Greenland's shrunken ice sheet: We've been here before

Nov 22, 2013 by Charlotte Hsu
UB researchers Sam Kelley, left, and Sandra Cronauer pick fossils out of a Greenland moraine -- a rock, sediment and shell pile created when a growing glacier bulldozed material in its path into a pile. Such fossils hold clues about the history of the Greenland Ice Sheet, a new study finds. Credit: Jason Briner

Think Greenland's ice sheet is small today? It was smaller—as small as it has ever been in recent history—from 3-5,000 years ago, according to scientists who studied the ice sheet's history using a new technique they developed for interpreting the Arctic fossil record.

"What's really interesting about this is that on land, the atmosphere was warmest between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago, maybe as late as 4,000 years ago. The oceans, on the other hand, were warmest between 5-3,000 years ago," said Jason Briner, PhD, University at Buffalo associate professor of geology, who led the study.

"What it tells us is that the ice sheets might really respond to ocean temperatures," he said. "It's a clue to what might happen in the future as the Earth continues to warm."

The findings appeared online on Nov. 22 in the journal Geology. Briner's team included Darrell Kaufman, an organic geochemist from Northern Arizona University; Ole Bennike, a clam taxonomist from the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland; and Matthew Kosnik, a statistician from Australia's Macquarie University.

The study is important not only for illuminating the history of Greenland's ice sheet, but for providing geologists with an important new tool: A method of using Arctic fossils to deduce when glaciers were smaller than they are today.

Scientists have many techniques for figuring out when ice sheets were larger, but few for the opposite scenario.

"Traditional approaches have a difficult time identifying when ice sheets were smaller," Briner said. "The outcome of our work is that we now have a tool that allows us to see how the ice sheet responded to past times that were as warm or warmer than present—times analogous to today and the near future."

The technique the scientists developed involves dating fossils in piles of debris found at the edge of glaciers.

These are shells from Greenland. By dating fossils like these, scientists have come up with a new technique for determining when glaciers were smaller than they are today. Credit: Jason Briner

To elaborate: Growing ice sheets are like bulldozers, pushing rocks, boulders and other detritus into heaps of rubble called moraines.

Because glaciers only do this plowing when they're getting bigger, logic dictates that rocks or fossils found in a moraine must have been scooped up at a time when the associated glacier was older and smaller.

So if a moraine contains fossils from 3,000 years ago, that means the glacier was growing—and smaller than it is today—3,000 years ago.

This is exactly what the scientists saw in Greenland: They looked at 250 ancient clams from moraines in three western regions, and discovered that most of the fossils were between 3-5,000 years old.

The finding suggests that this was the period when the 's western extent was at its smallest in recent history, Briner said.

"Because we see the most shells dating to the 5-3000-year period, we think that this is when the most land was ice-free, when large layers of mud and fossils were allowed to accumulate before the glacier came and bulldozed them up," he said.

Because radiocarbon dating is expensive, Briner and his colleagues found another way to trace the age of their fossils.

This is a view of Upernavik Isfjord, where icebergs pass by on their way from Greenland to the ocean. A new study uses Arctic fossils to illuminate the history of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which drains huge volumes of ice through a few select glaciers that calve into the ocean. Credit: Jason Briner

Their solution was to look at the structure of amino acids—the building blocks of proteins—in the fossils of ancient clams. Amino acids come in two orientations that are mirror images of each other, known as D and L, and living organisms generally keep their amino acids in an L configuration.

When organisms die, however, the begin to flip. In dead clams, for example, D forms of aspartic acid start turning to L's.

Because this shift takes place slowly over time, the ratio of D's to L's in a is a giveaway of its age.

Knowing this, Briner's research team matched D and L ratios in 20 Arctic clamshells to their radiocarbon-dated ages to generate a scale showing which ratios corresponded with which ages. The researchers then looked at the D and L ratios of aspartic acid in the 250 Greenland clamshells to come up with the fossils' ages.

Amino acid dating is not new, but applying it to the study of glaciers could help scientists better understand the history of ice—and climate change—on Earth.

Explore further: Mathematician uses skills to study Greenland's retreating glaciers (w/ Video)

More information: geology.gsapubs.org/content/ea… 21/G34843.1.abstract

Related Stories

How fast can glaciers respond to climate change?

Sep 13, 2012

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

Late Cretaceous Period was likely ice-free

Sep 24, 2013

For years, scientists have thought that a continental ice sheet formed during the Late Cretaceous Period more than 90 million years ago when the climate was much warmer than it is today. Now, a University ...

Recommended for you

Volcanic eruption begins under Iceland glacier

2 hours ago

Iceland's Bardarbunga volcano began erupting Saturday under the country's largest glacier after a week of seismic activity rattled the area with thousands of earthquakes, the country's Meteorological Office ...

NASA sees Tropical Storm Karina get a boost

Aug 22, 2014

NASA's TRMM satellite saw Tropical Storm Karina get a boost on August 22 in the form of some moderate rainfall and towering thunderstorms in the center of the storm.

User comments : 106

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (28) Nov 22, 2013
But Marcott's (pure temperature-proxy-re-dating-ARTIFACT) hockey stick that Michael "Hide The Decline" Mann celebrated on Facebook clearly proves that today's temperatures are utterly unprecedented in 10K years!
http://s15.postim...2013.jpg

Alas, commenter Jimbo presents abstracts of *many* mainstream referenced studies that show that Greenland was warming/melting more rapidly in the dust bowl era of the 1930s:
http://wattsupwit...-1479500

"We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s...."

"…the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005…."

"…The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming…."

"…The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades…."

"…the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005…."
runrig
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2013
.... show that Greenland was warming/melting more rapidly in the dust bowl era of the 1930s:

It may have been Nik:
The arctic is finely tuned to forcings - SST, Solar, pressure pattern/wind etc.

Note this correlation with BC (black carbon) deposition in Greenland ice giving an effective increase in insolation – against a melting period in the early 20th ct

http://www.ess.uc...ce07.pdf

"Pronounced increases in BC .. in .. Greenland ice cores extrapolate to a marked impact on early summer climate forcing throughout the Arctic during and after industrialization, with changes largely attributed to winter industrial BC emissions. The median in estimated surface forcingin early summer throughout the Arctic was 0.42 W m–2 prior to 1850, 1.13 Wm–2 during the period 1850-1951, and 0.59 W m–2 after 1951. During the 5yr period of max. industrial BC emissions from 1906-1910,est. surface forcing in the Arctic was 3.2 W m–2, about 8x ave early summer forcing prior to industrialization.
Maggnus
2.9 / 5 (21) Nov 22, 2013
clearly proves that today's temperatures are utterly unprecedented in 10K years!

Well no wonder you have to assemble lamps for a living! You should take a high-school course on word comprehension. The link you put up says clearly the Earth is warming faster than it has for the last 10,000 years, not that its warmer than it has been for the last 10000 years. Jeepers Nik, you'd think you'd tire of being caught constantly not understanding what you link to.
Maggnus
2 / 5 (16) Nov 22, 2013
Alas, commenter Jimbo presents abstracts of *many* mainstream referenced studies


So show the studies, you purveyor of denialism and filth.

Judging by the examples of your word comprehension as pointed out above, I bet they have been badly misquoted and misrepresented. Not because you mean to Nik, but because you don't have the education to understand the big words they use.
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (24) Nov 22, 2013
At last a study for which alarmists can't dismiss the Grrenland ice core temperature proxy, here amusingly plotted with the missing last century of real thermometer records added for comparison:
http://s6.postimg...mage.jpg

The data series plotted is called GISP2 and uses an oxygen isotope ratio proxy in which colder conditions increase the amount of heavy isotope water in snow that forms.

Indeed there is a huge perfectly natural (not coal plant soot!) monster spike 3K years ago that dwarfs today's spike, thus falsifying claims that warming is unprecedented, in rate or amount.
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (26) Nov 22, 2013
Maggnus The Magnificent, note that Marcott's hockey stick also shows it to be absolutely unprecedented in value, not just rate, but that even the authors themselves rescinded their own blade as being statistically meaningless, so in fact his bladeless input proxies falsify instead of support claims of any rate change, the proxies plotted from the paper being seen here:
http://postimg.or...zirjyjd/

Yet the likes of Mann promoted it to the Maddow show!

That.
Is.
Fraud.
Period.
End of Story.
Go Home.
You Lost.
You Stand Exposed.
Embarrassed.
Defeated.
Says Japan.
Says England.
Says China.
Says Australia.

-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
NikFromNYC
2.2 / 5 (25) Nov 22, 2013
Alarmist desperadoes clinging to radical Hockey Stick History revisionism seriously suggested that the name Greenland was mistranslated. Now *when* did the Vikings farm there and name the place? That would be for five hundred years, ending in 1200AD. Hey, let's look again at that ice core...LOOK, there is a big 800-1200AD warm peak there that abruptly ends exactly when they were frozen out.

"This is what science looks like!" - Motto of Occupy Phys.org.
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (24) Nov 22, 2013
runrig, do you receive retirement money from the formerly alarm crying Met Office that might be at risk if a public backlash occurs promoted by your UK prime minister's recent reported outburst about getting rid of all the "green crap" in response to pressure applied by the ascending and skeptical UKIP party, England's own Tea Party?
Maggnus
2.7 / 5 (16) Nov 22, 2013
amusingly plotted with the missing last century of real thermometer records added for comparison:
http://s6.postimg...mage.jpg


Hmmm:

http://thingsbrea...g/gisp2/
Maggnus
2.4 / 5 (17) Nov 22, 2013
Alarmist desperadoes clinging to radical Hockey Stick History revisionism seriously suggested that the name Greenland was mistranslated
They did? Where and when?
Seems to me don't have a clue what you are talking about:
The settlers named the island Greenland (Grænland in Old Norse and modern Icelandic, Grønland in modern Danish and Norwegian). Tradition has it that Erik the Red coined the name—in effect as a marketing device. In both the Book of Icelanders (Íslendingabók)--a medieval account of Icelandic history from the 12th century onward—and the Icelandic saga, The Saga of Eric the Red (Eiríks saga rauða)--a medieval account of his life and of the Norse settlement of Greenland—it is written, "He named the land Greenland, saying that people would be eager to go there if it had a good name."


NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (22) Nov 22, 2013
Ah, I see, the UK Met Office *does* call them "pensions" as well:

"It's never too early – or too late - to save for your future. Working with us, you'll automatically qualify to join our Nuvos pension scheme, part of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme. The scheme offers a defined benefit pension, recognised as one of the most generous occupational pensions on the market. As well as the pension, you'll be entitled to a range of other benefits through the scheme. Find out more at the Civil Service Pensions website."
http://careers.me...an-offer
Maggnus
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 22, 2013
AH good ole Nik the Denialist, casting aspersions because he doesn't understand the scientific arguments that disprove his drivel.

Not even his own drivel, he just mines quotes he thinks look smart from blogs, tries to pass them off as his own, and then laughably fails to show he can even explain them, not just defend them.

You're a wank Nik, runrig gave you the benefit of the doubt, and your response is to sink into innuendo and disparagement. Lowlife, denialist, pedophile. That sums you up.
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (24) Nov 22, 2013
Wow, Maggnus a blogger with recent deep history of deception made a *claim* of recent Greenland super warmth. I demolished that exact claim, personally, over on John Cook's Tree House Club site, years ago. Gosh, it's *so* impressively alarming, it's just a bit *odd* that the IPCC etc. and not even Al Gore have noted it!
http://www.skepti...tm#51703

Soon I was *banned* on trying to follow up.

I pointed out:
"This very misleading graphical debunking of Easterbrook fails to switch to the required anomaly scale instead of an absolute scale to deal with the mismatch between his chosen recent temperature reconstruction and the long ice core. He plots two 1855 temperatures instead of one. If you actually match up the 1855 temperatures, as any sincere effort would require, you get exactly what skeptics claim history is like: a just as hot MWP and a hotter Roman period."

Pure propaganda chartsmanship of the lunatic fringe!
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (23) Nov 22, 2013
As I tap this out lickety split on gleaming white iPhone in a doorman building prior to dining out on The Upper West Side, bemused at the psychologically projecting denial phase of doomsday cult meltdown, I plead with Maggnus to stop eating moldy old baked potatoes, for they obviously contain ergotamine:
http://s6.postimg...mage.jpg
Maggnus
2.1 / 5 (14) Nov 22, 2013
I demolished that exact claim, personally, over on John Cook's Tree House Club site, years ago.
What a laughingly ridiculous self ego stroke! You're delusional too I see.

You were shot down by doing there exactly what you do here - you cannot comprehend the explanations you are given, and you resort to restating what has already been shown to be false.

You were banned for doing exactly that. Your "follow up" is to repeat ad nauseum the exact same drivel as was shown to be false previously, then retreat into charges of oppression when it's pointed out. Typical denialist garbage.

You play at being a scientist without even a modicum of scientific understanding. A joke, a troll, a fraud and a pedophile.
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (22) Nov 22, 2013
Do you actually actually have *two* mouth frothing allies on Phys.org now, worried Met Office pensioner runrig? He doesn't sound like one of Vendicar(E)'s usual sockpuppets, you know, the old school Usenet troll, Scott Nudds, who adds to your every thread here along with upwards of a dozen sockpuppet ratings accounts that afforded you five stars until I began posting screenshots of profile Activity tabs. Your old armies are mostly dried up now, out on mainstream news sites, but boy were they effective, before Climategate and before Cook 's site was forever marred by scandalous fraud too easily made into an embarrassment.

Maggnus, this is the end, my friend.
Ride the Cook's highway, baby.
The end of laughter and soft lies.

Marcott 2013 was the shark jump. Mann promoted it so much and the authors themselves *burned* reporter Andy Revkin of The New York Times by describing his mere re-dating data drop off artifact as a "super hockey stick," and once you lose the NY Times....
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (22) Nov 22, 2013
I disemboweled the allied Tree House Club of Evangelical Christian "climate justice" activist John Cook and the official Hockey Stick Team in great effort here, that now stands as their comeuppance, an archive of their villainy, attached to their own crown of bullshit:
http://phys.org/n...705.html

My work is mostly done here, highly ranked on Google.
Lino235
1.6 / 5 (17) Nov 22, 2013
Vendicar:

Remember what I was saying about oceans and volcanic activity?
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (22) Nov 22, 2013
If Maggnus is Vendicar(E) Decarian, he has multiple personalities.

Oh.
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (20) Nov 22, 2013
Article: "It's a clue to what might happen in the future AS THE EARTH CONTINUES TO WARM."

Blogger Steven Goddard adds about the last nail to the coffin today, relying on actual space age satellite data:

"97% of scientists are 95% certain that the global warming which isn't happening, would be your fault – if it was happening.

In 2007, they were only 9o% certain that non-existent climate change was your fault. Another six years of spectacularly failed predictions has bumped up their certainly level to almost 100% percent."
Maggnus
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2013
Just more mouthing of the stuff other's write, combined with your usual accusations of conspiracy and oppression. Your laughable "work" is done here all right.

You're opinion of yourself far exceeds the opinion others hold for you. runrig is a reasoned, intelligent poster and gets support because he is decent and right. You, on the other hand, have no support, no education, no friends and no clue. Your spectacular run of 1's is evidence enough of how unspectacular your, yourself, are.

NikFromNYC
Nov 22, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (21) Nov 22, 2013
TODAY'S "Hockey Stick Wars" SKEPTICAL WINS:

(1) Maggnus = hoarder-house-on-Google-Earth old loser Usenet troll, Scott Nudds.

(2) runrig = vested interest.

(3) iPhone browser hack that turns Phys.org into a mere mirror blog of the mothership.

(4) Greenland Tree House Club *lie*, exposed.
Protoplasmix
2 / 5 (20) Nov 22, 2013
Nik, from usgs.gov:
Distinguishing Natural Climate Variability from Anthropogenic Climate Change: "There is general and widely held scientific consensus that the observed trends in atmospheric and ocean temperature, sea ice, glaciers and climate extremes during the last century cannot be explained solely by natural climate processes and so reflect human influences." See: http://www.usgs.g...mate.asp
Arctic Paleoclimatology: "…the causes of ongoing Arctic climate change remain unclear. In addition, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are approaching levels not seen in 3 million years. Thus there is a growing need to understand how the Arctic Ocean responds to climate change caused by both natural and anthropogenic factors." See: http://www.usgs.g...aleo.asp
The conspiracy widens?
Protoplasmix
2 / 5 (20) Nov 22, 2013
Nik, from usgs.gov:
Distinguishing Natural Climate Variability from Anthropogenic Climate Change: "There is general and widely held scientific consensus that the observed trends in atmospheric and ocean temperature, sea ice, glaciers and climate extremes during the last century cannot be explained solely by natural climate processes and so reflect human influences." See: http://www.usgs.g...mate.asp
Arctic Paleoclimatology: "…the causes of ongoing Arctic climate change remain unclear. In addition, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are approaching levels not seen in 3 million years. Thus there is a growing need to understand how the Arctic Ocean responds to climate change caused by both natural and anthropogenic factors." See: http://www.usgs.g...aleo.asp
The conspiracy widens? Nice hack, better that way than in 1000-character bits at a time.
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (19) Nov 22, 2013
Testing 123
Maggnus
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 22, 2013
ANd now Nik is hacking the site. Excellent, it was interesting knowing you.
Protoplasmix
2.1 / 5 (22) Nov 22, 2013
If brevity is the soul of wit, Nik, you're very nearly witless. HTML works fine for those with an open mind, a link would suffice. Unless you're giving up and trying to get banned. Chicanery does not advance your position. Pretty much the opposite.
goracle
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 23, 2013
If brevity is the soul of wit, Nik, you're very nearly witless. HTML works fine for those with an open mind, a link would suffice. Unless you're giving up and trying to get banned. Chicanery does not advance your position. Pretty much the opposite.

For some, chicanery is as close as they get to chicks. Not very close at all.
runrig
3 / 5 (12) Nov 23, 2013
You're a wank Nik, runrig gave you the benefit of the doubt, and your response is to sink into innuendo and disparagement.


That's actually true, I did. There was a glimmer there for a time.
No more my friend.
SteveS
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 23, 2013
Testing 123


Some of the symptoms of Nik's psychiatric disorder are: -

Inflexible cognitive thinking
Excessive talking
Insensitive
Argumentative and oppositional. May even seem to enjoy arguing.
Extreme moodiness.
Anger outbursts for little or no apparent reason.
Displays grandiose or "larger than life" thinking
Stuck in negative thoughts or behavior.
Has to have his/her own way.
Needs things to remain the same.

He's never going to admit he's mistaken on any important point, so there really is no point engaging with him. In fact responding to him will only make his condition worse.
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (22) Nov 23, 2013
goracle, I actually live in a girl's dorm, in a campus area with a near 3:1 favorable sex ratio. My monstrous apartment was grandfathered in when the building converted to a residence hall. You have no idea just how backwards your bizarre and desperate statement sounds to me. Doubly funny is that pudgy Gavin Schmidt is never seen in my area, though not twenty feet from Tom's Diner, the building he evidently works in, is a little Asian bubble tea shop open to 11:30PM every day, just teaming with playful chicks indeed, boppy dance music playing all night. For a decade I didn't even pay rent here, since my Ph.D. chemist freckle faced Korean girlfriend made so much money as a lawyer. It was an open relationship for the last seven of seventeen years, and I enjoyed her spare Google cafeteria deli sandwiches for the final two years of a pretty good gig. Vendicar(E) the stalker would be able to confirm this from my photo filled web site, but then he'd confirm my advanced degree too. Oh, NYC!
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (22) Nov 23, 2013
SteveS is in denial: "He's never going to admit he's mistaken on any important point, so there really is no point engaging with him."

...as runrig's own Met Office (that I spelled MET for months out of habit due to the nearby MET museum) just nuked computer models with its New Years projection update:
http://tallbloke....orecast/

But I'm just wrong about...something...polar bears or something!

But I'm failing to admit something?

Really?!

What?!

That I'm just "mistaken?"

About WHAT important points?!

You guys never say!
NikFromNYC
1.9 / 5 (22) Nov 23, 2013
...instead the only link offered relevant to Greenland was a bald face lie that plotted a temperature X mark in the dishonestly *wrong* place since Cook & Co. are propagandists, merely.

Shall I revisit this deception, here on my "blog"? It's quite a doozy. Actually I'll link to a *very* similar alarmosphere deception by statistical guru "scientist" Tamino, who turned the nearby island of England into an utter *scam* of a hockey stick:
http://s1.postimg...INAL.gif

In a single glance the *bad* *character* of Team Hockey Stick is undeniably revealed, for Phil Jones himself in the included Climategate quote says he is also relying on statistical *artifacts* to spoof the IPCC in the same "filter end effect" manner.

All you guys do is kvetch.

That's *why* I'm so talkative: exactly to drag you testy dupes out into the public square, evidently unaware of how ridiculous your empty insults appear as I post data plots!

You guys are acting exactly like scammers.
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (20) Nov 23, 2013
This site is an unbelievable end game bonus, since most readers obviously don't have actual accounts, obvious because the site has very high traffic, higher than even WattsUpWithThat.com, but only a dozen regulars post much (plus a dozen alarmist fake ratings accounts). So I post relevant content and infographics, that a layperson may find curious at least, but then a team of utter imbeciles harp on my character and call me crazy, publicly, for all to see. And *that* terrible behavior is the exact pivot point in the biography of nearly every regular WUWT reader, so you utter clowns have turned my iPhone work here into a real skeptic minting machine, thanks! Because you are in cult melt down denial, you can't even help
yourselves, so I'm perfectly safe advising you, which will only cause *more* bile spewing, if the past is still any guide. The reasonable people have already changed their minds, yet even the mere steady damage controller$ like runrig still *support* Marcott/Mann/etc.!
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 23, 2013
...these activist types (and terrified climate outfit pensioners) won't even *admit* that recent warming corresponded to a MASSIVE revision of well established science about temperature history via the Hockey Stick! When you *call* them on it, instead of clearing things up to restore integrity to the field, they move the goalpost and say the past doesn't *matter* because CLIMATE MODELS, you see! But the past very much *does* matter since their claim to fame is 2013 IPCC 95% "certainty" level that most recent warming *cannot* be natural, using a mere ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE based on a lack of any good grasp of climate fluctuations on decade and century timescales.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (19) Nov 23, 2013
DIY Cult Deprogramming:

"Watch out for self-deceptive ego games. For example, in some cults or religions, they will flatter you and tell you that you are very important, and involved in very important work, doing the Will of the Lord, ushering in the Millennium, saving the world, if you believe what they say and do what they say. But if you buy into their game, it is you who is allowing yourself to be deceived, and it's you who is enjoying the big ego game."

"If the leader and his religion are saving the world, and I follow the leader, then I am saving the world, which makes me very good and very important."

"Conversely, if someone criticizes the cult, its leader, or its teachings, then that reflects badly on the member. If the cult member believes the criticisms to be true, then he will go from being a noble savior of the world to being just a foolish follower of an evil charlatan. So the member has a vested interest in rejecting any criticism of the group or its leader — all based on his own egotism. Thus he will resist learning the truth, out of purely selfish interests."
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (20) Nov 23, 2013
DIY Cult Deprogramming:

"Carl Sagan, in his book The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, told the story of how the TV program 60 Minutes in Australia performed a funny candid-camera kind of experiment where they manufactured a phony guru and then foisted him on the public for a few weeks, to see how gullible the public was. The experiment was a great success (if you look at it that way) because nobody, not even the press or other TV news organizations, even bothered to check out the charlatan's false credentials and fake credits. Everybody just swallowed it all, hook, line, and sinker. And the most outrageous part was the fact that, after 60 Minutes and even the phony guru himself explained to the public that it had all been a hoax, just a test of gullibility, some people still said to the phony guru, "We don't care what they say about you. We still believe in you." Some people will do just about anything to avoid admitting that they have been fooled — even continue to be fooled. It seems like, once you get those people committed to the hoax, you've really got them."

"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." - Carl Sagan

"In his classic study of con men, David Maurer tells us the same thing:
A mark, once hooked, is often most difficult to "unhook." If the operators once get his confidence completely, he is so sure of the deal in which he is involved that he will not listen to reasonable advice even if it is given to him.
The Big Con: The Story of the Con Man, David W. Maurer, page 128."
Protoplasmix
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 23, 2013
So "atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are approaching levels not seen in 3 million years" is not relevant to Greenland or climate change in general, and "general and widely held scientific consensus" is a reference to a cult, and scientists at the USGS are all cult members. Okaaaaaay.

The moniker of 'whackjob' usually isn't applied for no reason. No sir/ma'am, it is earned.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 23, 2013
Protoplasmix, no working government scientist is left who dares speak out, given that Al Gore, Obama, and the likes of the head of the department of the interior all loudly refer to any and all criticism as "denial" and critics as "deniers". The cult aspect lies in a layperson Gaian religion that has so many parallels with old school doomsday Christianity as to be quite amusing and it has fully invaded the multimillion dollar environmental movement empire, you know the *one* directly responsible for our high emissions non-nuclear era. Unlike government scientists, now many mere academics are speaking out.

Near exact precedent also exists is a massive contemporary backlash in mainstream medicine is now occurring against the Mann/Hansen of his day, Ancel Keys, who used the political process to bully his junk science theory straight into a brand new single bullet theory solution to heart disease, of dietary fat/cholesterol. It was nearly 180° backwards! Yet decades of confident doctors loudly promoted the resulting upside down Food Pyramid.

In that case, no, no cult aspect at all attached to the junk science, nor really that much scammy sociopathy, but today with the latest single bullet theory, oh *yes* it does.

Mankind is creating vast numbers of three million year unprecedented changes to the planet, and this one seems to be a damn good one that will offset the damaging ones by greening the whole planet, oceans included. The rate of change is a bit frightening though, something caused by the intractable anti-nuclear/fracking attitude of Greenpeace & Friends.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 23, 2013
Protoplasmix, my take on the emissions boost is that Earth is obviously self-selected by fact of its biological survival throughout billions of years of drama as a place that out of billions of planets, enjoys stasis-affording *negative* feedbacks, so more emissions that indeed likely cause a textbook greenhouse effect, might even cool the planet by inducing continuously more clouds that reflect broadband sunlight, even as more mere thin band UV is absorbed. This is the real Gaia hypothesis, in hand waving, highly speculative form, so sorry, no links.

If there is significant overall negative feedback instead of positive, as satellite temperature data seems to indicate, and indeed as you reveal: *very* high CO₂ a few million years ago, which is a mere sliver of geological time (!), and there was a vast jungle of monster movie worthy gigantic beasts, well, emergency is called off. Dinosaurs died out sixty-five million years ago, so your mere three million years is indeed just a sliver.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 23, 2013
Protoplasmix, a positive feedback does exist though, socially, since the massively fad loving media utterly feeds on the bonanza of climate doom headlines, and because of a 100+ million dollar a year PR campaign (Gore, Hewlett Foundation, TedTurner/UN, Greenpeace, etc.) exactly pointed at demonizing skeptics, doom spirals up into a frenzy of self-righteous indignation that turns mere weak-egoed collectivists into an army of voter-organizing grand Inquisitors.

Insert NAZI analogy here, not even embarrassingly, given that the main alarmist digest, SkepticalScience.com revealed Photoshopped NAZI soldier photos with the faces of the site organizers added, with site logos as insignia (!):
http://jonova.s3....-sml.gif

And liberals keep digging deeper!

Here, they blow up school kids: http://youtu.be/FS5CH-Xc0co
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 23, 2013
The liberal bastion site, The Huffington Post, at their German language site, today concludes with: "Climate warming has become a religion. Those belonging to it do not tolerate new findings," upon finding that:

"Evaluated data from the Austrian ZAMG meteorological institute now unmistakably show that the Alps have been cooling over the last 20 years and longer, "at some places massively" thus crassly contradicting all the loud claims, projections, and model sceanrios made earlier by global warming scientists."

"Jung then informs readers that he asked the Austrian meteorological experts on site what they thought of the results. According to Jung, the reaction was either dead silence induced by shock, or attempts to downplay the results."

http://notrickszo...decades/
goracle
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 23, 2013
The liberal bastion site, The Huffington Post, at their German language site, today concludes with: "Climate warming has become a religion. Those belonging to it do not tolerate new findings," upon finding that:

"Evaluated data from the Austrian ZAMG meteorological institute now unmistakably show that the Alps have been cooling over the last 20 years and longer, "at some places massively" thus crassly contradicting all the loud claims, projections, and model sceanrios made earlier by global warming scientists."

"Jung then informs readers that he asked the Austrian meteorological experts on site what they thought of the results. According to Jung, the reaction was either dead silence induced by shock, or attempts to downplay the results."

http://notrickszo...decades/

The Alps are not the world.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 23, 2013
goracle, the Alps sure would be the world if your guru could cherry pick it! They even lied about polar bears dying out and the IPCC created their own cherry pick by conveniently flipping the digits by 300 years of the Himalayan glacier loss prediction.

Dude, when you've lost the NY Times (Revkin is *pissed* about the fake Marcott 2013 "super hockey stick") and the HuffPost, the fat lady has sung.
_ilbud
3.5 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2013
Clearly unbalanced paranoid Nik is another Alex Jones watching dunce frightened of education and terrified by facts.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 23, 2013
_Ilbud, I loved Alex Jones' conspiratorial paranoid rant about dimethyltryptamine machine elves, having enjoyed Terrence McKenna's books immensely but it was a shame McKenna was a "heroic dose" hypocrite for years after one bad trip, and his Timewave Zero program was pure quackery.

-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in synthetic carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard), formerly -=Xenon=- of the Macintosh Cryptography Interface Project of 1993/1994, a Usenet-organized GUI for PGP back when Congress threatened to install hardware backdoors (Clipper Chips) in all PCs, unsuccessfully.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 23, 2013
Speaking of Alex Jones' paranoia, in an infographic debunking the NOAA's misleading chartsmanship treatment of their global average temperature data set, I included a battle cry for skeptics, from good old folk hero Tim Leary, who had a lot more fun at Harvard's divinity school than Al Gore did! I *don't* think Alex Jones would approve:
http://s16.postim...mage.jpg

Also Leary's, "Think for yourself and question authority!" comes to mind, something severely lacking in government sponsored consensus "science."
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2013
Oh, "not-the-world"-goracle? Yeah, Greenland, too.

2004 Study: "Global Warming And The Greenland Ice Sheet"

"Since 1940, however, the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend. At the summit of the Greenland ice sheet the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2°C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987. This suggests that the Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend."
[Reference: http://folk.uib.n...ox04.pdf ]
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2013
In 1942 a squadron oh P-38 fighter planes ran out of fuel over Greenland, pilots rescued, but planes were only rescued in 1992 under a whopping 250 feet of new ice:
http://cdn.damnin...x331.jpg
http://creation.c...st01.gif
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2013
Typical Greenland radar station, being buried:

(A) 1972: http://icecap.us/...1972.JPG

(B) 2006: http://icecap.us/...2006.JPG
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2013
Alarming news from 1951: "Greenland's ice is melting and the ruins of mediaeval farm-houses hidden by ice for centuries have already been exposed."
[Newspaper: http://trove.nla....hLimits= ]

Did coal plants exist in the Dark Ages?
VendicarE
2.4 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2013
Little girls were molested in the dark ages.

Hence NikkieTard couldn't have been arrested a few years ago for child molestation since he didn't exist in the dark ages.

Did NikkieTard exist in the dark ages?

VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2013
"In 1942 a squadron oh P-38 fighter planes ran out of fuel over Greenland, pilots rescued, but planes were only rescued in 1992 under a whopping 250 feet of new ice:" - NikkieTard

Wow.. At that rate the Greenland ice sheet will reach outer space in 50,000 years.

What prevented it from reaching space over the last 50,000 years, Tardieboy?

VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (7) Nov 24, 2013
"the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend" - NikkieTard

Sorry Tardieboy, but your source is a few years out of date...

http://www.worldc...fig1.JPG

Box, J.E., L. Yang, D.H. Bromwich, L.-S. Bai. 2009. Greenland ice sheet surface air temperature variability: 1840–2007. Journal of Climate, 22, 4029-4049.

http://journals.a...LI2816.1
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 24, 2013
...but a strong correlation with CO₂ is just not there, as Vendicar(E)'s reference in effect predicts future cooling again:

"With the exception of major volcanic eruptions, cooling caused by a negative phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and/or NAO (Hanna and Cappelen 2003) and strong decreases in solar output are the only potential regional climate trends (Keenlyside et al. 2008) we are aware of to moderate Greenland deglaciation."

...as the AMO indeed turns to a long cooling phase (my Tim Leary quote graphic above), the sun since the article was written suddenly shows the lowest enexpected activity cycle ever recorded, and volcanoes always continue to do their thing, thus breaking further the claimed control of climate by a highly hypothetical *amplified* greenhouse effect hidden in climate models. Once that amplification is falsified, alarm is called off as mere mild warming is widely agreed to be highly beneficial to the biosphere, as is plant and algae loved CO₂.

V: "What prevented it from reaching space over the last 50,000 years?"

Ice flow.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2013
I've used Vendicar(E)'s updated temperature plot to explain the folly of the alarmist argument:
http://s7.postimg..._CO2.jpg

His image link is to a skeptical blog, World Climate Report. Hmmm....
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 24, 2013
Indeed World Climate Report finds in the paper abstract: "The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming."
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2013
The oldest real thermometer record for Greenland is Ilulissat (formerly Jakobshavn) on the southwest coast which shows utter disregard for CO₂, as the TREND REMAINS THE SAME, overall:
http://s24.postim...cord.jpg

"If a straight line fits, you must acquit!" - Lawyer For CO₂

It's a pretty little town:
http://s9.postimg...Town.jpg

NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2013
Wolfram Alpha gives Illulissat a STEADY AND HOLDING temperature trend of a decidedly unalarming 0.54 degrees C per century since 1945:
http://s23.postim..._TTT.jpg

"The coast, the coast, the coast is roasted toast." - Greenpeace & Co. Eggs And Ham
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2013
Nearby Iceland *agrees* with Greenland, and it's oldest thermometer station at Stykkisholmur goes way back to 1830:
http://s13.postim...land.jpg

"If a straight line fits, you must acquit!" - Lawyer For CO₂

Alas for Merchants Of Doom, the line that fits since 1945 is a cooling one, 0.51 degrees C per century:
http://s7.postimg...TEmp.jpg

*This* is how you become a skeptic. You *look* at local data for claims and always seem to find the same old boring story!

Not quite as pretty of a town, but nearby are crystal faced cliffs:
http://s23.postim..._100.jpg

Hey, those look like the ones featured in a Terrence McKenna book I read in high school that I still fondly have. Let's go look...page 194 of The Archaic Revival:
http://s2.postimg...ival.jpg

No, those are illustrations from a mystical old novel.

Yo, hippie cred! I guess the Alec Jones slur doesn't stick to well eh, _ilbud the bigot?
SteveS
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2013
-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in synthetic carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)


Also convicted of armed assault in Massachusetts and a sufferer of the psychiatric disorder Type 6 ADD.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2013
Type 6 ADD is not a disorder, SteveS, it's the type of genius, meaning the whole brain is more active than usual. That's why I'm so damn good at this online skepticism stuff, and am smart enough to have earned the free time I need to carry it out, as very much indicated by the dozens of hate speech items that attach to long threads here, all designed to desperately try to shut me up since Climatology and its vested interests want a soft landing now that the scam is mostly over, but since you insulted about 30,000 of us regular WattsUpWithThat.com readers, we will now spend decades making sure you get your comeuppance. as your stalking today adds to the motivation for achieving. What your above psychoanalyzing translates to is that I happen to be passionately brilliant. Thanks!

Your own vibe embodies bile, envy and desperation. In other words, boilerplate Gorebot bullshit, running scared, freaking out, and lashing out. You think I'm crazy since playful fun alienates you, I imagine.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 24, 2013
As I quoted Vendicar(E), my other (or same?) stalker, his own link abstract that: "strong decreases in solar output are the only potential regional climate trends (Keenlyside et al. 2008) we are aware of to moderate Greenland deglaciation," by wonderful coincidence *arrives* on Phys.org on the hour!:

"Calm solar cycle prompts questions about impact on Earth"
http://phys.org/n...rth.html

"Some researchers speculate this could be the start of a prolonged period of weak solar activity. / The last time that happened, during the so-called "Maunder Minimum" between 1650 and 1715, almost no sunspots were observed. During the same period, temperatures dropped sharply on Earth, sparking what is called the "Little Ice Age" in Europe and North America."

I see it now:
http://glossynews...ing1.jpg

BTW, Stevicar(E), most entrepreneurs have the same hunter-instead-of-farmer temperament "disorder," asshole.
Egleton
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2013
Skip.
Protoplasmix
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2013
… my take on the emissions boost is that Earth is obviously self-selected by fact of its biological survival throughout billions of years of drama as a place that out of billions of planets, enjoys stasis-affording *negative* feedbacks, so more emissions that indeed likely cause a textbook greenhouse effect, might even cool the planet by inducing continuously more clouds that reflect broadband sunlight, even as more mere thin band UV is absorbed. This is the real Gaia hypothesis, in hand waving, highly speculative form, so sorry, no links.

Interesting. So why was there so much less controversy over sulfur emissions (as opposed to now with CO2 emissions), and what was the negative feedback in that case?
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2013
"So why was there so much less controversy over sulfur emissions" - Protoplasmix

It is entirely because the Internet wasn't as available, and the Lying Denialists didn't have such an open forum available to them to help them spread their campaign of lies.

The same people were players though. Robert Maduro - who leads the denialist bandwagon in Washington was using the same underhanded propaganda tactics against the acid rain problem. And the Idzo family were there producing their anti-science propaganda pieces claiming that there was no such thing as acid rain.

And of course all of the Libertarian stink tanks, including the Heritage foundation were writing propaganda pieces claiming it was all a socialist scam to steal the money of hard working Americans - and usher in an era of global socialism.

Same shit, same people, just a different topic. They did the exact same thing - the same people in many instances - in their fight against the scientific link between smoking and cancer
adam_russell_9615
1.5 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2013
This may be semi-OT, but I have to wonder how the earth EVER balances the inflow and outflow of heat. The sun throws down much heat energy onto the earth every day, but how does the earth get rid of an equal amount? The rate of radiation of heat energy from a hot body is very low at these temperatures. I havent done the math but I dont think the earth can radiate that much energy to balance what is coming in. Surely the amount of conduction and convection into space is even less. It must balance some way, but where does it go?
VendicarE
2.9 / 5 (8) Nov 24, 2013
And of course the same denialists - same people - were also claiming that there was no such thing as ozone depletion, that the earth's resources were infinite and oil prices would never rise above $30 a barrel.

They insisted that gold, copper, silver etc, prices would decline because the metals were becoming more abundant.

They argued that Borrowing trillions of dollars was not bankrupting the American economy.

They argued that unregulated Capitalism was the solution to every problem.

Many claimed that banning CFC's was going to halt computer production, destroy the global economy and kill 1/3rd of the human population.

And of course right after making those claims, they referred to real scientists as "alarmists".

All Conservatives, Libertarians and Randites of course and all of them liars.

Filth.

VendicarE
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2013
"The sun throws down much heat energy onto the earth every day, but how does the earth get rid of an equal amount?" - Adam

sigma = k*T**4

The positive non-linearity means that a small change in temperature will compensate for a large percentage change in input energy.

As a result - in terms of raw energy flow without considering energy storage, albedo effects, etc. - temperature is immune to small changes in energy influx.
VendicarE
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2013
"strong decreases in solar output are the only potential regional climate trends (Keenlyside et al. 2008) we are aware of to moderate Greenland deglaciation," - Quotes NikkieTard

In other words, reductions in solar output are the only way those scientists see to stop the Greenland Ice Cap from Melting.

Quite a change of story from his earlier claim that the Greenland ice cap and glacier terminus were cooling.

Poor NikkieTard. His mouth just don't knowd what his brain done be thinked.

VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2013
"Type 6 ADD is not a disorder" - NikkieTard

Is that why you make desk lamps for a living and claim to have a PHD?

Take your Ritalin TardieBoy.....
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2013
"You think I'm crazy since playful fun alienates you, I imagine." - NikkieTard

Is that what happened in that JC-Penny that got you arrested?

Playful fun.

She didn't think it was fun did she?

VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2013
"Nearby Iceland *agrees* with Greenland, and it's oldest thermometer station at Stykkisholmur goes way back to 1830:" - NikkieTard

You plot shows a warming trend of 0.6'C per century. Yet your previous claim about Greenland was that it was cooling - in opposition to the trend in Iceland.

Yet you now claim that the trends are in agreement.

I take this - your latest self contradiction - to be further evidence of your mental illness.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2013
Emperor Vendicar(E)'s death threat collection:
http://s11.postim...eats.gif

Comments like these are exactly how skeptics won over whole political parties, and is now whole nations (Japan, China, Canada, England):
"All Conservatives, Libertarians and Randites of course and all of them liars."

Gorebots panicked after Climategate, making it much easier for even us goofy satirical skeptics to seem mainstream in comparison, because we are so.

Ozone, gold, oil? No opinion. No massive fraud detected. Debt? That's liberalism. Whatever, back and forth politics sways, and political persuasion is heritable too, so why fret?
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2013
"Also convicted of armed assault in Massachusetts and a sufferer of the psychiatric disorder Type 6 ADD." - SteveS

Yup.

NikkieTard has also been arrested in Minnesota
VendicarE
3.2 / 5 (5) Nov 24, 2013
"Alas for Merchants Of Doom, the line that fits since 1945 is a cooling one, 0.51 degrees C per century:" - NikkieTard

Yet according to NikkieTard's own link - repeated here ...

http://s23.postim..._TTT.jpg

The trend is a positive one (not negative), of 0.54'C per century, with an error of +-1.85'C per century.

Poor TardieBoy. Not only has his mental disease taken away his ability to read graphs, but he has also forgotten what error terms mean.

Perhaps we now know why he still lives in University Subsidized housing and makes desk lamps for a living.

PHD? Bahahahahahahahahahah.........

NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 24, 2013
V, you transposed my links, I assume accidentally. The one posted after your quote indeed shows cooling:
http://s7.postimg...TEmp.jpg

...but I forgot to switch to Metric, so it's of an insignificant value. I'll start considering error bars as soon as Al Gore does too.

The point being, headlines lie, and emissions are not controlling climate as claimed, only acting as a mild helper of the biosphere.

I believe the troll works as a janitor, which is a useful enough job for one to support a spare time hobby with, but what a hobby he turned his life into, all ego-attached to the weather! Are his "Bahaha"s sincere? Mine are. You know, the type that are *good* for your heart, not devestating. Rageaholism kills, as do anti-cholesterol pills.
Protoplasmix
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 24, 2013
And of course the same denialists - same people - were also claiming that there was no such thing as ozone depletion, that the earth's resources were infinite and oil prices would never rise above $30 a barrel.

Hmm, it looks like they were saying "the earth is too big to fail" quite some time before applying that rationale to the failed-n-bailed banks. And look who hijacked the motto of the un-misinformed:
"This is what science looks like!" - Motto of Occupy Phys.org.
-NikFromNYC
goracle
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2013
And of course the same denialists - same people - were also claiming that there was no such thing as ozone depletion, that the earth's resources were infinite and oil prices would never rise above $30 a barrel.

Hmm, it looks like they were saying "the earth is too big to fail" quite some time before applying that rationale to the failed-n-bailed banks. And look who hijacked the motto of the un-misinformed:
"This is what science looks like!" - Motto of Occupy Phys.org.
-NikFromNYC

Swiftly voted down by the Nikolaus sockpuppet account.
goracle
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 24, 2013
This segment of the November 23rd Quirks & Quarks (CBC) episode covers Arctic sea ice loss as recorded in algae. http://www.cbc.ca...0038425/
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2013
"The one posted after your quote indeed shows cooling:" - NikkieTard

And yet the Greenland link you provides shows warming. Contrary to your claim that that one confirms the trend of the other.

How long have you been of the belief that changing the viewing order of a graph alters it's slope?

Was it before you developed your mental illness or after?

VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2013
"I believe the troll works as a janitor" - NikkieTard

Why not, you believe many unreal things.

No doubt you hear voices in your head as well.

NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (15) Nov 25, 2013
I understand the psychology of natural climate change denial better now that the merely normal but misinformed and unfortunate dupes of a budding Gaian religious craze that injected itself into science have woken up to it and have quietly moved on to other things, leaving behind a fake crowd of anonymous sockpuppets, commanded by the myriad misfits who still haunt the alarmosphere orbiter blogs of WattsUpWithThat.com. Oh! the *allure* of a pre-packaged, PR firm informed AstoTurf campaign of pure good versus evil dehumanization of dissent and resulting big green halo it afforded them, these miserable malcontents. A chance to be publicly superior (Gore *says* so!) to mostly well behaved and highly educated science and engineering folk who cried fowl. And when Republicans got on board in 2010 after Climategate, the panic of it and damage control frenzy became their suddenly epic human cause, back before the big money got out from the PR campaign, leaving only the lowly sex guru led IPCC.
EnricM
1.8 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2013
...IPCC


One question, I know you have the answer: Wasn't the ice sheet INCREASING? Or was it shrinking? Well, we all know the evil powers of Dr. NO and Spectra are able of doing both things at the same time, but could you explain it a bit? I am very interested in your story but I missed the chapter when the Climate Nazis from the dark side of the Moon invaded your living room and you had to pray them back to hell with the help of Ninja-Jesus.
Could you repost it please?

And if it's not too much asking: Who is going to play your role in the movie? Any teasers yet?
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (14) Nov 25, 2013
EnricM wants a repost? The IPCC chairman's novel is here:

"I haven't yet reached the stage of wanting to make love to a buffalo. Frankly, every time she reminded me that I should shower her with kisses, I felt like showering her with pisses. I would have invited all of you to join in and help out."

"As soon as the act was over, she rushed to the bathroom and spent twenty minutes douching herself thoroughly."

"She merely said that she kept small pieces of sponge, which she promptly inserted whenever she and Amar were ready to make love."

"Even though the deity before which he stood was shaped so authentically like the vagina, he no longer questioned why people coming here to worship and to pay homage did not feel embarrassed. So true to life was the whole construct and ambience of the stone carving depicting the vagina that it was kept constantly moist by the waters of a permanent underground spring."

"She held back nothing, telling him about Jolly's sexual perversion."
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (15) Nov 25, 2013
EnricM asks: "Wasn't the ice sheet INCREASING? Or was it shrinking?"

Duh, dude, it's basic physics. The interior stays below freezing all year, except for a few hours in a year, so in a warming world greater humidity from a warmer ocean both creates more snow (and thus interior growth) and more coastal melting, and overall as ever there is ice mass loss in Greenland due to coastal decay. Half of that is taken back up in Antarctica which is gaining mass. This is all from simple surface altimeter measurements by the IceSat satellite:

"During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry."

Some studies claim Antarctic loss, oddly against this.
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (15) Nov 25, 2013
EnricM scoffs: "...Climate Nazis from the dark side of the Moon..."

(A) Alarmists *indeed* envision *themselves* as Nazis, as seen in the collection of carefully Photoshopped NAZI photos that included the faces of partners of the major alarmist site SkepticalScience.com:
http://wattsupwit...w-level/

(B) Actual science majors who really walked on the Moon are some of the most outspoken skeptics:
http://a2.img.mob...arge.jpg

(C) "...back to hell with the help of Ninja-Jesus..."
I'm an atheist, a closet trippy hippy at best, back in college.

(D) "...we all know the evil powers of Dr. NO and Spectra are able of doing both things at the same time..."
WFT, dude, you're spazzing out man, as Michael Mann points to a Koch *conspiracy* for my posts here!
http://wattsupwit...for2.png

COULD YOU POSSIBLY BE MORE BACKWARDS, DOUCHEBAG?!
Protoplasmix
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 25, 2013
Re "(B) Actual science majors who walked on the moon…"
So:
Buzz thinks the planet is warming, attributes the warming to natural process.
Walter also thinks the planet's warming, only slightly so, and thinks it's not unusual.
Harrison admits planet has warmed since last ice age, not due to human activity.
Philip thinks the global temperature is falling 'precipitously', suggests we should remove our blinkers [blinders?] and give some thought to preparing for the next ice age.
Burt mentions unlikelihood of terraforming and says CO2 has been good for increasing crop yields and forest growth.

Actually, Harrison [Schmitt] has also said the CO2 scare is red herring, that the increased CO2 increases agricultural productivity, and is being used as a tool to increase government control over energy production and over the people, their income and decisions.

There's quite a difference between science and Republican groupthink, don't you think?
Urgelt
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2013
It's delusional to think that the consensus in the science of climatology will be driven by comments on this or any journalistic article. Or on blogs.

Paid propagandists for the fossil fuel industry know better. Their comments are the equivalent of drive-by shootings: short, violent untruths, over quickly. It's only the mentally ill, the paranoids schizophrenics, the ones who hear voices, those existing in a fantasy landscape in their own minds, who feel the urge to bloviate at such length.

Nik is under the impression that a PhD in a different field qualifies him to overrule climatologists in their field. Of course he's correct. Science doesn't rely on authority, it relies on evidence. But to get his evidence to be taken seriously, to get his conclusions accepted into the scientific consensus, he must pass peer review. His qualifications do not matter. His evidence does.

Nothing he has would pass peer review. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't pass a psychological review, either.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2013
(A) I detest Republicans for their attacks on Darwinism, neuroscience (Drug War red tape), and stem cells.

(B) What I post is usually already peer reviewed, references included.

(C) I periodically post content as blatant proof that no oil company or think tank would pay me to do this: a porn banner image hosting site for an infographic, an iPhone selfie of my middle finger, and curse lines.

(D) I provide tidbits of *mainstream* climate skepticism, not personal maverick or crackpot ideation.

(E) Having empirical/laboratory doctoral and postdoctoral training from top universities allows me very much indeed to professionally judge any other field of science to asses possible corruption of the scientific *method* and whether peer review is healthy too.

(F) You hilariously attach contradictory claims to me of paid lobbying versus mental derangement.

(G) If you (and Mike Mann) can't get the basics right on a long time regular here, have we any confidence in your overall competency?
NikFromNYC
1 / 5 (12) Nov 26, 2013
Protoplasmix prattles on about something or another, not drawing a properly strong distinction between non-existent Republican denial of overall warming and Democratic denial of both significant natural climate change and that the recent pause or reversal of warming now being long enough to falsify climate models and thus falsify the case for climate alarm.

Both Protoplasmix and UrgeIt are in denial of the very nature of the debate: climate model alarm relies on highly speculative positive feedback *amplification* of the classic greenhouse effect, which nobody disagrees is not indeed the case, but skeptics question this *amplification*, merely, and that is the ONLY core argument of seasoned and professional skepticism, something Al Gore sends these Gorebots out to cover up.
Protoplasmix
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 26, 2013
Nik, our effect on the environment can be profound and changes made to standard industrial practices as a result are well known, and heretofore not terribly controversial. Those resisting the changes have always expressed the same skepticism. Do you think that the environment is a part of the climate, or do you think that the climate is part of the environment? Either way, at the current level of global industrialization, why would anyone think we can have a profound effect on the environment but that the climate is somehow immune or 'merely' actually possibly beneficially enhanced?

True/False?: Plants interact with the atmosphere in one direction during the day, and in the opposite direction during the night. They obtain nutrients from the ground via roots, not from the air.
triplehelix
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2013
"What's really interesting about this is that on land, the atmosphere was warmest between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago, maybe as late as 4,000 years ago. The oceans, on the other hand, were warmest between 5-3,000 years ago,"

It's called a time lag because the oceans are huge.

Must have been 7 billion humans with industry 7000 years ago, afterall, there's no way the slight warming we do see is natural.

runrig
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2013
"What's really interesting about this is that on land, the atmosphere was warmest between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago, maybe as late as 4,000 years ago. The oceans, on the other hand, were warmest between 5-3,000 years ago,"

It's called a time lag because the oceans are huge.

Must have been 7 billion humans with industry 7000 years ago, afterall, there's no way the slight warming we do see is natural.


Again a basic missed by a *skeptic* (willfully?)

Try looking up "Milankovich cycles:
http://en.wikiped..._optimum

"The effect would have had maximum Northern Hemisphere heating 9,000 years ago when axial tilt was 24° and nearest approach to the Sun (perihelion) was during boreal summer. The calculated Milankovitch Forcing would have provided 8% more solar radiation (+40 W/m2) to the Northern Hemisphere in summer, tending to cause greater heating at that time."
triplehelix
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2013
Runrig,

Funny, because

1. Every time I have mentioned the sun is the main contributor towards Global Warming, your 2nd accounts downvote me and I am told I am stupid and that solar increases don't cause significant warming. But when it's for your side of the argument it's fine, and

2. The point is, atmosphere and oceanic temperatures LAGGED. The milankovich cycles may show why warming occurred, but their is a definite lag, by a good couple of millenia.

It is why I find it hilarious when climate scientists use todays oceanic conditions to somehow marry up with recent years events. We won't be seeing the effects for ages.
runrig
3.3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2013
Runrig,
1. Every time I have mentioned the sun is the main contributor towards Global Warming, your 2nd accounts downvote me and I am told I am stupid and that solar increases don't cause significant warming. But when it's for your side of the argument it's fine, and

2. The point is, atmosphere and oceanic temperatures LAGGED. The milankovich cycles may show why warming occurred, but their is a definite lag, by a good couple of millenia.


We're talking of anthro climate forcings - so where does a Milankovitch cycle come into that during the last 150 years? there's only been a 0.1-0.2% variation in solar during the period of AGW .
Of course temperatures lagged - the ice needs to melt; the oceans warm and circulate such that CO2 is released and feeds-back further warming. BTW the lag is closer to 1000yrs

PS I have no "2nd accounts" - cant you tell by the literary style?
triplehelix
1 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2013
snip


We're talking of anthro climate forcings - so where does a Milankovitch cycle come into that during the last 150 years? there's only been a 0.1-0.2% variation in solar during the period of AGW .
Of course temperatures lagged - the ice needs to melt; the oceans warm and circulate such that CO2 is released and feeds-back further warming. BTW the lag is closer to 1000yrs

PS I have no "2nd accounts" - cant you tell by the literary style?


So when I discuss the sun, you're allowed to bring up milankovich cycles. When I bring milankovich cycles into the equation to show you're wrong or mis-read what I wrote, you suddenly state Milankovich cycles aren't part of the question.

So again, I am seeing constantly across this site. When things agree with your "theory", it's fine. When it is used to show your "theory" to be sketchy, it is suddenly redundant.

You do realise that is TEXTBOOK religious thinking right?
triplehelix
1 / 5 (10) Nov 28, 2013


PS I have no "2nd accounts" - cant you tell by the literary style?


Should be P.S. Fairly picky but the - should also be a ;. can't has an apostraphe.

I usually wouldn't do that, but you're the one bringing up literary superiority (or attempting to) into this, so right back at ya (that's slang, I know it is "you").
triplehelix
1 / 5 (11) Nov 28, 2013
Oh I see the double accounts are going round 1 voting me again. And also 1 voting anything I say on physorg even if it isn't about climate, in fact when it's in fields I specialise in.

Where else does this kind of downvoting occur. Oh right yeah. I was once a member of an evolution forum, and the amount of religious lurkers who would downvote all discussion about evolution being true.

Religion. Religion, you are all believers of a religion.
Zephir_fan
Nov 28, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
triplehelix
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2013
Yes Zephir I am talking to you. I can even see the speed you do it. Considering I usually use on average 750 character per response, and I had made 6 or 7 or so last evening, and while F5'ing these environmental pages, managed to see 1/5 on all 6-7 of them within 30 seconds.

You sure do read fast. OR, you're a troll, who just finds usernames who you don't agree with ONCE, and downvote them forever more, in any subject field without reading the content.

triplehelix
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2013
Yes Zephir I am talking to you. I can even see the speed you do it. Considering I usually use on average 750 character per response, and I had made 6 or 7 or so last evening, and while F5'ing these environmental pages, managed to see 1/5 on all 6-7 of them within 30 seconds.

You sure do read fast. OR, you're a troll, who just finds usernames who you don't agree with ONCE, and downvote them forever more, in any subject field without reading the content.

Zephir_fan
Nov 29, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
runrig
3 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2013
So when I discuss the sun, you're allowed to bring up milankovich cycles. When I bring milankovich cycles into the equation to show you're wrong or mis-read what I wrote, you suddenly state Milankovich cycles aren't part of the question.
So again, I am seeing constantly across this site. When things agree with your "theory", it's fine. When it is used to show your "theory" to be sketchy, it is suddenly redundant.


Shall we start again?

You said: "..the atmosphere was warmest between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago, maybe as late as 4,000 years ago. The oceans, on the other hand, were warmest between 5-3,000 years ago, ……..Must have been 7 billion humans with industry 7000 years ago, afterall, there's no way the slight warming we do see is natural.

I read that as suggesting there may be solar forcing involved today or that some mysterious forcing we haven't discovered was at play - and I referred you to the Milankovitch cycles to appreciate what caused that event.

cont
runrig
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2013
cont

Then you said: "The point is, atmosphere and oceanic temperatures LAGGED. The milankovich cycles may show why warming occurred, but their is a definite lag, by a good couple of millenia."

To which I replied: "- so where does a Milankovitch cycle come into that during the last 150 years? there's only been a 0.1-0.2% variation in solar during the period of AGW .
Of course temperatures lagged - the ice needs to melt; the oceans warm and circulate such that CO2 is released and feeds-back further warming. BTW the lag is closer to 1000yrs" (Ocean circulation takes ~1000yrs).

Stating that the MC's were irrelevant and the only solar variation was the sunspot one (in the time since the start of industrialisation). I then explained why there was a lag twixt temp and CO2.
You do realise that is TEXTBOOK religious thinking right?

No it's called trying to understand what you're saying/implying and giving the known scientific reasons in explanation with links.
runrig
3.3 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2013
PS I have no "2nd accounts" - cant you tell by the literary style?


Should be P.S. Fairly picky but the - should also be a ;. can't has an apostraphe.

I usually wouldn't do that, but you're the one bringing up literary superiority (or attempting to) into this, so right back at ya (that's slang, I know it is "you").

I'm glad you don't do it "usually" because it is indeed picky and petty to boot.

You don't have to get chippy either I'm just passing on my knowledge of the subject. (take that how you want).

Oh, and "style" merely meant, like, you know, having my own style. Not in it being superior.
Thanks for the apology about the accusation of having "2nd accounts". Very "stylish" of you
triplehelix
1 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2013
Upward temp trend when it is admitted the sun was dim many millions of years before.

Well yeah, by this knowledge there will always be an upward trend. Fuck all to do with CO2.
Maggnus
2 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2013
Um, hey triple, the sun was dimmer to a degree that it matters BILLIONS of years ago, not millions. You could look up stellar evolution an explanation on how and why it happens.

You seem to lack some very basic understandings of physics.