# Global Warmers Stopped by Arctic Ice



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 20, 2016)

The Gore Effect Strikes Again

A group of adventurers, sailors, pilots and climate scientists that recently started a journey around the North Pole in an effort to show the lack of ice, has been blocked from further travels by ice.

The Polar Ocean Challenge is taking a two month journey that will see them go from Bristol, Alaska, to Norway, then to Russia through the North East passage, back to Alaska through the North West passage, to Greenland and then ultimately back to Bristol. *Their objective, as laid out by their website, was to demonstrate “that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through.”*

There has been one small hiccup thus-far though: they are currently stuck in Murmansk, Russia because there is too much ice blocking the North East passage the team said didn’t exist in summer months, according to Real Climate Science.

Real Climate Science also provides a graph showing that current Arctic temperatures — despite alarmist claims of the Arctic being hotter than ever — is actually below normal.

The Polar Ocean Challenge team is not the first global warming expedition to be faced with icy troubles. In 2013, an Antarctic research vessel named Akademik Shokalskiy became trapped in the ice, the problem was so severe that they actually had to rescue the 52 crew members.

Global Warming Expedition Stopped In Its Tracks By Arctic Sea Ice


----------



## jc456 (Jul 20, 2016)

proving again the data is wrong.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> proving again the data is wrong.


Even with 2016 technology they still got it wrong and set sail anyway.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 20, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > proving again the data is wrong.
> ...


they did because the data tells them it's ice free.  i hate when the data lies


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> proving again the data is wrong.




No, the FUDGING of the data is wrong.  The data was fine until it got FUDGED!!!


----------



## jc456 (Jul 20, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > proving again the data is wrong.
> ...


I doubt there is any data.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 20, 2016)

LOL.

Derrrr, it's not weather its climate derrrrr it's local and meaningless der der derrrrrrrrrr


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> I doubt there is any data.




They have run "ALGORithms" in the past, and the result is always claims of "warming" no matter what data is fed to the ALGORithm...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The Gore Effect Strikes Again
> 
> A group of adventurers, sailors, pilots and climate scientists that recently started a journey around the North Pole in an effort to show the lack of ice, has been blocked from further travels by ice.
> 
> ...




Divine justice be done. Arrogance of the warmers just got put on ice. 

What's really amazing here -- is how the mainstream press is too damn embarrassed to post this hysterically funny irony..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2016)

... And I'm pissed you beat me to this story -- you dastardly bird you..


----------



## jc456 (Jul 20, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > The Gore Effect Strikes Again
> ...


for me this only proves one thing.  All of the charts and graphs posted in here on arctic ice are all in error.  real life climate defeated the make believe charts and graphs.  I am truly laughing.  More now than the antarctic ship.  All of the condescending comments about arctic ice melt and all.  ooopsssie


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



It's always good when science goes out of the lab to test a theory. They had a goal, based on their best understanding of the data -- and they tested it. Probably cost them a shipload to pay for this ship and crew with the couple month delay they've gotten into. Probably the bill will get covered by the taxpayers tho.. 

Think we could send them some cookies? Maybe some "Eskimo Pies" ?????????????


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 20, 2016)

Ship of Fools........  Part Three....

I guess their models are not as robust as they think they are..


----------



## Crick (Jul 20, 2016)

From their website:

*THIS MORNING 20TH JULY WE LEAVE MURMANSK TODAY*
*09.06 UTC 12.06 Local time. *
Morning! So the plan is to leave today… the weather is lovely and everything is stowed.

Last night I went to a small да́ча dacha (Russian second home), outside Murmansk and met friends of Nikolay. They worked on the ice breakers so we’re keen to pass on help and information. What is the common theme here is what ever the ice maps show it can all change quickly if we get a southerly wind for a couple of days blowing the pack ice off Shore.

So welcome home sea sickness no change of clothes, wet watches. Sleeping in a tumble drier and the smell of adventure

Hoooola shakerrrr    David


----------



## Crick (Jul 20, 2016)

Are you all so keen to laugh at them, but none of you have the slightest hint of evidence that the Arctic's ice extents are increasing or even just stable, do you.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> From their website:
> 
> *THIS MORNING 20TH JULY WE LEAVE MURMANSK TODAY*
> *09.06 UTC 12.06 Local time. *
> ...



Yeah -- The Russians didn't want them either.. So they lent them an icebreaker to get them out of town !!! 

Hey..  Any one seen GoldiRocks? Wasn't he talking about opening up the NW passage? You don't suppose..............................................  Better check that expedition site. See if there's any messages from him.


----------



## Crick (Jul 20, 2016)

And evidence regarding Arctic ice extents?

Didn't think so.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Are you all so keen to laugh at them, but none of you have the slightest hint of evidence that the Arctic's ice extents are increasing or even just stable, do you.


I'm proud of them. Showing everyone that Arctic is still growing ice. Hmmm, I thought it was in a melt?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Are you all so keen to laugh at them, but none of you have the slightest hint of evidence that the Arctic's ice extents are increasing or even just stable, do you.



Would only take 5 or 10 years of growing ice to RESTORE the Arctic to the condition it was in 1970. It is NOT the scale of loss that Antarctica would be -- IF it WAS melting from GW at the SOUTH pole.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Are you all so keen to laugh at them, but none of you have the slightest hint of evidence that the Arctic's ice extents are increasing or even just stable, do you.
> ...


30% sea ice levels have remained at or above average.. Only the 15% levels have had any negative flux.. Funny that they don't want to admit that.  The idiots up north were caught by the >30% ice levels because their models said it didn't exist..

DMI stopped their active plot as it didn't meet the agenda driven CAGW UN crap..  The data is still available, just not in plot form.  Its really rather stunning that it remains at or above average even though we have just went through a warming trend with ocean temps.  Now that they are going cold the sea ice will stabilize and return.


----------



## Crick (Jul 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


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



So, Gentlemen, Billy Boy, what do you think is happening that could cause extents to shrink as they have







and produce this drop of total volume?











BTW, there is very little deviation between your data and what I see here.  It shows roughly 2.4 million km^2 lost in the last decade. I guess you just prefer the scale.

And who is it that can't read a fucking graph?

AS to a stability seen in 30% coverage ice, the obvious conclusion is that it is being produced by the disintegration of 100% coverage ice.  Jesus.

FCT, if you're actually comforting yourself with the thought that a La Nina will bring it all back, try to remember it has been shrinking through La Ninas for decades now.

If you think the Arctic ISN'T actually melting or that the losses can be made up in short order, you're simply lying to yourself.


----------



## Crick (Jul 21, 2016)

This is from your buddy Bob Tisdale, Massage Therapist Extraordinaire.


----------



## Crick (Jul 21, 2016)

"There is a closer correlation of the AMO to Arctic Temps. The biggest change in the sea ice started in 1995 and 2002 which is about the time the AMO started ...


----------



## Crick (Jul 21, 2016)

It looks to me as if the Arctic is being melted by rising temperatures.  Now there's an amazing conclusion.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 21, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


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


makes sense to me.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


so, it's funny.  The observed doesn't match the graph, the graph is shut down, makes one wonder if it was ever accurate.  for me now anyway.  So, you can post up all the other charts and graphs you want, they can't be trusted.  The observed tells us something different than the graphs period.  Funny eh?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> It looks to me as if the Arctic is being melted by rising temperatures.  Now there's an amazing conclusion.


The data says your hype is pure BS...

Most of us understand that the 30% coverage areas have not diminished and remain at average or above as they have now been increasing for 3 years.  DMI stopped publishing their graph because it showed the AGW meme a false narrative and it was not receding like they needed it to be, to make their model assumptions to be true.. The real data shows the models in serious error..

When the real data shows your model assumptions false you have a problem with the model and YOUR ASSUMPTIONS WHICH DRIVE IT.  They choose to remove the data from public view rather than fix their failed models. This shows a complete lack of integrity and falsified scientific work.. In more precise terms... Political Activism and Political agenda...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2016)

Its rather amazing (and funny) the Russians had to let them use an ice breaker to escape from nonexistent ice....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 21, 2016)

Even if the ice is "melting" how can you eliminate variables like aldebo (soot from China -- its a filthy polluter, remember?) or changes in our magnetic field (is 10% weaker over the last 2 decades)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Even if the ice is "melting" how can you eliminate variables like aldebo (soot from China -- its a filthy polluter, remember?) or changes in our magnetic field (is 10% weaker over the last 2 decades)


There you go Frank...  Confusing the situation with facts.. potential causes and the like that are not CO2.....


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> what do you think is happening that could cause extents to shrink as they have




Well, since Antarctic sea ice is growing, whatever is causing it is NOT GLOBAL...

Try this - the Arctic Ocean is growing....

yeah, THAT!!!


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> It looks to me as if the Arctic is being melted by rising temperatures




Then WHY is Antarctic sea ice GROWING???


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 21, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > It looks to me as if the Arctic is being melted by rising temperatures
> ...



Why is Arctic sea ice GROWING??

Global Warming

Why is Antarctic sea ice GROWING??

Climate Change


----------



## jc456 (Jul 21, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Frank, I can't believe the warmers don't understand that the earth tilts one way and then the other and that sunlight doesn't hit the north or south poles during each of those tilts.  Ice will always develop.  The Antarctic  will always have more ice because it is land.  The warmers use the ignorance of humans who haven't figured that out.  it is funny though.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> The Antarctic will always have more ice because it is land.



Land moves.  The Arctic likely had more ice than the Antarctic 50 million years ago, when the Arctic Ocean really did not exist.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 21, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > The Antarctic will always have more ice because it is land.
> ...


yep, ground stays cold, water not so much.  If the Antarctic continent moves out of the pole area, it will thaw, I agree.  and the water that replaces it will still freeze. my point with the tilting.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 21, 2016)

The "ice free" polar circle has no land.  We have limited current data on mix of land and water (Arctic), but clearly as the Arctic Ocean grows, the sea ice will shrink.  Another major factor is that, when the Arctic Ocean expands, it releases magma from the floor dramatically melting sea ice on the surface.  The 2005 and 2007 Arctic Sea Ice melts were just directly over Gakkel Ridge, the Arctic "coming in" fault.  The sea ice by North American through Greenland's west coast is still the same - all the melt is on the other side - Alaska through the east coast of Greenland.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 21, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Even if the ice is "melting" how can you eliminate variables like aldebo (soot from China -- its a filthy polluter, remember?)



I can eliminate it because you'd have to be an imbecile to include it.

China is not near the poles. 

Winds blow from the west, primarily. Hence, soot doesn't go far north.

The Greenland ice sheet and some other glaciers, being further south, do get affected by soot. That's well-studied.

More southerly sea ice melts out completely each year, hence soot can't build up on it.

Sea ice in the high arctic is too far north to get much soot. And it partially melts out each year, and gets rolled over a lot, which removes any soot that could build up.

Not being imbeciles, scientists have also figured this out.

The magnetic stuff you babbled about was even dumber.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 21, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Because it is not. At least not this year. Absolutely average for the year.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 21, 2016)

Got too much ice?  Sounds like a vodka problem to me.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 21, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> The "ice free" polar circle has no land.  We have limited current data on mix of land and water (Arctic), but clearly as the Arctic Ocean grows, the sea ice will shrink.  Another major factor is that, when the Arctic Ocean expands, it releases magma from the floor dramatically melting sea ice on the surface.  The 2005 and 2007 Arctic Sea Ice melts were just directly over Gakkel Ridge, the Arctic "coming in" fault.  The sea ice by North American through Greenland's west coast is still the same - all the melt is on the other side - Alaska through the east coast of Greenland.


The present changes that we are seeing are happening on a decadal scale. The changes you are talking about happen on a million year scale. The present warming has absolutely nothing to do with tectonics. If it did, you would be seeing articles on it in the scientific journals that deal with geology.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 21, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The Gore Effect Strikes Again
> 
> A group of adventurers, sailors, pilots and climate scientists that recently started a journey around the North Pole in an effort to show the lack of ice, has been blocked from further travels by ice.



A bald faced lie from a denier cult fraudulent propaganda outlet.






Weatherman2020 said:


> The Polar Ocean Challenge is taking a two month journey that will see them go from Bristol, Alaska, to Norway, then to Russia through the North East passage, back to Alaska through the North West passage, to Greenland and then ultimately back to Bristol. Their objective, as laid out by their website, was to demonstrate “_that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through._”
> 
> There has been one small hiccup thus-far though: they are currently stuck in Murmansk, Russia because there is too much ice blocking the North East passage the team said didn’t exist in summer months, according to Real Climate Science.



*The Route
The boat will leave Bristol where is is currently moored in July. It will sail up the West side of the UK over to Norway and then Northern Russia. travel along the North of the USSR and through the North East passage. One of the areas of sea that has been previously frozen all year but is melted enough to pass in the summer.*

They arrived in Murmansk around the middle of July and had to deal with "red tape" for a few days. The ship has now departed Murmansk and is many miles out in the ocean.....as their real time GPS position reporting system clearly shows.
*Tracking the Boat*






Crick said:


> From their website:
> 
> *THIS MORNING 20TH JULY WE LEAVE MURMANSK TODAY*
> *09.06 UTC 12.06 Local time. *
> ...





flacaltenn said:


> Yeah -- The Russians didn't want them either.. So they lent them an icebreaker to get them out of town !!!





Billy_Bob said:


> Its rather amazing (and funny) the Russians had to let them use an ice breaker to escape from nonexistent ice....



LOLOLOLOLOL......You denier cult dingbats are so stupid! You just make shit up. Nobody ever said that the ship was being helped by an "_icebreaker_". It isn't. Nor is the ship unable to proceed because of your imaginary ice. The ship left Murmansk on July 20th and is many miles out to sea.

*TODAY’S SHIPS LOG  0700 UTC 21TH JULY*
*We are now on the NE Passage Woooohoooo!*
*0700 UTC 21st JULY
N69 57  E 035 37, PRESSURE 1019mb, water temp 14c, sky 4/8, batt 13.7, 019m, speed over ground 6.1k*

*David Hempleman Adams writes…*

*Well, after a hive of activity, left Murmansk. We were all ready to leave Murmansk. We have all have had our own experiences here. Its started dull and rainy then became warm and sunny over our time here. Like the people, you could say that the people, were a bit like the buildings, dull seeming at first, but once you got past the exterior, they were warm, very friendly, kind and with that lovely northern attitude.*

*So, our journey begins. Its been never a dull moment with the red tape, and it continues, I am so pleased we have friends in Moscow. Nikolai was on the radio to the equivalent of port authority or coast guard, we didn’t have pilot boat allocated to us, but they kept an eye on us with radar, as we passed the rusting ice breakers of yesteryear; what tales they could tell.*

*Down the river further and past the navy frigates. A massive base, that we stayed well clear off. The fjord was as flat as a mirror. Beautiful scenery, not dissimilar to Norway.*

*Then into the Barents sea. a slight swell, and a change in the colour of the sea to deep blue. The sun was still high and warm and Babs and Constance did a mean pasta with Bolognese sauce. Ros has thought of everything, and we must be the best equipped sailing vessel to leave these waters. we had three types of cheese to go with our pasta !*

*My watch is 8 to 12.  first two hours with Ben and second 2 hours with Babs. Slowly going north east my son, where the sun sets. Except the sun at the moment is still in the sky and not setting, and the moon was high and full. it looked fantastic.*

*And then our first sighting of a whale. No idea what type, but definitely a whale and not a submarine !*

*And then I went to bed after a long, long day. It was too hot to sleep down below, and too many things going on in my head, but we are now on the North East Passage.  Woooohooooo.*

*A lot of people from all skills and experiences have helped us get to this point WE all thank you.*

*Hempie*


----------



## jc456 (Jul 21, 2016)

B


mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Even if the ice is "melting" how can you eliminate variables like aldebo (soot from China -- its a filthy polluter, remember?)
> ...


Boat gets stuck in ice not supposed to be there and you still post ice lost. Holy fk


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Even if the ice is "melting" how can you eliminate variables like aldebo (soot from China -- its a filthy polluter, remember?)
> ...



So only the CO2 that China creates gets dispersed all over the globe, the soot stays local.

Good to know.

Also, you're claiming Earth's magnetic field has no effect on climate.

Good to know.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Boat gets stuck in ice not supposed to be there and you still post ice lost. Holy fk


The boat is not "_stuck in ice_", you gullible liar.

The boat is out in the Arctic Ocean, many miles from Murmansk, and proceeding up the North East Passage without any problem, you poor deluded denier cult troll.

*The National Snow and Ice Data Center....*
July 20, 2016
*As of July 18, Arctic sea ice extent was 7.82 million square kilometers (3.02 million square miles). This is just below the two standard deviation value for the date, and just above the level observed on the same date in 2012, the year that ended up having the lowest September extent in the satellite record. Throughout the month, extent has closely tracked both the two standard deviation and 2012 levels.

Seasonal onset of surface melt was early over most of the Arctic Ocean. This occurred under the high-pressure-dominated weather pattern that was present earlier in the spring. The onset of surface melt can be determined with the same passive microwave data used to determine sea ice extent and concentration. Melt began in late April/early May in the southern Beaufort Sea, which was about 6 weeks (more than 40 days) earlier than average. Melt also began a month earlier than average in the Barents Sea and northern Baffin Bay. Early onset of melt is important because melt drops the surface albedo, allowing the sea ice and its overlying snow cover to absorb more solar radiation, which accelerates the melt process.*


----------



## jc456 (Jul 21, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Boat gets stuck in ice not supposed to be there and you still post ice lost. Holy fk
> ...


Then why'd they need the ice breaker?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 21, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Boat gets stuck in ice not supposed to be there and you still post ice lost. Holy fk
> ...





jc456 said:


> Then why'd they need the ice breaker?



They neither needed nor got an ice breaker, numbnuts. Can't you read?

*So, our journey begins. Its been never a dull moment with the red tape, and it continues, I am so pleased we have friends in Moscow. Nikolai was on the radio to the equivalent of port authority or coast guard, we didn’t have pilot boat allocated to us, but they kept an eye on us with radar, as we passed the rusting ice breakers of yesteryear; what tales they could tell.*

*Then into the Barents sea. a slight swell, and a change in the colour of the sea to deep blue. The sun was still high and warm...**And then I went to bed after a long, long day. It was too hot to sleep down below, and too many things going on in my head, but we are now on the North East Passage.  Woooohooooo.*


----------



## mamooth (Jul 21, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> So only the CO2 that China creates gets dispersed all over the globe, the soot stays local.



You might ask someone to explain to you the difference between gases and particles. Until you figure it out, you're not qualified to be speaking with the grownups.



> Also, you're claiming Earth's magnetic field has no effect on climate.



Can you point us to some science saying otherwise?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > So only the CO2 that China creates gets dispersed all over the globe, the soot stays local.
> ...


So the op is incorrect?


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 21, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


They sure do seem to have a lot of failed missions.

The last two A-Train satellites they launched both never made it to orbit. And get this, they both crashed because of the SAME problem. The payload fairings failed to separate.  Now you would think that after the first one crashed, they would fix the problem. Personally, I suspect that they crashed them on purpose because they were afraid that the data the satellites send back would not jibe with their preconceived theory.

I wonder how many hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars they sent into the drink.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Boat gets stuck in ice not supposed to be there and you still post ice lost. Holy fk





RollingThunder said:


> The boat is not "_stuck in ice_", you gullible liar.
> 
> The boat is out in the Arctic Ocean, many miles from Murmansk, and proceeding up the North East Passage without any problem, you poor deluded denier cult troll.





jc456 said:


> So the op is incorrect?


You mean the troll WitherMan's usual braindead twaddle from a deceitful fossil fuel industry propaganda outlet?

You mean _this_ garbage....

"_A group of adventurers, sailors, pilots and climate scientists that recently started a journey around the North Pole in an effort to show the lack of ice, has been blocked from further travels by ice.

There has been one small hiccup thus-far though: they are currently stuck in Murmansk, Russia, because there is too much ice blocking the North East passage the team said didn’t exist in summer months, according to Real Climate Science._"

Yes, that is "_incorrect_"......*obviously*

The ship left Murmansk a day ago, on July 20th, and is far out into the Arctic Ocean, going up the North East Passage (*Tracking the Boat*). It is not stuck in ice. It is demonstrating that the Arctic sea ice cover has diminished so much that you can now circumnavigate the whole thing. Something that has been impossible for thousands of years, until just recently, as anthropogenic global warming melts the Arctic ice at increasing rates.


----------



## Crick (Jul 22, 2016)

Yes, your interpretation of that IS incorrect.  They have stopped in port due to ice ahead of them.  They are not lodged in the pack.  They are currently underway with an enormous amount of open water ahead of them.

See their website.

Several Russian vessels have already made the interesting parts of this same journey last year.  Passage around the North Pole is opening and will be getting more so.  In the foreseeable future, we will be able to sail over the North Pole in summer.  It will become a fashionable cruise ship destination.  Wheeee!


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> They have stopped in port due to ice ahead of them.



vs.



Crick said:


> They are currently underway with an enormous amount of open water ahead of them.




Profession - Climate Scientist


----------



## mamooth (Jul 22, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> The last two A-Train satellites they launched both never made it to orbit.



The last two A-Train launches were OCO-2 (2014) and GCOM-W1 (2012), both successful.

Why did you lie to us?

I'm guessing it's because you believe any lie is justifiable, if it's done in the service of your cult.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 22, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > They have stopped in port due to ice ahead of them.
> ...


LOLOLOLOL......you are a hoot, LaDumbshit. Are you really too fucking stupid to understand that the ship reached Murmansk on July 12th, waited a short time to clear up red tape with the Russians and wait for weather conditions to improve, and then left Murmansk on July 20th and is now about 500 kilometers out into the Arctic Ocean on their planned course to circumnavigate the fast dwindling sea ice cap? See for yourself, little retard - *Tracking the Boat*. It was never stuck in ice, only slightly delayed. The fraudulent OP was a lie.


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 22, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...





mamooth said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > The last two A-Train satellites they launched both never made it to orbit.
> ...


It must of been the two before those. Either NASA is extremely incompetent or they crashed them on purpose.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 22, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


delayed by what?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...


Pack ICE...  that magically appeared in defiance of their models.. And required an ice breaker ship to get through....


----------



## jc456 (Jul 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


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


I really wanted thunder to say it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Snowballs chance in hell of that...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 22, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...





mamooth said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > The last two A-Train satellites they launched both never made it to orbit.
> ...





Muhammed said:


> It must of been the two before those. Either NASA is extremely incompetent or they crashed them on purpose.



A good example of rightwingnut conspiracy theory insanity.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


and my post will linger without his reply.  Proving again, the tool he really is.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 22, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


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


did you notice the mention of the ice breaker in the article he originally posted.  Too funny.

"*we didn’t have pilot boat allocated to us, but they kept an eye on us with radar, as we passed the rusting ice breakers of yesteryear; what tales they could tell."*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2016)

Sea ice melt has almost totally stalled... Ambient air temp is 15 Deg F low for this time of year..  This is expected to continue and ice melt to further diminish... we are already within 2 STD... NORMAL!

The Ice recovery has begun!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 22, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > They have stopped in port due to ice ahead of them.
> ...





RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOL......you are a hoot, LaDumbshit. Are you really too fucking stupid to understand that the ship reached Murmansk on July 12th, waited a short time to clear up red tape with the Russians and wait for weather conditions to improve, and then left Murmansk on July 20th and is now about 500 kilometers out into the Arctic Ocean on their planned course to circumnavigate the fast dwindling sea ice cap? See for yourself, little retard - *Tracking the Boat*. It was never stuck in ice, only slightly delayed. The fraudulent OP was a lie.





jc456 said:


> delayed by what?


Since they left Murmansk days ago and are now many hundreds of miles out into the formerly ice covered Arctic Ocean and on course on their journey to sail around the formerly ice locked Arctic sea ice cap, WHO CARES about a slight delay because the wind was blowing some ice around for a few days?

Well, obviously only you demented denier cult dingbats who are desperately searching for some validation of your reality denying insanity.

They were never "_stuck_" in ice, just stopped at a port. Your lying sources, sponsored and funded by the fossil fuel industry, lied to you again, dumbass.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 22, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


funny, you wrote delayed.  delayed by what?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 22, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > They have stopped in port due to ice ahead of them.
> ...





RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOL......you are a hoot, LaDumbshit. Are you really too fucking stupid to understand that the ship reached Murmansk on July 12th, waited a short time to clear up red tape with the Russians and wait for weather conditions to improve, and then left Murmansk on July 20th and is now about 500 kilometers out into the Arctic Ocean on their planned course to circumnavigate the fast dwindling sea ice cap? See for yourself, little retard - *Tracking the Boat*. It was never stuck in ice, only slightly delayed. The fraudulent OP was a lie.





jc456 said:


> delayed by what?





Billy_Bob said:


> Pack ICE...  that magically appeared in defiance of their models.. And required an ice breaker ship to get through....


Nope! Sorry little retard but your myths are bogus. There was no "_pack ICE_" and they DID NOT "_require an ice breaker ship to get through_". Why do you repeat lies after they have been debunked, Boober. Tell us why you 'think' they used or needed an ice breaker? Cite evidence! Or admit that you are just a clueless bullshiter!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 22, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Since they left Murmansk days ago and are now many hundreds of miles out into the formerly ice covered Arctic Ocean and on course on their journey to sail around the formerly ice locked Arctic sea ice cap, WHO CARES about a slight delay because the wind was blowing some ice around for a few days?
> 
> Well, obviously only you demented denier cult dingbats who are desperately searching for some validation of your reality denying insanity.
> 
> They were never "_stuck_" in ice, just stopped at a port. Your lying sources, sponsored and funded by the fossil fuel industry, lied to you again, dumbass.


funny, you wrote delayed.  delayed by what?[/QUOTE]

Nobody cares at this point, dumbass. The OP was bogus bullshit. The ship IS, IN FACT, ON COURSE TO CIRCLE THE THE FORMERLY ICE LOCKED ARCTIC OCEAN. Destroying your demented denier cult myths about the Arctic ice "_recovering_".


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 22, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...


So do you think it was on purpose or just incompetence?

That was 700 billion dollars that went in the drink.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 22, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> The last two A-Train satellites they launched both never made it to orbit.





mamooth said:


> The last two A-Train launches were OCO-2 (2014) and GCOM-W1 (2012), both successful.





Muhammed said:


> It must of been the two before those. Either NASA is extremely incompetent or they crashed them on purpose.





RollingThunder said:


> A good example of rightwingnut conspiracy theory insanity.





Muhammed said:


> do you think it was on purpose or just incompetence?
> 
> That was 700 billion dollars that went in the drink.



You really are, I guess, just too stupid to understand that the scientists who study the climate are not the people at NASA who are launching satellites into space.

Your crackpot conspiracy theory insanity is truly pathetic, MustBeHammered.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 22, 2016)

In 2015, the Northeast passage wasn't open until around August 18.

Both NSR Passages Open with Third Lowest Ice Extent Observed／2015.09.11

Anyone claiming "The models said it should be wide open now!" is lying their ass off. That would be Billy, and other deniers on this thread.

You don't have to be pathologically dishonest to be a denier ... oh wait, you really do. It's no longer possible for an honest person to be part of that cult.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 22, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Since they left Murmansk days ago and are now many hundreds of miles out into the formerly ice covered Arctic Ocean and on course on their journey to sail around the formerly ice locked Arctic sea ice cap, WHO CARES about a slight delay because the wind was blowing some ice around for a few days?
> ...





RollingThunder said:


> Nobody cares at this point, dumbass. The OP was bogus bullshit. The ship IS, IN FACT, ON COURSE TO CIRCLE THE THE FORMERLY ICE LOCKED ARCTIC OCEAN. Destroying your demented denier cult myths about the Arctic ice "_recovering_".


rolling on the floor laughing, omg, ohhhhhhhhh, now it isn't of any concern why they were delayed.  haahahhahahahahahaahhaah wow.  funny thunder.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> In 2015, the Northeast passage wasn't open until around August 18.
> 
> Both NSR Passages Open with Third Lowest Ice Extent Observed／2015.09.11
> 
> ...


well your post concerns 2015, and we're in 2016 if you need to know.  Also, it is what the OP was about.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> In 2015, the Northeast passage wasn't open until around August 18.
> 
> Both NSR Passages Open with Third Lowest Ice Extent Observed／2015.09.11
> 
> ...





jc456 said:


> well your post concerns 2015, and we're in 2016 if you need to know.  Also, it is what the OP was about.


Oh, you poor dumbshit denier cult dingbat. Mamooth was obviously pointing out that last year the North East Passage was not ice free enough to be open to ships until the middle of August, and this year the ship we're looking at in this thread is currently navigating it fairly easily because it is now open in July.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 22, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Since they left Murmansk days ago and are now many hundreds of miles out into the formerly ice covered Arctic Ocean and on course on their journey to sail around the formerly ice locked Arctic sea ice cap, WHO CARES about a slight delay because the wind was blowing some ice around for a few days?
> 
> Well, obviously only you demented denier cult dingbats who are desperately searching for some validation of your reality denying insanity.
> 
> They were never "_stuck_" in ice, just stopped at a port. Your lying sources, sponsored and funded by the fossil fuel industry, lied to you again, dumbass.





jc456 said:


> funny, you wrote delayed.  delayed by what?





RollingThunder said:


> Nobody cares at this point, dumbass. The OP was bogus bullshit. The ship IS, IN FACT, ON COURSE TO CIRCLE THE THE FORMERLY ICE LOCKED ARCTIC OCEAN. Destroying your demented denier cult myths about the Arctic ice "_recovering_".





jc456 said:


> rolling on the floor laughing, omg, ohhhhhhhhh, now it isn't of any concern why they were delayed.  haahahhahahahahahaahhaah wow.  funny thunder.



Ah...more of that clueless laughter of morons who are too stupid to understand the situation.

And no, dumbass, since the ship is underway and on course and hundreds of miles out into the previously ice covered Arctic Ocean, your panty-twisting over a slight delay is absurd.

You fail again!


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > In 2015, the Northeast passage wasn't open until around August 18.
> ...


Can you say delay?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Since they left Murmansk days ago and are now many hundreds of miles out into the formerly ice covered Arctic Ocean and on course on their journey to sail around the formerly ice locked Arctic sea ice cap, WHO CARES about a slight delay because the wind was blowing some ice around for a few days?
> ...


You said delay and you refuse to answer why. So fk off


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 23, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Since they left Murmansk days ago and are now many hundreds of miles out into the formerly ice covered Arctic Ocean and on course on their journey to sail around the formerly ice locked Arctic sea ice cap, WHO CARES about a slight delay because the wind was blowing some ice around for a few days?
> 
> Well, obviously only you demented denier cult dingbats who are desperately searching for some validation of your reality denying insanity.
> 
> They were never "_stuck_" in ice, just stopped at a port. Your lying sources, sponsored and funded by the fossil fuel industry, lied to you again, dumbass.





jc456 said:


> funny, you wrote delayed.  delayed by what?





RollingThunder said:


> Nobody cares at this point, dumbass. The OP was bogus bullshit. The ship IS, IN FACT, ON COURSE TO CIRCLE THE THE FORMERLY ICE LOCKED ARCTIC OCEAN. Destroying your demented denier cult myths about the Arctic ice "_recovering_".





jc456 said:


> rolling on the floor laughing, omg, ohhhhhhhhh, now it isn't of any concern why they were delayed.  haahahhahahahahahaahhaah wow.  funny thunder.





RollingThunder said:


> Ah...more of that clueless laughter of morons who are too stupid to understand the situation.
> 
> And no, dumbass, since the ship is underway and on course and hundreds of miles out into the previously ice covered Arctic Ocean, your panty-twisting over a slight delay is absurd.
> 
> You fail again!





jc456 said:


> You said delay and you refuse to answer why. So fk off



Since they are underway and on course, why do imagine that the fact that they were delayed in Murmansk for a little over a week is so fucking important, JustCrazy? What difference do you think it makes? Please tell us. Or just run away., like you usually do when your bullshit gets debunked.

The OP of this thread is more bogus denier cult bullshit. The ship is on course to circle the entire north polar ocean, something previously impossible throughout human history.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Since they left Murmansk days ago and are now many hundreds of miles out into the formerly ice covered Arctic Ocean and on course on their journey to sail around the formerly ice locked Arctic sea ice cap, WHO CARES about a slight delay because the wind was blowing some ice around for a few days?
> ...


LOL ahem why won't you say why they were delayed Chicken?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> In 2015, the Northeast passage wasn't open until around August 18.
> 
> Both NSR Passages Open with Third Lowest Ice Extent Observed／2015.09.11
> 
> ...



You failed to read the article...  AGAIN... They "were not expecting the ice extent or pack to be so thick".. My God Man..  quit deflecting your own ignorance on others..


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 23, 2016)

Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice has set 5 all time record highs since Obama took office... proving that the claim that CO2 is melting sea ice is 100% BS...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


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


I think we need to call these people the Colonel Sanders believers..

They post up shit they haven't read and cant understand... Then run away when they are called out on it..


----------



## Crick (Jul 23, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > In 2015, the Northeast passage wasn't open until around August 18.
> ...




So what?  What does any of this "scientists stuck in the ice" crap mean?  Nothing.  The Arctic is melting.  It hasn't stopped.  It's not going to recover for centuries.  If we live just a little longer, we'll get to see an ice-free Arctic ocean some summer.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 23, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> You failed to read the article...  AGAIN... They "were not expecting the ice extent or pack to be so thick".



Those are the worlds of the lying deniers at the Daily Caller who wrote the article, not any scientists.

That is, the 'effin morons on your side said something stupid and crazy, so now you're lying big and pretending someone else said it.

On the bright side, at least you're consistent at being a dishonest shitstain. You'll go far in your cult.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 23, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Meanwhile, Antarctic sea ice has set 5 all time record highs since Obama took office... proving that the claim that CO2 is melting sea ice is 100% BS...


Well, Obama did saw the sea started receding when he got elected.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You failed to read the article...  AGAIN... They "were not expecting the ice extent or pack to be so thick".
> ...


Your facts are....oh wait, just more personal attacks so you don't have to discuss facts.  That's "science" in the doomsdayers world.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> The Arctic is melting. It hasn't stopped. It's not going to recover for centuries. If we live just a little longer, we'll get to see an ice-free Arctic ocean some summer.



Actually, the Arctic sea ice has been reducing for millions of years.  Greenland, on the other hand, was a forest 1 million years ago, and continues to add its annual ice core.  As the Arctic Ocean grows, the sea ice will shrink.  But Greenland's ice will grow, and grow, and eventually sea ice in the Arctic will just coalesce around Greenland, and then start growing again.


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Those are the worlds of the* honest people* at the Daily Caller who wrote the article, not any *fraudulent fearmongering fudgebakers*.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 23, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Those are the worlds of the* honest people* at the Daily Caller who wrote the article



That's funny. Billy told us those words came from the scientists. Now you say they came from Daily Caller.

You two need to hash it out, because one of you must be lying.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You failed to read the article...  AGAIN... They "were not expecting the ice extent or pack to be so thick".
> ...


Sure


----------



## Crick (Jul 24, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Your facts are....oh wait, just more personal attacks so you don't have to discuss facts.  That's "science" in the doomsdayers world.



Okay, let's discuss some facts.

What happens to these people on the small sailboat is completely meaningless in any discussion of what's happening to the Arctic's ice.  This is:










And please not that this PIOMAS graph is not one of volume anomaly, but total volume.  Zero on that graph's vertical axis is NO ICE in the Arctic.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Your facts are....oh wait, just more personal attacks so you don't have to discuss facts.  That's "science" in the doomsdayers world.
> ...


When was there zero ice in the Arctic?


----------



## Crick (Jul 24, 2016)

God are you stupid


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 24, 2016)

Just how stupid does one have to be to claim CO2 inspired "global warming" is melting Arctic Sea ice... while the Antarctic Sea ice is growing....

?????????????????????????


----------



## mamooth (Jul 24, 2016)

Thread summary:

Weatherman claimed scientists were iced in, and had predicted massive melt. And a bunch of deniers hopped on the stupid train. Some of 'em added a fake story about how an icebreaker had to be called.

Except they weren't iced in.

And none of them were scientists. Just sailors.

And they hadn't predicted massive melt.

And there was no icebreaker.

That is, the denier pack lied about everything. Again. Same old same old.

Now, here's a thought. One could be rational, and do a bit of research. I know, such a concept is completely alien to deniers, who only repeat what their cult tells them. When they recover from their fainting spell, they might want to read this.

http://polarocean.co.uk/still-5-days-ice-lets-hope-southerly-winds-push-ice-shore/
---
Partly checked the new ice charts on www.nsra.ru  we still have no chance of getting through yet, not past the cape or through the Laptev sea. Nikolai, Our Russian Captain who is very familiar with this route, impresses on me that this is a very unusual year and normally clear, Not what I want to hear. We are under sail, so saving fuel, and will find a small island to shelter until we get improvements. We are still 5 days from the ice, so lets hope for some southerly winds to push the ice from shore.
---


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 24, 2016)

Meanwhile, highly correlated satellite and balloon data continues to show precisely no warming in the atmosphere...


----------



## Crick (Jul 24, 2016)

How many times do you think you've delivered that idiotic line to us?  "Highly correlated"? 

What is this?








RATPAC is balloon data Whizzo.

Isn't it time now to bring up your fantasy court case?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 24, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Thread summary:
> 
> Weatherman claimed scientists were iced in, and had predicted massive melt. And a bunch of deniers hopped on the stupid train. Some of 'em added a fake story about how an icebreaker had to be called.
> 
> ...


*Their objective, as laid out by their website, was to demonstrate “that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through.”*
*
Please learn to read.*


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> How many times do you think you've delivered that idiotic line to us?  "Highly correlated"?
> 
> What is this?
> 
> ...


Fantastic news.  Since most weather related deaths are cold related, millions of lives will be saved now.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 24, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> *Their objective, as laid out by their website,*


What does that have to do with you getting busted for lying about everything?

Oh, you're deflecting. Please continue.
*



			was to demonstrate “that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through.”

Please learn to read.
		
Click to expand...

*Please learn what "summer" is, and when the icepack usually opens. No wonder you fell for the nonsense. You simply have no idea of how the climate works.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 24, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > *Their objective, as laid out by their website,*
> ...


Do tell us when summer starts.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 24, 2016)

June 21. And it ends September 21. Now, what is today's date? See. Still summer.

Now, it has been an interesting season.

For the past several years, it was the northeast passage that opened first, with the northwest not opening until September, and only just barely in 2013-14-15. This year, the opposite. The northwest passage is almost open now. The usual choke point, the ice in the Canadian islands, is melting out fast. If that ship had tried going around the opposite way, they would have done much better.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 24, 2016)

mamooth said:


> June 21. And it ends September 21. Now, what is today's date? See. Still summer.
> 
> Now, it has been an interesting season.
> 
> For the past several years, it was the northeast passage that opened first, with the northwest not opening until September, and only just barely in 2013-14-15. This year, the opposite. The northwest passage is almost open now. The usual choke point, the ice in the Canadian islands, is melting out fast. If that ship had tried going around the opposite way, they would have done much better.


In about 4 weeks the ice will begin growing again.  Good luck on that voyage.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 24, 2016)

No, mid-September. So, 7 weeks.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 24, 2016)

mamooth said:


> No, mid-September. So, 7 weeks.


You don't know much about arctic ice, do you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 25, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > No, mid-September. So, 7 weeks.
> ...





Fig. 4.2. Time series of Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent anomalies in March (the month of maximum ice extent) and September (the month of minimum ice extent). The anomaly value for each year is the difference (in %) in ice extent relative to the mean values for the period 1981-2010. The black and red dashed lines are least squares linear regression lines. The slopes of these lines indicate ice losses of -2.6% and -13.4% per decade in March and September, respectively. Both trends are significant at the 99% confidence level.

Arctic Report Card - Sea Ice - Perovich, et al.

*It is readily apparent that he knows far more than you do, you silly fuck. Why don't you at least do minimal research before proving yourself such an ignorant fool.*


----------



## mamooth (Jul 25, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> You don't know much about arctic ice, do you?



You're actually denying that Arctic sea ice reaches a minimum around mid-September.? 

Wow. Even after I help you out, you still pooch it hard. It's impressive, how you manage to fail so completely at every topic.

But go on. Do tell us when the minimum is, and show us a source backing it up.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 25, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > You don't know much about arctic ice, do you?
> ...


Hilarious.  The moonbats want to argue 4 weeks vs 7 weeks and say it's terrible shipping can pass to promote more trade.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 25, 2016)

Ah, you're running away after you got called on your bull.

And nobody is surprised.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Oops, you dropped something.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 25, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > You don't know much about arctic ice, do you?
> ...


Not my fault ice is blocking their voyage.


----------



## Crick (Jul 25, 2016)

But, to some extent, it is your fault that the Arctic is still melting.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> But, to some extent, it is your fault that the Arctic is still melting.


I'm glad I can take part in saving millions of lives, thanks.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 25, 2016)

Crick said:


> But, to some extent, it is your fault that the Arctic is still melting.


Nope


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> But, to some extent, it is your fault that the Arctic is still melting.


The shear ignorance and stupidly of this statement in the absence of any facts to prove it...  Very telling...  Your religion is showing..


----------



## LaDexter (Jul 26, 2016)

Crick said:


> But, to some extent, it is your fault that the Arctic is still melting.




Yeah, HEY!!!

All you jackasses there moving tectonic plates and making the Arctic Ocean bigger = QUIT IT!!!

NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 26, 2016)

I actually heard this from somebody on line at a store..........had no idea............laughed my balls off because I was thinking of the asshat AGW global warmers in here who look pretty fucking stoopid as usual.

These dopes have been posting up for months now that the ice is damn near gone in 2016.............what a bunch of fake phony frauds!!!

Do they maybe not understand what getting stuck in the ice means? IDK??!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 26, 2016)

Hey Billy......are they saying yet that this event was caused by warming??


----------



## mamooth (Jul 26, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> I'm glad I can take part in saving millions of lives, thanks.



But you're pushing for warming, which will kill millions. Only some deranged religious nutters make the insane claim that warming will save lives.

That's why you're so dangerous.. Your religious fanaticism is not harmless, because it would kill so many.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 26, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm glad I can take part in saving millions of lives, thanks.
> ...


Almost all weather related deaths are due to cold.  I'm saving millions of lives.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 26, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Almost all weather related deaths are due to cold.  I'm saving millions of lives.



Even if that were true, and it's not, your logic still makes no sense. You don't understand the risk analysis.

If you're calculating lives saved, you have to look at the rate-of-change for each category, the derivative, not the base number itself.

That is, it's not C or H (deaths-cold or deaths-heat) that matters. It's dC/dT vs dH/dT. How many cold deaths would be prevented by a 1C increase, compared to how many more heat deaths would result from a 1C increase?

The latter number is much bigger, hence higher temperatures would kill more people.


----------



## westwall (Jul 26, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm glad I can take part in saving millions of lives, thanks.
> ...







The facts are incontrovertible, cold kills far more people than warm does.  Every year.  There have been multiple studies that show this to be true.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 26, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Almost all weather related deaths are due to cold.  I'm saving millions of lives.
> ...


You post in the environment section and you deny the biggest cause of weather related deaths is cold.  Good grief.

And life on earth was never more prolific than when the earth was much much warmer, so stick your fear mongering in a certain location.


----------



## mamooth (Jul 26, 2016)

As I've pointed out before, the situations are not alike.

Most cold deaths are accidental. An old person falls down outside, a mentally ill person wanders off, a drunk passes out, a dumbass tries to swim a cold river. Raising the temperature a bit won't significantly change the rate of such deaths.

Most heat deaths are not accidental. People doing ordinary things overheat and die. A small temperature rise will mean a lot more deaths.

Hence, raising the temperature kills a lot more than it saves.

It's not a complex risk-analysis. It's just common sense. And almost all the deniers will fail at it. Most of the deniers here have the intellectual capacity of second-graders, yet they're absolutely convinced that they're experts on everything. I blame their PC upbringing. They must have got a lot of participation trophies.


----------



## westwall (Jul 26, 2016)

mamooth said:


> As I've pointed out before, the situations are not alike.
> 
> Most cold deaths are accidental. An old person falls down outside, a mentally ill person wanders off, a drunk passes out, a dumbass tries to swim a cold river. Raising the temperature a bit won't significantly change the rate of such deaths.
> 
> ...






No, they are not.  Cold deaths are almost all related to health issues.  The colder it gets the thicker a persons blood gets and the more labored the circulation becomes.  Overwhelmingly more people die, mainly the older and infirm I will grant you, in winter than in summer.  This is a well known fact.  In the UK where they have been studying it for years now the disparity in deaths is quite substantial.


----------



## Crick (Jul 27, 2016)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > As I've pointed out before, the situations are not alike.
> ...




HAHAHAHAHAaaaa.  The thicker their blood gets?!?!?  What a fucking BUFFOOOOOON!!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


You dont have a dam clue what or how blood works.. He is correct, it does indeed become thicker as the body temp cools..its part of the bodies warming defense to keep the body core warm....  Ignorance is bliss


----------



## mamooth (Jul 28, 2016)

I'm guessing these Einsteins also believe that blood thinner medications reduce the viscosity of blood.

Blood is interesting in that it behaves as a non-newtonian fluid under some conditions. However, temperature has nothing to do with it. You'd be dead of cold long before it has any effect on blood viscosity.

Blood does not get thicker or thinner with temperature. It's not motor oil. Capillaries can constrict or open, but that has nothing to do with blood viscosity.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 28, 2016)

Some people are just more accustomed to the cold and better able to withstand it," he says.

Still, blood is part of the body's thermoregulation system. In cold weather, surface capillaries get smaller, pushing warm blood deeper into the body to help keep it toasty. In warm weather, more blood fills those capillaries so heat can escape through the skin. So if your vascular system gets used to year-round warmth, and then in January you board a plane to upper Minnesota, it'll take time for your blood delivery system to readjust. For a while, you'll feel like the cold you left behind is colder than you remember.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/science/how-does-blood-thickness-affect-body-temperature.html?_r=0

*As usual, Mr. Westwall is repeating some old wives myth, rather than actual facts.*


----------



## westwall (Jul 28, 2016)

mamooth said:


> I'm guessing these Einsteins also believe that blood thinner medications reduce the viscosity of blood.
> 
> Blood is interesting in that it behaves as a non-newtonian fluid under some conditions. However, temperature has nothing to do with it. You'd be dead of cold long before it has any effect on blood viscosity.
> 
> Blood does not get thicker or thinner with temperature. It's not motor oil. Capillaries can constrict or open, but that has nothing to do with blood viscosity.







Untrue.  There have been many studies that show vasoconstriction, and vasodilation is greatly reduced in elderly people as is horripilation.  Thus when the body finally tries to react it is too late.  Thus the outer capillaries constrict as the metabolic rate go's up.  This causes the blood to back up in the system, thus thickening, and thus generating more pressure in an already taxed system.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 28, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Some people are just more accustomed to the cold and better able to withstand it," he says.
> 
> Still, blood is part of the body's thermoregulation system. In cold weather, surface capillaries get smaller, pushing warm blood deeper into the body to help keep it toasty. In warm weather, more blood fills those capillaries so heat can escape through the skin. So if your vascular system gets used to year-round warmth, and then in January you board a plane to upper Minnesota, it'll take time for your blood delivery system to readjust. For a while, you'll feel like the cold you left behind is colder than you remember.
> 
> ...




The issue is confused by the concept of "thicker".. Under more pressure from vasodilation = thicker. 
More viscous -- from the effects of pressure. NOT from more platelets, NOT from clotting. Just thicker. 

Cold weather and your health

In 2011/12, there were 24,200 more deaths in England between the months of December 2011 and March 2012 than were observed over the rest of the year - a large proportion of these are thought to be due to cold weather. Cold temperatures can cause physiological effects such as thicker blood, increase in blood pressure and tightening of the airways - making people who already have chronic conditions even more vulnerable.


High BP + Cold Weather Ups Heart Attack Risk


Cottin and Zeller, who presented their findings at the 2004 European Society of Cardiology meeting, say that cold also makes blood more viscous -- thicker and stickier -- which may cause clots to form.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 29, 2016)

As usual, the progressive weenies did with this thread what progressive weenies do = change the topic to mens health  ( or any other topic )

The explorers got stuck in the ice........the same ice the AGW nut cases promised us wouldn't be there years ago!!


----------



## mamooth (Jul 31, 2016)

On the Siberian side of the Arctic, Northabout has anchored near the icepack, and will wait for some melt and favorable winds.

http://polarocean.co.uk/tracking/

On the Canadian side, the northwest passage is almost open. Just one little bit of ice left. Might be open tomorrow.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 1, 2016)

mamooth said:


> On the Siberian side of the Arctic, Northabout has anchored near the icepack, and will wait for some melt and favorable winds.
> 
> http://polarocean.co.uk/tracking/
> 
> On the Canadian side, the northwest passage is almost open. Just one little bit of ice left. Might be open tomorrow.



LOL

Day time temps are at freezing or below above 80 Deg long.  Ice melt is near zero and pack ice is increasing.. Good luck with this. Even the Russian weather observers are questioning if it will really open at all this year..


----------



## Crick (Aug 2, 2016)

They have no need to get above 77N. Check your map.

Just out of curiosity, though, could we see the data upon which your statement is based?


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 5, 2016)

nobody cares about this artic ice crap after 20 years.....some internet junkies, a few scientists and academia. Nobody else. Even the dumbest of the dumb heard about The Boy Who Cried Wolf in their formative years.


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> They have no need to get above 77N. Check your map.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, though, could we see the data upon which your statement is based?



Still waiting.

The foundation of this thread is whether or not Arctic ice extents are declining.  Does anyone here challenge that decline?

NSIDC has set up a page with a few interactive maps and graphics.  Well worth a visit.  Then please come back and tell us whether or not you believe it.  Perhaps, it's all "fudge", right?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 7, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> nobody cares about this artic ice crap after 20 years.....some internet junkies, a few scientists and academia. Nobody else. Even the dumbest of the dumb heard about The Boy Who Cried Wolf in their formative years.


The world's shipping companies care very much. Those interested in the mineral riches in the Arctic region care very much. And those who have a basic understanding of meteorology care very much. That you deny this to be the case is not doing your credibility any good.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > They have no need to get above 77N. Check your map.
> ...


Dude I'm waiting for where there is ice loss outside summer norms. Still silent


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > nobody cares about this artic ice crap after 20 years.....some internet junkies, a few scientists and academia. Nobody else. Even the dumbest of the dumb heard about The Boy Who Cried Wolf in their formative years.
> ...


Why would shipping companies care?


----------



## Crick (Aug 7, 2016)

Are you kidding?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 7, 2016)

Crick said:


> Are you kidding?


So you have nothing right? Naw, I'm fkn serious


----------



## Crick (Aug 8, 2016)

The above post was aimed at the comment I believe was from jc456 that asked why shipping companies would be interested in an open passage circumnavigating the pole.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> The above post was aimed at the comment I believe was from jc456 that asked why shipping companies would be interested in an open passage circumnavigating the pole.


which ones are interested?


----------



## Crick (Aug 8, 2016)

If you were a trucking company transporting material from NY to LA and someone found a secret magic tunnel that would let you do the trip in half the miles, do you think you might be interested?  Are you not familiar with great circle routes?  Get out your old globe and a piece of string.  Now pick two locations in the north, but on opposite sides of the planet.  Like Seattle and Krasnoyarsk.  Hold one end of the string on Seattle and pull it taut towards Krasnoyarsk.  Where does the string go?  On a sphere, the shortest route between two points is always the shorter arc of the great circle that connects the two points - a great circle is one that cuts the world into two equal halves.  The equator is a great circle - the only such latitude.  But every longitude line is one.

So, do you now know why a shipping company would be interested in an open passageway around the North Pole?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 9, 2016)

Crick said:


> If you were a trucking company transporting material from NY to LA and someone found a secret magic tunnel that would let you do the trip in half the miles, do you think you might be interested?  Are you not familiar with great circle routes?  Get out your old globe and a piece of string.  Now pick two locations in the north, but on opposite sides of the planet.  Like Seattle and Krasnoyarsk.  Hold one end of the string on Seattle and pull it taut towards Krasnoyarsk.  Where does the string go?  On a sphere, the shortest route between two points is always the shorter arc of the great circle that connects the two points - a great circle is one that cuts the world into two equal halves.  The equator is a great circle - the only such latitude.  But every longitude line is one.
> 
> So, do you now know why a shipping company would be interested in an open passageway around the North Pole?


so you have no shipping company to link us all to.  interesting.


----------



## Crick (Aug 13, 2016)

So, you're a fucking idiot.  Not interesting.

The primary cause of the global warming observed over the last 150 years is human emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> So, you're a fucking idiot.  Not interesting.
> 
> The primary cause of the global warming observed over the last 150 years is human emissions of greenhouse gases and deforestation.


Except you can't prove it. Ain't that hilarious. You can't even prove greenhouse process! LOL , rofl


----------



## Crick (Aug 14, 2016)

Can you "PROVE" that no shipping companies are interested in shorter routes to their destinations?  Can you even SUGGEST WHY they might not be interested?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 14, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> The Gore Effect Strikes Again
> 
> A group of adventurers, sailors, pilots and climate scientists that recently started a journey around the North Pole in an effort to show the lack of ice, has been blocked from further travels by ice.
> 
> ...



Your logic is funny. 

Nothing states that there should be no ice there. You just wish it to be so.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So, you're a fucking idiot.  Not interesting.
> ...



But you can't prove it's not. And you can't prove that the greenhouse effect isn't happening. 

Hence what are we in? A void of not knowing 100% what is happening. 

That doesn't mean we can't see what's happening to a large degree, we're at like 90% of knowledge, and yet you're pretending if it's not 100% then it's 0%.


----------



## Crick (Aug 14, 2016)

Precisely.  And given that we're talking about the natural sciences, knowledge will never be 100%. The denier demand that it be so before taking action is just the cowards way of saying they don't want to take action.  They believe it will hurt THEM too much and they don't give a shit about anyone else.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 14, 2016)

The Northwest Passage is wide open now, at least the southern route. The chart in post #134 links to the current daily ice map.

The Northeast Passage, no. But Northabout (the ship) is getting through anyways, creeping through along the coast.

Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge


----------



## jc456 (Aug 14, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


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


The mere fact you can't prove greenhouse gas does what you claim is all my evidence cause you have zip. Get it? I have sun and deserts also. Why does it cool at night in the deserts?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> Precisely.  And given that we're talking about the natural sciences, knowledge will never be 100%. The denier demand that it be so before taking action is just the cowards way of saying they don't want to take action.  They believe it will hurt THEM too much and they don't give a shit about anyone else.


Fool you don't know what action to take cause you have no idea what is happening cause nothing is happening.  Prove something is happening and you can't fool.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 14, 2016)

Come on people.  Respond this way...


If CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice, why is Antarctic Sea Ice growing, setting 5 new all time record highs since O took office???


----------



## mamooth (Aug 14, 2016)

Poor LaDexter, unable to conceive that "ice" and "temperature" are different things.


----------



## Crick (Aug 14, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Come on people.  Respond this way...
> 
> 
> If CO2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice, why is Antarctic Sea Ice growing, setting 5 new all time record highs since O took office???




"All time record highs"?  Since the beginning of the Universe?  Since the beginning of the planet?  Since when?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



Can't prove greenhouse gas? Well, we can prove it. We can prove there's water vapor in the air, we can prove there's CO2 in the air. 

We can also prove the greenhouse effect. If you compare the Earth with other planets, you see why the Earth is inhabited and others aren't. 

As I said, we don't have nothing, we have 90% knowledge, or more.


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 15, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> We can also prove the greenhouse effect




FUDGING is not proof.  The highly correlated raw data from satellites and balloons shows NO WARMING in the atmosphere unless it is FUDGED, as it was in 2005...


Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates


"For years, skeptics of global warming have used satellite and weather balloon data to argue that climate models were wrong and that global warming isn't really happening.

Now, according to three new studies published in the journal _Science_, it turns out those conclusions based on satellite and weather balloon data were based on faulty analyses.

The atmosphere is (cough cough) indeed warming, not cooling as the (highly correlated raw) data previously showed."


When you have two and only two measures of the same thing, and the two measures produce highly correlated data, there is no reason to challenge that data.  The Global Warming FRAUD was stopped dead in its tracks right here, no warming in the atmosphere.  Then the "Tippys" fudged BOTH with UNCORRELATED "corrections," and the FRAUD continued to bilk the taxpayer.

Just how stupid do you have to be to fall for such fudgebaking nonsense?

*REALLY STUPID*


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


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


you can't prove how warm 20 PPM of CO2 is can you?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 15, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > We can also prove the greenhouse effect
> ...



Wow, you're just using insults. 

I was going to prove it for you, but fuck that shit, you're insulting. I don't deal with insulters.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Nice fallback. I call that coping out. You never had it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



No, and I don't need to, because CO2 isn't "warm". CO2 merely blocks what is coming in. So it all depends on how much heat is coming in for the CO2 to prevent leaving the planet.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...



If you ask, without insulting, I can tell. 

If you've seen lots of my posts, you'll know I say the same thing most times when someone insults.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


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


CO2 does absorb incoming IR, and outgoing IR just leaves the atmosphere. Cools the planet.  You're correct no heat so it can't warm the planet


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


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


Please enlighten how something that carries no heat can warm?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



You DO KNOW that several companies making heating/cooling compressors using CO2 as the "refrigerant". Doesn't wash to say that CO2 "can't carry heat". It carries it the same way that H2O "carries and re-radiates" heat in the atmos. 

Lord -- these old brawls are like GroundHog day in this forum. They keep repeating and repeating no matter how many times folks try to help..


----------



## jc456 (Aug 15, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


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


Then how warm is 20 PPM? It's been asked over and over.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



CO2 doesn't warm the planet in itself. However the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere, and other greenhouse gases, does allow for the planet to be warmer. 

It's the same as the whole gun thing. "Guns don't kill people, people do", well maybe, but people with guns kill people far better than people without guns, hence why the military gives its soldiers guns.

The planet gets warm from the sun. The same as other planets. 

Hottest planet in the solar system? Venus. Why not Mercury which is closer to the sun?

How Hot is Venus?

"The reason Venus is hotter than even Mercury is not because of its position in the solar system but because of its thick, dense cloud layer."

The cloud layer is made up of greenhouse gases. 

"The atmosphere of Venus is made up almost completely of carbon dioxide, with traces of nitrogen."

"The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius).The average temperature on Venus is 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius)."

"The nights on Venus are as warm as the days."

How Hot is Mercury?

"it boasts the most widely varying temperatures in the solar system"

"The day side of the planet reaches temperatures of up to 801 F (427 degrees C). In contrast, the chilly night side can get as cold as minus 279 F (minus 173 C)."

So, the question is, why does Mercury get down to minus 279 F and Venus doesn't. You know the answer right? 

"Mercury's low mass and close proximity to the sun keep it from having anything but the thinnest of atmospheres, and this is the reason it must pass on being the hottest planet. An atmosphere helps to cloak a planet, keeping heat from leaking into space and balancing it, to some degree. Without an atmosphere, Mercury loses a great deal of heat into space, rather than sharing with its night side."

The atmosphere is lacking, so the heat is lost. 

So, looking at other planets we can PROVE that the greenhouse effect exists. The Greenhouse effect makes Venus, at 66 to 107 million miles from the sun WARMER than Mercury which is 29 to 46 million miles away. That's half the distance of Venus and the sun, yet isn't warmer. 

The sun heats up both Mercury and Venus, the CO2 on Venus traps this heat and causes it not to escape into the atmosphere so the heat of the sun can increase, rather than leave.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> How Hot is Venus?
> 
> "The reason Venus is hotter than even Mercury is not because of its position in the solar system but because of its thick, dense cloud layer."
> 
> The cloud layer is made up of greenhouse gases.



You are right and wrong....but mostly wrong.  The reason venus is so much hotter than earth is that its' atmosphere is over 90 times more dense than ours....if you travel up into the atmosphere, however, and measure the temperature at a height where the atmospheric pressure is equal to that on earth...and compensate for the difference in incoming radiation because the planet is closer to the sun than us you will find that the temperature is about the same as here on earth despite the  fact that the atmosphere is almost entirely made up of so called greenhouse gasses.

If the atmosphere of venus were 90+ times more dense than the earth and comprised mostly of non so called greenhouse gasses like nitrogen and oxygen, the surface of the planet would be even hotter.  It isn't rocket science.  If the atmosphere of venus were composed of nearly all non radiative gasses, the planet would have to depend entirely on convection and conduction to move heat to the upper atmosphere.  It is just silly to believe that radiative gasses inhibit a planet's atmosphere to radiatively cool itself.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > How Hot is Venus?
> ...



Dense means what? It can be as dense as it likes, if it doesn't have any greenhouse gases that it's dense with, then it wouldn't be hot not matter how dense it is, would it? 

Also the atmosphere of Mercury isn't dense, and therefore it's as hot. So.... ?

Venus, if it had exactly the same atmosphere as Earth would be hotter, simply because it's closer to the sun.

However, Venus is still hotter than Mercury because of the greenhouse gases it contains. 90+time more oxygen would be 90+ times more and this also causes issue, however that doesn't mean that if Venus was 90 time more dense than Earth with the same gas make up of Earth, that Venus would be hotter than it is.

However, the person I was speaking to who has been going on about how we can't prove the greenhouse effect, hasn't replied yet, hmmm....


----------



## SSDD (Aug 16, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Dense means what? It can be as dense as it likes, if it doesn't have any greenhouse gases that it's dense with, then it wouldn't be hot not matter how dense it is, would it?



Ever hear of the ideal gas law?  If you don't have a grasp of even that basic bit of science then you really aren't able to even begin to discuss the topic.  



frigidweirdo said:


> Also the atmosphere of Mercury isn't dense, and therefore it's as hot. So.... ?



The temperature of mercury is entirely a product of its proximity to the sun,

Ask yourself...if you are capable of asking yourself difficult questions that challenge what you believe.....why is the bottom of the troposphere of Uranus warmer than the bottom of the troposphere here on earth on a planet (Uranus) that is arguably the coldest place in the solar system?  There are no greenhouse gasses so there is no greenhouse effect, there is no Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism at work....the amount of energy Uranus receives from the sun is minuscule compared to the earth and yet, the bottom of the troposphere there is warmer than here..why do you suppose that is?....Could it be due to the density of the atmosphere?....the ideal gas laws accurately predict the temperature there because of the pressure...

If you are unaware of the effect of pressure on temperature where gasses are concerned...and you are interested in actually learning something, I suggest that you do just a bit of reading on the ideal gas laws.

Here is a place to start...it explains that where gasses are concerned, if you increase the pressure, you increase the temperature.

Ideal Gas Law


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 16, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Dense means what? It can be as dense as it likes, if it doesn't have any greenhouse gases that it's dense with, then it wouldn't be hot not matter how dense it is, would it?
> ...



Are you trying to say people can't talk about stuff because of things you decide? I disagree. You don't have to talk to me about it.

As for the other stuff, you seem to be trying to impress someone, I'm not very good with people who try and impress others, I just don't get impressed. Nothing you've said contradicts anything I've said. So I think we can leave it at that, unless you actually have something to add to this debate right now.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2016)

jc456 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Glad you asked. From basic physics and chemistry, the forcing function for CO2 is ---- 












Plugging in for current concentration C of 400 and initial (pre-industrial) concentration Co of 280 --- that gives a forcing function of 1.91W/m2.  Which is about 60% of the 3.5W/m2 needed to explain the current level of warming in that period., Converting 1.91W/m2 to a surface temp. using the just base "sensitivity" (0.35) WITHOUT feedbacks and acceleration fantasies -- gives you about 0.67degC of warming. 

It's not magic. It's science. 

Now YOU can plug in numbers for your 20ppm. But I don't know where you got that or why that number is important.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


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


look up Diurnal Bulge.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


so you know, the 20 PPM comes from the hottest evah for 2015 and now 2016 claims.  The increase was 20 PPM. so you know why I use it.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


So what degree F is all of that?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2016)

jc456 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You really think that a heat pump as big as planet RESPONDS completely within a year to a forcing of ANY type?  It's just silly. And the science actually says that. People are stuck on those OLD charts showing a perfectly "correlated" CO2 rise to temperature. And inferences were made that simply not true about the 2 details tracking each other..


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2016)

jc456 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I leave that to you for "extra credit".  Thought you took physics...  Or 10th grade math...   Or knew how to call up an I-net calculator... NONE of those 3 JC????       Damn...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


so you can't give me the temperature in degree F I see.  BTW, the question has always been temperature not energy.  Degrees F.  Hottest evah shit.

One last thing, you did see the experiment I posted on CO2 causing cooling not warming right?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2016)

jc456 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



9/5ths of the Cent. Value.  Geeeez................


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


well my position is that CO2 does absolutely nothing to temperatures.  In fact, there has never been one experiment that shows it does. ZERO.  So 20 PPM or 400 PPM the temperature is the same. Now, I will say to those who argue differently, to put up or shut up. Show me an experiment that shows CO2 will increase temperatures.  Just one!!!!! four years on here now, still zip.  you post some cockamamie formula and yet you can't prove it.

Look up Diurnal Bulge.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2016)

jc456 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Then you are a bigger denier than I am. In fact, I'm a skeptic and your position puts you on the special bus. Since you reject the GreenHouse Laws and basic physics and chemistry..


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


I do because it's never been tested. And for you, if you believe in the greenhouse gas crap, then how can you not say increasing CO2 doesn't warm the planet?  you're playing both sides of the page.  How is that?

And that is just a hypothesis based on a formula, never proven.  how is it you believe in it?


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2016)

jc456 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You'd never be able to land a space probe on a comet if you need to "test it" in order to figure out the guidance profile.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY DISCREDITED BY 'COOLANT' CARBON DIOXIDE >> Four Winds 10 - Truth Winds

"Nahle, from the Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon in Monterrey, N. L., Mexico, has worked professionally as a scientist for over 40 years. His findings are set to add more fuel to the fire in the vigorous debate over the validity of a cornerstone of the science of environmental activism.

In his new paper, ‘Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands’ the Mexican biologist turned climate researcher proves that in nature, CO2 and water vapor mix together to decrease infrared radiation emissions/absorptions in the air. This is the opposite of what conventional climatology has been saying for years."


----------



## westwall (Aug 16, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > The Gore Effect Strikes Again
> ...








No?  Your hero's have been bleating about an ice free Arctic for years now....  Below is just one of hundreds of hysterical reports that the Arctic will be ice free.  Most recently the Siearra Club was breathlessly telling me that it would be ice free by 2013.  How did that work out?

"The set-up for this summer is disturbing," says Mark Serreze, of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). A number of factors have this year led to most of the Arctic ice being thin and vulnerable as it enters its summer melting season.
North Pole Could Be Ice Free in 2008


----------



## westwall (Aug 16, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...







Dense means it weighs more.   Using Venus as your analog only shows how little you know about science dude.  Just sayin...


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 16, 2016)

I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.

Physicist explaining climate change to a denier on TV is grim viewing

Earth's hottest month on record was July 2016: NASA

For those too lazy to watch the video in the link here is a clip and a full video:



And for those wondering what Brian Cox's credentials are:

Brian Cox - Biography, Facts and Pictures


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.
> 
> Physicist explaining climate change to a denier on TV is grim viewing
> 
> ...


looks like he was told by the other dude quite well. No empirical evidence.  He had nice fudged charts which is not empirical.  you should all learn the definition of the word and come back when you can find some.


----------



## westwall (Aug 16, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.
> 
> Physicist explaining climate change to a denier on TV is grim viewing
> 
> ...








He used a chart that is based on falsified data, so that's a non starter, and regardless of his professional accomplishments, which are significant, his "evidence" for AGW are not empirically based.  They are based on falsified data and correlation.  In other words he's making a fundamental error in science.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 16, 2016)

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.
> ...





jc456 said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.
> ...



You guys can't be serious?  How can you possibly deny something that is believed to be true by a VAST majority of the most well educated scientist in the world?  We are emitting CO2 in record numbers while continuing to decrease the amount of trees on our planet that clean the CO2 out of the air and provide us with clean oxygen.

I mean it isn't even close when it comes ot the number of scientist that believe in global warming.  Most people attribute it to 97% which is rated mostly true by Politfact:  None

...and the best argument you can come up with... is they are using falsified data, from NASA and GISS?  I'd REALLY like to know how and why you think that data is falsified.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 16, 2016)

Northabout got through the ice in the Laptev Sea, and is now moving fast.

Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge

How'd they do it? A big Arctic cyclone blew the ice away from shore. They're not completely out of ice-free waters, but they will be in a day or two. After that, it's ice-free the rest of the way around the north pole.

What does that mean? It means the deniers have failed spectacularly with this thread.


----------



## westwall (Aug 16, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...









Ummmm, because we can prove that the data is falsified would be my guess.  Here is just one Federal Lab that has been shut down due to data falsification.  There are more to come.  


*USGS finds data fraud, closes chemistry lab*
Misconduct has led to delays and 1 retraction in environmental quality measurements reports


More than $100M worth of research may be tainted by govt lab misconduct - Retraction Watch


And then we have this....

*NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud*
Published on November 24, 2015


_"From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.”_
_
NASA Exposed in ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud - Principia Scientific International_


----------



## westwall (Aug 16, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Northabout got through the ice in the Laptev Sea, and is now moving fast.
> 
> Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge
> 
> ...







We have?  Here is what the Arctic looks like TODAY..  They are hugging the coastline because they can't leave the fucking shoreline you boob.  In other words they are following in the footsteps of the sailors who were doing the same type of exploration work in the late 1800's.  Wowee kazowy.  It's over 120 years and they can do no better than a sail boat from way back then.

Let us know when you have something new and original.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 16, 2016)

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Yeah that makes sense... so top scientist even to this day are quoting data that was "proven" to falsified?  REALLY?  Do you REALLY think  top scientist would ruin their own reputation publicly using data..TODAY, in 2016, if it was proven in 2015 that the data was falsified and not correct?  REALLY?  You have to be joking right?  You can't possibly be serious?


----------



## westwall (Aug 16, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...










You are engaging in a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority".  I suggest you look it up.  Whenever that is your sole argument you are losing.  Just sayin...


----------



## mamooth (Aug 16, 2016)

Westwall, Cryosphere Today hasn't updated their maps for months, due to a sensor failure in the satellite they used.

So, you looked at that map that showed most of the Arctic frozen, maybe a late May type situation, and you said "yep, that's what the Arctic looks like in mid-August!". Anybody with basic understanding of climate science would know that Hudson Bay shouldn't be frozen solid in mid-August. Even if the date on it was totally wrong, you should have known better.

Here's what the arctic looks like now.








westwall said:


> We have?  Here is what the Arctic looks like TODAY..  They are hugging the coastline because they can't leave the fucking shoreline you boob.  In other words they are following in the footsteps of the sailors who were doing the same type of exploration work in the late 1800's.  Wowee kazowy.  It's over 120 years and they can do no better than a sail boat from way back then.
> 
> Let us know when you have something new and original.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 16, 2016)

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




How is it a logical fallacy to use common sense?  So what's your expertise on climate change?  What you've read on forums?  Do you have a PH D in any kind of science field?  Have you done any type of field research?  I mean seriously... you are saying you know more than 97% of the top scientist in the world?  You are saying that highly educated individuals in their field of study would use scientific data that you say has been positively disproved for over year?


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 16, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Westwall, Cryosphere Today hasn't updated their maps for months, due to a sensor failure in the satellite they used.
> 
> So, you looked at that map that showed most of the arctic frozen, maybe an early June type situation, and you said "yep, that's what the arctic looks like in Mid-August!". Anybody with basic understanding of climate science would know that Hudson Bay shouldn't be frozen solid in Mid-August. Even if the date on it was totally wrong, you should have known better.
> 
> ...



I can already see it is a waste of time to talk to him/her about this topic.  Just like the gentleman in the video I posted, he/she is set in their ways and isn't going to let a little thing called science to prove them wrong.


----------



## westwall (Aug 16, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...







Because anytime you get personal benefit from your position, as every one of those scientists you quote, do, they are no longer non biased.  Thus their opinions, for that is what they are, no longer are pertinent.  That's why.  Like I said, look up logical fallacy's and then look up the scientific method so that you can understand how these guys violate that methodology all of the time.  Bad science is bad science, no matter who is doing it.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 16, 2016)

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




You know that makes no sense correct?  You have to have a reason to back up your personal opinions and bias.  Now on the other hand, for you to discredit 97% of the scientific community based on your beliefs, which you have little to no factual backing, that... that isn't a fallacy, it's just a bad opinion.


----------



## westwall (Aug 16, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...










  Dude.  You just described AGW "science" to a "T"!  Thanks for the laugh!


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2016)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Northabout got through the ice in the Laptev Sea, and is now moving fast.
> ...


Goddamn, you senile old fool, that is from months ago. The Northwest Passage is completely open. The Northeast Passage is almost open.


----------



## westwall (Aug 16, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...







Look at the date doofus.  It's from YESTERDAY!


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lewdog said:
> ...


Mr. Westwall claims a Phd in geology. And goes on to state that almost everybody in the AGU and GSA are frauds and liars. He has linked to many articles claiming that they proved AGW is a fraud, and when the article is read, one finds just the opposite. He constantly denigrates scientists and people that link posts to real scientists. You can decide for yourself as to the validity of his claims.,


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2016)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


*
LOL. Mr. Westwall, you are getting senile. Right above that image is this message;*

Special Sensor Microwave Imager and Sounder (SSMIS) on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F-17 satellite that provides passive microwave brightness temperatures (and derived Arctic and Antarctic sea ice products) has been providing spurious data since beginning of April. Working on resolving problem or replacing this data source.

*So that is from April. Do you ever bother to read anything before you post? LOL*


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2016)

jc456 said:


> GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY DISCREDITED BY 'COOLANT' CARBON DIOXIDE >> Four Winds 10 - Truth Winds
> 
> "Nahle, from the Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon in Monterrey, N. L., Mexico, has worked professionally as a scientist for over 40 years. His findings are set to add more fuel to the fire in the vigorous debate over the validity of a cornerstone of the science of environmental activism.
> 
> In his new paper, ‘Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands’ the Mexican biologist turned climate researcher proves that in nature, CO2 and water vapor mix together to decrease infrared radiation emissions/absorptions in the air. This is the opposite of what conventional climatology has been saying for years."



Sorry man.  This guy couldn't calculate his own worthless skin area.  His "paper" is a reply to the criticisms of his "first paper". Neither actually got published as far as I can tell. And this cabal of "slayers" aren't ever gonna get out of the Pee Wee League with gems like. 

Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps

*Now we address the IPCC’s biggest mistake. They started off with a flawed number, and then have to invent lots of other unreal processes and mechanisms to make the real Earth’s average temperature coincide with their numbers.

Professor Nasif Nahle points out that error in IPCC models:        

“It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [IPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2.”

Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be receiving a flux of 1368 W/m^2 of solar power (394K under the zenith facing the Sun). With the atmosphere, it receives and absorbs 718 W/m^2 (335K) on its surface.
*
True -- at top of atmos the Solar power is more like 1360W/m2. And the SURFACE flux is 718W/m2. But the idiot is missing the point that the 718W/m2 exists for about 1 minute at high noon at any lattitudinal position. Since the flat area at TOAtmos "wraps around" and MOVES with the earth's rotation -- the DAILY AVERAGE (annualized) insolation is more in the range 320W/m2.. 

There is NOTHING wrong with these numbers. He just doesn't understand the concept of an annualized "daily average" solar insolation number. He's missing a lot and OBVIOUSLY MIGHT have an advanced degree, but he's got no mentors to fix his basic mistakes. 

As for CO2 being a COOLANT. That term is used very loosely. Does not mean that CO2 has no heat capacity or ability to radiate IR in all directions proportional to it's heat energy. His wild ass theory states that the "ATMOS cools the earth during the day and warms it at night".  Which is very sloppy. Since the Earth is shedding heat thru atmos all day/night long and there is NO WARMING going on at night at all. 

Don't bet the farm on finding hope on the Internet. If you can't convert Centigrade to Fahrenheit --- I wouldn't be tackling what ANYONE says to "disprove" the GH theory..


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY DISCREDITED BY 'COOLANT' CARBON DIOXIDE >> Four Winds 10 - Truth Winds
> ...


You sound like a warmer a lot now! You know more than a scientist


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2016)

Quick !!! Everyone throw up their favorite pic of Aug 15th sea ice. Here's mine from NSIDC..
Tell Squiddly that "concentration" is NOT the same as "extent".  But that's why I don't do ice.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2016)

jc456 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


No, Flacaltenn is a skeptic as to how serious the situation is. I hope he is correct, but I don't think that he is, based on the physical evidence of the effects we are seeing already from the warming.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 16, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Quick !!! Everyone throw up their favorite pic of Aug 15th sea ice. Here's mine from NSIDC..
> Tell Squiddly that "concentration" is NOT the same as "extent".  But that's why I don't do ice.


Uh Oh, now you are in trouble with Mr. Westwall.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2016)

jc456 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I'm pretty confident I know more than YOUR scientist..


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Because it isn't getting warm? You're correct. It isn't.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 16, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Cause you've got an experiment that shows differently? Great, post it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 16, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Appreciate the "vote of confidence"..    I guess you didn't grab a copy of the brand new Bray and von Storch Survey of Climate Scientists that a posted a couple days ago. In it, you'll find very LITTLE confidence in the ability to attribute "current severe effects" to GW. And especially a bunch of skepticism on making heat wave or precipt or storm predictions even 10 years out.

I appreciate you attention and dilligience. But you don't have the "posse" that you IMAGINE you have when you read the daily news and SEE GW in action *today.*


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 16, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



How about you make your case, instead of asking people to look up the stuff you think will make your case?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 16, 2016)

westwall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



"hero's" is one hero's thing. You mean heroes. 

But why would they be my heroes? Don't use such condescending crap with me. 

I don't care what other people have been saying, you're not talking with those other people, you're talking with me.


----------



## westwall (Aug 17, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...






Nope.  Hero's is an accepted spelling of the word.  And i call them that because they are the only ones you seem to pay attention to, and they have been proven wrong far, far more than they have been correct.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 17, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Are you trying to say people can't talk about stuff because of things you decide? I disagree. You don't have to talk to me about it.



Of course not...I am saying that if you are going to talk, then perhaps you should educate yourself just a little bit on the topic...only the worst sort of alarmist wackos believe that venus is hot because of a run away greenhouse effect....and by your own admission, you have no clue as to the effect an atmosphere 90+ times as heavy as our own has on a planet's climate regardless of its composition.



frigidweirdo said:


> As for the other stuff, you seem to be trying to impress someone, I'm not very good with people who try and impress others, I just don't get impressed. Nothing you've said contradicts anything I've said. So I think we can leave it at that, unless you actually have something to add to this debate right now.



Straight forward fact and reference to the ideal gas law impresses you?  Interesting.

And everything I said contradicts you....you said "Dense means what? It can be as dense as it likes, if it doesn't have any greenhouse gases that it's dense with, then it wouldn't be hot not matter how dense it is, would it?}

To which I pointed out that Uranus has almost none of the so called greenhouse gasses in its atmosphere...its atmosphere is almost entirely made up of molecular hydrogen and helium...certainly not so called greenhouse gasses...and yet, at the bottom of its troposphere, it is warmer than here on earth...and why?...because the atmosphere is much more dense than ours......I also pointed out that if you go up in the atmosphere of venus to a place where the atmospheric pressure is the same as here on earth...and compensate for the difference in incoming solar radiation, you will find that the temperature is about the same as here on earth even though the atmosphere is almost entirely CO2....

Those are observed, measured, quantified facts and they directly contradict what you have said.  Increase the pressure of a gas and you increase its temperature.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 17, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> [
> 
> Then you are a bigger denier than I am. In fact, I'm a skeptic and your position puts you on the special bus. Since you reject the GreenHouse Laws and basic physics and chemistry..



No...you are a believer....you believe in the magic, but like Ian, you just don't think it is as powerful as the hard core wackos do.....CO2 has zero effect on the climate beyond its contribution to the density of the atmosphere...which in terms of temperature would be so small that it may be generations before we have instruments sensitive enough to detect it.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 17, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> You'd never be able to land a space probe on a comet if you need to "test it" in order to figure out the guidance profile.



Are you comparing the models put into use by the aerospace industry to those produced by the climate pseudoscience circus?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 17, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.
> 
> Physicist explaining climate change to a denier on TV is grim viewing
> 
> ...



You are joking right?  That buffoon has even less credibility than bill nye the science guy...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 17, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> You guys can't be serious?  How can you possibly deny something that is believed to be true by a VAST majority of the most well educated scientist in the world?  We are emitting CO2 in record numbers while continuing to decrease the amount of trees on our planet that clean the CO2 out of the air and provide us with clean oxygen.



Twice in my own life, I have not accepted medical advice believed to be true by the VAST majority of the best doctors on earth....I was told some years back that my stomach ulcer was due to stress and was told that I needed medication to help me reduce the stress...I told the doc that I wouldn't take the meds because I was probably the least stressed person he ever met....turns out I was right and the VAST majority of medical professionals were wrong and my stomach ulcer was not caused by stress....next came the recommendation for statin drugs because of my cholesterol numbers...I was told that high cholesterol caused heart disease and practically every medical professional on earth would tell me the same thing....I refused the drugs and just recently my doctor finally admitted that I was right and that cholesterol is not demonstrably responsible for heart disease...

Believing a thing because all the experts believe it is just stupid....in the long haul, you will be right more often than the experts if you just disagree with them till they have amassed enough observed, measured, quantified data to support their hypothesis....

At present, there is not the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions.

And the evidence of data tampering is overwhelming...only a true denier would argue otherwise.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 17, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> Yeah that makes sense... so top scientist even to this day are quoting data that was "proven" to falsified?  REALLY?  Do you REALLY think  top scientist would ruin their own reputation publicly using data..TODAY, in 2016, if it was proven in 2015 that the data was falsified and not correct?  REALLY?  You have to be joking right?  You can't possibly be serious?



Happens all the time in science....it is called an error cascade...look up the term.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Are you trying to say people can't talk about stuff because of things you decide? I disagree. You don't have to talk to me about it.
> ...



The first point is I wasn't comparing Venus with the Earth. I was comparing Venus with Mercury. 

The point being that Mercury hardly has an atmosphere, heat hits Mercury's surface and then bounces right out of there. On Venus it doesn't happen. 

Density of the atmosphere is simply going to make this more, an increased Greenhouse Effect 92 times more than you'd get on Earth. Though Earth has more potent Greenhouse gases in its atmosphere. The heat comes in, and has to pass through 92 times more density of an atmosphere which is 96% CO2. It's going to be much harder. 

This is the Greenhouse effect and this is what I was proving to someone who has literally disappeared from replying to my posts on the matter.

it doesn't need to be so complex for someone who's whole idea of science is that it's all fake and made up by these people who are trying to conspire against him and all the other right wingers.

No Greenhouse Gases? Uranus is blue because of Methane. The outer layer of the planet. Very little of Uranus's heat gets out. 

The average temperature of Uranus is -200 Celsius. It doesn't have a proper surface like those planets closer to the sun, so it's different to measure this stuff anyway. Uranus's core is not as warm as other planets at 5000 K, which is colder than the Earth's which is about 6000K. 

So saying Uranus is warmer at the bottom of its troposphere is a little weird

What is the Temperature of Uranus?

"The dense troposphere, which contains the planet's clouds, is frigid at minus 243 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 153 degrees Celsius) to minus 370 F (minus 218 C), making it the coldest atmosphere in the solar system. Warmed by the sun and radiation from space, the troposphere has slightly higher temperatures of minus 370 F (minus 218 C) to minus 243 F (minus 153 C). The outer layer can get was hot as 1,070 F (577 C)."

The Earth is no way that cold. 

The base of the Troposphere is about 46 C, however closer to the core you're getting on for -200

The Thermosphere is about 500 C

So Uranus is increasing in temperature the further from the core you go. There's also speculation of water clouds underneath what we can't get to. 

So density on Uranus appears to keep the outer layers warmer, and having some kind of potential Greenhouse Effect going on, but is so dense that potentially the heat doesn't reach the lower levels of the Troposphere, and therefore heating up only the outer layers. 

But you've made a claim that if you go to the same area of pressure of Venus as on Earth, you'll get the same temperatures even though Venus is 96% CO2. 
There are lots of things to take into consideration with this. Seeing as


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > I just wanted to put this here for all those that deny Global Warming and man-made climate change.
> ...



Which means more credibility than anyone from One Nation. 

A woman who is anti-Immigration, yet is part of a community which are immigrants, and moved to the UK (after her party went to pot) to be an immigrant to work with the BNP (far right racists) and then left to go back.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > You guys can't be serious?  How can you possibly deny something that is believed to be true by a VAST majority of the most well educated scientist in the world?  We are emitting CO2 in record numbers while continuing to decrease the amount of trees on our planet that clean the CO2 out of the air and provide us with clean oxygen.
> ...



Doctors can be wrong because symptoms cross over and because Doctors don't know everything.

We don't know everything about how global warming is going to work either. 

With bodies doctors study the human body, and then make assessments on individual cases to the best of their knowledge.

Scientists studying global warming and such like have only one thing really to study, and they don't need to go off into individual cases.

That's not to say they're not wrong. Science has always been a "make a hypothesis and see if it's true" sort of thing.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 17, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


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


it's called educating.  read what actually keeps the planet warm after the sun goes down.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 17, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> The first point is I wasn't comparing Venus with the Earth. I was comparing Venus with Mercury.
> 
> The point being that Mercury hardly has an atmosphere, heat hits Mercury's surface and then bounces right out of there. On Venus it doesn't happen.[/qipte]
> 
> ...


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> > You guys can't be serious?  How can you possibly deny something that is believed to be true by a VAST majority of the most well educated scientist in the world?  We are emitting CO2 in record numbers while continuing to decrease the amount of trees on our planet that clean the CO2 out of the air and provide us with clean oxygen.
> ...




Science and medicine are not synonymous.  Medicine is not an exact science as everyone is different and everyone's bodies react to different things differently.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 17, 2016)

Getting back to the thread topic again, Northabout is cruising eastwards fast now, approaching the Lena River delta. Once they work through the low-concentration ice in that area, it's clear sailing the rest of the way. They won't be the first ship to circumnavigate the North Pole in one season, but they might end up finishing the earliest.

And best as I can tell, the first circumnavigation of the North Pole in one season was done by Borge Ousland in 2010. It's something that wasn't possible until recently.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 17, 2016)

They are still stuck in ice.  Ice will begin growing soon.


 

Polar Ocean Challenge - Timeline | Facebook


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 17, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Getting back to the thread topic again, Northabout is cruising eastwards fast now, approaching the Lena River delta. Once they work through the low-concentration ice in that area, it's clear sailing the rest of the way. They won't be the first ship to circumnavigate the North Pole in one season, but they might end up finishing the earliest.
> 
> And best as I can tell, the first circumnavigation of the North Pole in one season was done by Borge Ousland in 2010. It's something that wasn't possible until recently.


Yeah, Peary could have circumnavigated the pole but he had other things going.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 17, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> They are still stuck in ice.  Ice will begin growing soon.



You did see the date of Aug 12 on that, right?

Now, what day is today?

And you do know the ice minimum is in September, right?

Sweet Jeebus, you're stupid.

Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge



> Yeah, Peary could have circumnavigated the pole but he had other things going.



Again, sweet jeebus, you're stupid.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 17, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > They are still stuck in ice.  Ice will begin growing soon.
> ...


They started June 19.  It's August 17.  They aren't even 1/3 into their voyage.  Ice begins growing in 3 weeks.
Do the math.

And stupid is saying people had the sailing technology a hundred years ago like we do today, stupid.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 17, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...




LOL.. The ice has already started to grow....  Ambient day time temps are now below 30 degrees F... and night time temps are 20 deg F,,,,


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



How about you make your case instead of fucking around.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 17, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > The first point is I wasn't comparing Venus with the Earth. I was comparing Venus with Mercury.
> ...



If you're going to start being nasty, I'm not going to bother. You want to tell me I don't spend too much time thinking, that's your problem, but it's an attack.

So how about this. You format your post so I can actually read it properly, and you change it to take out the attacks, and then I might respond to it. 

But if you want your response to include attacks instead of debate, that's fine, you don't get a proper response from me.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 17, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Getting back to the thread topic again, Northabout is cruising eastwards fast now, approaching the Lena River delta. Once they work through the low-concentration ice in that area, it's clear sailing the rest of the way. They won't be the first ship to circumnavigate the North Pole in one season, but they might end up finishing the earliest.
> 
> And best as I can tell, the first circumnavigation of the North Pole in one season was done by Borge Ousland in 2010. It's something that wasn't possible until recently.


Why don't you post a link?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 17, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Looking forward to the inevitable rescue of the crew stranded on ice.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 17, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Looking forward to you actually graduating to three working brain cells. From here on out, the Northabout will have a nice voyage.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 17, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



The pack Ice is already forming around them.. if they don't get out soon they will be trapped. The Russian ice breaker captain gave them last warning to leave today. The ice breaker ship is about to leave them and return because they don't want to get packed in the ice flow..


----------



## mamooth (Aug 17, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> LOL.. The ice has already started to grow....



No, it hasn't. Ice keeps declining until mid-September.



> Ambient day time temps are now below 30 degrees F... and night time temps are 20 deg F,,,,



The weather forecasts show green all the time at the Lena River delta. That means slightly above freezing, which the crew confirms in their logs.

Climate Reanalyzer

Remember, it's summer in the high Arctic. At their latitude, they get about 6 hours of twilight, but no full dark night.



			
				jc456 said:
			
		

> Why don't you post a link?



I have, several times. Why don't you look at it? Right now, it shows Northabout cruising east past the Lena delta at 14 kph.

Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge



			
				Weatherman2020 said:
			
		

> They started June 19. It's August 17. They aren't even 1/3 into their voyage. Ice begins growing in 3 weeks.
> Do the math.



The math says they're a couple days ahead of the other boats who accomplished it.

The math says the NW passage was much more ice-choked in those years. This year, it's wide open.



> And stupid is saying people had the sailing technology a hundred years ago like we do today, stupid



A hundred years ago, there were sailing yachts with small motors, like Northabout. They couldn't do what's possible now, because it's only recently that the ice has melted enough to allow it. If had been possible in ye olde days, people would have been out there trying. Adventure sailing isn't a new thing. That's what Amundsen was doing. It took him 3 years just to do the Northwest Passage.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 17, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> The pack Ice is already forming around them.. if they don't get out soon they will be trapped. The Russian ice breaker captain gave them last warning to leave today. The ice breaker ship is about to leave them and return because they don't want to get packed in the ice flow..



Is someone feeding you this complete bullshit, or is your fraud here original on your part?

If you're not pushing an outright fraud, I'm sure you can show us your sources.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> Science and medicine are not synonymous.  Medicine is not an exact science as everyone is different and everyone's bodies react to different things differently.



Interesting that you think that...and you couldn't possibly be more wrong.  Medicine is a far more exacting science than climate pseudoscience will ever be...and is monitored and policed by orders and orders of magnitude more heavily than climate science is, or will ever be as evidenced by the fact that a doctor can be fined millions and even imprisoned for an error in judgement or an honest mistake..medicine is policed by every individual who partakes of the service and packs of lawyers anxious to exploit any error on the behalf of an individual, an individual's family, or entire classes of people.

But since you seem to believe that climate science is more exacting than medicine I'll bite.  Lets begin with some very very VERY basic questions to demonstrate just how exact climate science is when compared to medicine....tell me, what is the exact climate sensitivity to CO2?  How much CO2 must be added to the system in order to achieve an average global temperature increase of 0.02 degrees?  Exactly how much CO2 is expelled each year by the earth's own CO2 making machinery?  What is the exact albedo of the earth?

Can you point to any experiments carried out in climate science that even approach the rigor of a clinical trial in medicine?...and I could go on and on and on....climate science is a circus and anyone who thinks that it is anywhere near as rigorous as the actual science of medicine and the branches of science that it relies on is an unthinking idiot.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> If you're going to start being nasty, I'm not going to bother. You want to tell me I don't spend too much time thinking, that's your problem, but it's an attack.



Pointing out that you clearly don't put much thought into the things you say is being nasty? 



frigidweirdo said:


> So how about this. You format your post so I can actually read it properly, and you change it to take out the attacks, and then I might respond to it.



How about this...you point out what you think is an attack...and then tell me why you believe it is an attack...and then we can talk about whether it was justified.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Which means more credibility than anyone from One Nation.



Not sure what that has to do with anything I have said since I have never visited the site and certainly never referenced it.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Doctors can be wrong because symptoms cross over and because Doctors don't know everything.



Really?  And the climate is straight forward and predictable and reacts the same way to every thing every time?  And there is no doubt that doctors don't know everything...and there is less doubt that climate scientists know far less about the climate than doctors know about your body and what makes it tick.



frigidweirdo said:


> We don't know everything about how global warming is going to work either.



We have, in fact, barely begun to scratch the surface...climate science is in a place today that is comparable to where medicine was 150 years ago...and yet, people like you believe what they say even when there isn't the fist shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence to back up their claims.



frigidweirdo said:


> With bodies doctors study the human body, and then make assessments on individual cases to the best of their knowledge.



Really?...so decade long clinical studies are based on the reaction of one human being to one particular stimuli?  This is what I mean when I say that you clearly don't put much thought into what you say.  You think medicine is one doctor and one patient with one complaint repeated over and over and over?



frigidweirdo said:


> Scientists studying global warming and such like have only one thing really to study, and they don't need to go off into individual cases.



So you think the climate is only affected by one thing?...and that one thing behaves in the same way all the time and the climate always reacts to it in the same way?  Again....did you really put much thought into that claim before you made it?    At this point, we can't even identify all the factors that have some effect on the climate or some effect on something else which then in turn affects the climate...and we are completely in the dark as to how much the factors that we do know about actually affect the climate and for how long...



frigidweirdo said:


> That's not to say they're not wrong. Science has always been a "make a hypothesis and see if it's true" sort of thing.



Observation of the climate is not meshing with the claims based on the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis...why then has the hypothesis not been disposed of as not true and a new hypothesis put forward.  Climate science merely changes the name of the hypothesis and not the hypothesis....global warming...which then became climate change...which then became climate disruption...which will become ?....the underlying hypothesis is the same, just the name is changing...does that sound like sound science and the scientific method to you?...really?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > If you're going to start being nasty, I'm not going to bother. You want to tell me I don't spend too much time thinking, that's your problem, but it's an attack.
> ...



Well I happen to think it is. So, you can either accept it, or you can just not. I'm not bothered either way. 

If you want civilized, respectful debate, get back to me. If you don't, fine.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Then you should go out and get yourself a pair of big girl panties if you think that is being nasty....or perhaps you are just trying to avoid a discussion that you know you can't win and would prefer to be though of as a pussy than to admit that you were wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2016)

Since you are going to run away from the discussion, I thought I would give you just a bit more to think about regarding venus....consider the fact that almost no light reaches the ground on venus....the greenhouse effect requires that shortwave incoming from the sun reach the surface and be re radiated as long wave....if very little light is reaching the surface, where is the long wave radiation required for a greenhouse effect...and secondly, the temperature on the night time side of venus is the same as on the day time side even though night time on venus is equal to about 58 of our days.  Since little light reaches the surface, how do you suppose it gets hot enough to drive a greenhouse effect through a night that lasts almost 3000 hours?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Doctors can be wrong because symptoms cross over and because Doctors don't know everything.
> ...



Actually climate is straight forward and predictable. You just need to have all the information. This is why we don't get weather reports exactly right, but mostly right, it's because we have a lot of the information, but lack some of the smaller information that would be needed. So we set computers to use what we know and what's within the capabilities of the computer, and we get a more or less accurate picture of what the weather will be like. 

But the biggest problem isn't with the scientist. The biggest problem is with the media who take what the scientists have done and declare thing outright, when the scientists have merely presented a hypothesis and attempted to prove it right or wrong with science, and then expect to have it peer checked. This is how science moves forwards. But then people pick up on what the media have said, pretend the scientists said it because they can't be bothered to understand how it's all come about, and then when it's wrong, they say it's all wrong, it must be because this thing was wrong (that they didn't understand correctly in the first place).

Of course we're at a stage where we don't know a lot of things. Some things are accepted, mainly because what we see happening appears to go along certain lines. 

You claim there isn't evidence. But there is. But you can pretend there isn't. Just because it doesn't prove 100% something, doesn't mean that there isn't enough evidence to know quite a few things about what is happening.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You know what, fuck off.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 18, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > LOL.. The ice has already started to grow....
> ...


I'm looking forward to their rescue from the ice in a few weeks.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 18, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


Yeah, that's why the climate center was 180 degrees off on their forecast of the El Niño effects last winter.  We know so much we can't even tell what's going to happen 3 months out, let alone a century.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > LOL.. The ice has already started to grow....
> ...


so curious, as ice melts does it cool the air above?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> Actually climate is straight forward and predictable.   You just need to have all the information.



The climate is chaotic...to suggest that it is straight forward and predictable is just more evidence that you don't know what the hell you are talking about...and if you think we have anything like all the information, then you really don't have a clue. 



frigidweirdo said:


> This is why we don't get weather reports exactly right, but mostly right, it's because we have a lot of the information, but lack some of the smaller information that would be needed. So we set computers to use what we know and what's within the capabilities of the computer, and we get a more or less accurate picture of what the weather will be like.



Again...you don't have a clue...do you think that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is a "small" thing?...How about the actual albedo of the earth?...how about the actual effect that clouds have on the climate?....or ocean currents....at present, climate science is just guessing regarding all those factors...and those are just the most basic factors...




frigidweirdo said:


> You claim there isn't evidence. But there is. But you can pretend there isn't. Just because it doesn't prove 100% something, doesn't mean that there isn't enough evidence to know quite a few things about what is happening.



I claim that there is no observed, measured, quantified...that is empirical evidence that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his emissions of so called greenhouse gasses...and there isn't...but if you feel that I am wrong...feel free to provide some....if there were any, I doubt that there would be any place on the internet that a skeptic could go to escape it...it would be front page news all day every day...so go and get some if you think it exists...


----------



## SSDD (Aug 18, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Know what?  running away doesn't make you right...it just proves that you can't hold your own in an argument....


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2016)

Who cares to argue with a brick wall? A stupid brick wall, at that. Smart photons, sheesh. 

The Northabout is going to finish this voyage now in record time. And, in a decade, tourist ships will be doing this route. Big tourist ships.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 18, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> I'm looking forward to their rescue from the ice in a few weeks.



They made another hundred miles overnight. They're in ice-free waters now, and it's all ice-free to the finish.

But if you're so confident they'll fail, we can make a wager, if you'd like. That goes for anyone. Name some terms.

Remember, it's not totally hopeless for you. There are other reasons they could fail besides ice, such as engine failure, or sinking in a storm, or hitting a tree (washed down from a river) that was floating just below the surface, or just getting tangled up in Russian bureaucracy.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 18, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking forward to their rescue from the ice in a few weeks.
> ...


Funny how your agenda requires you to always lie.

*SHIPS LOG from Wednesday UTC 22.00 17 August (07.00 18 Aug local time)*
*Within 5 mins it goes to dog poo, fog comes down, ice increases, steer to port to avoid going into Russia.This Laptev Sea is giving us a run for our money.*


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)




----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

Today in my morning watch things weren't quite as idyllic. Over night we'd sailed into ice. I know, I said we shouldn't be troubled by ice for a bit, I was wrong. The ice on its own wasn't too bad, the thing was we had fog as well. - The Polar Ocean Challenge

*"Today in my morning watch things weren’t quite as idyllic. Over night we’d sailed into ice. I know, I said we shouldn’t be troubled by ice for a bit, I was wrong. The ice on its own wasn’t too bad, the thing was we had fog as well.*"

"Because we’ve come further south to avoid the ice we’ve got a bit of day and night back, ish, what we have is a dark patch at about two o’clock in the afternoon to eight o’clock in the evening.  The reason for the weird times is because of where we are.  Though it is easy to forget, we’re now at the same longitude as the most easterly point of India.  About.  As such the time should have been shifted forward eight hours.  However, because it’s easier to work of a fixed time we’re still operating in Murmansk time, we’ll only change this once we reach Alaska.  In the meantime we just have to put up with weird light."


----------



## mamooth (Aug 18, 2016)

And as you two loons continue trying to deflect from your big fail by any means possible, the tracking map continues to show the ship moving steadily east, currently at 11 kph.

http://polarocean.co.uk/tracking/


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 18, 2016)

mamooth said:


> And as you two loons continue trying to deflect from your big fail by any means possible, the tracking map continues to show the ship moving steadily east, currently at 11 kph.
> 
> http://polarocean.co.uk/tracking/


On leg 2 of 4 where they should have been August 5.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

mamooth said:


> And as you two loons continue trying to deflect from your big fail by any means possible, the tracking map continues to show the ship moving steadily east, currently at 11 kph.
> 
> Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge


except that they're experiencing ice and have to route around it.  Why do you keep leaving that part out.  It isn't ice free.  you lied.  admit it lunetunes.I posted their own blog stating so.  Are you calling them liars?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > And as you two loons continue trying to deflect from your big fail by any means possible, the tracking map continues to show the ship moving steadily east, currently at 11 kph.
> ...


why?   because of ice.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

Look at the route, it isn't straight.  some maneuvering needed there don't ya think?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 18, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking forward to their rescue from the ice in a few weeks.
> ...


since it might be another year, they might.  but that wasn't the intent of the voyage now was it?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Look at the route, it isn't straight.  some maneuvering needed there don't ya think?


They are dodging Al Gores drowning Polar bears.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



It might not make me right, I couldn't give a toss for your baiting here.

I can hold my own in an argument. 

However I have made choices, and one of those choices I have made is that anyone who insults I will reply with a simple "wow, insults" or something similar, because quite frankly insults aren't very difficult. Another choice is that people who are aggressive like you, I will tell them they're being aggressive and then hope they stop. You didn't stop, you went off and then insulted, calling me "a pussy". 

This is one of those bully boy tactics that I don't like and will not tolerate. Bullies who say "oh, if you can't cope with my bullying tactics, then you're a fucking pussy". I couldn't give a shit if you think I'm a pussy. Your opinion of me doesn't matter to me one little bit.

What matters is that I come on here, I have cordial debate, I put those who are incapable of cordial debate on the ignore list. I'm here to use my brain, not to get angry, not to get frustrated, not to put up with people who are putting their inadequacies in life on to me. 

I told you that you could either stop being aggressive and debate in a cordial manner, and you chose to insult. 

So I made the decision that you can fuck off. 

So fuck off.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 19, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> It might not make me right, I couldn't give a toss for your baiting here.
> 
> I can hold my own in an argument.



No you can't....you repeat whatever you have been told and then when confronted with hard evidence that runs to the contrary of what you have been told, you simply state that you believe what you have been told rather than the hard evidence presented to you....that is not holding your own...that is being blindly obtuse.



frigidweirdo said:


> However I have made choices, and one of those choices I have made is that anyone who insults I will reply with a simple "wow, insults" or something similar, because quite frankly insults aren't very difficult. Another choice is that people who are aggressive like you, I will tell them they're being aggressive and then hope they stop. You didn't stop, you went off and then insulted, calling me "a pussy".



Convenient...ignore the hard evidence and pretend that your delicate sensibilities have been assaulted...not even a good dodge....and obvious as the sunrise.



frigidweirdo said:


> This is one of those bully boy tactics that I don't like and will not tolerate. Bullies who say "oh, if you can't cope with my bullying tactics, then you're a fucking pussy". I couldn't give a shit if you think I'm a pussy. Your opinion of me doesn't matter to me one little bit.



Poor baby...but then I suppose you have to come up with some reason to not address the fact that the night time side of venus is the same temperature as the day light side even though the night time lasts the equivalent of 58 of our days...and that there is nothing like enough energy reaching uranus to power even a little greenhouse effect as described by climate science and yet, the lower troposphere is warmer than here on earth on a planet that is arguably the coldest place in the solar system.



frigidweirdo said:


> What matters is that I come on here, I have cordial debate, I put those who are incapable of cordial debate on the ignore list. I'm here to use my brain, not to get angry, not to get frustrated, not to put up with people who are putting their inadequacies in life on to me.



No...you come here to repeat the pap you read from global warming wackaloons....and run away when you are confronted with hard observed, measured evidence that contradicts said pap.



frigidweirdo said:


> I told you that you could either stop being aggressive and debate in a cordial manner, and you chose to insult.



Again...completely ignore the hard evidence I gave you that contradicted your claims and pretend that I have hurt your feelings...pitiful.



frigidweirdo said:


> So I made the decision that you can fuck off.



You made the decision to run away rather than address the data that contradicts your claims...that is what you did...and it was entirely expected.



frigidweirdo said:


> So fuck off.



Nice of you to concede to my points and admit defeat....You never had a chance anyway....anyone who would claim that the pressure a gas is under doesn't effect its temperature isn't prepared to discuss even basic science anyway.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> except that they're experiencing ice and have to route around it.  Why do you keep leaving that part out.  It isn't ice free.  you lied.  admit it lunetunes.I posted their own blog stating so.  Are you calling them liars?



No, I'm calling you a liar, because you posted a log entry from several days ago, yet you're pretending it's happening right now.

Look at the maps. There's no ice anywhere near the spot where they're currently at. There was ice in the spots where they were a couple days ago.

Now, if you'd like to protest that you're not a liar, and you're just a retard who can't understand concepts like "the passage of time" and "moving from an area with ice to an area without ice", I think everyone will accept that.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Poor baby...but then I suppose you have to come up with some reason to not address the fact that the night time side of venus is the same temperature as the day light side even though the night time lasts the equivalent of 58 of our days...and that there is nothing like enough energy reaching uranus to power even a little greenhouse effect as described by climate science and yet, the lower troposphere is warmer than here on earth on a planet that is arguably the coldest place in the solar system.



Venus has strong winds that circle the planet every couple days, constantly renewing the heat on the dark side.

Left that out, did we? After all, you've been informed of that before. It's just your usual lying-by-omission fraud, one of your favorite tactics. Boring. You're not ignored because you're smart. You're ignored because everyone knows you're a fraud, a person who endlessly repeats crap pseudoscience propaganda, even though it's been debunked many times.

I've got a little time now. If you'd like to present a particular piece of crap pseudoscience which is a particular favorite of yours, we can relive the old days. You know, I'll debunk it, then you'll hurl bitter whiny insults, right before you run.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > except that they're experiencing ice and have to route around it.  Why do you keep leaving that part out.  It isn't ice free.  you lied.  admit it lunetunes.I posted their own blog stating so.  Are you calling them liars?
> ...


I did?  how is it I did that?  The story from you all was they were sailing ice free.  I found log entrees that contradicted that statement.  And only that.  The logs have dates on them. That sir/ma'am makes you the liar.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2016)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Poor baby...but then I suppose you have to come up with some reason to not address the fact that the night time side of venus is the same temperature as the day light side even though the night time lasts the equivalent of 58 of our days...and that there is nothing like enough energy reaching uranus to power even a little greenhouse effect as described by climate science and yet, the lower troposphere is warmer than here on earth on a planet that is arguably the coldest place in the solar system.
> ...


hmmmm, me thinks you have had a dream.  The only running in this place is you and yours.  Can't ever answer a basic question.  Then deflect and run.  yeppers, facts is facts.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 19, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > except that they're experiencing ice and have to route around it.  Why do you keep leaving that part out.  It isn't ice free.  you lied.  admit it lunetunes.I posted their own blog stating so.  Are you calling them liars?
> ...


*SHIPS LOG from Thursday UTC 19.00 18 August (04.00 19 Aug local time)*
http://polarocean.co.uk/well-i-came-watch-morning-0800-ice-ice-bt-ice/
*Well I came up on watch this morning at 0800. ice, ice and more b****t ice.*


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


good thing there isn't any ice eh?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 19, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > except that they're experiencing ice and have to route around it.  Why do you keep leaving that part out.  It isn't ice free.  you lied.  admit it lunetunes.I posted their own blog stating so.  Are you calling them liars?
> ...


so have you had the time to coordinate your post to show my quote where I claimed the day of the log I posted yet?  Or are you going to stay silent and let everyone see the liar you really are?


----------



## mamooth (Aug 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> so have you had the time to coordinate your post to show my quote where I claimed the day of the log I posted yet?



You think _not_ quoting the old date is supposed to excuse the way you posted old data and pretended it was current? On the contrary, it just makes you look more guilty.

Anyone can look at the ice map now, compare it to the ship's current position, and see they're sailing in ice-free water. I have no idea why you think your lying campaign is going to fool anyone, because anyone can look at the map and see you're full of crap. They're going east steadily, and are south of the New Siberian Islands now, and the area is entirely ice-free.

Now, stop pout-stalking me. It makes you look like a crybaby.

Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 20, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > so have you had the time to coordinate your post to show my quote where I claimed the day of the log I posted yet?
> ...


You act like the loss of ice is something terrible.  That is illogical.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Venus has strong winds that circle the planet every couple days, constantly renewing the heat on the dark side.
> 
> Left that out, did we? After all, you've been informed of that before. It's just your usual lying-by-omission fraud, one of your favorite tactics. Boring. You're not ignored because you're smart. You're ignored because everyone knows you're a fraud, a person who endlessly repeats crap pseudoscience propaganda, even though it's been debunked many times.



There was no point in mentioning it because it doesn't even begin to explain why the temperatures would be the same on the day time and night time sides.  We have our own rivers of wind that circle the earth every few days....it is called the jet stream and it certainly doesn't make our night time side the same temperature as the day time side. 



mamooth said:


> I've got a little time now. If you'd like to present a particular piece of crap pseudoscience which is a particular favorite of yours, we can relive the old days. You know, I'll debunk it, then you'll hurl bitter whiny insults, right before you run.



Well goodie...since I have been asking for years for some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis, perhaps you can find it...none of your fellow warmer wackaloons seem to be able to come up with any such data.


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Venus has strong winds that circle the planet every couple days, constantly renewing the heat on the dark side.
> 
> Left that out, did we? After all, you've been informed of that before. It's just your usual lying-by-omission fraud, one of your favorite tactics. Boring. You're not ignored because you're smart. You're ignored because everyone knows you're a fraud, a person who endlessly repeats crap pseudoscience propaganda, even though it's been debunked many times.





SSDD said:


> There was no point in mentioning it because it doesn't even begin to explain why the temperatures would be the same on the day time and night time sides.  We have our own rivers of wind that circle the earth every few days....it is called the jet stream and it certainly doesn't make our night time side the same temperature as the day time side.








mamooth said:


> I've got a little time now. If you'd like to present a particular piece of crap pseudoscience which is a particular favorite of yours, we can relive the old days. You know, I'll debunk it, then you'll hurl bitter whiny insults, right before you run.





SSDD said:


> Well goodie...since I have been asking for years for some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis, perhaps you can find it...none of your fellow warmer wackaloons seem to be able to come up with any such data.








*Venus Atmosphere*
Surface pressure: 92 bars 
Surface density: ~65. kg/m3
Scale height: 15.9 km
Total mass of atmosphere:  ~4.8 x 1020 kg
Average temperature: 737 K (464 C)
Diurnal temperature range: ~0
Wind speeds: 0.3 to 1.0 m/s (surface)
Mean molecular weight: 43.45
Atmospheric composition (near surface, by volume):
    Major:       96.5% Carbon Dioxide (CO2), 3.5% Nitrogen (N2)
    Minor (ppm): Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) - 150; Argon (Ar) - 70; Water (H2O) - 20;
                 Carbon Monoxide (CO) - 17; Helium (He) - 12; Neon (Ne) - 7

****************************************
2,412.5 times the CO2 content of the Earth


----------



## Crick (Aug 20, 2016)

Venus is again, an example of a relatively extreme version of this effect. Since its atmosphere is 100 times thicker than ours it does a very good job of transporting heat from one place to another, even at relatively low wind velocities, so that despite its relatively long night (about two Earth months long), and its very high temperatures (which mean that even a small percentage difference in temperature could be a large difference in the actual number of degrees), it has a surprisingly small temperature range. In fact from Equator to Pole and from day to night, temperature variations are rarely more than 50 F° at the surface of the planet. This small temperature difference causes relatively low wind velocities (close to zero at the surface), but the thickness of the atmosphere allows even those low velocities to be quite adequate to produce a remarkably even temperature. 
Atmospheric Effects on Planetary Surface Temperatures

The temperature of Venus is not the only extreme on the planet. The atmosphere is constantly churned by hurricane force winds reaching 360 kph. Add to that the crushing air pressure and rainstorms of sulfuric acid, and it becomes easy to see why Venus is such a barren, lifeless rock that has been hard to explore.
What is the Average Surface Temperature on Venus? - Universe Today


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> *Venus Atmosphere*
> Surface pressure: 92 bars
> Surface density: ~65. kg/m3
> Scale height: 15.9 km
> ...



Irrelevant....the atmospheric pressure is what drives the temperature on venus....the albedo of the planet is so high that little energy from the sun actually reaches the ground to drive a greenhouse effect as described by climate science and the fact that the temperature on the day and night side of the planet are the same despite a night that last 58 of our days completely eliminates the possibility of a greenhouse effect as described by climate science being responsible for the temperature there.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Venus is again, an example of a relatively extreme version of this effect. Since its atmosphere is 100 times thicker than ours it does a very good job of transporting heat from one place to another, even at relatively low wind velocities, so that despite its relatively long night (about two Earth months long), and its very high temperatures (which mean that even a small percentage difference in temperature could be a large difference in the actual number of degrees), it has a surprisingly small temperature range. In fact from Equator to Pole and from day to night, temperature variations are rarely more than 50 F° at the surface of the planet. This small temperature difference causes relatively low wind velocities (close to zero at the surface), but the thickness of the atmosphere allows even those low velocities to be quite adequate to produce a remarkably even temperature.
> Atmospheric Effects on Planetary Surface Temperatures



Sorry guy...you are missing the boat....first off, the albedo of venus is such that only 25% of the incoming solar radiation even penetrates the atmosphere....then there is the fact that most of the atmosphere, as you pointed out is made up of so called greenhouse gasses...which are invisible to the incoming short wave from the sun...there isn't enough light reaching the surface to be converted to IR to drive the sort of greenhouse effect that you claim exists on venus....and then again, the temperature doesn't change from day to night....there are high winds which are fine at transporting the energy that results form the gravito thermal effect all around the planet which explains why the temperature is the same on the day light side as on the night time side....the atmospheric pressure doesn't decrease at night...


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 20, 2016)

Science from SSDD, we have been through this before, no reason even to read the silliness.


----------



## Lewdog (Aug 21, 2016)

...and this article hits today, but then again it is meaningless since it references NASA scientist right?



> "By some accounts we have lost more than two-thirds of the ice that used to be back in the 1980s," Wagner said. "This looks to be a very, very long-term trend and we are only going to be losing more ice.



Arctic sea ice is vanishing far faster than anyone thought possible


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> ...and this article hits today, but then again it is meaningless since it references NASA scientist right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Tell me..what do you think the arctic ice looked like during the Holocene Optimum periods 8000 and 4000 years ago respectively....or the Roman warm period 2000 years ago.....or the medieval warm period a thousand years ago.....Look at the end of that graph, even allowing mikey mann's fraudulent hockey stick how historically insignificant the modern warming is when compared to the past....you guys post up those graphs starting in 1880 and attempt to show how serious the warming is when in fact, the present warming is nothing in comparison to the past...and even the highest temperatures shown on the graph below are quite low compared to the average global temperature just before the earth descended into the ice age from which it is still exiting....if you look at a long history of the earth you will see that ice at one or both of the poles on planet earth is the anomaly...not the norm.  The hard stark fact is that the earth is presently damned cold compared to the temperatures it has been for most of its history.  

To portray melting ice as some sort of unprecedented tragedy is pure bullshit alarmism playing on the fears of people who apparently lack the intelligence to look beyond those laughable global temperature grasp which begin in 1880.






Here compare this graph to what the climate community is pushing now and see the face of handwaving, hysterical, alarmism.


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2016)

Is there some valid reason for you to use Greenland ice core temperatures as a proxy for global temperatures?

I strongly suggest anyone impressed by that GISP 2 graphic read the following article: Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> Is there some valid reason for you to use Greenland ice core temperatures as a proxy for global temperatures?
> 
> I strongly suggest anyone impressed by that GISP 2 graphic read the following article: Most of the last 10,000 years were warmer.



That one was handy and since we were talking about the arctic...why not use ice cores from the nearest location.....the ice cores from antartica show the same warming periods as do peer reviewed studies from across the globe.


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2016)

But you're not talking about the Arctic.  You're comparing Greenland ice core data to global data.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> But you're not talking about the Arctic.  You're comparing Greenland ice core data to global data.



Read for comprehension crick....the post I responded to with the graph of the greenland ice core data was talking about melting arctic ice.....you want to claim that greenland isn't near the arctic?

And again...it really doesn't matter...there are studies from all over the globe that verify that the warming periods shown in the greenland cores were warmer than the present and global in nature....feel free to name a region of the globe and I will gladly provide you with a peer reviewed study or two showing that the warming was greater than the present warming.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 21, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > so have you had the time to coordinate your post to show my quote where I claimed the day of the log I posted yet?
> ...


Looks like quite a bit of ice for being ice free, don't you think?


----------



## Crick (Aug 21, 2016)

No


----------



## SSDD (Aug 22, 2016)

Crick said:


> No



Wow...a graph going all the way back to 1980...as if that proved anything about the historic levels of ice in the arctic...again...refer to the graph... and tell me what you think the arctic ice looked like during the summer 8000, 7500, 3300, 2000, and 1000 years ago...Do you think there was ice during those warm periods?...you think greenland is so far removed from the arctic that ice cores taken there have no story to tell about historic arctic temperatures?


----------



## Crick (Aug 22, 2016)

Arctic ice is disappearing.  The trends over the last 35 years indicate that we are very likely to have our first ice-free summer in less than a decade - likely less than 5 years.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Arctic ice is disappearing.  The trends over the last 35 years indicate that we are very likely to have our first ice-free summer in less than a decade - likely less than 5 years.




The same claim was made in 2007, 2008, and 2009...and what does the term "our" first ice free summer mean?  Certainly not the first summer that humanity has spent when there was no ice in the arctic even though they were taken within the arctic circle...again...refer to the graph of the ice cores from greenland... if you fear an ice free arctic at the present temperatures....how much ice do you think was there 1000 years ago?....1500 years ago?....3300 years ago to 1000 years ago with the exception of the two short cool periods?

Or are you just in a dither because it is the first time modern man might experience what seems to have been the norm fro 10000 years ago till about 1300 years ago?  Ice at the north pole is the anomaly on planet earth...not the norm...so again, why are you waving your hands hysterically over the planet doing what the planet normally does?


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2016)

Does anyone out there have Arctic ice mass data that refutes PIOMAS?  Extents data that refutes NSIDC?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 23, 2016)

How were temperature accurate to a tenth of a degree back in 1880?


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2016)

You must think the Stone Age ended with the invention of color TV.

Besides which, you're in the wrong thread. This one concerns ice in the Arctic.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> You must think the Stone Age ended with the invention of color TV.
> 
> Besides which, you're in the wrong thread. This one concerns ice in the Arctic.


what do you supposed is melting the sea ice?  Do you even know?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Besides which, you're in the wrong thread. This one concerns ice in the Arctic.




which reminds us that the FRAUD uses CHERRY PICKING, because Antarctic ice and sea ice are both GROWING....

which leads to the following question...

If Co2 is melting Arctic sea ice, why is Antarctic sea ice growing???

LMFAO!!


----------



## IanC (Aug 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You must think the Stone Age ended with the invention of color TV.
> ...




Obviously warm ocean currents that move heat from the tropics to the poles, with an assist from wind currents that blow ice out of the Arctic.


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Besides which, you're in the wrong thread. This one concerns ice in the Arctic.
> ...



The classic explanation, given by Hansen back in 1980, was that increased global temperatures would increase global humidity and thus precipitation.  Antartica, still a great long ways from melting in its interior, would collect that precipitation as snow.  That increases the drive pushing glaciers off the coast.  The simultaneous breakup of major ice sheets (Pine Island, Thwaites, Larson A and B, etc) thinned by upwelling warm water uncorked several massive glaciers whose flow rate increased roughly five-fold.  That increased the supply of ice to the sheets and they expanded.

Now, THIS thread concerns ice in the Arctic, as I think I already told you.  If you have some comment about THAT ice, do carry on.


----------



## westwall (Aug 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...







This was yesterday.  Looks like it's just a little bit below the 20 year average.  Huh.  It was supposed to be long gone by now....


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2016)

The estimates I originally heard were 2080 to 2100.  As more time's gone by, more satellite data's been collected, the curve better and better defined and we simply get closer and closer to zero, the index point where it finally crosses the axis becomes more and more well defined.  Your photograph does absolutely nothing to refute PIOMAS or NSIDC, does it.


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2016)

Here's one a little easier to make out.  Yesterday's from NSIDC





the orange line is the median area for this date between 1981 and 2010.  This, of course, only shows extents.  A mass comparison is considerably more dramatic.


----------



## westwall (Aug 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> The estimates I originally heard were 2080 to 2100.  As more time's gone by, more satellite data's been collected, the curve better and better defined and we simply get closer and closer to zero, the index point where it finally crosses the axis becomes more and more well defined.  Your photograph does absolutely nothing to refute PIOMAS or NSIDC, does it.








There was less Arctic ice in the 1950's.  How come you don't mention that?


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2016)

Because that's a false statement


----------



## westwall (Aug 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Here's one a little easier to make out.  Yesterday's from NSIDC
> 
> View attachment 86671
> 
> the orange line is the median area for this date between 1981 and 2010.  This, of course, only shows extents.  A mass comparison is considerably more dramatic.








Sure doesn't look like the Satellite image I posted up.  They do some of their "magic" to reduce it that much?


----------



## westwall (Aug 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Because that's a false statement






Prove it.


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2016)

Here's some interesting discussion from Judith Curry.  Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice.  Part II: 1920-1950  Among a number of other things, it basically states that the ice extents data prior to the satellite record is shite.


----------



## westwall (Aug 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Here's some interesting discussion from Judith Curry.  Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice.  Part II: 1920-1950  Among a number of other things, it basically states that the ice extents data prior to the satellite record is shite.








Actually that's not what they say at all.  Color me unsurprised that you lie about it.


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2016)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Here's one a little easier to make out.  Yesterday's from NSIDC
> ...




At least it's legible.  Your image, not so much.


----------



## Crick (Aug 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> Here's some interesting discussion from Judith Curry.  Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice.  Part II: 1920-1950  Among a number of other things, it basically states that the ice extents data prior to the satellite record is shite.





westwall said:


> Actually that's not what they say at all.  Color me unsurprised that you lie about it.



Liar

Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice.  Part II: 1920-1950
How reliable are the sea ice observations during the first half of the 20th century?

During the period 1920-1940, the Arctic Ocean was regarded as relatively unexplored territory.  A 1934 National Geographic article discusses the Lindbergh’s flights over the Arctic:

_ “National Geographic, Sept. 1934, pp. 261-304, “Flying Around the North Atlantic” by Anne Morrow Lindbergh. She and her husband crossed the icecap twice, followed the coastline, from Disko Bay area to Clavering Island, visited Dr.Lauge Koch’s research area, and literally ”redrew” the map of some areas of Greenland.”_

The lack of data from Russia and other areas because its sheer remoteness made accurate data gathering problematic, large gaps in knowledge due to WW2 i.e no DMI maps (Danish Meteorological Institute) during this period, a hiatus in cooperation during the Cold war, uncertainty over final summer amounts as DMI did not usually record data after August, and estimates by climatological methods  means historic sea ice data is fragmented and incomplete. This is not helped by the different sea ice data bases often being at considerable variance with each other and changes in the way in which ice concentrations were calculated as described below:

_“In 1968, The United States began reporting ice concentration in eights rather than tenths, then returned to tenths reporting in 1980. Canada retained the tenths format throughout the period. […….] SIC summary analyses in eights frequently overlay reconnaissance data which is plotted in tenths. Since SIC produced these charts for in-house, not public use, which of these formats is used is seldom noted on the charts….There is also a period when U.S. recon data receives a slightly different treatment from chart to chart…… With a good knowledge of codes and the history of code changes and a dash of intuition and care, it is possible to roam the data set without great fear of misinterpretation. Others entering without some preparation may find it hazardous.” _[link]

Of course, professional arctic sea ice researchers are aware of these factors and adjust data accordingly but the preceding does raise the question as to whether X amount of ice in the satellite era (1979 onwards) is really the same as X amount in the period prior to that, derived through climatological or physical observations in often difficult conditions by such as whalers, which brings us to the thorny question of what the definition of ice extent actually is.

This concern led me to ask the following question of NSIDC:

_“ …..how did pre satellite researchers estimating sea ice extent tell the difference between water, water floating on ice, and solid ice, and how can satellites differentiate between the three states? I was struck by Russian reports from the 1950’s at The Scott Polar institute in Cambridge when staff at the floating research stations commented about using Wellington boots in order to walk around the station, and how little dry ice islands eventually formed by the end of the summer surrounded by water on top of ice.”_

I received the following reply from Julienne Stroeve (reproduced with permission):

_“ … using passive microwave data it is very easy to tell the difference between ice and water as the dielectric constant differs quite a bit and this is reflected in large differences in the microwave emission. The main advantage of using passive microwave is that it can see the ice even if it’s cloudy or dark. There is a problem however in summer when melt ponds form on the ice since the sea ice algorithms then underestimate how much ice there really is (they think it’s open water). That’s one reason why we focus on extent rather than true ice area for the NSIDC sea ice news and analysis web site._

_Visible and thermal imagery provides higher spatial resolution but is often hampered by clouds. Trying to do this work using earlier visible and thermal imagery requires the scientists to go through each image and manually filter out the clouds and determine where the ice is._

 The Arctic in those pre satellite days was simply too large to be effectively and continually monitored. Observers getting close enough to the ice edge to make physical observations might be deterred from proceeding further by apparently impenetrable ice although better, more open conditions, might lie beyond. Data from such as the Russian sector – where much warming occurred, was not always taken into account. (However, the reader should be aware that, as Larsen noted, ice did sporadically return whilst reports from 1939-45 are sparse for obvious reasons.)

In trying to determine the true extent of sea ice during the period we run the risk of comparing apples-physical observations, and oranges- satellite altimetry, and the different methods employed over the years creates uncertainties over whether each accurately picked up what is ice, what is water covered ice and what is open water. This makes it difficult to determine how modern ice extent compares to the past with any certainty.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 23, 2016)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Here's one a little easier to make out.  Yesterday's from NSIDC
> ...


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

Mr. Westwall, you are an idiot. Above is the image you posted. It is from April. Here you can see the instrument that normally makes the measurement go offline;

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

That Mr. Westwall does not recognize this is either demonstrating his senility, or his continual lies.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> Does anyone out there have Arctic ice mass data that refutes PIOMAS?  Extents data that refutes NSIDC?




The question was....what do you suppose the arctic ice looked like during the previous warm periods?  Can't bring yourself to answer?


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2016)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Here's some interesting discussion from Judith Curry.  Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice.  Part II: 1920-1950  Among a number of other things, it basically states that the ice extents data prior to the satellite record is shite.
> ...



And you posting April's data as yesterday's.  Now THAT'S getting caught.

Ass.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Are you claiming that an ice free arctic is unprecedented?.....Now THAT'S just stupid.

Ass.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 24, 2016)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > LaDexter said:
> ...


so where did that ship go?


----------



## LaDexter (Aug 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> The classic explanation, given by Hansen back in 1980, was that increased global temperatures would increase global humidity and thus precipitation. Antartica, still a great long ways from melting in its interior, would collect that precipitation as snow. That increases the drive pushing glaciers off the coast. The simultaneous breakup of major ice sheets (Pine Island, Thwaites, Larson A and B, etc) thinned by upwelling warm water uncorked several massive glaciers whose flow rate increased roughly five-fold. That increased the supply of ice to the sheets and they expanded.
> 
> Now, THIS thread concerns ice in the Arctic, as I think I already told you. If you have some comment about THAT ice, do carry on.




Arctic Sea Ice is melting "because of" CO2.

Antarctic Sea Ice is GROWING "because" Crick is a hypocritical, cherry picking, fudgebaking, taxpayer funded left wing liar


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2016)

Arctic sea ice is melting because the Arctic is getting dramatically warmer.

I agree with you that Antarctic sea ice extents have expanded for the last several years.  However, you need to clarify what you're talking about.  Zwally's work did NOT concern sea ice.  His conclusions regarded the MASS OF ICE ON THE ANTARCTIC CONTINENT.  

Now I'll let you step back and see if you've said what you intended to say.


----------



## Crick (Aug 24, 2016)




----------



## LaDexter (Aug 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> Arctic sea ice is melting because the Arctic is getting dramatically warmer.




No, the Arctic is "warming" in the Arctic Ocean because the Arctic Ocean is growing, and has a live fault in Gakkel Ridge that throws off magma/lava/hot gasses periodically.  Greenland is not warming, nope, just the opposite...


As for Antarctica, you can post all the colored fudge charts you want.... it grows every year, has for tens of millions of years...


----------



## mamooth (Aug 24, 2016)

jc456 said:


> so where did that ship go?



About a day from passing Wrangel Island. Maybe 4 days from the international date line and Alaskan waters.

http://polarocean.co.uk/tracking/

You could have looked at that yourself, you know. It's not like the link hasn't been posted several times.

When  they get to Alaska, they'll stop in Barrow to refuel. There's a tongue of scattered ice down near Barrow that may slow them down, but they'll get through it. From there, it's ice-free the rest of the way.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 24, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > so where did that ship go?
> ...


except for when it won't be right?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> Arctic sea ice is melting because the Arctic is getting dramatically warmer.
> 
> I agree with you that Antarctic sea ice extents have expanded for the last several years.  However, you need to clarify what you're talking about.  Zwally's work did NOT concern sea ice.  His conclusions regarded the MASS OF ICE ON THE ANTARCTIC CONTINENT.
> 
> Now I'll let you step back and see if you've said what you intended to say.


Call me when crocodiles and palm trees return to Alaska.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Aug 24, 2016)

Crick said:


>


Great news.  Millions will be saved since most weather related deaths are due to cold.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2016)

Lewdog said:


> You know that makes no sense correct?  You have to have a reason to back up your personal opinions and bias.  Now on the other hand, for you to discredit 97% of the scientific community based on your beliefs, which you have little to no factual backing, that... that isn't a fallacy, it's just a bad opinion.



Can you show us a single bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....the answer is no...you can not...and why?....because none exists....now the question a thinking person asks is....if there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that mankind is altering the global climate with his CO2 emissions, upon what is that claimed 97% consensus based?....tell me...other than a veritable mountain of incontrovertible evidence...what else might bring about consensus among a group of naturally adversarial individuals?...and the answer to that is obvious....a big old bucket full of money....but if you don't believe it is money, what else might bring about the claimed consensus?...because it damned sure isn't the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the hypothesis.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 25, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> How about you make your case, instead of asking people to look up the stuff you think will make your case?



The case isn't ours to make...it is you and yours claiming imminent disaster...and you have no actual evidence to back it up...if you are going to claim that disaster is on its way...and want trillions of dollars to try to avert it, and you want the world to alter the global economy, then you better be able to make a damned good case and present a veritable mountain of incontrovertible observed, measured, quantified, empirical data to support your claims...thus far, there doesn't exist the first bit of such evidence...


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2016)

LaDexter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic sea ice is melting because the Arctic is getting dramatically warmer.
> ...



Gakkel Ridge?  Bullshit.  There's no such place.  You just made that up, just like you make everything up.  100% shit.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> LaDexter said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Gakkel Ridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a wiki page about Gakkel Ridge. 






"The *Gakkel Ridge* (formerly known as the *Nansen Cordillera* and *Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge*)"


----------



## Crick (Aug 28, 2016)

It's all made up shite.  There is no Gakkel Ridge.  LaDexter just needed something to blame the warming on and he made it up.  Now you're just parroting this nonsense.  You need to learn to know when people are making shit up.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> It's all made up shite.  There is no Gakkel Ridge.  LaDexter just needed something to blame the warming on and he made it up.  Now you're just parroting this nonsense.  You need to learn to know when people are making shit up.



Is there no limit to your stupidity...

Gakkel Ridge: Expert Q&A — NOVA | PBS
Mystery of the Gakkel Ridge — NOVA | PBS
Dive and Discover : Expedition 11 : The Gakkel Ridge : Home
Global Volcanism Program | East Gakkel Ridge at 85°E
Polar Discovery :: Expedition 2: Arctic Seafloor
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7199/full/nature07075.html
Arctic News: M4.5 Earthquake hits Gakkel Ridge

And you just need to learn something.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> I went to university, I understand what it is to sit down and write something making your case.



You clearly didn't learn critical thinking skills at "university" if in fact you went.  

My case is that there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate with his emissions of so called greenhouse gasses....since there is no such evidence in existence, exactly what do you suppose that I should write...beyond the fact that no such evidence exists?...and if I am to be proven wrong, then someone has to step up with such evidence.

You warmers, on the other hand claim that we are altering the climate in a dangerous way...and great sums of money must be put to the prevention of this dangerous climate change...and that we need to change the very way we live...the case is all yours to make....first off, you would need to produce some observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man is in fact altering the global climate with his so called greenhouse gas emissions...then you would need to demonstrate in some real way what the ideal temperature for life on planet earth is and whether the manmade climate change which has yet to be demonstrated will go beyond the unknown ideal temperature for life on planet earth.



frigidweirdo said:


> You might not have managed to get out of primary school, I don't know, seeing as your "argument" often includes attacks and insults, I doubt you got much further.
> 
> Yes, I see the irony is what I've just said too, but you piss me off.



So you switch to insult as well...but you do it from frustration at not being able to make your argument...think about how stupid your argument is for a second...what if our legal system worked by your rules of argument...I could accuse you of killing someone and then you would have to prove that you didn't do it...If the person I accused you of killing were murdered at a time when you were alone, how might you prove that you did not commit the crime?  You couldn't...it would just be your word against mine and you would be off to prison.

Lucky for us...in a rational system, the person making the claim is the one who must make the case to support the claim...I am making no claim...I am simply stating that there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate with his so called greenhouse gas emissions...you CLAIM that there is but apparently can produce no such evidence...thus proving me right.


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > It's all made up shite.  There is no Gakkel Ridge.  LaDexter just needed something to blame the warming on and he made it up.  Now you're just parroting this nonsense.  You need to learn to know when people are making shit up.
> ...




All lies.  All made up.  Ask Dex.  He knows.


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> I am making no claim...I am simply stating that there is no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate with his so called greenhouse gas emissions...you CLAIM that there is but apparently can produce no such evidence...thus proving me right.



English much?  Logic much?

No and  No.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



the only liar is you crick...and the fact that you claim to be an ocean engineer but know nothing about Gakkel ridge is just one more bit of correlatory data to add to the ever growing body of observed evidence that you are, in fact, a congenital liar.


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2016)

It's a shame that you are either to stupid to understand your own speech or that you choose to lie in as blundering and ignorant a manner as possible.  Your CLAIM that there is no evidence is a CLAIM, fool.  Prove it.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 29, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Makes no difference...my request is for some of the observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate with his so called greenhouse gas emissions....all you can possibly do is perhaps lie and claim that it has already been posted...or make some other equally feeble excuse for not being able to produce it....you aren't going to be honest and admit that you can't find it...and you certainly won't be honest enough to acknowledge that if you can't find it on the internet that it probably doesn't exist...

So tell me again why I should be particularly civil to someone who is going to lie to me?


----------



## jc456 (Aug 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> It's a shame that you are either to stupid to understand your own speech or that you choose to lie in as blundering and ignorant a manner as possible.  Your CLAIM that there is no evidence is a CLAIM, fool.  Prove it.


ok, you have no evidence,  whew that was tough.


----------



## Crick (Aug 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013

There you go you stupid lying piece of shit.


----------



## mamooth (Aug 29, 2016)

Meanwhile, Northabout just stopped briefly at Barrow, Alaska, to swap out 2 crew member and pick up supplies. Now they're off again, ready to traverse the Northwest Passage. There's now an ice-free path the whole way.

Tracking - The Polar Ocean Challenge


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



But crick...we have already established beyond doubt that it is you who is the stupid lying piece of shit...and the fact that you simply posted a link to AR5 is just more evidence....you must be an idiot to keep doing the same thing hoping for a different result...you post a link to AR5...then ask you where you suppose there is observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in there supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate with his so called greenhouse emissions...you then claim that there is plenty of evidence in there...I then ask you why you don't seem to be able to bring any here....then I remind you that by your own words, people who provide a link and send you off looking for evidence rather than simply bring it here to post are just talking out of their asses...

We both know that you can't bring any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence from AR5 that supports the anthropogenic component of AGW and yet, you claim that it is there, and once again post a link even though we have been through this before and you lost then as well...that just proves that you are are a stupid lying piece of shit.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2016)

frigidweirdo said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



So no observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence....not surprising...and some feeble excuse to discontinue the discussion...again..not surprising.  You are what you are...and you believe what you believe regarding the climate without the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence.


----------



## Crick (Aug 30, 2016)

And, over and over and over again, you lie.

Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013

Observed, measured, quantified, empirical (which is a four-fold repetition) evidence


----------



## SSDD (Aug 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> And, over and over and over again, you lie.
> 
> Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013
> 
> Observed, measured, quantified, empirical (which is a four-fold repetition) evidence



And yet..you don't seem to be able to cut and paste the first shred here....baseless claim...and again..by your own words...people who give you a link and send you off to look for yourself are just talking out of their asses....that is all you seem to be capable of...you certainly are not capable of bringing any of the sort of data I asked for here...of course, it isn't your fault because it doesn't exist....it is, however, entirely your fault that you believe the scam in spite of a complete lack of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence in support of the A in AGW.

Now go ahead and make some other pointless comment and don't post the first shred of the data I have been asking for...


----------



## jc456 (Aug 30, 2016)

Crick said:


> And, over and over and over again, you lie.
> 
> Fifth Assessment Report - Climate Change 2013
> 
> Observed, measured, quantified, empirical (which is a four-fold repetition) evidence


nauseating to say the least.  again, as we have now for over a year, post the excerpt you feel justifies your claim.  Observer, measure, quantified, empirical.  You keep swinging and missing. do you ever read?


----------



## Crick (Aug 31, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And, over and over and over again, you lie.
> ...



The entire document is evidence that CO2, emitted by humans, is warming the planet.  Continue this route, though. It is an obvious ploy of desperation.


----------



## jc456 (Aug 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


uh, no, it doesn't.  too bad forayou


----------



## Crick (Aug 31, 2016)

How are those folks doing circumnavigating the pole?  Last I heard, they had clear sailing for the rest of their journey.

"The Physical Science Basis" is an assessment of the evidence supporting the AGW theory from hundreds of peer reviewed studies by thousands of scientists.  So why, exactly, should we listen to you jc?


----------



## SSDD (Aug 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Then you admit that you don't have even a slight clue as to what observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence looks like....according to you...I can go and cut and paste any part of the document here and it will consist of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in AGW...

Lets see...



> It is very likely that global near surface and tropospheric air speci c humidity have increased since the 1970s. However, during recent years the near surface moistening over land has abated (medium con dence). As a result, fairly widespread decreases in rel- ative humidity near the surface are observed over the land in recent years. {2.4.4, 2.5.4, 2.5.5}



clearly that isn't observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in AGW



> The total anthropogenic ERF over the Industrial Era is 2.3 (1.1 to 3.3) W m–2.3 It is certain that the total anthropogenic ERF is positive. Total anthropogenic ERF has increased more rapidly since 1970 than during prior decades. The total anthropogenic ERF estimate for 2011 is 43% higher compared to the AR4 RF estimate for the year 2005 owing to reductions in estimated forcing due to aerosols but also to contin- ued growth in greenhouse gas RF. {8.5.1, Figures 8.15, 8.16}



That is certainly a statement...but like all climate science, lacks observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence....no such evidence was referenced anywhere in the statement...and such is the nature of the whole document...statements making claims that are not backed up by empirical evidence do not equal observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence....but it is good, once again, to see what constitutes such evidence in your mind and again reinforces why you have been so thoroughly duped....


----------



## jc456 (Aug 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> You are SO fucking stupid it just beggars belief.


all left to interpretation since you choose to stay silent.

And the fact is, you have presented zip.  BTW, a link stating IPCC AR5 is zip.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 31, 2016)

*Moderation Message:

Not cleaning THIS thread. PAGES of no-content personal flaming. 
But some warnings are gonna go out so this doesn't happen again.. *


----------

