Ice shelf about to break away from Antarctic coast

[edit for double post]

[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by melatonin

No, you didn't. You presented evidence of volcanoes.

Earlier post highlighting how vacuous your claim is

I know some morons might buy your claim.

Right, so claims an arrogant egomaniac who dismisses every evidence that contradicts his religious belief.....



[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Right, so claims an arrogant egomaniac who dismisses every evidence that contradicts his religious belief.....

I didn't dismiss the stuff you posted. I dismissed your erroneous interpretation of it.

There is a big difference.

Originally posted by melatonin

I didn't dismiss the stuff you posted. I dismissed your erroneous interpretation of it.

There is a big difference.

Riiight... It is obvious by now you have no idea what manners are, and you do not know how to defend your arguments except to call those who disagree with you morons...

Your self-centered, arrogant, and egomaniac attitute does not help you in the least, but only shows what you really are.

Let me post again one of the several excerpts I gave.

Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming
GILBERT P. COMPO
PRASHANT D. SARDESHMUKH
Climate Diagnostics Center,
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences,
University of Colorado, and
Physical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
325 Broadway R/PSD1
Boulder CO 80305-3328
[email protected]
(303) 497-6115
(303) 497-6449

Citation:
Compo, G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate
Dynamics, doi: 10.1007/s00382-008-0448-9.
This article is published by Springer-Verlag. This author-created version is distributed courtesy of Springer-Verlag.
The original publication is available from www.springerlink.com at
www.springerlink.com...

Abstract
Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.

Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.

www.cdc.noaa.gov...

In the above research work the "evidence" says and I quote:

recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land

Yet you try to dismiss this alongside every other evidence against your Global Warming "Religion" because they make statements based on "opinion"... The word "MAY" does not mean there is evidence of this, but rather it is an opinion. The evidence shows the "worldwide" warming has been caused mostly by ocean warming, and we know for a fact not only that the oceans had been storing extra heat from the time when the Sun went through the highest activity in at least 1,000 years in the late 20th century, and at the beginning of the 21st century. We also know for a fact that volcanic, and magmatic activity has been increasing worldwide. Which again, there is "evidence" the melting of glaciers is being caused by the increased volcano/magmatic activity.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Riiight... It is obvious by now you have no idea what manners are, and you do not know how to defend your arguments except to call those who disagree with you morons...

Nope, I said that some morons would buy your BS. Lots of people who disagree with me I wouldn't label morons.

Your self-centered, arrogant, and egomaniac attitute does not help you in the least, but only shows what you really are.

Cool.

Do you have anything of substance? You can attempt to wind me up, but it's all a bit pretty tedious, tbh. Perhaps try to be a tad less transparent, learn a bit of wit or something.

Originally posted by melatonin
Do you have anything of substance? You can attempt to wind me up, but it's all a bit pretty tedious, tbh. Perhaps try to be a tad less transparent, learn a bit of wit or something.

There is a big difference between showing a "bit of wit" and the arrogance stance, and your tendencies to call people who disagree with you morons.

It is obvious you are the one not providing anything of substance except to inflate your self-centered, arrogant, and egomaniac attitude.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Let me post again one of the several excerpts I gave.

And I'll waste bandwidth with the same response as last time...

Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content
B. D. Santera,b, C. Mearsc, F. J. Wentzc, K. E. Taylora, P. J. Glecklera, T. M. L. Wigleyd, T. P. Barnette, J. S. Boylea, W. Brüggemannf, N. P. Gillettg, S. A. Kleina, G. A. Meehld, T. Nozawah, D. W. Piercee, P. A. Stotti, W. M. Washingtond, and M. F. Wehnerj
+Author Affiliations

aProgram for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550;
cRemote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, CA 95401;
dNational Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307;
eScripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA 92037;
fInstitut für Unternehmensforschung, Universität Hamburg, 20146 Hamburg, Germany;
gClimatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom;
hNational Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba 305-8506, Japan;
iHadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, United Kingdom Meteorological Office, Exeter EX1 3PB, United Kingdom; and
jLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720
Edited by Inez Y. Fung, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved July 27, 2007 (received for review March 27, 2007)

Abstract
Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m2 per decade since 1988. Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated “fingerprint” pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data. Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest that this fingerprint “match” is primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findings provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal in the moisture content of earth's atmosphere.

Originally published in Science Express on 2 June 2005
Science 8 July 2005:
Vol. 309. no. 5732, pp. 284 - 287
DOI: 10.1126/science.1112418
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

Reports
Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans

Tim P. Barnett,1* David W. Pierce,1 Krishna M. AchutaRao,2 Peter J. Gleckler,2 Benjamin D. Santer,2 Jonathan M. Gregory,3 Warren M. Washington4

A warming signal has penetrated into the world's oceans over the past 40 years. The signal is complex, with a vertical structure that varies widely by ocean; it cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models. We conclude that it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences. Changes in advection combine with surface forcing to give the overall warming pattern. The implications of this study suggest that society needs to seriously consider model predictions of future climate change.

Yet you try to dismiss this alongside every other evidence against your Global Warming "Religion" because they make statements based on "opinion"...

Again, I didn't dismiss the study, I dismissed your erroneous interpretation of it.

The word "MAY" does not mean there is evidence of this, but rather it is an opinion. The evidence shows the "worldwide" warming has been caused mostly by ocean warming,

Aye, because that particular study doesn't address the attribution. The two I posted in response did.

Which you appear to have ignored or, like the other study I posted, are unable to understand.

and we know for a fact not only that the oceans had been storing extra heat from the time when the Sun went through the highest activity in at least 1,000 years in the late 20th century, and at the beginning of the 21st century.

Yet the evidence shows that solar activity doesn't account for recent changes in ocean temps and atmospheric mositure content.

We also know for a fact that volcanic, and magmatic activity has been increasing worldwide. Which again, there is "evidence" the melting of glaciers is being caused by the increased volcano/magmatic activity.

No, that is your wild speculation.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by melatonin]

Double post, again....

[edit on 15-4-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
There is a big difference between showing a "bit of wit" and the arrogance stance, and your tendencies to call people who disagree with you morons.

See previous post.

It is obvious you are the one not providing anything of substance except to inflate your self-centered, arrogant, and egomaniac attitude.

Is this like groundhog day?

You repeat inane babblings, and I repost the same responses? Bit boring, I get more productive discussions from my parrot.

Originally posted by melatonin

Is this like groundhog day?

You repeat inane babblings, and I repost the same responses? Bit boring, I get more productive discussions from my parrot.

No wonder you came to be this way, you parrot away at your parrot, and think you are right about everything you say because your parrot can't respond back....

Some would say parroting away to a parrot is a sign of insanity....

[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by melatonin

Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content
B. D. Santera,b, C. Mearsc, F. J. Wentzc, K. E. Taylora, P. J. Glecklera, T. M. L. Wigleyd, T. P. Barnette, J. S. Boylea, W. Brüggemannf, N. P. Gillettg, S. A. Kleina, G. A. Meehld, T. Nozawah, D. W. Piercee, P. A. Stotti, W. M. Washingtond, and M. F. Wehnerj
+Author Affiliations

aProgram for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550;
cRemote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa, CA 95401;
dNational Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307;
eScripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA 92037;
fInstitut für Unternehmensforschung, Universität Hamburg, 20146 Hamburg, Germany;

..........

This only shows the truth about Global Climate Models. They are unreliable, and are not proof to what is happening.

As to your claim that there is no worldwide volcanic/magmatic increase....

I would advice for you to stop parroting away to your parrot, and start interacting more with the real world.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
This only shows the truth about Global Climate Models. They are unreliable, and are not proof to what is happening.

Not really, it does clearly show your hypocrisy and lack of understanding, however. That was also pointed out earlier..

I would advice for you to stop parroting away to your parrot, and start interacting more with the real world.

lol

I agree it does feel like I'm conversing with my parrot. I'm also reminded of talking with a dense amnesic.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Not really, it does clearly show your hypocrisy and lack of understanding, however. That was also pointed out

There is no point in discussing with you any topic.

I showed that in one of the many Climate Models a different result appears from the claims that you like to spouse. If computer models show different contradicting results, this should be a clear sign that Global Computer Models can be rigged to say anything anyone wants, hence they are no evidence to what is happening concerning Climate Change.

Originally posted by melatonin
lol

I agree it does feel like I'm conversing with my parrot. I'm also reminded of talking with a dense amnesic.

Riiight...again, unless people agree with your point of view, they are morons, and dense amnesics.....hell, if that is not a sign of a self-centered, arrogant and egomaniac fool, I don't know what is.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
I showed that in one of the many Climate Models a different result appears from the claims that you like to spouse, but when using such computer models it shows that different contradicting results appears this is a clear sign that Global Computer Models can be rigged to say anything anyone wants, hence they are no evidence to what is happening concerning Climate Change.

Nope, because that's not what the model-based study you posted did. It did not contradict the studies I posted. The fact you think it did again shows that you do not understand what you are posting, and what I am posting in reply.

You post model-based study suggesting that oceanic influences might be more important than GHGs over land. In big bold letters you highlight the GHG part, obviously you think this supports your 'fairy dust' claim. In the smaller print it also accepts that anthro and natural influences could well underpin oceanic warming. But it can't make firm claims, as it was not an attribution study. If you bothered to read the actual paper, you would know that. I don't have any big problem with the paper, and neither did you. At that point, models are cool and you missed the potential anthro influences - or you didn't even understand it was a model-based study.

In response I post two model-based studies which do assess attribution. Both show clear and significant attribution to anthro influences, and non-significant for solar and volcano for ocean warming and hydrological pertubations.

And then you whine about models and attempt to dismiss them. A good example of hypocrisy and/or your poor understanding. Take your pick.

Riiight...again, unless people agree with your point of view, they are morons, and dense amnesics.....hell, if that is not a sign of a self-centered, arrogant and egomaniac fool, I don't know what is.

Jeez, I'll repeat myself again. morons might well accept your inane inferences. However, not all people who disagree with me are morons.

It's not hard to understand. Your circular arguments suggests a potential memory problem. I've even just had to repeat something again.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by melatonin]

Maybe on one side the ice is breaking away from Antarctic coast, but overall the Ice is increaing a lot.
Increasing Antarctic Sea Ice

Originally posted by melatonin

lol

What are you on about?

That was a scientific study based on direct observations.
...................

.... No, what are YOU about?... You are posting a link from 2001, to respond to more recent research which disproves your claims...

Do you even know how to express a concise and intelligent argument?... Obviously with your "lols" and your dismissal of more recent research we can all see how you resort to discuss any topic...

Again, give it up. Your tactics do not work when facts are presented.

Originally posted by melatonin

Nope, because that's not what the model-based study you posted did. It did not contradict the studies I posted. The fact you think it did again shows that you do not understand what you are posting, and what I am posting in reply.
............

Oh boy...melatonin, stop it, take both your feet off your mouth and leave the topic alone with whatever dignity, if any, you have.

You gave an older study, I gave more recent studies, and I excerpted what the scientists say, and not how "melatonin" wants to twist the statements, and research presented....

OK...

Quite enough with the insults and snide remarks..\

From BOTH sides of the issue...

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

If we can't post in a civil manner, we should not post.

Warnings are coming if this continues

Semper

The collapse of an ice shelf that is almost the size of New York City is something we should all be aware of. Thanks for the thread.