Canadian ice shelves breaking up at record speed

[The_Global_Warmer]

An important distinction must be made. Man has not invented a new way to warm the Earth. We are influencing what you would call a natural climate driver...the natural greenhouse effect. We are adding to it's strength by the addition of a naturally occurring long atmospheric lifetime greenhouse gas, CO2 and to a much lesser degree some unnatural synthetic carbon based compounds which also act as strong greenhouse gases. We add CO2 to the atmosphere principally through the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, the production of cement and agricultural practices.

He says he knew that and a whole bunch else about science...so?

I guess since Humans are natural, it's all natural variation still

[Sunny and Warm]

and your credentials in this field are? have you actually read this entire paper? the references cited are quite authoritative--what is your specific criticism of how they are used?

the fact you are unable to see the difference between the accuracy of heliophysics, a field still in relative infancy, to the relative wealth of data available to climate scientists is mind-boggling.

You are so far out of your element on this forum it's laughable. Do you actually hear any of the snickers thrown your direction?

[Sunny and Warm]

your a shameless liar.

I back everything I say with facts on top of facts on top of facts on top of facts.

your lie, manipulate, and troll.

You have no shame, no integrity, no honesty, and no honor.

You know all of this and you don't care....the word alarmist is a joke and has no meaning, except in fantasy land where you and the other liars like Mairettawx live.

just because you have data doesn't mean you have no shame, and have honor and integrity, and honesty. You proudly display your ignorance of the real issues and others play you like a fine instrument. Please continue...

[The_Global_Warmer]

just because you have data doesn't mean you have no shame, and have honor and integrity, and honesty. You proudly display your ignorance of the real issues and others play you like a fine instrument. Please continue...

Like what?

you throw this around about all of us..but never have any follow up?

[Sunny and Warm]

What cause do you think I have? I don't give a darn about your conspiracy theories, your politics or your ideology. I don't care about how the media sensationalizes AGW or not. I don't care about individual personal opinion. I care only about the science.

BTW, I though the list of things associated with AGW you provided to be humorous. Seriously I thought that was your intent. Do you really see an agenda in all that?

Do you??

[Sunny and Warm]

Like what?

you throw this around about all of us..but never have any follow up?

you caricature yourself and then expect everyone to respect you. You have the data but have no idea how to interpret it because of your extreme bias. The only reason you are not on ignore is that I find you humorous to read at times.

[Sunny and Warm]

how am I out of my element?

what journals do you regularly read on the subject?

Ladies first.

[The_Global_Warmer]

you caricature yourself and then expect everyone to respect you. You have the data but have no idea how to interpret it because of your extreme bias. The only reason you are not on ignore is that I find you humorous to read at times.

YOU STILL HAVE BACKED UP YOUR CLAIMS WITH ZERO DATA.

THE FLOOR IS ALL YOURS, WHETHER IT BE SEA ICE OR THIS OR ANYTHING YOU WANT TO DISCUSS..

Lets go buddy?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Ladies first.

YOU CANT NAME ONE JOURNAL?

[Snowstorms]

Well there are some discrepancies in some of these articles. Like some may have said we don't have any solid records of Arctic Sea ice prior to the late 70's when we began measuring sea ice across the Arctic and Antarctica. We can use ice core records to determine temperature trends but determining precipitation and ice extent/depth is much more complicated.

I think it's safe to assume that the decline in Arctic Sea ice in the last 15-30 years can't be contributed to humans nor can we say for sure that its a result of changing oceanic climatic patterns such as the PDO, AMO etc. I think it would be wise enough to wait for another 10-30 years before coming to any conclusion. With the PDO expected to stay negative till atleast 2030 and the AMO expected to go negative in 5-12 years we'll see if the Arctic Sea Ice responds to these sudden changes. If the PDO/AMO are both negative come 15-20 years from now and yet the Arctic Sea Ice continues to decline then it would be safe to say that much of melting can be contributed to C02 changes and such but if we do see a recovery of some sort then we'll see how the scientific community reacts coming to a conclusion there after.

We do know that changing Oceanic SST's anomalies has a huge effect on the Earth's temperature and such. A +AMO ensures more tropical activity across the Atlantic and this in turn warms the SST's surrounding the Arctic and this warmth expands come Summer when the Sun is shining 24/7.

I was a believer of AGW like 2+ years ago but after reviewing papers, looking at the data myself I've become more skeptical and thats my own opinion.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Well there are some discrepancies in some of these articles. Like some may have said we don't have any solid records of Arctic Sea ice prior to the late 70's when we began measuring sea ice across the Arctic and Antarctica. We can use ice core records to determine temperature trends but determining precipitation and ice extent/depth is much more complicated.

I think it's safe to assume that the decline in Arctic Sea ice in the last 15-30 years can't be contributed to humans nor can we say for sure that its a result of changing oceanic climatic patterns such as the PDO, AMO etc. I think it would be wise enough to wait for another 10-30 years before coming to any conclusion. With the PDO expected to stay negative till atleast 2030 and the AMO expected to go negative in 5-12 years we'll see if the Arctic Sea Ice responds to these sudden changes. If the PDO/AMO are both negative come 15-20 years from now and yet the Arctic Sea Ice continues to decline then it would be safe to say that much of melting can be contributed to C02 changes and such but if we do see a recovery of some sort then we'll see how the scientific community reacts coming to a conclusion there after.

We do know that changing Oceanic SST's anomalies has a huge effect on the Earth's temperature and such. A +AMO ensures more tropical activity across the Atlantic and this in turn warms the SST's surrounding the Arctic and this warmth expands come Summer when the Sun is shining 24/7.

I was a believer of AGW like 2+ years ago but after reviewing papers, looking at the data myself I've become more skeptical and thats my own opinion.

this is just simple false.

[Sunny and Warm]

this is just simple false.

not really. Reading comprehension is actually more important than reading.

[Sunny and Warm]

for climate change, generally GRL for snapshots and JGR-Atmospheres for longer papers.

sometimes Science and Nature if someone else at work isn't hoarding them.

you?

I stay away from Science and Nature. Hack publications. AGU used to be better, but papers like this have me shaking my head. I still don't believe you actually read the journals mentioned, but I'll take your word for it. Truce for now.

http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2011/2011-30.shtml

Cold is natural, but warm is AGW. Simply amazing to me that these people may have a conscience. I guess the research grant is mightier than thy integrity.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I stay away from Science and Nature. Hack publications. AGU used to be better, but papers like this have me shaking my head. I still don't believe you actually read the journals mentioned, but I'll take your word for it. Truce for now.

http://www.agu.org/n...1/2011-30.shtml

Cold is natural, but warm is AGW. Simply amazing to me that these people may have a conscience. I guess the research grant is mightier than thy integrity.

Link us to the publications that back your claims...no trolling.

Just post the published paper that back your claims.

[The_Global_Warmer]

you're a member? cool. I only know of 2 other members here although I'm sure there's a few more. what section do you belong to?

why wouldn't I actually read those journals? I work in scientific publishing and scientific journals are a great place to find book ideas.

it's just a press release that summarizes 2 actual papers. why did you refer to it as a "paper" (you said in your first line "papers like this").

Not only that...the extreme warmth, not sure he even knows where it took place was off the charts abnromal in terms of how warm it was and how long.

The cold was well within the lines of normal.

Everything with this guy is lie or exaggeration.

[Sunny and Warm]

Not only that...the extreme warmth, not sure he even knows where it took place was off the charts abnromal in terms of how warm it was and how long.

The cold was well within the lines of normal.

Everything with this guy is lie or exaggeration.

yo realize the ally you are posting to is heavily into carbon producing activities such as RV'ing and auto racing?? I don't have a problem with her hobbies, but if you think she lives off the land and lives in a cave using homemade candles to achieve a zero carbon life, think again. She is likely the main cause of ice loss this decade. Beware you friends Friv.

[The_Global_Warmer]

yo realize the ally you are posting to is heavily into carbon producing activities such as RV'ing and auto racing?? I don't have a problem with her hobbies, but if you think she lives off the land and lives in a cave using homemade candles to achieve a zero carbon life, think again. She is likely the main cause of ice loss this decade. Beware you friends Friv.

look at you, you can't even post about the data..

instead you go and attack someone else again.

here is the excerpt you said was manipulatedWASHINGTON — During the last two winters, some regions of the northern hemisphere experienced extreme cold not seen in recent decades. But at the same time, the winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11 were also marked by more prominent, although less newsworthy, extreme warm spells.

New research examines daily wintertime temperature extremes since 1948 The study finds that the warm extremes were much more severe and widespread than the cold extremes during the northern hemisphere winters of 2009-10 (which featured an extreme snowfall episode on the East Coast dubbed “snowmaggedon”) and 2010-11. Moreover, while the extreme cold was mostly attributable to a natural climate cycle, the extreme warmth was not, the study concludes.

“We investigated the relationships between prominent natural climate modes and extreme temperatures, both warm and cold. Natural climate variability explained the cold extremes; the observed warmth was consistent with a long-term warming trend,” says Kristen Guirguis, a postdoctoral researcher at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego and lead author of the study, which is set to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

The researchers created extreme temperature indices for the past 63 winters and placed the last two winters in this longer historical context. In terms of their cold extremes, the 2009-10 and 2010-11winters ranked 21st and 34th, respectively, for the northern hemisphere as a whole. For warm extremes, these two winters ranked much higher (12th and fourth), according to the record.

Guirguis’ team concludes that the extreme cold events by and large fell into norms that would be expected during the negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), a prominent regional climate mode known to bring cold weather to northern Eurasia and Eastern North America.

The team compared records of extreme warm outbreaks over the two winters with the NAO as well as indices of El Niño – Southern Oscillation and its longer-term companion cycle, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. This comparison, however, revealed that most of the extreme warmth was left unexplained. Including a linear warming trend in the model’s assumptions better accounted for the recent warm extremes, but still underestimated them.

“Over the last couple of years, natural variability seemed to produce the cold extremes, while the warm extremes kept trending just as one would expect in a period of accelerating global warming,” says Scripps climate researcher Alexander Gershunov, a report co-author.

Gershunov notes, however, that the study shows that extreme cold events in the past two winters, though driven by a natural cycle, are still consistent with global warming trends. The oscillation would have made cold snaps even more severe if the global warming patterns superimposed upon it hadn’t mitigated the cold.

The research was funded in part by the Vetlesen Foundation via the Scripps Partnership for Hazards and Environmental Applied Research (SPHEAR). The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research under the Postdocs Applying Climate Expertise (PACE) fellowship also supported the work.

show us all where they manipulated data?

:

[Sunny and Warm]

you're a member? cool. I only know of 2 other members here although I'm sure there's a few more. what section do you belong to?

why wouldn't I actually read those journals? I work in scientific publishing and scientific journals are a great place to find book ideas.

it's just a press release that summarizes 2 actual papers. why did you refer to it as a "paper" (you said in your first line "papers like this").

I'm not a member. I have a hydrologist friend who is, and I get info from him.

[Sunny and Warm]

show us all where they manipulated data?

Where did I say that?? Please show me or apologize for your boorish behavior tonight.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Where did I say that?? Please show me or apologize for your boorish behavior tonight.

Cold is natural, but warm is AGW. Simply amazing to me that these people may have a conscience. I guess the research grant is mightier than thy integrity.

How do they have no integrity if they are not lying?

[The_Global_Warmer]

you must have a problem with my hobbies--you made this post.

how would he know about your hobbies?

[Sunny and Warm]

you must have a problem with my hobbies--you made this post.

I'm not into NASCAR, but I like Indy racing. I like RV'ing. Question??

[Sunny and Warm]

how would he know about your hobbies?

sock puppets know a lot of things.

[Sunny and Warm]

so you didn't and don't regularly read the journals I noted?

I read papers irregularly, but when I get the chance, I can go through a few papers at a time, especially when I'm flying long distance. I don't like the slant of Science and Nature, so no, I don't read them very much I must say again.

[Sunny and Warm]

over the years I've been pretty open that my husband like to camp with our RV and to go to NASCAR races.

congrats on the marriage btw. He was a boyfriend last I knew.

[Sunny and Warm]

you'd pack the print journals and take them when you travel? what's your field in the physical sciences?

what would you do on a 12-14 hour flight when you don't sleep on airplanes? I probably read 4-6 hours easily on flights until my eyes say STOP for rest.

[Sunny and Warm]

? engaged almost 5 years ago and and married almost 3 years now. how can I take you seriously if you can't keep up?

I know. I thought I saw where you called him husband once, but sometimes people do that to shut off the inherent, "when are you getting hitched" or Oh, I thought he was your husband already" comments.

[The_Global_Warmer]

she asked you what your field is?

[Strongbad]

she asked you what your field is?

It's in your best interest to stop reading into things. Basic understanding of the dialogue shows that neither of them are being too serious. I advise you do the same. Perhaps take some aspirin...

[Sunny and Warm]

It's in your best interest to stop reading into things. Basic understanding of the dialogue shows that neither of them are being too serious. I advise you do the same. Perhaps take some tylenol...

the 1982 version perhaps ...

j/k