A Scientist, His Work and a Climate Reckoning

[quade 3]

Quote

As a counter to the constant "the Arctic is losing ice" drumbeat from him - Antarctic ice is trending up and is, in fact, at an all-time high.

Hogwash.

Please provide ANY proof the ice in Antarctica is now "at an all-time high.".

Meanwhile;
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

As a counter to the constant "the Arctic is losing ice" drumbeat from him - Antarctic ice is trending up and is, in fact, at an all-time high.

Hogwash.

Please provide ANY proof the ice in Antarctica is now "at an all-time high.".

Meanwhile;
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

Asked and answered above, as well as the article rebutted - reread the thread. GRACE has known issues and a very short timeline - or is a long data record only mandatory for proof critical of AGW?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

Asked and answered above, as well as the article rebutted - reread the thread.

Incorrect.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Incorrect.

Yes, you are:

From 2007:
Antarctic ice grows to record levels
(By Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo)

Excerpt: While the news focus has been on the lowest ice extent since satellite monitoring began in 1979 for the Arctic, the Southern Hemisphere (Antarctica) has quietly set a new record for most ice extent since 1979.

Former Harvard Physcist Lubos Motl Weight in on Antarctic Ice
Excerpt: Satellites began to measure the Earth's cryosphere in 1979. Because of a warm summer, the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area has reached new historic lows in 2007. Around August 28th, the new minimum of 2.99 million squared kilometers of sea ice easily surpassed the previous record of 4.01 million squared kilometers set in 2005.

From 2009:
The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.

Such was the finding reported last week by Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan in the journal Geophysical Research Letters:

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.

And, of course, the recent graphic from NSIDC showing extent as well as an SD plot (attached).

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 3]

Are you thrown by the article title? Because the article itself certainly doesn't support your position that the Antarctic ice is now "at an all-time high."

Here, read exactly what you just quoted from the article;

Quote

The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.

Point 1 - it's talking about the amount of snow melt, which isn't taking into consideration snow accumulation, which is also slower than normal.

Point 2 - the words "recorded in the satellite history." Which is an extremely short period of time and only a tiny fraction of man's history on the planet let alone, "all-time."

Again, please provide ANY proof the ice in Antarctica is now "at an all-time high."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Are you thrown by the article title? Because the article itself certainly doesn't support your position that the Antarctic ice is now "at an all-time high."

Don't really give a shit about the article, with the known issues with GRACE. Perhaps you can explain why 10 years isn't enough for a valid trend if it shows cooling, but less than 10 is enough if it shows warming.

Here, read exactly what you just quoted from the article;

Quote

The ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history.

Point 1 - it's talking about the amount of snow melt, which isn't taking into consideration snow accumulation, which is also slower than normal.

[quade 3]

Quote

Not posting them again - feel free to scroll back and re-read or look at graphs again until you figure it out.

In other words, you've got nothing.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Not posting them again - feel free to scroll back and re-read or look at graphs again until you figure it out.

In other words, you've got nothing.

No - it means he is tired of people that are dilberately putting blinders on.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Not posting them again - feel free to scroll back and re-read or look at graphs again until you figure it out.

In other words, you've got nothing.

I've got data from the NSIDC - the same place kallend got *his* graph from.

*You've* got nothing.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not posting them again - feel free to scroll back and re-read or look at graphs again until you figure it out.

In other words, you've got nothing.

No - it means he is tired of people that are dilberately putting blinders on.

Really? Or is he hiding behind it because he can't support his claim?

Here, let me quote his claim again;

Quote

Antarctic ice is trending up and is, in fact, at an all-time high.

No. He's proved ZERO substantiation of this claim. Not in any previous posting. Nowhere.

He CAN'T provide it because it's a bullshit claim.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not posting them again - feel free to scroll back and re-read or look at graphs again until you figure it out.

In other words, you've got nothing.

No - it means he is tired of people that are dilberately putting blinders on.

Really? Or is he hiding behind it because he can't support his claim?

Here, let me quote his claim again;

Quote

Antarctic ice is trending up and is, in fact, at an all-time high.

No. He's proved ZERO substantiation of this claim. Not in any previous posting. Nowhere.

He CAN'T provide it because it's a bullshit claim.

So is the conclusion that is brought as truth - the whole global warming Bull shit

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not posting them again - feel free to scroll back and re-read or look at graphs again until you figure it out.

In other words, you've got nothing.

No - it means he is tired of people that are dilberately putting blinders on.

Really? Or is he hiding behind it because he can't support his claim?

Here, let me quote his claim again;

Quote

Antarctic ice is trending up and is, in fact, at an all-time high.

No. He's proved ZERO substantiation of this claim. Not in any previous posting. Nowhere.

He CAN'T provide it because it's a bullshit claim.

So prove the graph false, Paul.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 3]

Quote

So prove the graph false, Paul.

The ice age, Mike. Antarctica had more ice during the ice age than it does now. That pretty much invalidates your claim.

When you toss around a term like "all-time" it's almost always going to be easily proven false.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

So prove the graph false, Paul.

The ice age, Mike. Antarctica had more ice during the ice age than it does now. That pretty much invalidates your claim.

When you toss around a term like "all-time" it's almost always going to be easily proven false.

If you are reasonable and understand that he is referring to recorded history - you might want to try to prove him wrong.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So prove the graph false, Paul.

The ice age, Mike. Antarctica had more ice during the ice age than it does now. That pretty much invalidates your claim.

When you toss around a term like "all-time" it's almost always going to be easily proven false.

If you are reasonable and understand that he is referring to recorded history - you might want to try to prove him wrong.

Recorded history includes the "little" ice age. Try again.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So prove the graph false, Paul.

The ice age, Mike. Antarctica had more ice during the ice age than it does now. That pretty much invalidates your claim.

When you toss around a term like "all-time" it's almost always going to be easily proven false.

If you are reasonable and understand that he is referring to recorded history - you might want to try to prove him wrong.

Recorded history includes the "little" ice age. Try again.

In the little ice age you refer to - did the ice forming patterns exceed the ones we have now?

With the tech we had then, how is it possible to know.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

So prove the graph false, Paul.

The ice age, Mike. Antarctica had more ice during the ice age than it does now. That pretty much invalidates your claim.

Except for that whole 'for the recorded period' that you keep conveniently mislaying.

Quote

When you toss around a term like "all-time" it's almost always going to be easily proven false.

That's all you've got? One instance where I didn't add the 'for the recorded period' or similar?

Fucking lame. You've got nothing.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So prove the graph false, Paul.

The ice age, Mike. Antarctica had more ice during the ice age than it does now. That pretty much invalidates your claim.

When you toss around a term like "all-time" it's almost always going to be easily proven false.

If you are reasonable and understand that he is referring to recorded history - you might want to try to prove him wrong.

Recorded history includes the "little" ice age. Try again.

The graph doesn't encompass the little ice age, Paul. Try again.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 3]

Quote

One instance where I didn't add the 'for the recorded period' or similar?

People have been heavily criticized for far less. For example, usage of the word "clip" when the absolutely correct word for a particular weapon is "magazine." Far too many examples in this forum to go over point-by-point.

If you're going to bandy about an absolute term such as "all-time", I'm sorry but it's more than fair game for criticism.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

One instance where I didn't add the 'for the recorded period' or similar?

People have been heavily criticized for far less. For example, usage of the word "clip" when the absolutely correct word for a particular weapon is "magazine." Far too many examples in this forum to go over point-by-point.

If you're going to bandy about an absolute term such as "all-time", I'm sorry but it's more than fair game for criticism.

Ok, so you made your point.
It this where you get off or do dare getting back on the topic?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>That's all you've got? One instance where I didn't add the 'for the recorded
>period' or similar? Fucking lame.

Much denier rhetoric is based on slip-ups of similar sorts by climate scientists. A denier will discover an error in a dataset, for example. And instead of correcting the error and seeing how it changes the outcome, they will then deny the validity of everything that scientist has ever done, and everything his colleages have ever done. They find a crumb and discard the mountain it is a part of. The attempted crucifixion of Mann is a good example here - one you have participated in with great enthusiasm.

You may indeed find such things fucking lame. If so, perhaps attending to the beam in your own eye would be in order.

If not, well, you have just given yourself the level of credibility you give Mann, Gore et al.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

One instance where I didn't add the 'for the recorded period' or similar?

People have been heavily criticized for far less. For example, usage of the word "clip" when the absolutely correct word for a particular weapon is "magazine." Far too many examples in this forum to go over point-by-point.

If you're going to bandy about an absolute term such as "all-time", I'm sorry but it's more than fair game for criticism.

So, you had nothing besides a nitpick that had NOTHING to do with the data provided - thanks for clarifying that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>That's all you've got? One instance where I didn't add the 'for the recorded
>period' or similar? Fucking lame.

Much denier rhetoric is based on slip-ups of similar sorts by climate scientists. A denier will discover an error in a dataset, for example. And instead of correcting the error and seeing how it changes the outcome, they will then deny the validity of everything that scientist has ever done, and everything his colleages have ever done. They find a crumb and discard the mountain it is a part of. The attempted crucifixion of Mann is a good example here - one you have participated in with great enthusiasm.

Like you/kallend have done with Lindzen and others?

Quote

You may indeed find such things fucking lame. If so, perhaps attending to the beam in your own eye would be in order.

Lemme know when Mann released a new 'hockey stick' that accurately represents the MWP and LIA, kthx.

Quote

If not, well, you have just given yourself the level of credibility you give Mann, Gore et al.

As you and kallend have given yourselves the level of credibility that you have given Lindzen, Watts, McIntyre, McKittrick, etc.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 3]

Quote

So, you had nothing besides a nitpick that had NOTHING to do with the data provided - thanks for clarifying that.

No sir. I asked for you to provide data to support your claim. It's entirely possible you actually had data of some sort that was not readily apparent. It turns out, you had overstated your claim by a large margin with absolutely nothing to back it up.

The fault in that doesn't rest with me, but with yourself.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

Quote

Are you thrown by the article title? Because the article itself certainly doesn't support your position that the Antarctic ice is now "at an all-time high."

Don't really give a shit about the article,.

Apparently!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.