Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was not asking for anything from the CAGW, not even if they had already made a statement or decision on the subject.I was tiring to get in my thoughts by using compatibles, distant as they are still revilement to all subject matter involving Man and Mother Nature. I thought it was standard procedure to take into consideration other " natural" events and their impact.
Thread title: The Arctic's Record Breaking Ice Melt
CAGW is somewhat related if one is linking the melt to it being the cause.
Past that, it appears you are in the wrong thread as your topic of discussion is completely off topic.
What historical data? It's easier to have a conversation if you mention specifics rather than generalities. There are pre-satellite observations dating back to a bit before 1900:
out of curiosity, any reason you choose posting over the sea ice P&OC thread over the sea ice weather thread?
Historical data are things like various older records through outdated instrumentation, logs from first hand experience, etc... I am not making the case that it is solid reliable data comparable to our satellite records, but it is important to "consider" when we go on about speculating unprecedented events.
There are numerous reports from the past which give some limited insight into the conditions of the arctic long before we had the technology than we do now. These eye witness accounts and various other assessments of the arctic suggest the conditions today are not unprecedented.
Now I realize this is not a scientific means of establishing something as such information lacks the completeness to be able to actually compare data appropriately. The point is, if we are speculating (and we most certainly are), then I think it relevant to "consider" it within the over all evaluation of the issue as it concerns precedence.
A 30 year satellite record is a drop in the bucket and hardly a proper means of establishing understanding of our climate systems. One can look through many proxies and then pick out a 30 year portion to claim anything they like. As I said, historical information conflicts in many ways with the position that the occurrence of the arctics melt is unprecedented.
Proxies are still speculations of correlation and not truly "historic" in the means to which I am describing. While they are useful to an extent, they have issues, as we have seen with Mann's use of such in the past. Until we can truly establish a definitive source of record of sufficient length, all aspects of evaluation concerning history should be "considered".
As for why I do not post much in the weather forum? Mainly because I see the weather forum as a means of strictly factual representation of occurrence (or it should be) and outside of such combined with maybe an individuals speculation at direction and technical aspects of the topic, nothing else should be present. You do have a few that drop in to try an suggest CAGW links or counter to it and there are snide remarks as to such. You also moderate such, which knowing your background and position concerning CAGW and these issues I think is improper. It is not that I think you have a devious motive, rather your bias can lead to problems within the discussion. It is just a recipe for abuse.
Historical data are things like various older records through outdated instrumentation, logs from first hand experience, etc... I am not making the case that it is solid reliable data comparable to our satellite records, but it is important to "consider" when we go on about speculating unprecedented events.
There are numerous reports from the past which give some limited insight into the conditions of the arctic long before we had the technology than we do now. These eye witness accounts and various other assessments of the arctic suggest the conditions today are not unprecedented.
Yes, I realize that. I was asking for which historical reports you were refering. The post I made you were replying to had a link (History of Arctic Sea Ice Part I) that dealt with historical evidence, based off a scientific paper.
Of the 1938 map, it doesn't show current conditions are not unprecedented. It looks fairly similar to 2000, which had much higher sea ice extents than recent years.
Quote:
A 30 year satellite record is a drop in the bucket and hardly a proper means of establishing understanding of our climate systems. One can look through many proxies and then pick out a 30 year portion to claim anything they like.
I suspect proxies couldn't actually pick out if there was any extremely low Arctic sea ice period like 2007-2012 in the past, we'd wouldn't be able to tell. Their resolution at separating individual years is likely low.
Quote:
As I said, historical information conflicts in many ways with the position that the occurrence of the arctics melt is unprecedented.
none of the links you posted actually show that.
Quote:
As for why I do not post much in the weather forum? Mainly because I see the weather forum as a means of strictly factual representation of occurrence (or it should be) and outside of such combined with maybe an individuals speculation at direction and technical aspects of the topic, nothing else should be present.
well yes, I agree that it that is the main point of the weather forum. I puzzled why you didn't post any more in that thread, facts and speculation, since you appear interested in the subject compared to this one which has far less content.
Quote:
You do have a few that drop in to try an suggest CAGW links or counter to it and there are snide remarks as to such. You also moderate such, which knowing your background and position concerning CAGW and these issues I think is improper. It is not that I think you have a devious motive, rather your bias can lead to problems within the discussion. It is just a recipe for abuse.
I'll freely admit to being biased. And any of the regulars of the weather forum (and maybe here) know my biases. I let in all link drops that were related to Arctic sea ice in anyway. There were a bunch (mostly by Cambium) of the opposing view, which I argued with and others were free to defend. My moderation was meant to prevent the discussion from being completely derailed, and few posters complained, one was quite irritated.
Thread title: The Arctic's Record Breaking Ice Melt
CAGW is somewhat related if one is linking the melt to it being the cause.
Past that, it appears you are in the wrong thread as your topic of discussion is completely off topic.
This got way out of hand, and for no real reason. When I brought up one of the things nature has taught us as an example of man and Nature working together or not, I thought it fit right in with the discussion.The Dust Bowl has lots of similar truncates in history. First many people refused to except the loss of top soil as a cause for the dust storms. Down through history the scenario has been repeated , DDT for example. it did a great job of killing weeds. The Chemical COs fought any investigation or connection. It was Rachel Carson's book " Silent Spring" that turned the page. Where had all the birds gone? , no one cared. The real break that banned the chemical was the disappearance of Eagles, our national bird and, a symbol of freedom
The CAGW theory that the .Sea Ice disappearance is due to the drop of 1 degree in temp and the resulting changes are as a result of that, on and on, open water, Ice where it should not be futher warming of the earth. I do not want to get into your thread for some sinister reason as you inferred in past banter.
So , it seems you see no connection for other weather related events, caused by Man as reverent to the discussion of Arctic sea Ice. It was a week comparison in tech. ways, but still an event that involved Man and nature.. I am sorry I even got started on this " outside" topic, just thought I was being helpful, I guess not, so, I am out of here, this subject is not my battle. I hope that makes you happy. By By
You ignored the point of the post Nei. Sorry, but as I have mentioned, you are biased to a position and attempting to cling to a given conclusion to the issue. I don't have a "conclusion", I have pointed this out many times to you, but I keep bringing up the point that the claims of unprecedented occurrence in the arctic is not validated and you keep attempting to declare it is. The fact is, we do not know for sure. My mention of "historical" data was to show that this may not be true.
I linked a few mentions of such as merely a point to the fact that existing data does not match up with historical data. You took it as a direct rebuttal in terms of definitive. The evidence I provide does not have to be "definitive", it merely has to show the inconsistencies with the methods that claim their position. I hope you can understand that as this is the "key" to scientific process. I don't need to "PROVE" every aspect of your information wrong, I only need to show a single fact of inconsistency in such and the entire hypothesis is destroyed. This is how science works. If you can not through proper means explain an inconsistency, then your position is wrong. That is why science works. That is why we can trust in science (with in reason) to be correct on a given position. It is because it is consistent through ALL tests, trough ALL objections, to its given means. If it is not... it is wrong.
You ignored the point of the post Nei. Sorry, but as I have mentioned, you are biased to a position and attempting to cling to a given conclusion to the issue. I don't have a "conclusion", I have pointed this out many times to you, but I keep bringing up the point that the claims of unprecedented occurrence in the arctic is not validated and you keep attempting to declare it is. The fact is, we do not know for sure. My mention of "historical" data was to show that this may not be true.
I linked a few mentions of such as merely a point to the fact that existing data does not match up with historical data. You took it as a direct rebuttal in terms of definitive.
No, you're ignoring my point and confusing the issue. You said earlier: These eye witness accounts and various other assessments of the arctic suggest the conditions today are not unprecedented.
The historical data you showed does NOT show that this year's ice extent is similar to historical, pre-1979 sea ice low extents. The maps you showed (1938 extents) are roughly the same as the ice extent in 2000, much higher than sea ice extents since 2007, especially this year.
Could some previous poorly observed year have had as low sea ice extent as this year? Sure. If you read my post, you'll see I said just as much. But the historical data of the time period available has not seen that.
No, you're ignoring my point and confusing the issue. You said earlier: These eye witness accounts and various other assessments of the arctic suggest the conditions today are not unprecedented.
The historical data you showed does NOT show that this year's ice extent is similar to historical, pre-1979 sea ice low extents. The maps you showed (1938 extents) are roughly the same as the ice extent in 2000, much higher than sea ice extents since 2007, especially this year.
Could some previous poorly observed year have had as low sea ice extent as this year? Sure. If you read my post, you'll see I said just as much. But the historical data of the time period available has not seen that.
It was one example of the "differences" between claims today and that of the past, I wasn't trying to show irrefutable proof, seriously, go look into it. There are pictures of ships at the north pole historically. You can't even get there today as such. The second link talked about such, but you focused on the first link.
Forget it, you are looking to be right in your bias and I could give a rats ass if you accept the facts, you want to be right, fine, stew in it, worship in your ideology. /boggle
It was one example of the "differences" between claims today and that of the past, I wasn't trying to show irrefutable proof, seriously, go look into it. There are pictures of ships at the north pole historically. You can't even get there today as such. The second link talked about such, but you focused on the first link.
I didn't read the second link in detail, and it was rather long. Your first link didn't really support what you were claiming, how can you not expect to be called out on it if it doesn't? I would expect no less of a nitpick from other posters if I posted something similar. Looking at the second link, I don't see any mention of ships at the North Pole just near it.
Quote:
Forget it, you are looking to be right in your bias and I could give a rats ass if you accept the facts, you want to be right, fine, stew in it, worship in your ideology. /boggle
Wonderful. Instead of reasoned argument, apparently you are unable to respond so you resort to name calling. And your claims of being bias-free is absurd and non-credible.
I'm surprised Obama isn't spending trillions of dollars to deploy snowmaking machines to the North pole to replenish the ice caps.
Personally, I'm looking forward to being able to plant palm trees in Northern Utah. I always wanted the "desert oasis" look for my yard but could never bring myself to live in Las Vegas.
I didn't read the second link in detail, and it was rather long. Your first link didn't really support what you were claiming, how can you not expect to be called out on it if it doesn't? I would expect no less of a nitpick from other posters if I posted something similar. Looking at the second link, I don't see any mention of ships at the North Pole just near it.
I linked some "examples" of what I meant concerning historical information. The DMI maps were an example of various historical data we have that are not considered when evaluating the arctics past. The second link discussed the issues of arctic conditions and how historically, the ice melting is not unprecedented, more specifically the photo of the sub located at the north pole. It is not my problem that you refused to evaluate the second link and then jumped to conclusions about the support I provided to my mention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Wonderful. Instead of reasoned argument, apparently you are unable to respond so you resort to name calling. And your claims of being bias-free is absurd and non-credible.
Actually, my initial comment was just that not all historical data is taken into consideration and that information conflicts at times with what is believed concerning arctic history. You took up issue with such and were looking to argue it, but there is nothing to argue with. As the second link points out, conditions of a melting arctic are not unprecedented. Now you can certainly argue over the lack of details to establish a comparison to current methods we have now, but as I said, there is some merit in considering past historical information, especially when we are speculating on trends and unprecedented events.
I have no desire to argue over your desire to argue your bias and I refuse to play stupid games concerning it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Arctic's Record Breaking Ice Melt
