(02-15-2013 09:06 AM)VA49er Wrote: All of this stuff is based on "recorded history" Well, am I the only one that realizes the earth has been around a hell of a lot longer than anyting we humans ever recorded? So, just because something may trend one way "in recorded history" by no means equates that the earth is ending.
Actually a lot of it is based on history from before when mankind kept records, like ice cores, fossil records, etc.
Wild swings are not good. Cherrypicking your data is not good.
Why is there so much controversy on this from people who aren't scientists?
Excuse me?
Check mate, now go sit down in the corner where you belong.
BTW, the charts in my original link showed the "long-term" difference between Arctic sea ice loss and Antarctic growth, so it's you who's cherry picking the data by ignoring Antarctia.
Quote:Why is this particular area of science so hard to believe? You drive across bridges that stand because of science. You fly in airplanes designed by science. You go to the doctor based on research from science. I really do not understand how the brain of someone who denies actual facts and evidence works.
Classic!
GTS, the only Antarctic ice that has been increasing is the sea ice, which is wind driven, and protects the warmer ocean from the frigid air temperature. The Antarctic ice sheet (glacial) is still decreasing...
Quote:The first direct evidence that marked changes to Antarctic sea ice drift have occurred over the last 20 years, in response to changing winds, is published this week in the journal Nature Geoscience. Scientists from NERC’s British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena California explain why, unlike the dramatic losses reported in the Arctic, the Antarctic sea ice cover has increased under the effects of climate change.
Maps created by JPL using over 5 million individual daily ice motion measurements captured over a period of 19 years by four US Defense Meteorological satellites show, for the first time, the long-term changes in sea ice drift around Antarctica.
Lead author, Dr Paul Holland of BAS says:
“Until now these changes in ice drift were only speculated upon, using computer models of Antarctic winds. This study of direct satellite observations shows the complexity of climate change. The total Antarctic sea-ice cover is increasing slowly, but individual regions are actually experiencing much larger gains and losses that are almost offsetting each other overall. We now know that these regional changes are caused by changes in the winds, which in turn affect the ice cover through changes in both ice drift and air temperature. The changes in ice drift also suggest large changes in the ocean surrounding Antarctica, which is very sensitive to the cold and salty water produced by sea-ice growth."
“Sea ice is constantly on the move; around Antarctica the ice is blown away from the continent by strong northward winds. Since 1992 this ice drift has changed. In some areas the export of ice away from Antarctica has doubled, while in others it has decreased significantly.”
02-15-2013 10:08 AM
Machiavelli
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
Posts: 25,179
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
This is like a stock that has lost 75% of it's value. Increased 20% in a year and then TRUMPETING it's success.
100,000 dollar stock. Loses 75,000. Gains 5,000 in a year. You go and talk about the record breaking year. We made 20%. Problem solved. This is like the time a couple of years ago Torch mentioned Ice growing on Antarctica. I was perplexed so I researched it. Yes one little tip of Antarctica did grow Ice. 99% of Antarctica lost ice that year. Torch is not looking for the truth here. He is much more invested in denying it. It's a shame really.
(02-15-2013 10:15 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: This is like a stock that has lost 75% of it's value. Increased 20% in a year and then TRUMPETING it's success.
100,000 dollar stock. Loses 75,000. Gains 5,000 in a year. You go and talk about the record breaking year. We made 20%. Problem solved. This is like the time a couple of years ago Torch mentioned Ice growing on Antarctica. I was perplexed so I researched it. Yes one little tip of Antarctica did grow Ice. 99% of Antarctica lost ice that year. Torch is not looking for the truth here. He is much more invested in denying it. It's a shame really.
bull**** Mach. Don't lie about me. The numbers are in the link I gave. I know you don't like quantitivate science, but this is all about quantities. The numbers are there, not the ones you just completely made up out of thin air at the top of your post.
******* make up numbers then pretend they're real, like your 1-5 scale of temp changes.
(02-15-2013 09:06 AM)VA49er Wrote: All of this stuff is based on "recorded history" Well, am I the only one that realizes the earth has been around a hell of a lot longer than anyting we humans ever recorded? So, just because something may trend one way "in recorded history" by no means equates that the earth is ending.
Actually a lot of it is based on history from before when mankind kept records, like ice cores, fossil records, etc.
You just can't even follow your own prescription and shut up about things you know nothing about.
(02-15-2013 10:15 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: This is like a stock that has lost 75% of it's value. Increased 20% in a year and then TRUMPETING it's success.
100,000 dollar stock. Loses 75,000. Gains 5,000 in a year. You go and talk about the record breaking year. We made 20%. Problem solved. This is like the time a couple of years ago Torch mentioned Ice growing on Antarctica. I was perplexed so I researched it. Yes one little tip of Antarctica did grow Ice. 99% of Antarctica lost ice that year. Torch is not looking for the truth here. He is much more invested in denying it. It's a shame really.
Or like spending 1 trillion, planning to spend 2 trillion next year, throttling it back to 1.5 trillion and calling it a "spending cut"?
(02-15-2013 10:15 AM)Machiavelli Wrote: This is like a stock that has lost 75% of it's value. Increased 20% in a year and then TRUMPETING it's success.
100,000 dollar stock. Loses 75,000. Gains 5,000 in a year. You go and talk about the record breaking year. We made 20%. Problem solved. This is like the time a couple of years ago Torch mentioned Ice growing on Antarctica. I was perplexed so I researched it. Yes one little tip of Antarctica did grow Ice. 99% of Antarctica lost ice that year. Torch is not looking for the truth here. He is much more invested in denying it. It's a shame really.
Or like spending 1 trillion, planning to spend 2 trillion next year, throttling it back to 1.5 trillion and calling it a "spending cut"?
(02-15-2013 09:06 AM)VA49er Wrote: All of this stuff is based on "recorded history" Well, am I the only one that realizes the earth has been around a hell of a lot longer than anyting we humans ever recorded? So, just because something may trend one way "in recorded history" by no means equates that the earth is ending.
Actually a lot of it is based on history from before when mankind kept records, like ice cores, fossil records, etc.
And when things like that don't work out we can always massage the data
02-15-2013 10:38 AM
Machiavelli
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
Posts: 25,179
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
I don't get the lie part Torch? You are saying that we have record ice growth. Yes it's a record after a record ice LOST. Which far surpasses what we have gained back? I'm not going to take the time and research you saying "Antarctica grew ice" if one of your 20 weekly postings on AGW. Trust me you said it and there was one tiny sliver of land that actually grew.
When you can't convince, You confuse. You are the poster boy when it comes to being confused on AGW.
02-15-2013 01:11 PM
Machiavelli
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
Posts: 25,179
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
You are the Baghdad Bob of AGW. "we are not warming, this is just a cyclical mirage" "Nothing but scientists lining their pocket books"........... blah blah blah blah blah
(02-15-2013 09:06 AM)VA49er Wrote: All of this stuff is based on "recorded history" Well, am I the only one that realizes the earth has been around a hell of a lot longer than anyting we humans ever recorded? So, just because something may trend one way "in recorded history" by no means equates that the earth is ending.
Actually a lot of it is based on history from before when mankind kept records, like ice cores, fossil records, etc.
Yeah but as we all know they are not at all accurate because it involves using science rather than the Bible according to Dr. Torch.
02-15-2013 01:16 PM
Machiavelli
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
Posts: 25,179
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
It has nothing to do with the bible. That's confusing things. It's about a misrepresentaion. The uneducated would think. SEE SEE we are gaining ICE. The fact of the matter is we have lost so much a nominal gain is seen as a record. It's hogwash and an educated person would throw it straight out of hand.
(02-15-2013 01:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: It has nothing to do with the bible. That's confusing things. It's about a misrepresentaion. The uneducated would think. SEE SEE we are gaining ICE. The fact of the matter is we have lost so much a nominal gain is seen as a record. It's hogwash and an educated person would throw it straight out of hand.
(02-15-2013 01:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: It has nothing to do with the bible. That's confusing things. It's about a misrepresentaion. The uneducated would think. SEE SEE we are gaining ICE. The fact of the matter is we have lost so much a nominal gain is seen as a record. It's hogwash and an educated person would throw it straight out of hand.
(02-15-2013 01:11 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: I don't get the lie part Torch? You are saying that we have record ice growth. Yes it's a record after a record ice LOST. Which far surpasses what we have gained back? I'm not going to take the time and research you saying "Antarctica grew ice" if one of your 20 weekly postings on AGW. Trust me you said it and there was one tiny sliver of land that actually grew.
When you can't convince, You confuse. You are the poster boy when it comes to being confused on AGW.
nsidc.org
Why am I the only one who provides numbers, yet I'm trying to 'confuse'. I think that's just projection...or desperation.
Classic!
