The oldest ice core: Finding a 1.5 million-year record of Earth's climate

Nov 05, 2013
This shows Antarctic locations (in bright blue) where 1.5 million years old ice could exist. The figure is modified from Van Liefferinge and Pattyn (Climate of the Past, 2013). Credit: Van Liefferinge and Pattyn

(Phys.org) —How far into the past can ice-core records go? Scientists have now identified regions in Antarctica they say could store information about Earth's climate and greenhouse gases extending as far back as 1.5 million years, almost twice as old as the oldest ice core drilled to date. The results are published today in Climate of the Past, an open access journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU).

By studying the past , scientists can understand better how temperature responds to changes in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere. This, in turn, allows them to make better predictions about how climate will change in the future.

"Ice cores contain little air bubbles and, thus, represent the only direct archive of the composition of the past atmosphere," says Hubertus Fischer, an experimental climate physics professor at the University of Bern in Switzerland and lead author of the study. A 3.2-km-long drilled almost a decade ago at Dome Concordia (Dome C) in Antarctica revealed 800,000 years of climate history, showing that greenhouse gases and temperature have mostly moved in lockstep. Now, an international team of scientists wants to know what happened before that.

At the root of their quest is a climate transition that marine-sediment studies reveal happened some 1.2 million years to 900,000 years ago. "The Mid Pleistocene Transition is a most important and enigmatic time interval in the more recent of our planet," says Fischer. The Earth's climate naturally varies between times of warming and periods of extreme cooling (ice ages) over thousands of years. Before the transition, the period of variation was about 41 thousand years while afterwards it became 100 thousand years. "The reason for this change is not known."

Climate scientists suspect played a role in forcing this transition, but they need to drill into the ice to confirm their suspicions. "The information on greenhouse-gas concentrations at that time can only be gained from an Antarctic ice core covering the last 1.5 million years. Such an ice core does not exist yet, but ice of that age should be in principle hidden in the Antarctic ."

As snow falls and settles on the surface of an ice sheet, it is compacted by the weight of new snow falling on top of it and is transformed into solid glacier ice over thousands of years. The weight of the upper layers of the ice sheet causes the deep ice to spread, causing the annual ice layers to become thinner and thinner with depth. This produces very old ice at depths close to the bedrock.

However, drilling deeper to collect a longer ice core does not necessarily mean finding a core that extends further into the past. "If the is too high the old ice at the bottom is getting so warm by geothermal heating that it is melted away," Fischer explains. "This is what happens at Dome C and limits its age to 800,000 years."

To complicate matters further, horizontal movements of the ice above the bedrock can disturb the bottommost ice, causing its annual layers to mix up.

"To constrain the possible locations where such 1.5 million-year old – and in terms of its layering undisturbed – ice could be found in Antarctica, we compiled the available data on climate and ice conditions in the Antarctic and used a simple ice and heat flow model to locate larger areas where such old ice may exist," explains co-author Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey, now at the University of Cambridge.

The team concluded that 1.5 million-year old ice should still exist at the bottom of East Antarctica in regions close to the major Domes, the highest points on the ice sheet, and near the South Pole, as described in the new Climate of the Past study. These results confirm those of another study, also recently published in Climate of the Past.

Crucially, they also found that an ice core extending that far into the past should be between 2.4 and 3-km long, shorter than the 800,000-year-old core drilled in the previous expedition.

The next step is to survey the identified drill sites to measure the ice thickness and temperature at the bottom of the sheet before selecting a final drill location.

"A deep drilling project in Antarctica could commence within the next 3-5 years," Fischer states. "This time would also be needed to plan the drilling logistically and create the funding for such an exciting large-scale international research project, which would cost around 50 million Euros."

Explore further: NASA's HS3 mission continues with flights over Hurricane Gonzalo

More information: Fischer, H. et al.: Where to find 1.5 million yr old ice for the IPICS 'Oldest-Ice' ice core, Clim. Past, 9, 2489-2505, DOI: 10.5194/cp-9-2489-2013 , 2013.

Related Stories

West Antarctic ice sheet formed earlier than thought

Oct 09, 2013

About 34 million years ago, Earth transitioned from a warm "greenhouse" climate to a cold "icehouse" climate, marking the transition between the Eocene and Oligocene epochs. This transition has been associated with the formation ...

Sediment wedges not stabilizing West Antarctic Ice Sheet

Sep 03, 2013

The stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is uncertain as climate changes. An ice sheet such as the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that is grounded well below sea level on a bed that slopes toward the interior of the sheet ...

Recommended for you

The ocean's living carbon pumps

13 hours ago

When we talk about global carbon fixation – "pumping" carbon out of the atmosphere and fixing it into organic molecules by photosynthesis – proper measurement is key to understanding this process. By ...

User comments : 64

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Birger
3.5 / 5 (16) Nov 05, 2013
Aaand...cue the denialists saying none of the ice core information matters, because the ice cores will be studied by scientists beholden to the Illuminati/hidden communists/the Bilderberger Group/Elders of Zion.
AkiBola
2.2 / 5 (24) Nov 05, 2013
I doubt they will learn much of predictive value.

"The Earth's climate naturally varies between times of warming and periods of extreme cooling (ice ages) over thousands of years...".

Global Warming looks a lot better than the extremely frosty alternative. Brrrrrrr.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (26) Nov 05, 2013
Birger, ice cores are a skeptic's best friend since the results are not subject to vast layers of statistical manipulation. The main Greenland ice core shows the recent warming spike to have regular precedence throughout the last few thousand years since the great ramping out of the last ice age. The longer main Antarctic ice core showed that CO₂ lagged instead of led ice age swings, and like Greenland suggest overall cooling with a series of warm spikes along the way down.

As a defense mechanism, cultish followers of tobacco farming petrodollar mogal Al "Divinity Studies" Gore call these devastating insights mere "denialist talking points," as Evangelical Christian comic artist John "GLOBAL* Climate Change" Cook of SkepticalScience.com weaves great PR firm tutored pseudoscience with partner Dana whose day job is at the company that was runner up to design the Keystone pipeline and which also receives $300M level grants for green energy schemes.

*Odd term used cook his 97% consensus.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (27) Nov 05, 2013
Birger, the only conspiracy theory churning is on your own side of the fence where the grass has turned into a fetid pool of burning blight that still looks green to everybody else. Michael "Hide The Temperature Proxy Data Decline" Mann himself points to skeptical posts here on Phys.org as "smelling of Koch."

Would the Koch brothers pay for my middle finger hosted on a porn banner site?
http://postimg.or...tcdwkx9/

If Mann is so out of touch with reality, can his climate science be far behind?
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (24) Nov 05, 2013
Perfect precedence for Carbon Footprint Counter pseudoscience exists in the now tragic Food Pyramid that promoted metabolic syndrome disease. No great Illuminati at work there, dear Birger, quite the opposite, just federal incompetence and bandwagonism promoted by single activist "scientists" that has killed millions, which this week even a mainstream liberal outlet has exposed as its own huge "single bullet theory" myth:
http://www.youtub...f-00w5gk

The climate control single bullet theory is hidden in the arcane and highly speculative positive feedback scenarios of supercomputer climate models, now falsified by the MET office's own recent New Years Eve downgrade of continued warming into a multidecade extended pause that falsifies such water vapor feedback models:
http://www.dailym...-up.html
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (24) Nov 05, 2013
As blogger Steve Goddard now reveals by the simple act of plotting official satellite temperature data of all Antarctic regions, all have been going nowhere since records began in the 70s:
http://stevengodd...8-24.jpg

Yet this information isn't used in Jim Hansen's warming trend maps, obviously, which show the continent as Hell itself:
http://moyhu.blog...013.html

Hmmmm......

WTF?!
SteveS
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2013
@Nik

Your link contains links to explicit pictures of obviously underage girls.

I have reported it.

Would the Koch brothers pay for my middle finger hosted on a porn banner site?
http://postimg.or...tcdwkx9/
runrig
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 05, 2013
The main Greenland ice core shows the recent warming spike to have regular precedence throughout the last few thousand years since the great ramping out of the last ice age. The longer main Antarctic ice core showed that CO₂ lagged instead of led ice age swings, and like Greenland suggest overall cooling with a series of warm spikes along the way down.


Nik: please provide us with links to any data that shows "the recent warming spike" to have any precedence at all since the end of the last Ice age aside from the extra 9% NH insolation that was provided ~6000 ya by the favourable orbital characteristics. No the MWP was not a global event.
Yes, ice cores show that CO2 lagged temp change – because orbital changes drove greater NH insolation which then melted ice, reduced albedo, increased temperature and released CO2 from warming seas/land. It's not a mystery and neither does it disprove AGW as we now have CO2 coming first and it's GHG effect is driving the warming.
SteveS
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 05, 2013
To the moderators

Please remove the link from this posting as I did not intend to repost NikFromNYC's offensive link

Many thanks

@Nik

Your link contains links to explicit pictures of obviously underage girls.

I have reported it.

Would the Koch brothers pay for my middle finger hosted on a porn banner site?


runrig
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2013
The climate control single bullet theory is hidden in the arcane and highly speculative positive feedback scenarios of supercomputer climate models, now falsified by the MET office's own recent New Years Eve downgrade of continued warming into a multidecade extended pause that falsifies such water vapor feedback models


Just a simple reporting of facts - the Global temp rise has slowed since 2005 (a non-El Nino year BTW). And why hasn't global temps fallen back to where they were before the El-Nino warm "spikes" Nik. If it was cyclical – they would have done by now. If not cyclical either the sun has got warmer (low activity). Or albedo has decreased – the ice hasn't melted that much – yet.
No, it does not falsify H2O feed-back. It's just basic science. Warmer air holds more WV. Full stop.

cont
runrig
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2013
cont

As blogger Steve Goddard now reveals by the simple act of plotting official satellite temperature data of all Antarctic regions, all have been going nowhere since records began in the 70s


So, why is it so difficult to realise that Antarctica is the single most exceptional place on the planet in terms of geography/climate? Isolated at a Pole in the middle of a sea far away from polluting land masses. It's atmosphere hemmed in by an enormous cold vortex of winds made even tighter by an ozone hole. It's surface is at an average height of 12000ft. It will be a frozen day in hell, thankfully, before that place catches up.
runrig
3.4 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2013
Michael "Hide The Temperature Proxy Data Decline" Mann ..


http://www.youtub...2prBtVFo
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (22) Nov 05, 2013
SteveS, PostImage.org is Google's first hit for "free image hosting" or just "image hosting" so you better let them know too! Here is Mike Mann claiming a thread I was highly active in "smelled of Koch":

http://wattsupwit...nomenon/
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (22) Nov 06, 2013
runrig wrote: "Nik: please provide us with links to any data that shows "the recent warming spike" to have any precedence at all since the end of the last Ice age aside from the extra 9% NH insolation that was provided ~6000 ya by the favourable orbital characteristics."

The main Greenland ice core provides this:
http://commons.wi...lley.png

The latest century of warming on that date-reversed plot merely adds yet another of about a dozen existing spikes.

What hockey sticks do instead is paste thermometer data on proxies that are insensitive to such short spikes, since they are not dominated by temperature at all like the elegant O18 isotope ratio is.

runrig is fond of a last word strategy of feigned ignorance that the majority of proxy studies are not hockey sticks and that Mann himself celebrated the most brazen Marcott 2013 hockey stick fraud of all besides his own 2008 algorithmic cherry picking version that tossed data series without blades.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (22) Nov 06, 2013
The existence of the Medieval Warm Period in Antarctica has nine major studies supporting it whereas Team Hockey Stick claims the MWP was only in Europe where historically relevant writing was already in vogue.
http://www.co2sci...tica.php

The latest IPCC left hockey sticks out, reintroducing the MWP, now claiming along with skeptics that: The 30 years from 1983-2012 was very likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 800 years.

Eight hundred years ago was the year 1213 when Genghis Khan was busy entering the gene pool of now 16 million descendants.

The IPCC in 1998, chapter 7, figure 7.1c, is another source of MWP common knowledge until Mann transformed history, briefly, by centering his principle component statistical analysis wrongly on only the last hundred years of his multi-century hidden and formerly irreproducible black box charting routine that itself restores the MWP otherwise!
http://postimg.or...bsk69sh/
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (22) Nov 06, 2013
Michael Mann's own 1998 hockey stick whose original data was actively concealed for a decade provides the confirmation of the MWP, as shown in McKitrick and McIntyre's 2005 peer reviewed debunking, here being the corrected version that does not bizarrely and incorrectlycenter the statistical weighting of proxies only on the latest hundred years:
http://postimg.or...bjfia7x/

Original reference:
http://stephensch...e_02.pdf

Of course for real effect you have to paste the thermometer record oranges onto the end of these apples *instead* of simply update your tree ring proxies to the half century, since well, they don't proxy any more, boss!
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (23) Nov 06, 2013
HEY RATINGS BOT AL_GORE WHO LOVES RUNRIG SO MUCH, ARE YOU REALLY READING THESE POSTS?!
HEY RATINGS BOT AL_GORE WHO LOVES RUNRIG SO MUCH, ARE YOU REALLY READING THESE POSTS?!

http://postimg.or...ahoacg7/

Even the discussion here is a scam with fake accounts supporting fake statistical certainty in science for political ends, oh...and doomsday religious ones too, you know good guys versus bad guys, with us flat earther, moon landing denying, creationists all tied to billionaire hand outs as both Al Gore and Phil "Climategate" Jones bask in anti-American petrodollars:
http://mpc.kau.ed...nes.aspx
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (23) Nov 06, 2013
Oh Al_Gore...you are rating my posts every eight minutes after they appear, but you are mute?
Oh Al_Gore...you are rating my posts every eight minutes after they appear, but you are mute?

Your ten friends disappeared lately, after I started posting screenshots of my Activity tab here.

You sure *do* like runrig, here on a site that is owned by a green energy educational consulting firm!
http://postimg.or...tifqu13/
SteveS
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2013
SteveS, PostImage.org is Google's first hit for "free image hosting" or just "image hosting" so you better let them know too!


So no apology for your posting of this gratuitous pornographic link then? Do you even realize how offensive it is?
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2013
A selection of peer-reviewed critiques for McIntyre & McKitrick on Mann…
http://link.sprin...6-9105-7
"Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for the first half of the 15th century (+0.05), which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann ... (AS WELL AS MANY OTHER RECONSTRUCTIONS) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years."
http://www.coast...._GRL.pdf
"Our results, derived in the artificial world of an
extended historical climate simulation, indicate therefore
that the (artificial h-stick) doesn't have a significant impact but leads
only to very minor deviations. We suggest, however, that
this biased centering should be in future avoided as it may
unnecessarily compromise the final result.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2013

The main Greenland ice core provides this:
http://commons.wi...lley.png


Also
http://www.clim-p...2007.pdf

Greenland ice-cores last 10000 years.
A complicated subject but these data do not correlate with other proxies around the world and seem to relate to the feedback of NA wind oscillations on sea currents, increasing/decreasing sea-ice to the S and E of the continent. The thermohaline profile in the NA may have changed (sinking of dense salty waters) as a result of this.

Events prior to the Younger-Dryas do show a global connection however.

http://www.mi.uni...ll05.pdf

http://hol.sagepu...abstract

runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2013
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (20) Nov 06, 2013
runrig here confirms my use of Mann's hockey stick that appeared in Gore's movie as "Doctor Thompson's thermometer" to in fact *support* the MWP instead of revolutionarily deny it, but runrig adds that precedent for our current warming swing exists a mere 600 instead of 800 years ago, namely in the 1400s when oil painting was beginning to dominate the arts.

Peer reviewed author McIntyre who stimulated runrig's peer reviewed damage control, summarized Gore's version as:
"According to Gore, this graph is based on oxygen isotope ratios from ice cores collected by Lonnie Thompson and his colleagues, and provides "the most definitive" independent confirmation of the Mann, Bradley and Hughes Hockey Stick curve." / "As it happens, the graph that Gore presented really was the MBH HS, spliced together with an instrumental record as if they were a single series, and has nothing to do with Thompson's ice core research."
http://climateaud...mometer/
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2013
Even the discussion here is a scam with fake accounts supporting fake statistical ..............as both Al Gore and Phil "Climategate" Jones bask in anti-American petrodollars:
http://mpc.kau.ed...nes.aspx


All that sort of comment reveals Nik is lack of grip on reality. If you're happy to be stuck in your denialist, conspiratorial world then be my guest - but that sort of logic does not overturn the 32:1 consensus on the science.

Oh, and character assassination is a stock in trade of denialists ( Oh sorry - activists ).

http://www.psycho...nce.html
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2013
"According to Gore, this graph is based on oxygen isotope ratios from ice cores collected by Lonnie Thompson and his colleagues, and provides "the most definitive" independent confirmation of the Mann, Bradley and Hughes Hockey Stick curve." / "As it happens, the graph that Gore presented really was the MBH HS, spliced together with an instrumental record as if they were a single series, and has nothing to do with Thompson's ice core research."
http://climateaud...mometer/


Yes Nik, I do know McIntyre made a rebuttal.
However that does not cancel the INDEPENDENT critiques I quoted from.

Please find an independent peer-reviewed paper that supports his findings.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (21) Nov 06, 2013
SteveS, since I use AdBlock even on my iPhone Atomic Browser, the latest banner ads that pay for the top image host on the Internet do not appear to me. Using the Adult setting to classify my upload was a rhetorical debate device, making a centrally crucial point about a truly pivotal character in what he himself calls "The Climate Wars" and that point is that my own Phys.org skepticism has been *falsly* claimed directly by Mann to be associated with the highly conservative Koch brothers, for his tweet about Phys.org skeptics was linked to a thread here where I was the main voice of skepticism.

On a site where skeptics are regularly equated with Holocaust deniers and issued death threats, your innocent disgust with the contemporary Internet is laughable as nearly every thread here fills with harassing abuse:
http://s11.postim...eats.gif
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (21) Nov 06, 2013
runrig, you already *know* that Mann's 2013 claim of independent support of his hockey stick is based on a *false* hockey stick:

(A) INPUT PROXIES OF MARCOTT 2013 PLOTTED DIRECTLY FROM SUPPLEMENTARY INFO SHOWING NO HOCKEY STICK:
http://s21.postim...xies.jpg

(B) MANN'S SNOOPY DANCE ABOUT THIS PEER/PAL REVIEWED SCIENCE MAGAZINE STUDY:
http://s15.postim...2013.jpg

(C) A CO-AUTHOR OF MARCOTT 2013 TELLING A NY TIMES REPORTER ABOUT HIS "WHOOSH!"-WORTHY NEW "SUPER HOCKEY STICK:
http://www.youtub...MuKuVXzU

ABC, it's magic, you know-ah-oh-ah-oh!
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (20) Nov 06, 2013
Exhibit A: runrig's stuffed shirt intellectual Lewandowsky pon-nnnnn-TIF-i-ca-ting what amounts to pure slanderous propaganda about supercomputer climate model skepticism:
http://www.youtub...VfxoPqPA

Lewandowsky's recent study that equated mainstream skepticism with moon landing denial relied on blogger questionnaires participated in not by skeptical blogs readers but by activist AGW enthusiast blog survey spoofers and those members showed more conspiracy outlook about crackpot theories than the few skeptics who did notice his survey, including the fake skeptics created by obscure blogosphere hacks.

His peer/pal reviewed study was titled: "NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax"

Exhibit B: Scientists who walked on the moon speak out as skeptics!:
http://a2.img.mob...arge.jpg
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2013
Exhibit B: Scientists who walked on the moon speak out as skeptics!:
http://a2.img.mob...arge.jpg


Like I've said Nik: it matters not how important/famous the people are who give opinions on anything. It is the peer-reviewed consensus science that counts. That's all we have that we can possibly rely on with good confidence. Mr Spencers belief in intelligent design does not make it so for instance.

runrig, you already *know* that Mann's 2013 claim of independent support of his hockey stick is based on a *false* hockey stick:


No, the peer-reviewed papers supporting Mann's interpretation of the data (he used) – show that his method was sound or at worst too cold by 0.05C.

Link to a paper that proves Mann's method so wrong that it would produce a graph that is 0.3 to 0.5C lower than his and makes the MWP appear to have been cooler than present, rather than agreeing with others.
The onus is on you to supply independent confirmation of that assertion.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (20) Nov 06, 2013
runrig, I'm the skeptic who most forcefully bashed Roy's cocky Senate hearing promotion of ID by satirically editing his all black shirt to afford "Priest Spenser":
http://s11.postim...ncer.jpg

He graciously allowed my comment on his site:
http://www.drroys...nt-85112

Roy also pointed out though in that hearing that he knew of few skeptics who were not also members of your Orsekes'-claimed consensus that merely confirmed belief in greenhouse warming effects on climate. What your side is afraid to do is a similar survey about belief in the authority of the positive feedback certitude of climate alarm!

Jim Hansen's right hand man at NASA's little office here in the Columbia University area, above Tom's diner, *refuses* to debate Roy who happens to run a satillite temperature data set instead of a lowly limited coverage land thermometer one:
http://tinypic.co...&s=5
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 06, 2013
I have at long last analyzed Teddy Runrig's forcefully formal rules of engagement as I present simple and blunt evidence of scientific fraud akin to the debunked cholesterol theory of heart disease that was pure politics by a single rotten scientist, Ancel Keys:
http://gwynridenh...0507.jpg
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (20) Nov 06, 2013
Insane "Coal Death Trains" Exhibit X: STATISTICAL mash-up of land and sea thermometer records spread out over a thousand miles into nowhere, via Jim Hansen's GISTEMP computer program that shows Antarctica as being the *major* player pumping his global average temperature record up, up, up:
http://www.moyhu....ep13.gif

Sane Exhibit Y: the space age satellite simplicity of just counting white pixels in the Antarctic area that this day and week and month and year shows RECORD high ice area since data began appearing back in 1979:
http://arctic.atm...ive.html

Sorry, runrig, no I am unable to submit these already peer reviewed official data series to the journal Science, since it is now sadly RUN by those who RIG the peer review process so badly that Marcott's 2013 lack of hockey stick in his own supplementary data passed with flying colors in presenting confirmation of Mann's work.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2013
I present simple and blunt evidence of scientific fraud

But you don't Nik: You know - like in a court of law - you have to persuade a jury of 12 that your case is beyond reasonable doubt. You yourself being convinced just doesn't do it. Your case just isn't anywhere near persuading those 12. Getting the evidence you want to fit your case (McIntyre v Mann) and putting all your bets on it when NO ONE else backs him up and other studies refute his findings, and arrive at the same conclusions many others have - is not science. Then you throw your dummy out of the pram because I point it out and ask for evidence from another peer-review that backs up McIntyre.

No, allegations of fraud will not do. Anyone applying a probabilistic view of the way things work would throw that out in an instant. That does not apply with you (and others of a denialist standpoint) however. You CANNOT possibly allow the "warmists" to be right and so any-which-way is OK to keep your world-view safe.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (20) Nov 06, 2013
runrig, you are well aware at least in the back of your mind, that AGW enthusiasts regularly *refuse* to debate in front of live cameras or audiences, and in the few cases in which they have, jury-like layperson judgement swings far into the skeptical camp.

(1) The Oxford debating society, established in 1823, has formally rejected both Intelligent Design (ID) and putting climate alarm ahead of current concern for economic progress

(2) A real court in England demanded that Gore's movie could not be presented to further traumatize school children without skeptical counterpoint concerning nine scare claims that were poppycock based on tarred-and-feathered peer/pal reviewed studies.

(3) Is it particularly *hot* out? Is the weather particularly what *anybody* is talking about, ever, even Democrats? Would any jury convict on fantasy claims that it's historically hot out?! Laugh Test = FAILED.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (20) Nov 06, 2013
To runrig, who I enthusiastically respect, despite his illustriously frustrated quips about my genius-level "touch with reality," I hereby present my inspiration for the very idea of drawing a very strong, visceral distinction between halfway measure posturing and the real deal, a quote by Salvador Dalí:

"Perhaps and not perhaps, the biggest difference that exists between eroticism and pornography is that eroticism is divine and offers an opportunity while pornography is infra-human and brings bad luck. The pornographer with the prematurely aged face of a turtle, a dirty old one-armed person impudently bald and warm offers you on street corners dirty postcards with his little turtle paw that he just barely dares take out of his jacket armored in filth. Eros, the god of love, on the other hand, stands up and raises his arm in the sky to show his microgemetic tie, the quiver that he carries hanging from his incorruptible alabaster neck". – Salvador Dali ("The Erotic Metamorphoses" 1968)
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (20) Nov 06, 2013
There is real science.
NOM
4 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2013
There is real science.

And there is you.
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2013
There is real science.

Then there are the idiots who think they understand science, but fail to grasp that it is a human process developed and passed down over the centuries that refines the art human knowledge gathering. As Salvador Dali so spoke; Science is the "incorruptible alabaster neck" of logic and reason; two aspects that Dali so finely expressed in his paintings.

As NOM effectively points out;
And there is you.
The antithesis of logical debate and scientific discourse. The question then is, with all of the scientific data pointing to a global warming that will severely impact the planet and disrupt the lives of billions, why are you such a teabagger.

NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 06, 2013
Real science is always radically rogue, period, above and beyond, never swayed by guttersnipe poseurs.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 06, 2013
"ALL OF THE SCIENTIFIC DATA":

http://s23.postim...andy.gif

Empty set.
Howhot
4 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2013
If you can't answer the question; "why are you such a teabagger?", then it illustrates effortlessly, the seeming lack critical thought that is vital in the evaluation of critical scientific evidence, the proof of an objective hypothesis and theory.

Fundamentally, your critique(s) is/are flawed. As is nearly all anti-global-warming denialism.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (19) Nov 07, 2013
I detest the religious fundamentalism of the Tea Party, Howhot. I'm a classic Beat Generation influenced introvert whose adolescence was filled with books found by continuously pouring over The Whole Earth Catalog which led to the complete works of both genius inventor Bucky Fuller and eternal optimist Timothy Leary. When Global Warmists appeared on the scene, oh I knew, *these* were no tree hugging hippies. They weren't even hip. They were old school scammers.

As Republicans, then Australia and England fall to our skeptical empire, and as the stories of Cook's "cooked" 97% consensus confirmation as well as Marcott's data re-dating fraud sold to a NY Times reporter on live video as a "super hockey stick" are noticed by fence sitters, you should worry indeed since the whole liberal brand is reattaching itself to a massive funding fueled fraud.

It's a form of morbid curiosity that motivates me too, watching The Fool in you melt down as the ice thickens, and Nature scoffs at Arrogance.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2013
It's a form of morbid curiosity that motivates me too, watching The Fool in you melt down as the ice thickens, and Nature scoffs at Arrogance.


Now Nik: It is this sort of comment that to those on this side of the fence seems beyond the bizarre and real triumph of hope over reality.
The ice thickness: You know of probability theory. One of it's basic truths is that those event's that lie at the extreme are very unlikely to occur more than once in a row. The 2012 melt was well beyond 3 sd's from the trend and this one still touched 2 sds despite your "ice thickens" trumpeting.
Assuming a normal distribution - the prob of a melt such as least years occurring is 0.27% - and then for it to happen again this year is 0.27x0.27 making it 0.07%. or 7:10000.

Or there was a 99.93% chance that it would have "thickened" this year.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2013
Ice volume graph for the below.

http://neven1.typ...6970d-pi
Howhot
4 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2013
I detest the religious fundamentalism of the Tea Party, Howhot.
Me too, I detest the religious fundamentalism and in fact I'm a freaking atheist. But that is not the question I asked. I asked "why are you such a teabagger?". Yes, its a politically pointed question, but also non-technical philosophic question that should have many answers in your thought processes.

There are many twists in a game, sir. Which side you play on says a lot about your gardening skills; do you nurture the human experience, or shun it and let mankind die?
When do you admit your wrong?

--
Then there are the facts. As @runrig so nicely points out; "Assuming a normal distribution - the prob of a melt such as last years occurring is 0.27% - and then for it to happen again this year is 0.27x0.27 making it 0.07%. or 7:10000." In plain English, there was a 7:10000 chance that the Arctic ice-melt was do to chance. In other words it's not an anomaly but is instead do to a cause (man-made likely)!
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (18) Nov 09, 2013
Blah blah blah.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (7) Nov 09, 2013
"Blah blah blah." - NikkieTard

Isn't that what you said in the police line up before your arrest?
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 10, 2013
BREAKING NEWS: Since 1979 when satillites began measuring *global* sea ice as white pixels, as of this year, the difference in sea ice area is exactly Z-E-R-O:

http://s11.postim...rend.jpg

Source: Cyrosphere Today

In other news, the IPCC just dismissed satillite records and millions of weather balloon readings that both utterly falsify the tropical hot spot that all alarming climate models predict must exist due to the same water vapor feedbacks they introduce to amplify the normal greenhouse effect into an emergency. On this topic, Joanne Nova makes a complete mockery of the alarmist hero John Cook, here:
http://joannenova...nt-find/

...with IPCC denial of this blunt climate model falsification being bemusingly detailed here:
http://joannenova...roperly/
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 10, 2013
Antarctic climate scam revealed:

(A) The UAH satellite temperature record show no warming since records began in 1979:
http://s7.postimg...mage.jpg

(B) A 2009 cover of Nature showing a quickly debunked textbook example of Lying With Statistics by Hockey Stick Team member and RealClimate.org partner Steig:
http://faculty.wa...ture.jpg

It was shown in only a few days that Steig's black box was only sensitive across the whole continent, to the hotspot Peninsula, and was debunked via eventual peer reviewed process. Yet only the skepticism busting lie made any headlines in old media channels. Happily we now don't need Pravda any more for news and skeptics have near direct access to millions of viewers of by far the most popular cable news network. Penn & Teller helped out too with one of their BULLSHIT! episodes.

Green profiteer Al Gore had a recent "BS!" meltdown about our debate wins:
http://www.youtub...epplqmow
pianoman
1.1 / 5 (16) Nov 10, 2013
There's nothing wrong with global warming, the warmer the better. Mother nature never asked people to build and reside at sea level. Grapes were grown in Greenland 900 years ago, how much warmer does it have to get to reach those conditions again.You people who complain about fossil fuel causing G.W. ----why not demand the suppression of free energy be lifted ? And don't say there's no such thing because there is ---- .
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 10, 2013
The UAH Satellite refers to the University of Alabama, Huntsville, where UAH data climatologist John Christy who got his Ph.D. under Kevin "Missing Heat Travesty" Trenberth, demonstrates that climate alarm skepticism is entirely mainstram despite runrig's ongoing conscious deception via the official Crackpot Blogosphere Smear:

"...so the question is will more carbon dioxide affect the climate. Our work shows yes it will affect the climate but not in a way that's very dramatic."

The entire twelve minute interview with this actual satellite data set producing scientist is here:
http://www.youtub...1EklPrPE
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 10, 2013
...and in wanders an Internet crackpot as I'm typing!

Hey there pianoman, those plazZzZzma wavicles from the crashed UFO are never used by the military, since they've been repressed, right?

But, pianoman, why don't you go tell seasoned scientific skeptics on various blogs about your lamentations, you know, to gain their support and help get the word out?

A PR firm tutored group of climate activists couldn't have invented a better crackpot "skeptic" than you!

I just find it odd that your canned type of posts only appear on news sites, never skeptic blogs. It makes the Mark Twain in me wonder, "Gee, that's suspicious, ain't it?"

Looking at your other posts though, you are a genuine conspiracy theorist, the likes of which indeed do not appear on skeptical blogs since they give up after being bashed and eventually banned.
pianoman
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 10, 2013
Never interested in double talk, I call it like I see it. Research is the game. One should be aware of the Bucket of Sand award.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 10, 2013
Al Gore's Astrturfing site itself offers a long page of word salad innuendo directly about John Cook's denial of satellite falsification of climate models, in which a corrected data processing error of Dr. Christry removed a model busting cooling of the predicted "hot spot" into a mere model busting lack of extra warming:

"In other words, according to UAH, satellite measurements match the models apart from in the tropics. This error is most likely due to data errors."
https://realitydr...myths/44

There is denial for all to see.

On Cook's site he similarly denies real radiosonde (weather balloon) thermometers:
"Most researchers believe this difference is likely due to instrument errors."

Both sites claim that the alternative RSS data statistically debunks the UAH one and the weather balloons, but they never *show* the supposedly resurrected "hot spot"!

A *real* discussion of this issue exists, with Christy's reply:
http://www.climat...ot-spot/
runrig
3.7 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2013
….. a corrected data processing error of Dr. Christry removed a model busting cooling of the predicted "hot spot" into a mere model busting lack of extra warming

www.nature.com/ng...208.html

"Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.65 +/- 0.47 K per decade near the 200mb pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temp data and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change."
Sat. & radiosondes are NOT accurate enough to see a "hot spot" over the Tropics … for reasons you have been told.
Above study uses thermal winds in which a vector difference between levels determines a temp. Winds less prone to error as radar tracking is used.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2013
BREAKING NEWS: Since 1979 when satillites began measuring *global* sea ice as white pixels, as of this year, the difference in sea ice area is exactly Z-E-R-O:
http://s11.postim...rend.jpg

It's actually 1 mil Km^2 less than in 1979.
And just now we have a period where the Arctic has quickly frozen over it's vulnerable sea area, and the Antarctic has not long entered it's melt season. Ergo it is the time when there is maximum global ice (volume). However the volume is a different story.

"…. we've now had no sea ice growth for 5 days, so it's becoming more and more unusual.
We've dropped below 2007 and 2010, so we're now 4th lowest on record. If we don't increase by at least 24k tomorrow we'll be 3rd lowest on record for the time of year..

http://forum.netw.../page-41

From: http://www.ospo.n...2013.gif

You can see why - Arctic sea-temps are ~2 and up to 5C above normal.
runrig
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2013
(A) The UAH satellite temperature record show no warming since records began in 1979:
http://s7.postimg...mage.jpg


Err isn't this where I came in?

Again: http://en.wikiped...2007.jpg

A more detailed look at warming sea and ice….

http://psc.apl.wa...2515.pdf

Yes Nik - "It's all a scam.. a scam... a SCAM I tell you". I think we get the idea.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 10, 2013
I hereby stand flayed by activist footnotes.

The vagina-hating Republicans will silence me just fine, Tony (runrig), as the Global Warming craze diffuses and boxed rats tear at throats.

Complex reality, I am fully guilty of offering.

Skepticism is now flypaper for desperately crazed lunacy.

I do not have all the answers.

But I did beg a question: the weather is just fine, so why why whine?

Your ilk are oddball ambulance chasers, merely, as my iPhone battery juices OUT.
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2013
"Since 1979 when satillites began measuring *global* sea ice as white pixels, as of this year, the difference in sea ice area is exactly Z-E-R-O:" - NikkieTard

And yet your own reference...

http://s11.postim...rend.jpg

Shows your claim to be false.

The bottom chart shows that the Global sea ice anomaly has gone from 0 on average to -1 million square kilometers on average.

I see that the mental fog comes and goes as part of your mental disease has returned.

You poor boy.

VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2013
"The UAH satellite temperature record show no warming since records began in 1979:" - RyggTard

You support your claim with the following link...

http://s7.postimg...mage.jpg

Which is clearly labeled "Antarctic", and is not a global measure of temperature change.

If you want the global UAH data you could go here and see the real warming plot.

http://woodfortre.../to:2011

You have been caught in yet another lie. You poor Tard.

VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 10, 2013
http://arctic.atm...ive.html

When you start to see strange effects like the one shown in the above graphic, you know that the system is becoming dynamically unstable, in this case due to succeptability to melt induced by slightly warmer temps caused by very thin ice.

Anomalies like the one shown above will become more and more common as the ice caps continue to melt and thin.
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2013
"The vagina-hating Republicans will silence me just fine, Tony (runrig), as the Global Warming craze diffuses and boxed rats tear at throats." - NikkieTard

NikkieTard's brief moment of lucidity is gone as his mental disease takes control once again.

Howhot
5 / 5 (2) Nov 12, 2013
It is hard to escape the Lies that a spread across the Internet by the Global Warming deniers. Those that pretend science are soon exposed for what they are. Sometimes the most simple and truthful presentations are the ones with the clarity to be convincing. Look at the Global Climate Dashboard widget on Climate.gov.

http://climate.gov

The whole collection of Hockey-sticks (plural) is right there for the viewing. It's a place the average man can comprehend with out all of the bogus claims found on dark money web sites like wattsup.
goracle
1 / 5 (5) Nov 12, 2013
The Nikmeister in reply to runrig:
Blah blah blah.

Another detailed refutation, filled with brilliant insight. ;)