Ice Caps and Water Levels....

[SkepticLance]

To JohnB and Swansont

 

I am forced to defend myself. I have NOT attacked swansont. I have stated that iNow's tactics are non scientific, consisting as they do so often, of denying what is patently correct.

 

What I said to swansont was :

 

"I find it a bit depressing to see someone as smart and educated as you supporting irrational illogic based on denial of data and denial of logic."

 

If you take another look at that, you will find it is not an insult and it is not an attack. It is merely a reflection of my own feelings of disappointment.

[iNow]

I am forced to defend myself. I have NOT attacked swansont. I have stated that iNow's tactics are non scientific, consisting as they do so often, of denying what is patently correct.

I am SO very tired of doing this with you, and I can only imagine how tired others are...

 

I denied nothing. I simply asked you to support with citation the issues you blanketly claim to be "patently correct." I do not understand how you are still missing this point. Further, in this specific thread, all I did was ask questions which would elevate the conversation and add to all of our common understandings.

 

Being forced to defend yourself and being asked to supply citations and/or address questions are not one and the same, so please get off your soapbox already.

[bascule]

I am forced to defend myself. I have NOT attacked swansont. I have stated that iNow's tactics are non scientific, consisting as they do so often, of denying what is patently correct.

 

SkepticLance, I'm going to have to side with swansont and iNow on this. You have a history of sourcing your arguments from disinformation campaigns with a tendency towards being completely oblivious to both the science and the data, while at the same challenging the validity of established science. These aren't the acts of a skeptic. They're the acts of someone who's anti-science.

[SkepticLance]

bascule

 

I have a history of being correct.

 

I read a great deal, and have a good memory for facts. However, I cannot remember every source. Thus, when I make a post, I state the facts, and sometimes do not have the reference at my fingertips. This is true for most people who enter the forum.

 

When I state facts that iNow does not agree with, he asks for a reference. That is fine, but sometimes it takes me a few days. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that iNow has a habit of refusing to accept most references when the point is one he disagrees with. Thus, it may take me a few extra days to come up with a reference that even he cannot deny.

 

Ultimately, and virtually every time, I find something that cannot be denied and iNow is forced to accept the fact that he was in the wrong. This does not go down easily, and we have situations where harsh words are said.

 

My approach is justified by the fact that I am normally right in my statements.

I am not immune to error, but I do not lie, and I do not post facts on the forum unless I am reasonably sure they are correct.

 

I have looked at other threads and at how other people post statements. Most statements of fact are not accompanied by references, and nor should they be. A reference is only required if there is uncertainty. The only thing different about my posts is that I take a view that certain people like to argue with, and thus I get asked for references more often than in less controversial discussions. If a request for a reference is sincere, I try to supply. If the request appears to be merely someone trying to waste my time, or is trivial, I am less patient.

[bascule]

I have a history of being correct. [...] I am normally right in my statements. [...] I do not post facts on the forum unless I am reasonably sure they are correct.

 

So what is this... a fluke?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31377

 

There appears to be a glitch in the general pattern of global warming.

The ice that was lost at the Arctic is back, and ice in Antarctica is increasing.

 

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming_or_cooling/2008/02/19/73798.html?s=al&promo_code=457E-1

 

Yeah, sorry, that's flat out wrong. Meanwhile a ice sheet the size of Connecticut is collapsing in Antarctica.

[swansont]

We're not going to go down this path. Dredging up history of who said what (or didn't say what) is off-topic.

 

——

 

The ironic thing here is that the answer to iNow's question was contained in the link SkepticLance had provided, and so it would have been trivially easy to say "read the link" or copy/paste the line from it.

 

So it's pretty obvious that neither of you read the whole thing. iNow's request for clarification of the precipitation pattern was not out of line, but would have been unnecessary. The subsequent melodrama could (and should) have been avoided.

 

 

Get back on-topic.

[iNow]

If a request for a reference is sincere, I try to supply. If the request appears to be merely someone trying to waste my time, or is trivial, I am less patient.

 

I have always been sincere in my requests. Please do try to refrain from further speculations and conclusions about my motivations, and instead focus on the posts themselves.

 

 

The ironic thing here is that the answer to iNow's question was contained in the link SkepticLance had provided, and so it would have been trivially easy to say "read the link" or copy/paste the line from it.

 

So it's pretty obvious that neither of you read the whole thing. iNow's request for clarification of the precipitation pattern was not out of line, but would have been unnecessary. The subsequent melodrama could (and should) have been avoided.

 

 

Get back on-topic.

 

Thanks. I do tend to have a high standard for sources, and to a point of frustration SLance has made about me in the past is that I often don't find sources good enough to justify the conclusions being drawn from them. In this case, I perhaps too quickly disregarded his link (I usually won't bother with anything not stamped with a dot edu or a dot gov). I've now had a closer look.

 

 

http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/snow-ice.shtml

 

 

As strange as it sounds, however, Antarctica is essentially a desert. The average yearly total precipitation is about two inches. So, where did all this snow and ice come from? The answer lies in Antarctica's unique location at the bottom of the world and the unique weather conditions that exist there.

 

Where does the snow come from?

 

The precipitation is carried in by the storm systems. These cyclonic systems carry warm moist air from the lower latitudes. So, most of the snow falls within 120 to 190 miles of the coast. Average precipitation on the coast is 20 to 50 inches of snow (7 to 16 inches of water equivalent). The Antarctic Peninsula has highest precipitation of the continent, (36 inches water equivalent).

 

Precipitation declines inland because of the increased altitude and distance from the sea. Storms cannot penetrate far into the continental interior except in the low lying regions. Most snow fall occurs in winter when the westerlies are strongest and the storm systems can reach inland farther and more often. When warm moist air does make it all the way to the Polar Plateau, the air cools considerably. Eventually it becomes supersaturated with ice crystals. Ice crystals account for 90% of the accumulation on the plateau. The annual snow fall at the South Pole is less than 1 inch (water equivalent) or 3 centimeters.

 

 

And this was kind of interesting too:

 

Pack Ice or Sea Ice

In winter the sea around the Antarctic freezes (sea water usually begins to freeze at 28°F or -1.8°C) eventually covering an area larger than the continent itself. Ocean swells and wind break the ice into large pieces termed pack-ice that move under the influence of wind and currents. (Fast-ice is sea-ice that is held fast to the continent.) Pack ice can change in a matter of hours from being open and navigable to densely packed and impassible. There are distinct stages in the transition from sea water to sea-ice. First, crystals form on the surface of the brine creating an oily sheen known as grease-ice. This further evolves into a slush known as frazil-ice.The sea-ice gradually thickens as more and more water from below freezes and as snow falls from above, but it is by no means a continuous mass.

[SkepticLance]

The silly thing is that the post that started this ridiculous argument was posted purely as a contribution to information. Perhaps I should not have jumped at iNow's immediate querulous response, since I was not trying to argue - just add to the information content of the discussion.

 

I have too much history with iNow, and too much frustration.

 

To bascule.

When I said I was normally correct, I did not mean that to be arrogant. I can make mistakes just like anyone else. However, I do not post facts unless I am reasonably sure they are correct.

 

In relation to the example you attacked in your last post : Arctic sea ice.

Yes, it has been advancing. However, the graph you posted as contrary evidence is irrelevent, since it goes to 2007 only. The sea ice advance has been over the winter just gone. ie. January and February 2008. References to sea ice before that are not relevent to this point.

 

I have emphasized that this is not evidence to counter global warming doctrine. It is just a blip, due to the recent very cold winter, which is probably a result of La Nina. If you want to research the point further on Google (I have already posted about 7 references) then remember that it is only data on Arctic sea ice for January/ Feb 2008 that is relevent.

 

An example of such a reference :

 

http://newsbusters.org/node/19601/print

 

While this is not a scientific reference, and indeed is a bit silly, you need to remember that it is reporting on something very recent. Normally, it takes some months before these items get into scientific literature, and we have to rely on news references in the mean time.

 

A more scientific reference can be seen at :

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/feb/global.html

 

I quote :

 

"According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the February 2008 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites, was below the 1979-2000 mean, but greater than the previous four years."

 

Thus, an increase in sea ice. The reason for this is as follows :

 

"As shown in the time series to the right, the mean Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during winter 2007/2008 was above average. This can be primarily attributed to the multiple snow and ice storms that affected much of the Northern Hemisphere during the winter. This resulted in the 4th largest snow cover extent on record."

 

Just to throw more fuel on the burning fires of denial, let me add a final quote :

 

"Meanwhile, the February 2008 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was much above the 1979-2000 mean. This was the second largest sea ice extent in February (27% above the 1979-2000 mean) over the 30-year historical period, behind 2003. Sea ice extent for February has increased at a rate of 3.4%/decade."

 

 

In Antarctica, the summer 2008 sea ice was at a much more extensive level than normal.

 

Again, let me repeat - I am not trying to claim these are trends. They are simple blips in the ongoing climate saga. However, I trust you will stop trying to accuse me, however subtly, of lying.

[bascule]

In relation to the example you attacked in your last post : Arctic sea ice.

Yes, it has been advancing. However, the graph you posted as contrary evidence is irrelevent, since it goes to 2007 only.

 

OF COURSE! Just ignore the three decade trend line. Weren't you just claiming there was some sort of aberrant glitch in the trends?

 

The sea ice advance has been over the winter just gone. ie. January and February 2008. References to sea ice before that are not relevent to this point.

 

Okay SkepticLance, I'll humor you, and for the sake of swansont direct you back to the relevant thread:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=398591#post398591

[SkepticLance]

To bascule

 

As I said in the other thread, you are erecting a straw man. There, I said it! I NEVER claimed the blip was a trend. I have ALWAYS said it was a blip. However, certain idiots tried to deny even the blip, and I was being accused of, at least, relating falsehoods, with the possible implication of lying. I do not lie. I relate that which is correct, and what I said and still say is correct. You owe me an apology. Which, undoubtedly I will receive just after Hell freezes over. Only quality people tender apologies.

[swansont]

SL is correct, from my reading of the thread, that he never claimed that this was anything but a blip.

 

———

 

Although, I must note, the article cited was definitely denialist; a better report probably could have been found. It gets much harder to understand the point when the message is mixed like that.

 

IMO it would have been better had you stopped after the fourth sentence, and then suggested the apology, and stopped there. The rest is one reason why we go off on these tiresome tangents.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont

 

You are correct about the article, if you mean the one I think you mean. It was actually kind of stupid. After I found the next article I was a bit sorry I had posted the first. I prefer to post good science, rather than news reports, when I can. However, if the news is fresh, sometimes it takes a while for good science to catch up.