Why does one polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?

[Old Rocks]

Answer the question, sub human.

During the past million years, NA thawed while Greenland froze.

WHY?

CO2 was constant during the whole period...

Good God. And you dare claim a degree in science?

There have at least four ice ages in the last million years, dingleberry.

Yahoo Search - Web Search
fullyhosted_003&type=wncy_omxmedia_16_17&param1=1&param2=f%3D4%26b%3Dchmm%26cc%3Dus%26pa%3DWincy%26cd%3D2XzuyEtN2Y1L1Qzu0Fzz0AzyyCtAyDyD0FyB0D0BtCyBzyzytN0D0Tzu0StCyDzztBtN1L2XzutAtFtBtCtFtCtFtCtN1L1Czu1TtN1L1G1B1V1N2Y1L1Qzu2StBtD0CtByDzz0BzztGtAyBtDzytGyB0FzztAtGtD0AyB0AtGtB0EtA0AyB0AtD0DtCtCtByE2QtN1M1F1B2Z1V1N2Y1L1Qzu2StB0B0DtC0DyEtB0FtG0AtC0CzztGyEyDzztDtG0B0ByCtAtG0ByEtDyE0E0DtAzy0AtAyDyE2QtN0A0LzuyE%26cr%3D79355317%26a%3Dwncy_omxmedia_16_17%26os_ver%3D10.0%26os%3DWindows%2B10%2BPro&uref=chmm&p=timeline+of+the+recent+ice+ages

Do you really want to continue to expose the depths of your ignorance?

 

[Old Rocks]

"I do not base my idea of rising sea level on the situation in the Marshall Islands. I base it on this data from the world's leading experts on sea level:"

There is a difference between DATA and FUDGE, but your church doesn't allow you to notice it....

Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'


"The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world"."

and THAT is the difference between DATA and FUDGE.

The sea level rise is based on tidal gauge data, and satellite data. Not only that, Dr. Morner's objections are also based on satellite data. So, who is correct here?

Well, the tidal data confirms the satellite data on the rise of the sea level in most cases. And the rotational speed of the earth is also determined by more than one factor. I think we can safely say Dr. Morner will be shown to be wrong in the end. There were holdouts in the geological community for a while on plate tectonics on specifics, but as the picture became clearer with continued research, their questions were answered. I think that will be the case here.

By the way, thank you for the link. Interesting.

 

[LaDexter]

". Not only that, Dr. Morner's objections are also based on satellite data. So, who is correct here?"


A better clue is this - why are the only "sinking islands" identified by the "warmers" all RIGHT ON THE LIP OF THE PACIFIC RING OF FIRE???

No ice melt = no rise in ocean levels = tippy toppiest "top climate scientists" fudging data and engaging in the fraud of cherry picking islands on a tectonic escalator headed under the crust...

 

[Old Rocks]

Fast Facts - Sea-level Rise in New York

• New York has an estimated 1,850 miles of tidal shoreline exposed to the action of tides, wind and waves - much of it developed and densely populated.
• New York has experienced at least a foot of sea-level rise since 1900, mostly due to expansion of warming ocean water. Certain conditions along New York's coast make sea-level rise here somewhat higher than the global average.
• New York's coastal marine counties already see more intense storm surges and floods. Superstorm Sandy highlighted the risks and vulnerabilities of our tidal shorelines, which are home to more than half of New Yorkers.
• By 2100, scientists project sea levels 18 to 50 inches higher than today along New York's coastlines and estuaries, though a rise as high as 75 inches could occur.
• Sea-level rise is locked in for centuries, or even millennia, by heat-trapping greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. Continuing or increasing emissions will speed up the rise to higher levels.
• Energy, land use and infrastructure decisions made now will determine how vulnerable our children and grandchildren will be to rising sea-levels.

Sea Level Rise - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Very definite sea level rise there.

 

[Old Rocks]

". Not only that, Dr. Morner's objections are also based on satellite data. So, who is correct here?"


A better clue is this - why are the only "sinking islands" identified by the "warmers" all RIGHT ON THE LIP OF THE PACIFIC RING OF FIRE???

No ice melt = no rise in ocean levels = tippy toppiest "top climate scientists" fudging data and engaging in the fraud of cherry picking islands on a tectonic escalator headed under the crust...

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-alpine-glacier-unchanged-thousands-years.html

The Alto dell'Ortles glacier, which did not show signs of melting for thousands of years, now appears to be shifting away from a constantly below-freezing state to one where its upper layers are at the melting point throughout the year, said project leader Paolo Gabrielli, research scientist at Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State.

"Our first results indicate that the current atmospheric warming at high elevation in the Alps is outside the normal cold range held for millennia," he said. "This is consistent with the rapid, ongoing shrinking of glaciers at high elevation in this area."

As they drilled into the glacier in 2011, Gabrielli and his team discovered that the first 100 feet (about 30 meters) of the glacier was composed of "firn"—grainy, compacted snow that had partly melted. Below that, they found nothing but solid and colder ice all the way down to the frozen bedrock.

That suggests that snow was accumulating on the mountaintop and was compacted into ice for thousands of years without ever melting—until about 30 years ago, which is when each year's new deposit of snow began melting.

The researchers know that the glacier had previously remained unchanged for a very long time—in part because of the preserved larch leaf, which they found wedged into the ice well beyond the firn layer, around 240 feet beneath the surface and encased in solid ice. They identified the leaf as belonging to Larix decidua, or the European larch.



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-alpine-glacier-unchanged-thousands-years.html#jCp

World wide the alpine glaciers are in rapid retreat. And that contributes water to the oceans.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fig. 3.4. Cumulative change in the total mass (in Gigatonnes, Gt) of the Greenland Ice Sheet between April 2002 and April 2015 estimated from GRACE measurements. Each symbol is an individual month and the orange asterisks denote April values for reference.
Marine-terminating Glaciers

Arctic Report Card - Greenland Ice Sheet - Tedesco, et al.

Now that is a lot of ice, and represents a lot of new water in the ocean.

 

[LaDexter]

"Very definite sea level rise there"

PARROTING FUDGE = PROOF

to a sub human who thinks farmable land is colder than glacier ice...

 

[LaDexter]

Any subhuman who says either Greenland or Antarctica is "melting" doesn't understand

1. glaciers
2. ice cores
3. ice ages
4. basic science

 

[Crick]

"I do not base my idea of rising sea level on the situation in the Marshall Islands. I base it on this data from the world's leading experts on sea level:"

There is a difference between DATA and FUDGE, but your church doesn't allow you to notice it....

Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'


"The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world"."

and THAT is the difference between DATA and FUDGE.

The data in that graph come from satellite altimetry and tide gauges. It does NOT come from computer models. And I should think someone pushing the work of Nils Axel Morner would not be in a good position to call someone else's data "fudge. Not a single individual in the INQUA Commission of Sea Level Change which Morner headed agrees with his opinions on sea level change and they have said so in writingl

 

[LaDexter]

Yes, Crick, "scientists" who are quoted saying things like

"Hide the Decline" - Hansen

and

"This is not about truth, it is about plausible deniability" - Dr. Mann


They should be parroted as gospel truth, and those of us who notice that the "warmers'" examples of "sinking" islands are all right on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire while no other islands on Earth are sinking, well, we are blasphemers, to be "smitten.."

Meanwhile, the RAW DATA continues to show precisely

1. NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
2. NO WARMING in the OCEANS
3. NO BREAKOUT in hurricanes
4. NO NET ICE MELT
5. NO RISE in OCEAN LEVELS
6. NO CORRELATION between CO2 and Earth temperature

 

[Crick]

Yes, Crick, "scientists" who are quoted saying things like

"Hide the Decline" - Hansen

James Hansen did not say "hide the decline". That would have been Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in a discussion as to how to merge tree ring data which as was well known and frequently discussed among dendrochronologists changed it proportionality factors in the mid to late 20th century, with instrumented to finish out the plot to the present time. There was no deceit and both data types were clearly identified in MBH-99. All of this is well known. Any denier that continues to bring up "Hide the Decline" is a unread fool.

and

"This is not about truth, it is about plausible deniability" - Dr. Mann

If you would care to show us what might be wrong with the actual work of Phil Jones or James Hansen or Michael Mann it might be of interest. If, instead, you want to pull quips and phrases out of context in an attempt at unwarranted and irrelevant character assassination (an "ad hom", as it's known around here), you can take your posts and shove them up your ass where they belong.

They should be parroted as gospel truth

You should be cautious when you find yourself using a term over and over again. How many times do you think you've criticized people here for "parroting"? A dozen times? Other folks on all sides of this question, reading our exchanges, know precisely how bogus is that charge. And the more you use it, the more pathetic you appear.

and those of us who notice that the "warmers'" examples of "sinking" islands are all right on the lip of the Pacific Ring of Fire while no other islands on Earth are sinking, well, we are blasphemers, to be "smitten.."

The sea level data I have presented to you two or three times now is the global average. As I have already stated, I do not base my belief that sea levels are rising on submerged islands. I base it on the best sea level data available.

Meanwhile, the RAW DATA continues to show precisely

1. NO WARMING in the ATMOSPHERE
2. NO WARMING in the OCEANS
3. NO BREAKOUT in hurricanes
4. NO NET ICE MELT
5. NO RISE in OCEAN LEVELS
6. NO CORRELATION between CO2 and Earth temperature

But, NO DATA TO DEMONSTRATE ANY OF THAT

So...

Bullshit.

 

[LaDexter]

"James Hansen did not say "hide the decline". That would have been Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia "

I'm glad you are familiar with the "credibility" of those in the ClimateGate emails. Is HIDE THE DECLINE your first example of how to practice "science?"

LOL!!!


"If you would care to show us what might be wrong with the actual work of Phil Jones or James Hansen or Michael Mann"

I have done so in spades here with questions that prove CO2 has nothing to do with Earth Climate Change.

CO2 has nothing to do with why Antarctic has 9 times the ice of the Arctic
CO2 had nothing to do with NW thawing and Greenland freezing over the past million years
CO2 is NOT warming the atmosphere according to THE ACTUAL DATA, not THE FUDGE, proving increased atmospheric CO2 IS NOT CAUSING ANY WARMING

Other than that, yeah, their work is not about truth, it is about plausible deniability, and getting retarded left wing sub humans like yourself to parrot their BS in the face of truth that refutes it...

 

[Crick]

"James Hansen did not say "hide the decline". That would have been Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia "

Who are you quoting here?

I'm glad you are familiar with the "credibility" of those in the ClimateGate emails. Is HIDE THE DECLINE your first example of how to practice "science?"

LOL!!!

I am familiar with most of the scientists whose emails were stolen and I am familiar with their credibility. It appears you are not.

"If you would care to show us what might be wrong with the actual work of Phil Jones or James Hansen or Michael Mann"

Who are you quoting here?

I have done so in spades here with questions that prove CO2 has nothing to do with Earth Climate Change.

You lying sack of shit. You have done NO SUCH THING ! ! !

CO2 has nothing to do with why Antarctic has 9 times the ice of the Arctic

A point on which no one has challenged you. A point irrelevant to anything being discussed here.

CO2 had nothing to do with NW thawing and Greenland freezing over the past million years

It most certainly did, but it was extremely unlikely to have initiated either change. Without humans burning the stuff, CO2 is a gas that goes in and comes out of solution in the world's waters acting as a feedback.

CO2 is NOT warming the atmosphere according to THE ACTUAL DATA, not THE FUDGE, proving increased atmospheric CO2 IS NOT CAUSING ANY WARMING

Bullshit. You have yet to present a single datum of this "ACTUAL DATA". You've yet to present a single piece of evidence that the mountains of evidence that DOES show warming is, as you put it "FUDGE". It's okay to say "shit" here dude. Your Mommy isn't watching. Or is she?

Other than that, yeah, their work is not about truth, it is about plausible deniability, and getting retarded left wing sub humans like yourself to parrot their BS in the face of truth that refutes it...

There are some real assholes on this board, but I have to say, I've yet to see anyone as dishonest as you're turning out to be.

 

[LaDexter]

"I am familiar with most of the scientists whose emails were stolen and I am familiar with their credibility. It appears you are not."


Got something right there. Since they have precisely no credibility, I am not "familiar" with that which does not exist...

 

[LaDexter]

Indeed, let's go over what has Crick in such a hissy spazz...

The Antarctic Circle has 9 times the ice of the Arctic, is on average 50 F colder than the Arctic, and calves or puts 9 times the ice into the oceans vs. the Arctic. Crick and his "hide the decline" "credible" tippys claim that is all about CO2. I claim it is where the land is, that Earth has essentially two air conditioning units, each with settings from 0=off to 10=maxcool. Those settings are dictated by how much land is in the polar circle, and especially how much is within 600 miles of the pole and how big that piece is. For the Arctic, just Greenland is within 600 miles, and hence that landmass is glaciated with 7% of Earth's ice. For the Antarctic, Antarctica has 90% of Earth's ice. Hence land near an Earth pole matters (so Co2 must have put the land there according to Crick)...

Let's look at Earth's "two AC units" today, The Arctic is set at 1, or minimal cool but not off. The Antarctic is set at 9, one less than maxcool.





I say that is what controls Earth's climate, the formation of land in the polar circles. If Earth had two polar oceans, Earth would have NO ICE... Crick says only Co2 matters. You decide...

 

[Crick]

LaDexter,

I see no point in debating someone as prone to bald-faced lies as are you. Buh-bye.

Crick

 

[LaDexter]

It would be nice if he could at least identify one of these alleged "lies," but the truth is that the lies are all from his side, as was the TRUTH of the verdict of the COURT we visited together in 2007...


Official British Court Finds 11 Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Labels It As Political Propaganda

• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.

• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

and then the Algorian FRAUD side proved TOO CHICKEN to appeal the verdict...

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing............somebody's head is exploding on this thread and its not Ladexters!!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Im laughing.......another nightmare for alarmists has now entered the ENVIRONMENT forum to school the k00ks!! Love it.......meanwhile this forum has had only the same 4 OCD global warmers for 8 years now!!

.......another nightmare for alarmists has now entered the ENVIRONMENT forum to school the k00ks!!

Who, LaDouche?

 

[LaDexter]

Pretty amazing, but true.

The "warmers" here try to ban me, censor me, but they cannot answer my questions or refute my truth. Kinda like the W apologists in the Conspiracy forum...