|
Post by thermostat on Nov 24, 2012 2:28:17 GMT
Karlox, Just btw, I would not presume that icefisher has the relevant physics nailed down. Icefisher, please correct me if I am not correct, Icefisher, I gather that you are not a physicist; or are you? Hi Thermostat! I´m for sure a layman; as for anyone else I just try to be sure to understand what they mean and first of all I pound whether it sounds reasonable... next I try to get more sourcess and contradictory opinions... learning bit by bit. So to me everybody´s point of view and explanations are very welcome... I was wondering myself effects in short term weather variability -if any- o a record melting summer season in the Artic like the one we had... More humidity in NH air expected for winter? Ocean Low salt water flow increased due to higher precipitations? And deep or shallow ocean currents possible drifts affecting the Artic? I try to avoid political confrontation on this, believe that we live most interesting times for science, and that the opportunity of monitoring weak cycles such as 24 and the ones might come ahead, with all the modern satellites and computers producing such an amount of useful information... We all are going to learn a lot within next few years. I bet. And please thermostat, your information and opinions are best welcome to me.! Karlox, Thank you for your complimentary post. I agree, there is a lot to understand about the Arctic. It will be most interesting to follow the science as it develops further.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Nov 24, 2012 2:42:15 GMT
www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL054259.shtmlFor those who listened to the folk playing down the significance of the GAC12. Best hope it was not connected to low ice leading to both large tracts of open water and elevated sst's or we may be in for a few more over the coming melt seasons. With ice ever thinner who is to say that such a storm could not herald the end of a permanent ice presence in the basin over the matter of a few days? graywolf, Thanks for the timely link. The August storm in the Arctic was indeed a significant indicator of how the Arctic has changed. In particular, the sources of atmospheric heat that provided this unusual input of energy so far north are of interest.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Nov 24, 2012 2:51:45 GMT
Karlox, Just btw, I would not presume that icefisher has the relevant physics nailed down. Icefisher, please correct me if I am not correct, Icefisher, I gather that you are not a physicist; or are you? You seldom gather much of anything Thermostat! Still waiting for your references to support your viewpoint that current ice levels have not been seen since the Holocene Thermal Optimum. You just made that up for the sake of argument did you not? So what are you taking issue with now? That the freezing temperature variation in the arctic does not matter? That precipitation in the northern hemisphere does not matter? That nothing matters except your religious belief in CO2 matters? Why not trying to add something to these discussions. You are sooooooo transparent, you go off after people here when you have nothing to contribute. Am I a physicist? That would depend upon which definition one adopts for physicist. The most common definition is "a scientist who does research in physics", under that definition I would be; but I do not consider myself a physicist and do not consider most climate scientists to be physicists either despite the fact most do some research in physics. You need to explain why that matters. Does the opinion of full time, fully degreed physicists matter to you? If so what do you think of the opinions of famous physicists like Dr Richard Lindzen, or Dr. Will Happer?, or Dr. Fred Singer, or Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, or Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, or Dr Syun Akasofu. Does a PhD in physics even matter to you? Or is your response to the above Physics PhDs is to just ignore their degrees? Icefisher, Regarding Ice levels since the Holocene Thermal Maximum, I continue to wait for you, or other forum members to provide data that shows I am wrong. To clarify, I contend that the present Arctic Sea Ice melt is unprecedented since the Holocene Thermal Maximum. Icefisher, you in particular have been conspicuously unable to provide evidence to the contrary. If I am not correct, there should be published scientific data that demonstrates reduced Arctic Sea Ice extent at some, more recent time. I am not aware of such evidence.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Nov 24, 2012 3:09:35 GMT
Now that the annual freeze in the Arctic is well underway, it is a useful time to look back at the past few months. JAXA privides some useful contex. www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htmThe Arctic Sea still freezes. The Arctic is still quite cold. Has anything really changed?
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Nov 24, 2012 8:04:17 GMT
Now that the annual freeze in the Arctic is well underway, it is a useful time to look back at the past few months. JAXA privides some useful contex. www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htmThe Arctic Sea still freezes. The Arctic is still quite cold. Has anything really changed? As far as Ice extend is concerned we are well below average and still first minimum overall... So...
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 25, 2012 13:22:55 GMT
Icefisher,
Regarding Ice levels since the Holocene Thermal Maximum, I continue to wait for you, or other forum members to provide data that shows I am wrong.
To clarify, I contend that the present Arctic Sea Ice melt is unprecedented since the Holocene Thermal Maximum. Icefisher, you in particular have been conspicuously unable to provide evidence to the contrary.
Conspicuously? So in your opinion, the compilation of Polyak etal is useless?
Thats the only reference I provided but since its supposed to be a compilation of science of the arctic its hardly conspicuously vacant of any evidence.
If I am not correct, there should be published scientific data that demonstrates reduced Arctic Sea Ice extent at some, more recent time. I am not aware of such evidence.
Well what can I say Tstat. One can lead a moron to a book but one cannot make him read it?
The evidence is quite clear that 1) there have been several period in the past 6,000 years where ice levels were approximate to what they are today. Many of these have been itemized by both myself and Sigurdur and include evidence the Arctic sea ice has been open numerous times in the past allowing for transarctic migration. Proxy records include driftwood, whale migrations, and human migrations. Also, 2) that between about 8,000 and 6,000 years ago ice edges were at least several hundred kilometers north of where it is now.
Its not like the evidence is irrefutable. But it is rather strong and it is widely accepted by science.
The only thing irrefutable about all of this is your abject failure to provide any contrary evidence.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Nov 26, 2012 3:55:40 GMT
Icefisher,
Regarding Ice levels since the Holocene Thermal Maximum, I continue to wait for you, or other forum members to provide data that shows I am wrong.
To clarify, I contend that the present Arctic Sea Ice melt is unprecedented since the Holocene Thermal Maximum. Icefisher, you in particular have been conspicuously unable to provide evidence to the contrary. Conspicuously? So in your opinion, the compilation of Polyak etal is useless? Thats the only reference I provided but since its supposed to be a compilation of science of the arctic its hardly conspicuously vacant of any evidence. If I am not correct, there should be published scientific data that demonstrates reduced Arctic Sea Ice extent at some, more recent time. I am not aware of such evidence. Well what can I say Tstat. One can lead a moron to a book but one cannot make him read it? The evidence is quite clear that 1) there have been several period in the past 6,000 years where ice levels were approximate to what they are today. Many of these have been itemized by both myself and Sigurdur and include evidence the Arctic sea ice has been open numerous times in the past allowing for transarctic migration. Proxy records include driftwood, whale migrations, and human migrations. Also, 2) that between about 8,000 and 6,000 years ago ice edges were at least several hundred kilometers north of where it is now. Its not like the evidence is irrefutable. But it is rather strong and it is widely accepted by science. The only thing irrefutable about all of this is your abject failure to provide any contrary evidence. icefisher, All you need do to nail me to the cross is to provide the citations to your sources and prove it to curious forum members; (I continue to say that there is no scientific evidence that conditions like 2012 have existed within the Arctic Sea since the Holocene Thermal Maximum). Since you suggest that I am a moron, it should be no suprise that I have not read these undisclosed/unknown sources of yours. icefisher, Again, can you provide any actual scientific references for your assertions?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Nov 26, 2012 4:28:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 26, 2012 4:57:35 GMT
icefisher,
All you need do to nail me to the cross is to provide the citations to your sources and prove it to curious forum members; (I continue to say that there is no scientific evidence that conditions like 2012 have existed within the Arctic Sea since the Holocene Thermal Maximum).
Look back in the forum you have been provided the references many times. In fact, you have the references as you yourself have linked to Polyak etal. I would go get them for you one more time but clearly it would be a waste of time as it has been in the past.
Since you suggest that I am a moron, it should be no surprise that I have not read these undisclosed/unknown sources of yours.
If thats what you got out of it, who am I to argue with you?
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Nov 26, 2012 5:15:51 GMT
icefisher,
All you need do to nail me to the cross is to provide the citations to your sources and prove it to curious forum members; (I continue to say that there is no scientific evidence that conditions like 2012 have existed within the Arctic Sea since the Holocene Thermal Maximum).Look back in the forum you have been provided the references many times. In fact, you have the references as you yourself have linked to Polyak etal. I would go get them for you one more time but clearly it would be a waste of time as it has been in the past. Since you suggest that I am a moron, it should be no surprise that I have not read these undisclosed/unknown sources of yours. If thats what you got out of it, who am I to argue with you? icefisher, How lame can you get? No, you have never provided any credible references to support your assertion. Can you provide a reference here and now or not? I suggest obviously not.
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Nov 26, 2012 5:19:03 GMT
icefisher,
ever hear of 'epic fail'?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 26, 2012 7:51:20 GMT
icefisher, ever hear of 'epic fail'? You have my sympathy.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Nov 26, 2012 12:57:19 GMT
icefisher, ever hear of 'epic fail'? T'stat, you need help. Seriously."All you need do to nail me to the cross is to provide the citations to your sources and prove it to curious forum members; (I continue to say that there is no scientific evidence that conditions like 2012 have existed within the Arctic Sea since the Holocene Thermal Maximum)." You ask others for evidence and they provide it and you ignore it.
Since YOU say, "there is no scientific evidence that conditions like 2012 have existed within the Arctic Sea since the Holocene Thermal Maximum." Why don't YOU prove THAT statement rather than continue to make a fool of yourself in front of "curious forum members" ?
Ever hear of "epic fraud"?
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Nov 26, 2012 17:37:45 GMT
Thanks Thermostat! very good link. I had sort of figure it out by myself that this record melting season in the Artic, with posiive SST anomalys nearby poles, could bring a warmer and higher precipitation rates to some areas of NH. This could trigger a long with large white-covered areas in this winter-spring NH, increasing albedo... this is the sort of things we don´t really understand well how they happen, but butterfly effects are always there...
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Nov 28, 2012 2:27:33 GMT
icefisher, ever hear of 'epic fail'? T'stat, you need help. Seriously."All you need do to nail me to the cross is to provide the citations to your sources and prove it to curious forum members; (I continue to say that there is no scientific evidence that conditions like 2012 have existed within the Arctic Sea since the Holocene Thermal Maximum)." You ask others for evidence and they provide it and you ignore it.
Since YOU say, "there is no scientific evidence that conditions like 2012 have existed within the Arctic Sea since the Holocene Thermal Maximum." Why don't YOU prove THAT statement rather than continue to make a fool of yourself in front of "curious forum members" ?
Ever hear of "epic fraud"?Throttleup, And I continue to contend that my interpretation is totally consistent with the published literature, and in particular, that this is the case because there is no evidence to support the alternative view (ie. that conditions similar to the present previously existed in the Arctic Sea region at some more recent time since the Holocene Thermal maximum). There is no single scientific reference that assembles the decades of research that are relevant here. It is simple not feasible to reference decades of research that in combination establish my point. But, if there is compelling evidence to the contrary from even a small number of papers, you could counter my contention about the Arctic Sea Ice. Again, I am not aware of such evidence. I gather that neither are you.
|
|