poor UbVonTard. He is suffering from major brain damage.

No doubt he is self edgimicated.
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2013
""Lost?" ...lost what?" - UbVonTard

Pretty much everything TardieBoy. Your reputation, respect from others, the argument, apparently a great deal of your mind, and your pants.

Do you have any other questions that you need answered?

VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2013
"Oh please. HadCRUT4 was intentionally manipulated to show increased warming in the late 20th century." - UbVonTard

It looks a lot like...GISTEMP

http://www.woodfo...11/trend

Are those evil MET scientists conspiring with NASA scientists, TardieBoy?

Here is video you need to watch.

http://www.youtub...w0pm24ic

Clearly America's moon landing is just a NASA conspiracy.

VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2013
Didn't you date these girls Nikkie?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-AxrLHV2Ia9Q/T5SeKmBhl0I/AAAAAAAAAs8/ejWUEGdVZ-g/s1600/julia.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l93S5k2hJmU/TrKuI1A8ieI/AAAAAAAAAeU/82uIRBfn3wM/s1600/Picture+050.jpg

http://camgirlnot...8822.jpg

http://www.thetod...ty02.jpg

My understanding is that this is why you spend your days making decorative lamps rather than working as a PHD chemist.

By the way, link 3 is apparently a pic of UbVonTard in his dress.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (16) Oct 27, 2013
So what constitutes proof?
For reality's sake: Could you please tr to understand what a temperature CHANGE implies?
It is serious mojo for a place covered in ice. Ice is a temperature buffer. It takes so much heat to melt ice and change the temperature--not at all!

Is anyone smelling what this article is cooking?
djr
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2013
Uba stated "And the Artic ice has recovered so abruptly scientists are begining to fear a period of global cooling is at hand:"

This lie was debunked by myself - and also commented on by other posters for being a lie - based on a complete tabloid new article. This of course demonstrates the absence of credibility for one Ubavonatuba.

Uba then goes on to say "But it is fun to rile 'em up a bit..."

It is good that Uba reveals his/her true motivation for spamming the internet with lies. The stakes are of course very high on this issue - and it is comforting to know that the denialists are losing in the larger picture - as we collectively recognize our need to understand the climate - and to move ourselves onto a zero carbon economy. The stupidity of the denialists can be amusing, but the hatred and arrogance of this kind of admission are very telling.
djr
3.9 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2013
Niki: "You LOSE the debate, hand down"

Like Uba - you reveal your motivation - to score childish points on a relatively meaningless comments thread. The point is not the debate - that is peripheral. The point is the future of our species. We are making the realizations we need - such as understanding our climate - and transitioning to a low carbon economy - as well as all the other areas of science and technology - that will move us forward from a technological/knowledge/social perspective. Progress is certainly slowed by the ignorant such as yourself - but it seems there is no cure for stupidity.
Birger
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2013
Gosh, the accuracy of those Stone Age thermometers is astounding.


Check the term "temperature proxies"
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 27, 2013
You're all talking to yourself, frantically, as I enjoy cycles of massive boosts in Google rankings for your efforts that keep these types of articles on the front page of Phys.org such that they receive avalanche level plugs by Drudge, Instapundit and WUWT. As I use Phys.org for periodic workday breaks I naturally refine my latest Marcott 2013 wedge into the corrupt world of Climatology. Normally I make a full infographic but I'm taking my time now, just sort of chilling out, materials in hand, making a text version. As Vendicar(E) attacks and your psychoanalysis efforts kick in, the big elephant in your own rooms is fraud. There is a normal human instinct to expose it, a simple sense of duty. That's because to say nothing degrades ones spirit and makes one ridiculous indeed. My culture supported me through thirteen years in laboratories and when you've been exposed to the best minds with access to the best hardware, you carry the torch of science forward with you. That's petty?
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 27, 2013
ubavontuba, my favorite variation of the WoodForTrees data plotting service is simple addition of a break in the middle of the standard (HADCRUT4) series which shows that the latest swing is just like the old low CO₂ one, in direct opposition to all the headlines people can remember being blanketed with:
http://www.woodfo.../to:1950
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 27, 2013
Right, there's no real point in arguing with AGW zealots (religious believers), as their arguments aren't founded on logic and reason. Don't expect the unreasonable to suddenly become reasonable.

But it is fun to rile 'em up a bit...
Glad I logged on this am. That one comment made it worth it.
I don't suppose the irony was twigged.
The only irony is, you don't see there is no irony.

Runrig = zealot.

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 27, 2013
You'll *defend* instead of run from Marcott 2013 every time because Mike Mann told you to. That's the end of it then.


No the BEST study was the end of it. If a skeptic driven study can't elliminate the stick then it's there - as all the other dozens of study has found.
Funny that, the BEST study concluded years ago, and yet there's still no stick

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

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 27, 2013
Good post Uba.
It's only typical of mine.

Now can you please let us all know how those entirely correct and non-AGW busting facts came about. Scientifically?
In what way are they caused by a GLOBALLY cooling world.

The world is waiting to be enlightened.

AS regular posters know I shall not respond to any goal-post shifting reply.
Funny you should say that after pre-shifting the goalposts yourself!

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 27, 2013
"It was also a cool summer compared to recent years over much of the Arctic Ocean, and even cooler than the 1981 to 2010 average in some regions, particularly north of Greenland." - http://nsidc.org/...icenews/


Indeed it was - but wait - I was under the impression that one season was ........ err.....weather?

Just as (I'm sure you said) last Summer's warmth was also weather.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Always supposing you don't dig up the goal post and plant it the centre circle (soccer analogy).
Here, you're only admitting you shift the goalposts in regards to weather, while insisting I not follow suit.

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 27, 2013
""Lost?" ...lost what?" - Uba

Pretty much everything. Your reputation, respect from others, the argument...
How might I supposedly lose an argument about the climate in which the global climate is, itself, in agreeance?

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

Just because YOU won't admit the truth doesn't mean I'm not speaking the truth.

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 27, 2013
It looks a lot like...GISTEMP
Which also shows warming stopped more than a dozen years ago:

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

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 27, 2013
It is good that Uba reveals his/her true motivation for spamming the internet with lies. The stakes are of course very high on this issue - and it is comforting to know that the denialists are losing in the larger picture - as we collectively recognize our need to understand the climate - and to move ourselves onto a zero carbon economy. The stupidity of the denialists can be amusing, but the hatred and arrogance of this kind of admission are very telling.

Weren't you one of the ones claiming the Arctic sea ice was some crazy huge temperature buffer? So how did it all of a sudden get so cold?

djr = zealot

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 27, 2013
The point is not the debate - that is peripheral. The point is the future of our species. We are making the realizations we need - such as understanding our climate - and transitioning to a low carbon economy - as well as all the other areas of science and technology - that will move us forward from a technological/knowledge/social perspective. Progress is certainly slowed by the ignorant such as yourself - but it seems there is no cure for stupidity.
Says the zealot who denies the science.

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

NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 27, 2013
Bonus day! The climatologist Judith Curry who heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Tech now has three hundred commenters about this study. She says:

"In any event, extrapolating from one location in the Arctic to inferring Arctic-wide change is clearly not supported. It further seems that single locations don't have a very large radius of influence, viz the differences between Baffin and Ellesmere.

The natural internal variability in the Arctic seems to be an exceedingly complex dance between atmospheric circulations, sea ice, ocean circulations and ice sheet dynamics, on a range of timescales. We have some hints about how all this interacts, but much is unknown. In light of this, simplistic inferences about global warming in the Arctic seem unjustified."
http://judithcurr...warming/

The major Greenland ice core says the recent under two degree warm spike is terribly boring:
http://s24.postim...sto1.png
Neinsense99
2.2 / 5 (17) Oct 27, 2013
Bonus day! The climatologist Judith Curry who heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Tech now has three hundred commenters about this study. She says:

"In any event, extrapolating from one location in the Arctic to inferring Arctic-wide change is clearly not supported. It further seems that single locations don't have a very large radius of influence, viz the differences between Baffin and Ellesmere.
...

How efficient of you to include both use of the bandwagon effect (subcompact model) AND an appeal to authority in one paragraph. How many of those commenters are real, qualified non-duplicated individuals rather than sockpuppets?
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 27, 2013
Richard Muller the "former skeptic":

"...back in the early '80s, I resigned from the Sierra Club over the issue of global warming. At that time, they were opposing nuclear power. What I wrote them in my letter of resignation was that, if you oppose nuclear power, the U.S. will become much more heavily dependent on fossil fuels, and that this is a pollutant to the atmosphere that is very likely to lead to global warming."

The narrative, the narrative, the blah blah blah narrative, it's all PR firm tutored propaganda, all the time.

"In court (and before you conclude that I am lawyer-bashing, I learned all this in law school myself, there is a convention that every accused person deserves the best possible defense, and it is the lawyer's duty to mount that defense to the best of his or her ability. We have even grown to accept the idea that it's acceptable to construct a case that is entirely – almost deceptively – one-sided...." - Jim Hoggan of DeSmogBlog.com
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2013
Uba says - "Says the zealot who denies the science."

I am not sure how Uba could conclude such a strange thing. This comment coming from the person who claims that one years worth of data - should be extrapolated to conclude that we are heading for an ice age. Of course this was from an article in the daily Mail - a tabloid rag - that quoted a LEAKED document that they SAW. Runrig's youtube showed that article up for the tabloid shit that it is - and Uba accuses others of denying science. Down the rabbit hole we go. Uba - watch the video - educate yourself - and understand what an idiot you look.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 27, 2013
Neinsense99 makes this claim of sockpuppets on skeptic sites (which actively police multiple accounts and *ban* them) in a thread with a dozen 24/7 phony account ratings bots seen in the Activity tab of any commenter profile, where his partner in debate is one of the Net's most notorious sockpuppeteers of all time (Googling "Vendicar sockpuppet" affords forty-six *thousand* hits!).

I just don't know what to say, Neinsense99. I pity you. The raw psychological projection involved is just sad. I'm sorry the Vice President dragged you into a crystal palace where everything made so much sense for a while, where the whole of modern history congealed into a single good vs. evil issue and you were among the angels. The slick hair, divinity degree, six-fireplace seaside mansion, juicy steaks, jetski on a yacht, and tobacoo farming family background might have been a clue. It *was* to most!
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (19) Oct 27, 2013
Neinsense99 makes this claim of sockpuppets on skeptic sites (which actively police multiple accounts and *ban* them) in a thread with a dozen 24/7 phony account ratings bots where his partner in debate is one of the Net's most notorious sockpuppeteers of all time (Googling "Vendicar sockpuppet" affords forty-six *thousand* hits!).

I just don't know what to say Neinsense99. I pity you. The raw psychological projection involved is just sad. I'm sorry the Vice President dragged you into a crystal palace where everything made so much sense for a while, where the whole of modern history congealed into a single good vs. evil issue and you were among the angels. The slick hair, divinity degree, six-fireplace seaside mansion, juicy steaks, the jetski on a yacht and tobacoo farming family background might have been a clue. It *was* to most!

Nikmeister claims OTHERS use psychological projection, then spews this unfounded character assassination when called on his sophistry!
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2013
An analogy:
100 top doctors give a patient their prognosis. Of those 100, 97 say the same thing, 3 say the opposite. The condition is serious, life and death.
Both sides say their science is sound and the other's a "religion".
Which advice would it be sensible to take. The 97 or the 3?
He/she would obviously be a critically thinking type who even if ignorant of medical science would logically play the odds. It is 32:1 against.
Maybe he/she thinks the 97 incompetent or scammers.
So is anyone accepting the 97 "a medical science zealot (uncritical believer), as his/her belief (in the doctors) wasn't founded on logic and reason? Or would you say that person was sensible in accepting the odds as overwhelming?
And the person who took the advice of the 3?
Are concerns over competence and fraud tenable, on the balance of probability also? needing some powerful opinion (zealotry) to override those sensible odds?
Who's the person best described as following a religion? A zealot. Precisely.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 27, 2013
It's so funny too, Neinsense99, Al Gore selling out to MONSTER OIL nation Kuwait, as the single oil *technology* developers of the Koch family are said to control the action of skeptics who have no connection with them all the while MONSTER OIL (= Arabia) actively lobbies for Western energy rationing. The DUH on your forehead is throbbing now. Five hundred *million* dollars of oil money is what Gore just received for his failed cable TV channel. That was a *lot* more than it was worth. That's more than Apple required to get Steve Jobs back from Pixar headquarters. Hmm....

Wikipedia informs me about Koch Industries and their engineer owners:
"In 1927 they developed a more efficient thermal cracking process for turning crude oil into gasoline."

They also paid for Richard Muller's Berkeley Earth Project global average temperature project.

And they help support Michael "Climategate" Mann's Penn State University.

They also support skeptic Willie Soon at Harvard.

It's a CONSPIRACY!!!
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 27, 2013
runrig, Joanne Nova just did my homework and wrote up a full essay yesterday comparing the doctor-promoted Food Pyramid science that blamed dietary fat/cholesterol as the single bullet cause of heart disease with the new Carbon Footprint Counter science that blames carbon dioxide as the single bullet cause of climate variation:

http://joannenova...climate/

Turns out, very often in the history of medicine, the 3 doctors were *right*!

One thing testy activists can't grok is simple individual passion, so my normal everyday efficient intensity that shot me from boring suburbia in middle America to Columbia and then Harvard and now small business, they simply can't imagine isn't cheerful everyday little breaks from the grind. Instead they imagine a frothing lunatic, and do their best to provoke, lately through gross insults to intelligence. To know them, note what they most speak of.
Neinsense99
2.4 / 5 (17) Oct 27, 2013
Nik, elsewhere you responded that your PhD from Columbia was not in 1998 but in 1995, and 1998 was the year you completed another program at Harvard. I picked 98 at random, so I must be either psychic, lucky or you just agreed with what I wrote. My source for the year 1995 as the more likely year of your PhD, which you agreed with, was one of several news stories, specifically this one: https://www.nydai...1.202754

I believe in giving people their metaphorical 'day' in court, and, as a real skeptic, could be convinced by evidence that it is not you, but your repeated evasions, falsehoods and apparently uncontrollable impulse to smear others do little to undermine the impression of someone who is in need of professional 'guidance'.
Neinsense99
2.3 / 5 (18) Oct 27, 2013
Neinsense99 makes this claim of sockpuppets on skeptic sites (which actively police multiple accounts and *ban* them) in a thread with a dozen 24/7 phony account ratings bots seen in the Activity tab of any commenter profile, where his partner in debate is one of the Net's most notorious sockpuppeteers of all time (Googling "Vendicar sockpuppet" affords forty-six *thousand* hits!).

I just don't know what to say, Neinsense99. I pity you. The raw psychological projection involved is just sad. I'm sorry the Vice President dragged you into a crystal palace where everything made so much sense for a while, where the whole of modern history congealed into a single good vs. evil issue and you were among the angels. The slick hair, divinity degree, six-fireplace seaside mansion, juicy steaks, jetski on a yacht, and tobacoo farming family background might have been a clue. It *was* to most!

I have never seen more than ten minutes of any Al Gore presentation, and I did not vote for him.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2013
Weren't you one of the ones claiming the Arctic sea ice was some crazy huge temperature buffer? So how did it all of a sudden get so cold?


Sudden... oh that would just be this summer.
So cold? .... that would be a little below the long term average in parts of the Arctic.

Just like last summer's warmer than average temperatures was weather and what caused the outlier low sea-ice below the falling trend-line.

SO what's that called then...... Altogether now........WWEEAATTHHEERR

Really Uba: I sometimes think it's just a game for you twisting your logic, as you said earller "it is fun to rile 'em up a bit". Now no one can be that obtuse in real life. This isn't real life, it's a virtual one. So I've finally twigged. I can see no glimmer of recognition there behind the bollocks, so well done you're a good actor, you've had me going.

NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 27, 2013
Your new low is achieved, anonymous user Neinsense99, and your manipulative stalking was duly noted as you probed for my personal details this week. That I've lived in a building for 15 years that now also doubles as a female dormitory for the local women's college meant there were not one but five timestamped security video records of my being at home at the end of a dead end hallway with no fire escape at the time of that downtown crime, which is why the case wasn't even prosecuted. You are now entering libel territory and attacking a victim of mistaken identity. I have never hidden my identity in the climate debate as any Google search for NikFromNYC shows. It's Nik and I'm writing from NYC, two blocks from Tom's Diner where James Hansen once dragged the name of Columbia into fraud territory. I am guilty of defending my alma mater.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2013
Crikey...

It's just occurred to me.

Suppose Nikky, Triple, Anti, Ryggy, Claudy and the rest are winding us up too?

And we're falling for it?

AS I said below, no one can be that obtuse in real life.

Now a quandary - do I assume a scam and ignore, then maybe they'll go away. Or do I continue and assume stupidity, and scientific denial based (often) on an ideological agenda.
But there are others out there who may take the lies on board - and that's why I'm here - to deny ignorance.
Best take the route best advised by probability (there's a novelty to some) but perhaps still retain some doubt. You know - as a TRUE skeptic would do - and not a denier.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 27, 2013
runrig, *indeed*, I've used a tactic here, a simple one based on posting skeptical tidbits galore and using strong enough negative terms about climate scientists to make threads fill with activity that pops the articles onto the Google worthy front page of Phys.org for a few more hours. It's simple, relatively detached activism. I have a message I want to get out as easy and cheaply (zero cost!) as possible. It's not coached or organized like Mike Mann claims though. If you want to help activists on your side wise up, be my guest. I was shocked to find the usual inability of "Climate Communicators" to game the Report system here like they do on other sites. I was doubly surprised to have Death Threat Guy keep showing up, smearing your side with crazy making. I've played him out a bit for some guilt by association points. You may find it hard to believe but I'm not posting here with much personal ego involvement, just a goal in mind, to get simple data plots in front of more eyes.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2013
Turns out, very often in the history of medicine, the 3 doctors were *right*!


Nik: That's what inveterate gamblers say when placing a bet. The stakes are high precisely because of the long odds. Bookies exist because they overwhelming win, yet the gambler still (illogically) thinks he will win sometimes and that sometime will be this time. The long odds says he wont but he cant stop himself. Can he be described as a zealot, convinced beyond all reason?
Place on top of that the consequences of being wrong, and, well.

Don't you see? just because those 3 could be right does not make it likely they are. It is still 32:1 against.

It's the same as saying just because a weather forecast can be wrong sometimes it's not worth considering, it's always wrong. It's a failure of critical thinking.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2013
Nik:
An interesting admission. It *may* change my responses to you.

Now look - I'm a simple, what you see is what you get, heart on my sleeve type.

I would never consider that as a tactic. I see bollocks asserted about a subject I was a professional in and I react.

If you consider site hits as important rather than the contents written on that site then be my guest - I will just not rise to the bait quite as often. I merely consider the influence on the neutral reading here as paramount - however I admit it is really just a point scoring exercise, for people who really should have something better to do. Mind you there's often rubbish on the TV these days.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 27, 2013
Neinsense99 seems to reveal a manipulative fib:

Exhibit A from Oct. 23: "Did you say you got that in 1995? Somebody said it was '98 and they knew you, but I thought they were wrong."
http://phys.org/n...ate.html

Exhibit B from today, Oct. 27: "I picked 98 at random, so I must be either psychic, lucky or you just agreed with what I wrote."
djr
4.2 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2013
Nik - " just a goal in mind, to get simple data plots in front of more eyes."

Relax runrig - and keep up the good work as long as it does not deplete you. The important thing to pay attention to is that out there in the real world - it is understood that global warming is a serious problem - and we are well on the way to making adjustments. As the data becomes more evident - the denialists will become more marginalized - and the response more substantive.

Nik is pretty delusional - but unable to respond to real data. Recently on another thread he posted a link to tide gauge - that demonstrated clearly that not only is the sea level rising, but the rate of rise is increasing. Nik is unable to respond to the simple question 'what is the driver of the warming trend?' Bollocks is pretty easy to spot - and most here on physorg are able to spot it. Chin up.....
VENDItardE
1 / 5 (21) Oct 27, 2013
VENDItardE: "Since radiocarbon dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years"

Source please. A quick google search suggests to me that you are way off the mark.

"Radiocarbon dating is especially good for determining the age of sites occupied within the last 26,000 years or so (but has the potential for sites over 50,000), can be used on carbon-based materials (organic or inorganic), and can be accurate to within ±30-50 years."

DUHHHHHHHHHH....can you read.....it states it in paragraph 4 of this idiotic article.
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2013
DUHHHHHHHHHH....can you read.....it states it in paragraph 4 of this idiotic article.

And if you had indicated where you were quoting from - it would have saved some time. So now - can you tell us how you then proceeded from the quote about 50,00 year accuracy for radio carbon dating - to this statement -

"so about 1000 years ago?....isn't that when the vikings were farming greenland?"

Your logic is evasive.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (19) Oct 27, 2013
Go over to Judith Curry's blog and call those hundred or two skeptics delusional. Then head to WUWT for the other hundred, and do *post* this supporting evidence that has accumulated, you know, record Antarctic ice, record hurricane lull, record Arctic ice recovery, and record deviation of global average temperature series from climate model predictions.

This study is being actively dissected just a pair of links away.

There are *hundreds* of skeptics lamenting the state of climate science expressed in this study. One is the head of a climate science department.

Skeptics John Christy and Roy Spenser who represent one of the satillite global average T sets are much more even keeled than James "Coal Death Trains" Hansen, uh hum. A stormy activist is your model of sanity. Yet who is delusional, those like NASA whose public web presentation cuts tide gauge data off to deceptively imply a sudden jump in rate of rise as satillite data kicks in, or those of us who simply don't cut it off?
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (18) Oct 27, 2013
Oh boy, I mostly take back my Curry blog idealism, it being now the usual near 500 comment bickerfest with much more noise than signal. I did find a serious comment on this study, a link there to a blog essay about it:
http://ecological...tudy-on/

"The authors conclude with this statement, which really pretty much gives away their bias:

"These findings add additional evidence to the growing consensus that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have now resulted in unprecedented recent summer warmth that is well outside the range of that attributable to natural climate variability."

No it does not thank you very much. The study doesn't even address natural variability. And I thought the consensus was supposedly already pretty much full grown…that's what I've been hearing anyway. And lastly, an area of a few square miles on Baffin Island upon which the thesis rests, does not deserve the general phrase "Arctic Canada" used in the title."
Neinsense99
2.3 / 5 (18) Oct 27, 2013
It's not a fib, dunderhead, it's a supposed science genius being owned by an arts grad, an artsy who gave you every chance to display even a modicum of intellectual honesty. Instead, you more than asked for it by making ludicrous allegations about the mental state and motivations of someone you don't know in a mind-boggling display of hypocrisy. Congratulations on throwing yourself so cleanly. Ippon! But don't worry, it's always what someone else made you do, isn't it? Of course, I could be wrong, and I'm just too stupid to realize how much your face is hurting my fist, but I'll stick with the first impression for now... :)
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2013
Here is a security camera photograph of the incident that caused NikkieTard to be arrested for the molestation of that 11 year old girl.

http://uploads.ne...20-0.jpg

He is the dog.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2013
"and yet there's still no stick" - UbvonTard

No? There are dozens of them.

Here is another one...

http://www.gaypat...tick.jpg

Here is another

http://www.greenw...tick.jpg

And another

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/SxWGuE4z5xI/AAAAAAAAASA/n_bctNT15IA/s1600/Fullscreen+capture+1212009+125343+PM.jpg

Could keep it up all day there are so many....

And of course you disingenously used Hadcrut3 which you have been repeatedly told omits large areas of the polar regions.

Hadcrut4 (below) does not suffer as badly from those omissions.

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

Lying is what UbVonTard lives for.
Lying is his life
Lying is his reason for existing
Lying is his only tool.
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2013
"Nik is pretty delusional - but unable to respond to real data. " - dir

It is probable that NikkieTard has developed some kind of chemical or physical problem with his brain.

News reports have him committing acts of assault, and similar crimes, as well as repeatedly sexually assaulting that pre-teen girl in the JC-Penny.

He does seem to know some chemistry, and we now know that he tries to make a living making table lamps. so I presume that once his abhorrent behavior started, he was dumped by the university and he can't find a job in his profession because he doesn't have a reference that will NOT spill the beans.

And then there is his criminal record. Background checks would reveal that.

So NikkieTard is unemployable, and the pressure of being such a failure is probably part of what is making him the socially deviant loser that he is here.

VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2013
This is interesting because we now have...

Conservative denialist Ayn Rand - befriending a child molester/murderer
Conservative denialist Oliver Emanual - sexually molesting his own children.
Conservative denialist NikkieTard - sexually assaulting a pre-teen in a NYC JC-Penny.

And of course we have the Libertarian Party platform who's policies would legalize child molestation and child prostitution.

Interesting.....

Nikolaos Willmore ( NikkieTard) busted for sex abuse after fondling girl, 11, in midtown JCPenney

https://www.nydai...1.202754

A Manhattan lighting designer was arrested on charges of sexual contact with an 11-year-old inside the JCPenney store in midtown Manhattan, police said.

Nikolaos Willmore, 44, followed the victim around the store in the Manhattan Mall on Sixth Ave. last Saturday about 5:30 p.m., cops said.

He fondled the girl, according to police. The girl told her mother, who chased the pervert from the store.

Police say they nabbed Willmore after he was observed on security video and then picked out of a police lineup.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2013
MANHATTAN CRIMINAL COURT A man accused of repeatedly groping an
11-year-old girl who was shopping with her mother at the Herald Square
JC Penny store was arraigned on sex abuse and child endangerment
charges on Tuesday.

Nikolaos Willmore, 44, allegedly approached the child from behind and
grabbed her "three of four times" over her shorts at the Manhattan
Mall on Saturday, prompting the child and parent to scream and draw
the attention of a store manager who trailed Willmore out of the store
and onto Sixth Avenue, prosecutors said.

http://www.freag....ress_r/2

ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 28, 2013
And of course you disingenously used Hadcrut3 which you have been repeatedly told omits large areas of the polar regions.

Hadcrut4 (below) does not suffer as badly from those omissions.
Oh please. HadCRUT4 was intentionally manipulated to show increased warming in the late 20th century. It's not as valued as HadCRUT3, by the scientific community. Since 2012, papers citing HadCRUT3 only, outnumber HadCRUT4 (only) papers nearly two to one (and a lot of the HadCRUT4 papers are just trying to justify HadCRUT4).

Funny isn't it that HadCRUT4 also shows a pause? ...a pause lasting more than a dozen years:

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

LOL. Even when they TRIED to eliminate the pause, they just couldn't!

Poor Vendi-chatterbot. It just can't stop lying.
Lying is its programming
Lying is what it does.
Lying is how it defines itself.
Lying is the chatterbot way.

VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 28, 2013
"HadCRUT4 was intentionally manipulated to show increased" - UbVonTard

And yet it correlates exceptionally well with GISSTEMP (NASA)

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

Is NASA involved in your CONSPIRACY as well?

Lying is what UbVonTard lives for.
Lying is his life
Lying is his reason for existing
Lying is his only tool.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 28, 2013
"HadCRUT4 was intentionally manipulated to show increased" - Uba

And yet it correlates exceptionally well with GISSTEMP (NASA)

Is NASA involved in your CONSPIRACY as well?
Apparently, as they have been caught repeatedly manipulating data.

http://wattsupwit...ity-act/

http://wattsupwit...present/

Even so, they still couldn't hide the pause:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 28, 2013
Super treat even...the extremely controversial Steve "Hockey Stick Buster" McIntyre has a relatively positive post on this study, with very high signal to noise comments:
http://climateaud...6/18501/

"Miller is a reputable scientist whose work rises above the data snooping, data mining and regression against increasing trends of self-opinionated verbiage (to borrow Briffa's phrase) that is too prevalent in the field."

But the serious comments there slice and dice away.

You're now on record as a liar, Neinsense99, as your best friend, Death Threat Guy libels himself away, taunting someone for one of the worst tragedies a man can suffer. That attitude defines you and the entire alarmist sandwich board tradition.

runrig, *these* lowlife scumbags are your friends.

They are demonstrably terrible human beings.

The pedophile baiting e-mail messages from Vendicar(E) here alone in the last week amount to extortion. I'm glad I don't have a disease too, as bait.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 28, 2013
Ratings bot accounts "Al_Gore", "Captain_Planet", and "open" have down-rated skeptical member comments within minutes. Another ten accounts kick in later, that have never posted a comment.

Hey Al_Gore, are you a real user, fairly rating comments here?
Hey Al_Gore, are you a real user, fairly rating comments here?
Hey Al_Gore, are you a real user, fairly rating comments here?
Hey Al_Gore, are you a real user, fairly rating comments here?

Anybody logged in can see their regular 24/7 activity in the Activity tab of commenter profiles:
http://phys.org/p...activity

Those tactics also define Sandwich Board World.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 28, 2013
Vendicar(E)'s death threats go back a decade as Vendicar Decarian, the latest batch on Phys.org being collected here:
http://s11.postim...eats.gif
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 28, 2013
They are demonstrably terrible human beings.
Indeed, but the failure of their doomsday cult prophecies, combined with our discerning arguments, likely induces a defensive stress hysteria which subsequently traps them in a deviancy amplification spiral. That is, the more we argue facts with them, the worse they get as human beings.

Sadly, the failure of a doomsday prophecy often induces an even stronger faith in the doomsday cult members. Eventually, when it all blows over, they'll likely "believe" they helped avert global warming with all their name-calling and whining!

NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 28, 2013
ubanontuba, they still have whole scientific bodies on their side including the Nobel Peace Prize committee and the Royal Society, so a strong distinction is in order between activists supporting corruption and laypersons who are still simply unaware that real official data sets exist that for instance show that recent warming and sea level rise are boring continuations of the same old linear trend, minus statistical mashups. But you may not hear the next batch of now urban and tiresomely urbane skeptics loudly as they transition over, lest they be socially associated with Republican politics during a very popular Democratic presidency.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 28, 2013
A loud skeptical site has offered an infographic map and links that accuse this study of simple cherry picking in the face of Arctic studies that show just the opposite conclusion:
http://www.c3head...ked.html

"The criticisms of this study are extensive. But the obvious criticism of blatant cherry-picking is indisputable. As one expert pointed out, this research focused on just four moss sample sites on Baffin Island and ignored the island's 135 other moss sites' samples that completely discredit the bogus "warmer than the last 44,000 to 120,000 years" claim."

"...why in the world are they focusing on those four sites, to the exclusion of the much more geographically extensive 135? How can the authors just blow past this fact without discussing why in any way?"

VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2013
"Vendicar(E)'s death threats go back a decade" - NikkieTard

There are no death threats in any of the pictures that NikkieTard linked to.

He is simply trying to change the subject away from his arrest and charge for sexually molesting an 11 year old girl.

NikkieTards pointless link, and his actions, illustrate the depth of his mental illness.

VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2013
"A loud skeptical site has offered an infographic map and links that accuse this study of simple cherry picking" - NikkieTard

It is pretty easy to understand and yet NikkieTard can not comprehend.

The plant material being dated rapidly degrades if exposed to weather. It was covered and killed by ice at the time specified by it's carbon dating, and has been in a deep freeze ever since.

The fact that 40,000 year old plant material has been exposed means that the ice that covered it has covered it for 40,000 years.

Now it is gone.

This means that where the samples were taken, it is now warmer today than at any reasonably prolonged time in the last 40,000 years.

It simple logic that even an 11 year old girl at JC-Penny could understand.

But apparently not NikkieTard, and he claims to have a PHD in chemistry.

Bahahahahahahahahah..........
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2013
"ubanontuba, they still have whole scientific bodies on their side including the Nobel Peace Prize committee and the Royal Society" - UbVonTard

And now NikkieTard displays his paranoia. Yes TardieBoy, all of us are out to get you.

My orders to take you out come directly from the Queen of the moon.

Here is a picture of her.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WGD9EYPnrO4/TbDx_-bTsdI/AAAAAAAAAQo/X21lARoUfhI/s1600/Queen+of+Blood+007.jpg

Watch out. We are coming for you.... And your little dog too....

VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 28, 2013
"Indeed, but the failure of their doomsday cult prophecies" - UbVonTard

Are you a time traveler back from the future, TardieBoy?

So far, the IPCC projections have been quite good. The growing Catastrophe that has been projected for the end of this century is self evident to any thinking person, at this point.

Perhaps that is why your claim is rated 1. You received all 7 votes = 1.

That should tell you how deviant you are.

As to NikkieTard, we now know how deviant he is.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2013
"Ratings bot accounts "Al_Gore""- NikkieTard

What are you jabbering about now Tardiboy?

Al-Gore is a friend of mine.

He wants you to explain your arrest, the child molestation charge and the violent behavior that is known to the NYC police.

I want you to explain why it is that you claim to have a PHD in Chemistry and find yourself hand making desk lamps for a living.

You seem to be unemployable.

NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (19) Oct 28, 2013
That bile spewing Vendicar(E)'s average rank here is 3.4 of 5 is itself bemusing evidence of ratings bot use here, i.e. a policy of dishonesty coming from the climate science community, and it's official too, since Al Gore really does run classes to teach people how to be Climate Communicators and the like. Oh wait, that's John Cook's gang. Gore's are called "Climate Crusaders" and the "Climate Cavalry":
http://www.treehu...t-i.html

My word, the pure cultural *inertia* of this crowd is a train wreck in motion:
http://presenters...r_search

"Oh, the humanity and all the passengers screaming around here. I told you, I can't even talk to people whose friends are on there. Ah! It's–it's–it's–it's ... o–ohhh! I–I can't talk, ladies and gentlemen. Honest, it's just laying there, a mass of smoking wreckage."
djr
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2013
Nik: "show that recent warming and sea level rise are boring continuations of the same old linear trend, minus statistical mashups."

Except that Nik's own tide gauge reference showed exactly the opposite - and so Nik suddenly goes silent on that issue. And both Uba and Nik seem to not understand that one year of data do not a trend make. Perhaps it is understandable that there are whole scientific organizations against your side (what ever side that may be in your strange world). I am on the side of science - and what ever that reveals to us.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 28, 2013
djr, sea level is certainly the most relevant topic of all since it's a simple concept anybody can understand as a result of melting ice. That the mismatch between tide gauges and satellites has been turned into an argument that sea level rise has suddenly jumped above its historical rate alone condemns contemporary climate "science" to ridicule. What you speak of is noise in the NYC tide gauge plot, denying the point I made by plotting a trendline that statistically there is no support for trend change claims in most any single long running tide gauge record, this being the sort of Science 101 test anybody calling themselves a "scientist" should be excited to look into instead of ignore. A full animation of dozens of input data to one of the Hockey Stick Team's versions of global sea level has been done that similarly shows the embarrassment of Climatology:
http://climatesan...s-right/

THE TREND REMAINS THE SAME.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2013
"both Uba and Nik seem to not understand that one year of data do not a trend make." - dir

Odd isn't it, that someone like NikkieTard who claims to have a PHD would chronically presume that one year of data makes a climate trend.

It is as if his PHD claim is fake and that he is a Phony.

Either way, he is clearly mentally ill.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2013
"there is no support for trend change" - NikkieTard

And yet, as we have shown you on numerous occasions, your very own plot shows that there is one.

Stupid....
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (19) Oct 28, 2013
djr, simply checking input data to see if it corresponds to the claimed result is such a simple requirement that it boggles the mind that neither the sea level "study" I just linked to nor the Michael Mann celebrated Marcott 2013 hockey stick of temperature deemed fit to actually *do* that, and yet they passed peer review in major journals!
http://s21.postim...xies.jpg

"IF A LINE DOES FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT!"

But Mikey likes it just fine:
http://s15.postim...2013.jpg
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (19) Oct 28, 2013
The NYC tide gauge record I am being tasked with by djr is here:
http://tidesandcu...=8518750

The evil NOAA is also in on the naughty Big Oil Money conspiracy to plot trendlines!

An published article provides background:
http://www.burton...nathaz1/

"Despite over 2/3 century of major anthropogenic CO2 emissions, these tide gauges have measured no statistically significant increase in the rate of sea level rise.

The same thing is true at most other tide gauges around the world. In fact, the best and most comprehensive analyses of sea level measured by tide gauges around the world show slight decelerations in the rate of sea level rise over the last 80 years."
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2013
"...why in the world are they focusing on those four sites, to the exclusion of the much more geographically extensive 135? How can the authors just blow past this fact without discussing why in any way?


Err it says why above ……….

"Miller and his colleagues compiled the age distribution of 145 radiocarbon-dated plants in the highlands of Baffin Island that were exposed by ice recession during the year they were collected by the researchers. All samples collected were within 1 meter of the ice caps, which are generally receding by 2 to 3 meters a year."
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2013
And both Uba and Nik seem to not understand that one year of data do not a trend make.


djr: OR they do know it and just don't care. Throwing goal-shifting and logical contradictions in just to "rile 'em up a bit". AS I said lower down - unless you really do ascribe mental incapacity then it would make more sense. Of course we would still be forced to defend against such bollocks because the odd rational assertion comes up occasionally that requires research to properly counter.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (18) Oct 28, 2013
"Geophysical Research Letters has now adopted the bizarre policy that it does not accept comments on published papers; if you want to respond you need to write a stand alone publication and submit to the journal. GRL has effectively stifled published discussion of its publications. Thank goodness for blogs." - Dr. Judith Curry
http://judithcurr...t-404750

Wikipedia: "Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992."
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (18) Oct 28, 2013
David Appell is on the AGW enthusiast side over at Curry's blog, giving her hell for not publishing her response instead of just blogging. Dave also hopes climate skepticism will be a crime, as Vendicar(E) here has also stated in the screenshot above.

"I don't know. Donald Brown, the philosopher at Penn State who has been writing about the ethics of climate change for well over a decade -- I interviewed him in the early 2000s -- thinks they are perhaps guilty of crimes against humanity. / Are they? Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes? / I think so. You can't simply claim that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. / I think they're crimes will be obvious in about a decade. / When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change. I had doubts about that, but maybe." - Dave Appell
http://davidappel...lem.html
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (19) Oct 28, 2013
Tidbits from ClimateAudit.org:

"In addition to the 135 sites where Late and Holocene mosses have been exposed, Miller sampled 4 sites (10 samples) where the mosses were dated deep into the LGM or at or near the radiocarbon detection limit (~44000 years). It was on the basis of these samples that the warmest in 44000 years claim arose." - Steve McIntyre

"What this study seems to show is that Miller has found 135 sites where the temperature was warmer than now around 1000 years ago, and 4 sites where it was warmer around 44,000 years ago. If we are to try to extrapolate from this data to the global temperature, it seems to me that he has shown that most things were warmer 1000 years ago, and that there may have been a very small percentage of places where something unusual was going on." - Dodgy Geezer
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (19) Oct 28, 2013
Tidbit from ClimateAudit.org:

"This new study by Miller et al is an attempt to overturn what was thought to be known concerning earlier temperatures and promote present arctic temperatures to the highest point in the last 44,000 years based on an astounding four moss samples. For the authors of previous studies claiming higher temperatures than present earlier in the last 10,000 years I see three possible positions for them to take.

(1)Previous authors step forward and graciously accept the Miller study has thoroughly refuted a good chunk of their work.
(2)They publicly argue against the validity of Miller study.
(3)They simply ignore the Miller study and let it be used to claim unprecedented high temperatures in the present.

It will be interesting to see how the authors of those prior studies react." - Bob Koss
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2013
The NYC tide gauge record I am being tasked with by djr is here:
http://tidesandcu...=8518750

Interesting that you had to switch the link there Nik. Gosh - wonder why you might have done that?????? Here is the original article with your original link. http://phys.org/n...ate.html

Your comment was on Oct. 24th.

Here is the expanded tide gauge record from that link. http://www.psmsl....high.png

Now - put a ruler to the first 50 years of that record - and to the last 50 years of that record. Notice anything interesting?

Wonder why Nik will not answer the most important question that tide gauge raises. Clearly the ocean level is rising (approx 3mm per year). This would indicate melting of the ice sheets and glaciers - caused by a warming trend. What is the driver of that warming Nik???????
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (19) Oct 28, 2013
In between ice ages, lingering ice melts. You are winning no argument here, just spazzing out, djr, grasping for triumphantalist straws, in a thread chock full of alarmist treachery.

Tide gauges show no statistically significant rate change, *despite* a continuation of the warming of centuries plus a small and convenient greenhouse gas enhancement of it. But no additional warming is needed as chaotic ocean currents waft in and out of polar regions, nipping away, as always in between ice ages.

You're screaming about a single tide gauge on a tiny landfilled island of a dredged hyperactive port that shows a bit of fluctuation in an overall area in which much of the sea level rise is due to plastic interglacial rebound changes in land masses.

The tone of my recent post was sarcastic, being that most people already quite well understand exactly your fallacy of cherry picked local fluctuation not representing a whole region, this being the exact same debunking now applied to this study.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2013
Nik: "You're screaming about a single tide gauge"

But you were the one who referenced that tide gauge. So it is appropriate for you to 'scream' about a single tide gauge to support your position - but herresy on my part for discussing the same tide gauge - that actually contradicts the position you were trying to stipulate. I think you may have been drinking a little too much of the upper east side wine.

" You are winning no argument here"

My goal is not to win an argument - that is your admitted need. My intent is to take a few minutes between other responsibilities to stick up for science - perhaps encourage others like runrig in the support of reason. It can be discouraging watching the need of folks like you to hold the human race in such ignorance.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (19) Oct 28, 2013
To "stick up" science, you mean, not "stick up for" it!

djr, the standard study of sea level by Church & White finally included a simple average of world tide gauges as a plot in its latest update in 2010, and that plot can be extracted from the spaghetti behind it to see if a linear trend line does or does not in fair manner best describe it:
http://oi51.tinyp...koix.jpg

In fair manner indeed, it exactly describes it, and the trend remains the same in defiance of CO₂.

The small island nation of Tuvalu is a poster child of Global Warming, yet its tide gauge record shows no change at all:
http://www.psmsl....1839.php

Tuvalu is far off the coast of Australia, which has lots of tide gauge records to compare to, which are also ignoring the great Global Warming emergency:
http://oi52.tinyp...8peb.jpg
runrig
4.8 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2013
Tide gauges show no statistically significant rate change, *despite* a continuation of the warming of centuries plus a small and convenient greenhouse gas enhancement of it. But no additional warming is needed as chaotic ocean currents waft in and out of polar regions, nipping away, as always in between ice ages.


Nik: Sea levels exhibit a remarkable variation due thermal, wind and gravity interaction. Additionally there are variations due to evaporation and rainfall overland. Recent Australian floods caused a reduction in overall sea-level.

http://phys.org/n...lia.html

Additional warming is most certainly needed as the current falling Arctic ice TREND cannot be explained by ocean currents. It may be partially by a +ve AMO phase but the recent finding of Arctic deep warming is a more likely candidate. Also there has been other warming contributions from the orbital parameters since the end of the ice age vs ~6000 y bp (9% greater solar).
djr
5 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2013
To "stick up" science, you mean, not "stick up for" it!

No - I mean to stick up for it - to respect the hard work of 10's of thousands of dedicated scientists who are pushing hard to advance the knowledge of the species - despite the nonsense coming from the denial community. Just my little bit for the team.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 28, 2013
djr, you mean the "data community" since the "denial community" only refers to deniers of natural climate change, you know, those who use century-scale-attenuated temperature proxies that show *no* modern upswing but *instead* show a "hide the decline" worthy downswing (!) which is then deleted, who then tack fine detail instrumental thermometer data on at the end!

That's scientific fraud, for which you are an apologist for.

Dr. Curry, head of a climatology department, has herself posted Berkeley professor Richard Muller's blunt take down of Hockey Stick Team "science":
http://www.youtub...pciw8suk "

She summarizes: "Visit the blog of a man who uncovered 'hide the decline' as first and filled FOIA requests, Steve McIntyre. We wouldn't know about this without him, credit where credit is due: http://climateaudit.

Mainstream science is on the case, thanking those you attack, people like me with a Ph.D. whose station in life allowed us to speak free, despite extortion.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2013
"As at December 2010, based on the short-term sea level trend analyses performed by the National Tidal Centre using the Tuvalu SEAFRAME data, a rate of +4.0 mm per year has been observed. Accounting for the inverted barometric pressure effect and vertical movements in the observing platform, the net sea level trend is +3.7 mm per year. By comparison, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4, 2007) estimates that global average long-term sea level rise over the last hundred years was of the order of 1 to 2 mm/yr."

http://www.bom.go...2010.pdf

The Pacific has extremely variable sea-level, largely controlled by ENSO – as warm water first builds up around Tuvalu due convergence of winds there (Nina) and then slosh back E as the trades weaken and Nino returns.

A much longer time base is needed to ave out these cycles.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 28, 2013
Correction: my Australian tide gauge records above had their trends removed too in order to only show short term variation, as runrig's article alerted me to the likelihood of, so I can only claim linear trends, not flat ones, near Tuvalu.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2013
Dr. Curry, head of a climatology department, has herself posted Berkeley professor Richard Muller's blunt take down of Hockey Stick Team "science":
http://www.youtub...pciw8suk "


Ah really? Well, would you credit it? - here's a blunt take-down of the "blunt take-down", of the "Hockey Stick Team "science".

http://www.youtub...Ve6KE-Us
djr
5 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2013
djr, you mean the "data community"

Nope - I mean the denial community. The group of posters who consistently jump on every cimate article that is presented on Physorg - and claim that the science is a fraud - and the article is incorrect. The reason I don't frequent WUWT is because I am not interested in joining a group of people who have that kind of political agenda. So you and your buds feel the need to bring the antiscience political agenda to a science site - that is just reporting the news. Sometimes you amuse me - sometimes I get really discouraged and sad at your need to spread discouragement. You use all kinds of dishonesty, and obfuscation - and I try to take a minute to provide a little push back.
GuruShabu
1 / 5 (18) Oct 28, 2013
I just found the source of this "study".
It is the same "SCIENTIFIC" source that found out driving a car will damage the ovarian of the ladies.
It is scientific and it was divulged by a scientist!
So we have t agree or we are deniers...
As simple as that on the simpleton vision.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 29, 2013
But runrig, the political activist activity is on your side of the fence. Peter Sinclair with the sniveling superiority complex vibe of those videos is a classic Al Gore political operative. The blogs you claim to avoid are devoid of churning political banter. The only politicized skeptical blog is by regrettably shock jock data digger Steve Goddard who does happen to be very good at finding old newspaper references to episodes of weather disasters that dwarf contemporary ones and which report clear precedent for Arctic melting surges in the past. His blog isn't even on the WUWT blogrroll.

What you *do* sense correctly is that the whole left wing of politics has now tied their reputation to the weather so this topic is extremely potent, politically.

Yet there are zero references to Gore, Obama or "democrat" in 256 comments about this study on WUWT and only one reference among the 403 comments on Curry's blog and it's from a Heartland institute conspiracy theorist (like yourself?).
djr
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2013
So we have t agree or we are deniers...

Disagreeing with a study does not make you a denier. Disagreeing with every study that is posted on this board that has the term climate in the title does. Arguing that 10's of thousands of scientists are in a grand collaboration to decieve society in order to grab funding dollars does.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 29, 2013
There are no characters on the alarmist side like award winning climatologist Peter Gleick who used identity theft to steal Heartland Institute internal financial documents and then release them along with a fully *fabricated* conspiratorial agenda document that happened to mention himself as a scientist they were planning to politically attack.

These are the facts on the ground: demonstrated sophistry versus a simple self-organized grassroots movement to root out corruption from science spurned on by personal disgust at watching our favorite old popular science magazines degenerate into Al Gore rant rags that compare skepticism to Holocaust denial. I find Phys.org to be a better alternative to my former stack of Science News, Scientific American, Discover magazines, since the editors usually avoid directly insulting skeptical readers.

Calling skepticism "antiscientific" is epically foolish. My word, man, have you no idea how silly it makes you? Skepticism is what *defines* science!
djr
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2013
It is interesting how Nik is so quick to point a finger at some rogue scientist. Yes - what Gleick did was wrong. That is a cheap and lazy tactic.

There are many in the medical profession who have been caught doing terrible things. That does not invalidate medical science - and when I get sick - I go to the doctor.

I don't care if you have no regard for science - that is totally your issue. If you bring your anti science bollocks on to a science web site - you invite push back.

No - you are not a skeptik - you are a denier. A skeptic has a healthy open mind. Your mind is set - and you are going to prove you are right - the facts be damned.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 29, 2013
djr, until your side rids itself of peer review corruption, every study published within that jaded framework will be post peer reviewed by an online team of volunteers who don't make a cent for doing so but in fact risk being extorted and slandered. The current study is classic Climatology cult BS that *casually* reports that, oh, by the way, the vast evidence of an equally warm Arctic period 1000 years ago that fills the scientific record, well, that's all to be ignored now, since look here, I found four little clustered sites within my vast surveyed area that hasn't melted in 44,000 years, and fails to warn reporters too that most of that time was an ice age with the site under miles of ice.

It's the dubious quality of work that commands attention, and your claimed consensus is itself bogus, even, such that links to Cook's entire SkepticalScience.com site now lose you debate points after he cooked the numbers of a confirmation of that 97% consensus. This was a banner year for BS!
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (23) Oct 29, 2013
I'll spell it out more clearly: skeptics are the good guys and alarmists are the bad guys. Very bad guys, for if given a chance as Dave Appell quotes Michael Mann above, they would destroy the lives of skeptics, spitefully. Alamists would also starve developing nations, not only killing the poor with energy rationing and biofuel industry destruction of grains but cause them to desperately claw at the environment to survive a bit longer. They would and have already siphoned billions of dollars away from basic hard science and medical R&D into emergency (= inefficient and premature!) boondoggles after they thwarted the low emissions Atomic Age itself. All this in an age of sudden and very terrible antibiotic resistance that threatens this very decade with unheard of devastation in the modern era of megacities and aging demographics. Denying the loss of funding for basic research may be emphasized by regular reports of a tough science job market. Yet witness Climateers snark away!
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2013
But runrig, the political activist activity is on your side of the fence. Peter Sinclair with the sniveling superiority complex vibe of those videos is a classic Al Gore political operative.


You don't like Peter Sinclair? …. Then how about Peter Hadfield?
http://www.youtub...VQ2fROOg

Please tell me anything that was done to a) trick anyone? the term "Trick" as used colloquially by the scientific community is commonly used in scientific literature to mean a recognised technique, and b) "hiding a decline" refers to the (well known) response in some northern trees since ~1960 to register a fall in temperature, when actual temps are known to be rising (REAL thermometers) hence REAL temperatures were added instead of a contaminated proxy.

And I suppose the "snivelling" types seen on the Likes of Fox news are not Republican sympathisers? – yes we all know its politicised, there's no need to state the obvious.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2013
until your side rids itself of peer review corruption, every study published within that jaded framework will be post peer reviewed by an online team of volunteers who don't make a cent for doing so but in fact risk being extorted and slandered.


Nik: You rail at human nature. Peer-review is the only way of doing it given that - there will always be naysayers. Consensus is the ONLY way of rationalising it. As is democracy for voting in a government. No one says that it's invalid because everyone didn't vote for them.

I'll get the harps out again. "extorted and slandered"? Any rational examination of the evidence (vis Parliamentary committee examination), would have found it. So what of Mr Jones' slander? No that don't count do it?
Your online "team of volunteers" may (rarely) find a fault - eg McIntyre with US temps. But was hardly Earth shattering and was immediately admitted to.

The vast amount of bollocks pouring forth from your "volunteers" greatly outways that.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2013
I found four little clustered sites within my vast surveyed area that hasn't melted in 44,000 years, and fails to warn reporters too that most of that time was an ice age with the site under miles of ice.


What?
That's just the point. The mosses where alive 44000 years ago and have been under ice all that time. Ergo it was colder through that period as ice generally melts when it reaches 0C. Yes, the ice sheet will take time to melt but high albedo and sensible cooling caused by that ice obviously (to a scientific mind) intuitively shows that it CANNOT have been warmer until now.

"The ice cores showed that the youngest time interval from which summer temperatures in the Arctic were plausibly as warm as today is about 120,000 years ago, near the end of the last interglacial period. "We suggest this is the most likely age of these samples," said Miller."
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2013
Is this where you got the idea from Nik?
Or does it come unbidden from your own fertile mind?

http://climatecro...threads/
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2013
Calling skepticism "antiscientific" is epically foolish. My word, man, have you no idea how silly it makes you? Skepticism is what *defines* science!


That would be true of skeptics and skepticism Nik, but by your own admission - Quote …

"I've used a tactic here, a simple one based on posting skeptical tidbits galore and using strong enough negative terms about climate scientists to make threads fill with activity that pops the articles onto the Google worthy front page of Phys.org for a few more hours. It's simple, relatively detached ACTIVISM. I have a message I want to get out as easy and cheaply (zero cost!)"

Now that most definitely is NOT the action a skeptic would take. A person resorting to that has his mind made up and nought will change it. Certainly no science arguments I try to use. (I knew that of course anyway). Activism plays no part in skepticism. As activism is the tactic of a closed mind.

You are a hypocrite. And my responses to you will not change.
djr
5 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2013
Nik: "I'll spell it out more clearly: skeptics are the good guys and alarmists are the bad guys."

Strange perspective - I wonder where the deniars fit in to Nik's world view.

Here is a question Nik. My friend is a Phd level research microbiologist. Through him I have a number of friends who also work in the lab. They are highly specialized researchers - with of course a lot of training in the scientific process. They are all also very concerned about climate change - and frustrated with the volume of the denial community - who they feel are disproportionately controlling the public dialogue - much due to the media's obsession of always needing to present two sides equally. I think that this group is very representative of the science community as a whole. So - my friend is a scientist, a skeptic, and highly concerned about antibiotic resistance, and also climate change. Is he a good guy, or a bad guy?
Howhot
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2013
@djr, "Here is a question Nik. My friend is a Phd level research microbiologist. Through him I have a number of friends who also work in the lab. They are highly specialized researchers - with of course a lot of training in the scientific process. They are all also very concerned about climate change - and frustrated with the volume of the denial community - ... ", Its funny I feel the same way, but I'm trained in Physics. People like @Nik purposefully lie about the human condition because they think it scores brownie points with their piers. To the rest of us normal people @Nik just makes everyone grown; "Oh no".

The Alchemist
1 / 5 (14) Oct 30, 2013
How hard would it be to get a "block this poster" button on this site? I know there are a many I'd love never to hear from again with the click of a mouse.
djr
5 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2013
runrig: "You are a hypocrite. And my responses to you will not change."

Hypocrite - delusional - master of obfuscation - etc. etc. All appropriate terms for folks such as Niki, and Uba, and Anti etc. But if you want some comfort in the irrelevance of this kind of bollocks - just read physorg, any other science site, or any credible news site, and see what is happening in the real world. Here is an article on a group of states and provinces - that represent essentially the 5th largest economy in the world. They have signed an agreement to reduce emissions, and to transition towards renewables. Just one example of the freight train - that is just getting rolling. Keep hammering away runrig - but don't get too invested. Reality is reality.

http://theenergyc...nge-pact
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (12) Oct 30, 2013
If you're concerned about the level of denial then change the conversation. I'll bet that MOST of the people who don't think the Earth is getting warmer are not going to be swayed by graphs, charts, and facts because they're AFRAID of the policy changes being proposed to combat it....

Bottom line. IF you want to keep banging your head against people's fears be my guest, if you want more votes to change policy then change the policy you're advocating because you're NEVER going to get people to agree to some of the (quite frankly) naive and economically obliterating policy changes that are currently circulating out there.

You can't change this with a policy or a law, most people (including advocates of AGW) simply AREN'T going to take as step backward economically. Focus on nuclear power if you want to "change minds" in this debate.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton "It's the policy stupid..."
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2013
Blah Blah Blah. Name calling and insults. The understanding I have with AGW is that it is like rabies. Once definitive symptoms develop it's too late to take action. So perhaps the world is warming now which the data and general observations such as glacial retreat do indeed indicate, perhaps not. But if we wait to find out for sure it will be too late to do anything about it.
That's the bottom line!
There are dozens of reasons to move away from a carbon based economy one of which is AGW. But the economic "alarmists" think the world will implode if we embrace a new energy paradigm.

It's really sad but typical of our species as history has shown.
Modernmystic
2.4 / 5 (13) Oct 30, 2013
But the economic "alarmists" think the world will implode if we embrace a new energy paradigm.


No the "alarmists" don't think the world would implode, but you can be sure millions if not billions of people would die of starvation, civil authority would be tenuous, and the economic downturn would make the Great Depression look like a 50 point drop in the Dow....but the world wouldn't implode and most Americans wouldn't be the ones starving so...assuming you're an American or a European you'd be OK.

Sucks for the billions of people in developing countries though, but hey, you got your policy :)
Howhot
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2013
Just more crap from the name callers! More crap from the Deniers! According to the deniers, "billions of people would die of starvation, civil authority would be tenuous, and the economic downturn would make the Great Depression look like a 50 point drop in the Dow.". Now, lets remember that the 2008 Dow crash happened after 8 years of the Bush watch, just as Obama took office (thank you very much neocon dickweeds). If I was a republican and saw the country trashed like it is, I would switch parties.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2013
"According to the deniers, "billions of people would die of starvation" - Howhot

Back when the Montreal Protocol was being negotiated, the same denialists were claiming that there was no such thing as an ozone hole because CFC's were heavier than air.

They were also claiming all manner of economic collapse, some told me that banning CFC's would kill 100 billion people.

The fact that 100 billion people have never cumulatively existed on earth didn't stop them from repeating their lie, over and over again just like the Global Warming denialists (same people) do.

That claim - 100 billion people - was promulgated by Lyndon Larouche publications and websites like JunkScience,- also a clearing house for Global Warming denialism.

VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2013
"skeptics are the good guys and alarmists are the bad guys." - NikkieTard

Yup. That is what holocaust denialists say as well.

You are in good company there TardieBoy.

"Alamists would also starve developing nations, not only killing the poor with energy rationing" - NikkieTard

Yup, and according to the previous denial industry - Ozone hole denialism - banning CFC's was going to kill everyone in Africa because they would be denied refrigeration.

You are mentally Ill NikkieTard. Your history of physical violence, and your arrest for child molestation is evidence enough of that.

If you can't be trusted to behave rationally in the real world, then excuse me if I don't respect you opinions and behavior on any other topic.

VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2013
"until your side rids itself of peer review corruption" - NikkieTard

Awww Nikkie... Are you upset that you are found by scientists to be as deficient in science as you are deficient in your real life?

Isn't Nature going to publish your research on how to make a working desk lamp? That is how you try and feed yourself isn't it? Making lamps.

How dare they... How dare they....

"I found four little clustered sites within my vast surveyed area that hasn't melted in 44,000 years, and fails to warn reporters too that most of that time was an ice age with the site under miles of ice." - NikkieTard

Well that is the interesting thing isn't it? There couldn't have been miles high piles of ice at that location if lichen was growing there 44,000 years ago.

And it isn't probable that a few miles down the coast there would be miles high piles of ice when the area was found to be ice free and capable of supporting the growth of moss and algae.

Poor Nikkie. No scientist he.
VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2013
"award winning climatologist Peter Gleick who used identity theft to steal Heartland Institute internal financial documents" - NikkieTard

Gleick isn't a climatologist, TardieBoy. Can't you even get that right?

http://en.wikiped...r_Gleick

As to the Heartland Institute, it should be exposed. It is one of the most corrupt organizations in America.

VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2013
"Dr. Curry, head of a climatology department, has herself posted Berkeley professor Richard Muller's blunt take down of Hockey Stick Team "science":
http://www.youtub...pciw8suk "" - NikkieTard

Here is the same scientist just a few years later after he did his own analysis, confirming the IPCC's results.

Poor NikkieTard. Why didn't you post this link?

http://www.youtub...LxFx1W7O

What are you trying to hide TardieBoy?

VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2013
Why are you cherry picking NikkieTard?

http://www.youtub...LxFx1W7O

http://www.youtub...uKxXUCPY
VendicarE
4 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2013
The scientist in your own video link now refers to you as a denialist NikkieTard.

You gots brains damage, Tardieboy?

http://www.youtub...uKxXUCPY
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2013
Just more crap from the name callers!


I called no one a name, that's a lie. Could I call you a liar now?

More crap from the Deniers!


I don't deny AGW, NOW can I call you a liar?

According to the deniers, "billions of people would die of starvation, civil authority would be tenuous, and the economic downturn would make the Great Depression look like a 50 point drop in the Dow."


According to which deniers?

.
Now, lets remember that the 2008 Dow crash happened after 8 years of the Bush watch, just as Obama took office (thank you very much neocon dickweeds). If I was a republican and saw the country trashed like it is, I would switch parties.


Non sequitur, what does one have to do with the other?

So you lie, obfuscate, spew obscenities, and spout irrelevancies...mmmkkay. Why should someone take you seriously again?

Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2013
Just more crap from the name callers!


I called no one a name, that's a lie. Could I call you a liar now?

More crap from the Deniers!


I don't deny AGW, NOW can I call you a liar?

According to the deniers, "billions of people would die of starvation, civil authority would be tenuous, and the economic downturn would make the Great Depression look like a 50 point drop in the Dow."


According to which deniers?

.
Now, lets remember that the 2008 Dow crash happened after 8 years of the Bush watch, just as Obama took office (thank you very much neocon dickweeds). If I was a republican and saw the country trashed like it is, I would switch parties.


What does one have to do with the other?

So you lie, obfuscate, spew obscenities, and spout irrelevancies...mmmkkay. Why should someone take you seriously again?
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2013
MysticalTard has a long history of being a MysticalTard.

Why this is, remains a mystery.
runrig
4 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2013
Mr_Science, anybody can see that my presence on Phys.org is motivated by staying playfully updated on the breakthroughs and foibles of materials science, minus all the Climatology cult noise which I hope to hasten the demise of:


No (unless the above is sarcasm) this is why you're on here Nik.
I quote…
"runrig, *indeed*, I've used a tactic here, a simple one based on posting skeptical tidbits galore and using strong enough negative terms about climate scientists to make threads fill with activity that pops the articles onto the Google worthy front page of Phys.org for a few more hours. It's simple, relatively detached activism. I have a message I want to get out as easy and cheaply (zero cost!) as possible."

As I said in the thread that comes from. "Activism" is not the action of a skeptic but that of a person committed to a particular side. A mind made-up. A denialist in this context. To whom no amount of evidence will change.
runrig
5 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2013
post below in wrong thread
djr
5 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2013
rockwolf "It's really sad but typical of our species as history has shown."

I agree rockwolf - but perhaps we can change. If you look at what is happening in the real world (much of it reported here on Physorg) - we are in the throes of embracing that new energy paradigm you reference. Yes - there are many deniers here in Physorg - they have big mouths - and want to convince us they are affecting outcomes. They are not. The freight train is just getting started - but it will pick up speed.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.