-1=e^ipi Posted June 25, 2015 Report Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) and accurately reflects... the last ~15 years 9 years. The scenarios start in 2006; before that it is historical data. Edited June 25, 2015 by -1=e^ipi Quote
waldo Posted June 25, 2015 Report Posted June 25, 2015 9 years. The scenarios start in 2006; before that it is historical data. typo... but per your grab-bag of excuses, I wasn't mugged or tired! Oh wait... and yet... "all" official IPCC RCP graphical presentations, whether within the respective groupings of each of concentration, forcing or emissions... reference to 2000. What could it be... what could it be? (note: the following graphic is a snapshot of an interactive criteria driven outlet): Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 30, 2015 Report Posted June 30, 2015 Uh-oh....so much more Antarctic sea ice it's getting harder to resupply bases with Ding Dongs (and other important stuff): Sea ice around Antarctica is currently at record levels for May, part of a trend of increasing ice around the frozen continent making it harder to resupply and refuel research stations. Got ice ? http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/11/antarcticas-increasing-sea-ice-restricting-access-to-research-stations Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted July 1, 2015 Report Posted July 1, 2015 And if you read the article you find the scientists have concluded one of the causes of the ice is increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But hey BC, I think most of us already understand that. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 This is more to do with central Antarctica as opposed to the sea ice, but: http://elib.suub.uni-bremen.de/edocs/00104190-1.pdf "CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since pre-industrial times. Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space. As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long-wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission. However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica. For this region, it is shown that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative. Moreover, for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the earth-atmosphere system. These unique findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the well known general warming effect of increasing CO2. The work contributes to explain the non-warming of central Antarctica since 1957." Quote
waldo Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 This is more to do with central Antarctica as opposed to the sea ice, but: really? From a doctorate thesis? Really? Did the well dry up on actual peer-review/peer-response papers? Quote
Shady Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 And if you read the article you find the scientists have concluded one of the causes of the ice is increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But hey BC, I think most of us already understand that. What are the other causes? What percentage of each cause? Quote
waldo Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 What are the other causes? What percentage of each cause? as follows, an extract from an earlier post... from the first page of this thread! I've not seen a qualified percentage attribution of same; however, feel free to attest the following: scientific based reasons why the Antarctic sea-ice extent has been increasing the last few years: 1 - the warming ocean is causing slightly fresher sea surface water around the margins of the continent’s melting ice shelves; additionally rain and snowfall increases are also freshening ocean water. These changes are altering the composition of the different layers in the ocean there causing less mixing between warm and cold layers and thus less melted sea and coastal land ice: 2 - ozone levels decreasing over the Antarctic with an accompanying increase in the strength of cyclonic winds, 3 - this increasing cyclonic wind strength which, in turn, creates polynyas (open water areas) that freeze to increase sea-ice Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) really? From a doctorate thesis? Really? Did the well dry up on actual peer-review/peer-response papers? Really? You have a problem with results if they come from PhD's? How dare PhD students try to explain discrepancies between observations and model predictions! The horror! *sarcasm* Edited July 7, 2015 by -1=e^ipi Quote
waldo Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 Really? You have a problem with results if they come from PhD's? How dare PhD students try to explain discrepancies between observations and model predictions! The horror! *sarcasm* from PhD's? Is a candidate a PhD? Like I said, did the well dry up on actual published papers? Apparently you missed that single page in German that actually highlighted it was a thesis submission! . Quote
Shady Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 as follows, an extract from an earlier post... from the first page of this thread! I've not seen a qualified percentage attribution of same; however, feel free to attest the following: And how do you know which one is having more of an impact? What percentage of the ice is due to so-called green house gases? What percentage of the ice is due to the other reasons? Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 Waldo, the value of scientific results depends on the methodology used, data used, etc. You seem to be stuck in this idea that scientific method = appeal to authority fallacy, when that isn't the case. Quote
waldo Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 Waldo, the value of scientific results depends on the methodology used, data used, etc. You seem to be stuck in this idea that scientific method = appeal to authority fallacy, when that isn't the case. I did not realize you disavow the credence established through peer-review! And... yet more of your strawmaning... from you, the guy who perpetually whines about others playing the strawman card! Look, just accept your bonehead play in referencing a candidate PhD thesis submission... and move on! Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 And how do you know which one is having more of an impact? What percentage of the ice is due to so-called green house gases? What percentage of the ice is due to the other reasons? Here is a list for you. It gives you the actual names of your so called greenhouse gases. Quote
Shady Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 Here is a list for you. It gives you the actual names of your so called greenhouse gases. Couldn't care less of the names. What percentage of the ice is due to greenhouse gases vs the other reasons? Quote
Shady Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 What percentage of the ice is due to greenhouse gases vs the other reasons? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 Couldn't care less of the names. What percentage of the ice is due to greenhouse gases vs the other reasons? What are your so called other reasons... Quote
Shady Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 What are your so called other reasons... Their not my causes, they're yours. You said that scientist concluded that ONE of the causes was greenhouse gases. Just wondering what the others are, and their impact vs greenhouse gases. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 Their not my causes, they're yours. You said that scientist concluded that ONE of the causes was greenhouse gases. Just wondering what the others are, and their impact vs greenhouse gases. Take a look back at post #283. Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 Look, just accept your bonehead play in referencing a candidate PhD thesis submission. It's boneheaded to reference a recent scientific result that I think is interesting and relevant to the discussion? Tell me waldo, do you accept the scientific consensus that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor? Quote
waldo Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 What percentage of the ice is due to greenhouse gases vs the other reasons? I already answered you... stating I'm not aware of an attribution, by percentage, breakdown. But, of course, yours is a standard denier tactic. I gave you the opportunity to either attest the causes I put forward... or... alternatively, feel free to offer your challenge/counter! You could do that, or you could continue to play out your silliness repeatedly asking for a percentage attribution. Your choice! Quote
waldo Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 It's boneheaded to reference a recent scientific result that I think is interesting and relevant to the discussion? why stop with a candidate thesis submission... tons of papers get "published"... and only published... within denier blogs! Interesting and relevant? All you did was copy the abstract... from a candidate... seeking his doctorate! Are you having that much trouble finding a related peer-review published paper? Tell me waldo, do you accept the scientific consensus that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor? ah! And there it is. Why not resurrect the related thread where you claimed... and continued to claim in other threads... that I took a position you clearly invented and continue to misrepresent. You've been challenged to do so in the past... jump to it, chop, chop! . Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 why stop with a candidate thesis submission... tons of papers get "published"... and only published... within denier blogs! Tons of nonsense papers get published (example: Christopher Monckton papers). Waldo, do you accept the nonsense results of Christopher Monckton just because they get published in scientific journals? All you did was copy the abstract... from a candidate... seeking his doctorate! Are you having that much trouble finding a related peer-review published paper? It's a new result, so it probably isn't published by anyone else yet. ah! And there it is. Why not resurrect the related thread where you claimed... and continued to claim in other threads... that I took a position you clearly invented and continue to misrepresent. You've been challenged to do so in the past... jump to it, chop, chop! That isn't a yes... Quote
waldo Posted July 7, 2015 Report Posted July 7, 2015 Tons of nonsense papers get published (example: Christopher Monckton papers). Waldo, do you accept the nonsense results of Christopher Monckton just because they get published in scientific journals? nice try! That charlatan hasn't had anything published in a reputable journal. Just acknowledge you have issues with legitimate peer review and alternatively chose to reference an unpublished doctorate dissertation... is your next step to extend upon "post-modern BlogScience"? That isn't a yes... once again you won't take up my challenge requesting you to highlight and reinforce your misrepresentation... your purposeful misrepresentation. Why so? Again, quote the basis for what you continue to state/claim/imply? Is there a problem... is there a reason you refuse to take up my repeated challenge? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.