NDP support Alberta pipeline!

[TimG]

Your long-term argument--ad nauseum--has been precisely and explicitly the opposite.

You need to look at the point I was making. In this case, I was showing that there is science that supports my view. Peer review is adequate for that purpose. Whether it is any good or not I don't know. I have a low opinion of these proxy studies even when I happen to like the conclusions. Edited October 2, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

So, don't just dump a research report on my desk with no context; how does it apply to what's happening to the world today?

x2... as I stated/asked a few posts back:

... what does your distraction have to do with the climate and Arctic sea ice conditions of today?

ya, it's just TimG at his distraction best! Another paper; one that includes two of the same authors of the paper TimG linked to:

History of sea ice in the Arctic

Abstract:

Arctic sea-ice extent and volume are declining rapidly. Several studies project that the Arctic Ocean may become seasonally ice-free by the year 2040 or even earlier. Putting this into perspective requires information on the history of Arctic sea-ice conditions through the geologic past. This information can be provided by proxy records from the Arctic Ocean floor and from the surrounding coasts. Although existing records are far from complete, they indicate that sea ice became a feature of the Arctic by 47 Ma, following a pronounced decline in atmospheric pCO2 after the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Optimum, and consistently covered at least part of the Arctic Ocean for no less than the last 13–14 million years. Ice was apparently most widespread during the last 2–3 million years, in accordance with Earth's overall cooler climate.

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

WIP, since the distracting TimG wants to draw reference to the past, to the early Holocene... perhaps he can advise of any like, 'orbital variations/forcing', that can account for today's relatively recent loss of Arctic Sea Ice...

[WIP]

[/indent]

ya, it's just TimG at his distraction best! Another paper; one that includes two of the same authors of the paper TimG linked to:

History of sea ice in the Arctic

WIP, since the distracting TimG wants to draw reference to the past, to the early Holocene... perhaps he can advise of any like, 'orbital variations/forcing', that can account for today's relatively recent loss of Arctic Sea Ice...

Thanks! I appreciate information provided to increase understanding of an issue, but when it's just dumped out there to confuse or cloud the issue, it's just another form of propaganda.

I haven't read her book Merchants of Doubt, but I have heard so many interviews with historian-Naomi Oreskes on the history of industry-supported denial strategies, that I have likely picked up the essentials: one of the biggies being that the public relations firms hired first by the cigarette manufacturers in the 70's, decided that they did not have to convince the public that 2nd hand smoke was harmless; all they had to do was hire a few experts motivated by political ideology, to dump enough complicated and confusing information out there claiming to be rebuttals, that the public would decide that the results were inconclusive. And they've followed the same tactics on subjects like creationism, the efficacy of antiballistic missile systems and climate change. No attempts are made to propose serious alternative explanations, or alternative climate models that fit the data, just here's Roy Spencer, or Richard Linzen, or Tim Ball, or John Christie...and they have a different opinion on climate change. And even though they don't even agree with each other, the low-information interviewer gets to tell his audience that this is a scientist who says we can keep burning all the oil we want until the end of time!

Edited October 3, 2012 by WIP

[TimG]

Thanks! I appreciate information provided to increase understanding of an issue, but when it's just dumped out there to confuse or cloud the issue, it's just another form of propaganda.

Actually, waldo is one dishing out propaganda because his new paper does repudiate my point in any way.

Lets look at what was said:

The last low-ice event related to orbital forcing (high insolation) was in the early Holocene, after which the northern high latitudes cooled overall, with some superimposed shorter-term (multidecadal to millennial-scale) and lower-magnitude variability.

Confirms my claim that the ice extent was less in the early Holocene.

The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.

Unmatched in a few thousand years again confirms my claim that the ice cover was less 3000-8000 years ago. The only difference is the cause is different. But the cause makes no difference when it comes the effect of any feedbacks caused by the melting ice. If those feedbacks were powerful the planet would have kept warming. The historical record shows that those feedbacks are weak and were easily over powered by the change in solar forcing which is supposedly too weak to have caused the ice ages on its own.

The fact that you thought that waldo's paper repudiated my claims shows a lack of critical thinking on your part. It is clear you are just looking for the "right" propaganda that tells you what you want to hear. You don't have any interest in understanding what is going on.

IMO - Oreskes is nothing but an exercise in psychological projection where the tactics used by the environmental movement are attributed to others.

Edited October 3, 2012 by TimG

[WIP]

Actually, waldo is one dishing out propaganda because his new paper does repudiate my point in any way.

Lets look at what was said:

Confirms my claim that the ice extent was less in the early Holocene.

Unmatched in a few thousand years again confirms my claim that the ice cover was less 3000-8000 years ago. The only difference is the cause is different. But the cause makes no difference when it comes the effect of any feedbacks caused by the melting ice. If those feedbacks were powerful the planet would have kept warming. The historical record shows that those feedbacks are weak and were easily over powered by the change in solar forcing which is supposedly too weak to have caused the ice ages on its own.

No, your link does not claim to explain anything beyond the region they studied: the Chukchi Sea. The local geology of the Niagara Peninsula (the area I am most familiar with) is still not completely understood except for the basics, like sheets of ice covered this area 12,000 years ago. For some reason, the eastern glacier that covered this area took much longer to recede than further west; even Alaska was losing its ice while my area was still ice-bound. So, the thawing of sea ice in the area between Siberia and Alaska may have indicated a wider thawing of the Arctic Ocean...or maybe not. There was still a lot of ice sheets covering Canada at the time.

What is clear is that those were much different circumstances than we are living in today. Atmospheric CO2 levels dropped to less than 200 ppm at the peak of the last ice age, and would still be much less than our present 400 ppm 9000 years ago. Your theory seems to be that all weather patterns are cyclical, and you have pulled that study out to try to advance this claim.

But, there are too many things today that are unprecedented about the state of the planet, and the level of human activity today to just say there's nothing to worry about because at least one zone of the Arctic Ocean was likely ice free 9000 years ago. For one thing, even if this was true, our civilization that is already straining the planet's resources to feed 7 billion people, is dependent to a precarious degree on having stable, dependable weather. And the reason why grain production has only had one good year in the last 10 - 2007, is because of the floods, the droughts, the heat waves, the sudden unexpected frosts (that wiped out a lot of fruit trees in my area this year), are all occurring in one or more of the major food-producing regions of the world.

And if there was an open Arctic Ocean 9000 years ago, that's one thing for a few hundred thousand paleolithic hunter-gatherers to deal with. But an opening of the Arctic Ocean and the resulting effects on weather down here mean dangerously unpredictable weather, and low grain and other crop yields.

Edited October 4, 2012 by WIP

[TimG]

No, your link does not claim to explain anything beyond the region they studied: the Chukchi Sea.

But waldo's link says that the low sea ice extent was across the the entire basin. The two quotes I extracted clearly indicate that low ice levels occurred in the early Holocene without being specific to region.

Why can't you simply admit that you are wrong. The current ice melt is not unprecedented. Similar melts have occurred in the relatively recent past. This is proof that whatever feedbacks exist they are not large enough to counter a relatively weak change in orbital forcing. What that means is it will not have much of an effect on the GHG forcing going on today.

Edited October 5, 2012 by TimG