No Sea Level Rise says Isle of the Dead

[Crick]

Antarctica is not melting

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Antarctica is not melting

Crick, is this the same NASA that said in Nov 2015 that the Antarctic ice was growing?

 

[9aces]

Antarctica is not melting

Crick, is this the same NASA that said in Nov 2015 that the Antarctic ice was growing?

Are we on Climate Change or Global Warming today? I thought Climate change was Sun/Wed/Fri?

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? Do you actually think that argument has merit? I guess no one ever noticed waves and tides and wind surges before. What an astounding discovery you've made. It will revolutionize the field.

Do you know what a modern wave gauge looks like? How it works.Are you familiar with capacitors? The capacitance of a capacitor is dependent on a few things, one of which is the area of its plates. If you take a metal rod, cover it with plastic, it forms one plate and the electrolytic barrier of a capacitor. The other plate is formed by our conductive sea water. The rod is installed sticking down through mean sea level. As the water rises and falls, the capacitance of the assembly is altered directly by the rise and fall of the water. Thus sea level can be monitored continuously (with an analog circuit) or extremely rapidly (with a fast-sampling digital circuit) and the results both recorded as frequently as you like and fed into an integrator to determine the mean value over any running time span you care to use.

Now Crick, you are posting in answer to someone that claimed that 12 amps = 1 watt. Do you expect him to even vaguely understand how a capacitor works?

Most of the deniers are woefully ignorant of basic science, especially when it come to understanding how the measuring instrumentation works.

 

[elektra]

Now Crick, you are posting in answer to someone that claimed that 12 amps = 1 watt. Do you expect him to even vaguely understand how a capacitor works?

Most of the deniers are woefully ignorant of basic science, especially when it come to understanding how the measuring instrumentation works.

You even get that wrong you Old Liar

1. 12 watts = 1 amp x 12 volts which is P=IE, which old crock disagreed with

now watch this you complete moron

2. 1 watt = 12 amps x .08333334 volts

How stupid can you possibly be Old Crock, it is simple MATH, not even algebra! At 72 old crock is back in college? It sure ain't forth grade math the old man is studying.

I see mattpew agrees with Old Crock, mattpew can't do 4th grade math either. At least mattpew is smart enough not to respond to Posts that are over his head.

 

[Old Rocks]

Oh well, OK, off topic, but here goes;

Wind Power Extreme Costs Hidden, Maintenance, Consumers must pay

1 amp equals 12 watts, if using Wind Turbines it takes 3 amps to equal 1 watt, or 36 amps to create 12 watts, given the capacity factor.

Even your jokes are a huge waste of resources, I bet your down for maintenance, now.

That is where you can find this post from Elektra. Judge for yourself what he or she is stating.

 

[elektra]

Oh well, OK, off topic, but here goes;

Wind Power Extreme Costs Hidden, Maintenance, Consumers must pay

1 amp equals 12 watts, if using Wind Turbines it takes 3 amps to equal 1 watt, or 36 amps to create 12 watts, given the capacity factor.

Even your jokes are a huge waste of resources, I bet your down for maintenance, now.

That is where you can find this post from Elektra. Judge for yourself what he or she is stating.

Old Crock you really got burnt, P=IE, you tried to turn a little humor into a derogatory comment, and you lost.

12 watts = 1 amp x 12 volts, Old Crock said this was wrong!

Nope not down for maintenance, Old Crock, just laughing at your stupidity. Old Crock's intelligence has a negative capacity factor.

At 72 Old Crock is in college, telling the 19 year olds that the formula for power is, W=IR, I had to correct Old Crock and tell him it is as easy as PIE, or P=IE

Old Crock came back and stated W=IV? Volts is represented by E Old Crock, How about E over IR, try that one old crock. Power, or Watts, is represented by P

 

[Crick]

Do you believe using different variable names makes the equation wrong?

 

[elektra]

Do you believe using different variable names makes the equation wrong?

Yes, by using the Variable of Resistance for Voltage, the equation for P=IE is wrong.

 

[9aces]

Do you believe using different variable names makes the equation wrong?

Yes, by using the Variable of Resistance for Voltage, the equation for P=IE is wrong.

And here you find the difference between the person who has to use information...and the one who looks it up on google.

 

[jc456]

If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.

No, it will not, and that basic bit of ignorance is enough to dismiss just about everything else you have to say on the subject.

Floating ice will not change the level of water in which it floats, one way or the other, as the ice melts. Ice displaces its weight in liquid water, not its volume.

However the point I was making still stands. If the Antarctic melts, it'll cause a massive problem, not the arctic.

Sorry s0n......Antarctic gaining ice like nobody's business. People who actually worry about this shit have waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too little real responsibilities in life.

skooks, again, I read today about the earth axis is changing and why the Arctic may be seeing more sun which would directly correlate in the Antarctic building ice. Just saying, I have to do some research, but it seems logical. Seems 100 times more logical than adding CO2 to the air.

 

[jc456]

And, high tide flooding is Weather, not Climate. Funny how those "scientific" Global Warming worshipers confuse the weather with climate (at their convenience).

Ah, more of your belligerent ignorance routine, your standard response to having your attempts at fraud busted.

Tidal flooding is both weather and climate. An individual occurrence of it is weather. The long-term pattern of it is climate. The long-term pattern of increasing numbers of tidal flooding events is due to sea level rise.

where?

 

[Old Rocks]

If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.

No, it will not, and that basic bit of ignorance is enough to dismiss just about everything else you have to say on the subject.

Floating ice will not change the level of water in which it floats, one way or the other, as the ice melts. Ice displaces its weight in liquid water, not its volume.

However the point I was making still stands. If the Antarctic melts, it'll cause a massive problem, not the arctic.

Sorry s0n......Antarctic gaining ice like nobody's business. People who actually worry about this shit have waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too little real responsibilities in life.

skooks, again, I read today about the earth axis is changing and why the Arctic may be seeing more sun which would directly correlate in the Antarctic building ice. Just saying, I have to do some research, but it seems logical. Seems 100 times more logical than adding CO2 to the air.

O..........K.......................................

 

[frigidweirdo]

If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.

No, it will not, and that basic bit of ignorance is enough to dismiss just about everything else you have to say on the subject.

Floating ice will not change the level of water in which it floats, one way or the other, as the ice melts. Ice displaces its weight in liquid water, not its volume.

However the point I was making still stands. If the Antarctic melts, it'll cause a massive problem, not the arctic.

Sorry s0n......Antarctic gaining ice like nobody's business. People who actually worry about this shit have waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too little real responsibilities in life.

skooks, again, I read today about the earth axis is changing and why the Arctic may be seeing more sun which would directly correlate in the Antarctic building ice. Just saying, I have to do some research, but it seems logical. Seems 100 times more logical than adding CO2 to the air.

The Antarctic is losing ice though. It was building ice on one side of the continent while the other side lost ice, this is probably just something to do with the way things go, however it was still losing ice in its totality.

 

[elektra]

If the Arctic melts sea levels will DROP. If the water on the land of the Antarctic melt, the then sea will rise.

No, it will not, and that basic bit of ignorance is enough to dismiss just about everything else you have to say on the subject.

Floating ice will not change the level of water in which it floats, one way or the other, as the ice melts. Ice displaces its weight in liquid water, not its volume.

However the point I was making still stands. If the Antarctic melts, it'll cause a massive problem, not the arctic.

Sorry s0n......Antarctic gaining ice like nobody's business. People who actually worry about this shit have waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too little real responsibilities in life.

skooks, again, I read today about the earth axis is changing and why the Arctic may be seeing more sun which would directly correlate in the Antarctic building ice. Just saying, I have to do some research, but it seems logical. Seems 100 times more logical than adding CO2 to the air.

The Antarctic is losing ice though. It was building ice on one side of the continent while the other side lost ice, this is probably just something to do with the way things go, however it was still losing ice in its totality.

And then it will gain ice? And lose some, and gain some?

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, it will not, and that basic bit of ignorance is enough to dismiss just about everything else you have to say on the subject.

Floating ice will not change the level of water in which it floats, one way or the other, as the ice melts. Ice displaces its weight in liquid water, not its volume.

However the point I was making still stands. If the Antarctic melts, it'll cause a massive problem, not the arctic.

Sorry s0n......Antarctic gaining ice like nobody's business. People who actually worry about this shit have waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too little real responsibilities in life.

skooks, again, I read today about the earth axis is changing and why the Arctic may be seeing more sun which would directly correlate in the Antarctic building ice. Just saying, I have to do some research, but it seems logical. Seems 100 times more logical than adding CO2 to the air.

The Antarctic is losing ice though. It was building ice on one side of the continent while the other side lost ice, this is probably just something to do with the way things go, however it was still losing ice in its totality.

And then it will gain ice? And lose some, and gain some?

And every year it has less ice than the year before, or at least over a period of time there is less ice, on average, every year.

 

[elektra]

However the point I was making still stands. If the Antarctic melts, it'll cause a massive problem, not the arctic.

Sorry s0n......Antarctic gaining ice like nobody's business. People who actually worry about this shit have waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too little real responsibilities in life.

skooks, again, I read today about the earth axis is changing and why the Arctic may be seeing more sun which would directly correlate in the Antarctic building ice. Just saying, I have to do some research, but it seems logical. Seems 100 times more logical than adding CO2 to the air.

The Antarctic is losing ice though. It was building ice on one side of the continent while the other side lost ice, this is probably just something to do with the way things go, however it was still losing ice in its totality.

And then it will gain ice? And lose some, and gain some?

And every year it has less ice than the year before, or at least over a period of time there is less ice, on average, every year.

yet, in the other thread, nasa was quoted as saying different, and predicted it will now grow.

You may not of noticed, but I am not much into arguing the daily changes in weather. Climate changes, that takes 1000's of years to change.

Every year? Are we talking, "Sea Ice" or "Polar Ice".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sorry s0n......Antarctic gaining ice like nobody's business. People who actually worry about this shit have waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too little real responsibilities in life.

skooks, again, I read today about the earth axis is changing and why the Arctic may be seeing more sun which would directly correlate in the Antarctic building ice. Just saying, I have to do some research, but it seems logical. Seems 100 times more logical than adding CO2 to the air.

The Antarctic is losing ice though. It was building ice on one side of the continent while the other side lost ice, this is probably just something to do with the way things go, however it was still losing ice in its totality.

And then it will gain ice? And lose some, and gain some?

And every year it has less ice than the year before, or at least over a period of time there is less ice, on average, every year.

yet, in the other thread, nasa was quoted as saying different, and predicted it will now grow.

You may not of noticed, but I am not much into arguing the daily changes in weather. Climate changes, that takes 1000's of years to change.

Every year? Are we talking, "Sea Ice" or "Polar Ice".

Did they? Were were they quoted as saying this?

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Maximum Extent : Image of the Day

What NASA said was that the sea ice level had reached a record. This IS NOT the amount of ice there is, this is how wide the ice spreads. Now, we all know if you have a sandwich and you put some peanut butter in the middle, a big dollop, there will be the same amount of peanut butter as if you spread it around the bread, yes, the peanut butter is now over a wider area, but not more peanut putter.

Their belief why this happened...

"Geography and winds are thought to be especially important. Unlike the Arctic, where sea ice is confined in a basin, Antarctica is a continent surrounded by open ocean. Since its sea ice is unconfined, it is particularly sensitive to changes in the winds."

Why is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming?

One of the effects of ozone loss on the Antarctic has been the increasing frequency and ferocity of winds and storms around the continent. According to Turner, ozone depletion has caused winds in the Southern Ocean to increase by 15-20%. In particular, the cooling trend may have caused a low pressure system in the Amundsen sea to increase in intensity or frequency.


Wind. Not cold. But wind.

Antarctic sea ice level breaks record, NASA says

"Snowfall could also be behind the growing ice pattern. NASA explains: "Snow landing on thin ice can actually push the thin ice below the water, which then allows cold ocean water to seep up through the ice and flood the snow - leading to a slushy mixture that freezes in the cold atmosphere and adds to the thickness of the ice.""

Another reason. (from the link below)

Antarctic sea ice level breaks record, NASA says

"Despite this trend, sea ice as a whole is decreasing on a global scale."

 

[elektra]

skooks, again, I read today about the earth axis is changing and why the Arctic may be seeing more sun which would directly correlate in the Antarctic building ice. Just saying, I have to do some research, but it seems logical. Seems 100 times more logical than adding CO2 to the air.

The Antarctic is losing ice though. It was building ice on one side of the continent while the other side lost ice, this is probably just something to do with the way things go, however it was still losing ice in its totality.

And then it will gain ice? And lose some, and gain some?

And every year it has less ice than the year before, or at least over a period of time there is less ice, on average, every year.

yet, in the other thread, nasa was quoted as saying different, and predicted it will now grow.

You may not of noticed, but I am not much into arguing the daily changes in weather. Climate changes, that takes 1000's of years to change.

Every year? Are we talking, "Sea Ice" or "Polar Ice".

Did they? Were were they quoted as saying this?

Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Maximum Extent : Image of the Day

What NASA said was that the sea ice level had reached a record. This IS NOT the amount of ice there is, this is how wide the ice spreads. Now, we all know if you have a sandwich and you put some peanut butter in the middle, a big dollop, there will be the same amount of peanut butter as if you spread it around the bread, yes, the peanut butter is now over a wider area, but not more peanut putter.

Their belief why this happened...

"Geography and winds are thought to be especially important. Unlike the Arctic, where sea ice is confined in a basin, Antarctica is a continent surrounded by open ocean. Since its sea ice is unconfined, it is particularly sensitive to changes in the winds."

Why is Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming?

One of the effects of ozone loss on the Antarctic has been the increasing frequency and ferocity of winds and storms around the continent. According to Turner, ozone depletion has caused winds in the Southern Ocean to increase by 15-20%. In particular, the cooling trend may have caused a low pressure system in the Amundsen sea to increase in intensity or frequency.


Wind. Not cold. But wind.

Antarctic sea ice level breaks record, NASA says

"Snowfall could also be behind the growing ice pattern. NASA explains: "Snow landing on thin ice can actually push the thin ice below the water, which then allows cold ocean water to seep up through the ice and flood the snow - leading to a slushy mixture that freezes in the cold atmosphere and adds to the thickness of the ice.""

Another reason. (from the link below)

Antarctic sea ice level breaks record, NASA says

"Despite this trend, sea ice as a whole is decreasing on a global scale."

In the following thread, Mattpew used the New York Times as his source, in the New York Times article they linked to the link I am quoting from. So from the thread where they claim the Ice Disappeared, those scientist claim the opposite from what the headline stated.
Scientists are floored by what’s happening in the Arctic right now

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

The observed trend over the period 2005 to 2015 is actually positive (a tendency for more ice). In a paper recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that the Community Earth System Model (CESM) was able to predict this period of winter ice growth in the North Atlantic. The study further suggests that in the near future, sea ice extent in this part of the Arctic is likely to remain steady or even increase (Figure 4).

 

[Crick]

Latest from NSIDC.org

February continues streak of record low Arctic sea ice extent
March 2, 2016


Arctic sea ice was at a satellite-record low for the second month in a row. The first three weeks of February saw little ice growth, but extent rose during the last week of the month. Arctic sea ice typically reaches its maximum extent for the year in mid to late March.

Overview of conditions

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for February 2016 was 14.22 million square kilometers (5.48 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1981 to 2010 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data.About the data

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
High-resolution image

Arctic sea ice extent for February averaged 14.22 million square kilometers (5.48 million square miles), the lowest February extent in the satellite record. It is 1.16 million square kilometers (448,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 15.4 million square kilometers (5.94 million square miles) and is 200,000 square kilometers (77,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the month recorded in 2005.

The first three weeks of February saw little ice growth, but extent rose during the last week of the month primarily due to growth in the Sea of Okhotsk (180,000 square kilometers or 70,000 square miles) and to a lesser extent in Baffin Bay (35,000 square kilometers or 13,500 square miles). Extent is presently below average in the Barents and Kara seas, as well as the Bering Sea and the East Greenland Sea. Extent decreased in the Barents and East Greenland seas during the month of February. In other regions, such as the Sea of Okhotsk, Baffin Bay, and the Labrador Sea, ice conditions are near average to slightly above average for this time of year. An exception is the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which remains largely ice free.

In the Antarctic, sea ice reached its minimum extent for the year on February 19, averaging 2.6 million square kilometers (1 million square miles). It is the ninth lowest Antarctic sea ice minimum extent in the satellite record.