Arctic ice cap continues to melt

[skookerasbil]

s0n...........I heard about the Discovery Channel tragedy and you immediately came to mind!!!!
Do we have any worries about an elevated snap factor here s0n????

 

[konradv]

So it should be easy to show how a 20PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures in a laboratory setting, amiright?

Changing the goalposts again, Frank? So now it's 20 ppm, is it? That IS easy to prove, as you well know. Spectrophotometers are very sensitive and a difference in the infra-red absorption spectrum of CO2 +/- 20 ppm would be trivial to demonstrate. Any other questions?

 

[Chris]

Arctic ice naturally melts during the Northern Hemisphere summer, refreezing again come winter, but in recent years that summer melt has far exceeded the average. In 2007, the extent of remaining sea ice was the lowest on record, an estimated 1.65 million square miles (4.28 million square kilometers). That was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 (the period that satellites have been keeping measurements of sea-ice extent). The record melt opened up the fabled Northwest Passage.

Arctic Ocean Sea Ice, Global Warming Effect | Fly Over Measures Arctic Sea Ice Thickness, Warming World | Our Amazing Planet

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So it should be easy to show how a 20PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures in a laboratory setting, amiright?

Changing the goalposts again, Frank? So now it's 20 ppm, is it? That IS easy to prove, as you well know. Spectrophotometers are very sensitive and a difference in the infra-red absorption spectrum of CO2 +/- 20 ppm would be trivial to demonstrate. Any other questions?

I meant 200 as I've said in a million other posts and in any event you still haven't shown me a single laboratory experiment at anything but a 600,000PPM increase in CO2.

Also, fuck off.

I'm bored with this "debate" and you and OR circle jerking around why you never can test your stupid theory in a lab

 

[westwall]

Arctic ice naturally melts during the Northern Hemisphere summer, refreezing again come winter, but in recent years that summer melt has far exceeded the average. In 2007, the extent of remaining sea ice was the lowest on record, an estimated 1.65 million square miles (4.28 million square kilometers). That was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 (the period that satellites have been keeping measurements of sea-ice extent). The record melt opened up the fabled Northwest Passage.

Arctic Ocean Sea Ice, Global Warming Effect | Fly Over Measures Arctic Sea Ice Thickness, Warming World | Our Amazing Planet

Or maybe not.

 

[The Infidel]

Shit!!!!


The ice in my glass of tea is melting at an alarming rate.....

WHAT DO I DO?????

 

[IanC]

to answer your question Frank,

No, they can't define how much of the warming is due to natural causes and how much is due to manmade CO2 increases. For some reason the AGW alarmists decided that natural warming ended and CO2 is now the driving force. There is no way to prove the conjecture one way or the other but the 'question is so important that we must act NOW'. Whether we know what to do or not. Apparently they want us to stop burning carbon but I haven't heard any calls for population control or reduction.

 

[Chris]

So it should be easy to show how a 20PPM increase in CO2 raises temperatures in a laboratory setting, amiright?

Changing the goalposts again, Frank? So now it's 20 ppm, is it? That IS easy to prove, as you well know. Spectrophotometers are very sensitive and a difference in the infra-red absorption spectrum of CO2 +/- 20 ppm would be trivial to demonstrate. Any other questions?

I meant 200 as I've said in a million other posts and in any event you still haven't shown me a single laboratory experiment at anything but a 600,000PPM increase in CO2.

Also, fuck off.

I'm bored with this "debate" and you and OR circle jerking around why you never can test your stupid theory in a lab

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4]YouTube - Global Warming in a Jar[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Changing the goalposts again, Frank? So now it's 20 ppm, is it? That IS easy to prove, as you well know. Spectrophotometers are very sensitive and a difference in the infra-red absorption spectrum of CO2 +/- 20 ppm would be trivial to demonstrate. Any other questions?

I meant 200 as I've said in a million other posts and in any event you still haven't shown me a single laboratory experiment at anything but a 600,000PPM increase in CO2.

Also, fuck off.

I'm bored with this "debate" and you and OR circle jerking around why you never can test your stupid theory in a lab

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4]YouTube - Global Warming in a Jar[/ame]

Do you know what the PPM stands for in 200PPM?

It's parts per million.

That's .02%

In a gallon jar it's .025 ounces

A gallon is 128 ounces, so to replicate your Imaginary "Global Warming" hypothesis you could only add, not an ounce, not 1/10th of an ounce but .025 ounces.

The CO2 would be added to the second container for about a nanosecond, that's how little additional CO2 there's been added in Earth atmosphere.

That's why you'll NEVER see any major Warmer University conduction a similar experiment using realistic amounts of CO2 because there's never any measurable warming.

You have to put your thumb on the scale and add at least 200,000PPM to get any results.

If someone at Penn or MIT did the experiment correctly the warmers would be kicked to the curb right next to the Ghostbusters.

Thanks for showing again why there's no science to your theory

 

[westwall]

I meant 200 as I've said in a million other posts and in any event you still haven't shown me a single laboratory experiment at anything but a 600,000PPM increase in CO2.

Also, fuck off.

I'm bored with this "debate" and you and OR circle jerking around why you never can test your stupid theory in a lab

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4]YouTube - Global Warming in a Jar[/ame]

Do you know what the PPM stands for in 200PPM?

It's parts per million.

That's .02%

In a gallon jar it's .025 ounces

A gallon is 128 ounces, so to replicate your Imaginary "Global Warming" hypothesis you could only add, not an ounce, not 1/10th of an ounce but .025 ounces.

The CO2 would be added to the second container for about a nanosecond, that's how little additional CO2 there's been added in Earth atmosphere.

That's why you'll NEVER see any major Warmer University conduction a similar experiment using realistic amounts of CO2 because there's never any measurable warming.

You have to put your thumb on the scale and add at least 200,000PPM to get any results.

If someone at Penn or MIT did the experiment correctly the warmers would be kicked to the curb right next to the Ghostbusters.

Thanks for showing again why there's no science to your theory

Numbers hurt their head Frank, that's why they don't use them! Also the temps go up because of the increase in gas pressure. I can't remember if it's Boyles Law or the Idealised Gas Law or whichever one it is but the more pressure added to a system the higher the temperature.
That's why all of these ridiculous experiments are useless, they are not measuring the GHG index, they are measuring the gas pressure.

 

[Old Rocks]

to answer your question Frank,

No, they can't define how much of the warming is due to natural causes and how much is due to manmade CO2 increases. For some reason the AGW alarmists decided that natural warming ended and CO2 is now the driving force. There is no way to prove the conjecture one way or the other but the 'question is so important that we must act NOW'. Whether we know what to do or not. Apparently they want us to stop burning carbon but I haven't heard any calls for population control or reduction.

Just calling for the reduction of CO2 output has a bunch of people screaming bloody murder. Imagine what they would say if there were a call for a mandatory ban on having more than two children.

But, not to worry. Population control is coming and it will be the old fashioned way. We have seen the harbingers of it this summer in Pakistan and Russia.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

to answer your question Frank,

No, they can't define how much of the warming is due to natural causes and how much is due to manmade CO2 increases. For some reason the AGW alarmists decided that natural warming ended and CO2 is now the driving force. There is no way to prove the conjecture one way or the other but the 'question is so important that we must act NOW'. Whether we know what to do or not. Apparently they want us to stop burning carbon but I haven't heard any calls for population control or reduction.

Just calling for the reduction of CO2 output has a bunch of people screaming bloody murder. Imagine what they would say if there were a call for a mandatory ban on having more than two children.

But, not to worry. Population control is coming and it will be the old fashioned way. We have seen the harbingers of it this summer in Pakistan and Russia.

You're such a sick fucking individual, you sound like Glenn Beck, "The end approaches! Heed my words!"

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic ice naturally melts during the Northern Hemisphere summer, refreezing again come winter, but in recent years that summer melt has far exceeded the average. In 2007, the extent of remaining sea ice was the lowest on record, an estimated 1.65 million square miles (4.28 million square kilometers). That was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 (the period that satellites have been keeping measurements of sea-ice extent). The record melt opened up the fabled Northwest Passage.

Arctic Ocean Sea Ice, Global Warming Effect | Fly Over Measures Arctic Sea Ice Thickness, Warming World | Our Amazing Planet

Or maybe not.

In spite of which the present extant of the Arctic Ice is only 3.25 million square km, and still declining. And every prediction, save one, in this site was for over 4.2 for a minimum, and the predictions were made in June, 2010.

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/June-2010.jpg

In other words, the melt still confounds the people that are observing it by consistantly being greater than predicted. As with the outgassing of the permafrost and ocean clathrates in the region.

 

[Old Rocks]

to answer your question Frank,

No, they can't define how much of the warming is due to natural causes and how much is due to manmade CO2 increases. For some reason the AGW alarmists decided that natural warming ended and CO2 is now the driving force. There is no way to prove the conjecture one way or the other but the 'question is so important that we must act NOW'. Whether we know what to do or not. Apparently they want us to stop burning carbon but I haven't heard any calls for population control or reduction.

Just calling for the reduction of CO2 output has a bunch of people screaming bloody murder. Imagine what they would say if there were a call for a mandatory ban on having more than two children.

But, not to worry. Population control is coming and it will be the old fashioned way. We have seen the harbingers of it this summer in Pakistan and Russia.

You're such a sick fucking individual, you sound like Glenn Beck, "The end approaches! Heed my words!"

My words do not count. Heed the evidence that one sees in nature. The evidence that scientists from all the nations of the world are presenting.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just calling for the reduction of CO2 output has a bunch of people screaming bloody murder. Imagine what they would say if there were a call for a mandatory ban on having more than two children.

But, not to worry. Population control is coming and it will be the old fashioned way. We have seen the harbingers of it this summer in Pakistan and Russia.

You're such a sick fucking individual, you sound like Glenn Beck, "The end approaches! Heed my words!"

My words do not count. Heed the evidence that one sees in nature. The evidence that scientists from all the nations of the world are presenting.

Like the dead fish from the cold snap in Bolivia?

Want to convince me? Show me one laboratory experiment that verifies how you isolated all variables except for a 200PPM increase in CO2 to get a temperature increase.

Yes, it's that simple.

 

[Chris]

You can now sail around the pole....

 

[westwall]

Arctic ice naturally melts during the Northern Hemisphere summer, refreezing again come winter, but in recent years that summer melt has far exceeded the average. In 2007, the extent of remaining sea ice was the lowest on record, an estimated 1.65 million square miles (4.28 million square kilometers). That was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 (the period that satellites have been keeping measurements of sea-ice extent). The record melt opened up the fabled Northwest Passage.

Arctic Ocean Sea Ice, Global Warming Effect | Fly Over Measures Arctic Sea Ice Thickness, Warming World | Our Amazing Planet

Or maybe not.

In spite of which the present extant of the Arctic Ice is only 3.25 million square km, and still declining. And every prediction, save one, in this site was for over 4.2 for a minimum, and the predictions were made in June, 2010.

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/June-2010.jpg

In other words, the melt still confounds the people that are observing it by consistantly being greater than predicted. As with the outgassing of the permafrost and ocean clathrates in the region.

Yes and it has been melting since 1860 or did that escape you? Isostatic rebound of Greenland tells us that there was much less ice on the subcontinent in the past otherwise it would still not be rising back to its original elevation. Or did that escape you too? All of those things take thousands of years to accomplish. But you seem to think that we can change the track of a rising subcontinent. Wow, I had no idea we were that technologically advanced.

 

[westwall]

Just calling for the reduction of CO2 output has a bunch of people screaming bloody murder. Imagine what they would say if there were a call for a mandatory ban on having more than two children.

But, not to worry. Population control is coming and it will be the old fashioned way. We have seen the harbingers of it this summer in Pakistan and Russia.

You're such a sick fucking individual, you sound like Glenn Beck, "The end approaches! Heed my words!"

My words do not count. Heed the evidence that one sees in nature. The evidence that scientists from all the nations of the world are presenting.

Not so many now! Otherwise your alarmist nonsense wouldn't be collapsing so fast!

 

[westwall]

You can now sail around the pole....

You could do it way back in 1903 through 1906 too!

 

[Old Rocks]

You can now sail around the pole....

You could do it way back in 1903 through 1906 too!

No you could not, you stupid liar. It took Amundsen three years to get an 87 ton herring boat through the Northwest Passage.

The American Experience | Alone on the Ice | People & Events | Roald Amundsen

In 1903 he established himself as a sailor and explorer of the first order when he successfully led a 70-foot fishing boat through the entire length of the Northwest Passage, a treacherous ice-bound route that wound between the northern Canadian mainland and Canada's Arctic islands. The arduous journey took three years to complete as Amundsen and his crew had to wait while the frozen sea around them thawed enough to allow for navigation. Soon after his return to Norway, he learned that Englishman Ernest Shackleton was setting out of an attempt to reach the South Pole. Shackleton would be forced to abandon his quest a mere 97 miles short of the Pole. Amundsen studied all he could of Shackleton's attempt and began the long process of preparing for his own. He was as highly regarded for his skills in organization and planning as he was for his expertise as an explorer. Amundsen, who was thought to be "taciturn under the best of circumstances," took special measures to be sure members of his crew possessed personalities suitable to long polar voyages. Crew members onboard his ships knew he was firm but fair, and affectionately referred to him as "the chief."