Arctic sea ice melting toward record

[Chris]

The only onus on those who disbelieve is to show where the science is wrong. A few (gslack, Crusader Frank, Dude, Westwall) have been consistently doing this. I've managed to find enough logic holes in your theory from time to time that you can drive a freight train through. Plus then you get into the political side of it where following the money has lead into a den of scum and villiany the likes of which have never before been seen in 'reputable science'.

We do not have to prove anything. We just have to show why not.

The science is not wrong.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% causes the earth to retain heat.

Please prove that wrong.

 

[rdean]

Republican Scientists Theory of Melting Sea Ice: God picked the ice up and put it up on top of the mountains and made it look like "snow".

 

[westwall]

The only onus on those who disbelieve is to show where the science is wrong. A few (gslack, Crusader Frank, Dude, Westwall) have been consistently doing this. I've managed to find enough logic holes in your theory from time to time that you can drive a freight train through. Plus then you get into the political side of it where following the money has lead into a den of scum and villiany the likes of which have never before been seen in 'reputable science'.

We do not have to prove anything. We just have to show why not.

The science is not wrong.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% causes the earth to retain heat.

Please prove that wrong.

Dr. Phil Jones "there has been no heating since 1998" Please explain that!

 

[gslack]

The only onus on those who disbelieve is to show where the science is wrong. A few (gslack, Crusader Frank, Dude, Westwall) have been consistently doing this. I've managed to find enough logic holes in your theory from time to time that you can drive a freight train through. Plus then you get into the political side of it where following the money has lead into a den of scum and villiany the likes of which have never before been seen in 'reputable science'.

We do not have to prove anything. We just have to show why not.

The science is not wrong.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% causes the earth to retain heat.

Please prove that wrong.

Why dont you prove anything.... All you do is repeat the same crap just like your pal socko....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The only onus on those who disbelieve is to show where the science is wrong. A few (gslack, Crusader Frank, Dude, Westwall) have been consistently doing this. I've managed to find enough logic holes in your theory from time to time that you can drive a freight train through. Plus then you get into the political side of it where following the money has lead into a den of scum and villiany the likes of which have never before been seen in 'reputable science'.

We do not have to prove anything. We just have to show why not.

The science is not wrong.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% causes the earth to retain heat.

Please prove that wrong.

40% sounds like a huge number until you tell the rest of the story. Even with a 40% increase you're dealing with an atmospheric trace element. We're not Venus, we're Earth and at 380 PPM even with the 40% Increase CO2 is still a rounding error.

Moreover, when the reading were first made the scale dealt with Earth atmosphere in 10,000's; that is, CO2 was estimated at 3-4 parts per 10,000, so with a margin for error it's anywhere from 2-5. Our accuracy has increases 2 orders of magnitude in the last 100 years so it's extremely shady at best to hang your hat on these imaginary 40% increases

Additionally, is the increase, to the extent that it even exists on the scale proposed, a cause or an effect of any warming? It could be that as the planet warms more CO2 is released into the atmosphere.

 

[konradv]

"Deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause instant, cataclysmic and irreversible changes"
---------------------------------

Do you have cite for when someone said that or is it just something you pulled out of thin air? I don't know of anyone that's said that, so assuming I'm right about its origin, this is just another thing to file under DENIER LIES.

You need to learn to use the quote function here bud. Are you saying the first part or the second part?

The first half disproves itself by sheer logic. Damn that stuff. We're here, we've had major bouts of CO2 before and we've warmed and cooled inspite of it or with it. So that throws out the irreversible aspect.

The second part I have one question: What are the "lies" being spread? All I see are you throwing up false assertations based on sciencey like material and a bunch of handwavium saying that it proves we're responsible. And when it is quickly disproven or shown to come from compromised sources, you scream lie. This is not a lie this is a debunking OF a lie. So where, pray tell, are the lies?

It's almost as if you hope the accusation, screamed loud enough, will make it truth. and shut down all questions or accurate exposure of fraud. But no. That couldn't be the case!

You just described yourself.

I post how I please. If you can't recognize your own words, that's your problem. I'm not interested in thanks, rep or your opinion of how I post.

 

[Si modo]

You need to learn to use the quote function here bud. Are you saying the first part or the second part?

The first half disproves itself by sheer logic. Damn that stuff. We're here, we've had major bouts of CO2 before and we've warmed and cooled inspite of it or with it. So that throws out the irreversible aspect.

The second part I have one question: What are the "lies" being spread? All I see are you throwing up false assertations based on sciencey like material and a bunch of handwavium saying that it proves we're responsible. And when it is quickly disproven or shown to come from compromised sources, you scream lie. This is not a lie this is a debunking OF a lie. So where, pray tell, are the lies?

It's almost as if you hope the accusation, screamed loud enough, will make it truth. and shut down all questions or accurate exposure of fraud. But no. That couldn't be the case!

You just described yourself.

I post how I please. If you can't recognize your own words, that's your problem. I'm not interested in thanks, rep or your opinion of how I post.

Those observation skills of yours need some tweaking. Haven't had your coffee yet, maybe?

 

[westwall]

So here we are six years down the road from this forecast, and things are still getting warmer. In spite of a strong and persistant La Nina, and a near record low in solar activity and TSI, 2008 turned out to be either the 8th or 10th warmest year on record. 2009 tied for the second warmest year on record. And 2010 may well go down as the warmest year on record, for at least one year.

Were the scientists wrong about the NAO? No. But they definately underestimated the strength of the warming.

World's climate could cool first, warm later - environment - 04 September 2009 - New Scientist

Cold Atlantic
Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. "But how much? The jury is still out," he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase.

Latif said NAO cycles also explained the recent recovery of the Sahel region of Africa from the droughts of the 1970s and 1980s. James Murphy, head of climate prediction at the Met Office, agreed and linked the NAO to Indian monsoons, Atlantic hurricanes and sea ice in the Arctic. "The oceans are key to decadal natural variability," he said.

How about some perspective with this little bit of propoganda. Greenland has 3,000,000 cubic kilometers of ice. The warmers are telling us that it is losing 200 cubic kilometers per year. So it is losing .007% of its mass every year...That means it will take about 15, 000 to 16,000 years for it to go away. And that is assuming that the warming comes back anytime soon. So far there has been no warming since 1998 (admitted to by Dr. Jones himself) and the best estimates are it will continue to cool for another 20-30 years. So how do you answer those little problems boys?

 

[Chris]

So here we are six years down the road from this forecast, and things are still getting warmer. In spite of a strong and persistant La Nina, and a near record low in solar activity and TSI, 2008 turned out to be either the 8th or 10th warmest year on record. 2009 tied for the second warmest year on record. And 2010 may well go down as the warmest year on record, for at least one year.

Were the scientists wrong about the NAO? No. But they definately underestimated the strength of the warming.

World's climate could cool first, warm later - environment - 04 September 2009 - New Scientist

Cold Atlantic
Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. "But how much? The jury is still out," he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase.

Latif said NAO cycles also explained the recent recovery of the Sahel region of Africa from the droughts of the 1970s and 1980s. James Murphy, head of climate prediction at the Met Office, agreed and linked the NAO to Indian monsoons, Atlantic hurricanes and sea ice in the Arctic. "The oceans are key to decadal natural variability," he said.

How about some perspective with this little bit of propoganda. Greenland has 3,000,000 cubic kilometers of ice. The warmers are telling us that it is losing 200 cubic kilometers per year. So it is losing .007% of its mass every year...That means it will take about 15, 000 to 16,000 years for it to go away. And that is assuming that the warming comes back anytime soon. So far there has been no warming since 1998 (admitted to by Dr. Jones himself) and the best estimates are it will continue to cool for another 20-30 years. So how do you answer those little problems boys?

By asking for a link.

 

[Chris]

University of Manitoba researcher David Barber said in 1981, 90 percent of the Arctic ice pack was made of multiyear ice–the kind that stops ships. Now, multiyear ice has dwindled to 18 percent.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018784377

 

[gslack]

University of Manitoba researcher David Barber said in 1981, 90 percent of the Arctic ice pack was made of multiyear ice–the kind that stops ships. Now, multiyear ice has dwindled to 18 percent.

Arctic Sea Ice Melt Parallels 2007 Record Low Level | AHN

Keep repeating the same phrase so we can all see how this bullshit really is...

 

[Big Fitz]

The only onus on those who disbelieve is to show where the science is wrong. A few (gslack, Crusader Frank, Dude, Westwall) have been consistently doing this. I've managed to find enough logic holes in your theory from time to time that you can drive a freight train through. Plus then you get into the political side of it where following the money has lead into a den of scum and villiany the likes of which have never before been seen in 'reputable science'.

We do not have to prove anything. We just have to show why not.

The science is not wrong.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% causes the earth to retain heat.

Please prove that wrong.

Don't need to. Half the board just showed you why.

1. Phill Jones himself claims now there has been no warming for about 15 years

2. 40% increase in 0.04% of the atmospheric content, of which it is ESTIMATED 0.6% is produced by man. That's not going to retain much heat. Combine with that the fact that water vapor forms around 5% of the atmosphere and is a much more active and effective greenhouse gas.

3. We aren't even up to the temperatures of the medieval warm period where civilization thrived and flourished helping pull us into the age of exploration and renaissance.

4. The sun is the #1 source of heat on this planet, and it has been in a declining cycle for well over a year possibly into 2 now were we can be experiencing dramatic cooling if sunspot activity doesn't pick up. This is more important than the composition of the atmosphere.

Common sense shit here, buddy. You need new uncorrupted data.

 

[Big Fitz]

I post how I please. If you can't recognize your own words, that's your problem. I'm not interested in thanks, rep or your opinion of how I post.

good to know you don't give a fuck about netiquette. I'm actually surprised at your recalcitrance.

 

[Chris]

The only onus on those who disbelieve is to show where the science is wrong. A few (gslack, Crusader Frank, Dude, Westwall) have been consistently doing this. I've managed to find enough logic holes in your theory from time to time that you can drive a freight train through. Plus then you get into the political side of it where following the money has lead into a den of scum and villiany the likes of which have never before been seen in 'reputable science'.

We do not have to prove anything. We just have to show why not.

The science is not wrong.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% causes the earth to retain heat.

Please prove that wrong.

Don't need to. Half the board just showed you why.

1. Phill Jones himself claims now there has been no warming for about 15 years

2. 40% increase in 0.04% of the atmospheric content, of which it is ESTIMATED 0.6% is produced by man. That's not going to retain much heat. Combine with that the fact that water vapor forms around 5% of the atmosphere and is a much more active and effective greenhouse gas.

3. We aren't even up to the temperatures of the medieval warm period where civilization thrived and flourished helping pull us into the age of exploration and renaissance.

4. The sun is the #1 source of heat on this planet, and it has been in a declining cycle for well over a year possibly into 2 now were we can be experiencing dramatic cooling if sunspot activity doesn't pick up. This is more important than the composition of the atmosphere.

Common sense shit here, buddy. You need new uncorrupted data.

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet we just had the warmest March on record and the ice cap has melted to its lowest level ever recorded at this time of year.

Why?

 

[Chris]

University of Manitoba researcher David Barber said in 1981, 90 percent of the Arctic ice pack was made of multiyear ice–the kind that stops ships. Now, multiyear ice has dwindled to 18 percent.

Arctic Sea Ice Melt Parallels 2007 Record Low Level | AHN

Keep repeating the same phrase so we can all see how this bullshit really is...

I would love to because you have no answer for it.

And the ice continues to melt....

 

[Big Fitz]

he Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet we just had the warmest March on record and the ice cap has melted to its lowest level ever recorded at this time of year.

Yeah. I heard that too. But you know what? Those surface stations still aren't corrected. So guess what? That data's bad too. You can't do good science with broken instruments. If I snapped the end off your ruler so you can't measure accurately and told you to do a very specific job, you can't with that tool. You will be wrong.

Second, before I believe this, my personal experience in MN where they ALSO claimed it was the second warmest on record, we have had a very cool April and May. My personal experience was far different than what the claim has been. I would have said we had a very average spring. I wanna see a comparison of day by day temperatures to previous years before I listen to this. Too often bad assertions are hidden by worse math for agendas.

Of course, you have one last thing you still haven't proven: That this is even an problem. You've alleged it would be, but history says otherwise. If it really IS warming, it is a good thing overall for plants who thrive on increased CO2 and longer growing seasons. To animals which most of them enjoy increased ranges of environment. To humanity, which enjoys and has enjoyed increased productivity and functionality.

Remember, that these climatologists have, since Katrina, been predicting record years of storms or more severe storms. All predictions have been a bust. Of course, if they keep betting on black 13 on the roulette wheel sooner or later it will hit, but it won't make them right. It will make them lucky. So this year, someone has asserted a monkey can do a better job, and has decided to put NOAA up against a monkey to see who comes closer.

Let's see who does better, okay?

Dr. Hansimian predicts hurricanes

 

[gslack]

University of Manitoba researcher David Barber said in 1981, 90 percent of the Arctic ice pack was made of multiyear ice–the kind that stops ships. Now, multiyear ice has dwindled to 18 percent.

Arctic Sea Ice Melt Parallels 2007 Record Low Level | AHN

Keep repeating the same phrase so we can all see how this bullshit really is...

I would love to because you have no answer for it.

And the ice continues to melt....

Oh really?..... ANd the first time you posted it and I slapped you with it was an accident? Want me to go and bring that post back up here? I will if thats how you want to be embarrassed again...

 

[gslack]

Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record
By: Bob Weber, The Canadian Press

19/05/2010 5:02 PM

Arctic sea ice is on track to recede to a record low this year, suggesting that northern waters free of summer ice are coming faster than anyone thought.

The latest satellite data show ice coverage is equal to what it was in 2007, the lowest year on record, and is declining faster than it did that year.

"Could we break another record this year? I think it's quite possible," said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.

"We are going to lose the summer sea-ice cover. We can't go back."

Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record - Winnipeg Free Press

LOL, I love when you guys try this tactic.... You post one extreme claim and when it is shown to be bullshit you grab the same type of claims from another media source and rinse, then repeat like good little tools....

lets just fix the claims in the OP and the headline in the article by actually reading the article shall we....

The headline reads; "Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record"

But after reading Your article we see it says these all too telling things.... THe first line..

"Arctic sea ice is on track to recede to a record low this year, suggesting that northern waters free of summer ice are coming faster than anyone thought."

Funny but I was under the assumption "on track" and "suggesting" would mean its a possibility not a fact.... hmm thats not what the headline said now is it.... Bullshit number 1...

next your article said....

"Could we break another record this year? I think it's quite possible," said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo."

Ah okay so its possible and not a fact or anything so direct and clear as the headline would lead us to believe.... Bullshit number 2....

Moving on your article said...

"We are going to lose the summer sea-ice cover. We can't go back."

Oh really? so how did we get 10% of the 30% we lost since 1979 in one season? We got back 10% in 2008 and some more back 2009 according to the other thread you started on this.... hmm funny..... Bullshit number 3....

Once again in your article....

"In April, the centre published data showing that sea ice had almost recovered to the 20-year average."

What????? THey just tried to claim we couldn't get the ice back??? WTF????? BUllshit number 4....

And the most telling thing in the entire article......

"Will (thawing) this year be particularly fast?" asked Serreze. "We don't know. We really don't know."

Yeah....Says it all doesn't it.... They just don't know, seems odd how sure the headline made them sound.... yeah BULLSHIT NUMBER 5.........

I could go on and show every bit of bullshit in it but I think those things right there are more than sufficient to show this is a PR snowjob.....

Nice work guys, you are a big help in outting this AGW fraud....

LOL, I love when you guys try this tactic.... You post one extreme claim and when it is shown to be bullshit you grab the same type of claims from another media source and rinse, then repeat like good little tools....

lets just fix the claims in the OP and the headline in the article by actually reading the article shall we....

The headline reads; "Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record"

But after reading Your article we see it says these all too telling things.... THe first line..

"Arctic sea ice is on track to recede to a record low this year, suggesting that northern waters free of summer ice are coming faster than anyone thought."

Funny but I was under the assumption "on track" and "suggesting" would mean its a possibility not a fact.... hmm thats not what the headline said now is it.... Bullshit number 1...

next your article said....

"Could we break another record this year? I think it's quite possible," said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo."

Ah okay so its possible and not a fact or anything so direct and clear as the headline would lead us to believe.... Bullshit number 2....

Moving on your article said...

"We are going to lose the summer sea-ice cover. We can't go back."

Oh really? so how did we get 10% of the 30% we lost since 1979 in one season? We got back 10% in 2008 and some more back 2009 according to the other thread you started on this.... hmm funny..... Bullshit number 3....

Once again in your article....

"In April, the centre published data showing that sea ice had almost recovered to the 20-year average."

What????? THey just tried to claim we couldn't get the ice back??? WTF????? BUllshit number 4....

And the most telling thing in the entire article......

"Will (thawing) this year be particularly fast?" asked Serreze. "We don't know. We really don't know."

Yeah....Says it all doesn't it.... They just don't know, seems odd how sure the headline made them sound.... yeah BULLSHIT NUMBER 5.........

I could go on and show every bit of bullshit in it but I think those things right there are more than sufficient to show this is a PR snowjob.....

Nice work guys, you are a big help in outting this AGW fraud....

I can repeat myself too tool ... Care to tell me how I have no answer for it again? Lying and pretending it wasn't already shown to be fraudulent is pretty pathetic chris....

 

[gslack]

Want me to slap your latest article which repeats the last one as well?

Okay...

Your link.....Arctic Sea Ice Melt Parallels 2007 Record Low Level | AHN

Just in the middle/top section of that article you linked to it says this....

"The center pointed out the ice extent for April was the largest for that month in the past 10 years. It laid the phenomenon to changing wind patterns that caused older, thicker ice to move southward along Greenland’s east coast, where it will probably melt in summer."

Wow chris, looks like your article doesn't blame the melt on AGW.... Seems a changing wind pattern is to blame...... Busted again either not reading what you cite or not understanding it... When are you tools going stop this silliness? Every dam time you, oldsocks, or trollingblunder post or cite an article you take the headlines and go with it and dont even bother reading it...

Its way too easy slapping you 3 now... All I have to do is read the crap you throw up here LOL

 

[westwall]

So here we are six years down the road from this forecast, and things are still getting warmer. In spite of a strong and persistant La Nina, and a near record low in solar activity and TSI, 2008 turned out to be either the 8th or 10th warmest year on record. 2009 tied for the second warmest year on record. And 2010 may well go down as the warmest year on record, for at least one year.

Were the scientists wrong about the NAO? No. But they definately underestimated the strength of the warming.

World's climate could cool first, warm later - environment - 04 September 2009 - New Scientist

Cold Atlantic
Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. "But how much? The jury is still out," he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase.

Latif said NAO cycles also explained the recent recovery of the Sahel region of Africa from the droughts of the 1970s and 1980s. James Murphy, head of climate prediction at the Met Office, agreed and linked the NAO to Indian monsoons, Atlantic hurricanes and sea ice in the Arctic. "The oceans are key to decadal natural variability," he said.

How about some perspective with this little bit of propoganda. Greenland has 3,000,000 cubic kilometers of ice. The warmers are telling us that it is losing 200 cubic kilometers per year. So it is losing .007% of its mass every year...That means it will take about 15, 000 to 16,000 years for it to go away. And that is assuming that the warming comes back anytime soon. So far there has been no warming since 1998 (admitted to by Dr. Jones himself) and the best estimates are it will continue to cool for another 20-30 years. So how do you answer those little problems boys?

By asking for a link.

A link for what? I just used the accepted figures provided by your own side and did some simple math. I would assume that you can do simple math?