Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year

At last an admission of deception in that you personally altered the graph in post #364 to make it say what you wanted . Now that wasn't so hard now was it ? Just how desperate were you in this debate that you felt compelled to do this ?

Now perhaps we can try and ascertain why you did so and where you got the added +2.5C figure from within the study when it clearly states 2010 figure at -29.9C ?

Please cite the study text you got this figure from because I'm saying you simply made it up and I dare you to prove me wrong ?

 

No deception involved. All the data on the graph, including the datum I added, was from the Kobashi paper, and the addition was clearly stated when I posted the graph. (The Adventures of Flogger Can't Read, chapter 81). So you were wrong to call me a liar, and I await your apology.

All you have to do is read the paper you cited, Flogger. I guess reading is just beyond your abilities. (The Adventures of Flogger-Can't-Read, Chapter 82.)

Oh, and by the way:
What was the temperature at the GISP2 site in Greenland for the year 2010, according to Kobashi et al.?

 

I'm afraid thats simply another blatant untruth, otherwise you would have had no problem citing the text you used when you arbitrarily decided to change the graph from a legitimate peer review study to an appearance you preferred . If I'm wrong prove it ?

The grossly exaggerated 2010 figure you used in your faked graph is not there. Prove me wrong .... I dare you ?

 

Oh, you mean: if only I had said, when I first posted the graph, exactly where in Kobashi's paper the 2010 temperature datum was located, then I would be right and you would be wrong?

Hmmmm ... Gee ... if only ...

The Adventures of Flogger-Can't-Read, Chapter 83.

Proven. I await your apology.

 

This is outright fraud given the stated figure from the study and I quote

AWS decadal average temperature (2001-2010) as -29.9°C (Figure 1, top).

Not only are you being utterly disingenuous by using a one year instrumental data point to corrupt proxy data but you are using it to corrupt the 4000 year decadal average chart too !

No wonder I smelled a rat and a desperate one too

Why is it impossible for you to accept todays Arctic conditions being well within natural variability and I quote

Excluding the last millennium, there were
72 decades warmer than the present one, in which mean
temperatures were 1.0 to 1.5°C warmer, especially in the
earlier part of the past 4000 years

During two intervals (1300 B.P. and 3360 B.P.) centennial average temperatures were nearly
1.0°C warmer (28.9°C, the 97 percentile) than the
present decade

 

Is there, anywhere in the world, a denier who knows the difference between a decadal temperature and a temperature for a single year? Not in Scotland, apparently. (The Adventures of Flogger-Can't-Read, Chapter 84.)

If the data is corrupt, then why did you cite it? Are you saying Kobashi doesn't know how to read a thermometer?

Oh, and by the way:
What was the temperature at the GISP2 site in Greenland for the year 2010, according to Kobashi et al.?

 

This is trolling

No you corrupted the data when you faked your graph as has been illustrated at some length already. As the study clearlly stated

Excluding the last millennium, there were
72 decades warmer than the present one, in which mean
temperatures were 1.0 to 1.5°C warmer, especially in the
earlier part of the past 4000 years

And that statement rather puts paid to the legitimacy of your faked graph

 

So you admit that you don't know the difference between a decadal temperature and the temperature for a single year? That being the case, my graph is correct and I win.

The only thing that has been demonstrated at length in this thread is that Flogger-Can't-Read. Every datum on my graph came directly from Kobashi's paper, just as I said, and you were wrong to call me a liar.

And still no apology from you for that. Apparently mothers in Scotland don't teach their children manners.

 

The only examples you have illustrated are of yourself being unable to read. You have yet to show a single case of incorrect data in the graph I posted. Nor can you. Because there are no such data.

No. I expect you to apologize for calling me a liar, when it is YOU who have made every single mistake on this thread. Time after time after time.

Post reported.

 

Quite an interesting insight into the denier mind and a nice example of why they are called "deniers".
PoorDebater clearly explained himself and attempted to guide flogger to an understanding of Kobashi et al. PoorDebater even corrected flogger in his misunderstanding of "decadal" after flogger stated "72 decades warmer", but flogger refused to accept he had mis-read his own quote.
Next time a denier complains about being called a "denier", I'll direct him here and give him an example of why it fits.

 

According to Kobashi, Current decadal average temperature in Greenland is not outside of natural variability of the past 4000 years. :



curry.eas.gatech.edu/santafe/papers/KobashiSantaFe3.pptx

 

Good grief not another one !

 

So let's say for argument sake that that 61 ppmv went into the soil and the ocean, nothing that proves that, but hey you have to believe in something, so let's go there. Will that CO2 ever reach the atmosphere?

 

And that was the point I was making in that Poor Debater deliberately falsified the lower graph by introducing his own present day decadal average plot +2.5C higher than Kobashi to try to show it was outwith natural variability (see post #369) . He then screamed bloody murder when he got called out on it. Just how desperate do you have to be to do this to legitimate research just because it doesn't say what you want it to and also given the study clearly states the decadal average for 2001-2010 used on the graph was -29.9C ? Its like someone trying to defend a religious faith

 

On that point, no one here disagrees with you

 

Yes, another one that can read and understands what he reads.

 

So what is your argument with respect to the Greenland Ice?

 

I agree: this whole exercise has been an enlightening excursion into the blindness of denier thought processes. There are two key points here: first, the initial post of my graph, in which I explained exactly how I had altered the graph and exactly where the data came from in that same paper. If only flogger had actually read and understood that post, the entire kerfuffle might have been avoided. And I kept trying to steer him back onto the right track by asking him what the temperature at the GISP2 site was in 2010, and he consistently refused to answer, or even to look for the answer. One has to wonder: was Flogger even curious about the answer? Did he care? Since the answers seemed to be no and no, I was more than happy to give him enough rope to hang himself, even if that ended up being about ten miles worth.

The second revealing point was this one:

This is rather similar to the chicken-and-egg fallacy we see regarding CO2 levels and global temperatures. Because these two phenomena are in a positive feedback loop where an increase in either causes an increase in the other, it makes absolutely no difference, climatologically, which one starts the ball rolling. Yet deniers continue to insist that since chickens cause eggs, therefore eggs cannot cause chickens.

And the final point, as we have seen before, is that when the argument is lost, instead of a gracious concession we see insults and slanders take the place of reasoned discourse. Par for the course at the Denier Country Club, where the holes just keep getting deeper.

 

I have no argument with Greenland ice. My argument was with Flogger.

- - - Updated - - -

And also according to Kobashi, the 2010 temperature was outside of natural variability.

 

Yes. Warm water holds less CO2 that cold water. So as the oceans warm, they will absorb less and less of what we emit, until at some point (and it has been estimated this will happen perhaps near the end of this century) the oceans will stop absorbing what we emit and start re-emitting some of the CO2 we created in the 20th and 21st centuries.

When that crossover occurs, it will be unstoppable. And catastrophic.

 

Which is available for all to read, and why i asked the question? you see I looked up the Kobashi report and it correlates with what flogger was representing. So, what is your point?

- - - Updated - - -

Huh? Link?

 

Kobashi study was a multi decadal study and not a yearly study so what is it about "decadal" that you don't understand.

 

So do you have the data that will support your statement? See all of the data I've seen posted in other threads says differently that no CO2 is added for years and years. So I'm having a problem understanding how you got there other than your early comments suggesting, since this it must be that.
Again, no evidence to support the theory.

 

Might I suggest you re-read the this thread rather than make Flogger's mistake all over again? Otherwise, I might have to start The Adventures of jc-Can't-Read, Chapter 1.

 

Kobashi reported annual temperatures during recent years. Which was the point Flogger missed, the point jc456 missed, and the point you missed.