Arctic ice thins dramatically

[Trakar]

-warmest-2-000-years.html"]Arctic Temperatures Are Warmest in 2,000 Years[/URL][/SIZE][/B]

Still laughing at you thunder. I suppose you are going to deny that the "study" you reference didn't use data from ERA-40? That data has been cited in over 2000 papers claiming the "warmest temperatures ever" in the arctic. I guess you are unaware that the data has been found to be terribly flawed.

Laughable thunder. Absolutely laughable. It is all falling down around your ears but you keep waving those pompoms.

The negative bias was discussed in the initial release of ERA-40. It is but one set of data amongst many overlapping coverages, and its removal from the other data sources, does not significantly alter or change the overall findings or climate assessments. so your point would be?

 

[Uncensored2008]

So its not just ignorance of the science, its a global conspiracy by scientists too?!

Seriously?!

This just went from sad to pitiful.

Someone puts a bucket of money in the middle of a pig trough. Is it a global conspiracy that people wallow in pig shit?

Nope, it's just free money.

Promoting the AGW myth gives people free money. Lots of people care more about free money than they do integrity.

This isn't that hard to figure out.

 

[Trakar]

I asked for all the details and specifics you are aware of and you send me more unsupported assertions, reposted blog graphic scribbles without reference to data or the predictions you claim the data refutes. Please do try to provide any legitimate, peer-reviewed science that actually supports your assertions. I would be most interested in reviewing any information that compellingly refutes or overturns any actual mainstream scientific opinon or consideration.

Is it that you have a problem with the accuracy and truthfullness of the data or that you just don't like where it comes from and as a knee jerk reaction toss out a circumstantial ad hominem logical fallacy?

What you asked was for me to do your homework.

I've already done all the heavy lifting in this discussion, all I'm asking you to do is to compellingly support your own assertions, ...granted, given the nature of your assertions, that is probably an impossible task, but if you merely want to wave your hands and assert that you know what you know because you just feel it in your bones,...that's certainly an option for you to pursue, but its not a very compelling argument to run with.

 

[westwall]

I asked for all the details and specifics you are aware of and you send me more unsupported assertions, reposted blog graphic scribbles without reference to data or the predictions you claim the data refutes. Please do try to provide any legitimate, peer-reviewed science that actually supports your assertions. I would be most interested in reviewing any information that compellingly refutes or overturns any actual mainstream scientific opinon or consideration.

Is it that you have a problem with the accuracy and truthfullness of the data or that you just don't like where it comes from and as a knee jerk reaction toss out a circumstantial ad hominem logical fallacy?

What you asked was for me to do your homework.

I've already done all the heavy lifting in this discussion, all I'm asking you to do is to compellingly support your own assertions, ...granted, given the nature of your assertions, that is probably an impossible task, but if you merely want to wave your hands and assert that you know what you know because you just feel it in your bones,...that's certainly an option for you to pursue, but its not a very compelling argument to run with.

You provide nothing but bluster and hyperbole and a serious dash of hubris. AGW claims have never been born out. Hansens claims were off by 300% (go look it up yourself), every time a scientific group looks into the claims of the AGW crowd problems are exposed.
The truth of the matter is the AGW crowd has consistently lied about the effects and the underlying science.

Remember the "Boy Who Cried Wolf"? You idiots cried wolf too many times. Don't say you weren't warned, the story dates to classical Greece.

 

[Trakar]

Is it that you have a problem with the accuracy and truthfullness of the data or that you just don't like where it comes from and as a knee jerk reaction toss out a circumstantial ad hominem logical fallacy?

What you asked was for me to do your homework.

I've already done all the heavy lifting in this discussion, all I'm asking you to do is to compellingly support your own assertions, ...granted, given the nature of your assertions, that is probably an impossible task, but if you merely want to wave your hands and assert that you know what you know because you just feel it in your bones,...that's certainly an option for you to pursue, but its not a very compelling argument to run with.

...Hansens claims were off by 300% (go look it up yourself),...

Do your own homework, you made the claim, you provide the compelling supportive evidences,...that's how the process works.

 

[Meister]

I asked for all the details and specifics you are aware of and you send me more unsupported assertions, reposted blog graphic scribbles without reference to data or the predictions you claim the data refutes. Please do try to provide any legitimate, peer-reviewed science that actually supports your assertions. I would be most interested in reviewing any information that compellingly refutes or overturns any actual mainstream scientific opinon or consideration.

Is it that you have a problem with the accuracy and truthfullness of the data or that you just don't like where it comes from and as a knee jerk reaction toss out a circumstantial ad hominem logical fallacy?

What you asked was for me to do your homework.

I've already done all the heavy lifting in this discussion, all I'm asking you to do is to compellingly support your own assertions, ...granted, given the nature of your assertions, that is probably an impossible task, but if you merely want to wave your hands and assert that you know what you know because you just feel it in your bones,...that's certainly an option for you to pursue, but its not a very compelling argument to run with.

Actually, he has........"compellingly"

 

[RollingThunder]

Still laughing at you thunder. I suppose you are going to deny that the "study" you reference didn't use data from ERA-40? That data has been cited in over 2000 papers claiming the "warmest temperatures ever" in the arctic. I guess you are unaware that the data has been found to be terribly flawed.

Laughable thunder. Absolutely laughable. It is all falling down around your ears but you keep waving those pompoms.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL..............ROTFLMLAO.......incredible.....you're even more of a retard than I thought and that's almost impossible......

You see a scientific study talking about temperatures over the last two thousand years and you assume that they used satellite data. LOLOLOL. Satellite data that only goes back a few decades. LOLOLOL. You ignore the clear statement about the data they used that is in the excerpts from the article that I quoted. LOLOLOL. You then spew some drivel about imaginary problems with the satellite data based only on some denier cultist's nutball speculations and denial of reality. LOLOLOL.....you are sooooo duped and confused and full of BS, it is just plain pathetic to watch you flailing about so mindlessly in your denial cult fantasy world.

From the two year old scientific study I cited, here's the part regarding the data they used, plus a few more excerpts:

The researchers uncovered this masked cooling trend by reconstructing Arctic temperatures over the past two millennia with data from Arctic lake sediments, glacial ice and tree rings, all of which provide records of the changes in temperatures up there.

These natural archives indicated a pervasive cooling across the Arctic on a decade-by-decade basis that is related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the sun.

Over the last 7,000 years, the timing of Earth's closest pass by the sun has shifted from September to January. This has gradually reduced the intensity of sunlight reaching the Arctic in the Northern Hemisphere's summertime, when Earth is farther from the sun (the main driver of summer temperatures is the fact that the hemisphere is tilted toward the sun during these months, while it is tilted away from the sun during winter).

The team's temperature analysis shows that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the sun, cooled at an average rate of about .35 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) per thousand years. The temperatures eventually bottomed out during the "Little Ice Age," a period of widespread cooling that lasted roughly from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries.

Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere.

"If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," said team member Bette Otto-Bliesner, also of NCAR.

The study found that the 10 years from 1999 to 2008 was the warmest in the Arctic in two millennia. Arctic temperatures are now 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 C) warmer than in 1900.

"The amount of energy we're getting from the sun in the 20th century continued to go down, but the temperature went up higher than anything we've seen in the last 2,000 years," said team member Nicholas P. McKay of The University of Arizona in Tucson.

Soooooo riddle me this batman......if the Arctic has never been warmer how is it that grapes were able to be cultivated 300 miles further north during the MWP then they are today? Hmmmm???? The Domesdy(sic) Book has records of 47 wineries that existed where none can today.

Seems like the real world is rising up to bite you in the ass again sunshine

Is there a standard abbreviation for 'laughing so hard I fell off my chair' - LSHIFOMC maybe? If not, perhaps there should be, just for situations like this.

I always find it amusing when a complete & clueless nutjob like you refers to "the real world" when you have so little connection to it, let alone knowledge of it. Of course, you do 'know' a lot about your imaginary world but unfortunately in the actual 'real world', most of what you think you know is simple wrong. That's another unfortunate and inevitable byproduct of you being such a gullible retard, I suppose. Let's take a look at what you imagine you 'know' about this:
"grapes were able to be cultivated 300 miles further north during the MWP then they are today" & "47 wineries that existed where none can today".

Here's a little taste of the real "real world" biting you back, you poor delusional imbecile.

Medieval warmth and English wine
(excerpts)

Are vineyards a good temperature proxy? While climate clearly does impact viticulture through the the amount of sunshine, rainfall amounts, the number of frost free days in the spring and fall, etc., there a number of confounding factors that make it less than ideal as a long term proxy. These range from changing agricultural practices, changing grape varieties, changing social factors and the wider trade environment. For instance, much early winemaking in England was conducted in Benedictine monasteries for religious purposes – changing rites and the treatment of the monasteries by the crown (Henry VIII in particular) clearly impacted wine production there. Societal factors range from the devastating (the Black Death) to the trivial (working class preferences for beer over wine). The wider trade environment is also a big factor i.e. how easy was it to get better, cheaper wine from the continent? The marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine and the English King in 1152 apparently allowed better access to the vineyards of Bordeaux, and however good medieval English wine was, it probably wasn’t a match for that!

However, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that climate is actually the dominant control – so what does the history of English vineyards show?

Wine making never completely died out in England, there were always a few die-hard viticulturists willing to give it a go, but production clearly declined after the 13th Century, had a brief resurgence in the 17th and 18th Centuries, only to decline to historic lows in the 19th Century when only 8 vineyards are recorded. Contemporary popular sentiment towards English (and Welsh) wine can be well judged by a comment in ‘Punch’ (a satirical magazine) that the wine would require 4 people to drink it – one victim, two to hold him down, and one other to pour the wine down his throat.

Unremarked by most oenophiles though, English and Welsh wine production started to have a renaissance in the 1950s. By 1977, there were 124 reasonable-sized vineyards in production – more than at any other time over the previous millennium. This resurgence was also unremarked upon by Lamb, who wrote in that same year that the English climate (the average of 1921-1950 to be precise) remained about a degree too cold for wine production. Thus the myth of the non-existant English wine industry was born and thrust headlong into the climate change debate….


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[RollingThunder]

And another important and very relevant fact regarding the grape growing myth from the article I cited.

"Since 1977, a further 200 or so vineyards have opened (currently 400 and counting) and they cover a much more extensive area than the recorded medieval vineyards, extending out to Cornwall, and up to Lancashire and Yorkshire where the (currently) most northerly commercial vineyard sits."

 

[wirebender]

Sure, little retard, here you go. I'll post some more later.

According to the IPCC 2007 WGI, Chapter 8 report by Randall, et al. (2007):

1. There is considerable confidence that Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental and larger scales.

Is that a prediction? Did you understand the question? Considering that the IPCC can't even get the data on the current right, their skill at predicting based on the currents can't be very good.

Here is a recent peer reviewed study from the Journal of Gophysical Research pointing out that the currents are not behaving as the IPCC has claimed.

Multidecadal variability of the North Brazil Current and its connection to the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation

In order for the IPCC's predcitions to come to pass, the currents must slow. That isn't happening.

2. Models now being used in applications by major climate modeling groups better simulate seasonally varying patterns of precipitation, mean sea level pressure and surface air temperature than the models relied on by these same groups at the time of the IPCC Third Assessment Repport (TAR).

So you are saying that they have adjusted the models to more closely relate to the observed data. Why do you suppose the models were adjusted? My bet is that the adjustments were necessary because the observed data was not matching the predictions from the models used for the third assessment. It also should come as no surprise that the models will be further adjusted to match more current data as time goes on. Rather than simply admit that the models are no good, they just keep adjusting them and ignoring the fact that if the models were worth the disk space they take up, constant adjustment would not be necessary.

3. Model global temperature projections made over the last two decades have also been in overall agreement with subsequent observations over that period.

Sorry guy, not even close. Here is a newspaper clip from hansen made in 1986. He says temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees warmer by 2006. Are you claiming that the temperature has increased 2 degrees since 1986? Laughing at you thunder. Laughing hard.

4. Some AOGCMs can now simulate important aspects of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

Really?? Here is a paper recently published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters points out that El Nino is behaving exactly the opposite of the model predictions. I suppose the "wonderful" models you are referencing are the latest generation which have, like all models, been rewritten to match the current data since their predecesors were unable to even get close.

Clip" "We find changes in background conditions that are opposite to those expected from greenhouse gas forcing in climate models and opposite to what is expected if changes in the background state are mediating more frequent occurrences of CP El Niños"

El Niño and its relationship to changing background conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean

5. The ability of AOGCMs to simulate extreme events, especially hot and cold spells, has improved.

Do I even need to remind you of the recent lamentation by climate scientists that children in europe would no longer have snow and that it would soon be a distant memory. Do you need reminding that these predictions came just before europe had one of its snowiest winters ever? Such claims are laughable thunder.

6. Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models are able to simulate extreme warm temperatures, cold air outbreaks and frost days reasonably well.

So now you are claiming that weather is climate? The weatherman doesn't do such a great job either. And predicting a frost day within the next week is a very far cry from predicting changes in the global climate. You are scratching the bottom of the barrel in an attempt to find something that climate science has actually predicted, aren't you?

7. Models also reproduce other observed changes, such as the faster increase in nighttime than in daytime temperatures and the larger degree of warming in the Arctic known as polar amplification.

Sorry, models haven't gotten better at that either. The arctic and antarctic predictions are particularly bad because it has been found that they data upon which they are based is terribly flawed.

AMS Journals Online - Atmospheric temperature measurements biases on the Antarctic plateau

AMS Journals Online - Climatological Diurnal Cycles in Clear-sky Brightness Temperatures from the High-resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder (HIRS)

8. Models account for a very large fraction of the global temperature pattern: the correlation coefficient between the simulated and observed spatial patterns of annual mean temperature is typically about 0.98 for individual models. This supports the view that major processes governing surface temperature climatology are represented with a reasonable degree of fidelity by the models.

Sorry guy, wrong again. I suppose the latest generation of models which have been freshly rewritten to match observed data may be close, but older models aren't even close, ergo the extensive rewriting.

9. The models, as a group, clearly capture the differences between marine and continental environments and the larger magnitude of the annual cycle found at higher latitudes, but there is a general tendency to underestimate the annual temperature range over eastern Siberia. In general, the largest fractional errors are found over the oceans (e.g., over much of tropical South America and off the east coasts of North America and Asia). These exceptions to the overall good agreement illustrate a general characteristic of current climate models: the largest-scale features of climate are simulated more accurately than regional- and smaller-scale features.

Again, you are talking about new models which have been rewritten to more closely match observed data. Older models were so far out from observed data that they became an embarassment.

10. Models predict the small, short-term global cooling (and subsequent recovery) which has followed major volcanic eruptions, such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991

Again, more recent models. They had to be rewritten in order to show cooling because the older models missed it entirely. Of course, as time goes by, the more recent models will diverge further and further from observations till they reach a point where they must also be rewritten.

And imagine, being able to predict some cooling after an exceptional volcanic eruption. My grandson could predict that between diaper changes.

11. Simulation of extratropical cyclones has improved. Some models used for projections of tropical cyclone changes can simulate successfully the observed frequency and distribution of tropical cyclones.

Right. The claim of more, and more intense cyclones, both tropical and extratropical has hardly come to pass.

12. The models capture the dominant extratropical patterns of variability including the Northern and Southern Annular Modes, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Pacific-North American and Cold Ocean-Warm Land Patterns.

Again, newly rewritten models which have not really had time to diverge much from observations. Give them a year or so.

13. With a few exceptions, the models can simulate the observed zonal mean of the annual mean outgoing LW within 10 W/m2 (an error of around 5%) The models reproduce the relative minimum in this field near the equator where the relatively high humidity and extensive cloud cover in the tropics raises the effective height (and lowers the effective temperature) at which LW radiation emanates to space.

Actually, they don't and we have already been through that one. I provided you snapshots of the data showing how far the models deviated from observed data.

14. The seasonal cycle of the outgoing LW radiation pattern is also reasonably well simulated by models.

Again, not even close. Dr. Spencer's recently published paper brought the inability of models to simulate outgoing LW into sharp relief.

15. The models capture the large-scale zonal mean precipitation differences, suggesting that they can adequately represent these features of atmospheric circulation. Moreover, there is some evidence that models have improved over the last several years in simulating the annual cycle of the precipitation patterns.

And once again, not even close. Nearly every study performed fails to show the predicted increase in precipitation by climate models.

For example:

Is energetic decadal variability a stable feature of the central Pacific Coast's winter climate?

Empirical Evidence From Japan Refutes Climate Model Precipitation Predictions | Climate Depot

Researchers Pinpoint Why IPCC Climate Models Fail At Winter Precipitation Predictions: Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation | Climate Depot

Or maybe you are talking about the CO2 causes more and less precipitation line of thinking:

CO2 Causes More Precipitation And Less Precipitation | Real Science

16. Models also simulate some of the major regional characteristics of the precipitation field, including the major convergence zones and the maxima over tropical rain forests, although there is a tendency to underestimate rainfall over the Amazon.

So you are saying that even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes? Brilliant.

17. Confidence has also increased in the ability of GCMs to represent upper-tropospheric humidity and its variations, both free and forced. Together, upper-tropospheric observational and modeling evidence provide strong support for a combined water vapor/lapse rate feedback of around the strength found in GCMs (approximately 1 W/m2 oC-1, corresponding to around a 50% amplification of global mean warming).

And yet they disagree with the data collected from half a million radiosondes. Laughing at you thunder. Laughing at you real hard.

 

[wirebender]

The negative bias was discussed in the initial release of ERA-40. It is but one set of data amongst many overlapping coverages, and its removal from the other data sources, does not significantly alter or change the overall findings or climate assessments. so your point would be?

One data set that has over 2000 citations in published work. Every paper that cites that data set is untrustworthy.

 

[IanC]

wirebender makes a few good points. climate models are continuously tweaked to get the best match for current data. hence they are always in the first few years of yet another 100 year projection so there has been little time to diverge from reality.

the other point is papers done with outdated or incorrect data sets. while it is unreasonable to expect those papers to be continually updated to reflect new information, it is also unreasonable to assume that new papers with new data are going to be perfect either. the unwarranted certainty of scientific papers published and especially many of the hysterical conclusions drawn from them is an illusion.

 

[westwall]

I've already done all the heavy lifting in this discussion, all I'm asking you to do is to compellingly support your own assertions, ...granted, given the nature of your assertions, that is probably an impossible task, but if you merely want to wave your hands and assert that you know what you know because you just feel it in your bones,...that's certainly an option for you to pursue, but its not a very compelling argument to run with.

...Hansens claims were off by 300% (go look it up yourself),...

Do your own homework, you made the claim, you provide the compelling supportive evidences,...that's how the process works.

It has been provided many times before and specifically to you. It's a shame you're too lazy to look up your old posts but that's on you pal not me. YOU ARE FREE TO WASTE YOUR TIME BUT NOT MINE. I provided you with the links before, you can go look them up again.

 

[westwall]

And another important and very relevant fact regarding the grape growing myth from the article I cited.

"Since 1977, a further 200 or so vineyards have opened (currently 400 and counting) and they cover a much more extensive area than the recorded medieval vineyards, extending out to Cornwall, and up to Lancashire and Yorkshire where the (currently) most northerly commercial vineyard sits."

An excerpt from their pathetic attempt to disappear evidence that refutes their paradigm....

"Since the Book covers all of England up to the river Tees (north of Yorkshire), there is therefore reason to think that there weren’t many vineyards north of that line. Lamb reports two vineyards to the north (Lincoln and Leeds, Yorkshire) at some point between 1000 and 1300 AD, and Selley even reports a Scottish vineyard operating in the 12th Century. However, it’s probably not sensible to rely too much on these single reports since they don’t necessarily come with evidence for successful or sustained wine production. Indeed, there is one lone vineyard reported in Derbyshire (further north than any Domesday vineyard) in the 16th Century when all other reports were restricted to the South-east of England."

The highlighted part is important as the reason the mention of the vinyard in the book is because they had to pay a tax on their production. Your boys ignore that in an effort to discount the claim. That is false, that is a lie. That's why nobody gives a crap what they have to say at "real climate", they don't tell the truth.

 

[Trakar]

Do your own homework, you made the claim, you provide the compelling supportive evidences,...that's how the process works.

It has been provided many times before and specifically to you. It's a shame you're too lazy to look up your old posts but that's on you pal not me. YOU ARE FREE TO WASTE YOUR TIME BUT NOT MINE. I provided you with the links before, you can go look them up again.

All links that you have previously provided have been addressed and demonstrated to either not support your assertions or not even to address your assertions, the fact that you didn't learn anything from the lessons taught is on you youngun, not me.

 

[Meister]

It has been provided many times before and specifically to you. It's a shame you're too lazy to look up your old posts but that's on you pal not me. YOU ARE FREE TO WASTE YOUR TIME BUT NOT MINE. I provided you with the links before, you can go look them up again.

All links that you have previously provided have been addressed and demonstrated to either not support your assertions or not even to address your assertions, the fact that you didn't learn anything from the lessons taught is on you youngun, not me.

And yet, your sources which have been proven lies are the ones you are willing to lay your hat on? Of course they will never be addressed from you.

 

[gslack]

Do your own homework, you made the claim, you provide the compelling supportive evidences,...that's how the process works.

It has been provided many times before and specifically to you. It's a shame you're too lazy to look up your old posts but that's on you pal not me. YOU ARE FREE TO WASTE YOUR TIME BUT NOT MINE. I provided you with the links before, you can go look them up again.

You make the claim its your job to back it up.

Its a simple concept really. If you claim something, and then someones asks you to prove it, you can either prove it or not, but asking them to disprove it is lazy on your part.

 

[Trakar]

It has been provided many times before and specifically to you. It's a shame you're too lazy to look up your old posts but that's on you pal not me. YOU ARE FREE TO WASTE YOUR TIME BUT NOT MINE. I provided you with the links before, you can go look them up again.

I've already done all the heavy lifting in this discussion, all I'm asking you to do is to compellingly support your own assertions, ...granted, given the nature of your assertions, that is probably an impossible task, but if you merely want to wave your hands and assert that you know what you know because you just feel it in your bones,...that's certainly an option for you to pursue, but its not a very compelling argument to run with.

You make the claim its your job to back it up.

Its a simple concept really. If you claim something, and then someones asks you to prove it, you can either prove it or not, but asking them to disprove it is lazy on your part.

Fully and completely agreed!

 

[FactFinder]

PASADENA, Calif. – Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record.

The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic’s ice cover.

Scientists from NASA and the University of Washington in Seattle conducted the most comprehensive survey to date using observations from NASA’s Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite, known as ICESat, to make the first basin-wide estimate of the thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean’s ice cover.

Ron Kwok of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., led the research team, which published its findings July 7 in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.

The Arctic ice cap grows each winter as the sun sets for several months and intense cold ensues. In the summer, wind and ocean currents cause some of the ice naturally to flow out of the Arctic, while much of it melts in place. But not all of the Arctic ice melts each summer; the thicker, older ice is more likely to survive. Seasonal sea ice usually reaches about 2 meters (6 feet) in thickness, while multi-year ice averages 3 meters (9 feet).

Using ICESat measurements, scientists found that overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 0.17 meters (7 inches) a year, for a total of 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) over four winters. The total area covered by the thicker, older “multi-year” ice that has survived one or more summers shrank by 42 percent.

Arctic ice thinned dramatically between 2004 and 2008 | VANCOUVERITE

What happened to 2009 thru 2011?

 

[gslack]

It has been provided many times before and specifically to you. It's a shame you're too lazy to look up your old posts but that's on you pal not me. YOU ARE FREE TO WASTE YOUR TIME BUT NOT MINE. I provided you with the links before, you can go look them up again.

I've already done all the heavy lifting in this discussion, all I'm asking you to do is to compellingly support your own assertions, ...granted, given the nature of your assertions, that is probably an impossible task, but if you merely want to wave your hands and assert that you know what you know because you just feel it in your bones,...that's certainly an option for you to pursue, but its not a very compelling argument to run with.

You make the claim its your job to back it up.

Its a simple concept really. If you claim something, and then someones asks you to prove it, you can either prove it or not, but asking them to disprove it is lazy on your part.

Fully and completely agreed!

Not too sharp are ya.... YOU asked him to prove it, so the burden of disproof is on you not him. You don't ask the defendant to prove he didn't commit the crime, you ask the plaintiff to prove he did.
You made him the defendant when you asked him to prove it, which made you the plaintiff, you claim he is wrong or doubt him prove him wrong.

 

[westwall]

You make the claim its your job to back it up.

Its a simple concept really. If you claim something, and then someones asks you to prove it, you can either prove it or not, but asking them to disprove it is lazy on your part.

Fully and completely agreed!

Not too sharp are ya.... YOU asked him to prove it, so the burden of disproof is on you not him. You don't ask the defendant to prove he didn't commit the crime, you ask the plaintiff to prove he did.
You made him the defendant when you asked him to prove it, which made you the plaintiff, you claim he is wrong or doubt him prove him wrong.

No, he's not. He's a time waster who thinks he's smart. My wife calls them "factual posturers" they preen like birds but beyond their chirping they are essentially vacuous.