# 2016 Arctic sea ice thread



## ScienceRocks (Apr 17, 2016)

IJIS:

*13,059,136 km2*（April 17, 2016）












This year has a decent chance to challenge 2012! It will all come down to how the meteorological set up is in July-August.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 17, 2016)

*Arctic Sea Ice Dwindles to New Record Winter Low*
Scientific American-Mar 29, 2016
Every winter, the Arctic Ocean's _sea ice_ cover reaches a peak and then declines with the onset of spring. That peak, recorded this year on ...


----------



## jc456 (Apr 18, 2016)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 18, 2016)

*12,996,593 km2*（April 18, 2016）


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 18, 2016)

Matthew said:


> IJIS:
> 
> *13,059,136 km2*（April 17, 2016）
> 
> ...


Great news to have farmable acreage increase.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 18, 2016)

And the satellite that provides information on 15% sea ice is malfunctioning showing to low of levels...  

Love the hype, with data that is far worse than questionable..


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 8, 2016)

New data! wahooo! look at how far the arctic ice is down. damn


----------



## Old Rocks (May 9, 2016)

Looks like we have another interesting year in store.


----------



## gipper (May 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Looks like we have another interesting year in store.


Do you think the human race will survive the year or will climate change kill us all?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 9, 2016)

gipper said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like we have another interesting year in store.
> ...


Do you think that you will ever post anything that indicates more than a room temperature IQ on your part? The Arctic Ice is a very strong indicator of the warming of both the atmosphere and the oceans.


----------



## jc456 (May 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


no, no it isn't.  you have no evidence that supports that statement at all socks. You would have provided it if you did have it.


----------



## gipper (May 9, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Evidence matters not to the crazed warmest.  They just BELIEVE.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 9, 2016)

Matthew said:


> New data! wahooo! look at how far the arctic ice is down. damn


Fantastic news.  Since most weather related deaths are due to cold and this opens up millions of acres of farmland, millions of lives will be saved.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 10, 2016)

*11,683,160 km2*（May 9, 2016） 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






 may9-2016.png (101.98 kB, 700x450 - viewed 245 times.)


----------



## elektra (May 10, 2016)

Look everyone, mattpew is drawing with a bunch of colored markers.

Too bad there ain't satellite data to back that up.


----------



## Crick (May 10, 2016)

You wanna make a bet?


----------



## elektra (May 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> You wanna make a bet?


Grow up idiot

Sensor on F-17 experiencing difficulties, sea ice time series temporarily suspended | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis


> Sensor on F-17 experiencing difficulties, sea ice time series temporarily suspended


----------



## Old Rocks (May 10, 2016)

Poor Elektra, she is so dumb that she thinks that there is only one satellite observing the Arctic Ice.


----------



## gipper (May 10, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Poor Elektra, she is so dumb that she thinks that there is only one satellite observing the Arctic Ice.


Must you always post silliness?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 10, 2016)

*Gipper, must you always demonstrate that you are such a dumb fuck?*

Arctic - Ice extent still well below normal in Arctic

Arctic sea-ice extent in April was probably at a record low for the month, continuing this year’s trend of record or near-record lows, the National Snow and Ice Data Center said on Tuesday.

Though mechanical glitches have made information from the NSIDC’s satellite temporarily unavailable, other satellite data collected by Japanese and German programs shows Arctic sea ice is much sparser now than it once was at this time of the year.

“We are way, way down on sea ice,” said NSIDC director Mark Serreze. “There’s no indication of any kind of recovery.”

He and his colleagues stopped short of declaring last month a record-low April, because the ice-extent information borrowed from the other programs is produced using a slightly different methodology than that used by the Colorado-based center, making a correlation with U.S. historical data inexact.

However, it is clear April sea ice extent as measured by the Japanese Aeronautical Exploration Agency was the lowest ever for the month in that program’s record, which goes back a little over a decade, Serreze said.

It was also the lowest in the record kept by a University of Bremen program, which uses the same Japanese satellite, the NSIDC reported in its monthly status report.

Sea-ice extent, which grows during the winter and shrinks in the summer, is a much-watched indicator of Arctic climate. In March the ice reached its maximum extent for the year -- thelowest maximum in the satellite record that dates to 1979. That followed record-low monthly extents for February and for January and the fourth-lowest sea-ice annual minimum, reached last September.


----------



## gipper (May 10, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Gipper, must you always demonstrate that you are such a dumb fuck?*
> 
> Arctic - Ice extent still well below normal in Arctic
> 
> ...


The sky is falling....the sky is falling....so thinks chicken little Old Socks.


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> You wanna make a bet?


what do you want to bet?

Scientists scrambling to track Arctic sea ice after key satellite sensor dies

"*Scientists scrambling to track Arctic sea ice after key satellite sensor dies*"

and:
"The satellite concerns are shared by other scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), who are facing a potential yearlong gap in polar satellite data that is vital for maintaining the accuracy of weather forecast models."


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

So Matti,  where did you get that info from?

I know:

oh, oh, oh it's magic, you know.......better believe that it's so, it's magic, you know,


----------



## elektra (May 10, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Poor Elektra, she is so dumb that she thinks that there is only one satellite observing the Arctic Ice.


Link, or you are a Filthy Liar Old Crock, your rules Old Crock. My link is to the NSIDS, they are the ones measuring the ice, on a daily basis, so I guess you are calling the National Snow and Ice Data center, dumb. It is there statement, they quit measuring the ice. Of course you could be right Old Crock, there is more than one satellite, and the NSIDS has suspended measuring the ice because the ice grew, they lied, and pretending they have no satellite data covers up the lie that the ice is declining. 

Sensor on F-17 experiencing difficulties, sea ice time series temporarily suspended | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> You wanna make a bet?


----------



## gipper (May 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You wanna make a bet?
> ...


I thought AGW killed those nice insects...


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

gipper said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


I hadn't heard that one yet, but thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 10, 2016)

So, jc denies the existance of the Japanese satellite, and Gipper replies with his usual stupid nonsense. Typical.


----------



## gipper (May 10, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> So, jc denies the existance of the Japanese satellite, and Gipper replies with his usual stupid nonsense. Typical.


Oh Old Crock...you are such a typical Liberal AGW believer...just no sense of humor and here I thought we could enjoy a beer together.


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> So, jc denies the existance of the Japanese satellite, and Gipper replies with his usual stupid nonsense. Typical.



From the Japanese satellite over the arctic:  hmmmm seems like a lot of ice boys!


----------



## elektra (May 10, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> So, jc denies the existance of the Japanese satellite, and Gipper replies with his usual stupid nonsense. Typical.


Old Crock, correct me if I am wrong, but you are ignoring your fail supporting your comment that the Tesla S is in the same class as the Original Ford GT-40 race car that won Le Mans 4 times in a row! I mean I see you adding comments here and you were pretty active making outrageous claims about the Tesla . 

If the Japanese satellite is being used, why does the NSIDC state the opposite? You have used this organization in the past Old Crock so it must be valid? 

Sensor on F-17 experiencing difficulties, sea ice time series temporarily suspended | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis


----------



## Old Rocks (May 10, 2016)

*Silly ass Elektra, they stated why they are not showing the data from the Japanese satellite right now. They have to get the correlation to the data platform they have been using right.* 


Arctic - Ice extent still well below normal in Arctic

Arctic sea-ice extent in April was probably at a record low for the month, continuing this year’s trend of record or near-record lows, the National Snow and Ice Data Center said on Tuesday.

Though mechanical glitches have made information from the NSIDC’s satellite temporarily unavailable, other satellite data collected by Japanese and German programs shows Arctic sea ice is much sparser now than it once was at this time of the year.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 10, 2016)

As for the Tesla, no, it is not in the same class as the GT 40 Ford. The GT is an uncomfortable beautiful car set up for the race track. But is was a first for a major American Automaker. An American sports car that could beat the socks off of Ferraris and McClarens on the long races. And the Tesla is the first American luxury car that can meet the Europeans on an equal footing in the luxury sports sedan class. And even beat the original GT 40 from 0 to the legal limit. Now your other tit is twisted. LOL


----------



## elektra (May 10, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> As for the Tesla, no, it is not in the same class as the GT 40 Ford. The GT is an uncomfortable beautiful car set up for the race track. But is was a first for a major American Automaker. An American sports car that could beat the socks off of Ferraris and McClarens on the long races. And the Tesla is the first American luxury car that can meet the Europeans on an equal footing in the luxury sports sedan class. And even beat the original GT 40 from 0 to the legal limit. Now your other tit is twisted. LOL


Another Crock from Old Crock. Everybody sees you hiding from your original posts Old Crock.


----------



## elektra (May 10, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Silly ass Elektra, they stated why they are not showing the data from the Japanese satellite right now. They have to get the correlation to the data platform they have been using right.*
> 
> 
> Arctic - Ice extent still well below normal in Arctic
> ...





Old Rocks said:


> *Silly ass Elektra, they stated why they are not showing the data from the Japanese satellite right now. They have to get the correlation to the data platform they have been using right.*
> 
> 
> Arctic - Ice extent still well below normal in Arctic
> ...


No scholarly google search?

F17 is not working, they are busy trying to use F18, a satellite from 2009, and it just so happens, the ssmis is not working on the F18 satellite, either. 

Easy to read the NSIDC statement in the link, Sensor down!
Sensor on F-17 experiencing difficulties, sea ice time series temporarily suspended | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

F18 failed in 2009, resulting in bad data, which was why the falsely reported no ice where there was ice.
WMO OSCAR  |   	Satellite: DMSP-F18


> SSMIS Special Sensor Microwave - Imager/Sounder 15 Mar 2010 ≥2016 Degraded No Channel 150 GHz failed in February 2014. Since 28 July 2015, only 10 channels are operational, the 7 of SSM/I and the 3 in the 183 GHz band.



If I follow the link from the above link, to the sensors and check how well the expected data quality of Sea Ice is, we find that it is coarse! Add that to the degraded sensor and what can we expect?
WMO OSCAR  |   	Details for Instrument SSMIS


> Sea-ice cover 4-fair Coarse resolution Consolidated methodology


----------



## Crick (May 10, 2016)

So you believe Arctic ice is growing at a record pace with no end in sight.  Right?


----------



## elektra (May 10, 2016)

Crick said:


> So you believe Arctic ice is growing at a record pace with no end in sight.  Right?


blah, blah, blah! Quote cricket, or have you been reduced to simply making things up!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 10, 2016)

This year, 2016, will see a new record low Arctic ice extent and volume. This year will see significantly lower total ice mass than the last record low in 2012. This loss of Arctic sea ice cover will profoundly affect weather patterns in the northern hemisphere. Denier cultists will commit suicide in despair as their crackpot cult of reality denial crumbles into well deserved oblivion.

*Canada wildfire could be the kickoff to a record-setting summer for Earth’s northern reaches
The same warmth that fueled the Fort McMurray wildfire has been setting up the Arctic for extraordinary losses of sea ice*
Discover Magazine
By Tom Yulsman
May 9, 2016
(excerpts)
*The rampaging wildfire that blazed through the city of Fort McMurray in Alberta, destroying an estimated 1,600 homes, will likely continue burning for months to come. This should come as no surprise, given the astonishing warmth that has gripped most of Earth’s northern reaches for months on end. That warmth means the Canadian wildfire may well be just the kickoff to a long, hot and possibly record-setting summer in the region of the globe showing the most rapid and obvious signs of human-caused climate change.

Already this year, Arctic sea ice is declining at a pace that could result in a record loss by September. And what happens in the Arctic doesn’t necessarily stay in the Arctic: Recent research shows that declines in Arctic sea ice are connected with changes in weather patterns far afield. “While the landfast ice north of Alaska usually has a thickness of 1.5 meters, our U.S. colleagues are currently reporting measurements of less than one meter,” said Stefan Hendricks, a sea ice physicist at Germany’s Alfred Wegener Institute, during a press conference in late April. “Such thin ice will not survive the summer sun for long.”
*
*Satellite data show that sea ice during the summer of 2015 was already extraordinarily thin. Thanks to a particularly warm winter, “in many regions of the Arctic new ice only formed very slowly,” says Marcel Nicolaus, an Alfred Wegener Institute sea ice physicist. “If we compare the ice thickness map of the previous winter with that of 2012, we can see that the current ice conditions are similar to those of the spring of 2012 – in some places, the ice is even thinner.” That year marked a record low for Arctic sea ice at the end of the summer season.*
(Read much more at website)


----------



## elektra (May 10, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> This year, 2016, will see a new record low Arctic ice extent and volume. This year will see significantly lower total ice mass than the last record low in 2012. This loss of Arctic sea ice cover will profoundly affect weather patterns in the northern hemisphere. Denier cultists will commit suicide in despair as their crackpot cult of reality denial crumbles into well deserved oblivion.
> 
> *Canada wildfire could be the kickoff to a record-setting summer for Earth’s northern reaches
> The same warmth that fueled the Fort McMurray wildfire has been setting up the Arctic for extraordinary losses of sea ice*
> ...


??? Loss of Sea Ice that may or may not occur, caused the fire in Alberta?

Naive and gullible you are, another blunder!


----------



## Crick (May 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> So you believe Arctic ice is growing at a record pace with no end in sight.  Right?





elektra said:


> blah, blah, blah! Quote cricket, or have you been reduced to simply making things up!



I am waiting to hear what you believe to be the significance of the satellite failure.  You suggest that the data presented as valid is not accurate.  I'm just curious as to what you think Arctic ice is doing AND WHY?


----------



## jc456 (May 11, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Silly ass Elektra, they stated why they are not showing the data from the Japanese satellite right now. They have to get the correlation to the data platform they have been using right.*
> 
> 
> Arctic - Ice extent still well below normal in Arctic
> ...


so there isn't a graph that can show any ice slow down right?  Are you admitting that now?  So what does that have to do with the Japanese comments to me then?  You're saying that cause they have no baseline, right?  hmmmmm, seems then there is no monitoring going on and what I said.  So, does that make you a liar again?  you should apologize.


----------



## elektra (May 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So you believe Arctic ice is growing at a record pace with no end in sight.  Right?
> ...


I already gave a response to what you question.

The Arctic does what it always does, it behaves as it should.


----------



## Crick (May 12, 2016)

As it should?  What does that mean?  Temperatures in the Arctic are at record highs.  Do you disagree that warming temperatures SHOULD result in less ice?


----------



## elektra (May 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> As it should?  What does that mean?  Temperatures in the Arctic are at record highs.  Do you disagree that warming temperatures SHOULD result in less ice?


Yep, -10 below zero was a record high, can not deny that, that ain't warm enough to melt ice.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 12, 2016)




----------



## elektra (May 12, 2016)

Very pretty


----------



## Old Rocks (May 12, 2016)

elektra said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > As it should?  What does that mean?  Temperatures in the Arctic are at record highs.  Do you disagree that warming temperatures SHOULD result in less ice?
> ...


Nome, Alaska, highs 40's and 50's, lows upper 30's, low 40's. 

temperature in nome, alaska - Yahoo Search Results Yahoo Search Results

Inuvik, Canada. 67 degrees today, highs upper 50's, upper 30's, lows, mid 40's to low 30's.

temperatures for Inuvik, Canada - Yahoo Search Results Yahoo Search Results

Elektra, you continue to be full of shit and a liar.


----------



## elektra (May 12, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


I did not put a date on my temperature, which makes you Old Crock, full of shit and a liar.

Hey, dumb ass, it is as easy as pie to make you look like a fool, what is this, 20 posts in a row that you fail at! 

Looks like it is going to be below zero all weekend long, and if I add the wind chill factor, then it is -20 below zero?
Weather forecast for North Pole
Hourly forecast for  North Pole


----------



## Old Rocks (May 13, 2016)

Once again Elektra demonstrates her ability to lie. The thread is about the current conditions in the Arctic, and the effect on the sea ice. Those kinds of temperatures at Nome and Inuvik mean there is a very large area of warm air right on the Arctic coast. And that melts ice. In fact, there are large areas right off the coast of Canada and northern Alaska right now that are open water.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Once again Elektra demonstrates her ability to lie. The thread is about the current conditions in the Arctic, and the effect on the sea ice. Those kinds of temperatures at Nome and Inuvik mean there is a very large area of warm air right on the Arctic coast. And that melts ice. In fact, there are large areas right off the coast of Canada and northern Alaska right now that are open water.
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png


dude it's a month from summertime.  ice always melts in the summertime at those locations.  WTF are you tying to point out?


----------



## jc456 (May 13, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Once again Elektra demonstrates her ability to lie. The thread is about the current conditions in the Arctic, and the effect on the sea ice. Those kinds of temperatures at Nome and Inuvik mean there is a very large area of warm air right on the Arctic coast. And that melts ice. In fact, there are large areas right off the coast of Canada and northern Alaska right now that are open water.
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png


And, if there isn't a satellite to pull the data, how is it you have data?  BTW, that looks like a lot of ice.


----------



## Crick (May 14, 2016)

Temperature  data may be had from other sources than satellites, and quite accurately.


----------



## jc456 (May 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> Temperature  data may be had from other sources than satellites, and quite accurately.


From where?


----------



## elektra (May 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Once again Elektra demonstrates her ability to lie. The thread is about the current conditions in the Arctic, and the effect on the sea ice. Those kinds of temperatures at Nome and Inuvik mean there is a very large area of warm air right on the Arctic coast. And that melts ice. In fact, there are large areas right off the coast of Canada and northern Alaska right now that are open water.
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png


I see you are ignoring the Arctic, fine and dandy. I see you are also ignoring Hudson bay, which been simply cold with lots of Ice.

Old Crock, are you still fuming over failing at that simple multiplication, you know the, _"easy as P=IE"_ formula which you got so wrong and beat up over?


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 14, 2016)

5-13


----------



## elektra (May 14, 2016)

Hey, look, it the Holy Grail again, I tell you, after seeing this same pretty picture posted over a 100 times, it never gets old and tells me, this is all they got, one pretty picture, so sad and lacking imagination and information.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2016)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Once again Elektra demonstrates her ability to lie. The thread is about the current conditions in the Arctic, and the effect on the sea ice. Those kinds of temperatures at Nome and Inuvik mean there is a very large area of warm air right on the Arctic coast. And that melts ice. In fact, there are large areas right off the coast of Canada and northern Alaska right now that are open water.
> ...


*Ten day forecast for Hudson Bay*
*SATURDAYMAY 14* *TODAYMAY 15* *TOMORROWMAY 16* *TUESDAYMAY 17* *WEDNESDAYMAY 18*




14°C / 4°C





0%






18°C / 3°C





20%






22°C / 7°C





0%






24°C / 10°C





0%






24°C / 9°C





0%


*THURSDAYMAY 19* *FRIDAYMAY 20* *SATURDAYMAY 21* *SUNDAYMAY 22* *MONDAYMAY 23*




27°C / 10°C





0%






26°C / 10°C





0%






21°C / 10°C





20%






18°C / 7°C





60%






16°C / 5°C





40%


*Hourly forecast for Hudson Bay*

*Hudson Bay Weather | euronews: Hudson Bay, Canada ten day weather forecast*

*Damn, Elektra, can't you get even the simplest of things right? *


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 14, 2016)

ADS is reporting a 120K drop to Fri 13th:
VIsualization Service of Horizontal scale Observations at Polar region


----------



## elektra (May 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Hudson Bay Weather | euronews: Hudson Bay, Canada ten day weather forecast*
> 
> *Damn, Elektra, can't you get even the simplest of things right? *


Go Fish! Moron!

14 day extended forecast for Repulse Bay, Nunavut, Canada
*



			Upcoming 5 hours
		
Click to expand...

*


> 19 °F,  21 °F,  19 °F,  19 °F,  19 °F,  18 °F


----------



## elektra (May 14, 2016)

Old Crock, posts another cherry picked CROCK!

Repulse Bay, Nunavut 7 Day Weather Forecast - The Weather Network

air





-4°C


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2016)

Yep, at Nunavut it is colder than at Hudson's Bay. And Nunavut is about as much further north from Hudson's Bay as Maine is from Virgina. In fact, Nunavut is about as far north as the beginning of the Northwest Passage. So, those tempretures are not at all 'cold' for that location at this time of year.


----------



## elektra (May 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Yep, at Nunavut it is colder than at Hudson's Bay. And Nunavut is about as much further north from Hudson's Bay as Maine is from Virgina. In fact, Nunavut is about as far north as the beginning of the Northwest Passage. So, those tempretures are not at all 'cold' for that location at this time of year.


Technically speaking, it is adjacent to Hudson Bay, beings how it is actually part land, that is where one finds the temperature stations, versus in the actual water of the Hudson bay.

Further, we are speaking of the Arctic? Are we not Old Crock, so it is appropriate we reference the portion of the Hudson Bay that is the Arctic.

Another big lose for you Old Crock. See that big blueish green spot, we all call Hudson bay, that area to the right, in red is Nunavut!
Thanks Old Crock, for pointing out how stupid Old Crock is.
Nunavut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## elektra (May 14, 2016)

When responding to Old Crock, be ready to be confronted by stupidity.


> _Old Rocks:_ And Nunavut is about as much further north from Hudson's Bay as Maine is from Virgina.



Hudson Bay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2016)

And Repulse Bay sits at the very north of Hudson Bay. And the southern border of Nunavut sits about two thirds down Hudson Bay. A very long distance. And a different climate. And the south shore of Hudson Bay is in Ontario and Quebec, and has a warmer climate yet.


----------



## elektra (May 14, 2016)

j


Old Rocks said:


> And Repulse Bay sits at the very north of Hudson Bay. And the southern border of Nunavut sits about two thirds down Hudson Bay. A very long distance. And a different climate. And the south shore of Hudson Bay is in Ontario and Quebec, and has a warmer climate yet.


Tell it to the geology you crock


----------



## Old Rocks (May 14, 2016)

*http://archives.datapages.com/data/cspg/data/014/014004/0520.htm*

*ABSTRACT*
The Hudson Bay Basin underlies most of Hudson Bay, with exposed portions on the Northern and Central Hudson Bay Lowland to the southwest, and on Southampton, Coats and Mansel Islands to the north. The thickest section is toward the centre of Hudson Bay where between 6,000 and 10,000 feet of Phanerozoic strata have been variously interpreted by geophysical surveys. The Hudson Bay Basin is separated from the smaller James Bay Basin in the Southern Hudson Bay Lowland by the Patricia Arch. The Bell Arch is the bounding feature on the north. A possible sedimentary basin, the Foxe Basin, may exist north of this arch.

The composite stratigraphic succession in the Northern and Central Hudson Bay Lowland consists, in ascending order, of the Ordovician Bad Cache Rapids Group, with Portage Chute and Surprise Creek Formations; the Churchill River Group, with Caution Creek and Chasm Creek Formations; and Red Head Rapids Formation; and the Silurian Port Nelson, Severn River, Ekwan River and Attawapiskat Formations. The high Silurian Kenogami River Formation, the Devonian Sextant, Abitibi River, Williams Island and Long Rapids Formations, and the Cretaceous(?) Mattagami Formation, are known only in James Bay Basin, but may have their counterparts in the Hudson Bay Basin.

The Ordovician and Silurian are predominantly carbonate, and possibly 2,000 feet thick in the Central Lowland. The latter system contains porous reefs. The Devonian is of mixed lithology, mainly limestone and shale, and outcrops only in the Southern Lowland or James Bay Basin. Regional studies, however, indicate it extends along coastal areas of the Central Lowland and is on the mid-bay shoal in Hudson Bay. Cretaceous(?), known only from the Southern Lowland as a continental coal-bearing sequence, may be present in the Northern Lowland. Geophysical data for the Devonian and possibly younger systems indicate a minimum onshore thickness of 1,600 feet.

On Southampton, Coats and Mansel Islands, Ordovician and Silurian carbonates lithologically similar to their counterparts in the Lowland have been recognized. Ordovician has been found only on Southampton. It approaches 500 feet in thickness and contains an oil shale interval, 50 feet thick, in the uppermost part. Silurian is most widespread, apparently occupying all of Mansel and much of Coats and Southampton Islands. Thickness is uncertain but surface data suggest 1,000 feet or more.

*Why not?*


----------



## elektra (May 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *http://archives.datapages.com/data/cspg/data/014/014004/0520.htm*
> 
> *ABSTRACT*
> The Hudson Bay Basin underlies most of Hudson Bay, with exposed portions on the Northern and Central Hudson Bay Lowland to the southwest, and on Southampton, Coats and Mansel Islands to the north. The thickest section is toward the centre of Hudson Bay where between 6,000 and 10,000 feet of Phanerozoic strata have been variously interpreted by geophysical surveys. The Hudson Bay Basin is separated from the smaller James Bay Basin in the Southern Hudson Bay Lowland by the Patricia Arch. The Bell Arch is the bounding feature on the north. A possible sedimentary basin, the Foxe Basin, may exist north of this arch.
> ...


You did not see the picture you old fool?


----------



## Crick (May 15, 2016)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Yep, at Nunavut it is colder than at Hudson's Bay. And Nunavut is about as much further north from Hudson's Bay as Maine is from Virgina. In fact, Nunavut is about as far north as the beginning of the Northwest Passage. So, those tempretures are not at all 'cold' for that location at this time of year.
> ...



Are you actually going to argue that Nunavut is not north of Hudson Bay?  Wow.  There's stupid, and then there's Elektra stupid.


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


What is this?


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2016)

elektra said:


> Old Crock, posts another cherry picked CROCK!
> 
> Repulse Bay, Nunavut 7 Day Weather Forecast - The Weather Network
> 
> ...


Maybe he'll charter a boat ride


----------



## jc456 (May 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Huh?


----------



## elektra (May 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> Are you actually going to argue that Nunavut is not north of Hudson Bay?  Wow.  There's stupid, and then there's Elektra stupid.




 

I am simply presenting facts, it is you that ain't got a clue to geography, are you stating I can not use freezing temperatures of Nunavut as content in this thread? If I take your idiocy as fact, then Nunavut is fully 1/3rd of the border of Hudson bay, and a temperature in Nunavut is relevant to the region we are discussing.

I guess Crick would rather dismiss temperature data when discussing Arctic Sea Ice.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 15, 2016)

The area that you posted the temperatures for is Repulse Bay, Nunavut. It lies at 66 degrees, 31' 19" north. You see that island in the extreme north of Hudson Bay, with the peninsula on the northwest corner? That peninsula points right at Repulse Bay or Naujaat, as it is presently called. 

Now the town I posted the temperatures for is Inuvik, NWT. It lies at 68 degrees, 21' 42". Two degrees farther north than Nunavut. Very close to the Arctic Ocean. 

weather for inuvik, nwt - Yahoo Search Results Yahoo Search Results

And as you can see, it is much warmer than Naujaat, Nunavut.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 15, 2016)




----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The area that you posted the temperatures for is Repulse Bay, Nunavut. It lies at 66 degrees, 31' 19" north. You see that island in the extreme north of Hudson Bay, with the peninsula on the northwest corner? That peninsula points right at Repulse Bay or Naujaat, as it is presently called.
> Now the town I posted the temperatures for is Inuvik, NWT. It lies at 68 degrees, 21' 42". Two degrees farther north than Nunavut. Very close to the Arctic Ocean.
> And as you can see, it is much warmer than Naujaat, Nunavut.


Yes, I can see the populated town you have cherry picked is warmer than the southern edge of the Arctic Circle, one part of the Arctic can be warmer than the other parts that are below freezing, are you arguing Old Crock that one town is going to melt the polar ice cap while the rest of the Arctic is in fact below freezing!


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

It is freeeeezing cold, in the Arctic Circle,

Barrow, AK | 29.4° | Light Snow
29.9°F

Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories | 28° | Mostly Cloudy
28°F

Nanisivik, Nunavut | 30° | Cloudy
30°F

Pond Inlet, NU - 7 Day Forecast - Environment Canada
pond inlet
27°F

Daneborg, Greenland | 21° | Clear
21°F

Drovyanoy Current Weather - AccuWeather Forecast for Yamalo-Nenets Russia
23°F

Ушаковское: погода на 25 суток - Прогноз погоды AccuWeather для Чукотка и Россия (RU)
22°


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2016)

*History*
*Almanac for May 16, 2016
PABR* *Forecast* *Average ** *Range **
Temperature
High 27 °F 26 °F 28 to 36 °F
Low 22 °F 17 °F 5 to 30 °F
Precipitation
Rain 0 in 0.02 in 0.00 to 0.09 in
Snow 0 in in to in
Dew Point
Low - 19 °F 3 to 27 °F
High - 29 °F 19 to 36 °F
*Almanac for Yesterday May 15, 2016
Actual* *Average ** *Record*
Temperature
High 33 °F 26 °F 40 °F (1938) 
Low 24 °F 17 °F -4 °F (1924)
Yesterday's Heating Degree Days: *36*
* Based on data from 1999-present

Barrow, AK | 26.0° | Overcast


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2016)

As post #74 shows, the Arctic is melting more rapidly than it ever has during the time we have had it under satellite observation. All the idiotic blathering of fools cannot change that.


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> As post #74 shows, the Arctic is melting more rapidly than it ever has during the time we have had it under satellite observation. All the idiotic blathering of fools cannot change that.


So, the Arctic is only 6 feet thick, which is why everybody like to watch the Arctic. You can show great changes in a thin piece of ice.

The Antarctic is 2 miles thick.

The Hudson bay, lots of ice.
Environment and Climate Change Canada - Weather and Meteorology - 10 day animation map

Environment and Climate Change Canada - Weather and Meteorology - Hazardous weather-Ice
*Ice*
During the year, some Canadian waters become more hazardous due to the presence of sea or lake ice, and/or icebergs.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2016)

And Greenland ice is 1.2 miles thick. So what? 

And the ice in Antarctica and Greenland is losing mass. In Greenland, both from melt and glacial thinning, in Antarctica, mainly from glacial thinning.

The melting of the arctic sea ice has had many more effects than just the creation of open water.


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> And Greenland ice is 1.2 miles thick. So what?
> And the ice in Antarctica and Greenland is losing mass. In Greenland, both from melt and glacial thinning, in Antarctica, mainly from glacial thinning.
> The melting of the arctic sea ice has had many more effects than just the creation of open water.


quit spitting while you type! 6 feet of ice, that aint nothing

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses


> *NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (May 16, 2016)

And other equally credible studies show a loss. Guess we will find out soon enough.


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> And other equally credible studies show a loss. Guess we will find out soon enough.


those who do not link are Filthy Liars, your rule Old Crock.

You filthy liar, link, crock, link


----------



## Crick (May 16, 2016)

Elektra, Old Rock could produce a dozen studies showing a mass loss without breaking a sweat.  It has been the standard position for decades.  The report you brought up is singular so far.

Filthy idiot.


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> Elektra, Old Rock could produce a dozen studies showing a mass loss without breaking a sweat.  It has been the standard position for decades.  The report you brought up is singular so far.
> 
> Filthy idiot.


My report is from NASA, who you link to, now you dismiss NASA?


----------



## elektra (May 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> Elektra, Old Rock could produce a dozen studies showing a mass loss without breaking a sweat.  It has been the standard position for decades.  The report you brought up is singular so far.
> 
> Filthy idiot.


Okay, produce a dozen studies, not articles or abstracts, but one dozen studies.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 17, 2016)

The Arctic is almost certainly going to hit new record lows this September in both ice extent and volume, significantly beating the previous record set in 2012.

*Melting of Arctic Sea Ice Already Setting Records in 2016*
April 8, 2016

On top of the record high temperatures and severe heat waves that both America and the rest of the world are going to experience this summer, these new record lows in Arctic ice are going to go a long ways towards demonstrating how utterly insane the climate change denying stooges for the fossil fuel industry infesting Congress really are right before the election. T'Rump will lead the Repukingcons to a crushing defeat and their global warming denial will cost them the House and Senate.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 17, 2016)

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And Greenland ice is 1.2 miles thick. So what?
> ...



The problem is, and this has been said many times, is that before the ice was thick. Now the ice is much thinner, and the wind takes it and ice is over a larger area, but there's less ice.


----------



## elektra (May 17, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


The post you responded to was my antarctic post? I can assume you mean the Arctic, which really does not matter, it was not that long ago there was no ice at all in the Arctic, but that said, in the Hudson Bay area of the Arctic, the ice has not been at record lows. So I guess you win some and you lose some, right.


----------



## elektra (May 17, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> The Arctic is almost certainly going to hit new record lows this September in both ice extent and volume, significantly beating the previous record set in 2012.
> 
> *Melting of Arctic Sea Ice Already Setting Records in 2016*
> April 8, 2016
> ...


Thus far we are experiencing RECORD COLD, so your propaganda from last month is proving to be just that, propaganda.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 17, 2016)

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



The point in this debate is that the ice is getting less and less which shows the planet is warming.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 17, 2016)

elektra said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > The Arctic is almost certainly going to hit new record lows this September in both ice extent and volume, significantly beating the previous record set in 2012.
> ...



Arctic Report Card

"Sea ice continues to be younger and thinner: in February and March 2015 there was twice as much first-year ice as there was 30 years ago."

"Air temperatures in all seasons between October 2014 and September 2015 exceeded 3°C above average over broad areas of the Arctic, while the annual average air temperature (+1.3°) over land was the highest since 1900."


----------



## elektra (May 17, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Arctic Report Card
> 
> "Sea ice continues to be younger and thinner: in February and March 2015 there was twice as much first-year ice as there was 30 years ago."
> 
> "Air temperatures in all seasons between October 2014 and September 2015 exceeded 3°C above average over broad areas of the Arctic, while the annual average air temperature (+1.3°) over land was the highest since 1900."


Go Fish!

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum


----------



## elektra (May 17, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Arctic Report Card
> 
> "Sea ice continues to be younger and thinner: in February and March 2015 there was twice as much first-year ice as there was 30 years ago."
> 
> "Air temperatures in all seasons between October 2014 and September 2015 exceeded 3°C above average over broad areas of the Arctic, while the annual average air temperature (+1.3°) over land was the highest since 1900."


At least the Polar Bears are all fine, somehow they have a lot of ice.

Canadian Ice Service | polarbearscience

Remarkably, this year’s ice coverage for the first week in January is well above what they were in 2014 and 2015 – even though those two years were above average by March. *In fact, there hasn’t been this much polar bear habitat in the Southern Labrador Sea in the first week of January since at least 1993.*


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 17, 2016)

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic Report Card
> ...



Again, if you melt the ice, then blow the water, then it freezes again, you can have the same amount of ice but over a much larger area. 

The quote I quotes said that sea ice is becoming younger and thinner. So, the ice might extend further, but it is ice that will only last the winter, and it's not thick, it's a think layer of ice. 

All this points to global warming.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 17, 2016)

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic Report Card
> ...



And we're still on the same point, a larger covering of ice, but less ice.


----------



## elektra (May 17, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Again, if you melt the ice, then blow the water, then it freezes again, you can have the same amount of ice but over a much larger area.
> 
> The quote I quotes said that sea ice is becoming younger and thinner. So, the ice might extend further, but it is ice that will only last the winter, and it's not thick, it's a think layer of ice.
> 
> All this points to global warming.


All it points to is global bullshit.

and why do we ignore the Antarctic? Which is growing, not shrinking? Arctic Ice is extremely variable, being thin, it always fluctuates to extremes.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 17, 2016)

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Again, if you melt the ice, then blow the water, then it freezes again, you can have the same amount of ice but over a much larger area.
> ...



No, it doesn't. It points to you not understand something quite simple.

Imagine you have a sandwich. In the middle of the bread you plonk a giant lump of jelly in the middle. It takes up an area of the sandwich of about 2.5 cm squared. 

Then you spread the jam so that it takes up an area of the sandwich which is 12 cm squared. 

Do you have more jelly or less jelly than you had before? 

Well do it simple and forget what might be left on the knife, so we'll say it's the same.

Then we nibble, in a kind of OCD sort of way, the edge of the sandwich and we reduce the sandwich to a size of 8cm squared. 

Do we have more jelly or less jelly than we started with? 

Do we have a larger surface area of jelly or a smaller surface area of jelly than we started with?


----------



## Crick (May 17, 2016)

This isn't bullshit


----------



## elektra (May 17, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> All it points to is global bullshit.
> 
> and why do we ignore the Antarctic? Which is growing, not shrinking? Arctic Ice is extremely variable, being thin, it always fluctuates to extremes.



No, it doesn't. It points to you not understand something quite simple.
Imagine you have a sandwich. In the middle of the bread you plonk a giant lump of jelly in the middle. It takes up an area of the sandwich of about 2.5 cm squared.
Then you spread the jam so that it takes up an area of the sandwich which is 12 cm squared.
Do you have more jelly or less jelly than you had before?
Well do it simple and forget what might be left on the knife, so we'll say it's the same.
Then we nibble, in a kind of OCD sort of way, the edge of the sandwich and we reduce the sandwich to a size of 8cm squared.
Do we have more jelly or less jelly than we started with?
Do we have a larger surface area of jelly or a smaller surface area of jelly than we started with?[/QUOTE]
Jelly Sandwhich? That still leaves the Antarctic which is growing

But speaking of the Arctic, which varies greatly all throughout history, here is nice study on ice thickness, which goes on to explain, there is not a lot of information available. 
Ice thickness in the Northwest Passage - Haas - 2015 - Geophysical Research Letters -  Wiley Online Library


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 17, 2016)

elektra said:


> Jelly Sandwhich? That still leaves the Antarctic which is growing
> 
> But speaking of the Arctic, which varies greatly all throughout history, here is nice study on ice thickness, which goes on to explain, there is not a lot of information available.
> Ice thickness in the Northwest Passage - Haas - 2015 - Geophysical Research Letters -  Wiley Online Library




The Antarctic is doing the same thing. Yes, it's "growing", it's growing in the sense that there's less ice there too.

There might not be details of how many times polar bears fart in the Arctic, however, like I said, what you've said (and which you seem to have decided to not talk about in this post) is not actually true.

You're making claims which are not based on logic.

You're saying that because the Arctic ice is spread over a larger space, that this somehow means that global warming isn't happening.

Would you like to change your view now?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

*April Temperature Anomalies - Global vs. Northern Hemisphere*
These graphs are based on the April anomalies from the NASA GISS data: 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.csv 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/NH.Ts.csv 

I chose to normalize my graphs to the average of 1880-1930 readings. I chose 1930 as the baseline cutoff point because that was just before the first step change is visible in the data.

The Northern Hemisphere (NH) has been consistently warmer than the global average. 

In April 2016, the global anomaly relative to the chosen baseline was +1.8° C. 

The Northern Hemisphere 2016 anomaly was half a degree higher than the global anomaly: *+2.32° C* above the baseline.
I looked at linear trends since 1965, which is when the temperatures really began to rise.

The world appears to be warming at about 0.2° C per decade, while the NH is warming at 0.3° C per decade. 

The NH trend finishes in 2050 at *+2.75° C* 

The global anomaly trend finishes at about *+2.15° C* 


The global anomaly in 2016 was *0.55° C* higher than the 2010-2015 average. 

The NH anomaly was* 0.685° C higher* than the preceding 5 year-average.
A note about El Nino: 

There has been a lot of speculation about how much the recent El Nino has added to the recent temperature increase. On these graphs you can see that the 1998 El Nino caused quite a minor deviation. In 2016, the global temperature response to El Nino has been about 50% stronger than in 1998, but the NH response was only 10% stronger, compared to the anomaly one year earlier in 1997 and 2015. 
I expect the temperature rise over the next year or two to moderate from the torrid pace of 2016, perhaps by a couple of tenths of a degree or so. In the other hand, it could be that 2016 marks another acceleration point, similar to what the world saw in 1965. We'll have to wait and see. While it's too early to declare a non-linear trend, but it seems to be a definite possibility. 

It looks like some really bad times are coming.


----------



## elektra (May 17, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Jelly Sandwhich? That still leaves the Antarctic which is growing
> ...


Nope, its getting thicker, I posted the story and the link, I can go back and get it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 17, 2016)

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



No, it isn't. Nothing you have said states it's getting thicker. Everything states that it's getting a larger surface area but less ice.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> And other equally credible studies show a loss. Guess we will find out soon enough.


not while you're or I are alive though. So a useless point.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


I still can't figure out how ice melts under 29 degrees F.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2016)

NASA: Rate of Antarctic ice loss triples in a decade

The melt rate of glaciers in west Antarctica has tripled in the past 10 years due in large part to global warming, according to a new study.

That surge means the glaciers lost a Mount Everest-sized amount of water every two years over the past 21 years, at roughly a mass of 91.5 billion tons per year, according to scientists at NASA and the University of California-Irvine.

*"The mass loss of these glaciers is increasing at an amazing rate," study co-author and scientist Isabella Velicogna of University of California-Irvine and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory said in a statement.*

*There is one.*


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2016)

Ice sheet highs, lows and loss

In addition to showing the current highs and lows of the ice sheets, the study also highlights how much ice was lost between January 2011 and January 2014. Ice sheets gain mass through snowfall and lose it through melting and by glaciers that carry ice from the interior to the ocean.

It is important to assess how ice-sheet surface elevation and thickness across Greenland and Antarctica is changing to understand how they are contributing to sea-level rise.

Using an astonishing 200 million data points across Antarctica and 14.3 million across Greenland collected by CryoSat, the team were able to study how the ice sheets changed over the three years.

The resulting maps reveal that Greenland alone is reducing in volume by about 375 cubic kilometres a year.




Antarctic ice-sheet change
The two ice sheets combined are thinning at a rate of 500 cubic kilometres a year, the highest rate observed since altimetry satellite records began about 20 years ago.
*Now how many more studies do you want links to?*


----------



## Old Rocks (May 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Buddy boy, you can't figure out much of anything except new ways to lie. The temperatures have been well above freezing many times for much of the Arctic this year.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


well again, buddy boy, I had ice in my yard this year and it took temps over 60 degrees for two plus weeks to melt it all and it wasn't six feet deep.  So I'm sure for those days above 32 some ice may be melting, but not six feet of it.  And it is time for temps to go up since the sun is up longer now in the arctic. So what is unusual with that now?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 17, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Arctic Report Card
> 
> "Sea ice continues to be younger and thinner: in February and March 2015 there was twice as much first-year ice as there was 30 years ago."
> 
> "Air temperatures in all seasons between October 2014 and September 2015 exceeded 3°C above average over broad areas of the Arctic, while the annual average air temperature (+1.3°) over land was the highest since 1900."





elektra said:


> Go Fish!
> 
> Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum


Jeeeez, Ejakulatra, you have got to be about the dumbest damn retard on the forum.....and that is up against some really stiff competition from the other rightwingnut wackos.

Your article is almost two years old, fuckwit. The relatively unimportant fringe of sea ice around the continent of Antarctica, that shrinks to almost nothing every year in the Southern Hemisphere summer and then grows again every winter, is ACTUALLY below average, not setting "_new record maximums_".

*Antarctic sea ice took a new course in 2015*
Reuters
BY KAREN BRAUN
Jan 12, 2016
(excerpts)
*The Antarctic ice sheet has stopped expanding for the first time in four years, and in fact, sea ice extent has dipped below average levels. At the start of 2015, Antarctic sea ice extent was at all-time high levels for the time of year since records began in 1979, extremely far above the long-term mean. Sea ice remained anomalously high until July, when rapid shrinking began (tmsnrt.rs/1OSKRg3). In August 2015, monthly sea ice extent fell below average levels for the first time since November 2011. For the duration of 2015, sea ice extent hovered very close to average levels. By Jan. 6, even though sea ice was only a sliver below 30-year averages for the date, it measured at the lowest relative levels in 10 years.

Oceans are known to be one of the main drivers of global climates, and since Southern Hemispheric oceans were record-warm from May through December last year, a quick retreat of sea ice might appear as the obvious consequence, but it may not be that simple. Yearly ocean temperature anomalies versus yearly Antarctic sea ice extent from 1979 to 2014 are positively correlated, although weakly. In other words, as oceans in the Southern Hemisphere warm, sea ice extent tends to grow as well, the exact opposite of what seems logical (tmsnrt.rs/1OSMDhm). Despite this relationship, it is still difficult to understand how Antarctic sea ice was able to maintain all-time high levels in 2013 and 2014, which until last year were the third-warmest and warmest years to date. There are some potential theories as to why Antarctic sea ice was able to persevere over the past few years despite the global warmth, such as impacts of the ozone hole and feedback loops due to the ice melt, but these theories stop short of explaining the sudden shift mid-last year.

The linkages among Antarctic sea ice, the surrounding atmosphere, and impacts for daily human life are much less understood than those in the Arctic, but one thing that is known is that melting of the Antarctic ice sheet would inevitably lead to a rise in ocean levels. If the entire Antarctic ice sheet were to melt, sea level would rise approximately 190 feet (58 meters), completely eliminating many major world cities, including several small countries.*


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


buddy boy, over 60 degrees?


----------



## elektra (May 17, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Jeeeez, Ejakulatra, you have got to be about the dumbest damn retard on the forum....
> Your article is almost two years old, fuckwit.
> *Antarctic sea ice took a new course in 2015*



Almost 2 years old, lets say 19 months old, and your article is speaking of when? 2015, that would be just 3 months later? 

Excellent point cause 3 months makes all the difference in the Universe when one speaks of the Climate!

SoilingBlunder, a little premature to post once again.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


but, but, but....

Scientists scrambling to track Arctic sea ice after key satellite sensor dies

"The outage has prevented the NSIDC from posting sea ice extent data since March 31."


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

Cryosphere Today.........




What?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 17, 2016)

elektra said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Jeeeez, Ejakulatra, you have got to be about the dumbest damn retard on the forum....
> ...


The article I posted, numbnuts, is dated Jan 12, 2016 and looks back at the entire year of 2015 from a perspective that is 15 months later than the article you cited.

Antarctic sea ice is below the average extent......not at a record high. Moron!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Cryosphere Today.........
> 
> 
> 
> ...









2016 ice extent is running well below the record low 2012 ice extent.....on its way to setting a new record low Arctic sea ice extent in September.


----------



## elektra (May 17, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> The article I posted, numbnuts, is dated Jan 12, 2016 and looks back at the entire year of 2015 from a perspective that is 15 months later than the article you cited.
> 
> Antarctic sea ice is below the average extent......not at a record high. Moron!


You went back to count! You are a joke, yep the entire year of 2015, which from October of 2014 is 3 months.

soiling blunder, your perspective on the climate is anywhere from 3 months to 15 months? I say that is weather. As far as extent goes in the Antarctic, the thin veneer of extent means nothing compared to the thickness, which is what I linked to.

You went off a little premature again, Soiling Blunder.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Cryosphere Today.........
> ...


cryosphere bubba says otherwise. and that is the actual ice capturing data.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


The graph I posted is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center....and it is quite accurate and can be verified by other Arctic science sites. Arctic sea ice is trending well below the 2012 line, which was a record low year, and it is headed for a new record-smashing low this year.


----------



## mamooth (May 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Cryosphere Today.........



... is showing satellite glitches.

Non-morons understand that. Arctic sea ice extent never jumps by 2.5 million km^2 in one day. The max possible change over one day is more like 100,000.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


The official site is cryosphere sorry


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Cryosphere Today.........
> ...


Hahahaha it was reading low, it's a correction


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Why do you think there is ice melting under 29 degrees F?


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 18, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...




Sea ice melts from more then just the air temperature. You also have to consider the temperature of the water and wind direction...(Does the ice spread out and allow the water under it to more easily melt it.). Anyways, a lot of the arctic has been above freezing the past week,,,so it has been warmer in a lot of areas then 29f.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (May 18, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *Arctic Sea Ice Dwindles to New Record Winter Low*
> Scientific American-Mar 29, 2016
> Every winter, the Arctic Ocean's _sea ice_ cover reaches a peak and then declines with the onset of spring. That peak, recorded this year on ...



The article in the link reports records go back 37 years.  That is hardly enough data to suggest we are in a longterm global warming trend. Less than 100 years ago most scientist believed the continents were static. Now they all agree and subscribe to plate tectonics. This global warming theory is very young, meteorology and climatology is very complicated. Anthropogenic global climate change won't even be a topic of discussion in 20 years.


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Sea ice melts from more then just the air temperature. You also have to consider the temperature of the water and wind direction...(Does the ice spread out and allow the water under it to more easily melt it.). Anyways, a lot of the arctic has been above freezing the past week,,,so it has been warmer in a lot of areas then 29f.



 You give us a day by day report on Arctic Ice like it is the end of the World. I see you as the ugly American, are ugly through ignorance and stupidity, or immorality? If it was immorality I imagine you could do more than cut/paste, I think your actions prove you as ignorant and stupid.


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *Arctic Sea Ice Dwindles to New Record Winter Low*
> ...


You are very educated, impressive in fact. I just read a passage in a book that stated the exact thing, you just said. All the Scientists fought against what a few proved, a revolution, occurred, in science. Now though, this is a bit different, Climate Scientists are being given millions of dollars, the most advanced equipment in the World, they have real power, hence they are more than willing to stretch the truth. They most likely figure even if what they state is completely wrong, the Science they do is still much more valuable than a few decades worth of white lies.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 18, 2016)

Matthew said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Well, the problem is some people just act like science should be easy enough for them to understand, and if they can't understand it, they reject it.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *Arctic Sea Ice Dwindles to New Record Winter Low*
> ...


We have records, from ice cores, that go back 800,000 years. We have other proxies that go back further than that. We also have the absorption spectra of the greenhouse gases. There is more than enough data to show that as long as we keep adding GHGs to the atmosphere, the warming will increase.

CO2, the biggest control knob, Richard Alley, youtube - Yahoo Search Results Yahoo Search Results


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


Damn, you are one ignorant little fool, Elektra. No, all the scientists did not fight against Plate Tectonics. In fact, once the evidence was presented, the paradigm was accepted with a surprising rapidity. Alfred Wegener first proposed Continental Drift in 1912, but could not supply a mechanism for the movement of the continents. As early as 1596, there was spectulation concerning the movement of continents. With the mapping of the magnetic stripes on the Juan de Fuca ridge, and the seismic profile of the subduction zones, suddenly we could see what was happening. 

Now it so happens that the absorption spectra of the GHGs, combined with the temperature records from the ice cores and other proxies, gives us a very good historical record of the relationship between the GHGs and atmospheric temperature. So it is simply a matter of known physics and observation, and we are seeing exactly what the scientists have been predicting.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (May 18, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



OMG, I must apologize to Electra and Old Rocks. I unintentionally mislead you both. I don't believe in global climate change science. I picked a bad example in Plate Tectonics in my post. I probably should have used the tired example of a flat earth, that which is a widely held belief which is actually wrong (flat earth wasn't really a widely held belief among the educated ). Global climate change science is influenced by money and politics, which taints the science, and so many pure scientist, or those with   No dog in the fight, have expressed the issues with the science. They get ignored by the scientific community which has sold out to the point that they can't even get peer review for work which questions the theories. That is a abomination of science. Science is never settled, not until all honest efforts to discredit a theory have been unsuccessful, only then is it accepted as fact. Anthropogenic climate change is far short of this threshold.


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


no, no you don't.  If it were true then it wouldn't get cold in the desert at night.  You fail.  The deserts disprove your argument.  bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt.


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


well they still don't have a theory, cause the hypothesis has never been tested.


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


cause you all keep saying it.  you have no evidence that the arctic has been warmer.  The average temp is 27 degree F.  So?


----------



## BuckToothMoron (May 18, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



That could be an argument for both sides of this debate.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (May 18, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



The greenhouse gas effect is widely accepted, the problem is nobody has produced a reliable model. Therefore making predictions on cause and effect has yet been speculation. Warming alarmist have damaged their brand by making absurd predictions (see Al Gore) which have not occurred. Throw in money and politics, and VIOLA, reasonable people question the "science". Remove money, politics and emotion to get untainted science.


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Apologize to me? I just like that someone mentioned plate teutonics, from what I understand, it took decades to change people's view.

So did you mislead me? Scientists immediately accepted plate teutonics?


----------



## Crick (May 18, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



So, all you've got is the grand, global conspiracy: 99 out of every 100 climate scientists and roughly 90 out of every 100 scientists in all other subjects, have joined a massive conspiracy to lie to the public and have left NO evidence, NO confessions, NO discrepancies in their "manufactured" data.  Pretty amazing.  So amazing, in fact, you've have to be a complete FOOL to believe it.  BTW, if no one has produced reliable models, what might these be?





Figure 9-08, Chapter 9, WG-I, The Physical Science Basis, Assessment Report 5, IPCC


----------



## BuckToothMoron (May 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



THose charts are your model? It is historical data that ended in 2010. Please show the models which predict  into the next few decades. Then the model can be tested and proven. Al Gore started the ball rolling with failed predictions and inaccuracies.


Al Gore Global Warming Movie Responses: 10 Facts 'An Inconvenient Truth' Got Wrong


I maintain that there is no reliable model and dozen of failed predictions-

The big list of failed climate predictions


There are plenty of scientist, climate and otherwise, who question or out right reject the theory. 

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not a conspiracy, it's science tainted by money, politics, and emotion.


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Damn, you are one ignorant little fool, Elektra. No, all the scientists did not fight against Plate Tectonics. In fact, once the evidence was presented, the paradigm was accepted with a surprising rapidity. Alfred Wegener first proposed Continental Drift in 1912, but could not supply a mechanism for the movement of the continents. As early as 1596, there was spectulation concerning the movement of continents. With the mapping of the magnetic stripes on the Juan de Fuca ridge, and the seismic profile of the subduction zones, suddenly we could see what was happening.
> 
> Now it so happens that the absorption spectra of the GHGs, combined with the temperature records from the ice cores and other proxies, gives us a very good historical record of the relationship between the GHGs and atmospheric temperature. So it is simply a matter of known physics and observation, and we are seeing exactly what the scientists have been predicting.


Watch how Old Crock fails to grasp things as easy as PIE (P=IE power formula).

First I spoke of Plate Tectonics, not Continental Drift. How much of a conversation do you wish to have on this subject, Old Crock? Ignorance? I have 5 books I can reference, all rolled up into one, The Annals of the Former World by John McPhee. As you can see just about anything you find with Google, I can respond with the details which in your ignorance you have not the knowledge to do an adequate Google search upon.

So, I will paraphrase, and take a pic, and site my reference. I really do not care if you link or source, I can easily reply.

_Alfred Wegener first proposed Continental Drift in 1912, but could not supply a mechanism for the movement of the continents_

Historically, it was the 16th century that Continental Drift was proposed, or maybe earlier, either way, Flemish geographer Abraham Ortelius, in the third edition of his Thesarus Geographicus (Antwerp, 1596) postulated that the American continents were, "torn away from Europe and Africa". by earthquakes and other events.

Jump to 1838, Scottish philospher Thomas Dick, of County Angus, published his Celestial Scenery, in which he explained how different land masses or continents fit neatly together to form one continent, and proposed how they may of been torn apart.

But, on Wegener, and the acceptance of, Old Crock, you are completely wrong.


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

Wow, so it seems, the Hypothesis of Continental Drift was considered a joke for 50 years? Not as Old Crock stated;

_In fact, once the evidence was presented, the paradigm was accepted with a surprising rapidity._
_
_


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...


*Well, Buck, first of all, Al Gore is not a scientist, he is a journalist by training. And the scientists have done a pretty good job of predicting what the effects of AGW were going to be. *

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

*Hansen et al. 1981*
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, *213*, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

*The prediction was really for the end of the 21st century, but the Northwest Passage opened for the first time in 2007. We are seeing the start of the breakup of the West Antarctic Ice Shelf right now. *

*If you really want to know what the scientists present as a evidence for AGW, here is a site from the American Institute of Physics. *

*The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect*


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No evidence the arctic is warmer?






Sea ice area is lower, hotter temperatures, lower sea ice.






Oh, NASA sees temperatures rising.





The UAH sees them rising. 





And some more


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, the problem is some people just act like science should be easy enough for them to understand, and if they can't understand it, they reject it.


Of course there are those who are arrogant and think they are smart enough to understand complex hypothesis, or even more complex theories, simply because they go outside on a warm day and arrogantly think that confirms their understanding. 

Nice observation of yours, although a bit shallow.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

* YEAR IN THE RED*
*I think most climate scientists are surprised at the speed that it’s happening,” she said. “But at the same time, with emissions peaking again last year... everything was pointing to an increased temperature. It’s the amount by which the records are being broken, not the fact that the record’s being broken, that’s really striking.*
*

*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the problem is some people just act like science should be easy enough for them to understand, and if they can't understand it, they reject it.
> ...


That is why we have NOAA NASA and Meteorological bureaus...they all agree on AGW


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> * YEAR IN THE RED
> I think most climate scientists are surprised at the speed that it’s happening,” she said. “But at the same time, with emissions peaking again last year... everything was pointing to an increased temperature. It’s the amount by which the records are being broken, not the fact that the record’s being broken, that’s really striking.
> 
> 
> *


Coloring is for fools and the ignorant.


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> That is why we have NOAA NASA and Meteorological bureaus...they all agree on AGW



What they state publicly is not proven to be what they know and agree on.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > That is why we have NOAA NASA and Meteorological bureaus...they all agree on AGW
> ...


Says you who are  to me a NOBODY...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > * YEAR IN THE RED
> ...





*Rejecting science to repeat Political dogma is MORONIC*


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> Wow, so it seems, the Hypothesis of Continental Drift was considered a joke for 50 years? Not as Old Crock stated;
> 
> _In fact, once the evidence was presented, the paradigm was accepted with a surprising rapidity.
> _


My, you have a talent for reading things into other peoples posts that simply are not there. I read my first college level geology book in 1956. It was about 20 years old at the time. And the author's did not consider Wegener's hypothesis a joke. In fact it made considerable mention of the evidence of the matching coastlines, and the matching geology and animals. However, it also stated there was no known mechanism that could propel fragile continental rock though oceanic basalt.

When the evidence from the magnetic stripes on the Juan de Fuca ridge was obtained, and the seismic profile of the subduction zones was discovered, the correlation was obvious to almost everybody. And the theory of Plate Tectonics was quite quickly accepted by most of the community of geologists, here and in other nations. Simple fact. By 1970, they were examining the ophiolites in places like Canyon Mountain near John Day, Oregon, to understand the obduction processes. By the '70's, Plate Tectonics was the accepted paradigm for the evolution.


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Says you who are  to me a NOBODY...


Yet you display you stupidity, brilliantly, if I am in fact a NOBODY, why do you take the time to address so many of my posts, and then upon failing to have a response that is part of the subject, you resort to attacking me personally?

Obviously I am somebody who posts logic that you can not argue or debate, otherwise you would never respond to my posts.

Nobody, is somebody you do not even acknowledge, not someone you attempt to discredit.


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Rejecting science to repeat Political dogma is MORONIC*


Yet, I did not reject science, I pointed out how a colored picture is for the fools and ignorant, it was pretty, did you use crayolas or did you copy it from a google search?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

NOAA Information


elektra said:


> Yet, I did not reject science, I pointed out how a colored picture is for the fools and ignorant, it was pretty, did you use crayolas or did you copy it from a google search?


Nothing personal but you got an ego on you that is totally unwarranted by you
Has anyone told you that you are an asshole ....? *you snide ignorant  piece of shit*   you just do not like what NOAA has to say Bitch*Rejecting science to repeat Political dogma is MORONIC*


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > *Rejecting science to repeat Political dogma is MORONIC*
> ...


LOL


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

Look here is some more Information* "with colors"* even if that insane asshole Science rejecting Bea Otch don't like it ..fuck that


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > *Rejecting science to repeat Political dogma is MORONIC*
> ...


Hey Fuck face did you go to the link and read the INFORMATION in TEXT..Go F Yourself Idiot
here is an example
We are breaking records by 3 to 4 tenths of degree C, whereas even the largest El Niños... only boost global temperatures by 1 to 2 tenths of a degree C,” Michael Mann, a climate scientist and director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center, told The Huffington Post in an email. “Even neglecting the possibility that climate change itself is leading to more monster El Niños... El Niño cannot explain the majority of this record warmth. Climate change is clearly playing a key role in the record warmth.”
We Just Completed A Full Year Of Record-Hot Months


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, so it seems, the Hypothesis of Continental Drift was considered a joke for 50 years? Not as Old Crock stated;
> ...


In my defense, you were a bit vague, and left much out, and what I quoted, is from Kenneth Deffeyes, hardly a person you could disagree with Old Crock. It took decades for the Scientists to come around. Now if you want to state explictedly when the evidence was presented and how long it got accepted, fine, but my original assertion that it took decades for Scientists to agree that Plate Tectonics was indeed the leading theory that explains Continental drift, stands. 

Scientists certainly take decades to be convinced. 

Kenneth S. Deffeyes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


Incredible I put up a link with all kinds of Information and all this creepy snide Individual has to say is that it has a "Colored picture " and therefore its for "fools and ignorant" followed by rather pathetic  snark fail...Are these fuckers on Drugs or something ?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> Kenneth S. Deffeyes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


are you on drugs ?


Global temperatures soar for record 12th straight month


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> Scientists certainly take decades to be convinced.
> 
> Kenneth S. Deffeyes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago - Scientific ...*


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Look here is some more Information* "with colors"* even if that insane asshole Science rejecting Bea Otch don't like it ..fuck that


_Look into my eyes, you are getting sleepy, sleepy, when you awaken, you will believe in man made global warming...._


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Look here is some more Information* "with colors"* even if that insane asshole Science rejecting Bea Otch don't like it ..fuck that
> ...




You reject science for Political Mumbo Jumbo..I am firmly on the side of Science


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Look here is some more Information* "with colors"* even if that insane asshole Science rejecting Bea Otch don't like it ..fuck that
> ...



Me and the scientist were hypnotized ...? eh Einstein LOL
*Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists*

*Scientific Consensus on Global Warming*

*Scientific societies and scientists have released statements and studies showing the growing consensus on climate change science. A common objection to taking action to reduce our heat-trapping emissions has been uncertainty within the scientific community on whether or not global warming is happening and if it is caused by humans. However, there is now an overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is indeed happening and humans are contributing to it. Below are links to documents and statements attesting to this consensus.*

*Scientific Societies*



*

American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society

"Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change." (February 2007)

American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (November 2007)

American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)

American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (December 2006)

Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006)
*
*Scientific Consensus*


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 18, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



There could be. I personally interested in finding the truth. Others are interested in finding what they want to find.

Some people are able to make good points, others spend their whole time fucking around and trying to make all evidence seem like it's not, then trumpet when one person says something that supports their claim


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> You reject science for Political Mumbo Jumbo..I am firmly on the side of Science


No, I do not, I just realize those who post cartoons as science are fools.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the problem is some people just act like science should be easy enough for them to understand, and if they can't understand it, they reject it.
> ...



And there are also people who see it colder, and then say man made climate change isn't happening. 

I never said there weren't people on both sides who are looking for what they want to find.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

*99 Percent Chance 2016 Will Be the Hottest Year on Record*
Scientific American
Odds are increasing that 2016 will be the hottest year on the books, as April continued a remarkable streak of record-warm months.

Last month was rated as the warmest April on record by both NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which released their data this week. In the temperature annals kept by NOAA, it marked the 12th record warmest month in a row.

Global temperatures have been hovering around 1.5°C (2.7°F) above pre-industrial averages—a threshold that’s being considered by international negotiators as a new goal for limiting warming.


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


Yes, the consensus, based on one or two studies of other people studies in a publication you must be a member of to see. If asked to come up with a list of names with their professions, and what they state explicitly is their opinion, that can not be done because a survey of scientists has not been conducted.

A study of studies does not establish consensus.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > You reject science for Political Mumbo Jumbo..I am firmly on the side of Science
> ...


You are a clown who just keeps repeating an unscientific position pretending its better than Science...Science totally rejects you not me you...you are an idiot who gets a link full of information and starts to make snide comments on the graphic..an Asshole LOL
*April 2016 Global Land And Sea Temperature: Another Record High*


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *99 Percent Chance 2016 Will Be the Hottest Year on Record*
> Scientific American
> Odds are increasing that 2016 will be the hottest year on the books, as April continued a remarkable streak of record-warm months.
> 
> ...


Above the 20th century average? But not above the average for the 21st century! More clown science!

_The planet’s temperature for January through March was 1.15°C (2.07°F) above the 20th century average for the same period, according to NOAA_


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> Yes, the consensus, based on one or two studies of other people studies in a publication you must be a member of to see. If asked to come up with a list of names with their professions, and what they state explicitly is their opinion, that can not be done because a survey of scientists has not been conducted.
> 
> A study of studies does not establish consensus.



OK fine Link to the studies that support your position...lets look at the sources ...come on you can do it ...link me


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> You are a clown who just keeps repeating an unscientific position pretending its better than Science...Science totally rejects you not me you...you are an idiot who gets a link full of information and starts to make snide comments on the graphic..an Asshole LOL
> *April 2016 Global Land And Sea Temperature: Another Record High*


You posted a cartoon, and a colored drawing, as science.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> Above the 20th century average? But not above the average for the 21st century! More clown science!
> 
> _The planet’s temperature for January through March was 1.15°C (2.07°F) above the 20th century average for the same period, according to NOAA_


*are you drinking or something ?*
*NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal Record-Shattering Global Temperatures*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > You are a clown who just keeps repeating an unscientific position pretending its better than Science...Science totally rejects you not me you...you are an idiot who gets a link full of information and starts to make snide comments on the graphic..an Asshole LOL
> ...


and all you have done is repeated moronically that you know more and better than  any old science does ..  *Notice my post contain links and Information...your post ..NOT SO MUCH LOL*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> You posted a cartoon, and a colored drawing, as science.


A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "*global warming*" or "*global climate change*". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent *global warming*, and of these 97.1% endorsed the *consensus* position.
*Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, the consensus, based on one or two studies of other people studies in a publication you must be a member of to see. If asked to come up with a list of names with their professions, and what they state explicitly is their opinion, that can not be done because a survey of scientists has not been conducted.
> ...


You made the assertion, if you care to begin to link to studies, you made the assertion, so go first. Go to an actual study, not to a website who makes claims of studies.

I do not need to site a study to make the point of fact, that a study of studies does not establish scientific consensus.

The studies you can produce will be of an author's opinion as to what other's opinions are based on the prejudices of the author. This road has been traveled in other threads, so feel free to produce the entire study, and there is at least 2, so go ahead. Make your case that there is an actual consensus, and not simply one man's opinion as to what other scientists believe based on his interpretation of published papers.

One point I can make now, is that the author could send ask each scientist personally, what he thinks, but that is not done. You will produce one man's opinion, maybe two or three, but you will not find a consensus.

but, give it a try, others have, and failed,


----------



## Weatherman2020 (May 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Above the 20th century average? But not above the average for the 21st century! More clown science!
> ...


Fantastic news.  Most weather related deaths are from cold, millions of lives will be saved.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> Jump to 1838, Scottish philospher Thomas Dick, of County Angus, published his Celestial Scenery, in which he explained how different land masses or continents fit neatly together to form one continent, and proposed how they may of been torn apart.


Your  post here by the way is "Real science " Tee hee ...it has yellow color photos of pages 
*Study: humans have caused all the global warming since 1950*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> One point I can make now, is that the author could send ask each scientist personally, what he thinks, but that is not done. You will produce one man's opinion, maybe two or three, but you will not find a consensus.
> 
> but, give it a try, others have, and failed,



*There is no DOUBT where Science stand its simply stubborn stupidity to say otherwise *
Like I said *you are an asshole* ...*you make the claim that you have better science and better Climate knowledge than NASA NOAA the World Climate Agencies the UN etc and I AM THE ONE WHO HAS TO SHOW YOU PROOF..*.that is proof you are an asshole






"Jump to 1838, Scottish philospher Thomas Dick, of County Angus, published his Celestial Scenery, in which he explained how different land masses or continents fit neatly together to form one continent, and proposed how they may of been torn apart."


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > You posted a cartoon, and a colored drawing, as science.
> ...


Cartoons to Wikipedia? Well, you are getting closer with your google searching, will you produce the study, and will the study be complete or just what the author wants us to believe he found out, I can not wait to know. Cut to the chase, not links to links to links.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> Cartoons to Wikipedia? Well, you are getting closer with your google searching, will you produce the study, and will the study be complete or just what the author wants us to believe he found out, I can not wait to know. Cut to the chase, not links to links to links.


*Climate change doubters really aren't going to like this study*

*Researchers have designed an inventive test suggesting that the arguments commonly used by climate change contrarians don’t add up, not only according to climate scientists (we know what they think already) but also in the view of unbiased experts from other fields.*


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Jump to 1838, Scottish philospher Thomas Dick, of County Angus, published his Celestial Scenery, in which he explained how different land masses or continents fit neatly together to form one continent, and proposed how they may of been torn apart.
> ...


The Guardian? Not a study. Not debatable or worth discussing, on a scholarly level. No link to a link to a link, produce studies.


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Cartoons to Wikipedia? Well, you are getting closer with your google searching, will you produce the study, and will the study be complete or just what the author wants us to believe he found out, I can not wait to know. Cut to the chase, not links to links to links.
> ...


Headlines from the Washington Post, is not a study?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> Cut to the chase,.


*Post something that demonstrates that you are wiser than science *...not this kind of tripe LOL...below is a sample from your post on Climate LOL

"Jump to 1838, Scottish philospher Thomas Dick, of County Angus, published his Celestial Scenery, in which he explained how different land masses or continents fit neatly together to form one continent, and proposed how they may of been torn apart."


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> The Guardian? Not a study. Not debatable or worth discussing, on a scholarly level. No link to a link to a link, produce studies.



you must be a speed reader LOL 
maybe this stroke of genius will convince you...a "genius" posted it LOL

"Jump to 1838, Scottish philospher Thomas Dick, of County Angus, published his Celestial Scenery, in which he explained how different land masses or continents fit neatly together to form one continent, and proposed how they may of been torn apart."


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

Here is the kicker  quote from this creature Elektra
"...Not debatable or worth discussing, on a scholarly level..."
In other words this "Jaboony" Believes she is on a "Scholarly Level"



"Jump to 1838, Scottish philospher Thomas Dick, of County Angus, published his Celestial Scenery, in which he explained how different land masses or continents fit neatly together to form one continent, and proposed how they may of been torn apart."


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Jump to 1838, Scottish philospher Thomas Dick, of County Angus, published his Celestial Scenery, in which he explained how different land masses or continents fit neatly together to form one continent, and proposed how they may of been torn apart.
> ...


Yes, I am using a book as a reference, not Google. 695 pages. How many pages does your Google'd found article from the Washington post, reference. 

You get a simple snapshot from google, and base your knowledge on that, then you make fun of someone who takes the time to read exactly what Scientists and Scholars think, know, and write?


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Here is the kicker  quote from this creature Elektra
> "...Not debatable or worth discussing, on a scholarly level..."
> In other words this "Jaboony" Believes she is on a "Scholarly Level"
> 
> ...


Elektra is a record label, I am guy, I got balls, it is the ignorant and stooges  who assume otherwise.


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Cut to the chase,.
> ...


Wrong again, that post had nothing to do with Climate, it contradicts a contention Old Crock made, which was in response to my post in which I stated, "Scientists disagreed with plate tectonics and decades later were proved wrong". 

tyrnoesloprop, you grasp at straws, trying to denigrate me, who you claim is a nobody?


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

Yet, does geography apply to the Arctic, the Antarctic, Sea Ice, or Sea Level?


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


how can that be when their satellites failed?  DOH!


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


they lie.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


Lie to get more political money is moronic.  And I didn't need to increase font size or bold the text.  Wow.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


I call bullshit. Can't be proven and we all know that the data is adjusted.  Tell me it isn't.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


not sure what any of that proves other than you know where colored pictures are at on the internet.  It certainly does not prove AGW or that any of it is factual.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> not sure what any of that proves other than you know where colored pictures are at on the internet.  It certainly does not prove AGW or that any of it is factual.


Repeating your opinions on climate over and over does not prove AGW is false.........


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> I call bullshit. Can't be proven and we all know that the data is adjusted.  Tell me it isn't.


Only Truthers like you know reality NOAA NASA fakers you Real


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> That is why we have NOAA NASA and Meteorological bureaus...they all agree on AGW
> they lie.


No you lie ...I trust NOAA and NASA more that I trust you...can anyone blame me ?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

elektra said:


> tyrnoesloprop, you grasp at straws, trying to denigrate me, who you claim is a nobody?


you are a nobody in Climate...I trust science not you


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > not sure what any of that proves other than you know where colored pictures are at on the internet.  It certainly does not prove AGW or that any of it is factual.
> ...


and posting pictures doesn't prove it does.  So post up the experiment that proves CO2 can cause extra warming.  Any time is fine with me.  Yet, you'll post up a picture that means absolutely nothing.  it's called an experiment.  post one that proves your position.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > That is why we have NOAA NASA and Meteorological bureaus...they all agree on AGW
> ...


and yet they have to adjust anything they release.  why is that?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> and posting pictures doesn't prove it does.  So post up the experiment that proves CO2 can cause extra warming.  Any time is fine with me.  Yet, you'll post up a picture that means absolutely nothing.  it's called an experiment.  post one that proves your position.


The repetition of your opinions simply do not measure up to  science..NOAA NASA...


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > tyrnoesloprop, you grasp at straws, trying to denigrate me, who you claim is a nobody?
> ...


you first have to find something that is actually science. Climate bzzzzzzzt. failed.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> and yet they have to adjust anything they release.  why is that?



Science involves continuous observation...technology improves and so measuremetn can be properly adjusted ...you on the other hand just keep saying over and Over "I am right NOAA NASA" are wrong...I am noble they are corrupt" over and over ...go back on the thread and see..


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > and posting pictures doesn't prove it does.  So post up the experiment that proves CO2 can cause extra warming.  Any time is fine with me.  Yet, you'll post up a picture that means absolutely nothing.  it's called an experiment.  post one that proves your position.
> ...


dude, you wouldn't know science if it hit you between the eyes.  again for the umpteenth time, people who actually do know what science is knows one needs to validate a hypothesis.  without validation, you don't have science.  So bubba, where is your supposed validation test of yours and NASA's hypothesis?  post it up.  Come on mr. science guy,


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


well if you go to the links I provide you can see with your own two eyes what science says ..go to the NOAA web site for example..


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> dude, you wouldn't know science if it hit you between the eyes.  again for the umpteenth time, people who actually do know what science is knows one needs to validate a hypothesis.  without validation, you don't have science.  So bubba, where is your supposed validation test of yours and NASA's hypothesis?  post it up.  Come on mr. science guy,


That is what you say ...you are nothing ...NOAA and NASA say different ...I am  going with them... sorry


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > and yet they have to adjust anything they release.  why is that?
> ...


can you stand yourself?  wow, see observed is observed.  When I look at a thermometer, I log the temperature i read off that instrument.  You're telling me I need to adjust it?  Really, interesting science you have their friend.  That isn't actual science that is money grabbing.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


dude, why don't you post the actual excerpt from your link that proves your position.  Why do I need to go read it? Why is it now my homework to validate your position?


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > dude, you wouldn't know science if it hit you between the eyes.  again for the umpteenth time, people who actually do know what science is knows one needs to validate a hypothesis.  without validation, you don't have science.  So bubba, where is your supposed validation test of yours and NASA's hypothesis?  post it up.  Come on mr. science guy,
> ...


dude i care less.  Just know that they haven't validated their position.  you can't change that.  But that ain't science, so don't tell me you believe in science when you have no idea how science works.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> can you stand yourself?  wow, see observed is observed.  When I look at a thermometer, I log the temperature i read off that instrument.  You're telling me I need to adjust it?  Really, interesting science you have their friend.  That isn't actual science that is money grabbing.


Visualize a scale ...a balance scale...on one side I place your opinions ...on the other side I place NOAA NASA ...suddenly you are way up in the air...their science outweighs your opinion...see if you can see it that way


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> dude, why don't you post the actual excerpt from your link that proves your position.  Why do I need to go read it? Why is it now my homework to validate your position?


I have posted links and information ...you do not read them ...


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > can you stand yourself?  wow, see observed is observed.  When I look at a thermometer, I log the temperature i read off that instrument.  You're telling me I need to adjust it?  Really, interesting science you have their friend.  That isn't actual science that is money grabbing.
> ...


again, opinion is not observation or actual work.  Opinion is opinion and again isn't science. Thanks again for proving my point.  you have no idea what science actually does.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > dude, why don't you post the actual excerpt from your link that proves your position.  Why do I need to go read it? Why is it now my homework to validate your position?
> ...


and what you posted doesn't validate your position.  sorry pal, facts is facts.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> again, opinion is not observation or actual work.  Opinion is opinion and again isn't science. Thanks again for proving my point.  you have no idea what science actually does.


Even if you post your opinions a million times I am going with science........


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > again, opinion is not observation or actual work.  Opinion is opinion and again isn't science. Thanks again for proving my point.  you have no idea what science actually does.
> ...


and yet you don't.


----------



## elektra (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > tyrnoesloprop, you grasp at straws, trying to denigrate me, who you claim is a nobody?
> ...


Yet you linked to the Washington Post, not a scientific study?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

elektra said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Science believes in AGW ...indisputable by anyone...sorry that is how it is...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

elektra said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


you do not link you repeat your opinion ad nausea ...but nothing else...


----------



## elektra (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> you do not link you repeat your opinion ad nausea ...but nothing else...


Yet, you quoted my posts about 40 times in the last 36 hours, while I have quoted your posts about 12? You made claims that I challenged you to support so it is up to you to produce the studies, which you have not.

I have not offered any facts in response to your posts, all I have done is ridicule them as Colored Drawings and Cartoons(which they are), and then challenged you to support your nonsense with links, your nonsense being science you found in the washington post? Quote the Study, and link to the Study. That is Science, not your colorings and cartoons and whatever other ridiculous garbage you link to.

And thanks for the ratings, funny ratings count to.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

elektra said:


> And thanks for the ratings, funny ratings count to.


 You are welcome ...funny is funny...by the way do you have any scientific links that back your views ..lol


----------



## elektra (May 19, 2016)

I feel like a somebody, not a nobody, when someone rates me 30 times and quotes me over 40 times in 36 hours. Thanks TyronSloth, sloth? That is funny, tyron is sloooooow as a sloth. Idiots avatars always amaze me.


----------



## elektra (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > And thanks for the ratings, funny ratings count to.
> ...


I do not post views, I post facts, and when I do, they are linked and referenced, you think you saw otherwise, go ahead a quote the post, or should I say, "_quote the poooost_" Was that sloooow enough for ya, TyroneSloth?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

elektra said:


> I feel like a somebody, not a nobody, when someone rates me 30 times and quotes me over 40 times in 36 hours. Thanks TyronSloth, sloth? That is funny, tyron is sloooooow as a sloth. Idiots avatars always amaze me.


I believe in NOAA and NASA Climate  theories ...whose theories do you believe  LOL


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

elektra said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


so far all I have seen is your exalted opinion and some nutty pages about "tectonic"


----------



## elektra (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> I believe in NOAA and NASA Climate  theories ...whose theories do you believe  LOL


I believe in facts, theories are not proven, that is what makes them a theory. ha ha ha,


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

elektra said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > I believe in NOAA and NASA Climate  theories ...whose theories do you believe  LOL
> ...


 You are special ...but I am still with NASA and NOAA LOL


----------



## elektra (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> so far all I have seen is your exalted opinion and some nutty pages about "tectonic"


Right, you call the leading scientists on plate tectonics, "nutty", and "opinion". Certainly shows you to be a bit of a Sloth in the brain department.

What is your opinion of Peak Oil? I ask cause you just called the guy that worked on that theory, "nutty".


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

elektra said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > so far all I have seen is your exalted opinion and some nutty pages about "tectonic"
> ...


You call NOAA and NASA "nutty" and "opinion"...are you on drugs ?


----------



## elektra (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> You are special ...but I am still with NASA and NOAA LOL


No, you are still with me, pissed cause I insulted you, and until you find someway to flame me back you are going to keep at my posts, I am in your head, and you can not get over me, even though you stated I was a nothing. 

Colored Drawings, a Cartoon, and the Washington Post is not Science. And that other link that led to a "scientific organization", Scientists do not submit papers to that website. All you have offered is junk and I challenged you to link to the studies you claim exist. Obviously you tried, and you can't, hence you have resorted to trying to attacking my character,  and in doing so you literally attack the top scientists in geology, that I posted content of. 

Attacking real Scientists thinking that is an attack on me proves you are one dumb idiot.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

elektra said:


> Attacking real Scientists thinking that is an attack on me proves you are one dumb idiot.


i BELIEVE THAT noaa AND nasa AND SCIENCE ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK AS TO AGW ...WHAT ABOUT YOU lol



Scientific consensus on human-caused global warming as compared to the expertise of the surveyed sample. There’s a strong correlation between consensus and climate science expertise. Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page


----------



## elektra (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


>


 Cool, a colored pac man drawing, now that is science nobody can argue with. Still can't link to the studies?


----------



## elektra (May 19, 2016)

My pac man ate yours, you lose


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

elektra said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


follow the link...where are your links ? where is your info ?

I am sticking with scientist over you ...sorry.... you are not good enough...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

elektra said:


> My pac man ate yours, you lose
> View attachment 75321


My graphic says something about AGW your graphic says something about you


----------



## elektra (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> i BELIEVE THAT noaa AND nasa AND SCIENCE ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK AS TO AGW ...WHAT ABOUT YOU lol


When you gain the skill to link and quote a study you think makes a point, feel free, I will happily engage, until then you have only proved you know nothing but how to cut and paste drawings and cartoons.

Looks like you fat fingered the "caps lock key", idiot!


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > And thanks for the ratings, funny ratings count to.
> ...


why because you can't find any to back yours?  now that is funny!!! speaking of funny.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Attacking real Scientists thinking that is an attack on me proves you are one dumb idiot.
> ...


woah dude, you just admitted you don't have factual information.  Now do you believe in a hypothesis or do you have factual information?  Now again, that's funny.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> woah dude, you just admitted you don't have factual information.  Now do you believe in a hypothesis or do you have factual information?  Now again, that's funny.



NOAA and NASA are nothing...you are everything LOL ONLY YOU HAVE THE TRUTH LOL


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Only you great jedi Master have the facts ...NOAA NASA are zero


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

elektra said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > i BELIEVE THAT noaa AND nasa AND SCIENCE ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK AS TO AGW ...WHAT ABOUT YOU lol
> ...


No matter...science is on my side ...not so much on yours


----------



## Old Rocks (May 19, 2016)

Thawing spike marks early melt-season start in Greenland

_Note: This story was updated on 5/16/2016 at 7 p.m. EDT with comments from Ted Scambos of the National Sea and Ice Data Center. *|*_

On April 11, a dramatic early spike in melting of snow and ice at the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet prompted a Danish climate scientist to say that she and her colleagues were “incredulous.”

Now, there has been a second bout of unusual melting.

You can see both of them in the graph above from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, or NSIDC. It charts the percentage of the Greenland Ice Sheet experiencing surface melting. In both cases, the thaw exceeded 10 percent of the ice sheet’s area.

When I noticed the second spike, I reached out by email to Ted Scambos, lead scientist for the NSIDC science team, to get his reaction to what has been happening in the Arctic lately. Here was his reply:

The Arctic is going to go through hell this year. Both the sea ice and the Greenland surface melting. Snow cover will also set a record.

*2016 is going to be a very interesting year.*


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



What? You're not being coherent, and I don't even think you have much of a point here.


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > woah dude, you just admitted you don't have factual information.  Now do you believe in a hypothesis or do you have factual information?  Now again, that's funny.
> ...


Dude, NOAA and NASA admit they adjust the data records.  You do get that right? People have asked for the explanation for the adjustments and they are silent.  For me that means something ain't right with what their doing.  Avoidance of an answer means a good one isn't available.  you can live with their finagling good for you, me I don't.  Especially when the weather isn't consistent with their readings and stations are not used and guesstimations are.  And no one can prove back radiation exists.  Seems like an important piece of data to state that a GHG is warming the planet.  ouch!!!! It is my opinion, you just don't want the truth. I merely want the truth and seek the truth.  Unfortunately, I don't have the truth other than the fact that they manipulate data.


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Thawing spike marks early melt-season start in Greenland
> 
> _Note: This story was updated on 5/16/2016 at 7 p.m. EDT with comments from Ted Scambos of the National Sea and Ice Data Center. *|*_
> 
> ...


what instrument is producing this information if I may ask?


----------



## mamooth (May 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> what instrument is producing this information if I may ask?



You may ask, but we'll just tell you to get off your butt and actually read the links Old Rocks provided, which gave that information. Stop constantly asking for everyone to spoon feed you everything just because you're too lazy to read a link.



jc456 said:


> Dude, NOAA and NASA admit they adjust the data records.  You do get that right? People have asked for the explanation for the adjustments and they are silent.



Also, stop being so dishonest. Such information has been given to you over and over, and in response you ignore it and lie about it. That's why nobody talks to you. It's been confirmed that you lie in response to everything, hence there's no point in talking to you or your cult buddies.

Now, back to the science. Greenland has another problem this year, Canadian wildfires. That means more soot on the ice, so more melt.

Arctic sea ice? JAXA says still a record low for the date. Which means ... the Japanese are part of the conspiracy too!

VIsualization Service of Horizontal scale Observations at Polar region


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > what instrument is producing this information if I may ask?
> ...


well I don't understand, when this is being reported two days after that posted graph from the NSIDC;

Satellite Used to Record Sea Ice Data Malfunctions

* Satellite Used to Record Sea Ice Data Malfunctions *

By Emily Russell, May 17, 2016

"To help make that distinction, NSIDC captures an image of sea ice extent in the Arctic every day and posts daily updates online. The agency has since suspended the updates and removed all of April’s data from NSIDC’s archives."

Why would the scientist be scrambling then if there were other resources?  Seems like perhaps the information isn't factual from the link you provided.  hmmmmmmmmmm


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> what instrument is producing this information if I may ask?


*Mercury rising: India records highest temperature ever*
Source: *CNN*

(CNN)India recorded its highest ever temperature on Thursday when the heat in the town of Phalodi, in the western state of Rajasthan, shot up to a burning 51 degrees Celsius (123.8 degrees Fahrenheit). 

It was the second day in a row the town experienced temperatures in excess of 50 degrees Celsius. 

Other towns in the state, like Churu, also recorded highs of about 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit) on Thursday. 
In New Delhi, the capital city of India, the temperature reached nearly 47 degrees Celsius on Wednesday. 

The previous temperature record in India was held by Alwar, also in Rajasthan, at 50.6 degrees Celsius (123.1 Fahrenheit) in 1956. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, the highest temperature ever was recorded at 56.7 degrees Celsius (134 degrees Fahrenheit) in Death Valley, California on July 10, 1913.

Read more: *India records highest temperature ever - CNN.com*


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > what instrument is producing this information if I may ask?
> ...


well thanks, not sure why I needed that when my question was for the arctic.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> well thanks, not sure why I needed that when my question was for the arctic.


* You do not matter ..you are some ignorant weirdo who thinks that you know more about Climate than Scientist do LOL*


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > well thanks, not sure why I needed that when my question was for the arctic.
> ...


As I stated once, I don't know more than them, I just know they are wrong and have admitted such by neglecting to produce the data that they claim the hypothesis off of and climategate.  Plus, no experimental data means a step was missed in your scientific process.  How do you explain that miss?  Nope, I only know they don't know.  That's it.

Which means you are following a fraud.  Nice.


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > what instrument is producing this information if I may ask?
> ...


and then there is this report from April 29:

National Snow and Ice Data Center loses ‘eye in the sky’

*Looking for alternatives*




NSIDC

"“We really don’t have the information we want about what the Arctic sea ice is doing,” Serreze said. “There are other satellite sensors up there that we can make use of, but we lost this eye in the sky and there is a lot of other data products that we make at NSIDC that are also affected by this.”"

So again the question is, what instrument was used to collect that graph?  hahahhahahahahahahaa I love factual information.  It would be nice to see it back.


----------



## elektra (May 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Thawing spike marks early melt-season start in Greenland
> 
> _Note: This story was updated on 5/16/2016 at 7 p.m. EDT with comments from Ted Scambos of the National Sea and Ice Data Center. *|*_
> On April 11, a dramatic early spike in melting of snow and ice at the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet prompted a Danish climate scientist to say that she and her colleagues were “incredulous.”
> ...



Old Crock, why did you cherry pick your source you filthy liar! Yep, if others do not quote the whole article, they are hiding stuff according to Old Crock, but if Old Crock don't follow his own rules that is fine and dandy! You are one filthy hypocrite of a liar Old Crock, hey, if it quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. The article is not science, it is conjecture at best, but seeing how these assholes know more than us, they simply made up propaganda!

Old Crock is one filthy hypocrite of a liar, cherry picking after you accuse others, than you do the same damn thing, Crock!

Here is what Old Crock is hiding! 

Thawing spike marks early melt-season start in Greenland


> Scambos emphasized that he wasn’t basing his prediction on a rigorous analysis of data. Instead:
> 
> I’m going on ‘duck test’ here: if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck…
> 
> The quacking so far this year has been rather loud all around the the high north, with unusual and persistent warmth, large-scale fracturing of Arctic sea ice, plunging sea ice extent (more about that in a minute), and the two spikes in Greenland surface melting.



You know why this is qualified as not being based on analysis of the data, because if he did that, then he could not blame global warming, he leaves that to our imagination, cause it, "quacks like a duck". But this jerk left out a High Pressure system that caused a break up of the ice which has nothing to do with HEAT! A "rigorous analysis of data", would reveal this, and he would have to include that fact in his article, but the article is nothing more than duck quacking, so it is left out. 

polarbearscience
Beaufort Sea fractured ice due to strong Beaufort Gyre action – not early melt


> *Beaufort Sea fractured ice due to strong Beaufort Gyre action – not early melt*
> Posted on May 12, 2016 | Comments Offon Beaufort Sea fractured ice due to strong Beaufort Gyre action – not early melt
> The Canadian Ice Service has a cool NASA animated video showing the Beaufort Gyre in action – you can actually see the solid mass of ice crack and swirl west and north under the pressure of the massive corkscrew current – see it here (tips on getting yourself oriented in the video below the screencap):
> 
> ...


well, at least it is good news for the polar bears, not good news for the Global Warming nuts that are running around quackin like ducks


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 20, 2016)

All the words in the world doesn't match the science below...


The 5 day NSIDC extent now the lowest ever recorded for May, at 11.787 million km2. This beats the value set on May 31st, last year, of 11.816 million km2


----------



## elektra (May 20, 2016)

Matthew said:


> All the words in the world doesn't match the science below...
> 
> 
> The 5 day NSIDC extent now the lowest ever recorded for May, at 11.787 million km2. This beats the value set on May 31st, last year, of 11.816 million km2


You are going to dismiss, "words" as not science, and define your colored drawing as, "science", to attempt to save your narrative. 

Well, too bad about the facts, and that is facts taken from NASA, 



> The Canadian Ice Service has a cool NASA animated video showing the Beaufort Gyre in action – you can actually see the solid mass of ice crack and swirl west and north under the pressure of the massive corkscrew current – see it here(tips on getting yourself oriented in the video below the screencap):


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 21, 2016)

elektra said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > All the words in the world doesn't match the science below...
> ...



I'll take the word of the people that work in the field of sea ice. 

Earliest date for IJIS sea ice extent to drop below 11,000,000 km2

1. May 20, 2016
2. May 29, 2015
3. June 3, 2011

Average date
2003-2015: June 9
2000s: June 15
1990s: June 24
1980s: July 3


----------



## elektra (May 21, 2016)

Matthew said:


> I'll take the word of the people that work in the field of sea ice.





Canadian Scientists that disagree do not count? Now that is objective Science, simply ignore Scientific fact you disagree with. Sorry Matthew, but the Arctic melt was not early, Arctic ice is not at record lows,  and Ocean Currents did break up the ice.

Even Mattpews favorite link confirms what the Canadian Scientists report.

Greenland Ice Sheet Today | Surface Melt Data presented by NSIDC


> Arctic sea ice has passed its annual maximum extent and is beginning its seasonal decline through the spring and summer. While total extent was not at record low
> 
> Ice fracturing continued north of Alaska, and the Arctic Oscillation was in a strongly negative phase during the second half of the month, with unusually high sea level pressure over almost all of the Arctic Ocean.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crick (May 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Thawing spike marks early melt-season start in Greenland
> 
> _Note: This story was updated on 5/16/2016 at 7 p.m. EDT with comments from Ted Scambos of the National Sea and Ice Data Center. *|*_
> On April 11, a dramatic early spike in melting of snow and ice at the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet prompted a Danish climate scientist to say that she and her colleagues were “incredulous.”
> ...





elektra said:


> Old Crock, why did you cherry pick your source you filthy liar!



He provided a link to the article and did not quote the entire text because THAT IS WHAT THE RULES OF THIS BOARD REQUIRE YOU FUCKING IDIOT.


----------



## elektra (May 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> He provided a link to the article and did not quote the entire text because THAT IS WHAT THE RULES OF THIS BOARD REQUIRE YOU FUCKING IDIOT.


Really, asshole, maybe if your ears were not full of shit cause your head is up your ass all the time you would comprehend what you read, old crock pulled the same bullshit with me so I gave it back to him, buy you filthy hypocrites don't follow the rules you demand others to follow, so go buy yourself a whole bunch of q-tips and clean your ears.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 21, 2016)

elektra said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I'll take the word of the people that work in the field of sea ice.
> ...



*Early start to Greenland Ice Sheet melt season*
April 21, 2016


For six days in early April, unusual weather patterns produced an early season melt event on the Greenland Ice Sheet, covering up to 10 percent of its surface area. Such an event is unusual but not unprecedented; the record surface melt season of 2012 began in a similar manner. Local meteorological records were set in southwestern Greenland towns and at several ice sheet weather stations.

Greenland Ice Sheet Today | Surface Melt Data presented by NSIDC

*The site you linked to concerns Greenland, not the Arctic Sea Ice.*


----------



## Old Rocks (May 21, 2016)

*From your post, Ms. Elektra;*

_Arctic sea ice has passed its annual maximum extent and is beginning its seasonal decline through the spring and summer. While total extent was not at record low

Ice fracturing continued north of Alaska, and the Arctic Oscillation was in a strongly negative phase during the second half of the month, with unusually high sea level pressure over almost all of the Arctic Ocean.

Arctic sea ice extent in *March 2013* averaged 15.04 million square kilometers (5.81 million square miles).
610,000 square kilometers (236,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which happened in 2006_

*Perhaps you have not noticed, but it is at present 2016.*


----------



## elektra (May 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *The site you linked to concerns Greenland, not the Arctic Sea Ice.*


No shit, idiot, What do you think you see in all those pictures you post, or anyone else posts, it is called Greenland you moron, which is in the Arctic Circle, and in which has Arctic Ice!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 21, 2016)

Dear little miss Elektra. Look carefully at the title of the thread. "2016 Arctic sea ice thread". Now I know this is very difficult for you to comprehend, but ice on land is not sea ice. And the ice on Greenland is on land. And no one but you has ever referred to it as Arctic sea ice. LOL


----------



## elektra (May 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Dear little miss Elektra. Look carefully at the title of the thread. "2016 Arctic sea ice thread". Now I know this is very difficult for you to comprehend, but ice on land is not sea ice. And the ice on Greenland is on land. And no one but you has ever referred to it as Arctic sea ice. LOL


Not as easy as pie, my post was in reference to sea ice, the Beaufort sea, you are the idiot simply trolling and everyone sees you for that. You made the claim that Greenland has nothing to do with the Arctic, I pointed out you are the idiot old crock.

Those who don't quote are filthy liars, crock!


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 21, 2016)

Satellite imagine of the sea ice. Northern Alaska and Canada open water. Within the next month a lot more of that ice is going to be gone.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







This confirms the accuracy of the daily map!


----------



## elektra (May 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *From your post, Ms. Elektra;*
> 
> _Arctic sea ice has passed its annual maximum extent and is beginning its seasonal decline through the spring and summer. While total extent was not at record low
> 
> ...


And it also says 2006! In the article, you suppose the article is maybe actually from 2006 or do you need to read the words and not just look at the numbers to understand what the article is stating.

Go troll old crock.

And as usual, you lose, every single time, crock


----------



## Crick (May 22, 2016)

*Daily sea ice extent updates resume with provisional data*
May 6, 2016


NSIDC has obtained data from the DMSP F-18 satellite and is in the process of intercalibrating the F-18 data with F-17 data. Intercalibration addresses differences between the series of sensors, in order to provide a long-term, consistent sea ice record. While this work continues, we are displaying the uncalibrated F-18 data in the daily extent image. The daily time series graph shows F-17 data through March 31, and F-18 data from April 1 forward. Initial evaluation of the uncalibrated F-18 data indicates reasonable agreement with F-17, but the data should be considered provisional and quantitative comparisons with other data should not be done at this time.

Because these are provisional data, the Sea Ice Index has not been updated and continues to display only F-17 data through March 31. We expect to make the F-18 data available in Charctic soon.

For general information on the intercalibration of sensors, see the documentation for Sea Ice Concentrations from Nimbus-7 SMMR and DMSP SSM/I-SSMIS Passive Microwave Data. This documentation will be updated when the intercalibration to F-18 is complete.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 22, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Satellite imagine of the sea ice. Northern Alaska and Canada open water. Within the next month a lot more of that ice is going to be gone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The amount of broken ice is also quite impressive for this time of year.


----------



## elektra (May 22, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The amount of broken ice is also quite impressive for this time of year.


Sure, the argument has gone from, "all the ice is gone", to "The amount of broken ice is also quite impressive for this time of year."

Damn, that ice may not be gone, but it sure is broken!


----------



## elektra (May 22, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The amount of broken ice is also quite impressive for this time of year.


The broken ice has nothing to do with Global Warming

Beaufort Sea fractured ice due to strong Beaufort Gyre action – not early melt



> The caption for the NASA video says this (my bold):
> 
> “MODIS Terra imagery taken between April 4 and May 3, 2016 of the Beaufort Sea. *The animation highlights the gradual ice breakup due to the Beaufort gyre.*”
> 
> So, early breakup here is due to Beaufort Gyre action – not early seasonal melt.


----------



## Crick (May 23, 2016)

You've just told us that "those who don't quote are filthy liars".  You've just quoted _someone _as having said "all the ice is gone".  Who would that have been?


----------



## elektra (May 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> You've just told us that "those who don't quote are filthy liars".  You've just quoted _someone _as having said "all the ice is gone".  Who would that have been?


Quote, so I know which post you are referring to, otherwise you are a filthy liar, as Old Crock states.


----------



## Crick (May 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> You've just told us that "those who don't quote are filthy liars".  You've just quoted _someone _as having said "all the ice is gone".  Who would that have been?





elektra said:


> Quote, so I know which post you are referring to, otherwise you are a filthy liar, as Old Crock states.



You are a reeking piece of shit, aren't you.


----------



## elektra (May 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Quote, so I know which post you are referring to, otherwise you are a filthy liar, as Old Crock states.
> ...


Quote, is that so hard, I quote your posts, you can quote mine, otherwise, you are as Old Crock states, a filthy liar.


----------



## Crick (May 23, 2016)

Here you go.



elektra said:


> Those who don't quote are filthy liars, crock!





elektra said:


> Sure, the argument has gone from, "all the ice is gone", to "The amount of broken ice is also quite impressive for this time of year."
> 
> Damn, that ice may not be gone, but it sure is broken!



So, who said "all the ice is gone"?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 23, 2016)

Nobody said the ice was gone. What is being observed is less ice than we have ever seen at this time of year. And much of the ice that is still there is broken up, which means that it is more easily melted. That this has to be explained to you is indicative of your lack of intellect.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 25, 2016)

IJIS:

*10,704,953 km2*（May 25, 2016）


----------



## SSDD (May 26, 2016)

There seems to be a discrepancy between the claims of lost ice and the actual lost ice...

This is the claim...






This is the reality...






The visual of the ice lost and gained doesn't seem to support the claimed loss.


----------



## jc456 (May 26, 2016)

Matthew said:


> IJIS:
> 
> *10,704,953 km2*（May 25, 2016）


you do know that sunlight is now hitting the arctic right?  Are you suggesting that during full sunshine that ice doesn't melt in the arctic?  hahaahhahahaahahhahahaha s0n go learn about climate and season and axis and sunlight.  wow.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 26, 2016)

Wow, fucking dumb ass, are you suggesting that the ice is not lower than it has ever been at this time of year in recorded history. If you are, what is your basis for that statement? And if not, what do you suggest accounts for the rapid melting of ice this year as opposed to prior years?


----------



## mamooth (May 26, 2016)

SSDD said:


> There seems to be a discrepancy between the claims of lost ice and the actual lost ice...



Only crank fraudster Goddard/Heller says that, so who cares? It's a given he's going to make stupid stories up.



> This is the reality..



That's a low-res image, with a huge coastline sea mask applied to make the coastline stand out. Hence, any melt in the masked area won't show. Oops. There goes the conspiracy.

Hi-res data without coastal masks is publicly available.

http://www.osi-saf.org/biblio/docs/osisaf_cdop2_ss2_pum_ice-conc_1_0.pdf

Goddard/Heller didn't use it, instead chose a low-res heavily masked image. That makes him either incompetent or deliberately dishonest.



>


----------



## jc456 (May 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Wow, fucking dumb ass, are you suggesting that the ice is not lower than it has ever been at this time of year in recorded history. If you are, what is your basis for that statement? And if not, what do you suggest accounts for the rapid melting of ice this year as opposed to prior years?


yeah that is exactly what I stated along with a so what if it was, what is it to you if ice melts in the arctic.  Do you think it won't refreeze when the sun goes away?


----------



## Crick (May 29, 2016)

When is it you believe the sun is going to "go away"?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2016)

Before AGW, the ice never even melted!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> When is it you believe the sun is going to "go away"?



It's called "winter"

Winter.


----------



## Crick (May 29, 2016)

And what comes after Winter?  And what does Winter, and the rest of the seasons do when the world as a whole warms?  They get warmer.  Can they get warmer than 0C?  Why, yes, they most certainly can.


----------



## jc456 (May 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> And what comes after Winter?  And what does Winter, and the rest of the seasons do when the world as a whole warms?  They get warmer.  Can they get warmer than 0C?  Why, yes, they most certainly can.


But dude, you're the one that thinks that's abnormal!


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Before AGW, the ice never even melted!



caused by either orbital changes of the planet(circular to elliptical), rotational changes as earth goes from 21 to 24.5 degrees throughout millions of years or natural co2 events(like melting the glacial ice or a fissile volcanic trapp event). Most of the time this happens over tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

125-140 thousand years ago is the last time earth had some of theses and we were very warm. What is concerning about what we're seeing now is that we aren't suppose to be warming...None of these natural events support what we're seeing in reality.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2016)

Matthew said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Before AGW, the ice never even melted!
> ...



It that were true why doesn't 120PPM of CO2 cause any warming in the lab?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> And what comes after Winter?  And what does Winter, and the rest of the seasons do when the world as a whole warms?  They get warmer.  Can they get warmer than 0C?  Why, yes, they most certainly can.



Are you back on "Warming" now? I thought it was "Climate change"


----------



## Crick (May 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And what comes after Winter?  And what does Winter, and the rest of the seasons do when the world as a whole warms?  They get warmer.  Can they get warmer than 0C?  Why, yes, they most certainly can.
> ...



Yes, I find the rate at which the world is getting warmer, the world's oceans are rising and growing acidic to all be abnormal


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Well, I posted a video a few years of a well known professor at UC berkeley doing exactly that in a fishing tank. Of course, he is a thousand times smarter then you're.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight because in AGW accounting the oceans retain 93% of the "Excess heat"


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 29, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Why wouldn't the oceans that cover the vast majority of our planet not absorb a lot of the energy? Air retains a lot less energy then water so water is very likely to have more energy for every inch of area. Right?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 29, 2016)

Matthew said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



What is the basis for the 93% number? 

That only leaves 7% for atmospheric and land "warming". How does that work Matty?


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2016)

Matthew said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...




please repost it. I would be very interested in seeing it. I cant believe I missed it the first time around.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2016)

IanC said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



We all missed it

Please repost


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2016)

Matthew said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Google: uc berkeley warming experiment fishing tank 120 ppm CO2

*UCSB | Global 2 - StudySoup*
▶
StudySoup | The College Learning Community

Marketplace > University of California Santa Barbara ...... Ended ran s BriefExperiment in Democracy How to ...

*has provided - Sense & Sustainability*
▶ 0:20
www.senseandsustainability.net/category/human-capital/feed/

Early last year, at the University of California San Diego (UCSD), noticeably pale ..... With ongoing ...

*Operational Agility Forum - Meeting V - Blue Prism Video*
▶ 4:15
https://blueprism.23video.com/video/.../operational-agility-forum
Nov 23, 2012
Many scientists believe that ambient CO2 is a result of warming from ...... para que sirve la pastilla meloxicam ...

*Tudo sobre Franquia - Portal do Franchising - ABF*
▶
www.portaldofranchising.com.br/videos-do-franchising/.../1735

To study it, the researchers performed two sets of experiments. ... stalls where can i buy flagyl for fish my dog ...

*Watch Video - Daddy - Mark Mohler Tribute - MyMurphyFamily.com*
▶
www.mymurphyfamily.com/showVideo.aspx?videoId=64...hi
Jul 14, 2011
Experiments at UW-Madison with a small squid that glows in the dark ...... rate for euros? http://www.oralgroup ...

*Site d'Eric Toledano et Olivier Nakache - Nos Jours Heureux: Le jour ...*
▶
www.toledano-nakache.com/.../29-nos-jours-heureux-le-jour-de-...
Mar 27, 2009
Le mercredi 17 février 2010 à 18:35, de http://affordable-heating- ..... spreedsheet character. | linen sheet. 120 ...

*Sỏi thận tiết niệu là bệnh khá thường gặp ở nước ta. Theo y học cổ ...*
▶ 0:30
www.sucsongviet.vn/bai-thuoc-tri-soi-tiet-nieu_g85_n929.aspx

Cao kim tiền thảo thí nghiệm trên động vật có tác dụng ức chế sự hình thành sỏi ..... can now use computers to calculate how an ...

*join [편집3기]조진희 - 대전외노센터 미디어팀 2007-06-25 10:23:01 ...*
▶ 2:00
acro.or.kr/bbs/view.php?id=publictv...
Apr 19, 2015
A slightly warmer Antarctic climate allows more snow to fall, which means the ..... ">buy accutane 30mg ppm</a ...


_In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 8 already displayed._


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...




what is the likelihood of all of us missing it vs the likelihood that it doesnt exist?


----------



## Crick (May 30, 2016)

I've gone back several pages and cannot discern what it is that Matthew's purported video shows a Berkely professor doing.  You seem to know, Ian.  What would it be?


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> I've gone back several pages and cannot discern what it is that Matthew's purported video shows a Berkely professor doing.  You seem to know, Ian.  What would it be?



I spent about a half hour looking myself but it is a video by Professor Richard A. Muller, which in one of his physics classes uses a heat lap, fish ball,etc to show that co2 does warm. It is one of his physics for future presidents classes but the ones I looked over didn't have this experiement from 2006-2007..So it must of been another term or year.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> I've gone back several pages and cannot discern what it is that Matthew's purported video shows a Berkely professor doing.  You seem to know, Ian.  What would it be?



Matty answered in response to this, 

"It that were true why doesn't 120PPM of CO2 cause any warming in the lab?"


----------



## IanC (May 30, 2016)

I went through Muller's videos a few years back. there was no experiment with a difference of 120 ppm CO2. there may have been an experiment but it was with increases many orders of magnitude larger than 120.

because I had seen the videos I knew that the only thing Muller was skeptical about was Mann's atrocious disdain for the scientific method.


----------



## Crick (May 30, 2016)

And yet he arrived at precisely the same result when the BEST study was complete.  What a surprise.


----------



## jc456 (May 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> And yet he arrived at precisely the same result when the BEST study was complete.  What a surprise.


And that's when a statement was made that any data would produce Mann's result. And why the calculations are bogus. Try again


----------



## Crick (May 30, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And yet he arrived at precisely the same result when the BEST study was complete.  What a surprise.
> ...



That is *incorrect*.  The BEST study took place long after Wegman, McIntrye and McKittrick had their little go at Mann.See Summary of Findings - Berkeley Earth


----------



## IanC (May 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> And yet he arrived at precisely the same result when the BEST study was complete.  What a surprise.




???? Muller redid Mann's work? when? can you link me up?


----------



## IanC (May 31, 2016)




----------



## jc456 (May 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Well sir, there are others who have been in the fight saying stuff like:

"According to real scientists, the graph also gave extreme weighting to datasets that showed unusual 20th-century warming at the expense of those that did not. And the program that Mr Mann created to draw the graph would have shown the 20th century as unusually warm even if _*random red noise*_ rather than real-world data were fed in. There were numerous other statistical curiosities. *Mr Mann’s graph is perhaps the most laughable and widely-discredited object in the history of bad science supporting worse politics.""*

*Wednesday, August 14, 2013
 Michael Mann's hockey stick graph is the most laughable & widely discredited object in the history of science 

 Monckton to Mann: Forget personalities, science is about truth
Source:  Christopher Monckton, The SPPI Blog



Lord Monckton
The Editor, Richmond Times-Dispatch, August 15, 2013.*


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2016)

Monckton, eh? Lord Monckton? The lying bastard is not a Lord, and he is not a scientist. He is a fraud, the truth is not in him. That you refer to him simply demonstrates your idiocy.


----------



## jc456 (May 31, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Monckton, eh? Lord Monckton? The lying bastard is not a Lord, and he is not a scientist. He is a fraud, the truth is not in him. That you refer to him simply demonstrates your idiocy.


you don't even know him and you act as if you're Mann.  Mann I'd expect doesn't care much for him since he proved his shit stupid.  LOL.  dude you have to get over yourself.  Mann lied accept it.  he has.


----------



## Crick (May 31, 2016)

Monckton is very clever at sounding as if he knows what he's talking about, when he is talking with folks unfamiliar with the topic.  He is, in fact, completely unqualified to speak to the subject of AGW.  His statements have been widely and roundly refuted on more than one occasion. Quoting Monckton on AGW is akin to quoting Donald Trump on diction and syntax.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2016)

*'Lord' Monckton is a fraud in his claim to be a member of the House of Lords, and is the same in all his other claims.*

Climate sceptic Lord Monckton told he's not member of House of Lords

The House of Lords has taken the unprecedented step of publishing a "cease and desist" letter on its website demanding that Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent climate sceptic and the UK Independence party's head of research, should stop claiming to be a member of the upper house.

The move follows a testy interview given by Monckton to an Australian radio station earlier this month in which he repeated his long-stated belief that he is a member of the House of Lords. When asked by ABC Sydney's Adam Spencer if he was a member, he said: "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote … [The Lords] have not yet repealed by act of parliament the letters patent creating the peerage and until they do I am a member of the house, as my passport records. It says I am the Right Honourable Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. So get used to it."

The letter, sent by David Beamish, clerk of the parliaments, to Monckton last Friday and now published on the Lords' website, states: "You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgement in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office)."


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 1, 2016)

IanC said:


>



Look:

*The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic*
By RICHARD A. MULLER JULY 28, 2012

Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Berkeley, Calif.

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause. [...]

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. [...]

What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.​


----------



## IanC (Jun 1, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



I have been through all this at the time that it was happening. I had great faith that Muller was going to do what he originally said he was going to do, create a fully accessible databank with all the temperature info, with various types of adjustments that could be implimented singly or in combination. this did not happen. between concept of the idea and the four BEST papers that were finally published in the first issue of a new Indian journal years after the initial preview, a lot of changes were made. perhaps he abdicated a lot of the actual grunt work to his daughter and his statisticians. Judith Curry actually requested that her name be taken off the papers.

the method for homogenization uses kriging  and scalpel cuts. I believe this puts a constant pressure to increase the temperatures. while Muller admitted that roughly a third of all long term temperature series were cooling, after homogenization no series have a cooling trend. the use of data breaks with realignment with no metadata reasons is highly problematic to me. everything is simply adjusted to meet 'expectations'.

the paper on UHI is even more troubling, at least to me. concluding that urbanization is a cooling effect rather than a warming one goes against commonsense and measurement of reality.


----------



## Crick (Jun 1, 2016)

And what do you conclude from all those feelings and impressions and commonsense?  Has Muller joined the Grand Global Conspiracy?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2016)

IanC said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Bernie Madoff would still be raising funds if he were able to do AGW accounting.

Loss? What loss? We adjusted the loss to look like a gain


----------



## Crick (Jun 1, 2016)

So, we're actually talking about Muller and a dozen other scientists.  Did they ALL join the Grand Global Conspiracy?


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 1, 2016)

IanC said:


> I have been through all this at the time that it was happening. I had great faith that Muller was going to do what he originally said he was going to do, create a fully accessible databank with all the temperature info, with various types of adjustments that could be implimented singly or in combination. this did not happen. between concept of the idea and the four BEST papers that were finally published in the first issue of a new Indian journal years after the initial preview, a lot of changes were made. perhaps he abdicated a lot of the actual grunt work to his daughter and his statisticians. Judith Curry actually requested that her name be taken off the papers.
> 
> the method for homogenization uses kriging and scalpel cuts. I believe this puts a constant pressure to increase the temperatures. while Muller admitted that roughly a third of all long term temperature series were cooling, after homogenization no series have a cooling trend. the use of data breaks with realignment with no metadata reasons is highly problematic to me. everything is simply adjusted to meet 'expectations'.
> 
> the paper on UHI is even more troubling, at least to me. concluding that urbanization is a cooling effect rather than a warming one goes against commonsense and measurement of reality.



That's a lot of assertions, with some innuendo mixed in, with nothing by way of support in the form of links, quotes, and I suspect that you got most of that from, say, "interested" sources.

As to your last paragraph: Urbanization, while resulting in heat islands, may still have a partly cooling effect, if urban areas reflect more (short wave) sunlight back into space than, say, forests do, while forests emit more water vapor, adding to the greenhouse effect more than cities do.  Yeah, I know, that is counter-intuitive, but sometimes "common sense" doesn't suffice to understand the complexities of the earth's climate system.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



"These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming...."

Consensus is a cult word, you never hear real scientists say "Consensus" or "Denier"


----------



## Crick (Jun 1, 2016)

Really?  I suggest you review the two Wikipedia articles on the surveys, studies and polls on which our knowledge of the consensus exists and see if you might find the scientists involved using the term now and then.  You will find you're simply wrong.  And besides, what bearing does it have on the validity of AGW?  None, like all denier arguments.


----------



## IanC (Jun 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> So, we're actually talking about Muller and a dozen other scientists.  Did they ALL join the Grand Global Conspiracy?




I think i have answered this question a few dozen times now.

no evil intention is needed...groupthink and/or incompetence is sufficient.

add in a dash of 
*“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So, we're actually talking about Muller and a dozen other scientists.  Did they ALL join the Grand Global Conspiracy?
> ...


Well, here we go again. The accusation of scientific fraud when your opinion is denied by the evidence a scientist presents. When you were just so sure that Muller would present evidence that agreed with your opinion, you could not say enough positive things about him. But then the Son of a Bitch went and reported the facts. And now you are calling him a fraud.


----------



## IanC (Jun 1, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > I have been through all this at the time that it was happening. I had great faith that Muller was going to do what he originally said he was going to do, create a fully accessible databank with all the temperature info, with various types of adjustments that could be implimented singly or in combination. this did not happen. between concept of the idea and the four BEST papers that were finally published in the first issue of a new Indian journal years after the initial preview, a lot of changes were made. perhaps he abdicated a lot of the actual grunt work to his daughter and his statisticians. Judith Curry actually requested that her name be taken off the papers.
> ...




that is an admirably clever red herring to lay down but....we are talking about measuring temperatures not the total effect of all factors on the greenhouse effect. cities are warmer than suburbs which are warmer than rural. up until GISS changed their methodology in 2012 it was possible to check their UHI adjustments, they added up to zero change. the amount now is a black box mystery.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Really?  I suggest you review the two Wikipedia articles on the surveys, studies and polls on which our knowledge of the consensus exists and see if you might find the scientists involved using the term now and then.  You will find you're simply wrong.  And besides, what bearing does it have on the validity of AGW?  None, like all denier arguments.



Remember when Einstein called Max Planck a "Relativity Denier!!!"

yeah me neither.

"Consensus" is what people say whenever they consider the results of the lab work to be a "denier!!"


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 1, 2016)

IanC said:


> that is an admirably clever red herring to lay down but....we are talking about measuring temperatures [...]



Yeah?

"urbanization is a cooling effect"​
You know, Ian, if you don't understand the whole of the climate change complexity, that's okay.  I suspect none of us does, and I most assuredly don't.  On the other hand, trying to deny that which you have quite clearly stated is just stupid bullshit.  "Cooling effect" clearly implies a radiative balance, and "measuring temperatures" is the beginning of that, but just barely.

Moreover, trying to use Muller as a star witness against AGW, blithely dismissing his retraction, and then, now that he's retired, trying to use the old "when his salary depends on his not understanding it" line against him is really beyond stupid.  I am sure you can do better than that, for at the time you are doing yourself a huge disservice.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 1, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > that is an admirably clever red herring to lay down but....we are talking about measuring temperatures [...]
> ...


Now wait, do you know or don't you?  What are you arguing if you don't know it all?  You sure behave as if you have every fkn answer on climate?  But funny, to admit you don't and post as you do is amazing.

me I'm merely an observer of my time on earth.  I research and find historical records.  I research and find new records trashing historical records to which you and others bless as gospel.  And then you come to this post and state you don't know.  wow.


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 1, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Now wait, do you know or don't you? What are you arguing if you don't know it all? You sure behave as if you have every fkn answer on climate? But funny, to admit you don't and post as you do is amazing.
> 
> me I'm merely an observer of my time on earth. I research and find historical records. I research and find new records trashing historical records to which you and others bless as gospel. And then you come to this post and state you don't know. wow.



Chuckle.  We're now supposed to follow the "shut up unless you know it all" principle?  You go first.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 1, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Now wait, do you know or don't you? What are you arguing if you don't know it all? You sure behave as if you have every fkn answer on climate? But funny, to admit you don't and post as you do is amazing.
> ...


well s0n, just post up your CO2 based experiments?  Bill Nye the science guy tried and failed.  I have witnessed his stupid experiment.  It didn't prove his position so he neglected to process the video accurately as a slight of hand to his position.  It's frkn hilarious.  CO2 gas cools the planet.  It absorbs the heat and leaves the world to outer space.  hey, it might go to Venus since it has such a hot atmosphere.


----------



## Crick (Jun 1, 2016)

jc456 said:


> CO2 gas cools the planet.  It absorbs the heat and leaves the world to outer space.



Let's see the experiments that demonstrate this.  I won't even demand that they take place in a lab.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 gas cools the planet.  It absorbs the heat and leaves the world to outer space.
> ...


Posted it just like you


----------



## Crick (Jun 2, 2016)

Something equivalent to www.ipcc.ch?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 gas cools the planet.  It absorbs the heat and leaves the world to outer space.
> ...


hey let me ask a question in the middle of this discussion, do you believe that the atmosphere acts as a heat sink?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 gas cools the planet.  It absorbs the heat and leaves the world to outer space.
> ...


Crick enjoy the read:

http://www.ke-research.de/downloads/ClimateSaviors.pdf

Excerpt:
"This also goes for the earth. Earth's surface, clouds and atmosphere
constantly radiate energy into space - and the resulting
loss of energy causes cooling. However, in spite of variations in
the lengths of days and weather, the earth remains "warm" because
the sun constantly supplies new energy. As a simplification
we can draw the earth’s energy dynamics as a “stock flow
model”: with an “influx” (heating: the sun), to an energy stock
and a “drain” (cooling: radiation into the universe). The temperatures
depend on the energy stock – if it decreases, it gets cold. 24)'


----------



## jc456 (Jun 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 gas cools the planet.  It absorbs the heat and leaves the world to outer space.
> ...


some more:
THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: June 2010
*Wednesday, June 30, 2010*
* Physicist: Cooling Effect of CO2 is 100x Greater than Warming Effect *

Charles Anderson PhD, a materials physicist, has a new post today which calculates the cooling effect of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases to be 100 times greater than the heating effect.
"the cooling effect due to keeping incoming solar IR radiation away from the surface is about 100 times the re-heating effect proclaimed by greenhouse gas alarmists"


----------



## jc456 (Jun 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> Something equivalent to www.ipcc.ch?


which document do you wish me to look at?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> Something equivalent to www.ipcc.ch?


from the WG1 there is this gem:

"As one example, the rate of *warming over the past 15 years *(1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, *is smaller* than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)."

Dude that means there was less warming, in other words a pause in warming.  Dude this kills any CO2 reference for warming of the planet.  It's own words bubba.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 2, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick enjoy the read:



I read it. The guy got some very basic things wrong. For example, he claims the earth can't warm unless the sun warms, because it would make the earth radiate more, which would remove the heat. However, by that stupid logic, it's impossible for a blanket to make a person warmer, because the person would radiate more heat as he got warmer, removing the heat. Hence, that stupid logic is obviously wrong.

So, that source fails hard at elementary physics, just like all of your sources.

You'd be more convincing if, instead of just linking to conspiracy cult web pages and yelling "I WIN!", you'd actually explain your claim in your own words. So do so. Tell us, in your own words, why CO2 has a cooling effect. Now I could summarize the crackpot argument in a sentence, but you're the one who needs to do so. After all, if you don't even understand your own theory, why should we take you seriously?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 2, 2016)

jc456 said:


> from the WG1 there is this gem:
> 
> "As one example, the rate of *warming over the past 15 years *(1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, *is smaller* than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)."
> 
> Dude that means there was less warming, in other words a pause in warming.  Dude this kills any CO2 reference for warming of the planet.  It's own words bubba



Actually, it means you've reached shocking new lows in cult-parrot cut-and-paste dishonesty.

That sentence is taken from here, section 1.1.1.

Topic 1: Observed changes and their causes
---
In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, the globally averaged surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (Figure 1.1). Due to this natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade; see Box 1.1). _{WGI SPM B.1, __2.4.3__}
---
_
The report presented your sentence as an example of what _not_ to do ... so your cult web page did it, after stripping out the context that said not to do it. Then you saw it, and copied the mess here.

You didn't understand at first how dishonest it was. But now you do understand ... and you'll still defend the dishonesty of it. Cultists are like that. That's why it's a waste of time to engage you as if your were a rational and honest person.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 2, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick enjoy the read:
> ...


Funny stuff tooth.  again a blanket isn't our atmosphere and hasn't a thing to do with surface temperatures and heat transfers.  Sorry.


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 2, 2016)

mamooth said:


> The report presented your sentence as an example of what _not_ to do ... so your cult web page did it, after stripping out the context that said not to do it. Then you saw it, and copied the mess here.



Yeah, that thing probably has been debunked millions of times, so often, actually, that the smarter deniers keep away from it.  Some, seemingly, were out for lunch every time and still didn't get the memo.  So, maybe that thing was resurrected the last time, and is really, really dead now.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 2, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > The report presented your sentence as an example of what _not_ to do ... so your cult web page did it, after stripping out the context that said not to do it. Then you saw it, and copied the mess here.
> ...


I love it that you can't prove your position.  Love it.  yeah the atmosphere is a blanket.   yeppers only from the mouths of warmers. hahahaahahaha.

I wish you all would learn what the sun is.

BTW, Venus is your enemy on the subject.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 2, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Funny stuff tooth.  again a blanket isn't our atmosphere and hasn't a thing to do with surface temperatures and heat transfers.  Sorry.



On the contrary, it's quite a good analogy, as both a blanket and greenhouse gases raise the temperature of a warm body by slowing heat flow out of the warm body. Your guy, being clueless, thinks a blanket can't make a person warmer.

Oh, you neglected to post your own short summary of why CO2 supposedly makes the earth colder. People are starting to think you have no idea of what you're babbling about, and that you're just mindlessly cutting-and-pasting and spewing insults to deflect away from that unpleasant fact. If you don't want to be thought of as a brainless cult parrot, you really need to explain, in your own words, the science which you claim is correct.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 2, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Funny stuff tooth.  again a blanket isn't our atmosphere and hasn't a thing to do with surface temperatures and heat transfers.  Sorry.
> ...


why, I posted the reason earlier, didn't you read it?  here I thought you were responding to that post.  wow.

Oh and no, the atmosphere is not like a blanket.  A blanket doesn't evaporate nor does it circulate air.  hmmmmmmm how can it be the same when a blanket is keeping heat in and heat leaves our world.

and one last thing, don't ever ask me for something until you post what 120 PPM of added CO2 does to temperature, how much hot does it add. that's been like three years I've been waiting, so you have some nerve to ask me for something when you have never presented what I asked for then.


----------



## Crick (Jun 2, 2016)

If I ask for proof you're a human being for the next three years, can I get snitty about it when you don't deliver?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 2, 2016)

The next 3 weeks will be very important. If we're following near or below 2012 by the last week of this month it will be very hard for us to finish higher then 3rd lowest this year....There's a chance we will compete with 2012!


----------



## Crick (Jun 2, 2016)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



How does CO2 cool the planet?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 2, 2016)

Based on this map I'd say if we get to the 12th of June at below 2012 levels then we'll only need right around the avg decline of the 2000's to stay below into July.


----------



## Crick (Jun 3, 2016)

jc, how does CO2 cool the planet?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


how does it heat it?  .03% of the atmosphere, where is the power?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


2016 Arctic sea ice thread read again.  Your answer is there I posted the excerpt.  What is it you didn't understand?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> How does it heat it?  .03% of the atmosphere, where is the power?



Through increased backradiation, which has been directly measured. And that's been pointed out to you before, with links and graphs, so we are not obligated to do so again. Quit the contrary, you need to explain why you've run from our links and data over and over.

Now you, you still haven't told us how CO2 cools the planet. You just keep coming up with new ways to avoid the issue. While your skill at evasion is impressive, it's pointless in the long run, as we're going to just keep coming back to the issue you're running from. Admit it. You have no idea of how your crazy theories supposedly work. You're brainlessly parroting the conspiracy blogs that your political cult approves of. It really is that obvious, and you're not fooling anyone.

So jc, how does CO2 cool the planet? Don't deflect by linking to a conspiracy blog. Explain it in your own words.

(The funny thing is how most everyone here could easily explain the theory of jc's nutblog in a sentence, and then explain where they got it wrong. We could, but we want to watch jc flail some more.)


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > How does it heat it?  .03% of the atmosphere, where is the power?
> ...





mamooth said:


> So jc, how does CO2 cool the planet? Don't deflect by linking to a conspiracy blog. Explain it in your own words.



See post #352

It actually blocks sunlight from reaching the surface, even NASA admits such.  hmmmmmmm


"(NaturalNews) Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence."

Learn more: Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> It actually blocks sunlight from reaching the surface, even NASA admits such. hmmmmmmm
> 
> 
> "(NaturalNews) Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence."
> ...



Oh, for pity's sake!  What NASA describes is a particle emission, not radiation:

That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field.  (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.)  *Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere*, depositing their energy where they hit.​
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the earth's energy budget.  Moreover, it was never in dispute that the upper atmosphere radiates most of the IR radiation into space; the problem is that greenhouse gases in the troposphere trap most of the earth's outgoing surface radiation in the lower atmosphere.

There's a peril, you know, in picking up an internet fraud without checking or understanding what the issue is.  It may make you look like a goof with little to no scientific understanding.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 3, 2016)

As jc won't explain the theory he keeps invoking, I'll have to help him out.

His goof sources take the percent of energy the sun emits as IR, claim CO2 blocks some of that percentage from hitting the ground, and therefore that more CO2 prevents more IR from hitting the ground, cooling the earth.

The giant flaw with their method is lumping all IR in one category. Shortwave IR, which is where most of the energy is, isn't blocked by CO2. Hence, increasing CO2 doesn't stop it from reaching the surface, hence their theory is nonsense.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 3, 2016)

mamooth said:


> As jc won't explain the theory he keeps invoking, I'll have to help him out.
> 
> His goof sources take the percent of energy the sun emits as IR, claim CO2 blocks some of that percentage from hitting the ground, and therefore that more CO2 prevents more IR from hitting the ground, cooling the earth.
> 
> The giant flaw with their method is lumping all IR in one category. Shortwave IR, which is where most of the energy is, isn't blocked by CO2. Hence, increasing CO2 doesn't stop it from reaching the surface, hence their theory is nonsense.


And no back radiation, don't forget, that piece you.... You can't prove


----------



## Crick (Jun 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



It is 0.04% of the atmosphere, up from 0.028% prior to the Industrial Revolution.  As to the how, perhaps you've heard mention of the Greenhouse Effect?  If not, we could give you a link to several good explanations.


----------



## Crick (Jun 4, 2016)

Another comment from jc's Hockey Schtick story

"Finally, the IR radiation is not absorbed by nitrogen, oxygen, and argon gases which make up 99% of the atmosphere, so a large fraction of it directly warms the Earth's surface. Some, is absorbed by the dominant greenhouse gas, water vapor, and small amounts are absorbed by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases."

My understanding was that CO2 (much less water vapor, ozone and the rest of the greenhouse gases) had absorbed all available LWIR in their respective absorption spectras within a matter of a few meters passage through the atmosphere. This is a point that many deniers - yourself included jc - have used as an argument against greenhouse warming - that the effect was saturated.  Sound familar?  Yet this author contends that "a large fraction of [incoming IR] directly warms the Earth's surface". How, pray tell?


----------



## Crick (Jun 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > As jc won't explain the theory he keeps invoking, I'll have to help him out.
> ...



Have you explained how Evans was able to directly measure what you say does not exist?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Why, I don't agree with it. I don't have to agree with everything he writes, but he does agree with me in other areas as I pointed out. Curry doesn't agree with everything I believe, she however is correct about most. You're just showing your lib belief that one must agree 100% or the person doesn't make the cut for you.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


.04% now dude, that's a scary %. LOL. .04 isn't even a fkn dot in the sky as you look up. It is why there is no issue with CO2.


----------



## Crick (Jun 4, 2016)

God are you stupid.  The temperature has barely risen 1C in 150 years as that level has slowly grown to its present value.  No one is saying the sky is on fire.  For you to reject it because YOU think it sounds too small is stupidity at its finest.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> God are you stupid.  The temperature has barely risen 1C in 150 years as that level has slowly grown to its present value.  No one is saying the sky is on fire.  For you to reject it because YOU think it sounds too small is stupidity at its finest.


Maybe so, but that dot in the sky didn't do it. No gas did.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 4, 2016)

Can you say hoax?


----------



## Crick (Jun 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > God are you stupid.  The temperature has barely risen 1C in 150 years as that level has slowly grown to its present value.  No one is saying the sky is on fire.  For you to reject it because YOU think it sounds too small is stupidity at its finest.
> ...



What did?  How many different ideas have you suggested as alternate sources of that heating and how many of them have worked out?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


It's simple, the planet is 75% water. What about that escapes you?


----------



## Crick (Jun 4, 2016)

Let's try again.  What do you believe has been causing the world to warm up for the last 150 years?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 17, 2016)

2016 will be the year that Arctic sea ice extent and volume reaches a new record low, significantly lower than the previous record low in 2012. This is a result of the extremely high temperatures the Arctic has been experiencing this year as a result of human caused global warming.....up to 29 degrees F. above normal in some parts of the Arctic.

*We've never seen anything like this': Arctic sea ice hit a stunning new low in May*
Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
June 7, 2016
(excerpts)
*The 2016 race downward in Arctic sea ice continued in May with a dramatic new record. The average area of sea ice atop the Arctic Ocean last month was just 12 million square kilometers (4.63 million square miles), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). That beats the prior May record (from 2004) by more than half a million square kilometers, and is well over a million square kilometers, or 500,000 square miles, below the average for the month. Another way to put it is this: The Arctic Ocean this May had more than three Californias less sea ice cover than it did during an average May between 1981 and 2010. And it broke the prior record low for May by a region larger than California, although not quite as large as Texas.

This matters because 2016 could be marching toward a new record for the lowest amount of ice ever observed on top of the world at the height of melt season  September. The previous record September low was set in 2012. But heres what the National Snow and Ice Data Center has to say about that: "Daily extents in May were also two to four weeks ahead of levels seen in 2012, which had the lowest September extent in the satellite record. The monthly average extent for May 2016 is more than one million square kilometers (386,000 square miles) below that observed in May 2012." In other words, for Arctic sea ice, May 2016 was more like June 2012  the record-breaking year. Going into the truly warm months of the year, then, the ice is in a uniquely weak state. "We've never seen anything like this before," said Mark Serreze, who directs the center. "It's way below the previous record, very far below it, and we're something like almost a month ahead of where we were in 2012."*

All of this will be very fresh and clear in the minds of the American public when election time rolls around in November, after the Republican candidates for President and Congress have been busy throughout their campaigns claiming that human caused global warming isn't really happening. Most sane people (so not necessarily tea-baggers and rightwingnut ideologues) can recognize insanity when they see it, and the American people will go to the polls this Fall knowing that the Republican stooges for the fossil fuel industry are bug-fuck crazy and totally out of touch with reality. This issue may well be instrumental in the Democrats regaining control of the House and Senate.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 17, 2016)

Crick said:


> Let's try again.  What do you believe has been causing the world to warm up for the last 150 years?


manufactured/ fudged data from our trusted sources/ or not so trusted.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 17, 2016)

It is absolutely par for the course of the tippy toppiest "top climate scientists" that the subject of this thread is ARCTIC Sea Ice, not EARTH Sea Ice..


CHERRY PICKING, FUDGING, and outright FRAUD.

CHERRY PICKING - just look at Arctic Sea Ice, not Antarctic Sea Ice

FUDGING - taking highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing no warming in the atmosphere and fudging both with uncorrelated "corrections" to show "warming"

FRAUD - the three Pacific Island chains are "sinking" because of rising sea level caused by "warming" by CO2, nevermind all three are right on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire, or the fact that no other island on the planet is "sinking...."


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Let's try again.  What do you believe has been causing the world to warm up for the last 150 years?
> ...


Standard denier cult crackpot conspiracy theory bullshit from the troll JustCrazy, which, besides being very insane, does not at all explain the massive and well observed melting of the Arctic sea ice and the ice sheets on Greenland.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 17, 2016)

It is so very pathetic to observe "humans" addicted to acting like parrots.

The URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT is where the "warmers" get that "warming" over the past 150 years.  When grass, dirt and trees are converted into buildings, pavement, highways etc., you get warming on the surface.  To convert nature to Tokyo, you warm 10 degrees.

Greenland is not melting.  Antarctica is not melting.  The ocean is not rising.  The atmosphere is not warming,  The oceans are not warming.  There is no breakout in 'cane activity.  There is only

THE DELIBERATE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT on the SURFACE GROUND TEMPERATURE SERIES...

the only temperature series that shows warming in the raw data...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 17, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> CHERRY PICKING, FUDGING, and outright FRAUD.


Yup! That's all you ever post, all right, LaDumbshit.









LaDexter said:


> FUDGING - taking highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing no warming in the atmosphere and fudging both with uncorrelated "corrections" to show "warming"


Your denier cult insanity runs deep, LaDumbshit, as anyone reading your demented posts immediately notices.

In the real world....

*Climate Deniers’ Favorite Temperature Dataset Just Confirmed Global Warming*
ClimateProgress
BY Dr. JOE ROMM
MAR 2, 2016
*(excerpts)
February smashed monthly global temperature records, according to the satellite dataanalyzed by the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). Climate science deniers need a new meme to replace their “satellites find no warming since 1998” talking point, which replaced the “there’s been no warming since 1998” talking point after that one fell apart when 2014 became the hottest year on record -- and again when 2015 blew away the 2014 record. In fact, for those who live in reality, as opposed to in denial, satellite data, ground-based weather stations, sea-based buoys, and even weather balloons all reveal a steady long-term warming trend. Let’s start with the UAH data, which show a stunning 1.5°F (0.83°C) warming in February 2016 compared to the historical (1981-2010) average for the lower troposphere (the lowest part of the atmosphere):





The lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly, via UAH scientist Roy Spencer.

How amazing is this temperature jump? First off, remember that the 1981-2010 baseline used by the UAH is itself some 0.8°F (0.45°C) hotter than pre-industrial levels -- so you can add that to all of the numbers here. Second, February was more than half a degree Fahrenheit -- 0.52°F (0.29°C) -- warmer than January, which itself was “the warmest January in satellite record.” Third, it was so hot last month that Dr. Roy Spencer of the UAH reports, “Incredibly, land areas outside the tropics in the Northern Hemisphere were a 'whopping' 1.46 degrees C above average, 0.5 degrees above any previous monthly anomaly.” This is a 2.6°F warming above the 1981-2010 average -- topping the previous anomaly by 0.9°F. Fourth, it was so hot last month that Spencer -- one of country’s leading climate science deniers -- told the Washington Post: "I’ve always cautioned fellow skeptics that it’s dangerous to claim no warming. There has been warming." The UAH’s Spencer and Dr. John Christy — both leading deniers -- reported just last month that the UAH data shows a “Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978 [of] +0.12 C [0.22F] per decade.”





Lower atmospheric warming over land outside of the tropics (vs. the 1981-2020 average) via UAH scientist Roy Spencer.*













LaDexter said:


> FRAUD - the three Pacific Island chains are "sinking" because of rising sea level caused by "warming" by CO2, nevermind all three are right on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire, or the fact that no other island on the planet is "sinking...."



Total bullshit, you clueless denier cult troll.

*The Marshall Islands Are Disappearing*
The New York Times
Dec 1, 2015

*Seychelles Sinks As Climate Change Advances*
NPR
September 22, 2010

*Pacific islands fighting for survival as sea levels rise*
*Japan Times
BY JOHN VIDAL*
Sept 6, 2013
*(excerpts)*
*LONDON – Pacific islanders challenged world leaders this week to act on climate change, warning that their low-lying atolls are close to becoming uninhabitable because of rising seas and increasingly severe floods, droughts and storm surges. “The Pacific is fighting for its survival. Climate change has already arrived,” said Christopher Loeak, president of the Marshall Islands. The Marshall Islands, a group of 29 atolls and coral islands standing on average only two meters above sea level, and lying halfway between Australia and Hawaii, is particularly vulnerable to climate change. Many other small island Pacific “microstates,” including the Solomons, Tuvalu and the Carteret Islands, have all suffered rapid erosion, higher tides, storm surges and inundation of wells with seawater. Earlier this year Kiribati’s president, Anote Tong, predicted his country was likely to become uninhabitable because of inundation and contamination of its freshwater supplies. 

EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard pledged last week to support the Pacific island states at the summit. “These low-lying islands risk being swamped by rising sea levels and their inhabitants forced to emigrate. Weather extremes in the Pacific are not about a distant future. They have become the new normal. Heat waves, floods, droughts and rising oceans are the new reality of an ever warming world."*


----------



## jc456 (Jun 17, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > CHERRY PICKING, FUDGING, and outright FRAUD.
> ...


this still doesn't answer why ice melts in the arctic and not in the antarctic.  Why is this since CO2 is the same above both?  Let's stay on topic if you don't mind.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 17, 2016)

This individual is a terrible example of just how right Joseph Goebbels was...

The Marshall Islands are sinking. (Some) Pacific Islands are sinking.... and this totally retarded individual cannot figure out WHY just three (or a couple more) island chains in the Pacific are sinking but nothing else is... even though there is an entire thread explaining that in this forum.

Also in this forum are 100 different posts by me linking the truth of 2005, that the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing precisely no warming in the atmosphere was fudged with two uncorrelated "corrections."  The satellites had an "orbit wobble" and the balloon thermometers were just wrong.... because without warming in the atmosphere, the tippys are outed completely...

Anyway, let's try this one...

Do you know what the Pacific Ring of Fire is???


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 17, 2016)

"this still doesn't answer why ice melts in the arctic and not in the antarctic. Why is this since CO2 is the same above both? Let's stay on topic if you don't mind."


This particular double yellowhead seems to think we are impressed by an endless number of fudge charts and easily discredited links.  Indeed, not only is the Antarctic Sea Ice growing, but 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica has added at least 80 billion tons of ice every year since Algore started lying about CO2...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 17, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> This individual is a terrible example of just how right Joseph Goebbels was...


Yeah....everybody noticed that about you as soon as you started to pump out your deranged and very fraudulent propaganda memes and denier cult lies, LaDumbshit. And you're right that you are terrible at it too, especially compared to your hero, Herr Goebbels, who would be ashamed of your pathetically stupid and easily debunked lies.






LaDexter said:


> The Marshall Islands are sinking. (Some) Pacific Islands are sinking.... and this totally retarded individual cannot figure out WHY just three (or a couple more) island chains in the Pacific are sinking but nothing else is...


Actually, little retard, most coastal locales around the world are indeed experiencing the first indications of sea level rise.....some more than others.

*Global and European sea-level rise*
European Environment Agency
*Global mean sea level (GMSL) has risen by 19 cm from 1901 to 2013 at an average rate of 1.7 mm/year. There has been significant decadal variation of the rate of increase but an acceleration is detectable over this period. The rate of sea level rise over the last two decades, when satellite measurements have been available, is higher at 3.2 mm/year. Most coastal regions in Europe have experienced an increase in absolute sea level as well as in sea level relative to land, but there is significant regional variation. Extreme high coastal water levels have increased at many locations around the European coastline. This increase appears to be predominantly due to increases in mean local sea level at most locations rather than to changes in storm activity. *

*Is Sea Level Rising?* 
NOAA
*Yes, there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900. Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century. The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expan- sion of the oceans (water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice due to increased melting. *

* Recurrence flooding in Miami Beach as an indicator of accelerating rates of sea level rise along the US Atlantic coast 
Authors: Wdowinski, S.; Bray, R. L.; Kirtman, B. P.; Wu, Z.
American Geophysical Union - abstract #OS33C-1089
*




_(Global sea level rise since 1870. Image source: Dr. James Hansen.)_












LaDexter said:


> Also in this forum are 100 different posts by me....


....all of which are utter crap, unsupported claims, pathetic lies and retarded nonsense.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 17, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Greenland is not melting.  Antarctica is not melting.  The ocean is not rising.  The atmosphere is not warming,  The oceans are not warming.  There is no breakout in 'cane activity.



In the real world, all of that is indeed occurring. Greenland and Antarctica ARE melting; sea levels around the world ARE rising; the atmosphere and the oceans ARE warming; tropical cyclones ARE getting more intense.

Only reality-challenged denier cult retards like you claim otherwise, LaDumbshit,


----------



## jc456 (Jun 17, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Greenland is not melting.  Antarctica is not melting.  The ocean is not rising.  The atmosphere is not warming,  The oceans are not warming.  There is no breakout in 'cane activity.
> ...


Except you have no evidence so more fraudulent posts. Liar, liar,...dododododo!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 18, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Greenland is not melting.  Antarctica is not melting.  The ocean is not rising.  The atmosphere is not warming,  The oceans are not warming.  There is no breakout in 'cane activity.





RollingThunder said:


> In the real world, all of that is indeed occurring. Greenland and Antarctica ARE melting; sea levels around the world ARE rising; the atmosphere and the oceans ARE warming; tropical cyclones ARE getting more intense.
> 
> Only reality-challenged denier cult retards like you claim otherwise, LaDumbshit,





jc456 said:


> Except you have no evidence....


LOLOLOLOLOL.........riiiiiiight, JustCrazy, riiiiiiiiight......the world scientific community just 'believes' things with "_no evidence_" to support their understanding of how the universe works. LOLOLOLOL.  You are sooooooo crazy.

Moreover, you have seen the "_evidence_", you silly little troll! I've personally shown it to you. You are just in some kind of idiotic ideologically driven denial of the scientifically confirmed reality of human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes.


----------



## Crick (Jun 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> this still doesn't answer why ice melts in the arctic and not in the antarctic.  Why is this since CO2 is the same above both?  Let's stay on topic if you don't mind.



Surely you caught this in a previous thread: our poles are different.  One is an ocean surrounded by land, the other is land surrounded by ocean.  It didn't occur to you that they might have different meteorological conditions.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 18, 2016)

Crick is laughably trying to explain the following...

Antarctica - 

surface temperature cooling
land ice growing
sea ice growing

Arctic 
surface temperature rising
land ice growing
sea ice shrinking


on the constant amount of CO2 on both polar circles.  Don't fall for his mealy mouthed parroting of the tippys.  CO2 is either warming everything on the planet or his side is 100% full of shit, just like the Court ruled in 2007.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 18, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Greenland is not melting.  Antarctica is not melting.  The ocean is not rising.  The atmosphere is not warming,  The oceans are not warming.  There is no breakout in 'cane activity.
> ...


So post it, show us with observed data sea level rise!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> Let's try again.  What do you believe has been causing the world to warm up for the last 150 years?


The sun being in an up phase of activity... You fucking moron!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 18, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> It is absolutely par for the course of the tippy toppiest "top climate scientists" that the subject of this thread is ARCTIC Sea Ice, not EARTH Sea Ice..
> 
> 
> CHERRY PICKING, FUDGING, and outright FRAUD.
> ...



I think we should sue them... For fraud..  As 13 AG's have recently pointed out the sword is double edged and cuts both ways.  the RICO 20 and their surrogates can be charged with fraud for their exaggerations..

AG’s striking back at #ExxonKnew and #RICO20 say – “we can come after climate alarmists for fraud, too”

"First, this fraud investigation targets only “fossil fuel companies” and only statements minimizing climate change risks. 4 If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration. If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud. "

You wanna play?  lets get your data and methods and look at just what your doing.... I would love to get Al Gore deposed under oath... the fun we could have..


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 18, 2016)

Over and over and over I've posted it, over and over, and still the same sub human parrots insist I keep posting the same links, in this case the same parrot who simply won't read the stuff about the Marshall Islands and the rest of the warmers' "sinking" Pacific Islands, all RIGHT ON THE LIP of the PACIFIC RING OF FIRE....

Antarctica and Greenland are both ice ages that manufacture a new ice core every year.  NASA documents Antarctica has added at least 80 billion tons of ice every year since Algore started lying about CO2.

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

" the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed   to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."


Now, before this double yellowhead starts posting 800 fudge charts in response to THE DATA, let's stay on these two subjects - 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica gaining at least 80 billion tons of ice per year despite putting 46 times into the oceans the H2O the Mississippi dumps into the Gulf, all in the form of very very cold ice... and whether the Marshall Islands are "sinking" because of CO2 causing (fictitious) sea level rise (that is NOT causing any island not on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire to sink), or because the Marshall Islands are on a tectonic escalator that will put them UNDER THE EARTH's crust in about 2 million years...


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 18, 2016)

"The sun being in an up phase of activity... You fucking moron!"

Billy Bob has no clue, and if he cares about truth and refuting Algore's FRAUD, he ought to SHUT THE FUCK UP and stop helping the FRAUD succeed...

The 150 years of "warming" is just from the surface of GROWING URBAN AREAS.  The oceans and atmosphere show NO WARMING in the unfudged RAW DATA...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 18, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> "The sun being in an up phase of activity... You fucking moron!"
> 
> Billy Bob has no clue, and if he cares about truth and refuting Algore's FRAUD, he ought to SHUT THE FUCK UP and stop helping the FRAUD succeed...
> 
> The 150 years of "warming" is just from the surface of GROWING URBAN AREAS.  The oceans and atmosphere show NO WARMING in the unfudged RAW DATA...



LOL...

Show me your data..


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 18, 2016)

".riiiiiiight, JustCrazy, riiiiiiiiight......the world scientific community just 'believes' things with "_no evidence_" to support their understanding of how the universe works"

If this individual grew up Muslim in the Middle East, he would be a member of ISIS.  All this sub human does is parrot and validate Goebbels.

The "world scientific community" consists of 30 or so "tippys" and those who depend on the government grants they control...

Tens of thousands of real scientists, engineers, and the like have publicly stated they don't believe CO2 causes climate change, because there is PRECISELY NO EVIDENCE to support that theory...


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 18, 2016)

9000 times posted before... "WHERE's your data" - great...

LEARN HOW TO READ AND REMEMBER, SUB HUMAN!!!!!!!!!!

In 2005, the Tippys had a big problem - the two and only two measures of atmospheric temps showed precisely NO WARMING, actually slight cooling, in the atmosphere, and the data from both was highly correlated.  Now, an honest scientist, given that data, would accept that data. But for the Tippys to admit the atmosphere was not warming despite rising CO2, well, the tens of billions of taxdollars funding their "research" would clearly no longer be needed, since their "theory" had PRECISELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.  Solution - FUDGE that data with two UNCORRELATED "corrections" - for "orbit wobble" in the satellites, and, for the balloons, those frickin thermometers were just WRONG, so fudge that data to show "warming" they did...


:  Global Warming Differences Resolved with Corrections in Readings

"readings in the atmosphere taken by satellites and radiosondes -- instruments carried by weather balloons -- had shown little or no warming."


The word "little" is another lie, but the bias of the article speaks for itself.  There is NO WARMING in the atmosphere according to the HIGHLY CORRELATED RAW DATA FROM THE TWO AND ONLY TWO MEASURES OF ATMOSPHERIC TEMPS WE HAVE....

Now, stop parroting "solar cycle" and SHUT THE FUCK UP.  The Tippys put out the "solar cycle" BS so morons like you without a clue would parrot it without understanding THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 18, 2016)

Lets see what well known solar physicists say...

"
The Sun's impact on climate has only recently been investigated. Recent studies show that an increase in solar output can cause short-term changes in Earth's climate, but there is no firm evidence linking solar activity with long-term climate effects.

The rise in solar activity at the beginning of the last century through the 1950s or so matches with the increase in global temperatures, Usoskin said. But the link doesn't hold up from about the 1970s to present."

Source

What they found was a short non-change at the start of the phase (reactionary time) and a continence at the end of the phase showing the time it took the system to begin adjusting to energy loss. Guess where we are today? The upward activity change stopped in 1998.. where we flat lined and now as the sun cools we will follow.. The 20 or so year system lag is a known time due to a system buffer, caused by the mass of our oceans.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 18, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> 9000 times posted before... "WHERE's your data" - great...
> 
> LEARN HOW TO READ AND REMEMBER, SUB HUMAN!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


Being an ignorant twit inst helping your cause.. Just like the alarmist.. burying your head in the sand...


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 18, 2016)

In the past million years, North America thawed while Greenland froze, all at the same time with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere... and THE SAME FUCKING BULLSHIT SOLAR CYCLE...


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 18, 2016)

"Lets see what well known solar physicists say."

As Goebbels predicted, a human parrot will BAWK and BAWK and BAWK and IGNORE THE DATA REFUTING THE BAWKING...


Greenland froze while NA thawed, but SOLAR CYCLE caused that.... except the "solar cycle" was THE FUCKING SAME FOR BOTH...


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 18, 2016)

"matches with the increase in global temperatures,"


THE SURFACE OF GROWING URBAN AREAS DISPROPORTIONATELY IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE is NOT AN ACCURATE MEASURE OF EARTH TEMPERATURE.  RATHER, IT IS SIMPLY PICKING UP THE URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT AS URBAN AREAS GROW...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 18, 2016)

I suppose that you are speaking of the OISM Petition, otherwise known as the Oregon Petition. That has been shown to be a clear fraud. 

And virtually all of the Scientific Societies, the National Academies of Science, and the major Universities in the world state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Of course, we are to believe that an proven ignoramous by your own posts, knows more than the millions of scientists from around the world that have weighed the evidence, and decided that AGW is real.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 18, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> "Lets see what well known solar physicists say."
> 
> As Goebbels predicted, a human parrot will BAWK and BAWK and BAWK and IGNORE THE DATA REFUTING THE BAWKING...
> 
> ...


Hey silly lying asshole, present some evidence for that obvious lie.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 18, 2016)

There is an entire topic on that right here in this forum for sub humans like you to read, complete with all the links.

Sub humans will ask for you to link something 5 billion times, and every time you link it, the sub human will request another link.

Go hear, read, and GET A FUCKING CLUE, RETARDED SUB HUMAN...

Proof that CO2 has nothing to do with Earth climate change


And FUCK YOU beforehand for asking for the same "links" in the future...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 18, 2016)

At the *height* of the *last* *ice* *age*, about 20,000 years ago, *ice* sheets ...

student.societyforscience.org 800 x 52996.1KB

Yahoo Image Search

Yahoo Image Search

*Sheesh, simplest of research.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 18, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> There is an entire topic on that right here in this forum for sub humans like you to read, complete with all the links.
> 
> Sub humans will ask for you to link something 5 billion times, and every time you link it, the sub human will request another link.
> 
> ...


LOL. Now here is a credible source, not the idiots you post.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 18, 2016)

You didn't even look...

Why did Greenland freeze while North America thawed during the past million years??


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 18, 2016)

Your chart is wrong, because when the Vikings settled Greenland 2500 years ago, the Southern Tip was ice free.  The Southern Tip is now frozen, because Greenland is a young, growing ice age, and its glaciers will continue to thicken and grow as long as it doesn't move away from the North Pole, which it won't for millions of years.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 18, 2016)

Alaska Continues to Bake, on Track For Hottest Year

Alaska just can’t seem to shake the fever it has been running. This spring was easily the hottest the state has ever recorded and it contributed to a year-to-date temperature that is more than 10°F (5.5°C) above average, according to data released Wednesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.



 How much spring temperatures differed from average during the spring in Alaska.
*Click image to enlarge.* Credit: NOAA


----------



## jc456 (Jun 18, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Alaska Continues to Bake, on Track For Hottest Year
> 
> Alaska just can’t seem to shake the fever it has been running. This spring was easily the hottest the state has ever recorded and it contributed to a year-to-date temperature that is more than 10°F (5.5°C) above average, according to data released Wednesday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
> 
> ...


So Alaska has special CO2?


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 18, 2016)

Alaska was "melting" until 2005, then its ice grew again, and perhaps now it is getting warmer again.

What are OCEAN CURRENTS??


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 18, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Your chart is wrong, because when the Vikings settled Greenland 2500 years ago, the Southern Tip was ice free.  The Southern Tip is now frozen, because Greenland is a young, growing ice age, and its glaciers will continue to thicken and grow as long as it doesn't move away from the North Pole, which it won't for millions of years.


Total nutzoid bullshit, lacking any connection to reality or knowledge of actual history.

*Surface melting of snow and ice in Greenland explodes as temperatures soar to record levels*
Discover Magazine
By Tom Yulsman
June 12, 2016
*(excerpts)*
*With parts of Greenland experiencing record high temperatures of late, melting of snow and ice at the surface has been skyrocketing. This follows a record low extent of Arctic sea ice in May, and other troublesome signs that global warming is taking off in the high north.



Surface melting of surface snow and ice in Greenland has spiked dramatically in recent days. It is, by far, the largest of three surges in melting seen so far this year. (Source: NSIDC)

The graph above tells the tale: a spike in melting far in excess of the average melt percentage for this time of year, following on from two earlier spikes in May and April. It has already been an extraordinary melt season in Greenland -- one that began very early. The first spike evident in the graph above came so early in the year that it prompted a Danish climate scientist to say that she and her colleagues were “incredulous.” The second spike was even bigger, prompting Ted Scambos of the National Snow and Ice Data Center to say that “the Arctic is going to go through hell this year.” Now, we’ve got a third melting spike that blows the others right out of the water. 

It’s no secret why snow and ice is melting at such a rapid clip in Greenland right now: soaring temperatures -- and not just in Greenland but throughout the Arctic. Last Thursday (June 9), temperatures in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, reached 75 degrees F. That was the the warmest temperature ever recorded in the Arctic country during June, according to Jason Samenow of the Washington Post. “It was warmer in Nuuk than it was in New York City, where the high was only 71 degrees,” Samenow writes. All signs point toward an extraordinary year of warmth and melting in the high north.*


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 18, 2016)

There's fudge above!!!

Anyone who understands what Greenland is understands that its ice has grown for at least the past 500k years and will continue to do so for the next 5-10 million years at least.  The Tippys really hate that, so they do a lot of lying about Greenland and Antarctica.

Study reveals the inconvenient truth about Greenland’s ice sheet — It’s thickening!

"


Greenland and Antarctica produce ICE CORES every year.  If you don't understand that, you don't have a clue...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 18, 2016)

Seems to be tracking close to 2012 the past few days. Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

This thread is about sea ice. Not greenland. Please make a thread about that and no the noaa isn't bsing anyone. Only loserterians that wish to defund and abolish everything are using this crap to do just that.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 18, 2016)

Yawn..

Arctic Sea Ice decreasing (due to the fact that the Arctic Ocean is growing).

Antarctic Sea Ice growing, with 5 all time record highs since O took office.

CO2 is supposed to melt both.  Theory REJECTED.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 18, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> There's fudge above....


....your neck line. Packed tight. The stinky kind of "_fudge_"







LaDexter said:


> Anyone who understands what Greenland is understands....


.....that you are a clueless and very ignorant nutjob.





LaDexter said:


> its ice has grown for at least the past 500k years and will continue to do so for the next 5-10 million years at least.


Complete bullshit!

In the real world....in the past....

*Greenland ice sheet*
Wikipedia
*The ice in the current ice sheet is as old as 110,000 years.[3] The presence of ice-rafted sediments in deep-sea cores recovered off of northeast Greenland, in the Fram Strait, and south of Greenland indicated the more or less continuous presence of either an ice sheet or ice sheets covering significant parts of Greenland for the last 18 million years. From about 11 million years ago to 10 million years ago, the Greenland Ice Sheet was greatly reduced in size. The Greenland Ice Sheet formed in the middle Miocene by coalescence of ice caps and glaciers. There was an intensification of glaciation during the Late Pliocene.[4]*

In the real world....in the future....

*When will Greenland be Ice-free?
The sheer volume of water created by the melting of the Greenland ice sheet would cause global sea level to rise 7 meters (23 ft) in total.13 During the warm period before the most recent ice age, 120,000 years ago, roughly half of the Greenland ice sheet melted. This melting plus the melting of other smaller Arctic ice fields is thought to have caused 2.2-3.4 meters of the 4 - 6 meter sea level rise observed during that period14. Temperatures in Greenland are predicted to rise 3°C by 2100, to levels similar to those present during that warm period 120,000 years ago. At those temperatures, a chain of positive feedbacks would lead to the inevitable melting of the ice sheet. As the top of the ice sheet encounters warmer air temperatures, it melts and exposes the underlying layers to the warmer air, lowering the elevation of the island, bringing even warmer temperatures to the ice sheet, since temperatures are cold at high elevations and warmer at low elevations. A 4 - 6 meter rise in global sea level similar to that observed 120,000 years ago would probably result. However, the 2007 IPCC report expects melting of the Greenland ice sheet to occur over about a 1,000 year period, delaying much of the expected sea level rise for many centuries. This means that gradually, over centuries, cities such as London, New York, Shanghai, Boston, and Los Angeles will flood, Florida will be mostly underwater, and countries such as Bangladesh and the Maldives will disappear under the sea. Currently, over one-third of the global population lives in or near a coastal zone. Rising sea levels will dislocate many of them. Additionally, coastal zones are sites of incredible economic and agricultural activity, which would also be negatively affected by higher sea levels. The global impact of these impacts would be "staggering".15 Additionally, higher sea levels will cause increased erosion, salt water intrusion, and storm surge damage in coastal areas, in addition to a loss of barrier formations such as islands, sand bars, and reefs that would normally protect coastal zones from battering by waves and wind.*






You really....


LaDexter said:


> ....do a lot of lying about Greenland and Antarctica.
> 
> ww.*cfact.org*/2016/02/06/study-reveals-the-inconvenient-truth-about-greenlands-ice-sheet-its-thickening/']Study reveals the inconvenient truth about Greenland’s ice sheet — It’s thickening![/UR



....and you cite fraudulent bullshit from fossil fuel industry sponsored propaganda outlets like "_*cfact.org*_"

In the real world....

*Is Greenland gaining or losing ice?*




_*Figure 1: Greenland ice mass anomaly - deviation from the average ice mass over the 2002 to 2010 period. Black line shows monthly values. Orange line shows long-term trend (John Wahr).*_
*
The long term trend since the 1970s is accelerating ice mass loss. This is confirmed by gravity satellite measurements over the past 9 years which find that the rate of ice mass loss has doubled over the last 9 years. Just as with Antarctica, Greenland's ice sheet contribution to rising sea levels is continuously and rapidly growing.*









LaDexter said:


> Greenland and Antarctica produce ICE CORES every year.  If you don't understand that, you don't have a clue...


Are you really so retarded and ignorant that you don't even understand what an "_ice core_" actually is? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Learn something, LaDumbshit.
*Ice core basics*


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 18, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Your chart is wrong, because when the Vikings settled Greenland 2500 years ago, the Southern Tip was ice free.  The Southern Tip is now frozen, because Greenland is a young, growing ice age, and its glaciers will continue to thicken and grow as long as it doesn't move away from the North Pole, which it won't for millions of years.


*The vikings did not settle in Greenland 2500 years ago. Damn, La Dexter, you are fucking stupid. *

The Fate of Greenland's Vikings - Archaeology Magazine Archive

Of the first 24 boatloads of land-hungry settlers who set out from Iceland in the summer of* 986* to colonize new territory explored several years earlier by the vagabond and outlaw, Erik the Red, only 14 made it, the others having been forced back to port or lost at sea. Yet more brave souls, drawn by the promise of a better life for themselves, soon followed. Under the leadership of the red-faced, red-bearded Erik (who had given the island its attractive name, the better to lure settlers there), the colonists developed a little Europe of their own just a few hundred miles from North America, a full 500 years before Columbus set foot on the continent.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 18, 2016)

Alaska is very warm, the sea water is much warmer than it has been, and the Arctic Sea Ice is at record low levels. In the meantime, barring a very rapid shift to an extreme La Nina, 2016 will match or exceed 2014 and 2015 for warmth. Three years in a row of record temperatures.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Jun 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> So Alaska has special CO2?


  the atmospheric oceanic system is complex ...way too complex for you ...lame brain...


----------



## jc456 (Jun 19, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > There's fudge above....
> ...


When will the ice sheet melt?


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 19, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> In the real world....in the past....



Good job, RT, as usual.

Yet, I have a favor to ask from you.

In the real world....in the past....

*Greenland ice sheet*
Wikipedia
*The ice in the current ice sheet is as old as 110,000 years.[3] The presence of ice-rafted sediments in deep-sea cores recovered off of northeast Greenland, in the Fram Strait, and south of Greenland indicated the more or less continuous presence of either an ice sheet or ice sheets covering significant parts of Greenland for the last 18 million years. From about 11 million years ago to 10 million years ago, the Greenland Ice Sheet was greatly reduced in size. The Greenland Ice Sheet formed in the middle Miocene by coalescence of ice caps and glaciers. There was an intensification of glaciation during the Late Pliocene.[4]*

In the real world....in the future....

*When will Greenland be Ice-free?
The sheer volume of water created by the melting of the Greenland ice sheet would cause global sea level to rise 7 meters (23 ft) in total.13 During the warm period before the most recent ice age, 120,000 years ago, roughly half of the Greenland ice sheet melted. This melting plus the melting of other smaller Arctic ice fields is thought to have caused 2.2-3.4 meters of the 4 - 6 meter sea level rise observed during that period14. Temperatures in Greenland are predicted to rise 3°C by 2100, to levels similar to those present during that warm period 120,000 years ago. At those temperatures, a chain of positive feedbacks would lead to the inevitable melting of the ice sheet. As the top of the ice sheet encounters warmer air temperatures, it melts and exposes the underlying layers to the warmer air, lowering the elevation of the island, bringing even warmer temperatures to the ice sheet, since temperatures are cold at high elevations and warmer at low elevations. A 4 - 6 meter rise in global sea level similar to that observed 120,000 years ago would probably result. However, the 2007 IPCC report expects melting of the Greenland ice sheet to occur over about a 1,000 year period, delaying much of the expected sea level rise for many centuries. This means that gradually, over centuries, cities such as London, New York, Shanghai, Boston, and Los Angeles will flood, Florida will be mostly underwater, and countries such as Bangladesh and the Maldives will disappear under the sea. Currently, over one-third of the global population lives in or near a coastal zone. Rising sea levels will dislocate many of them. Additionally, coastal zones are sites of incredible economic and agricultural activity, which would also be negatively affected by higher sea levels. The global impact of these impacts would be "staggering".15 Additionally, higher sea levels will cause increased erosion, salt water intrusion, and storm surge damage in coastal areas, in addition to a loss of barrier formations such as islands, sand bars, and reefs that would normally protect coastal zones from battering by waves and wind.*​
Please look at the above.  I find that hard to read.  Usually, bigger and bold fonts are being used for emphasis.  Using the like over paragraphs looks like you are "screaming" at us all.  I'd appreciate it if you used that very sparingly.  Thank you!


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 19, 2016)

It is truly hilarious what the Tippys are trying to do here.  There are saying that the Greenland ice age glacier sort of kind of goes up and down a lot.  The actual Greenland terrain says something much different.

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green

"The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home
	
 to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles."


Of course, Greenland was 20-40 miles SE from where it is today when that happened.  The further back in time you go, the further southeast Greenland was.  This data, this DNA, it shows that under the thickest portion of the Greenland ice age, the dead plant life is under 1 million years old, meaning the ice age itself is under 1 million years old too.  

So why are the Tippys lying here, about the age of Greenland's ice age?

A: Because of the proof of the past 1 million years of Earth climate history, that North America Thawed while Greenland FROZE, all on the same planet at the same time with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the same completely bogus "solar cycle."

Hence, Earth climate change is CONTINENT SPECIFIC, even continents RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER do 180 degree completely different things...

and if climate change is CONTINENT SPECIFIC, then the ATMOSPHERE is NOT THE CAUSE...

and the Tippys have tens of billions of tax $$$$$$$$$$ at stake preventing you from noticing THAT TRUTH...


As for the Vikings, whether it is 980 AD or earlier, it still represents the undeniable "truth" of the 1970s Global "cooling" scam, which noticed that the Vikings were able to farm on the southern tip of Greenland until the 1400s, and nobody has been able to farm there since, because there's a bunch of glacier ice there now, and it ain't going away until that tectonic plate moves Greenland away from the North Pole...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 19, 2016)

Why won't you go live in somalia and leave us civilized people the fuck alone?


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 19, 2016)

Being a brainless parrot of falsehoods hardly qualifies you as "civilized." 

Rather, it puts you in the bottom tenth of known life forms regarding intelligence...


----------



## Crick (Jun 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> When will the ice sheet melt?








Is this graph visible to you folks or do you just see an "


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 19, 2016)

Another fudge chart cut pasted and parroted proves nothing, retard.  

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

The data proves you are a parrot of fudge and falsehood...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 19, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Another fudge chart cut pasted and parroted proves nothing, retard.
> 
> NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
> 
> The data proves you are a parrot of fudge and falsehood...



Your posts prove that you are a ridiculous and very ignorant retard, LaDumbshit.

*If Antarctica is Gaining Ice, Why is the Earth Still Warming*

And BTW, little retard, try to stay on topic....

** 2016 Arctic Sea Ice thread **


----------



## Crick (Jun 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> When will the ice sheet melt?





Crick said:


>



Obviously, with as much variation as these data display, counting on that exponential trend is a bit of a bet.  But it is certainly headed for zero at some point within the next couple of decades at the latest.  Now these are summer minimums.  This graph will hit zero when the Arctic is first ice free at it's minimum.  It is not marking the point where the Arctic will be ice free year-round.[


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 19, 2016)

Now you are confusing La Dexter. He sees everything in black and white, so if the Arctic is iceless for a day, it must be iceless year around. Hard to communicate with minds like that. 

The present level of Arctic Ice is just about where it was in 2012 at this time of year. Will it go lower? Depends on the weather. But, for sure, within the next two decades it will go much lower.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 20, 2016)

Antarctica is gaining ice, but the planet is NOT WARMING...only the surface of growing urban areas are....


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 20, 2016)

It is 100% cherry picking to have a topic about Arctic Sea Ice.  Your fudge side is arguing that there is a GLOBAL WARMING ongoing.  The topic should be SEA ICE, all of it, not just cherry picking one side.  The fact that your side HAS TO CHERRY PICK is a red flag in and of itself as to just how little credibility your side has, given...

1. LOSING in the British Court in 2007 on Antarctic ice growth and CO2/temp correlation, and your side WAS TOO CHICKEN TO APPEAL
2. Documented Antarctic ice and sea ice growth, given that Antarctica is 90% of Earth ice
3. without a real sea level rise, your side has engaged in FRAUD with the islands on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire


If your side had REAL GLOBAL WARMING instead of FRAUD and FUDGE, it would have 

1. all sea ice melting
2. no losses in courtrooms
3. no reason to cherry pick certain islands over others, because ALL should be sinking, not just those on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire

Hence, the claim we must "stick" here to just Arctic Sea Ice is, in and of itself, strong evidence that something is SERIOUSLY WRONG with the theory...


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > When will the ice sheet melt?
> ...


so again, are you including the Greenland ice in that statement?  If so, when would you expect that the land ice will melt by?  I already asked back a few months or so how long would it take for land ice to completely melt?  Or are you saying that the sheet will just slide off the continent at once?  You're confused to what can occur.  Dude, I don't believe that the land ice slides into the sea off of Greenland.  I supposed if Greenland split it could.  What are those odds? I think we're safe on that one in our lifetime.  What you're tracking on the chart is sea ice, and I couldn't care less if it melted or not.  It's already volume in the sea.  it will not cause a rise.  So you're still at nadda.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Now you are confusing La Dexter. He sees everything in black and white, so if the Arctic is iceless for a day, it must be iceless year around. Hard to communicate with minds like that.
> 
> The present level of Arctic Ice is just about where it was in 2012 at this time of year. Will it go lower? Depends on the weather. But, for sure, within the next two decades it will go much lower.


'for sure'  wow dude you like to act like you're a fkng fortune teller with all the future at your hands.  holy crap, you're a pretty magical guy, so do you go gambling?  What are the next lottery numbers?  What you got in that crystal ball of yours?  BTW, ice levels went up after 2012, so you don't even have history on your side for that cockamamie statement.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> It is 100% cherry picking to have a topic about Arctic Sea Ice.  Your fudge side is arguing that there is a GLOBAL WARMING ongoing.  The topic should be SEA ICE, all of it, not just cherry picking one side.  The fact that your side HAS TO CHERRY PICK is a red flag in and of itself as to just how little credibility your side has, given...
> 
> 1. LOSING in the British Court in 2007 on Antarctic ice growth and CO2/temp correlation, and your side WAS TOO CHICKEN TO APPEAL
> 2. Documented Antarctic ice and sea ice growth, given that Antarctica is 90% of Earth ice
> ...


But even if it's all sea ice, melting all sea ice would not increase sea levels.  So they would still be batting .000.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 20, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> It is 100% cherry picking to have a topic about Arctic Sea Ice.



Ignorant bullshit!

Like all of the retarded twaddle you post, LaDumbshit.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 20, 2016)

If it is a "global warming," apparently it is OK to notice Arctic sea ice decrease, but FUCK YOU if you notice Antarctic sea ice growth...

or something like that.

Meanwhile, Earth climate data continues to read precisely

1. NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
2. NO WARMING in the OCEANS
3. NO NET ICE MELT
4. NO BREAKOUT in 'canes
5. NO OCEAN LEVEL RISE
6. NO WARMING on the surface of Antarctica or Siberia (no urban areas there)


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> When will the ice sheet melt?





Crick said:


>





Crick said:


> Obviously, with as much variation as these data display, counting on that exponential trend is a bit of a bet.  But it is certainly headed for zero at some point within the next couple of decades at the latest.  Now these are summer minimums.  This graph will hit zero when the Arctic is first ice free at it's minimum.  It is not marking the point where the Arctic will be ice free year-round.[





jc456 said:


> so again, are you including the Greenland ice in that statement?



Greenland is melting at an accelerating rate, and contributing to sea level rise.





jc456 said:


> If so, when would you expect that the land ice will melt by?  I already asked back a few months or so how long would it take for land ice to completely melt?  Or are you saying that the sheet will just slide off the continent at once?



No one knows when the ice sheet will completely melt. So what? Your question is not the significant one. How fast is the ice sheet melting? Is the melt rate increasing? Those are the significant questions. But you are probably much too retarded to understand why.

In the real world....

*State of the Cryosphere*
The National Snow and Ice Data Center
(excerpts)
*Between April 2002 and April 2006, GRACE data uncovered ice mass loss in Greenland of 248 ± 36 cubic kilometers per year. The ice mass loss rate increased by 250 percent between April 2002 to April 2004 and May 2004 to April 2006. The increase was due almost completely to increased ice loss rates in southern Greenland (Velicogna and Wahr 2006a). Between 2003 and 2005, the Greenland Ice Sheet lost 101 ± 16 gigatons per year, with a gain of 54 gigatons per year above 2,000, meters and a loss of 155 gigatons per year at lower elevations. The lower elevations showed a large seasonal cycle: mass losses during summer melting, and mass gains from autumn through spring. The ice mass loss observed in this research was a change from the trend of losing 113 ± 17 gigatons per year during the 1990s, but was smaller than some other recent estimates (Luthcke et al. 2006).

In 2010, a study using GRACE and Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements from three long-term sites on bedrock near the ice sheet found that the ice loss already documented over southern Greenland was spreading along the northwestern coast. The acceleration of loss likely started in late 2005. GRACE data gave a direct measure of mass loss averaged over scales of a few hundred kilometers, and the GPS data observed crustal uplift resulting from ice mass loss. Uplift observed by both sources showed rapid ice acceleration in southeast Greenland in late 2003, and a modest deceleration in 2006 (Khan et al. 2010).
*
As for the sea ice....

Arctic Death Spiral


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > When will the ice sheet melt?
> ...


no the significant one is has any melting caused a rise in sea level. And you can't show it did.  So there is nothing to fear if what you say is so.  If Greenland is melting land ice and there is no sea level rise, then accelerating it will still do nothing. Post some evidence of greenland melt.  Are you referring to calving? that happens every friggn year bubba.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 20, 2016)

The fudgers claim Greenland is melting.

Greenland responds by manufacturing a new ice core every year, as it has for the past 500k years...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> When will the ice sheet melt?





Crick said:


>





Crick said:


> Obviously, with as much variation as these data display, counting on that exponential trend is a bit of a bet.  But it is certainly headed for zero at some point within the next couple of decades at the latest.  Now these are summer minimums.  This graph will hit zero when the Arctic is first ice free at it's minimum.  It is not marking the point where the Arctic will be ice free year-round.[





jc456 said:


> so again, are you including the Greenland ice in that statement?





RollingThunder said:


> Greenland is melting at an accelerating rate, and contributing to sea level rise.





jc456 said:


> If so, when would you expect that the land ice will melt by?  I already asked back a few months or so how long would it take for land ice to completely melt?  Or are you saying that the sheet will just slide off the continent at once?





RollingThunder said:


> No one knows when the ice sheet will completely melt. So what? Your question is not the significant one. How fast is the ice sheet melting? Is the melt rate increasing? Those are the significant questions. But you are probably much too retarded to understand why.
> 
> In the real world....
> 
> ...





jc456 said:


> no the significant one is has any melting caused a rise in sea level.



Yes, it is, in fact, causing a rise in sea levels, moron. When ice that is on top of land melts, and the ice loss is greater than any ice gain from snowfall, sea levels rise. Only retards are unable to comprehend that fact.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 20, 2016)

Ice on land is not melting.  Not the 90% piece on Antarctica, nor the 7% piece on Greenland.  Both are healthy, active ice ages manufacturing annual ice cores.  Neither will melt at all for the next 5 million years.

As for the other 3%, including sea ice, who cares... 97% isn't.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 20, 2016)

Meanwhile, the melt is tracking close to 2012 levels now. Cult bleaters like Ladexter will keep trying to deflect the topic away from that by fudging, faking and fabricating even more insane nonsense. Parrots gotta squawk, so LaDexter squawks, and the normal people just tune it out.






Arctic sea ice extent was way below 2012 levels while the Beaufort Gyre was in place, a high pressure system above Alaska, which created a wind pattern that compacted the sea ice in the Arctic ocean. About two week ago, it shifted to the opposite pattern, and now the low pressure system there is spreading the Arctic sea ice, which slows down ice extent loss.

How the final minimum extent turns out is anyone's guess. Spreading the ice exposes more ice surface to warm air and water, but it also decreases the sunlight absorbed.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 20, 2016)

Once again, our resident Flat Earth "expert" counts only Arctic Sea Ice in a polar circle with a growing ocean, and neglects the truth of the other pole = growing sea ice.

Apparently, if you are half right and half wrong, you are good enough to be a "climate scientist."


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > When will the ice sheet melt?
> ...


well how much evaporation is happening with the seas?  Come on man, don't try and pull sht like this. Again, where do you think the calving comes from?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Meanwhile, the melt is tracking close to 2012 levels now. Cult bleaters like Ladexter will keep trying to deflect the topic away from that by fudging, faking and fabricating even more insane nonsense. Parrots gotta squawk, so LaDexter squawks, and the normal people just tune it out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you and crick need to get your graphs to be the same.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> When will the ice sheet melt?





Crick said:


>





Crick said:


> Obviously, with as much variation as these data display, counting on that exponential trend is a bit of a bet.  But it is certainly headed for zero at some point within the next couple of decades at the latest.  Now these are summer minimums.  This graph will hit zero when the Arctic is first ice free at it's minimum.  It is not marking the point where the Arctic will be ice free year-round.[





jc456 said:


> so again, are you including the Greenland ice in that statement?





RollingThunder said:


> Greenland is melting at an accelerating rate, and contributing to sea level rise.





jc456 said:


> If so, when would you expect that the land ice will melt by?  I already asked back a few months or so how long would it take for land ice to completely melt?  Or are you saying that the sheet will just slide off the continent at once?





RollingThunder said:


> No one knows when the ice sheet will completely melt. So what? Your question is not the significant one. How fast is the ice sheet melting? Is the melt rate increasing? Those are the significant questions. But you are probably much too retarded to understand why.
> 
> In the real world....
> 
> ...





jc456 said:


> no the significant one is has any melting caused a rise in sea level.





RollingThunder said:


> Yes, it is, in fact, causing a rise in sea levels, moron. When ice that is on top of land melts, and the ice loss is greater than any ice gain from snowfall, sea levels rise. Only retards are unable to comprehend that fact.





jc456 said:


> well how much evaporation is happening with the seas?  Come on man, don't try and pull sht like this. Again, where do you think the calving comes from?


LOLOLOLOL. Do you actually imagine that that gibbering non-sequitur makes any sense whatsoever?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > When will the ice sheet melt?
> ...


I'm sorry are you saying that glaciers aren't on land?  now that's funny.  psssst, go with that.  yeah that's the ticket.


----------



## Crick (Jun 20, 2016)

The PIOMAS graphic does NOT include Greenland.  It is of sea ice only.  If such were the case, it would also have to include northern Canada, the upper third of Alaska, northern Russia, Finland, Sweden and Norway, all of which cross the line.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> The PIOMAS graphic does NOT include Greenland.  It is of sea ice only.


sea ice doesn't add to sea level.  you know this right?


----------



## Crick (Jun 20, 2016)

Yes, jc, I know that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > The PIOMAS graphic does NOT include Greenland.  It is of sea ice only.
> ...


LOL  But I am surprised that you do. LOL


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> When will the ice sheet melt?





Crick said:


> Obviously, with as much variation as these data display, counting on that exponential trend is a bit of a bet.  But it is certainly headed for zero at some point within the next couple of decades at the latest.  Now these are summer minimums.  This graph will hit zero when the Arctic is first ice free at it's minimum.  It is not marking the point where the Arctic will be ice free year-round.[





jc456 said:


> so again, are you including the Greenland ice in that statement?





RollingThunder said:


> Greenland is melting at an accelerating rate, and contributing to sea level rise.





jc456 said:


> If so, when would you expect that the land ice will melt by?  I already asked back a few months or so how long would it take for land ice to completely melt?  Or are you saying that the sheet will just slide off the continent at once?





RollingThunder said:


> No one knows when the ice sheet will completely melt. So what? Your question is not the significant one. How fast is the ice sheet melting? Is the melt rate increasing? Those are the significant questions. But you are probably much too retarded to understand why.
> 
> In the real world....
> 
> ...





jc456 said:


> no the significant one is has any melting caused a rise in sea level.





RollingThunder said:


> Yes, it is, in fact, causing a rise in sea levels, moron. When ice that is on top of land melts, and the ice loss is greater than any ice gain from snowfall, sea levels rise. Only retards are unable to comprehend that fact.





jc456 said:


> well how much evaporation is happening with the seas?  Come on man, don't try and pull sht like this. Again, where do you think the calving comes from?





RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOL. Do you actually imagine that that gibbering non-sequitur makes any sense whatsoever?





jc456 said:


> I'm sorry are you saying that glaciers aren't on land?  now that's funny.  psssst, go with that.  yeah that's the ticket.



Your bizarre and constant misunderstanding of what other people say to you is the mark of a real true retard, JustCrazy. Do you even understand what 'non-sequitur' means, you poor deranged imbecile?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Yes, jc, I know that.


then what's your issue if it melts, it threatens no one.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, jc, I know that.
> ...


And the accelerating melting of Greenland? Do you also idiotically believe that that "_threatens no one_"?

Of course, in reality, even the melting of the Arctic sea ice will have disastrous consequenses for the climate. Too bad you're too stupid and ideologically brainwashed to comprehend that.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 21, 2016)

"even the melting of the Arctic sea ice will have disastrous consequenses for the climate"


LMAO!!!

You're joking, hopefully...

BTW, if you think Greenland is melting, you don't know what an "ice core" is, since Greenland manufactures one every year, as it has done for a half million years at least...


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 21, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> BTW, if you think Greenland is melting, you don't know what an "ice core" is, since Greenland manufactures one every year, as it has done for a half million years at least...



The above shall be documented as, among valiant competition, the winning candidate for the the dictionary definition of "discombobulated bullshit".


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 21, 2016)

In other words, you don't understand anything, other than parroting fudge and bull.

An ice core grows each year the above 'tard says its "melting..."


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 21, 2016)

Well now, Mr. LaDexter, perhaps you would like to explain how Greenland 'grows' a new ice core every year.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 21, 2016)

The above is a confession that Old Rocks has no idea what a GLACIER is or does...


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 21, 2016)

*Ice core* sample taken from drill. Photo by Lonnie Thompson, Byrd Polar Research Center


----------



## jc456 (Jun 21, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


well you nor anyone else has shown Greenland to be melting so, I'm not sure what to say.  If nothing is happening out of normal warming and freezing I don't see the problem for anyone other than those on Greenland. Again, ice calving is normal.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 21, 2016)

jc, you have been shown information that scientists from multiple nations have gathered that show that Greenland is losing ice faster than it is gaining it from snowfall. You can scream conspiracy all you like, and wear your little tin hat everywhere you go, that will not change the fact that Greenland is losing ice at an increasing rate.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc, you have been shown information that scientists from multiple nations have gathered that show that Greenland is losing ice faster than it is gaining it from snowfall. You can scream conspiracy all you like, and wear your little tin hat everywhere you go, that will not change the fact that Greenland is losing ice at an increasing rate.


the last one that was posted was from 2012 bubba.  Let's see a current one.  BTW, the satellite is down to read the ice, so not sure where the heck you get your ice data.  I agree the shores are most likely melting since it is almost July.  But you need to show land loss.  I'm waiting.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 21, 2016)

*Land Ice*


Data from NASA's GRACE satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 gigatonnes of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 gigatonnes per year. (Source: GRACE satellite data)

*Missions that observe land ice*
Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)

NASA's IceBridge

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Land Ice

*So, here you are. Right up to the present. *


----------



## jc456 (Jun 22, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *Land Ice*
> 
> 
> Data from NASA's GRACE satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 gigatonnes of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 gigatonnes per year. (Source: GRACE satellite data)
> ...


so s0n, losing do you mean left the land into the sea? or melted and refroze?  be clearer here.

BTW, at -70 degrees F yesterday, do you think the land ice is melting?


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 22, 2016)

Actually, it was the NASA data collection people that put out the truth...

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 22, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Actually, it was the NASA data collection people that put out the truth...
> 
> NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses



You've posted that article before....of course it is hilariously ironic that you cite NASA after you have rejected and denied ALL of the other climate science they publish......but back in posts 421 & 422 it was pointed out to you that the study you quote is disputed by other climate scientists for a variety of reasons, including that the data used in that study was eight years out of date. Also that study does not in any way refute global warming, as you moronically seem to imagine.

Your post #421


LaDexter said:


> Another fudge chart cut pasted and parroted proves nothing, retard.
> 
> NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
> 
> The data proves you are a parrot of fudge and falsehood...





RollingThunder said:


> Your posts prove that you are a ridiculous and very ignorant retard, LaDumbshit.
> 
> *If Antarctica is Gaining Ice, Why is the Earth Still Warming*
> 
> ...


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 23, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> of course it is hilariously ironic that you cite NASA after you have rejected and denied ALL of the other climate science they publish




There is a difference between DATA and FUDGE, but you have yet to figure that out...

Earth is not warming, according to the highly correlated RAW DATA from satellites and balloons.

The oceans are not rising, because there is no net ice melt ongoing, which is why the TIPPYs use islands right on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire to claim they are "sinking" because of  "ocean rise."  You didn't catch that one either...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 23, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > of course it is hilariously ironic that you cite NASA after you have rejected and denied ALL of the other climate science they publish
> ...



Oh, LaDumbshit, your drivel got debunked but you're too retarded to realize that fact and too much of a troll to admit it.

The Earth IS rapidly warming according to all of the scientific temperature data and according to a wide variety of hard physical evidence, no matter what your fraudulent crackpot denier cult myths tell you, you poor dumbshit reality denier.  The ice all around the world IS melting, the sea levels ARE rising, and your head IS jammed way far up your ass.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 23, 2016)

"The Earth IS rapidly warming according to all of the scientific temperature data "

No, false - FUDGE is NOT DATA...

You are grounds for a eugenics experiment...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 23, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> "The Earth IS rapidly warming according to all of the scientific temperature data "
> 
> No, false - FUDGE is NOT DATA...
> 
> You are grounds for a eugenics experiment...


More vacuous, reality-denying, anti-science nonsense, based entirely on cultic delusions, from the imbecilic troll LaDumbshit.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 23, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > "The Earth IS rapidly warming according to all of the scientific temperature data "
> ...


but spot on.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 23, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> "The Earth IS rapidly warming according to all of the scientific temperature data "
> 
> No, false - FUDGE is NOT DATA...
> 
> You are grounds for a eugenics experiment...





RollingThunder said:


> More vacuous, reality-denying, anti-science nonsense, based entirely on cultic delusions, from the imbecilic troll LaDumbshit.





jc456 said:


> but spot on.


And another imbecilic troll agrees with the first one....no surprise and no significance.

In reality....*The Earth IS rapidly warming according to all of the scientific temperature data.*


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 23, 2016)

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic?

If CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice, why is Antarctic Sea Ice growing?

During the past million years, North America thawed while Greenland froze, all at the same time with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which proved what about CO2 and climate change??

LMAO!!!

Being a PARROT does not mean one is intelligent, it means 180 degrees in the opposite direction...


----------



## Crick (Jun 23, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> of course it is hilariously ironic that you cite NASA after you have rejected and denied ALL of the other climate science they publish





RollingThunder said:


> Oh, LaDumbshit, your drivel got debunked but you're too retarded to realize that fact and too much of a troll to admit it.
> 
> The Earth IS rapidly warming according to all of the scientific temperature data and according to a wide variety of hard physical evidence, no matter what your fraudulent crackpot denier cult myths tell you, you poor dumbshit reality denier.  The ice all around the world IS melting, the sea levels ARE rising, and your head IS jammed way far up your ass.



WG-I, AR5, Chapter 2, Observations: Atmosphere and Surface

*Atmospheric Composition*

It is certain that atmospheric burdens of the well-mixed greenhouse gases (GHGs) targeted by the Kyoto Protocol increased from 2005 to 2011. The atmospheric abundance of carbon dioxide (CO2) was 390.5 ppm (390.3 to 390.7)1 in 2011; this is 40% greater than in 1750. Atmospheric nitrous oxide (N2O) was 324.2 ppb (324.0 to 324.4) in 2011 and has increased by 20% since 1750. Average annual increases in CO2 and N2O from 2005 to 2011 are comparable to those observed from 1996 to 2005. Atmospheric methane (CH4) was 1803.2 ppb (1801.2 to 1805.2) in 2011; this is 150% greater than before 1750. CH4 began increasing in 2007 after remaining nearly constant from 1999 to 2006. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) all continue to increase relatively rapidly, but their contributions to radiative forcing are less than 1% of the total by well-mixed GHGs. {2.2.1.1}


----------



## Crick (Jun 23, 2016)

*Temperature

It is certain that Global Mean Surface Temperature has increased since the late 19th century*. Each of the past three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than all the previous decades in the instrumental record, and the first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest. The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend, show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C, over the period 1880–2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist, and about 0.72°C [0.49°C to 0.89°C] over the period 1951–2012. The total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003– 2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C and the total increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the reference period for projections, 1986−2005, is 0.61 [0.55 to 0.67] °C, based on the single longest dataset available. *For the longest period when calculation of regional trends is sufficiently complete (1901–2012), almost the entire globe has experienced surface warming.* In addition to robust multidecadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability. Owing to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade). Trends for 15-year periods starting in 1995, 1996, and 1997 are 0.13 [0.02 to 0.24], 0.14 [0.03 to 0.24] and 0.07 [–0.02 to 0.18], respectively. Several independently analyzed data records of global and regional land-surface air temperature (LSAT) obtained from station observations are in* broad agreement that LSAT has increased. Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) have also increased*.

Intercomparisons of new SST data records obtained by different measurement methods, including satellite data, have resulted in better understanding of uncertainties and biases in the records. {2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.4.3; Box 9.2}

*It is unlikely that any uncorrected urban heat-island effects and land use change effects have raised the estimated centennial globally averaged LSAT trends by more than 10% of the reported trend.* This is an average value; in some regions with rapid development, urban heat island and land use change impacts on regional trends may be substantially larger. {2.4.1.3}

Confidence is medium in reported decreases in observed global diurnal temperature range (DTR), noted as a key uncertainty in the AR4. Several recent analyses of the raw data on which many previous analyses were based point to the potential for biases that differently affect maximum and minimum average temperatures. However, apparent changes in DTR are much smaller than reported changes in average temperatures and* therefore it is virtually certain that maximum and minimum temperatures have increased since 1950*. {2.4.1.2}

Based on multiple independent analyses of measurements from radiosondes and satellite sensors* it is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed and the stratosphere has cooled since the mid-20th century.* Despite unanimous agreement on the sign of the trends, substantial disagreement exists among available estimates as to the rate of temperature changes, particularly outside the NH extratropical troposphere, which has been well sampled by radiosondes. Hence there is only medium confidence in the rate of change and its vertical structure in the NH extratropical troposphere and low confidence elsewhere. {2.4.4}


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 23, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic? If CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice, why is Antarctic Sea Ice growing?


Your complete ignorance about science and dumbfounded disbelief in science do not actually constitute an argument, LaDumbshit. They just demonstrate what a clueless crackpot you are.







LaDexter said:


> During the past million years, North America thawed while Greenland froze, all at the same time with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which proved what about CO2 and climate change??



Since that drivel is complete bullshit, it "_proved_" only that you are a delusional retard, LaDumbshit.









LaDexter said:


> Being a PARROT does not mean one is intelligent, it means 180 degrees in the opposite direction...


One reason that everybody knows that you are an utter retard, you moronic parrot.



Meanwhile, on topic and in the real world....

*Arctic sea ice melt “like a train wreck” says US scientist *
*Arctic feels like late June or July say experts as sea ice shrinks to what many believe will be a record low*
ClimateHome
By Ed King
23/05/2016
(excerpts)
*Arctic sea ice levels are on course to hit a new record low as warming at the North Pole accelerates. Snowmelt has started at the earliest date yet in 73 years, according to the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “It looks like late June or early July right now,” said David Douglas, research biologist with the US Geological Survey. “Polar bears are having to make their decisions about how to move and where to go on thinner ice pack that’s mostly first-year ice.”
*
*US climate agency: 2016 on course to be hottest on record*
*
Veteran Arctic biologist George Divoky described the change as a “train wreck you can’t look away from” warning an early spring would impact wildlife and tundra plants. “You never know what you’re going to see and this year’s as big a mystery as any,” he added. Temperatures in Alaska hit 11C above average this winter. In December a storm sent what experts described as a “pulse” of heat to the region, spiking mercury from -30C to freezing. “Satellite photos from mid-May depict an early sea-ice breakup with an ominous series of openings, known as leads, extending deep into the Arctic,” said a statement from NOAA.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 24, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic? If CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice, why is Antarctic Sea Ice growing?
> ...




Except Ledexter is pwning your shit s0n!!

Nobody cares about an increase of .2 degrees!! Only the emotional hemophiliacs get all hysterical. You are representing about 1% of the population!!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic? If CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice, why is Antarctic Sea Ice growing?
> ...


this is hilarious:
*"Snowmelt has started at the earliest date yet in 73 years, "*

Which therefore means it isn't the earliest ever.  And means historically, the past was as warm or warmer than today.  Ooops.....


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> *It is certain that Global Mean Surface Temperature has increased since the late 19th century*.




False.  The surface temp of GROWING URBAN AREAS has increased.  The surface of Greenland, Antarctica, Siberia, and many other undeveloped places has not warmed at all, neither has the atmosphere or the oceans...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 24, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic? If CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice, why is Antarctic Sea Ice growing?





RollingThunder said:


> Your complete ignorance about science and dumbfounded disbelief in science do not actually constitute an argument, LaDumbshit. They just demonstrate what a clueless crackpot you are.






LaDexter said:


> During the past million years, North America thawed while Greenland froze, all at the same time with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which proved what about CO2 and climate change??





RollingThunder said:


> Since that drivel is complete bullshit, it "_proved_" only that you are a delusional retard, LaDumbshit.






LaDexter said:


> Being a PARROT does not mean one is intelligent, it means 180 degrees in the opposite direction...





RollingThunder said:


> One reason that everybody knows that you are an utter retard, you moronic parrot.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, on topic and in the real world....





RollingThunder said:


> *Arctic sea ice melt “like a train wreck” says US scientist *
> *Arctic feels like late June or July say experts as sea ice shrinks to what many believe will be a record low*
> ClimateHome
> By Ed King
> ...





jc456 said:


> this is hilarious:
> *"Snowmelt has started at the earliest date yet in 73 years, "*
> 
> Which therefore means it isn't the earliest ever.  And means historically, the past was as warm or warmer than today.  Ooops.....



Nope! It means that 73 years ago is when they STARTED keeping snow cover records at Barrow, Alaska. It also means that you are once again clearly demonstrating that you are an incredibly clueless retard, JustCrazy, too stupid to get the facts by simply opening the *link* in the article to the source of that quote. And no, you moronic nutjob, "_historically the past was_" NOT "_as warm or warmer than today_", or people would have noticed the ice melting or a score of other consequences if the recent past (before 73 years ago) had indeed been supposedly "_warmer than today_" . The depth of your stupidity still can astonish. Not to mention the instrumental temperature records that go back 137 years, or the proxy records that provide a good indication of the global temperatures for (at least) the last ten thousand years, all of which clearly indicate that temperatures now are hotter that they have ever been for at least 6000 years, or possibly since the last interglacial period over 120,000 years ago.

*Arctic set for record-breaking melt this summer*
NOAA
(excerpts)
*The record heat baking Alaska is poised to smash a host of climate records in 2016, including the earliest snowmelt date at NOAA’s Barrow Observatory, the northernmost point in the nation. Staff at NOAA’s Barrow Observatory reported snowmelt occurred May 13, the earliest snowmelt date in 73 years of record keeping, beating the previous mark set in 2002 by a full 10 days. The early melting follows a record-setting winter that saw temperatures average more than 11 degrees above normal for the 49th State, shattering the previous record set in 2015.  At 320 miles north of the Arctic Circle, Barrow is usually one of the last places in the United States to lose snow cover.

Snow’s not the only thing that’s vanishing. Preliminary data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center indicate 2016 will set the record for minimum winter sea-ice extent, eclipsing the 2015 mark. Satellite photos from mid-May depict an early sea-ice breakup with an ominous series of openings, known as leads, extending deep into the Arctic.*


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> *It is certain that Global Mean Surface Temperature has increased since the late 19th century*.





LaDexter said:


> False.  The surface temp of GROWING URBAN AREAS has increased.  The surface of Greenland, Antarctica, Siberia, and many other undeveloped places has not warmed at all, neither has the atmosphere or the oceans...



LOLOLOLOL......you keep making those kind of anti-science, bullshit claims, LaDumbshit,  but you can never back anything up with any evidence supporting your fraudulent delusional nonsense.

All you've got is your own hot air and your insanity.

It is called *GLOBAL* WARMING for a reason, you poor crackpot shithead.




_*Observed trend in temperature from 1900 to 2012; yellow to red indicates warming, while shades of blue indicate cooling. Gray indicates areas for which there are no data. There are substantial regional variations in trends across the planet, though the overall trend is warming. Map from FAQ appendix of the 2014 National Climate Assessment. Originally provided by NOAA NCDC.


****_


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic? If CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice, why is Antarctic Sea Ice growing?
> ...


so since you have no records before that, you have no idea.  So how is it I was in error? It still says exactly the same thing and does not prove anything.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 24, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic? If CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice, why is Antarctic Sea Ice growing?
> ...





jc456 said:


> so since you have no records before that, you have no idea.  So how is it I was in error? It still says exactly the same thing and does not prove anything.



So....you're still as retarded and clueless as always, JustCrazy. Too bad you're too stupid to comprehend what is said to you.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 24, 2016)

For the 115th time...

Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates

"While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, (highly correlated) satellite and weather balloon (raw) data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was (microscopically) cooling."

And that was a big big problem for the Tippys.  Two and only two measurements of atmospheric temperature both showing NO WARMING in highly correlated fashion.  What is a Tippy to do?

A: FUDGE

Fudge the satellites with a bogus "orbit wobble" argument, and fudge the balloons with a "thermometers were just wrong" weasel.  

To fall for that type of fudging, you have to be pathetically stupid, devoid of any intent to be objective etc...


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 24, 2016)

OK RollingParrot, I've answered one of yours.

Try one of mine..

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 24, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> For the 115th time...
> 
> Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates
> 
> "While surface thermometers have clearly shown that the Earth's surface is warming, (highly correlated) satellite and weather balloon (raw) data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was (microscopically) cooling."


LOLOLOLOL......you are SOOOOO retarded, you poor anti-science nutbagger.

From the article you cited....

*"**For the past 40 years, radiosonde temperature data have been collected from around the world twice each day, once during the day and once at night.*
_*
But while nighttime radiosonde measurements were consistent with climate models and theories showing a general warming trend, daytime measurements actually showed the atmosphere to be cooling since the 1970's.

Sherwood explains these discrepancies by pointing out that the older radiosonde instruments used in the 1970's were not as well shielded from sunlight as more recent models. What this means as that older radiosondes showed warmer temperature readings during the day because they were warmed by sunlight.

"It's like being outside on a hot day—it feels hotter when you are standing in the direct sun than when you are standing in the shade," Sherwood said.

Nowadays, radiosondes are better insulated against the effects of sunlight, but if analyzed together with the old data—which showed temperatures that were actually warmer than they really were—the overall effect looked like the troposphere was cooling."*_
*** 

And, BTW, LaDumbshit, you can shove those crackpot conspiracy theories of yours about all of the world's climate scientists back up your saggy ass where they belong.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 24, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> OK RollingParrot, I've answered one of yours.



Oh yeah? Where do you imagine you did that, LaDumbshit? 

Everything you post amounts to retarded bullshit. You are mentally incapable of "_answering_" anything, you clueless imbecile.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...


BTW, how old is the earth?  have the oceans always looked like they do today?  How is it you can't keep up with the changes that actually do happen on the surface?  I cry bulls--t as often as I do because to date you haven't been able to ever prove your position.  It pisses you off that you can't, you want to so badly, yet the material that would allow you to bang your chest just ain't there.  Just like Greenhouse Effect.  Has never been proven, ever. Since the universe was born btw.  But you keep trying.  If, as you believe, there was greenhouse effect, wouldn't there be something to show?  I'm just saying when do you start wondering whether it is there or not?  i mean sea level rise, no proof, ice in the arctics, no proof of catastrophe, just regular melt.  So to date, nothing has ever once been verified by any human.  Wow.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 24, 2016)

Highly correlated satellite and balloon raw data showed no warming in the atmosphere.  You are obviously going to parrot the fudgers, but the raw data is documented.  I answered your question.  You won't answer mine, because mine requires you to THINK instead of PARROT...


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > For the 115th time...
> ...


so, the article you just posted contradicted everything it could.  Even itself.  WOW.  Dude you should really read what you post.  I did have a good chuckle though.

And it has nothing to say about arctic ice volumes.  didn't see that anywhere in it.  So do you think the ice in the Arctic should be melting today since it is summer?  I do, the sun is actually hitting the area daily for a longer period of time, and unlike you, I know the sun is our energy source and it warms the surface, no matter if there is ice or not.

Oh, and I know what ever does melt, will refreeze.  can you say OMG?


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 24, 2016)

I understand that the purpose of the article was to say that Global Warming is real, regardless of what the data said.

The balloons have never shown any atmospheric warming.

Climate myths: The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming


"Satellites and weather balloon measurements show that the stratosphere, the layer from 10 to 50 kilometres above the Earth, is indeed cooling (although this is partly due to the depletion of the ozone layer).

In 1992, however, an analysis of satellite data by John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, US, concluded that the lower part of the troposphere – the first 10 kilometres of atmosphere – had cooled relative to the surface since 1979, when the first satellites capable monitoring temperature measurements were launched. This trend seemed to continue into the late 1990s and also seemed to be supported by balloon measurements."


BTW - in 1998 when Surface Ground showed RECORD WARMING blah blah... from the surface of growing urban areas... the satellite and balloon data showed 1998 was a cooler than normal year in the atmosphere...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 24, 2016)

I am done reading about this off topic crap in my ice thread. I am putting you on ignore.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 24, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic? If CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice, why is Antarctic Sea Ice growing?





RollingThunder said:


> Your complete ignorance about science and dumbfounded disbelief in science do not actually constitute an argument, LaDumbshit. They just demonstrate what a clueless crackpot you are.






LaDexter said:


> During the past million years, North America thawed while Greenland froze, all at the same time with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which proved what about CO2 and climate change??





RollingThunder said:


> Since that drivel is complete bullshit, it "_proved_" only that you are a delusional retard, LaDumbshit.






LaDexter said:


> Being a PARROT does not mean one is intelligent, it means 180 degrees in the opposite direction...





RollingThunder said:


> One reason that everybody knows that you are an utter retard, you moronic parrot.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, on topic and in the real world....





RollingThunder said:


> *Arctic sea ice melt “like a train wreck” says US scientist *
> *Arctic feels like late June or July say experts as sea ice shrinks to what many believe will be a record low*
> ClimateHome
> By Ed King
> ...





jc456 said:


> this is hilarious:
> *"Snowmelt has started at the earliest date yet in 73 years, "*
> 
> Which therefore means it isn't the earliest ever.  And means historically, the past was as warm or warmer than today.  Ooops.....





RollingThunder said:


> Nope! It means that 73 years ago is when they STARTED keeping snow cover records at Barrow, Alaska. It also means that you are once again clearly demonstrating that you are an incredibly clueless retard, JustCrazy, too stupid to get the facts by simply opening the *link* in the article to the source of that quote. And no, you moronic nutjob, "_historically the past was_" NOT "_as warm or warmer than today_", or people would have noticed the ice melting or a score of other consequences if the recent past (before 73 years ago) had indeed been supposedly "_warmer than today_" . The depth of your stupidity still can astonish. Not to mention the instrumental temperature records that go back 137 years, or the proxy records that provide a good indication of the global temperatures for (at least) the last ten thousand years, all of which clearly indicate that temperatures now are hotter that they have ever been for at least 6000 years, or possibly since the last interglacial period over 120,000 years ago.
> 
> *Arctic set for record-breaking melt this summer*
> NOAA
> ...







jc456 said:


> so since you have no records before that, you have no idea.  So how is it I was in error? It still says exactly the same thing and does not prove anything.





RollingThunder said:


> So....you're still as retarded and clueless as always, JustCrazy. Too bad you're too stupid to comprehend what is said to you.





jc456 said:


> BTW, how old is the earth?  have the oceans always looked like they do today?  How is it you can't keep up with the changes that actually do happen on the surface?  I cry bulls--t as often as I do because to date you haven't been able to ever prove your position.  It pisses you off that you can't, you want to so badly, yet the material that would allow you to bang your chest just ain't there.  Just like Greenhouse Effect.  Has never been proven, ever. Since the universe was born btw.  But you keep trying.  If, as you believe, there was greenhouse effect, wouldn't there be something to show?  I'm just saying when do you start wondering whether it is there or not?  i mean sea level rise, no proof, ice in the arctics, no proof of catastrophe, just regular melt.  So to date, nothing has ever once been verified by any human.  Wow.



More incredibly retarded and very meaningless anti-science drivel from the retarded denier cult crackpot JustCrazy, who is still is deranged denial of the absolutely totally scientifically confirmed Greenhouse Effect.

Here is just the first page of the Google results for 'Greenhouse Effect'.

*green·house ef·fect*
_noun_

the trapping of the sun's warmth in a planet's lower atmosphere due to the greater transparency of the atmosphere to visible radiation from the sun than to infrared radiation emitted from the planet's surface.  
***
*The Greenhouse Effect | A Student's Guide to Global Climate Change | US EPA*
US Environmental Protection Agency › basics › today
Mar 3, 2016 - Greenhouse gases keep the Earth warm through a process called the greenhouse effect. Play the ...
*** 

*Greenhouse effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
Wikipedia › wiki › Greenhouse_effect
The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere. If a planet's atmosphere contains radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) the atmosphere will radiate energy in all directions.
‎History · ‎Mechanism · ‎Greenhouse gases · ‎Role in climate change
***

*What is the Greenhouse Effect? | Global Warming - Live Science*
www.livescience.com › Planet Earth
Apr 12, 2016 - Carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases act like a blanket, absorbing IR radiation and preventing it from escaping into outer space. The net effect is the gradual heating of Earth's atmosphere and surface, a process known as global warming.
***

*Greenhouse Effect: Background Material*
UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research | Understanding atmosphere, Earth, and Sun › learn
This section provides an overview of the earth's atmospheric "greenhouse effect" by briefly exploring the atmospheres of ...
***

*NASA's Climate Kids :: What is the greenhouse effect?*
NASA (.gov) › climatekids › greenhouse...
A greenhouse is a house made of glass. It has glass walls and a glass roof. People grow tomatoes and flowers and ...
***

*The Greenhouse Effect - HyperPhysics*
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu › grnhse
The greenhouse effect refers to circumstances where the short wavelengths of visible light from the sun pass through a ...
***

*FAQ 1.3 What is the Greenhouse Effect? - IPCC*
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change › faq-1-3
Without the natural greenhouse effect, the average temperature at Earth's surface would be below the freezing point of ...
***

*The Greenhouse Effect - Thermodynamics, Heat, Climate Change - PhET*
PhET: Free online physics, chemistry, biology, earth science and math simulations › simulation › g...
How do greenhouse gases affect the climate? Explore the atmosphere during the ice age and today. What happens ...
***

*Greenhouse Effect - NOAA Research*
www.oar.noaa.gov › html › greenhouse2
This Science with NOAA Research K12 site provides learning experiences that center on the Greenhouse Effect 
***

*The Greenhouse Effect - National Geographic*
environment.nationalgeographic.com › g...
Learn about Global Warming at National Geographic. Get facts, news, wallpapers , watch videos, and learn about ...


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic? If CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice, why is Antarctic Sea Ice growing?
> ...


dude, I don't deny that there aren't thousands of articles that state Greenhouse Effect, my question was can you find an experiment that actually proves it?  Nope, one doesn't exist.  face it, you won't find one.  Oh and again, you'll find experiments and none of them prove anything of the sort.  It is proving that GHGs, as you call them, will make a warm object warmer.  hasn't been done, nadda, never.

Your theory is --you take CO2 and add it around any warm object and that object will get warmer by that CO2.  That is it, that is greenhouse effect and you won't ever prove it.


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 24, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> I understand that the purpose of the article was to say that Global Warming is real, regardless of what the data said.





jc456 said:


> Oh and again, you'll find experiments and none of them prove anything of the sort. It is proving that GHGs, as you call them, will make a warm object warmer.



You two should have a word with yourself.  It's long been clear, and you should tell yourself in no uncertain terms, you don't have any capacity to understand scientific issues of any complexity.  Moreover, make yourself understand your ignorance and incomprehension isn't any kind of winning argument.  You even lack the capacity and understanding to pose a coherent question that would actually make sense.  And even if those gentle souls on here, as they so very often do, make the extra effort to figure out what you might have meant, and answer what supposedly might have been your question, you still don't understand it.  Worse yet, you don't even recognize the answer as an answer.

Really, seeing your self-humiliating struggle with the most basic scientific concepts, while you are parading around your ignorance-based certainty and running against the solid things that make up reality, spiky as that is, is just disheartening to watch, as that sure must hurt.


----------



## Crick (Jun 24, 2016)

1)  There is NO SUCH THING AS *PROOF* in the natural sciences.

2)  There are thousands of experiments whose results support the greenhouse effect

3) In over a hundred years, it has never been falsified.

4) It is accepted by 99+ percent of all scientists in all fields

5) You have the science knowledge of a fifth grader

Get it?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> 1)  There is NO SUCH THING AS *PROOF* in the natural sciences.
> 
> 2)  There are thousands of experiments whose results support the greenhouse effect
> 
> ...


pull up one experiment that puts CO2 near a warm object and the warm object gets warmer.  One, please, I've been asking since i got here three years ago.  Crick, you fail.  you have no evidence of a greenhouse effect. Even John Tyndalls's doesn't prove it.  he never proved a warm object got warmer. NEVER!!!!!!!!! so just pop one up.  That is the theory and that is why carbon credits and money is involved, so one should ask one self why there has never been that experiment?  Because it doesn't happen.   Funny though.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that the purpose of the article was to say that Global Warming is real, regardless of what the data said.
> ...


sorry for repeating but I did want to answer both posts, and the answer is the same.


"pull up one experiment that puts CO2 near a warm object and the warm object gets warmer. One, please, I've been asking since i got here three years ago. Crick, you fail. you have no evidence of a greenhouse effect. Even John Tyndalls's doesn't prove it. he never proved a warm object got warmer. NEVER!!!!!!!!! so just pop one up. That is the theory and that is why carbon credits and money is involved, so one should ask one self why there has never been that experiment? Because it doesn't happen. Funny though."


----------



## Crick (Jun 24, 2016)

How many times have you been told "no proof in the natural sciences"?  Are you ever going to comprehend what that means?


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 24, 2016)

The Crick standard 

PARROTING = PROOF

Why does the Antarctic Circle have 9 times the ice of the Arctic Circle?

LOL!!!

CO2 has precisely nothing to do with Earth climate change.  We went to court in 2007, Crick's FUDGE side LOST on the two most important issues

1. 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica INCREASING
2. NO CORRELATION between CO2 and temps in the ice cores

As Crick is doing here, the Algore side was TOO CHICKEN to appeal, and resorted to petty insults and more fudging...


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> 1)  There is NO SUCH THING AS *PROOF* in the natural sciences.
> 
> 
> Get it?



That's just AGW spin s0n.......only started seeing this narrative about 1o years ago. Its makey-uppey stuff. No proof? Its not science!! This is not horsehoes or hand granades.

Oh....and Ledexter is still schooling you. No answer from the AGW alarmists about Antarctica.....like it is not part of the globe.........they only want to talk about the north pole. Ghey


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> 1)  There is NO SUCH THING AS *PROOF* in the natural sciences.
> 
> 2)  There are thousands of experiments whose results support the greenhouse effect
> 
> ...





jc456 said:


> pull up one experiment that puts CO2 near a warm object and the warm object gets warmer.


That bullshit has almost nothing to do with the Greenhouse Effect, imbecile.

That's not how it works. If you really are too stupid to understand how it works then your clueless questions are meaningless garbage.

*greenhouse effect — noun *

*an atmospheric heating phenomenon, caused by short-wave solar radiation being readily transmitted inward through the earth's atmosphere but longer-wavelength heat radiation less readily transmitted outward, owing to its absorption by atmospheric carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and other gases; thus, the rising level of carbon dioxide is viewed with concern.*





jc456 said:


> One, please, I've been asking since i got here three years ago.


And you have been repeatedly shown lists of Greenhouse Effect confirmation experiments, fruitcake, which you always pretend you've never seen. Which is why everyone else identifies you as a fucking *TROLL*.






jc456 said:


> you have no evidence of a greenhouse effect. Even John Tyndalls's doesn't prove it.  he never proved a warm object got warmer. NEVER!!!!!!!!! so just pop one up.  That is the theory and that is why carbon credits and money is involved, so one should ask one self why there has never been that experiment?  Because it doesn't happen.   Funny though.



So, JustCrazy, why exactly do you pretend that you have never seen the list of experiments supporting the reality of the Greenhouse Effct that has been repeatedly shown to you on many threads? Are you just too stupid and crazy to understand what you are seeing? Or are you just a demented denier cult troll pushing a retarded and very fraudulent propaganda meme?

*Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still*
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
July 23rd, 2010
***

In the real world....

*First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations*
Berkeley Lab News Release
Dan Krotz
FEBRUARY 25, 2015
***

*Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties*
by Ari Jokimäki
September 25, 2009
*This is a list of papers on laboratory measurements of the absorption properties of carbon dioxide. In the context of these paperlists this is a difficult subject because only few of the papers are freely available online, so we have to settle on abstracts only (of course, interested reader can purchase the full texts for the papers from the linked abstract pages). However, I don’t think that matters that much because the main point of this list really is to show that the basic research on the subject exists. The list is not complete, and will most likely be updated in the future in order to make it more thorough and more representative.

UPDATE (September 23, 2012): Burch & Gryvnak (1966) added.
UPDATE (February 6, 2011): Miller & Watts (1984) added.
UPDATE (July 25, 2010): I modified the introduction paragraph a little to reflect the current content of the list. The old text was a little outdated.
UPDATE (June 22, 2010): Lecher & Pernter (1881) added.
UPDATE (March 31, 2010): Tubbs & Williams (1972), Rubens & Aschkinass (1898) and Ångström (1900) added.
UPDATE (March 6, 2010): Barker (1922) added.
UPDATE (November 19, 2009): Predoi-Cross et al. (2007) added.
UPDATE (September 25, 2009): Miller & Brown (2004) added, thanks to John Cook for bringing it to my attention (see the discussion section below).

Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1 – Toth et al. (2008)“A new spectroscopic database for carbon dioxide in the near infrared is presented to support remote sensing of the terrestrial planets (Mars, Venus and the Earth). The compilation contains over 28,500 transitions of 210 bands from 4300 to 7000 cm−1…”

Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence – Predoi-Cross et al.(2007) “Transitions of pure carbon dioxide have been measured using a Fourier transform spectrometer in the 30012 ← 00001 and 30013 ← 00001 vibrational bands. The room temperature spectra, recorded at a resolution of 0.008 cm−1, were analyzed using the Voigt model and a Speed Dependent Voigt line shape model that includes a pressure dependent narrowing parameter. Intensities, self-induced pressure broadening, shifts, and weak line mixing coefficients are determined. The results obtained are consistent with other studies in addition to the theoretically calculated values.” [Full text]

Spectroscopic challenges for high accuracy retrievals of atmospheric CO2 and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) experiment – Miller et al.(2005) “The space-based Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) mission will achieve global measurements needed to distinguish spatial and temporal gradients in the CO2 column. Scheduled by NASA to launch in 2008, the instrument will obtain averaged dry air mole fraction (XCO2) with a precision of 1 part per million (0.3%) in order to quantify the variation of CO2 sources and sinks and to improve future climate forecasts. Retrievals of XCO2 from ground-based measurements require even higher precisions to validate the satellite data and link them accurately and without bias to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) standard for atmospheric CO2 observations. These retrievals will require CO2 spectroscopic parameters with unprecedented accuracy. Here we present the experimental and data analysis methods implemented in laboratory studies in order to achieve this challenging goal.”

Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I. 16O12C16O line positions – Miller & Brown (2004) “High-resolution near-infrared (4000–9000 cm-1) spectra of carbon dioxide have been recorded using the McMath–Pierce Fourier transform spectrometer at the Kitt Peak National Solar Observatory. Some 2500 observed positions have been used to determine spectroscopic constants for 53 different vibrational states of the 16O12C16O isotopologue, including eight vibrational states for which laboratory spectra have not previously been reported. … This work reduces CO2 near-infrared line position uncertainties by a factor of 10 or more compared to the 2000 HITRAN line list, which has not been modified since the comprehensive work of Rothman et al. [J. Quant. Spectrosc. Rad. Transfer 48 (1992) 537].”[Full text]

Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO2 IR bands between 10 and 20 μm. I: model and laboratory measurements – Niro et al. (2004)“Temperature (200–300 K) and pressure (70–200 atm) dependent laboratory measurements of infrared transmission by CO2–N2 mixtures have been made. From these experiments the absorption coefficient is reconstructed, over a range of several orders of magnitude, between 600 and 1000 cm−1.”

Collisional effects on spectral line-shapes – Boulet (2004) “The growing concern of mankind for the understanding and preserving of its environment has stimulated great interest for the study of planetary atmospheres and, first of all, for that of the Earth. Onboard spectrometers now provide more and more precise information on the transmission and emission of radiation by these atmospheres. Its treatment by ‘retrieval’ technics, in order to extract vertical profiles (pressure, temperature, volume mixing ratios) requires precise modeling of infrared absorption spectra. Within this framework, accounting for the influence of pressure on the absorption shape is crucial. These effects of inter-molecular collisions between the optically active species and the ‘perturbers’ are complex and of various types depending mostly on the density of perturbers. The present paper attempts to review and illustrate, through a few examples, the state of the art in this field.”

On far-wing Raman profiles by CO2 – Benech et al. (2002) “Despite the excellent agreement observed in N2 here, a substantial inconsistency between theory and experiment was found in the wing of the spectrum. Although the influence of other missing processes or neighboring bands cannot be totally excluded, our findings rather suggest that highly anisotropic perturbers, such as CO2, are improperly described when they are handled as point-like molecules, a cornerstone hypothesis in the approach employed.”

Collision-induced scattering in CO2 gas – Teboul et al. (1995) “Carbon-dioxide gas rototranslational scattering has been measured at 294.5 K in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 at 23 amagat. The depolarization ratio of scattered intensities in the frequency range 10–1000 cm−1 is recorded. The theoretical and experimental spectra in the frequency range 10–470 cm−1 are compared.”

The HITRAN database: 1986 edition – Rothman et al. (1987) “A description and summary of the latest edition of the AFGL HITRAN molecular absorption parameters database are presented. This new database combines the information for the seven principal atmospheric absorbers and twenty-one additional molecular species previously contained on the AFGL atmospheric absorption line parameter compilation and on the trace gas compilation.”

Rotational structure in the infrared spectra of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide dimers – Miller & Watts (1984) “High-resolution infrared predissociation spectra have been measured for dilute mixtures of CO2 and N2O in helium. Rotational fine structure is clearly resolved for both (CO2)2 and (N2O)2, the linewidths being instrument-limited. This establishes that predissociation lifetimes are longer than approximately 50 ns.”

Broadening of Infrared Absorption Lines at Reduced Temperatures: Carbon Dioxide – Tubbs & Williams (1972) “An evacuated high-resolution Czerny-Turner spectrograph, which is described in this paper, has been used to determine the strengths S and self-broadening parameters γ0 for lines in the R branch of the ν3 fundamental of 12C16O2 at 298 and at 207 K. The values of γ0 at 207 K are greater than those to be expected on the basis of a fixed collision cross section σ.”

Investigation of the Absorption of Infrared Radiation by Atmospheric Gases – Burch et al. (1970) “From spectral transmittance curves of very large samples of CO2 we have determined coefficients for intrinsic absorption and pressure-induced absorption from approximately 1130/cm to 1835/cm.”

Absorption of Infrared Radiant Energy by CO2 and H2O. IV. Shapes of Collision-Broadened CO2 Lines – Burch et al. (1969) “The shapes of the extreme wings of self-broadened CO2 lines have been investigated in three spectral regions near 7000, 3800, and 2400 cm−1. … New information has been obtained about the shapes of self-broadened CO2 lines as well as CO2 lines broadened by N2, O2, Ar, He, and H2.”

High-Temperature Spectral Emissivities and Total Intensities of the 15-µ Band System of CO2 – Ludwig et al. (1966) “Spectral-emissivity measurements of the 15-µ band of CO2were made in the temperature range from 1000° to 2300°K.”

Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation – Burch & Gryvnak (1966) “Extensive measurements of the absorption by H2O and CO2 have been made in the region from 0·6 to 5·5 microm. Two different multiple-pass absorption cells provided path lengths from 2 to 933 m, and sample pressures were varied from a few μHg to 15 atm. Approximately thirty new CO2 bands were observed and identified, and the strengths of the important bands determined. The H2O data provide enough information for the determination of the strengths and widths of several hundred of the more important lines. The wings of CO2absorption lines were found to be sub-Lorentzian, with the shapes depending on temperature, broadening gas, and wavelength in ways which cannot be explained by present theories. The absorption by H2O and CO2 samples at temperatures up to 1800°K has been studied from 1 to 5 microm. The transmission of radiation from hot CO2 through cold CO2 and from hot H2O through cold H2O has been investigated to determine the effect of the coincidence of emission lines with absorption lines.” Darrell E. Burch, David A. Gryvnak, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, Volume 6, Issue 3, May–June 1966, Pages 229–240, Laboratory investigation of the absorption and emission of infrared radiation.

Line shape in the wing beyond the band head of the 4·3 μ band of CO2 – Winters et al.(1964) “Quantitative absorpance measurements have been made in pure CO2 and mixtures of CO2 with N2 and O2 in a 10 m White Perkin-Elmer cell. With absorbing paths up to 50 m-atm, results have been obtained from the band head at 2397 cm−1 to 2575 cm−1.”

Emissivity of Carbon Dioxide at 4.3 µ – Davies (1964) “The emissivity of carbon dioxide has been measured for temperatures from 1500° to 3000°K over the wavelength range from 4.40 to 5.30 µ.”

Absorption Line Broadening in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962) “The effects of various gases on the absorption bands of nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor have been investigated.”

Total Absorptance of Carbon Dioxide in the Infrared – Burch et al. (1962)“Total absorptance… has been determined as a function of absorber concentration w and equivalent pressure Pe for the major infrared absorption bands of carbon dioxide with centers at 3716, 3609, 2350, 1064, and 961 cm−1.”

Rotation-Vibration Spectra of Diatomic and Simple Polyatomic Molecules with Long Absorbing Paths – Herzberg & Herzberg (1953) “The spectrum of CO2 in the photographic infrared has been studied with absorbing paths up to 5500 m. Thirteen absorption bands were found of which eleven have been analyzed in detail.”

The Infrared Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide – Martin & Barker (1932) “The complete infrared spectrum of CO2 may consistently be explained in terms of a linear symmetrical model, making use of the selection rules developed by Dennison and the resonance interaction introduced by Fermi. The inactive fundamental ν1 appears only in combination bands, but ν2 at 15μ and ν3 at 4.3μ absorb intensely.”

Carbon Dioxide Absorption in the Near Infra-Red – Barker (1922) “Infra-red absorption bands of CO2 at 2.7 and 4.3 μ. – New absorption curves have been obtained, using a special prism-grating double spectrometer of higher resolution (Figs. 1-3). The 2.7 μ region, heretofore considered to be a doublet, proves to be a pair of doublets, with centers at approximately 2.694 μ and 2.767 μ. The 4.3 μ band appears as a single doublet with center at 4.253 μ. The frequency difference between maxima is nearly the same for each of the three doublets, and equal to 4.5 x 1011. Complete resolution of the band series was not effected, even though the slit included only 12 A for the 2.7 μ region, but there is evidently a complicated structure, with a “head” in each case on the side of shorter wave-lengths. The existence of this head for the 4.3 μ band is also indicated by a comparison with the emission spectrum from a bunsen flame, and the difference in wave-length of the maxima of emission and absorption is explained as a temperature effect similar to that observed with other doublets.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]*

*Ueber die Bedeutung des Wasserdampfes und der Kohlensäure bei der Absorption der Erdatmosphäre – Ångström (1900)*
*
Observations on the Absorption and Emission of Aqueous Vapor and Carbon Dioxide in the Infra-Red Spectrum – Rubens & Aschkinass (1898)“Our experiments carried out as described above on the absorption spectrum carbon dioxide very soon showed that we were dealing with a single absorption band whose maximum lies near λ = 14.7 μ. … The whole region of absorption is limited to the interval from 12.5 μ to 16 μ, with the maximum at 14.7 μ.” [For free full text, click PDF or GIF links in the linked abstract page]

On the absorption of dark heat-rays by gases and vapours – Lecher & Pernter (1881)Svante Arrhenius wrote in his famous 1897 paper: “Tyndall held the opinion that the water-vapour has the greatest influence, whilst other authors, for instance Lecher and Pernter, are inclined to think that the carbonic acid plays the more important part.”.

The Bakerian Lecture – On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction – Tyndall (1861) 150 years ago John Tyndall already showed that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. [Full text] [Wikipedia: John Tyndall]*

*Closely related

The HITRAN Database – The laboratory work results on the absorption properties of carbon dioxide (and many other molecules) is contained in this database.*


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> How many times have you been told "no proof in the natural sciences"?  Are you ever going to comprehend what that means?


Yeah, exactly why should poor people care about your simplistic science that doesn't have to prove the theory. Dude, that has to be the stupidest one yet. Spend your money then and leave the rest of society alone on your whacked out claim.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > 1)  There is NO SUCH THING AS *PROOF* in the natural sciences.
> ...


Sure it does dumbo, ask Wiesel or whatever's his name. So much in so much out ask him. So, are you saying CO2 doesn't make the surface warmer than what incoming solar heats it to? Really? That's the entire theory stupid fk

BTW, it CO2 must emit to be greenhouse effect stupid.


----------



## Crick (Jun 25, 2016)

Are you still suggesting that CO2 absorbs energy but does not emit it?

Can I point out that if that were the case, all the CO2 in the universe would be the temperature of its nearest star.  The Earth would be SIGNIFICANTLY hotter than it is now.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 25, 2016)

And in the meantime, Arctic Sea Ice is still running at record lows for this time of year. Antarctic Sea Ice is just below normal. The increasing heat in the atmosphere and oceans continues to take it's toll on the ice.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> And in the meantime, Arctic Sea Ice is still running at record lows for this time of year. Antarctic Sea Ice is just below normal. The increasing heat in the atmosphere and oceans continues to take it's toll on the ice.


And so what?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> Are you still suggesting that CO2 absorbs energy but does not emit it?
> 
> Can I point out that if that were the case, all the CO2 in the universe would be the temperature of its nearest star.  The Earth would be SIGNIFICANTLY hotter than it is now.


So dude, if you're now saying that CO2 doesn't make objects more warm, why are you concerned about adding more of it to the atmosphere?


----------



## Crick (Jun 25, 2016)

CO2 makes the Earth warmer; it increases the Earth's radiative equilibrium temperature by slowing the rate at which IR radiation can escape to space.  You've now been shown two different experiments that DIRECTLY measured radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere striking the surface of the Earth.  Do you have any comment to make ABOUT THOSE EXPERIMENTS?  Do you have any experiments that would refute them?


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 25, 2016)

CO2 doesn't do jack for Earth temperature.

What controls Earth temperature is the position of the tectonic plates.

Earth has two polar oceans, then Earth has no ice, and it doesn't matter what trace atmospheric gasses are what percent of the atmosphere.


----------



## Crick (Jun 25, 2016)

JC, name the one source of CO2 on the scale of human emissions (ie ~25-30 GT per annum) in the Earth's history that was not temperature dependent.  

There's only one answer.  See if you can think of it.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 25, 2016)

The past 100 years, as satellite and balloon raw data show precisely NO WARMING in the atmosphere despite rising CO2.

The ice cores showed the same thing - no correlation.  We went to court on that issue.  Your side lost and was TOO CHICKEN to appeal...

CO2 has NOTHING to do with Earth temperature.


----------



## Crick (Jun 25, 2016)

JC, a hint: it only rarely achieves the mass flux levels of contemporary human emissions


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 25, 2016)

... but it doesn't warm JACK SHIT


----------



## Crick (Jun 25, 2016)

JC?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 25, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> CO2 doesn't do jack for Earth temperature.


That's your pathetic delusion, LaDumbshit, and you saying it means nothing to anybody.







LaDexter said:


> What controls Earth temperature is the position of the tectonic plates. Earth has two polar oceans, then Earth has no ice.


You are obviously quite insane.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> CO2 makes the Earth warmer; it increases the Earth's radiative equilibrium temperature by slowing the rate at which IR radiation can escape to space.  You've now been shown two different experiments that DIRECTLY measured radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere striking the surface of the Earth.  Do you have any comment to make ABOUT THOSE EXPERIMENTS?  Do you have any experiments that would refute them?


Refute what?  I call bull crap go to the 2015 thread i put up and read. So again you're saying putting CO2 next to a warm object the warm object gets warmer. Dude for that that's never been proven. You want my money post the evidence. It's extremely simple.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 25, 2016)

RollingPARROT,

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic?

Your failure to answer that question proves you have no ability to "think" beyond the PARROT species...


----------



## Crick (Jun 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> CO2 makes the Earth warmer; it increases the Earth's radiative equilibrium temperature by slowing the rate at which IR radiation can escape to space.  You've now been shown two different experiments that DIRECTLY measured radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere striking the surface of the Earth.  Do you have any comment to make ABOUT THOSE EXPERIMENTS?  Do you have any experiments that would refute them?





jc456 said:


> Refute what?  I call bull crap go to the 2015 thread i put up and read. So again you're saying putting CO2 next to a warm object the warm object gets warmer. Dude for that that's never been proven. You want my money post the evidence. It's extremely simple.



One more time jc: do you have any comment regarding the direct measurement of IR radiation with CO2's precise spectral signature being emitted from the NIGHT sky towards the Earth?  Do you have some other explanation?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 25, 2016)

Well, we're starting to pull away from 2012 once again! 9.3 milliion km^2 as of 6/24/2016.

A avg to slightly above avg melt through the next 5-6 weeks should keep us below 2012 all the way to august.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 makes the Earth warmer; it increases the Earth's radiative equilibrium temperature by slowing the rate at which IR radiation can escape to space.  You've now been shown two different experiments that DIRECTLY measured radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere striking the surface of the Earth.  Do you have any comment to make ABOUT THOSE EXPERIMENTS?  Do you have any experiments that would refute them?
> ...


Doesn't happen and no evidence pup.

And again, CO2 never proven to make an object warmer. NEVER, and I know that frustrates you.

Oh convection is what warms night air then what happens in a desert at night?


----------



## Crick (Jun 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 makes the Earth warmer; it increases the Earth's radiative equilibrium temperature by slowing the rate at which IR radiation can escape to space.  You've now been shown two different experiments that DIRECTLY measured radiation from CO2 in the atmosphere striking the surface of the Earth.  Do you have any comment to make ABOUT THOSE EXPERIMENTS?  Do you have any experiments that would refute them?
> ...





jc456 said:


> Doesn't happen and no evidence pup.
> 
> And again, CO2 never proven to make an object warmer. NEVER, and I know that frustrates you.



It does happen (absorb and reemit IR in all directions) and the evidence has been posted right here repeatedly.

You used to be big on Angstrom's experiment with CO2.  In that experiment, the CO2 absorbed IR and got warmer.  Was Angstrom just making it up?

What do you believe has warmed the planet for the last 150 years?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Son, yes or no, can you show CO2 make an object warmer? You said no last night. BTW, I've read many documents and experiments, he showed it warmed big deal


----------



## Crick (Jun 25, 2016)

I did not say no last night.  I can show, and you have repeatedly been shown, that it has made the Earth warmer.

I do not understand what you're attempting to say here:

" I've read many documents and experiments, he showed it warmed big deal"

I presume "he" is Angstrom.  Other than that I haven't a clue what you're talking about here.  Care to explain?


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> Other than that I haven't a clue what you're talking about here.



Yeah, but neither has he.

I admire your patience at times.  Really, I do.

On the other hand, the two aren't here to learn or debate, they're here to destroy threads with their repetitive off-topic spamming, insults to intelligence, all.  Your attention to their destructive efforts assists in their endeavor.  I thought, that ought to be pointed out.

This thread is about* Arctic Sea Ice.*  Let it not be dragged through the otherworldly rubble of the denialingdongs' la-la-land.


----------



## IanC (Jun 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> RollingPARROT,
> 
> Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other, the Arctic?
> 
> Your failure to answer that question proves you have no ability to "think" beyond the PARROT species...




I dont follow many threads anymore but it seems to me that you keep asking this question over and over again.

the answer is obvious and i bet you have heard why at least a dozen times.

the north pole is an ocean which continuously receives heat from warmer oceans via currents. the south pole is a land continent that is isolated from receiving warmth directly from adjacent oceans. if you switched the geography of the two poles then you would also switch the amount of ice present at each.


----------



## Crick (Jun 26, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Other than that I haven't a clue what you're talking about here.
> ...




You're right.  My apologies for following jc off-topic.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> I did not say no last night.  I can show, and you have repeatedly been shown, that it has made the Earth warmer.
> 
> I do not understand what you're attempting to say here:
> 
> ...


The answer is that sea melts due to warm ocean currents, without that, you'd have much more ice.


----------



## Crick (Jun 26, 2016)

And what do you believe warmed those ocean currents?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> And what do you believe warmed those ocean currents?


Hahahaha, the sun.


----------



## Crick (Jun 26, 2016)

Why have the oceans gotten warmer when the sun's output has shrunk dramatically?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 26, 2016)

Back in the real world....and on topic.....

*The Arctic Sea Ice is Breaking Up North of Greenland in June*
(excerpts)
*The Arctic sea ice is breaking up to the north of Greenland during June. Another cognitive dissonance producing instance of something that would have never happened without the added heat kick provided by human-forced climate change. But now, with atmospheric CO2 topping out at near 408 ppm during May of this year, it appears that all sorts of weather weirdness is currently possible. It was an odd break-up spurred by the onrush of warm winds rising up from Continental North America. These winds of climate change fueled record temperatures as they crossed the northern islands of the Canadian Archipelago over the past week. On Axel Heiburg Island, temperatures hit near 54 degrees F (12.3 C) along the 80 degree North Latitude line. Readings that are about 15-20 degrees F (7 to 12 C) above average for this time of year and highly anomalous readings for what should be a permanently frozen island.

These southerly winds then bore the record warm to near record warm airs across a region just north of Greenland — pushing temperatures over this section of the Arctic Ocean into the mid to upper 30s. This extra heat was then enough to shatter the thinning ice. 1-3 Mile wide cracks opened up as the ice drifted off its moorings between Northern Greenland and the North Pole. Now, the entire Arctic Ocean ice pack from the Beaufort to the East Siberian Sea, to the Laptev, across the Kara and north of the Barents on to north of Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago is floating free in June. A condition that was unheard of in August or September just a decade and a half ago, but one that is now occurring before the Summer Solstice. Overall, for this time of year, Arctic sea ice extent remains in or near record low ranges despite weather conditions that would have traditionally helped to preserve sea ice. Storms over the central ice have provided cloudy conditions, preventing direct sunlight from hitting the ice and speeding melt. However, despite these conditions, temperatures over most of the Arctic have remained above average — with some regions along the coast experiencing substantially above average temperatures.

After record Arctic warmth this Winter and Spring, storms churning over the sea ice during June have done little to prevent continued record low extents throughout the Northern Polar zone or to disallow strange events like the early-season break-up of ice to the north of Greenland. To the contrary, we have numerous instances where storms are drawing in warm, wet winds from the south and are increasingly dumping rainfall over the sea ice. A condition that also tends to speed melt. By yesterday, Japan’s sea ice measure (JAXA) had dropped to 9,730,000 square kilometers or about three days ahead of record melt year 2012’s all time low line. Rates of loss steepened over recent days as the anomalous Arctic heat bit in and numerous shattered ice flows lost integrity under relentless elemental punishment. Record low sea ice extents for 2016 are likely to continue to have an influence on Northern Hemisphere weather — assisting the formation of high amplitude Jet Stream wave patterns. These waves are associated with extreme and persistent weather conditions to include — heatwaves, droughts, wildfires and floods. One such wave pattern is now facilitating record hot temperatures and increased wildfire hazards over the US West and has the potential to set off heatwaves over the Alaskan and Canadian Arctic even as anomalous rainstorms form over wide sections of the Arctic Ocean during the next couple of weeks.*


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> Why have the oceans gotten warmer when the sun's output has shrunk dramatically?




Anyone still confused about Solar Cycle???

The oceans have not warmed at all.  That is why the Atlantic Ocean is setting new all time highs for LACK of strong 'canes.  That is why Antarctic Sea Ice has set 5 new all time highs since O took office.

SOLAR CYCLE is PART OF THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD.

WAKE UP *MORONS!!!*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Back in the real world....and on topic.....
> 
> *The Arctic Sea Ice is Breaking Up North of Greenland in June*
> (excerpts)
> ...


Oh the train load of bull shit in that article...

Look into the US Navy records dumbass. This has happened before many times..  The easily duped fools fall for the lies one more time...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2016)

Looks to me like things are OK up there in the 15% coverage region and at normal for the 30% coverage region...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 26, 2016)

I love watching sea ice and what is causing the decline in it. I believe the data as it is backed up satellite images I've posted in this thread. WE do need a new American ice satellite!


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 26, 2016)

As the Arctic Ocean grows, sea ice around Russia and Canada will fade and coalesce around Greenland, where it will make a stand and then slowly start increasing again.  Meanwhile, Antarctic ice and sea ice continue to grow, as does 7% of Earth ice on Greenland.  The two ice ages of today account for 97% of Earth ice, and they will both grow for at least the next million years, likely much longer.


----------



## Crick (Jun 26, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Looks to me like things are OK up there in the 15% coverage region and at normal for the 30% coverage region...



It's at a new record low.  Glad to hear you think that means thing are OK.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 26, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> As the Arctic Ocean grows, sea ice around Russia and Canada will fade and coalesce around Greenland, where it will make a stand and then slowly start increasing again.  Meanwhile, Antarctic ice and sea ice continue to grow, as does 7% of Earth ice on Greenland.  The two ice ages of today account for 97% of Earth ice, and they will both grow for at least the next million years, likely much longer.



The arctic ocean isn't growing or decreasing in size in any noticeable short term scale to say what you're saying. lol Ice around Greenland and the northern Canadian islands is where the thickest multi year ice is(4 to 10 meters and has much less ability to melt) and so of course that will be the less place to melt out.

Well, there's only been one ice age the past 30 million years. You do know what a ice age is? It is glacial ice on either pole. Antarctica started building up ice around 30 million years ago and greenland around 18-22 million years ago. Glaciation is the periods of increased ice sheet extent and a innerglacial is a period of decreased glaciation.

I can assure you that most of the ice in the Greenlandic ice sheet is made up of ice that has lasted at least a few million years. On rather they grow in extent over the next few million years is yet to be seen, but this period of global warming isn't helping that prediction.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> Why have the oceans gotten warmer when the sun's output has shrunk dramatically?


Why have they got warmer? I never said that, you did. Sea ice melts every year. Or you don't think so?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Looks to me like things are OK up there in the 15% coverage region and at normal for the 30% coverage region...
> ...


Hey crick, if ice reflects sun light, where does all the lwir come from to melt the sea ice? CO2 doesn't absorb UV?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 26, 2016)

Matthew said:


> I love watching sea ice and what is causing the decline in it. I believe the data as it is backed up satellite images I've posted in this thread. WE do need a new American ice satellite!


What is melting more ice in your opinion?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 26, 2016)

You don't have to say it, jc. The scientists that are measuring the sea temperatures are saying it. And their measurements certainly have more weight than your silly unsupported blather.

Arctic Report Card - Sea Surface Temperature - Timmermans and Proshutinsky

*Sea Surface Temperature*
*M. -L. Timmermans1, A. Proshutinsky2*
*1Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
2Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, USA*
*November 25, 2015*
*Highlights*

Sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in August 2015 off the west coast of Greenland (eastern Baffin Bay) and in the Kara Sea were up to +4°C warmer than the 1982-2010 August mean in these regions.
The Chukchi Sea and eastern Baffin Bay show the largest ocean surface warming trends; August SSTs are increasing at ~0.5°C/decade in these regions.
In the Arctic Basin, spatial patterns of August 2015 SST anomalies relative to the 1982-2010 August mean are linked to regional variability in sea-ice retreat.
Summer sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in the Arctic Ocean are set by absorption of solar radiation into the surface layer. In the Barents and Chukchi seas, there is an additional contribution from advection of warm water from the North Atlantic and Pacific oceans, respectively. Solar warming of the ocean surface layer is influenced by the distribution of sea ice (with more solar warming in ice-free regions), and by cloud cover, water color and upper-ocean stratification. August SSTs are an appropriate representation of Arctic Ocean summer SSTs and are not affected by the cooling and subsequent sea-ice growth that takes place in the latter half of September. Here we use SST data from the NOAA Optimum Interpolation (OI) SST Version 2 monthly product, which is a blend of in situ and satellite measurements available at the NOAA/OAR/ESRL PSD, Boulder, Colorado (Reynolds et al. 2002, 2007;ESRL          	 		: PSD 	         : NOAA Optimum Interpolation (OI) Sea Surface Temperature (SST) V2).

Mean SSTs in August 2015 in ice-free regions ranged from ~0°C in some places to around +7 to +8°C in the Chukchi, Barents, and Kara seas and eastern Baffin Bay off the west coast of Greenland (Fig. 5.1a). August 2015 SSTs show the same general spatial distribution as the August mean for the period 1982-2010 (shown in Arctic Report Card 2014, Fig. 5.1a). The August 2015 SST pattern is also similar to that of recent years, e.g., 2012 (Fig. 5.1b), which was the summer of lowest minimum sea-ice extent in the satellite record (1979-present).


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 27, 2016)

Crick is arguing that CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice.  Problem - Antarctic Sea Ice is growing, setting 5 all time record highs since Obama took office...

Whatever it does, melt or freeze, it is always "because of" "Global (non) Warming..."


----------



## jc456 (Jun 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> You don't have to say it, jc. The scientists that are measuring the sea temperatures are saying it. And their measurements certainly have more weight than your silly unsupported blather.
> 
> Arctic Report Card - Sea Surface Temperature - Timmermans and Proshutinsky
> 
> ...


So Old Rocks, I'm not sure I understand what you're actually proving with this one.

"*Solar warming of the ocean surface layer is influenced by the distribution of sea ice (with more solar warming in ice-free regions), and by cloud cover, water color and upper-ocean stratification.*"

Claims solar warming, that's sunshine UV short wavelength radiation.  What does that have to do with CO2?  It seems you've drifted from CO2 with your argument.  Eventually shore ice will melt by the sun because of the depth of the water and thickness of that ice.  Yes, it will melt due to sun, I agree, and when it melts it will become water and then the sun will warm the water a bit.  Still don't see a correlation to CO2.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 27, 2016)

There is no correlation, which is why Antarctic Sea Ice is growing while Arctic Sea Ice is shrinking, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere...

and you do not need a "lab" to validate it...


----------



## Crick (Jun 27, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > You don't have to say it, jc. The scientists that are measuring the sea temperatures are saying it. And their measurements certainly have more weight than your silly unsupported blather.
> ...



You don't think air temperatures 10-15 degrees warmer than normal might have _some_ effect on melt rates?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


If you think the melt rate changes, then test it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

Now that is exactly what PIOMAS does.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Now that is exactly what PIOMAS does.


It's down


----------



## jc456 (Jun 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Now that is exactly what PIOMAS does.


BYW, I like your commitment to science and avoid testing. What is the difference on melt times than?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Now that is exactly what PIOMAS does.
> ...


LOL. Dumb ass.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Oh, so you say there wasn't an issue with the ice satellites? Now that's special. All one has to do is go on the Internet and look it up.


----------



## LaDexter (Jun 28, 2016)

Good to see you aren't "banned," jc.

Looks like the "warmers" have a new satellite over Antarctica, clearly one having "issues."


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

Lordy, lordy. PIOMAS. 

Polar Science Center . Applied Physics Laboratory . University of Washington . 1013 NE 40th Street . Box 355640 . Seattle, WA 98105-6698

Voice: 206-543-6613 . Fax: 206-616-3142 . E-mail: PSCAdmin@apl.washington.edu

You idiots are beyond stupid. LOL


----------



## jc456 (Jun 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Lordy, lordy. PIOMAS.
> 
> Polar Science Center . Applied Physics Laboratory . University of Washington . 1013 NE 40th Street . Box 355640 . Seattle, WA 98105-6698
> 
> ...


Well, piomas actually tracks ice melt via satellite, or are you saying they don't?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 28, 2016)

The more I read of how stupid these libertarian republicans are = the more I want to vote democrat. They remind me of the taliban in to many ways and are against too many things that I believe in from investing in science to educating our children.  It is obvious that the sea ice at least in the short term has melted to the levels the satellite data is saying it has.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 28, 2016)

Matthew said:


> The more I read of how stupid these libertarian republicans are = the more I want to vote democrat. They remind me of the taliban in to many ways and are against too many things that I believe in from investing in science to educating our children.  It is obvious that the sea ice at least in the short term has melted to the levels the satellite data is saying it has.


Did I lie?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 28, 2016)

yes


----------



## jc456 (Jun 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> yes


So piomas doesn't track ice?

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01bb08fb5768970d-pi

What is this than?

Tsk, tsk


----------



## Crick (Jun 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> You don't think air temperatures 10-15 degrees warmer than normal might have _some_ effect on melt rates?





jc456 said:


> If you think the melt rate changes, then test it.



Okay.  I froze a whole tray of ice overnight.  I took half the cubes and placed them in my sink.  I left the other half in the freezer.  The ones in the sink melted much faster than the ones in the freezer.

Science.


----------



## Crick (Jun 28, 2016)

*From Wikipedia's article on PIOMAS

Sea ice thickness* spatial extent, and open water within ice packs can vary rapidly in response to weather and climate.[1] Sea ice concentration are measured by satellites, with the Special Sensor Microwave Imager / Sounder (SSMIS), and the _European Space Agency's_ Cryosat-2 satellite to map the thickness and shape of the Earth's polar ice cover.[2]The sea ice volume is calculated with the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS), which blends satellite-observed data, such as sea ice concentrations into model calculations to estimate sea ice thickness and volume. Sea ice thickness determines a number of important fluxes such as heat flux between the air and ocean surface—see below—as well as salt and fresh water fluxes between the ocean since saline water ejects much of its salt content when frozen—see sea ice growth processes. It is also important for navigators on icebreakers since there is an upper limit to the thickness of ice any ship can sail through.

*From NSIDC.ORG

As of June 14, 2016, NSIDC has completed the transition to the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F-18 satellite for sea ice data. Sea Ice Index updates have also resumed.

Sea ice data in Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis are now based on the F-18 satellite beginning April 1, 2016. Data before April 1 are still from the F-17 satellite or earlier satellites in the series.

For more information on the F-17 satellite issues, see our April 12, 2016 post. On May 6, updates resumed with provisional F-18 data. These data are no longer considered provisional. However, these are near-real-time data and numbers may change when final data are obtained.

For more information on the satellite transition, see the documentation for the Near-Real-Time DMSP SSMIS Daily Polar Gridded Sea Ice Concentrations data set.

Posted in Analysis
*****************************************************************************************

Guess what jc?  They don't use the same satellites.  PIOMAS has not been down.
*


----------



## jc456 (Jun 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You don't think air temperatures 10-15 degrees warmer than normal might have _some_ effect on melt rates?
> ...


But that difference is greater than 15 degrees. So test isn't valid for your hypothesis, fail.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> *From Wikipedia's article on PIOMAS
> 
> Sea ice thickness* spatial extent, and open water within ice packs can vary rapidly in response to weather and climate.[1] Sea ice concentration are measured by satellites, with the Special Sensor Microwave Imager / Sounder (SSMIS), and the _European Space Agency's_ Cryosat-2 satellite to map the thickness and shape of the Earth's polar ice cover.[2]The sea ice volume is calculated with the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS), which blends satellite-observed data, such as sea ice concentrations into model calculations to estimate sea ice thickness and volume. Sea ice thickness determines a number of important fluxes such as heat flux between the air and ocean surface—see below—as well as salt and fresh water fluxes between the ocean since saline water ejects much of its salt content when frozen—see sea ice growth processes. It is also important for navigators on icebreakers since there is an upper limit to the thickness of ice any ship can sail through.
> 
> ...


So you admit you lied


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Scaling.


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > *From Wikipedia's article on PIOMAS
> ...



Where do you think I lied jc?


----------



## Crick (Jun 29, 2016)

(CNN)The coverage of ice in the Arctic has dwindled to the lowest level ever seen for the month of May, according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.

"During the month, daily sea ice extents tracked about 600,000 square kilometers (232,000 square miles) below any previous year in the 38-year satellite record," according to the center.
For perspective, 232,000 square miles is almost the size of Texas (about 86 percent) and that ice coverage has gone.
This follows a a string of lows from several months of 2016, meaning records were broken for the months of January, February, and April this year.






Scientists follow the sea ice cover as one of the key components of monitoring the climate. The Arctic sea ice extent has been a focus area because of its decline and what that tells us about global warming.
Since scientists began using satellite-based data in 1978, the Arctic ice cover has been declining at a rate of about 13 percent per decade, according to NASA.





Recent data indicate the ice is thinning and the air temperature is rising.
The temperature throughout May across the Arctic Ocean was about two to three degrees Celsius higher than the average seen between 1981 to 2010, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center's report.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> (CNN)The coverage of ice in the Arctic has dwindled to the lowest level ever seen for the month of May, according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.
> 
> "During the month, daily sea ice extents tracked about 600,000 square kilometers (232,000 square miles) below any previous year in the 38-year satellite record," according to the center.
> For perspective, 232,000 square miles is almost the size of Texas (about 86 percent) and that ice coverage has gone.
> ...


Darn all those satellite issues and yet didn't skip a beat. How? LOL. Fake stuff


----------



## Crick (Jun 30, 2016)

WTF is wrong with you?  Different satellite. Only one has broken down or did you think they all go down at once.  What satellite problem do you think NSIDC is suffering from?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> WTF is wrong with you?  Different satellite. Only one has broken down or did you think they all go down at once.  What satellite problem do you think NSIDC is suffering from?


Problems with satellite sea ice monitoring confirmed by NSIDC – no timeline for fix

I'm sorry, did I stutter? 
*"Problems with satellite sea ice monitoring confirmed by NSIDC – no timeline for fix*
Anthony Watts / April 13, 2016


From NSIDC and the “worth blogging about” department

*Sensor on F-17 experiencing difficulties, sea ice time series temporarily suspended*

NSIDC has suspended daily sea ice extent updates until further notice, due to issues with the satellite data used to produce these images. The vertically polarized 37 GHz channel (37V) of the Special Sensor Microwave Imager and Sounder (SSMIS) on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F-17 satellite that provides passive microwave brightness temperatures is providing spurious data. The 37V channel is one of the inputs to the sea ice retrieval algorithms, so this is resulting in erroneous estimates of sea ice concentration and extent. The problem was initially seen in data for April 5 and all data since then are unreliable, so we have chosen to remove all of April from NSIDC’s archive."


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 1, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > CHERRY PICKING, FUDGING, and outright FRAUD.
> ...


EU "science" just concluded (after a 3 year study) that water does not prevent dehydration too, so what's your point again?

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 1, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> CHERRY PICKING, FUDGING, and outright FRAUD.





RollingThunder said:


> Yup! That's all you ever post, all right, LaDumbshit.






LaDexter said:


> FUDGING - taking highly correlated satellite and balloon data showing no warming in the atmosphere and fudging both with uncorrelated "corrections" to show "warming"





RollingThunder said:


> Your denier cult insanity runs deep, LaDumbshit, as anyone reading your demented posts immediately notices.
> 
> In the real world....
> 
> ...






LaDexter said:


> FRAUD - the three Pacific Island chains are "sinking" because of rising sea level caused by "warming" by CO2, nevermind all three are right on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire, or the fact that no other island on the planet is "sinking...."





RollingThunder said:


> Total bullshit, you clueless denier cult troll.
> 
> *The Marshall Islands Are Disappearing*
> The New York Times
> ...





Weatherman2020 said:


> EU "science" just concluded (after a 3 year study) that water does not prevent dehydration too, so what's your point again?
> 
> EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration



The obvious "_point_" to be drawn from a meaningless-bullshit off-topic post like yours, WitheredMan, is that you are *both* retarded and insane.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 2, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > CHERRY PICKING, FUDGING, and outright FRAUD.
> ...


You're the one using the EU as a scientific expert witness.  And it's only logical in rebuttal to point out your scientific expert witness also claims water does not prevent dehydration.  And it took them three years of government funding to arrive at that conclusion.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 2, 2016)

The Marshall Islands are sinking, so are the Solomons and a few others right on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire - DUH.

Nothing else is sinking. WHERE is the NYT story on Hawaii sinking?????????

Hawaii is NOT SINKING, because THERE IS NO SEA LEVEL RISE, which is why THE FRAUD has to LIE about the Marshall Islands...


----------



## Olde Europe (Jul 2, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> You're the one using the EU as a scientific expert witness. And it's only logical in rebuttal to point out your scientific expert witness also claims water does not prevent dehydration. And it took them three years of government funding to arrive at that conclusion.



Really, Weatherman?  You are actually basing that claim on a remarkably daft article by the Telegraph, which is part of the UK's tabloid swamp propagandizing against the EU?  Here's a good run-down of that egregious stupidity, including a link to the actual ruling.  I suggest you educate yourself, rather than to fall for such tabloid nonsense.  Characterizing the EU based on a tabloid's willful misunderstanding and misrepresentation, however, is beyond infantile.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 2, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> The Marshall Islands are sinking, so are the Solomons and a few others right on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire - DUH.
> 
> Nothing else is sinking. WHERE is the NYT story on Hawaii sinking?????????
> 
> Hawaii is NOT SINKING, because THERE IS NO SEA LEVEL RISE, which is why THE FRAUD has to LIE about the Marshall Islands...


Everyone laughs at your ignorant, insane, unsupported, bullshit claims, LaDumbshit. You are a lying troll who repeats the same twaddle no matter how many times it gets debunked by the facts.

*Is Sea Level Rising? 
NOAA - Ocean Service
Yes, there is strong evidence that global sea level gradually rose in the 20th century and is currently rising at an increased rate, after a period of little change between AD 0 and AD 1900. Sea level is projected to rise at an even greater rate in this century. The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expan- sion of the oceans (water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice due to increased melting.

Global sea level rose by about 120 m during the several mil- lennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 years ago), and stabilised between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly from then until the late 19th century. The instrumental record of modern sea level change shows evidence for onset of sea level rise during the 19th century. Estimates for the 20th century show that global average sea level rose at a rate of about 1.7 mm yr–1.

Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage. This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3 mm yr–1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation, and indicate that similar rates have occurred in some earlier decades.

In agreement with climate models, satellite data and hydro- graphic observations show that sea level is not rising uniformly around the world. In some regions, rates are up to several times the global mean rise, while in other regions sea level is falling. Sub- stantial spatial variation in rates of sea level change is also inferred from hydrographic observations. Spatial variability of the rates of sea level rise is mostly due to non-uniform changes in temperature and salinity and related to changes in the ocean circulation.

Near-global ocean temperature data sets made available in recent years allow a direct calculation of thermal expansion. It is believed that on average, over the period from 1961 to 2003, thermal expansion contributed about one-quarter of the observed sea level rise, while melting of land ice accounted for less than half. Thus, the full magnitude of the observed sea level rise during that period was not satisfactorily explained by those data sets, as reported in the IPCC Third Assessment Report.

During recent years (1993–2003), for which the observing system is much better, thermal expansion and melting of land ice each account for about half of the observed sea level rise, although there is some uncertainty in the estimates.

The reasonable agreement in recent years between the observed rate of sea level rise and the sum of thermal expansion and loss of land ice suggests an upper limit for the magnitude of change in land-based water storage, which is relatively poorly known. Mod- el results suggest no net trend in the storage of water over land due to climate-driven changes but there are large interannual and decadal fluctuations. However, for the recent period 1993 to 2003, the small discrepancy between observed sea level rise and the sum of known contributions might be due to unquantified human- induced processes (e.g., groundwater extraction, impoundment in reservoirs, wetland drainage and deforestation).

Global sea level is projected to rise during the 21st century at a greater rate than during 1961 to 2003. Under the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) A1B scenario by the mid- 2090s, for instance, global sea level reaches 0.22 to 0.44 m above 1990 levels, and is rising at about 4 mm yr–1. As in the past, sea level change in the future will not be geographically uniform, with regional sea level change varying within about ±0.15 m of the mean in a typical model projection. Thermal expansion is pro- jected to contribute more than half of the average rise, but land ice will lose mass increasingly rapidly as the century progresses. An important uncertainty relates to whether discharge of ice from the ice sheets will continue to increase as a consequence of accel- erated ice flow, as has been observed in recent years. This would add to the amount of sea level rise, but quantitative projections of how much it would add cannot be made with confidence, owing to limited understanding of the relevant processes.*

*Figure 1 shows the evolution of global mean sea level in the past and as projected for the 21st century for the SRES A1B scenario.





FAQ 5.1, Figure 1. Time series of global mean sea level (deviation from the 1980-1999 mean) in the past and as projected for the future. For the period before 1870, global measurements of sea level are not available. The grey shading shows the uncertainty in the estimated long-term rate of sea level change (Section 6.4.3). The red line is a reconstruction of global mean sea level from tide gauges (Section 5.5.2.1), and the red shading denotes the range of variations from a smooth curve. The green line shows global mean sea level observed from satellite altimetry. The blue shading represents the range of model projections for the SRES A1B scenario for the 21st century, relative to the 1980 to 1999 mean, and has been calculated independently from the observations. Beyond 2100, the projections are increasingly dependent on the emissions scenario (see Chapter 10 for a discussion of sea level rise projections for other scenarios considered in this report). Over many centuries or millennia, sea level could rise by several metres (Section 10.7.4). *


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 2, 2016)

cut paste and parrot...

The Marshall Islands are sinking, but not because of any fictitious sea level rise.

That our resident birdbrain cannot find an article to parrot saying residents are fleeing Hawaii is par for the course.  Hawaii is NOT SINKING, because there is NO SEA LEVEL RISE, in part because the planet has NO NET ICE MELT ongoing, since 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica has added at least 80 billion tons of ice every year since Algore started lying about CO2...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 2, 2016)

New York has it's own problem with sea level rise.

Sea Level Rise - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

*Fast Facts - Sea-level Rise in New York*

*New York has an estimated 1,850 miles of tidal shoreline* exposed to the action of tides, wind and waves - much of it developed and densely populated.
*New York has experienced at least a foot of sea-level rise since 1900,* mostly due to expansion of warming ocean water. Certain conditions along New York's coast make sea-level rise here somewhat higher than the global average.
*New York's coastal marine counties* already see more intense storm surges and floods. Superstorm Sandy highlighted the risks and vulnerabilities of our tidal shorelines, which are home to more than half of New Yorkers.
*By 2100, scientists project sea levels 18 to 50 inches higher than today along New York's coastlines and estuaries,* though a rise as high as 75 inches could occur.
*Sea-level rise is locked in for centuries*, or even millennia, by heat-trapping greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. Continuing or increasing emissions will speed up the rise to higher levels.
*Energy, land use and infrastructure decisions made now will determine how vulnerable our children and grandchildren will be to rising sea-levels.*


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 2, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> New York has it's own problem with sea level rise.
> 
> Sea Level Rise - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
> 
> ...


OMG, shores are subject to tides!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 2, 2016)

Like many low-lying coastal cities around the world, Miami is threatened by rising seas.  Whether the majority of the cause is anthropogenic or natural, the end result is indisputable: sea level _is_ rising.  It is not a political issue, nor does it matter if someone_believes_ in it or not.




Tidal flooding on the corner of Dade Blvd and Purdy Ave in Miami Beach in 2010. (Steve Rothaus, Miami Herald)

The mean sea level has risen noticeably in the Miami and Miami Beach areas just in the past decade.  Flooding events are getting more frequent, and some areas flood during particularly high tides now: no rain or storm surge necessary.  Perhaps most alarming is that the rate of sea level rise is _accelerating_.

Water, Water, Everywhere: Sea Level Rise in Miami

Sea level rise in Miami


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 2, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Like many low-lying coastal cities around the world, Miami is threatened by rising seas.  Whether the majority of the cause is anthropogenic or natural, the end result is indisputable: sea level _is_ rising.  It is not a political issue, nor does it matter if someone_believes_ in it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OMG!  Flooding on a sandbar 2 feet above sea level!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 2, 2016)

Here is a very good map of sea level change in the US and Europe.

Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 2, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Here is a very good map of sea level change in the US and Europe.
> 
> Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents


Thanks for the link!

*Why does Sea Level change over time?* 

There are a number of factors that contribute to long and short-term variations in sea level. Short-term variations generally occur on a daily basis and include waves, tides, or specific flood events, such as those associated with a winter snow melt, or hurricane or other coastal storm. Long-term variations in sea level occur over various time scales, from monthly to several years, and may be repeatable cycles, gradual trends, or intermittent anomalies. Seasonal weather patterns, variations in the Earth's declination, changes in coastal and ocean circulation, anthropogenic influences (such as dredging), vertical land motion, and the El Niño Southern Oscillation are just a few of the many factors influencing changes in sea level over time. When estimating sea level trends, a minimum of 30 years of data are used in order to account for long-term sea level variations and reduce errors in computing sea level trends based on monthly mean sea level. Accounting for repeatable, predictable cycles, such as tidal, seasonal, and interannual variations allows computation of a more accurate long-term sea level trend.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 2, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Like many low-lying coastal cities around the world, Miami is threatened by rising seas.  Whether the majority of the cause is anthropogenic or natural, the end result is indisputable: sea level _is_ rising.  It is not a political issue, nor does it matter if someone_believes_ in it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is that water there today? LOL. Floods are now sea level rise.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 2, 2016)

jc, you are really a dumb sad fuck. The king tides have been higher every decade. And will continue to be higher every decade until many areas presently inhabited will have to be abandoned.


----------



## Olde Europe (Jul 2, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Do you deny the EU scientific ruling that water does not prevent dehydration? They did. Per your link:
> "The claimed effect is “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. Dehydration is a condition of body water depletion. The proposed risk factors are measures of water depletion and thus are measures of the disease. *The proposed claim does not comply with the requirements for a disease risk reduction claim pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.*"



I see.  Rather than educating yourself, doing some reading aiming at understanding the content with which you've been generously provided, you'd rather repeat the daft claim you've been shown to be daft.

Article 14

Reduction of disease risk claims

1. Notwithstanding Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 2000/13/EC, reduction of disease risk claims may be made where they have been authorised in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 15 to 18 of this Regulation for inclusion in a Community list of such permitted claims together with all the necessary conditions for the use of these claims.

2. In addition to the general requirements laid down in this Regulation and the specific requirements of paragraph 1, for reduction of disease risk claims the labelling or, if no such labelling exists, *the presentation or advertising shall also bear a statement indicating that the disease to which the claim is referring has multiple risk factors and that altering one of these risk factors may or may not have a beneficial effect.*​
So, since dehydration may be caused by factors other than insufficient consumption of water, and this is not being pointed out, the claim is not in compliance with article 14, as detailed above.

You may now resume regurgitating the daft.  Please proceed.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 2, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you deny the EU scientific ruling that water does not prevent dehydration? They did. Per your link:
> ...


And that poster will continue to make that stupid claim, no matter what evidence is presented.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 2, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc, you are really a dumb sad fuck. The king tides have been higher every decade. And will continue to be higher every decade until many areas presently inhabited will have to be abandoned.


So the answer is no that water retreated and it did so because it was a storm that supplied that water and not ice melt to sea level. Tsk tsk that makes you a liar.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 2, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc, you are really a dumb sad fuck. The king tides have been higher every decade. And will continue to be higher every decade until many areas presently inhabited will have to be abandoned.



How far do we have to reduce man-caused CO2 emissions to make them go back down again??


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 2, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The king tides have been higher every decade. And will continue to be higher every decade until many areas presently inhabited will have to be abandoned.




LOL!!

The only islands "sinking" are right on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire = FRAUD regarding sea level "rise"


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 2, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jc, you are really a dumb sad fuck. The king tides have been higher every decade. And will continue to be higher every decade until many areas presently inhabited will have to be abandoned.
> ...


Now that is an exceptionly stupid question. You know damned well that the sea level is not going to stabalize even in our grandchildren's lifetime. Given the time of residence of the GHGs in the atmosphere, what we can hope to do is prevent a much worse situation.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 2, 2016)

Sea level is dropping because 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica has added at least 80 billion tons of ice every year since Algore started the warming FRAUD...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 2, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So there is NO amount of CO2 reduction that would cause the sea to fall? Not a stupid question. Certainly many of the same apocalyptic "accelerations" apply in reverse,. Not all -- but many. Seas get colder -- sink MORE CO2 for instance. Has no one done the calculation for neutral sea level rise? Got to be one..

Because OVER 50% of the CURRENT sea level rise is NOT "more water". It's thermal expansion and geo adjustments. Very LITTLE "extra water" being part of it.

Interesting how all those graphs of CO2 vs temperature got real rare lately. Because it's actually embarrassing to argue that CO2 is directly correlated to Temperature, year by year, WITHOUT DELAYS and integration of storage --- and at the same time talk about the long term "enviro sensitivities" that linger for 100s of years. If that were true -- then we should ALREADY be seeing mighty ACCELERATIONS in the warming AND SLR as we put more of our 2.5% carbon cycle contribution into the air..


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 2, 2016)

CO2 has nothing to do with sea level.  Tectonics does it.  If Earth has two polar oceans, then Earth has NO ICE...


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 2, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a very good map of sea level change in the US and Europe.
> ...


What's funny is NOAA says nothing about rising oceans as a reason sea levels change.
Must have been an oversight.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 2, 2016)

We're still slightly ahead of 2012
VIsualization Service of Horizontal scale Observations at Polar region


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 2, 2016)

Sea Ice coverage 15% in the Arctic has regained the 2STD region.  Melt has flat lined in the Arctic with the cold ocean flows that have returned... Looking for major Ice build up in the Arctic this year. Many regions are now gaining ice mass due to low temperatures and significantly reduced melt.






Mother nature kicks alarmists in the teeth.... CO2 isn't driving anything!


----------



## Crick (Jul 2, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Sea Ice coverage 15% in the Arctic has regained the 2STD region.  Melt has flat lined in the Arctic with the cold ocean flows that have returned... Looking for major Ice build up in the Arctic this year. Many regions are now gaining ice mass due to low temperatures and significantly reduced melt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your tied with the all time record low and think this points to ice growth.  Do yourself a favor and stay out of the stock market.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 5, 2016)

From Reading University climate scientist Ed Hawkins...

*"Meanwhile, in the Arctic, sea ice volume is at a record low for the time of year according to PIOMAS."*




Touch the center to view the spiraling progression over the years.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> From Reading University climate scientist Ed Hawkins...
> 
> *"Meanwhile, in the Arctic, sea ice volume is at a record low for the time of year according to PIOMAS."*
> 
> ...


LOL


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 5, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> From Reading University climate scientist Ed Hawkins...
> 
> *"Meanwhile, in the Arctic, sea ice volume is at a record low for the time of year according to PIOMAS."*
> 
> ...





jc456 said:


> LOL



Too bad you're incapable of comprehending any of this, JustCrazy, but go ahead and laugh at all the facts you want to deny....they will still bitch slap you very soon.

This year will will almost certainly see the Arctic sea ice reach a new record low extent and volume in September. This year may see something close to an ice free Arctic. This in turn will cause weather abnormalities and extremes across the entire Northern Hemisphere.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 6, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Is sea level rising?

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 0.04 to 0.1 inches per year since 1900. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 0.12 inches per year. This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

*Or maybe you would rather lie and admit you are wrong.*


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 6, 2016)

All you need to know about "sea level rise" is that the warmers have no real sea level rise, which is why they are deceitfully trying to peddle islands on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire as sinking from sea level rise, when in reality they are sinking because the tectonic plate to which they are attached is being pushed under the adjacent plate.

FRAUD


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> All you need to know about "sea level rise" is that the warmers have no real sea level rise, which is why they are deceitfully trying to peddle islands on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire as sinking from sea level rise, when in reality they are sinking because the tectonic plate to which they are attached is being pushed under the adjacent plate.
> 
> FRAUD


There is some more of LaDumbshit's usual deranged, anti-science bullshit with no connection to reality. Sea levels are rising all around the world, threatening coastal cities and infrastructure, aquifers and agriculture, many islands, and numerous historical treasures. 

In the real world....

*Sea Level Rise*
National Geographic
(excerpts)
*Scientific research indicates sea levels worldwide have been rising at a rate of 0.14 inches (3.5 millimeters) per year since the early 1990s. The trend, linked to global warming, puts thousands of coastal cities and even whole islands at risk of being claimed by the ocean. Core samples, tide gauge readings, and, most recently, satellite measurements tell us that over the past century, the Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters). However, the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years. Over the past century, the burning of fossil fuels and other human and natural activities has released enormous amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. These emissions have caused the Earth's surface temperature to rise, and the oceans absorb about 80 percent of this additional heat. 

The rise in sea levels is linked to three primary factors, all induced by this ongoing global climate change: Thermal expansion: When water heats up, it expands. About half of the past century's rise in sea level is attributable to warmer oceans simply occupying more space; Melting of glaciers and polar ice caps: Large ice formations, like glaciers and the polar ice caps, naturally melt back a bit each summer. But in the winter, snows, made primarily from evaporated seawater, are generally sufficient to balance out the melting. Recently, though, persistently higher temperatures caused by global warming have led to greater-than-average summer melting as well as diminished snowfall due to later winters and earlier springs. This imbalance results in a significant net gain in runoff versus evaporation for the ocean, causing sea levels to rise; Ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica: As with glaciers and the ice caps, increased heat is causing the massive ice sheets that cover Greenland and Antarctica to melt at an accelerated pace. Scientists also believe meltwater from above and seawater from below is seeping beneath Greenland's and West Antarctica's ice sheets, effectively lubricating ice streams and causing them to move more quickly into the sea. Moreover, higher sea temperatures are causing the massive ice shelves that extend out from Antarctica to melt from below, weaken, and break off. 

Consequences - When sea levels rise rapidly, as they have been doing, even a small increase can have devastating effects on coastal habitats. As seawater reaches farther inland, it can cause destructive erosion, flooding of wetlands, contamination of aquifers and agricultural soils, and lost habitat for fish, birds, and plants. When large storms hit land, higher sea levels mean bigger, more powerful storm surges that can strip away everything in their path. In addition, hundreds of millions of people live in areas that will become increasingly vulnerable to flooding. Higher sea levels would force them to abandon their homes and relocate. Low-lying islands could be submerged completely. How High Will It Go? - Most predictions say the warming of the planet will continue and likely will accelerate. Oceans will likely continue to rise as well, but predicting the amount is an inexact science. A recent study says we can expect the oceans to rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100, enough to swamp many of the cities along the U.S. East Coast. More dire estimates, including a complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet, push sea level rise to 23 feet (7 meters), enough to submerge London.*


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 6, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Here is a very good map of sea level change in the US and Europe.
> 
> Sea Level Trends - NOAA Tides and Currents





Weatherman2020 said:


> What's funny is NOAA says nothing about rising oceans as a reason sea levels change.
> Must have been an oversight.



What is really funny is that you somehow imagine that that bit of utterly clueless insanity means anything whatsoever, WitheredMan.

The "_oceans_" and the "_seas_" are the same thing. "_Rising oceans_" *=* "_sea level change_", you poor imbecile.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 6, 2016)

If the sea level is really rising, why can't the warmers identify an island that is sinking because of something other than tectonics?

A: there is no sea level rise.  The sinking because of tectonics islands are the best fraud the warmers could come up with, given Antarctic ice growth (meaning no net ice melt on Earth with 90% of ice growing).


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 6, 2016)

LaDumkopf, you stupid ass, the sea level is rising everywhere that tectonics are not raising the land. 

Sea Level Rise Hits Home at NASA : Feature Articles


Tide gauges have been used to measure sea level for more than 130 years. Satellite measurements now complement the historical record. (NASA Earth Observatory image by Joshua Stevens, based on data from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and NOAA)


----------



## Crick (Jul 6, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> What's funny is NOAA says nothing about rising oceans as a reason sea levels change.
> Must have been an oversight.



I have to join Old Rocks here. What in god's green acres is that supposed to mean?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 7, 2016)

Old Rocks can do nothing beyond PARROTING.

The warmers claim sea level rise.  The "evidence" of that is FUDGE and islands right on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire.

The IDIOCY OF THE FRAUD at work again...


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> LaDumkopf, you stupid ass, the sea level is rising everywhere that tectonics are not raising the land.
> 
> Sea Level Rise Hits Home at NASA : Feature Articles
> 
> ...


so again, eight inches.  that's like snot to the overall 75% of sea water that is the earth.  You claim islands are going under water with an eight inch rise.  I'll give you the eight inch rise, ok?  I won't even argue it.  For you to call that accelerating is hilarious.  To call it dangerous is outrageous.  your facts don't support your claim and therefore outs you as a liar.  Holy crap, your own post proves you lie. Wow.


----------



## Olde Europe (Jul 7, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> "_Rising oceans_" *=* "_sea level change_", you poor imbecile.



That's incorrect as "seal level change" includes cyclical (reversible) changes as well as the non-cyclical, long-term "rising oceans" due to climate change.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 7, 2016)

jc456 said:


> so again, eight inches.




That 8 inches is from one of the "sinking" islands on the lip of the Ring.  Don't accept it.  It is fraudulent cherry picking disguised as "science."


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 7, 2016)

For New York City, the rise is over a foot. And made a significant difference in terms of damage from the storm surge that accompanied Sandy.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 7, 2016)

Plymouth Rock is right where the Pilgrims found it = NO sea level rise.

Find us one news article about a "sinking island" that is not sinking because of plate tectonics (ie not the Marshall Islands or the Solomon Islands or the islands just north of New Guinea).

You can't, because you are parrot of fudge, fraud, and cherry picking.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> For New York City, the rise is over a foot. And made a significant difference in terms of damage from the storm surge that accompanied Sandy.


evidence


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 7, 2016)

*What is Expected for New York*
*6 NYCRR Part 490, Projected Sea-level Rise Rulemaking -* Available for public comment through December 28, 2015.





Rising seas and increased storm surges
put New York's coastlines at risk.
*Fast Facts - Sea-level Rise in New York*

*New York has an estimated 1,850 miles of tidal shoreline* exposed to the action of tides, wind and waves - much of it developed and densely populated.
*New York has experienced at least a foot of sea-level rise since 1900,* mostly due to expansion of warming ocean water. Certain conditions along New York's coast make sea-level rise here somewhat higher than the global average.
*New York's coastal marine counties* already see more intense storm surges and floods. Superstorm Sandy highlighted the risks and vulnerabilities of our tidal shorelines, which are home to more than half of New Yorkers.
*By 2100, scientists project sea levels 18 to 50 inches higher than today along New York's coastlines and estuaries,* though a rise as high as 75 inches could occur.
*Sea-level rise is locked in for centuries*, or even millennia, by heat-trapping greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. Continuing or increasing emissions will speed up the rise to higher levels.
*Energy, land use and infrastructure decisions made now will determine how vulnerable our children and grandchildren will be to rising sea-levels.*
*Sea Level Rise - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Sure, LaDumkopf, sure.*


----------



## mamooth (Jul 7, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> That 8 inches is from one of the "sinking" islands on the lip of the Ring.  Don't accept it.  It is fraudulent cherry picking disguised as "science."



Why do you keep telling that lie?

No, the island is not on the ring of fire.

No, that island is not sinking at all.

Yes, the same sea level rise is happening all across the globe.

You're a fraud, LaDexter, and what's worse, you suck at being a fraud. We've been lied to by professionals, so being lied to by an amateur as inept as you is kind of insulting. We expect better lies from denier liars.

And dumbass? Plymouth Rock has been physically moved, by people, many times. Given that it's not in its original location, its current location means jack.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 7, 2016)

As of 7-6 it remains  a close tie with 2016 slightly ahead.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> For New York City, the rise is over a foot. And made a significant difference in terms of damage from the storm surge that accompanied Sandy.








Really?  There is no evidence of that.  None at all.  Please provide photographic evidence of the rise you have claimed.  Same tide state in the before and after pictures please.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 7, 2016)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > For New York City, the rise is over a foot. And made a significant difference in terms of damage from the storm surge that accompanied Sandy.
> ...


So you like to play stupid now, Mr. Westwall? Moving your peer level to jc and LaDexter? Post # 612.


----------



## westwall (Jul 7, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






No.  I am doing what any other scientist would do.  Ask you to back up your claims with, you know ....EVIDENCE.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> *What is Expected for New York*
> *6 NYCRR Part 490, Projected Sea-level Rise Rulemaking -* Available for public comment through December 28, 2015.
> 
> 
> ...



Lmao you live in a cave in idaho


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 7, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *What is Expected for New York*
> ...


By God, the intellect behind that reply is astounding.


----------



## Olde Europe (Jul 7, 2016)

westwall said:


> No. I am doing what any other scientist would do. Ask you to back up your claims with, you know ....EVIDENCE.



So, you actually are so bereft of shame, you use the word "scientist" in your mindless blab?

And you want "before and after pictures" as "evidence", when seal-level rise is usually measured in thousands upon thousands in data points spanning 30 years, if not longer?

Frankly, your chutzpa, entirely based on ignorance, is amazing.  Other than that, Old Rocks has you pegged, perfectly:



Old Rocks said:


> Moving your peer level to jc and LaDexter? Post # 612.



He forgot to make explicit you're a fraud, but that follows effortlessly.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 7, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


We know you do old rocks all you do is complain about global warning


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 7, 2016)

Now you are a silly ass, Bear. I present what the scientists are finding in their research. Have you yet to do so?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 7, 2016)

Olde Europe said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No. I am doing what any other scientist would do. Ask you to back up your claims with, you know ....EVIDENCE.
> ...


So, if it's measured thousands a years apart, how then do you know there's any rise in the last 30 years?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 8, 2016)

↑Westwall
No. I am doing what any other scientist would do. Ask you to back up your claims with, you know ....EVIDENCE.

Olde Europe
So, you actually are so bereft of shame, you use the word "scientist" in your mindless blab?

And you want "before and after pictures" as "evidence",* when seal-level rise is usually measured in thousands upon thousands in data points spanning 30 years, if not longer?*

Frankly, your chutzpa, entirely based on ignorance, is amazing. Other than that, Old Rocks has you pegged, perfectly:

↑Old Rocks
Moving your peer level to jc and LaDexter? Post # 612

Olde Europe.
He forgot to make explicit you're a fraud, but that follows effortlessly.

jc
*So, if it's measured thousands a years apart,* how then do you know there's any rise in the last 30 years?

......................................................................................................

jc, most here have commented on your inability to read what has been posted, but that sets a new record for lack of comprehension.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 8, 2016)

Like everything else about Algore's FRAUD, the sea level "rise" is all fudge.  There is precisely no sea level rise on Earth, simply because there is no net ice melt ongoing on Earth, as 90% of Earth ice on Antarctica has added at least 80 billion tons of ice every year since Algore started lying about CO2.


----------



## westwall (Jul 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ↑Westwall
> No. I am doing what any other scientist would do. Ask you to back up your claims with, you know ....EVIDENCE.
> 
> Olde Europe
> ...







C'mon olfraud.  You have made the claim that sea level has risen a foot in New York.  You further stated that that directly led to the damage from Sandy.  Please present some credible, factual evidence to support your assertion or simply admit that it is a lie and we can move on.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 8, 2016)

The warmers were blaming sea level rise for Sandy's damage.  Typical.  Bawk on the morons will....

Would you like some ice cream with that FUDGE???


----------



## Crick (Jul 8, 2016)

westwall said:


> C'mon olfraud.  You have made the claim that sea level has risen a foot in New York.  You further stated that that directly led to the damage from Sandy.  Please present some credible, factual evidence to support your assertion or simply admit that it is a lie and we can move on.


************************************************************************************
Superstorm Sandy and Sea Level Rise | NOAA Climate.gov
*What kind of sea level rise has New York Harbor seen over the past century?*
We’ve had roughly a foot of sea level rise in the New York City area in the past century. That’s measured at a tidal gauge near Battery Park just off the southern tip of Manhattan.
*************************************************************************************
C'mon WeaselWienie, you've made the claim that Old Rocks was lying and now we see he most certainly was not.  So, please retract your accusation and admit you were wrong and we can move on.

Wouldn't that be an interesting rule for the board.  Accusations of lying require evidence and if disproven, require an apology.  Who's for it?


----------



## westwall (Jul 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > C'mon olfraud.  You have made the claim that sea level has risen a foot in New York.  You further stated that that directly led to the damage from Sandy.  Please present some credible, factual evidence to support your assertion or simply admit that it is a lie and we can move on.
> ...






Photographic evidence that shows sea level rise numbskull.  It's easy to post up propaganda.  That's all you do.  But real, factual evidence you are remarkably short of.  Sandy hit at a high tide.  Hurricane Irene would have been even greater if the tide had been just a tad higher.  Sandy's destructiveness was do to the tide state not supposed sea level rise.  

https://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.g...ater_Level_and_Meteorological_Data_Report.pdf


----------



## Crick (Jul 8, 2016)

So you reject a NOAA report of a tide gauge at Battery Park?

Pray tell, did it ever occur to you that sea level rise has no effect on the cycle of tides.  One on top of the other makes for a powerful surge.


----------



## westwall (Jul 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> So you reject a NOAA report of a tide gauge at Battery Park?








One gauge?  ONE gauge?  I believe photographic evidence that can't be monkeyed with.  Your hero's have a long history of data falsification.  If the ocean had indeed risen a foot as olfraud claims then photographic evidence should be as easy as pie.

So present it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 8, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> For New York City, the rise is over a foot. And made a significant difference in terms of damage from the storm surge that accompanied Sandy.


Manhattan is sinking due to shear weight upon it... Even USGS admits this....


----------



## mamooth (Jul 8, 2016)

"Shear" weight would break bits off, not sink something. Now, "sheer" weight might sink an object. But that's not what makes the NYC area sink. Which it does do, at about 3-4 inches per century. It's isostatic sinking. Areas where glaciers have recently retreated from spring up quickly. As mantle material flows up under those areas, it flows away from areas further south, so they sink a bit.

So, global sea level rise is about 8 inches over the past century, 4 inches of sinking at NYC, so the sea is up a foot there, like the people said.

It's a mark of pseudoscience to deliberately throw away good data, like the tidal gauges and satellite altimetry, solely because it disagrees with you, and instead demand worthless fuzzy crap data like photographs. Thus, head raging pseudoscience cult fanatic Westwall is doing exactly that.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> "Shear" weight would break bits off, not sink something. Now, "sheer" weight might sink an object. But that's not what makes the NYC area sink. Which it does do, at about 3-4 inches per century. It's isostatic sinking. Areas where glaciers have recently retreated from spring up quickly. As mantle material flows up under those areas, it flows away from areas further south, so they sink a bit.
> 
> So, global sea level rise is about 8 inches over the past century, 4 inches of sinking at NYC, so the sea is up a foot there, like the people said.
> 
> It's a mark of pseudoscience to deliberately throw away good data, like the tidal gauges and satellite altimetry, solely because it disagrees with you, and instead demand worthless fuzzy crap data like photographs. Thus, head raging pseudoscience cult fanatic Westwall is doing exactly that.



History is not your friend is it...

Prove it.


----------



## Crick (Jul 8, 2016)

Show us tide gauge data from the New York area that does NOT show a foot of rise.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 9, 2016)

mamooth said:


> It's a mark of pseudoscience




The entire summation of your posts = pseudoscience

Tell us again how Greenland is "melting" while thickening by its annual ice core every year...


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> Show us tide gauge data from the New York area that does NOT show a foot of rise.




Why do your fudgebaking heroes have to lie about why the Marshall Islands are sinking???

If there really was a sea level rise, why do the Tippy's need to lie about islands sinking by tectonics?

YOUR SIDE LIES!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 9, 2016)

Westwall, LaDexter, jc, Crusader Frank. What a peer group. LOL

A storm surge on top of a high tide, and a foot more of water because of sea level rise at New York City. And that extra foot contributed to the damage, as did the high tide and the storm surge. What we have here are a gaggle of know making statements with zero to back them up.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 9, 2016)

Your side is LYING about WHY the Marshall Islands are sinking.  If there actually was a sea level rise, which there is not, your side would not be LYING.  They ARE LYING, proving you are a chickenshit parrot of fudge, fraud, and cherry picking.


----------



## Crick (Jul 9, 2016)

Still waiting for a circa Manhattan tide gauge that doesn't show a foot of sea level rise since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. No takers?  Hey, the report was from a WOMAN working for NOAA.  She was BOUND to be lying, right?  Or incompetent?   C'mon, I thought you guys were PRINCIPLED...


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 9, 2016)

Your side has a monopoly on FUDGING data.  We have a monopoly on TRUTH.

If there was a real sea level rise, the FRAUDULENT FEARMONGERING FUDGEBAKERS would not be lying about the Marshall Islands.


----------



## Crick (Jul 9, 2016)

LaDexter, YOU are the one who's been lying about the Marshall Islands.

And the Marshall Islands and sea level rise have nothing to do with Arctic sea ice.  Let's try to stay on topic folks.  LaDexter can try to stay off the internet as his mother told him.

The latest.  We appear to be about a pixel above the record low.  That must mean that global warming has never happened and the Arctic is as big as its ever been and is, in fact growing at a record pace....    


Yeah...


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 9, 2016)

Explain why I'm "lying" about the Marshall Islands...

(This should be hilarious)

Thou shall not notice islands on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire, or be declared mentally ill you will...


----------



## Crick (Jul 10, 2016)

An interesting article at NSIDC regarding Greenland glaciers

A submarine retreat | Earthdata

A new mass-conservation method of processing ice-penetrating radar data from NOAA's  Operation Ice Bridge show that glacial valleys, once thought to have bottoms below sea level for approximately 10 kilometers inland, are now found to have below-sea-level bottoms for over a hundred kilometers. It's believed that the process of accelerating recession would come to a halt when the calving front finally arrived at the point the trough bottom regained an elevation above sea level.  Scientists still hold that to be true, but that point is now ten times as far inland as once believed.  The ice mass Greenland is expected to release to the world's oceans has increased dramatically by this discovery.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 10, 2016)

LOL Crick!!!

Yes, an ice age digs digs digs and leaves behind just rocky terrain.  Look at the top of Northern Canada, the bottom of South America - all just rocks - that's what ice ages leave behind.  Your side had claimed Greenland's ice wasn't "rising."  In fact, it is growing both up and down as it digs out the soft terrain below.  Let's have a look at what is left now.






In the end, all the "green" on that map will be gone, scooped up and dumped into the ocean.  If you could put a sub with a camera and bright lights under the ice bergs, you'd find their bottoms are dirty dirty dirty, until they clear everything out, as Antarctica's ice age did long ago...


----------



## Crick (Jul 11, 2016)

I'll be Jones-in

*Service Interruption Notice*

On Monday, 11 July from 3:00 p.m. through Wednesday, 13 July until 5:00 p.m. (USA Mountain Time), NSIDC data distribution, services, and Web site will be unavailable to accommodate a major upgrade to our data center. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Members of the media, please contact the NSIDC Press Office through
natasha.vizcarra@colorado.edu or +1.303.492.1497.

Need to talk to us? You can always contact our friendly User Services Office atnsidc@nsidc.org or + 1 303.492.6199.
*****************************************************************************************

Of course, we all know that the real purpose of this shutdown is so they can attend the secret Climate Scientist's Ball where the powers that be give everyone their marching orders and they all break into meetings to get their stories straight and to assassinate anyone that looks to be showing the slightest signs of giving up the secret.  When the assassinations are complete, they all attend a big barbecue to eat the victims and get rid of the embarrassing evidence...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 12, 2016)

Arctic News

*A very good visualization of the sea ice loss.*


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 13, 2016)

meanwhile, despite the cherry picking, Antarctic Sea Ice has set FIVE all time record highs since Obama took office...


----------



## mamooth (Jul 13, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> meanwhile, despite the cherry picking, Antarctic Sea Ice has set FIVE all time record highs since Obama took office...



As Dr. Manabe's model predicted in 1991. If your point was how good mainstream climate science has been, you just proved it.

Also, ice and snow aren't temperature, shit-for-brains. Such basic science completely eludes you. In addition to being an open fraud, you're hilariously incompetent.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 13, 2016)

LOL!!!

GLOBAL WARMING IS MELTING ARCTIC SEA ICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR!!!!


BTW - what's up with Antarctic Sea Ice?

A: its been growing steadily...

Why isn't "global warming" melting Antarctic Sea Ice?

A: a study a study, a taxpayer funded FUDGE study, says Global Warming will increase Antarctic Sea Ice as it melts Arctic Sea Ice...

and THAT is THE IDIOCY of THE FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mamooth (Jul 13, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Explain why I'm "lying" about the Marshall Islands...



They're not on the ring of fire. They're a thousand miles away from the plate boundary. They're not sinking. Those facts are indisputable. You're lying your ass off.

Someone who isn't pathologically dishonest would note the lack of volcanoes or earthquakes in the Marshall Islands. How does your "They're on the ring of fire!" theory explain that?

They are coral atolls. 74-100 million years ago, there were volcanoes there, as the hotspot tracked through the area. It's gone now. No more volcanoes.

http://www-odp.tamu.edu/publications/144_SR/VOLUME/CHAPTERS/sr144_35.pdf


----------



## mamooth (Jul 13, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> and THAT is THE IDIOCY of THE FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!!!



Can you explain to everyone how the Zionists factor in?


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 13, 2016)

"They're (The Marshall Islands) not on the ring of fire. They're a thousand miles away"

LMFAO!!!

Let's check the MAPS vs. Mamoooo's mouth...


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 13, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Can you explain to everyone how the Zionists factor in?




Zionists won't allow certain questions or facts to reported as "news."  Show me one "US News Media" outlet that has asked the question

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other???


Not even Fox News will ask that one.... because Murdoch's rabbi doesn't like that question.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 13, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> "They're (The Marshall Islands) not on the ring of fire. They're a thousand miles away"
> 
> LMFAO!!!
> 
> Let's check the MAPS vs. Mamoooo's mouth...


Idiot!

Your maps confirm that those islands ARE NOT on the Ring of Fire, you pathetic retard.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 13, 2016)

It is truly amazing to observe these warmers.  They'll sit there and scream and lie and freak out at someone just for posting truth.  The Marshall Islands are right on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire as the above maps show.  That truth is just too much for our resident left wing parrot to handle mentally.

ALL of the "warmers" "sinking islands" are on the lip of the PROF


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 13, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> It is truly amazing to observe these warmers.  They'll sit there and scream and lie and freak out at someone just for posting truth.  The Marshall Islands are right on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire as the above maps show.  That truth is just too much for our resident left wing parrot to handle mentally.
> 
> ALL of the "warmers" "sinking islands" are on the lip of the PROF


More retarded insanity from the demented troll LaDumbshit!

As the previous posts on this thread clearly demonstrate. As the maps the twit posted clearly show. As geology clearly demonstrates. As Mamooth's post #651 clearly laid out in plain English.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 13, 2016)

Then let everyone look at the maps and decide for themselves, is it or is it not right on the lip of the PROF?

LOL!!!


----------



## mamooth (Jul 13, 2016)

It's a thousand miles away, shit-for-brains.

Here's a challenge. Find a single source anywhere that backs up your insane claims.

And explain to us why there's no volcanic or significant tectonic activity at all in the Marshall Islands. Given that volcanoes and earthquakes are the hallmarks of the Ring of Fire, shouldn't there be volcanoes and earthquakes?

Maybe the Zionists somehow effected it. I'm sure you've worked that into your theory already, so tell us all about it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 14, 2016)

For anyone following LaDumkopfs stupidity, simply go to Google Earth, and look at the Marshal Islands. The nearest subduction zone is many hundreds of miles away. In fact, the nearest major tectonic feature is the Victoria Fracture Zone. People making such idiotic assertations that are so easy to check, should realize that they are soon labeled as idiots by all.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> For anyone following LaDumkopfs stupidity, simply go to Google Earth, and look at the Marshal Islands. The nearest subduction zone is many hundreds of miles away. In fact, the nearest major tectonic feature is the Victoria Fracture Zone. People making such idiotic assertations that are so easy to check, should realize that they are soon labeled as idiots by all.


So, are the Marshall Islands really an island or an Atoll?  Do you know what an Atoll is?  What makes up the ring of fire?  Hmmmmmm Volcanoes, now when you learn what an Atoll is then ask how the Marshall Islands aren't part of the ring of fire.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2016)

So you and Billy Bob think volcanoes only occur on the Ring of Fire.  Aren't you two the geological experts.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 14, 2016)

Well now, jc, I will explain this as carefully as I can, allowing for your retardation. 

Volcanoes occur in areas that are very far from any subduction zone. Especially in the ocean, because of the very much thinner crust. However, if you really want to check that out, use Google Earth. Just click on Google Earth, put Marshal Islands in the box in the upper left hand corner, and zoom in and out. You can see quite clearly where the trenchs are, and there are no such near the Marshal Islands.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> So you and Billy Bob think volcanoes only occur on the Ring of Fire.  Aren't you two the geological experts.


The majority are. Do you question that?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Well now, jc, I will explain this as carefully as I can, allowing for your retardation.
> 
> Volcanoes occur in areas that are very far from any subduction zone. Especially in the ocean, because of the very much thinner crust. However, if you really want to check that out, use Google Earth. Just click on Google Earth, put Marshal Islands in the box in the upper left hand corner, and zoom in and out. You can see quite clearly where the trenchs are, and there are no such near the Marshal Islands.


I did and the facts are mine and the other posters.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 14, 2016)

So, you are claiming that the Marshal Islands are sitting over a subduction zone? LOL


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> So, you are claiming that the Marshal Islands are sitting over a subduction zone? LOL


Well, go read up! Learn


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 15, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> So, you are claiming that the Marshal Islands are sitting over a subduction zone? LOL




I'll go even further - ALL of the warmers' "sinking islands" are right on the lip of the Ring of Fire and are sinking because of subduction, which has a substantial range from the actual fault.  In the beginning of the subduction, the angle of descent is quite small, but enough for islands to notice their homes are sinking.  This can start more than 100 miles from the fault.

The reason all the "sinking islands" are right on top of the PROF is very simple...

THE WARMERS HAVE NO ACTUAL REAL SEA LEVEL RISE


----------



## Crick (Jul 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> So you and Billy Bob think volcanoes only occur on the Ring of Fire.  Aren't you two the geological experts.





jc456 said:


> The majority are. Do you question that?



I know what the Ring of Fire is and have a basic understanding of volcanoes.  For the comment you made and for which Billy Boy gave you the high-five to have any validity, it would require that _all_ volcanoes be on the Ring of Fire.  Once more, you people demonstrate your ignorance of basic science.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 16, 2016)

LOL!!!

Crick spins and lies like the taxpayer funded "climate bullshitter" he is.

The Ring is all about the bottom of the Pacific Ocean being pushed under adjacent plates because the Pacific Ocean is shrinking and that bottom plate has to go somewhere.  If you live on an island right on the lip of the PROF, your land is toast, and the US taxpayer is not liable, despite what Crick and Obama say.


----------



## Crick (Jul 16, 2016)

God are you stupid.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So you and Billy Bob think volcanoes only occur on the Ring of Fire.  Aren't you two the geological experts.
> ...


Why? Cause you can't prove the Marshall Islands aren't on it? 

When one like you has nothing just blurt out something. LOL


----------



## jc456 (Jul 16, 2016)

Crick said:


> God are you stupid.


How dare you tell God he's stupid.


----------



## Crick (Oct 16, 2016)

Incredibly stupid.


----------



## IanC (Oct 17, 2016)

satellite coverage of Arctic Ice extent was available before the full coverage implimented in 1979.











the use of polynomial curves on ice extent starting at the maximum and ignoring the cyclical nature of ice is propaganda.

I couldnt easily find the graph with curves with all the months but SkS posted this one-






does anyone actually believe that the Arctic will be ice free in 20 years?????? in the middle of winter????? how fucking stupid is that?

if a mathematical model gives you absurd results then you should find a better method, not publicize the ridiculous results to alarm mathematically illiterate viewers who assume that it MUST be true if an 'expert' says so.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 17, 2016)

Ian, that is fucking stupid. You know damned well what that curve means. It does not mean that where the curve hits the zero mark there is going to be an ice free Arctic Ocean. What it does mean, within the plus and minus of the dots on the graph, by the data, that is the most likely time for that to happen. And there is absolutely nothing in that graph that indicates cyclic activity. In fact, there is a definate downward trend.,


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 17, 2016)

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

The Antarctic Sea Ice is also near a two standard deviation minus. And the North East Passage is just now closing.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 17, 2016)

Oh Gawd with the sea ice graphs. Its 2016......nobody cares. The people have seen these spectacular predictions of no more sea ice for a couple of decades now and now the ice is growing.

Please.........Id like an alarmist to show us where the regular American is giving a fuck about the arctic ice? 

Oh and ummm........links please!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 18, 2016)

http://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf

Looks like those people care very much.


----------



## elektra (Oct 18, 2016)

The polar bears are fine, the penguins are happy, the scientists are busy redefining what the definition of ice is, so they do not have to report there is plenty of ice.


----------



## IanC (Oct 18, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Ian, that is fucking stupid. You know damned well what that curve means. It does not mean that where the curve hits the zero mark there is going to be an ice free Arctic Ocean. What it does mean, within the plus and minus of the dots on the graph, by the data, that is the most likely time for that to happen. And there is absolutely nothing in that graph that indicates cyclic activity. In fact, there is a definate downward trend.,



You are an ass. I gave you an IPCC graph showing lower ice extents in the 70's before full time satellite coverage. Strong evidence of cyclical behaviour. At the very least proof that there is not a steady downward trend in IE.

Next, I said 20 years for ice free conditions instead of the three years for November and five years for December, as indicated on the SkS graph. Like I said, anyone who believes the Arctic Ocean will be ice free in winter is a fucking idiot. Obviously that includes you.


----------



## Crick (Oct 18, 2016)

What do you think will stop the trend Ian?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 18, 2016)

Well now, Ian, how many ships transited the Northwest Passage in the seventies? A 900 passenger cruise ship did last summer. How many ships used the Northeast Passage without an icebreaker in the seventies. If what we see is cyclic, why did no one use the Northwest Passage in the seventies?


----------



## SSDD (Oct 19, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> By God, the intellect behind that reply is astounding.



Intellect enough to not have been taken in by the biggest hoax in human history...unlike you useful idiots.


----------



## IanC (Oct 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> What do you think will stop the trend Ian?




I don't make a habit of making predictions.

My question to you. Do you think there will be a Christmas Day any time in the next 20 or 50 years where the Arctic is ice free? That SkS graph predicted it happening in the 2020's. 

I think it is a nonsensical result and should not have been released. What do you think?


----------



## Crick (Oct 19, 2016)

Here's one from PIOMAS directly.  These data obviously suggest that without some dramatic change in radiative forcing, both the mininum and the maximum will eventually hit zero.  That the complete disappearance might be in my children's lifetime but not mine doesn't give me much comfort.  Why do you seem to think it should?


----------



## IanC (Oct 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> Here's one from PIOMAS directly.  These data obviously suggest that without some dramatic change in radiative forcing, both the mininum and the maximum will eventually hit zero.  That the complete disappearance might be in my children's lifetime but not mine doesn't give me much comfort.  Why do you seem to think it should?




There you have it folks. Crick thinks the Arctic will be ice free in the darkness of winter.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 19, 2016)

So apparently do the people at the University of Washington;

Polar Science Center . Applied Physics Laboratory . University of Washington . 1013 NE 40th Street . Box 355640 . Seattle, WA 98105-6698

Voice: 206-543-6613 . Fax: 206-616-3142 . E-mail: PSCAdmin@apl.washington.edu

Now Ian, I suppose that you, like Silly Billy, are going to claim to know much more than the people at the University of Washington. It is their data from which the graph is constructed. Are you stating that their data is fraudulent? Or that you are better able to interpret their data better than them.


----------



## IanC (Oct 20, 2016)

Is the UofW actually predicting an ice free Arctic Ocean in winter?


----------



## Crick (Oct 20, 2016)

Given the commonality of folks like you, what's to stop it Ian?


----------



## mamooth (Oct 20, 2016)

By the way, little ship Northabout is back home in Bristol now, after circling the Arctic in one season.

I just mention that because a few deniers said it was impossible, and that they'd all die.

They could have gotten home much sooner, but after running the Northwest Passage, they went on a sightseeing tour of western Greenland, and then Ireland, after a brutal North Atlantic crossing.


----------



## IanC (Oct 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Given the commonality of folks like you, what's to stop it Ian?




what stopped the MWP or Roman Warm Period? or the LIA?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 20, 2016)

The fact those forcings were sun and orbit related, and the effect ceased as soon as the forcing changed. The CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere is a long term forcing, and we are only beginning to see the effects of the forcing at present.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 21, 2016)

IanC said:


> You are an ass. I gave you an IPCC graph showing lower ice extents in the 70's before full time satellite coverage. Strong evidence of cyclical behaviour. At the very least proof that there is not a steady downward trend in IE.



And we've given you graphs going back further, that show you "cycles" claim is false. If you disagree, please explain where you see a cycle here.


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Given the commonality of folks like you, what's to stop it Ian?
> ...



They weren't anthropogenic.


----------



## IanC (Oct 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




so past warm and cold periods were caused and stopped by natural influences of undetermined type and magnitude. but that can't happen anymore, right? the solar maximum from ~1910-2000 had nothing to do with 20th century warming, right?

hahahahaha.


----------



## IanC (Oct 21, 2016)

hey Crick.....do you ever have any ideas? you are the most boring and predictable parrot on this board, perhaps with the exception of Old Rocks.

jc just puts together random words and by chance occasionally says something interesting and thought provoking. but you...not so much.


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2016)

I'm sure a solar maximum would have an effect, but the increase in radiative energy the Earth received was not enough to have caused the warming observed.  That is an old observation.


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2016)

IanC said:


> hey Crick.....do you ever have any ideas? you are the most boring and predictable parrot on this board, perhaps with the exception of Old Rocks.
> 
> jc just puts together random words and by chance occasionally says something interesting and thought provoking. but you...not so much.




Then why do you bother talking to me?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 21, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The fact those forcings were sun and orbit related, and the effect ceased as soon as the forcing changed. The CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere is a long term forcing, and we are only beginning to see the effects of the forcing at present.



The Sun is different? Our orbit is different?


----------



## IanC (Oct 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > hey Crick.....do you ever have any ideas? you are the most boring and predictable parrot on this board, perhaps with the exception of Old Rocks.
> ...




Because you are not obnoxious enough to put on ignore.

SSDD is obnoxious enough but he makes me think on a fairly regular basis.

I do ignore Old Rocks but only on an informal basis.

I don't suppose you can help being boring or dishonest, it's simply your character.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 22, 2016)

Of course you ignore me, Ian. I post real articles from scientists, not frauds on WUWT. So you must ignore me, otherwise you have to acknowledge that the scientists are showing reality.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Of course you ignore me, Ian. I post real articles from scientists, not frauds on WUWT. So you must ignore me, otherwise you have to acknowledge that the scientists are showing reality.


who are your real scientists,  I'm still waiting on that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 25, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you ignore me, Ian. I post real articles from scientists, not frauds on WUWT. So you must ignore me, otherwise you have to acknowledge that the scientists are showing reality.
> ...


You might find them by looking at the references in Google Scholar. But they do use words of more than two syllables so you might have a problem.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


so you can't.  thanks.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2016)

The growth of Arctic sea ice extent this month is the lowest on record. (JAXA,





The growth of Arctic sea ice extent during October has been the slowest on record. (JAXA, adapted by Zachary Labe)

Sea ice extent in the Arctic is as low as it has ever been measured in late October, and air temperatures are at a record warm. Sea ice experts say it is difficult to project what the current ice depletion means for the next year, but the unmistakable long-term trend toward less ice is troubling.

“The overall trajectory is clear — sometime in the next few decades, maybe as early as 2030, we’ll wake up to a September with no Arctic sea ice,” said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), in Boulder, Colo.
................................................
Zachary Labe, a PhD student at the University of California at Irvine who is studying Arctic sea ice and extreme weather, tweeted that air temperatures over parts of the Arctic have been more than 18 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal.

Arctic sea ice is at a record low and could, in spurts, disappear within our lifetimes

*Looks like the decline of the Artic Sea Ice continues as predicted.*


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The growth of Arctic sea ice extent this month is the lowest on record. (JAXA,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


wash, rinse, repeat.


----------



## IanC (Oct 28, 2016)

Here is the graph for Arctic temperature this year. I cannot vouch for its accuracy but it is what we have to work with. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the green average line, which is certainly comprised of different data types than this year's. So be it.

What I want to point out is the small portion of the year that is actually above the freezing line. Ice does melt in summer so it is not unimaginable that the Arctic could be ice free in September, as it has been in the past.

What I really want to point out is the insane alarmism that crick, Rocks, etc show when they put up graphs that predict ice free conditions even in winter. 






This type of graph is totally at odds with reality. The Arctic in winter is cold and dark. No possibility of being ice free.

So what is the point of this graph except to scare the sheeple? I don't know if this rises to the heights of shouting 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre but it is similar.

If the alarmists's side is willing to distort obviously unrealistic data here, what other misdirections are they willing to approve elsewhere that are not so easily proven to be ridiculous?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 28, 2016)

When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice free? - Overland - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters -  Wiley Online Library



Open Access
Regular Article
*When will the summer Arctic be nearly sea ice free?*
*Authors*

*Corresponding author*
*Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, NOAA, Seattle, Washington, USA*

*Corresponding author: J. E. Overland, NOAA/PMEL, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115, USA. (Search for more papers by this author*
*
University Washington/JISAO, Seattle, Washington, USA
Search for more papers by this author*

First published: 21 May 2013Full publication history
DOI: 10.1002/grl.50316View/save citation


[1] The observed rapid loss of thick multiyear sea ice over the last 7 years and the September 2012 Arctic sea ice extent reduction of 49% relative to the 1979–2000 climatology are inconsistent with projections of a nearly sea ice-free summer Arctic from model estimates of 2070 and beyond made just a few years ago. Three recent approaches to predictions in the scientific literature are as follows: (1) extrapolation of sea ice volume data, (2) assuming several more rapid loss events such as 2007 and 2012, and (3) climate model projections. Time horizons for a nearly sea ice-free summer for these three approaches are roughly 2020 or earlier, 2030 ± 10 years, and 2040 or later. Loss estimates from models are based on a subset of the most rapid ensemble members. It is not possible to clearly choose one approach over another as this depends on the relative weights given to data versus models. Observations and citations support the conclusion that most global climate model results in the CMIP5 archive are too conservative in their sea ice projections. Recent data and expert opinion should be considered in addition to model results to advance the very likely timing for future sea ice loss to the first half of the 21st century, with a possibility of major loss within a decade or two.

*These authors put the loss of summer ice between 2020 and 2050.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 28, 2016)

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

*Both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice are below two deviations from the past years. The Arctic Sea ice, significantly so.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 28, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you ignore me, Ian. I post real articles from scientists, not frauds on WUWT. So you must ignore me, otherwise you have to acknowledge that the scientists are showing reality.
> ...


LOL jc, you are so stupid that you are funny.

*Toward a seasonally ice-covered Arctic Ocean: Scenarios from the IPCC AR4 model simulations*
X Zhang, JE Walsh - Journal of Climate, 2006 - journals.ametsoc.org

*Future Arctic Ocean seasonal ice zones and implications for pelagic-benthic coupling*
P Wassmann, M Reigstad - 2011 - munin.uit.no

*HTML]
	
	




		HTML:
	

[/B] [URL='http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052676/full']Trends in [B]Arctic [/B]sea [B]ice [/B]extent from CMIP5, CMIP3 and observations[/URL]
JC Stroeve, V Kattsov, [URL='https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=smnZr1wAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra'][U]A Barrett[/U][/URL]… - Geophysical …, 2012 - Wiley Online Library

[B]HTML][HTML][/B] [URL='http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50316/full']When [B]will [/B]the summer [B]Arctic [/B]be nearly sea [B]ice free[/B]?[/URL]
JE Overland, M Wang - Geophysical Research Letters, 2013 - Wiley Online Library

[SIZE=4][B][URL='http://science.sciencemag.org/content/329/5991/556.short']Decrease in the CO2 uptake capacity in an [B]ice[/B]-[B]free Arctic Ocean [/B]basin[/URL][/B][/SIZE]
[URL='https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7i0r93YAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra'][U]WJ Cai[/U][/URL], L Chen, [URL='https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=obx66XgAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra'][U]B Chen[/U][/URL], Z Gao, SH Lee, J Chen… - …, 2010 - science.sciencemag.org

[SIZE=4][B][URL='http://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5956/1098.short']Aragonite undersaturation in the [B]Arctic Ocean[/B]: effects of [B]ocean [/B]acidification and sea [B]ice [/B]melt[/URL][/B][/SIZE]
M Yamamoto-Kawai, FA McLaughlin… - …, 2009 - science.sciencemag.org

[B]Many, many more authors and articles on just this one topic. jc, you really are a moron.[/B]

*


----------



## jc456 (Oct 29, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


So your real scientists are wrong! Arctic Ice is normal


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 29, 2016)

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
*The ice in the Arctic Ocean is well over two standard deviations below normal, the sea ice in the Antarctic is at two standard deviations below normal. That reality does not fit your alternative universe makes no difference at all to reality. And you did ask who those scientists were. *


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 3, 2016)

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

*The Arctic Ice is way below where it should be this time of year. Warmer ocean and atmosphere setting us up for a record low year in 2017.*


----------

