We have set record lows every year from 2010 through last year. We also set lows in each year from 2002-2007. That is 9 out of the last 11 years.
No.
Time began before 1979.
That's sounds suspiciously like quibbling from somebody who knows he's lost this battle, but won't admit it. It's not a record because recorded history only goes back so far. Records only deal with recorded history...
If you want to quibble like that, the most athletic records recognized today are pure BS. They didn't keep blocked shot records at one time. If they had, guys like Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell would be at the top of the list. So the guy who holds the record now wouldn't...
They didn't have a 3 point shot in Jerry West's time. But he lived beyond the 3 point line for most of his career. Just think how many points he'd have if they did have a 3 point shot back then...
There are many other records like that, which could be negated, if those records had been kept all throughout athletic history. But we don't negate them because of it...
Give it up, Paul. On this one, you're full of it...
(This post was last modified: 02-16-2013 09:37 AM by bitcruncher.)
Oh dear god. We got 2 of them. Why not say that about the original post. Oh that's right it doesn't fit your political agenda. No matter how much you guys keep burying your heads in the sand, we will lose all our arctic sea ice. And soon at current rates. And when there is no ice at the beginning of the sea ice recovery season, imagine how much new ice we will get. It may even set a new record for most arctic sea ice area gained in one winter. And when that happens you people can slap each other on the back and make fun of all us commie hippies.
(02-16-2013 10:01 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: Records only deal with what was recorded. FACT...
You don't like that. FACT...
Your argument is pure . FACT...
Interesting fact... I started recording the snow volume on my deck last August...
I've noticed a trend where it just keeps increasing. So I guess it is an ice age..
Do you have accurate records, with the accompanying documentation to back up your claim?
If not, butt out...
Yes, I do... would you like day by day snow depth measurements on my deck?
I have kids in school doing for a project so, if you really want the whole data and not the abstract I can provide it. See what I have observed is that after a long period of no snow on my deck we started getting little amounts that would melt but come back faster and deeper each time. Currently the depth is 7.5 inches and has bee in place for two weeks..
(02-16-2013 10:01 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: Records only deal with what was recorded. FACT...
You don't like that. FACT...
Your argument is pure . FACT...
Interesting fact... I started recording the snow volume on my deck last August...
I've noticed a trend where it just keeps increasing. So I guess it is an ice age..
Do you have accurate records, with the accompanying documentation to back up your claim?
If not, butt out...
Yes, I do... would you like day by day snow depth measurements on my deck?
I have kids in school doing for a project so, if you really want the whole data and not the abstract I can provide it. See what I have observed is that after a long period of no snow on my deck we started getting little amounts that would melt but come back faster and deeper each time. Currently the depth is 7.5 inches and has bee in place for two weeks..
DOOMED I TELL YOU DOOOOOMMMMMEED
Only 7.5"? Shoot, I've got a friend near Beckley that could only find one side of his barn not too long ago. The rest of it, including the roof, was buried in snow...
Oh dear god. We got 2 of them. Why not say that about the original post. Oh that's right it doesn't fit your political agenda. No matter how much you guys keep burying your heads in the sand, we will lose all our arctic sea ice. And soon at current rates.
Care to wager on that?
You really have no understanding of this subject at all. Kind of a common trend from umemphis
(02-16-2013 12:58 PM)DrTorch Wrote: You really have no understanding of this subject at all. Kind of a common trend from umemphis
OK, I'll bite.
1.) Do you think winter sea ice extent is important than summer sea ice extent? Why?
2.) Do you believe the sea ice extent growth seen these winter months is more indicative of the overall health of the arctic than the minimum we just experienced? Why?
Two simple questions. If you are so superior to me on this subject you would have no problem answering these questions. But I have a feeling you have no clue.
Oh dear god. We got 2 of them. Why not say that about the original post. Oh that's right it doesn't fit your political agenda. No matter how much you guys keep burying your heads in the sand, we will lose all our arctic sea ice. And soon at current rates. And when there is no ice at the beginning of the sea ice recovery season, imagine how much new ice we will get. It may even set a new record for most arctic sea ice area gained in one winter. And when that happens you people can slap each other on the back and make fun of all us commie hippies.
You commie hippies are pure comic gold.
I have NO agenda. Unless not joining the brain dead zombie cult of re-distributive, equal outcome, social justice numbnuttyness is an agenda.
Keep your junk science off my lawn.
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2013 08:52 AM by Paul M.)
Oh dear god. We got 2 of them. Why not say that about the original post. Oh that's right it doesn't fit your political agenda. No matter how much you guys keep burying your heads in the sand, we will lose all our arctic sea ice. And soon at current rates. And when there is no ice at the beginning of the sea ice recovery season, imagine how much new ice we will get. It may even set a new record for most arctic sea ice area gained in one winter. And when that happens you people can slap each other on the back and make fun of all us commie hippies.
You commie hippies are pure comic gold.
I have NO agenda. Unless not joining the brain dead zombie cult of re-distributive, equal outcome, social justice numbnuttyness is an agenda.
Keep your junk science off my lawn.
You have no intelligent response. So you fall back on the old stand by - insults...
All this junk science has been answered. All the lies, all the fudging, all the omissions, answered, answered, answered. Climate changes. Nothing new. If we're warming, fantastic. For you Neanderthals, warming, good. Bring it on. Why would anyone want to decrease the earths crop growing areas? Why would you want to bring on the death that comes with colder weather? Why do you hate Canadians?
If it weren't for the massive theft always being proposed to thwart this non-existent problem meant to do nothing but enrich a few, there would be no reason to engage this topic with anything other than amusement. If believers would accept that money can't change the climate and would just get on with enjoying these last few years earth has, I would stop deriding them and let them suffer Armageddon in peace.
This isn't junk science. This is years of observational evidence from satellites and other sources. You just don't like what the observations show. So you ignore it...
However, the ice caps have been getting smaller and smaller since the last ice age. At one time the ice cap came clear down to the central U.S., and covered most of Argentina and Chile in South America. The evidence is seen everywhere, if you know what to look for...
(02-16-2013 12:58 PM)DrTorch Wrote: You really have no understanding of this subject at all. Kind of a common trend from umemphis
OK, I'll bite.
1.) Do you think winter sea ice extent is important than summer sea ice extent? Why?
2.) Do you believe the sea ice extent growth seen these winter months is more indicative of the overall health of the arctic than the minimum we just experienced? Why?
Two simple questions. If you are so superior to me on this subject you would have no problem answering these questions. But I have a feeling you have no clue.
You base everything on feelings.
1. Winter sea ice is less important than summer sea ice, nevertheless, the rapid recovery demonstrates that the record low isn't a catastrophe. You also ignored that the ice coverage was back to w/in 2 sd of the mean last spring. Higher than it had been in some time.
Also, since we're talking about summer sea ice, the records set in Antarctica are proving that this is more about where the ice is rather than quantity.
2. Yes, b/c the recovery was so abrupt, and as I mentioned the dip came immediately after high levels of ice. Furthermore it was more about where the warmth was, rather than a total overall warming. And that's not just Antarctica.
What seems to be happening is that some atmospheric flow has kept things warmer north of Scandanavia and that's why the total ice coverage is less. However, w/ high snow coverage on land south of there, the impact on global heat absorption is actually favorable if warming is your concern, at least during the winter.
(02-17-2013 10:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: This isn't junk science. This is years of observational evidence from satellites and other sources. You just don't like what the observations show. So you ignore it...
The conclusions are most certainly junk science, b/c there is far fewer "observational evidence" than you'd like to think, and the catastrophists throw out the observations they don't like. You're criticizing the wrong people...largely b/c you want it to match your preferences.
Quote:However, the ice caps have been getting smaller and smaller since the last ice age. At one time the ice cap came clear down to the central U.S., and covered most of Argentina and Chile in South America. The evidence is seen everywhere, if you know what to look for...
Yeah, and none of that had to do w/ AGW. In fact, we wouldn't be here if the planet hadn't left the last ice age. But you seem to enjoy mixing in all sorts of superfluous information to obfuscate the actual subject.
We wouldn't be here if the planet hadn't left the last ice age? Then how do you account for the fossilized evidence of humans living during the last ice age? The ice age allowed native Americans to cross over from Asia...
That argument is as weak as the other arguments...
(This post was last modified: 02-17-2013 11:14 AM by bitcruncher.)
(02-17-2013 11:13 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: We wouldn't be here if the planet hadn't left the last ice age? Then how do you account for the fossilized evidence of humans living during the last ice age? The ice age allowed native Americans to cross over from Asia...
That argument is as weak as the other arguments...
No, you just keep choosing to misinterpret things to try and make your failed points.
I said we wouldn't be here, as in all of us discussing this using technology, if people were still struggling for scarce food.
I can't tell if it's the science or the use of English that's over your head.
02-17-2013 11:16 AM
Machiavelli
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
Posts: 25,179
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
. FACT...
Care to wager on that?