Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[westwall]

A volcano that is not current active and emitting gas and/or magma is consider, for all intents and purposes, dormant. All of the recent activity on Mauna Loa (29 years ago) is located on the eastern flank. The Mauna Loa observatory is located on the western side of the summit, miles away from any recent activity. In fact, the most recent activity at that location was hundreds of years ago. They wouldn't have built the observatory where it is located in the first place if there was a concern for future eruptions/emissions there.

And yet, when one looks at the list of dormant volcano's, Mauna Loa isn't on it while Mauna Kea is. You can shuck and jive all you want but an ethical scientist would say "whoops, I made a mistake and misspoke" as I have done on this very forum on a couple of occasions, while the ethically challenged will not.

Instead they will tie themselves into contortions of ridiculous proportions all so they don't have to admit they were wrong.

Pathetic....

Yes, it is currently listed as active despite the fact that it is also currently dormant. The fact remains that the observatory, a multi-million dollar, permanent installation is located well away from any vents, is located over 29 miles laterally upwind and thousands of feet in altitude above ANY potential magmatic activity or gas release. There has been no volcanic activity in that location for hundreds of years. Using your reasoning, one might as well not install the instruments anywhere on the island because it is volcanic in nature. And that would be a big mistake, and rather foolish. You obviously don't understand how large these volcanos are. You can be on the west side of Mauna Loa while it is erupting in a major episode and never even know it. The active Hawaiian volcanos are the most heavily instrumented volcanic systems on the planet. I think they have it covered, dude.

Yes, I know. A good friend of mine is a volcanologist and I've spent many a day traipsing around Mauna Loa with him. In fact I'll be there again this December (and yes I will be happy to take pictures for you). I think it's you who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about given the grade school error you made. No amount of hand waving and attacks on me are going to hide the fact that you fucked up...big time.

Just admit you were wrong and move on. It will save you a lot of pain there junior.

 

[orogenicman]

meh

and the ice in Antarctica is expanding.

nobody cares.

Uhh, HELLO! The LAND ice isn't expanding. Its melting.

Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate which has implications for sea level rise.

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

You're a fucking expert. How could you have missed this?

You're a scientist, how could you miss this?

Thomas, E. R., G. J. Marshall, and J. R. McConnell, 2008. A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850. Geophysical Research Leters, 35, L01706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032529.

Wonder how that construction crane got buried under ice that according to you doesn't exist?

http://www.scar.org/treaty/atcmxxxiii/ATCM33_ip046_e.pdf

Since around 1980 the ozone hole significantly changed the atmospheric circulation around the continent, increasing the winds over the Southern Ocean and bringing warm air to the eastern side of the Peninsula to contribute to the breakup of the Larsen Ice Shelf.

Observations from the stations on the Peninsula show that temperatures have been rising there since the 1950s, pre-dating the ozone hole. An ice core recently collected at Gomez in the southwest corner of the Peninsula provides a 150-year record of accumulation and isotopic temperature data, showing that accumulation has doubled at this site since the 1850s, the most rapid increase being over the last few decades (Thomas et al., 2008). The stable isotope record (Thomas et al., 2009) shows that the large warming at Faraday/Vernadsky station is not just a local phenomena but part of a statistically significant 100-year regional warming trend that began around 1900. It is not clear yet whether this change is a natural climate cycle, or whether anthropogenic factors play a part.

It is scientifically responsible to say "we don't know". And we don't, yet. And neither do you.

 

[westwall]

Uhh, HELLO! The LAND ice isn't expanding. Its melting.



Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

You're a fucking expert. How could you have missed this?

You're a scientist, how could you miss this?

Thomas, E. R., G. J. Marshall, and J. R. McConnell, 2008. A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850. Geophysical Research Leters, 35, L01706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032529.

Wonder how that construction crane got buried under ice that according to you doesn't exist?

http://www.scar.org/treaty/atcmxxxiii/ATCM33_ip046_e.pdf

Since around 1980 the ozone hole significantly changed the atmospheric circulation around the continent, increasing the winds over the Southern Ocean and bringing warm air to the eastern side of the Peninsula to contribute to the breakup of the Larsen Ice Shelf.

Observations from the stations on the Peninsula show that temperatures have been rising there since the 1950s, pre-dating the ozone hole. An ice core recently collected at Gomez in the southwest corner of the Peninsula provides a 150-year record of accumulation and isotopic temperature data, showing that accumulation has doubled at this site since the 1850s, the most rapid increase being over the last few decades (Thomas et al., 2008). The stable isotope record (Thomas et al., 2009) shows that the large warming at Faraday/Vernadsky station is not just a local phenomena but part of a statistically significant 100-year regional warming trend that began around 1900. It is not clear yet whether this change is a natural climate cycle, or whether anthropogenic factors play a part.

It is scientifically responsible to say "we don't know". And we don't, yet. And neither do you.

Absolutely correct. WE DON'T KNOW. Funny how that crane can be buried under around 30 feet of ice since the 1960's, when it was last used, and you all will make the claim that Antarctica is losing ice at an ever increasing rate. These types of photo's exist from all over Eastern Antarctica. Western Antarctica has indeed seen a very slight rise in temps around the edges, where you can get temps up to a whopping 5C in the height of summer, but the average temps in the interior are still around -10 to -20C....in summer!

How the claim can be made, with a straight face, that Antarctica is melting is beyond me. The majority of Antarctica AVERAGES -60C.

Temperatures in Antarctica - British Antarctic Survey

 

[orogenicman]

You're a scientist, how could you miss this?

Thomas, E. R., G. J. Marshall, and J. R. McConnell, 2008. A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850. Geophysical Research Leters, 35, L01706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032529.

Wonder how that construction crane got buried under ice that according to you doesn't exist?

http://www.scar.org/treaty/atcmxxxiii/ATCM33_ip046_e.pdf

Since around 1980 the ozone hole significantly changed the atmospheric circulation around the continent, increasing the winds over the Southern Ocean and bringing warm air to the eastern side of the Peninsula to contribute to the breakup of the Larsen Ice Shelf.

Observations from the stations on the Peninsula show that temperatures have been rising there since the 1950s, pre-dating the ozone hole. An ice core recently collected at Gomez in the southwest corner of the Peninsula provides a 150-year record of accumulation and isotopic temperature data, showing that accumulation has doubled at this site since the 1850s, the most rapid increase being over the last few decades (Thomas et al., 2008). The stable isotope record (Thomas et al., 2009) shows that the large warming at Faraday/Vernadsky station is not just a local phenomena but part of a statistically significant 100-year regional warming trend that began around 1900. It is not clear yet whether this change is a natural climate cycle, or whether anthropogenic factors play a part.

It is scientifically responsible to say "we don't know". And we don't, yet. And neither do you.

Absolutely correct. WE DON'T KNOW. Funny how that crane can be buried under around 30 feet of ice since the 1960's, when it was last used, and you all will make the claim that Antarctica is losing ice at an ever increasing rate. These types of photo's exist from all over Eastern Antarctica. Western Antarctica has indeed seen a very slight rise in temps around the edges, where you can get temps up to a whopping 5C in the height of summer, but the average temps in the interior are still around -10 to -20C....in summer!

How the claim can be made, with a straight face, that Antarctica is melting is beyond me. The majority of Antarctica AVERAGES -60C.

Temperatures in Antarctica - British Antarctic Survey

It is losing ice at an ever increasing rate. The evidence for that is not in doubt. What we aren't sure of is whether the increased snow fall is due to a natural cyclic weather pattern, due to climate shifts because of the ozone hole, of because of AGW. There is no evidence that the increased snow fall in the eastern Antarctic in any way makes up for the ice loss in the west. In fact, despite increased moisture, which is causing the snowfall, the temperature is still rising in the west and northwest. Only further data will settle the question. Does this mean that AGW isn't real, that it refutes AGW? Not in the least.

And just to be clear, thirty feet of snow does not a glacier make. It's snow, not the solid ice you find in a glacier. Eventually, it will become ice, unless it evaporates away with the wind, is blow away by the wind, or melts, all of which are possible.

 

[skookerasbil]

http://www.scar.org/treaty/atcmxxxiii/ATCM33_ip046_e.pdf

Since around 1980 the ozone hole significantly changed the atmospheric circulation around the continent, increasing the winds over the Southern Ocean and bringing warm air to the eastern side of the Peninsula to contribute to the breakup of the Larsen Ice Shelf.

Observations from the stations on the Peninsula show that temperatures have been rising there since the 1950s, pre-dating the ozone hole. An ice core recently collected at Gomez in the southwest corner of the Peninsula provides a 150-year record of accumulation and isotopic temperature data, showing that accumulation has doubled at this site since the 1850s, the most rapid increase being over the last few decades (Thomas et al., 2008). The stable isotope record (Thomas et al., 2009) shows that the large warming at Faraday/Vernadsky station is not just a local phenomena but part of a statistically significant 100-year regional warming trend that began around 1900. It is not clear yet whether this change is a natural climate cycle, or whether anthropogenic factors play a part.

It is scientifically responsible to say "we don't know". And we don't, yet. And neither do you.

Absolutely correct. WE DON'T KNOW. Funny how that crane can be buried under around 30 feet of ice since the 1960's, when it was last used, and you all will make the claim that Antarctica is losing ice at an ever increasing rate. These types of photo's exist from all over Eastern Antarctica. Western Antarctica has indeed seen a very slight rise in temps around the edges, where you can get temps up to a whopping 5C in the height of summer, but the average temps in the interior are still around -10 to -20C....in summer!

How the claim can be made, with a straight face, that Antarctica is melting is beyond me. The majority of Antarctica AVERAGES -60C.

Temperatures in Antarctica - British Antarctic Survey

It is losing ice at an ever increasing rate. The evidence for that is not in doubt. What we aren't sure of is whether the increased snow fall is due to a natural cyclic weather pattern, due to climate shifts because of the ozone hole, of because of AGW. There is no evidence that the increased snow fall in the eastern Antarctic in any way makes up for the ice loss in the west. In fact, despite increased moisture, which is causing the snowfall, the temperature is still rising in the west and northwest. Only further data will settle the question. Does this mean that AGW isn't real, that it refutes AGW? Not in the least.

And just to be clear, thirty feet of snow does not a glacier make. It's snow, not the solid ice you find in a glacier. Eventually, it will become ice, unless it evaporates away with the wind, is blow away by the wind, or melts, all of which are possible.

You're getting pwned s0n..........

Time to become aware my friend.........all the nutters in here, a long time ago, fell for the ruse......the hopelessly duped. They are all around us........

The individual vs. the illusion of consensus reality « Jon Rappoport's Blog

 

[skookerasbil]

Anyway.....don't spend too much time getting caught up in the debate. Its nothing more than an internet hobby in 2013 and having zero effect on changing the energy landscape. In other words......fossil fuels dominate and will dominate for decades to come.

Not to mention........nobody cares about the science..........

Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns

 

[flacaltenn]

the three coldest Arctic summers on record have occurred during the last FIVE years

Fig. 1.3. Annual average near-surface air temperature anomalies for the first decade of the 21st century (2001-11) relative to the baseline period of 1971-2000. Data are from NOAA/ESRL, Boulder, CO: ESRL : PSD : Physical Sciences Division.

Fig. 1.2. Arctic-wide annual average surface air temperature (SAT) anomalies for the period 1900-2011 relative to the 1981-2010 mean value, based on land stations north of 60°N. Data are from the CRUTEM3v dataset at Temperature data (HadCRUT4). Note: this curve includes neither marine observations nor 2012 data, as the year was incomplete at the time of writing.

Seasonal Air Temperatures

Consistent with the annual average temperatures (Fig. 1.1), each seasonal anomaly distribution for near-surface temperatures shows departures primarily in the sub-Arctic (Fig. 1.4). Fall 2011 and winter 2012 were characterized by a positive North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). This promotes the warm temperature anomaly over the Barents and Kara Seas, which are downstream of the stronger winds and lower pressures of the Icelandic low pressure center. This is unlike the Warm Arctic/Cold Continents pattern associated with a negative Arctic Oscillation (AO) climate pattern over the central Arctic (see previous Report Cards), which dominated the previous two falls and winters (2009-10 and 2010-11).

In contrast to the positive NAO in fall 2011 and winter 2012, spring and summer 2012 had a very negative NAO, with significant consequences for snow cover duration and extent (see the Snow essay) and melting on the Greenland Ice Sheet (see the Greenland Ice Sheet essay). Spring 2012 also saw the early formation of the Arctic Dipole (AD) pattern (Fig. 1.5) with high pressure on the North American side of the Arctic and low pressure on the Siberian side. In the previous five years this has not occurred until June (Overland et al., 2012). The dipole pattern supported increased winds across the Arctic and warmer temperature anomalies over the East Siberian Sea and western Greenland (Fig. 1.4c). In summer 2012 an unusual low pressure, centered on the Pacific Arctic sector, was a new feature of central Arctic weather relative to the last decade (Fig. 1.6).

Also noteworthy in Fig. 1.6 is the high sea level pressure over Greenland, which has been a feature of early summer for the last six years. Higher pressures over Greenland and their influence on Arctic and subarctic wind patterns, a so called blocking pattern, suggests physical connections between it and reduced Arctic sea ice in the summer, loss of Greenland and Canadian Arctic glacier ice, reduced North American snow cover in May and June, and potentially extremes in mid-latitude weather (Overland et al., 2012). See the essays on Sea Ice, Glaciers and Ice Caps, Greenland Ice Sheet and Snow for further information on those topics.


You were saying?

You're showing 60 ---> 90 averages.. Westwall wasn't including Finland.. His metric was based on 80 ---> 90deg lat.. Some people might consider your chart "Arctic".. But 60deg is 1/2 of Canada, and most of Alaska and Sweden..

 

[Abraham3]

Your chart closely resembles global temperatures save it lacks the current hiatus in global air temps. It is rising. What point are you trying to make?

 

[Abraham3]

Anyway.....don't spend too much time getting caught up in the debate. Its nothing more than an internet hobby in 2013 and having zero effect on changing the energy landscape. In other words......fossil fuels dominate and will dominate for decades to come.

Don't spend too much time getting caught up in voting or participating in our democracy. It doesn't matter and no one cares.

Not to mention........nobody cares about the science..........

I do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Anyway.....don't spend too much time getting caught up in the debate. Its nothing more than an internet hobby in 2013 and having zero effect on changing the energy landscape. In other words......fossil fuels dominate and will dominate for decades to come.

Don't spend too much time getting caught up in voting or participating in our democracy. It doesn't matter and no one cares.

Not to mention........nobody cares about the science..........

I do.

So does the US Senate.

What was the vote on Kyoto?

 

[westwall]

http://www.scar.org/treaty/atcmxxxiii/ATCM33_ip046_e.pdf

Since around 1980 the ozone hole significantly changed the atmospheric circulation around the continent, increasing the winds over the Southern Ocean and bringing warm air to the eastern side of the Peninsula to contribute to the breakup of the Larsen Ice Shelf.

Observations from the stations on the Peninsula show that temperatures have been rising there since the 1950s, pre-dating the ozone hole. An ice core recently collected at Gomez in the southwest corner of the Peninsula provides a 150-year record of accumulation and isotopic temperature data, showing that accumulation has doubled at this site since the 1850s, the most rapid increase being over the last few decades (Thomas et al., 2008). The stable isotope record (Thomas et al., 2009) shows that the large warming at Faraday/Vernadsky station is not just a local phenomena but part of a statistically significant 100-year regional warming trend that began around 1900. It is not clear yet whether this change is a natural climate cycle, or whether anthropogenic factors play a part.

It is scientifically responsible to say "we don't know". And we don't, yet. And neither do you.

Absolutely correct. WE DON'T KNOW. Funny how that crane can be buried under around 30 feet of ice since the 1960's, when it was last used, and you all will make the claim that Antarctica is losing ice at an ever increasing rate. These types of photo's exist from all over Eastern Antarctica. Western Antarctica has indeed seen a very slight rise in temps around the edges, where you can get temps up to a whopping 5C in the height of summer, but the average temps in the interior are still around -10 to -20C....in summer!

How the claim can be made, with a straight face, that Antarctica is melting is beyond me. The majority of Antarctica AVERAGES -60C.

Temperatures in Antarctica - British Antarctic Survey

It is losing ice at an ever increasing rate. The evidence for that is not in doubt. What we aren't sure of is whether the increased snow fall is due to a natural cyclic weather pattern, due to climate shifts because of the ozone hole, of because of AGW. There is no evidence that the increased snow fall in the eastern Antarctic in any way makes up for the ice loss in the west. In fact, despite increased moisture, which is causing the snowfall, the temperature is still rising in the west and northwest. Only further data will settle the question. Does this mean that AGW isn't real, that it refutes AGW? Not in the least.

And just to be clear, thirty feet of snow does not a glacier make. It's snow, not the solid ice you find in a glacier. Eventually, it will become ice, unless it evaporates away with the wind, is blow away by the wind, or melts, all of which are possible.

If it's losing it so fast how did that crane get buried?

 

[orogenicman]

Absolutely correct. WE DON'T KNOW. Funny how that crane can be buried under around 30 feet of ice since the 1960's, when it was last used, and you all will make the claim that Antarctica is losing ice at an ever increasing rate. These types of photo's exist from all over Eastern Antarctica. Western Antarctica has indeed seen a very slight rise in temps around the edges, where you can get temps up to a whopping 5C in the height of summer, but the average temps in the interior are still around -10 to -20C....in summer!

How the claim can be made, with a straight face, that Antarctica is melting is beyond me. The majority of Antarctica AVERAGES -60C.

Temperatures in Antarctica - British Antarctic Survey

It is losing ice at an ever increasing rate. The evidence for that is not in doubt. What we aren't sure of is whether the increased snow fall is due to a natural cyclic weather pattern, due to climate shifts because of the ozone hole, of because of AGW. There is no evidence that the increased snow fall in the eastern Antarctic in any way makes up for the ice loss in the west. In fact, despite increased moisture, which is causing the snowfall, the temperature is still rising in the west and northwest. Only further data will settle the question. Does this mean that AGW isn't real, that it refutes AGW? Not in the least.

And just to be clear, thirty feet of snow does not a glacier make. It's snow, not the solid ice you find in a glacier. Eventually, it will become ice, unless it evaporates away with the wind, is blow away by the wind, or melts, all of which are possible.

If it's losing it so fast how did that crane get buried?

Erm, do you have any concept whatsoever of geography? The idea that there is more than one 'place' in the world? The idea that something can happen in one place but not necessarily at another? The crane is located in the eastern interior. The melting is happening on the western and northwestern ice shelves. Get it?

 

[gslack]

It is losing ice at an ever increasing rate. The evidence for that is not in doubt. What we aren't sure of is whether the increased snow fall is due to a natural cyclic weather pattern, due to climate shifts because of the ozone hole, of because of AGW. There is no evidence that the increased snow fall in the eastern Antarctic in any way makes up for the ice loss in the west. In fact, despite increased moisture, which is causing the snowfall, the temperature is still rising in the west and northwest. Only further data will settle the question. Does this mean that AGW isn't real, that it refutes AGW? Not in the least.

And just to be clear, thirty feet of snow does not a glacier make. It's snow, not the solid ice you find in a glacier. Eventually, it will become ice, unless it evaporates away with the wind, is blow away by the wind, or melts, all of which are possible.

If it's losing it so fast how did that crane get buried?

Erm, do you have any concept whatsoever of geography? The idea that there is more than one 'place' in the world? The idea that something can happen in one place but not necessarily at another? The crane is located in the eastern interior. The melting is happening on the western and northwestern ice shelves. Get it?

LOL, so your logic is that all that melt at another place is somehow refreezing and burying the crane somewhere else??

Well... Nice to see all that education wasn't wasted... ROFL.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A year like this should be within the top 3 if temperature is raising.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

meh

and the ice in Antarctica is expanding.

nobody cares.

Uhh, HELLO! The LAND ice isn't expanding. Its melting.

Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate which has implications for sea level rise.

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

You're a fucking expert. How could you have missed this?

You're a scientist, how could you miss this?

Thomas, E. R., G. J. Marshall, and J. R. McConnell, 2008. A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850. Geophysical Research Leters, 35, L01706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032529.

Wonder how that construction crane got buried under ice that according to you doesn't exist?

From section 3 of the letter you reference:

The doubling of accumulation in the last 150 years appears to be unique to the Gomez site.

Thanks for playing. Try again moron.


Do you ever bother to read any of the references that the denialist blogger use?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A year like this should be within the top 3 if temperature is raising.

Why?

 

[westwall]

It is losing ice at an ever increasing rate. The evidence for that is not in doubt. What we aren't sure of is whether the increased snow fall is due to a natural cyclic weather pattern, due to climate shifts because of the ozone hole, of because of AGW. There is no evidence that the increased snow fall in the eastern Antarctic in any way makes up for the ice loss in the west. In fact, despite increased moisture, which is causing the snowfall, the temperature is still rising in the west and northwest. Only further data will settle the question. Does this mean that AGW isn't real, that it refutes AGW? Not in the least.

And just to be clear, thirty feet of snow does not a glacier make. It's snow, not the solid ice you find in a glacier. Eventually, it will become ice, unless it evaporates away with the wind, is blow away by the wind, or melts, all of which are possible.

If it's losing it so fast how did that crane get buried?

Erm, do you have any concept whatsoever of geography? The idea that there is more than one 'place' in the world? The idea that something can happen in one place but not necessarily at another? The crane is located in the eastern interior. The melting is happening on the western and northwestern ice shelves. Get it?

Why yes I do. These transmission towers are also in Antarctica. They are 115 feet tall.....though you would have a hard time telling that now. Wouldn't you?

 

[gslack]

If it's losing it so fast how did that crane get buried?

Erm, do you have any concept whatsoever of geography? The idea that there is more than one 'place' in the world? The idea that something can happen in one place but not necessarily at another? The crane is located in the eastern interior. The melting is happening on the western and northwestern ice shelves. Get it?

Why yes I do. These transmission towers are also in Antarctica. They are 115 feet tall.....though you would have a hard time telling that now. Wouldn't you?

Another fine example of ice growth where the warmers clam it's thinning....

WWII P-38, rescued from ice, draws crowd at EAA

Seems to be a real problem.. They say it's melting at an alarming rate and suddenly we find it's not really doing anything but what it usually does; grow, shrink, melt, freeze, and all of it despite their best efforts...

Last time I mentioned this story, one of the warmers claimed the planes sank through the ice due to the melting.. LOL, Sure maybe until they got good and buried, then what? The inside melted? Too funny tosee the excuses.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

meh

and the ice in Antarctica is expanding.

nobody cares.

Uhh, HELLO! The LAND ice isn't expanding. Its melting.

Satellites measure Antarctica is gaining sea ice but losing land ice at an accelerating rate which has implications for sea level rise.

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

You're a fucking expert. How could you have missed this?

You're a scientist, how could you miss this?

Thomas, E. R., G. J. Marshall, and J. R. McConnell, 2008. A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850. Geophysical Research Leters, 35, L01706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032529.

Wonder how that construction crane got buried under ice that according to you doesn't exist?

From section 3 of the letter you reference:

The doubling of accumulation in the last 150 years appears to be unique to the Gomez site.

Thanks for playing. Try again moron.


Do you ever bother to read any of the references that the denialist blogger use?

 

[gslack]

Uhh, HELLO! The LAND ice isn't expanding. Its melting.



Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

You're a fucking expert. How could you have missed this?

You're a scientist, how could you miss this?

Thomas, E. R., G. J. Marshall, and J. R. McConnell, 2008. A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850. Geophysical Research Leters, 35, L01706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032529.

Wonder how that construction crane got buried under ice that according to you doesn't exist?

From section 3 of the letter you reference:

The doubling of accumulation in the last 150 years appears to be unique to the Gomez site.

Thanks for playing. Try again moron.


Do you ever bother to read any of the references that the denialist blogger use?

Poopie, I wish you and the warmer crew would get your shit together..

You just called skepticalscience, a known warmer blog, a denialist blog... LOL,and the word denialist, speaks for itself..

On top of that, you fussed over the claims of one of your own blogs, and when it turns out you didn't read it fully, you blame west for your stupidity?

Here's a quote that shows the BS from that warmers blog..

"While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica has been losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean."

LOL, see the double-speak in that? Eastern interior Antarctica is gaining ice, and the antarctic sea ice is growing.. And the really funny part... Sea ice is growing despite "a strongly warming southern ocean"... WTF does that mean? Strongly warming could refelct anything.. It's an ambiguous phrase if not plain BS..

How can the seas ice be expanding if the water it sits on is warming "strongly"???

Well if the land ice is shrinking like he claimed than the sea ice has to be coming from somewhere ... It's a lie, a lie told in in a way to still seem factual. Hence the ambiguous phrase...Until that ding dong can be specific, we can call it a lie and move on...

Here's a dandy graphic he put up that tells the tale, but when he posted it on his site, people put on their warmer goggles and didn't catch on...

looking at the graphic sans the goggles we see very clearly that only a relative few areas are losing ice when compared to the areas gaining or staying the same... But hey, you didn't even know it was a warmer blog..LOL