Torch, this argument is going nowhere. You ignore my arguments, and present no proof to the contrary. Instead you resort to insults to prove your point, which proves nothing other than you aren't able to discuss this subject rationally...

We shall have to agree to disagree here, since intelligent conversation on the subject isn't possible...

(02-17-2013 11:18 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  When you can't convince, you confuse.

Funny how you're the only one who's confused.

(02-17-2013 11:20 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Torch, this argument is going nowhere. You ignore my arguments, and present no proof to the contrary. Instead you resort to insults to prove your point, which proves nothing other than you aren't able to discuss this subject rationally...

You posted some "rational" arguments? Where those.

Oh, and you must have missed all that proof that I started this thread with. Funny how that works, I post information yet I'm the one who can't discuss it "rationally."

You whine a lot bitcruncher.

(02-16-2013 10:47 AM)plaidtiger Wrote:  Oh dear god. We got 2 of them.

There's a lot more than that.

(02-16-2013 10:47 AM)plaidtiger Wrote:  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.

Fact: We've been losing ice since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. How come you self-defined commie hippies never address that point?

You only have to answer one multiple choice question. Ready? Here you go:

Q: The temperature of the Earth should be_________

1. Cooling
2. Getting warmer
3. No change. Temperatures will stay the same for all eternity or until the sun explodes. At that time it might get a little warmer.
4. All of the above due to man made climate change due to global warming.

LIBERALS!!!! What should the temperature of the planet be?

(02-17-2013 12:08 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-16-2013 10:47 AM)plaidtiger Wrote:  Oh dear god. We got 2 of them.

There's a lot more than that.

(02-16-2013 10:47 AM)plaidtiger Wrote:  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.

Fact: We've been losing ice since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. How come you self-defined commie hippies never address that point?

You only have to answer one multiple choice question. Ready? Here you go:

Q: The temperature of the Earth should be_________

1. Cooling
2. Getting warmer
3. No change. Temperatures will stay the same for all eternity or until the sun explodes. At that time it might get a little warmer.
4. All of the above due to man made climate change due to global warming.

LIBERALS!!!! What should the temperature of the planet be?

Yes. THere are a bunch of morons on this board. What do you mean by "should"? It is getting warmer overall but there are some places that are cooling due to changes from global warming. I don't expect you to understand though.

(02-17-2013 11:43 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 11:20 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Torch, this argument is going nowhere. You ignore my arguments, and present no proof to the contrary. Instead you resort to insults to prove your point, which proves nothing other than you aren't able to discuss this subject rationally...

You posted some "rational" arguments? Where those.

Oh, and you must have missed all that proof that I started this thread with. Funny how that works, I post information yet I'm the one who can't discuss it "rationally."

You whine a lot bitcruncher.

Biased proof from a study subsidized by polluters is rational, while a 17 year time lapsed photography study from a satellite isn't?

Talk about whining. Maybe you'll convince someone...

(02-17-2013 11:02 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-16-2013 01:58 PM)plaidtiger Wrote:  

(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.

1.) Your right summer sea ice is more important. You didn't answer why but I'll assume you know it's because that is when the ice would reflect more light.

2.) No. The reason we recovered so much ice area is because we had more area to recover in recorded history. This new ice area is also extremely thin. In fact it's so thin we have less ice volume now than any time in the recent past for this time of year. In other words, we have not recovered.

That bolded part makes no sense. Heat absorption in the winter? When the northern hemisphere receives less light from the sun? Snow coverage in the northern hemisphere is actually near all time lows for the months of April to September. Like ice, snow cover has more effect in the summer months.

Plus you mentioned atmospheric flows warming the arctic. What about ocean flows. Water has the capability to carry much more heat than air. Couldn't melting ice be a result of warmer ocean water temps?

(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...

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...

Maybe you missed were I said "warming, good". Yes, ice has retreated since the last ice age. You missed were I said "fantastic" too.

IF I believed what your "observations show", by my above I would be happy, not upset. I wouldn't be ignoring it, I'd be jumping for joy. How do you continue missing that?

You believe something that would actually be a net positive... and want to reverse it.

I was talking to Torch, not you...

(02-17-2013 12:19 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 12:08 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-16-2013 10:47 AM)plaidtiger Wrote:  Oh dear god. We got 2 of them.

There's a lot more than that.

(02-16-2013 10:47 AM)plaidtiger Wrote:  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.

Fact: We've been losing ice since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. How come you self-defined commie hippies never address that point?

You only have to answer one multiple choice question. Ready? Here you go:

Q: The temperature of the Earth should be_________

1. Cooling
2. Getting warmer
3. No change. Temperatures will stay the same for all eternity or until the sun explodes. At that time it might get a little warmer.
4. All of the above due to man made climate change due to global warming.

LIBERALS!!!! What should the temperature of the planet be?

Yes. THere are a bunch of morons on this board. What do you mean by "should"? It is getting warmer overall but there are some places that are cooling due to changes from global warming. I don't expect you to understand though.

No, I don't understand. So just tell me if the planet should be cooling, warming, or staying the same.

(02-17-2013 01:40 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I was talking to Torch, not you...

Post 74 - Me: All this junk science

Post 75 - you: This isn't junk science

Torch never said anything about junk science until post 77 in response to your #75

But whatever.

I can respect the guy who says. Yeah the planets warming but I think we can deal with the effects. Some positive things can result from it. It's the people who put their heads in the sand and say ice is growing in the Arctic. The Manipulating and skewing. We all should have a problem with that. Btw the last 19 years is comets bunk. We have ice records that go back 600 thousand years. We can take very accurate temperature readings using isotopes of oxygen.

(02-17-2013 01:52 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 01:40 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I was talking to Torch, not you...

Post 74 - Me: All this junk science

Post 75 - you: This isn't junk science

Torch never said anything about junk science until post 77 in response to your #75

But whatever.

Oh! I had forgotten that. Sorry. I can't keep track of everything...

But a time lapsed image from satellites isn't junk science. That's the proof I posted. The other proof was an article from observations of the Antarctic polar cap, which showed how changing wind patterns made the gain in one area larger, while decreasing the sea ice in other areas...

http://news.cnet.com/2300-11386_3-10015751-2.html

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_...hp?id=1967

Both are observational evidence from independent scientific studies, not funded by multi-national corporations...

(02-17-2013 12:53 PM)plaidtiger Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 11:02 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-16-2013 01:58 PM)plaidtiger Wrote:  

(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.

1.) Your right

Get used to it. It happens a lot.
Oh, and remember Antarctica, w/ it's all time high ice coverage, is summer right now.

Quote:2.) No. The reason we recovered so much ice area is because we had more area to recover in recorded history.

Regardless, it recovered.

Quote:That bolded part makes no sense. Heat absorption in the winter?

Yes, it makes sense if you're worried about warming. Heat reflection if you prefer, but the two are related.

Quote: Like ice, snow cover has more effect in the summer months.

And at lower lattitudes. Which is what I was talking about.

Quote:Plus you mentioned atmospheric flows warming the arctic. What about ocean flows. Water has the capability to carry much more heat than air. Couldn't melting ice be a result of warmer ocean water temps?

Ok. Could be flow of warmer water. However, w/ the record colds on the continent for the past couple of years, I think it inovles the atmosphere too.

Oh, and there has been no measured increase in global ocean temps. That doesn't mean localized areas haven't warmed and cooled. But as a whole the oceans aren't warmer.

(02-17-2013 12:36 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 11:43 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 11:20 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Torch, this argument is going nowhere. You ignore my arguments, and present no proof to the contrary. Instead you resort to insults to prove your point, which proves nothing other than you aren't able to discuss this subject rationally...

You posted some "rational" arguments? Where those.

Oh, and you must have missed all that proof that I started this thread with. Funny how that works, I post information yet I'm the one who can't discuss it "rationally."

You whine a lot bitcruncher.

Biased proof from a study subsidized by polluters is rational, while a 17 year time lapsed photography study from a satellite isn't?

Really? Where did that come from? Too funny. You didn't really read what I linked to. You just tore into it like you knew something.

BTW, these guys were using the nsidc data...the data you just endorsed.

(02-17-2013 01:58 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I can respect the guy who says. Yeah the planets warming but I think we can deal with the effects. Some positive things can result from it. It's the people who put their heads in the sand and say ice is growing in the Arctic. The Manipulating and skewing. We all should have a problem with that. Btw the last 19 years is comets bunk. We have ice records that go back 600 thousand years. We can take very accurate temperature readings using isotopes of oxygen.

And all those ice cores show CO2 levels rise in response to temperature not the other way around... but you know, whatever.

(02-17-2013 01:45 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 12:19 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 12:08 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(02-16-2013 10:47 AM)plaidtiger Wrote:  Oh dear god. We got 2 of them.

There's a lot more than that.

(02-16-2013 10:47 AM)plaidtiger Wrote:  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.

Fact: We've been losing ice since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. How come you self-defined commie hippies never address that point?

You only have to answer one multiple choice question. Ready? Here you go:

Q: The temperature of the Earth should be_________

1. Cooling
2. Getting warmer
3. No change. Temperatures will stay the same for all eternity or until the sun explodes. At that time it might get a little warmer.
4. All of the above due to man made climate change due to global warming.

LIBERALS!!!! What should the temperature of the planet be?

Yes. THere are a bunch of morons on this board. What do you mean by "should"? It is getting warmer overall but there are some places that are cooling due to changes from global warming. I don't expect you to understand though.

No, I don't understand. So just tell me if the planet should be cooling, warming, or staying the same.

Come on libs, are you going to answer or not? Since you're against global warming, then you either must want the planet cooler or to stay the same. Which is it?

(02-17-2013 09:32 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 01:58 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I can respect the guy who says. Yeah the planets warming but I think we can deal with the effects. Some positive things can result from it. It's the people who put their heads in the sand and say ice is growing in the Arctic. The Manipulating and skewing. We all should have a problem with that. Btw the last 19 years is comets bunk. We have ice records that go back 600 thousand years. We can take very accurate temperature readings using isotopes of oxygen.

And all those ice cores show CO2 levels rise in response to temperature not the other way around... but you know, whatever.

They show that increased temperature results in increased CO2 which then creates a loop leading to higher temperatures leading to higher CO2 leading to higher temperatures and so forth until a new equilibrium is reached... but whatever.

We have trillions in infrastructure designed for current climate structures and the cost of redesigning, rebuilding, or replacing infrastructure alone is astronomical, not to mention the human toll... but whatever. You righties just go on believing in the massive conspiracy theory that thousands upon thousands of scientists are all colluding to keep the truth under wraps. Apparently those scientists are incredibly disciplined since none of them have spilled the beans yet. I'm sure it's just right around the corner.

(02-17-2013 10:02 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 09:32 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-17-2013 01:58 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I can respect the guy who says. Yeah the planets warming but I think we can deal with the effects. Some positive things can result from it. It's the people who put their heads in the sand and say ice is growing in the Arctic. The Manipulating and skewing. We all should have a problem with that. Btw the last 19 years is comets bunk. We have ice records that go back 600 thousand years. We can take very accurate temperature readings using isotopes of oxygen.

And all those ice cores show CO2 levels rise in response to temperature not the other way around... but you know, whatever.

They show that increased temperature results in increased CO2 which then creates a loop leading to higher temperatures leading to higher CO2 leading to higher temperatures and so forth until a new equilibrium is reached... but whatever.

We have trillions in infrastructure designed for current climate structures and the cost of redesigning, rebuilding, or replacing infrastructure alone is astronomical, not to mention the human toll... but whatever. You righties just go on believing in the massive conspiracy theory that thousands upon thousands of scientists are all colluding to keep the truth under wraps. Apparently those scientists are incredibly disciplined since none of them have spilled the beans yet. I'm sure it's just right around the corner.

That's super-duper stupid, even for you.

Consensus??? I think not!!


what concensus???

Quote: “Third, we show that the consensus of IPCC experts meets a much larger, and again heterogenous, sceptical group of experts in the relevant industries and organizations (at least in Alberta) than is generally assumed. We find that climate science scepticism is not limited to the scientifically illiterate (per Hoffman, 2011a), but well ensconced within this group of professional experts with scientific training – who work as leaders or advisors to management in governmental, nongovernmental, and corporate organizations.”

…

“The vast majority of these professional experts believe that the climate is changing; it is the cause, the severity and the urgency of the problem, and the need to take action, especially the efficacy of regulation, that is at issue.”