Arctic Sea Ice Reaches Lowest Maximum Extent On Record; Antarctic Melt Now Also On Eastern Shelf

originally posted by: Kali74

Untrue for one thing, even if it was true that makes it incorrect how? I mean science isn't correct or incorrect based on taxation or monetary value.

The problem is not the scientific method. The problem is the biased "scientific" who ignores the scientific method because of political pressure.

The truth is out there but that doesn't mean "scientists" are telling you this said truth, especially if the "scientists" in question are funded by a biased political power.

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Grimpachi

I use facts, like a Norwegian named Roald Amundson successfully sailed through the northwest passage because there was so little ice in the arctic in 1905.

Tell us more about how navigating the Northwest passage negates the loss of Arctic Ice.

BTW here is what the Northwest passage is.

Because until modern times it was a fantasy because it couldn't be done.

Today it is no biggie, we have steel hulls and ice breakers.

Back then it was wooden sail boats.

Meaning the ice had to be very sparse for a boat to make this trip.

That is why.

It took him from 1903 to 1906 to sail through the passage he was halted at many ports due to ice.


You can now sail the entire distance in one go because it is ice free the entire way during warmer months in even a fiberglass hull boat.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It is the same boring song with you.

Accuse the 'other side' of exactly what you are guilty of. When you talking points are based on logic fallacies, there is likely a problem with your argument or hypothesis. When you claim to have researched this very topic for over a decade but can not show resident time calculations that supports your hypothesis, that humans are contributing little in the changing climate(despite what we are observing), makes one wonder why you insist posting the same flawed arguments in these threads.

The hypothesis that humans are causing great changes to the Earth's climate is a very strong one.

a reply to: johnwick

Can you name and perhaps provide a link to this(these) climate models that have been 'proven' wrong?

Despite the accuracy of the models, are you going to deny that all the CO2 and CH4(among others) that we are pumping into the atmosphere is not changing the dynamics, specifically radiative forcing?

a reply to: johnwick

I've been watching Years Living Dangerously recently, as it's free on Amazon Prime. It offers a variety of different takes, with a variety of different people.

While it is imperfect, it traverses a wide number of areas and issues relating to climate change.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Sea ice is increasing in Antarctica.
Why does this confuse you?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: johnwick

Just keep ignore reality, some say ignorance is bliss.

And what does that prove?

That 27 years is a tiny span of time in the earths environ?

I really don't get your point.

Was that supossed to prove the same didn't happen over a hundred years ago?

I am not following unless your intention was to have a reason to try to through another insult my way.

"Ignorance is bliss"indeed.

If you cant speak to me in a much less condescending tone, we will have no further discourse.

a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Now, that is 2015 there is good evidence to show that the Antarctic is now experiencing a reduction in ice. Keep in mind that most of the industry is in the Northern Hemisphere and there is not a lot of mixing with the North and South Hemisphere so it is reasonable to say that the southern hemisphere will not experience radiative forcing that the northern hemisphere is experiencing. At least not initially....

It should be expected that the Northern Hemisphere would see the apparent climate changes first.

a reply to: swanne

Climate scientists and policy makers all over the US, Canada and the UK are being silenced, fired, defunded... not that they were ever listened to by politicians anyway. Your point is invalid.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: swanne

Untrue for one thing, even if it was true that makes it incorrect how? I mean science isn't correct or incorrect based on taxation or monetary value.

Ah but results are based on that.

Ask any AGW proponent. The evil oil companies get the numbers they want out of science all the time.

Why is it magically beyond reproach when it is paid by anyone else?

The gov has motive to get scewed results just as much if not more than the oil companies.

If ATSers can agree on anything, it is that the gov always strives for more tax money and more control over people.

Which ironically enough, is exactly what the AGW agenda is all in favor of.

Do you not see the hypocracy?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: BornAgainAlien

Sea ice is increasing in Antarctica.
Why does this confuse you?

Yes, so it`s a bit irregular in what grows, but at the same time there`s more ice than ever, isn`t this just looking for stuff to scare people ?

I don`t see any panic dike building going on over here, so no big deal.

a reply to: Kali74

You do know that "IPCC" stands for "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change", right? It was created by political powers.

Ah, well. You seem pretty convinced, I fear my posts to you are but beautiful exercises in futility. I trust you will find no objection if I employ my time in some more useful pursuits.

Good day.

a reply to: johnwick

So you are just going to complain that I am being condescending toward you without actually providing any evidence that supports your side of the argument. Is me being 'condescending' towards you, your excuse to not provide a name and/or link to the climate Model(s) that got it wrong? Is it possible you just made that up, to make it seem like you know what you are talking about?

We have only had satellites monitoring this recently. It also should be noted that CO2 and CH4 increased while the Ice melt is occurring.

I just do not understand how visualization of the melting ice caps is not strong enough evidence for one to reconsider what they believe in regards of climate change.

These threads are full of the same BS. You accuse of us who accept human induced climate change as a reality, of the exact same thing you are guilty of.

originally posted by: Greven
Sticking to the script, I see.

They have continually narrowed the lag, and the lag exists for the Southern Hemisphere - but not the Northern Hemisphere.

What script?

If there is no lag on one side, but a lag on the other, there is an average lag--you just confirmed what I posted. Whether or not a lag exists on one side and not the other, the claim here is that both sides of the earth are melting (during a continual rebound from a cold period, I might add)--what's the level of CO2 in the southern hemisphere right now versus the northern? According to you, they should be different, yet I only hear one number ever spoutted out, not two. Either that, or the average temperatures per hemisphere should be nominally different right now, but according to your information, the rate of temp rise (or, at least, the average temp at any given moment) could not be equivalent at any given time because of a lag on one side of the earth (assuming the average temps are equivalent, ever).*

Do you have any data from multiple sources to back up your claim that "They have continually narrowed the lag?" (whomever the "they" are) If so, hopefully it contains details about how they've gone about collecting this data and why they're reducing the length of lag. I request this because there are a lot of things that seem to continually be revised without much scientific background that have an uncanny ability to enable the AGW argument...and it's always done by this "they." So, who are "they?"

If I see the word "consensus," I'll know to walk away from this conversation.

* I did a lot of deleting and re-writing this paragraph, so hopefully it makes sense...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey
The hypothesis that humans are causing great changes to the Earth's climate is a very strong one.

According to you and some scientists. According to me and some scientists, it's a very weak one. That's the crux of our disagreement, and I'm leaving it at that, because, like I've said before, you're like a tired, rusty merry-go-round in these threads, and not worth discussing true science with because you ignore it in lieu of what you believe.

The difference between you and I, IMO, is that I actually accept some of the science from AGW arguments, I just disagree as to how much impact it has on the natural cycle of the earth because of alternative, peer-reviewed science that concludes otherwise. That's a wholly logical and intelligent stance to take. You should try it.

SM

a reply to: johnwick

You are missing out on reality. It those who wish to deny climate change that are holding positions of power.

www.saintpetersblog.com...

On February 27, Bibler attended a Florida Coastal Managers Forum, where a number of attendees discussed climate change and sea-level rise, among other environmental topics.

Bibler’s official notes reported all of that conversation.

DEP superiors directed Bibler to remove any “hot button issues,” such as explicit references to climate change. The letter of reprimand, dated March 9, accused Bibler of misrepresenting the “official meeting agenda (so it) included climate change.”

Bibler was instructed to take two days off, which was charged against his personal leave time. He later received a “Medical Release Form” requiring his doctor to provide the agency an evaluation of unspecified “medical condition and behavior” before being allowed to return to work.

“Bart Bibler has fallen through a professional looking glass in a Florida where the words ‘climate change’ may not be uttered, or even worse, written down,” said Florida PEER Director Jerry Phillips, a former DEP attorney.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It is the same boring song with you.

Accuse the 'other side' of exactly what you are guilty of. When you talking points are based on logic fallacies, there is likely a problem with your argument or hypothesis. When you claim to have researched this very topic for over a decade but can not show resident time calculations that supports your hypothesis, that humans are contributing little in the changing climate(despite what we are observing), makes one wonder why you insist posting the same flawed arguments in these threads.

The hypothesis that humans are causing great changes to the Earth's climate is a very strong one.

a reply to: johnwick

Can you name and perhaps provide a link to this(these) climate models that have been 'proven' wrong?

Despite the accuracy of the models, are you going to deny that all the CO2 and CH4(among others) that we are pumping into the atmosphere is not changing the dynamics, specifically radiative forcing?

The earth had hundreds of times higher co2 in the past and no magic out of control warming happened.

This is in the fossil record.

Not to mention of course, you are assuming for no reason at all out of control warming can even occur.

There is a lit of historic evidence that it won't.

That is why the plants grew so large so fast in the past ages ifvthe earth.

That is how all those hydrocarbons got in the ground to begin with.

They were in the air, over millions of years the dead plants and animals deposited it in the ground.

So once again, there is evidence it won't happen, what evidence is there it will this time by magic?

Models?

Starting to see a trend here?

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: johnwick

I've been watching Years Living Dangerously recently, as it's free on Amazon Prime. It offers a variety of different takes, with a variety of different people.

While it is imperfect, it traverses a wide number of areas and issues relating to climate change.

I will have to give it a look, thanks.

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: swanne

Untrue for one thing, even if it was true that makes it incorrect how? I mean science isn't correct or incorrect based on taxation or monetary value.

Ah but results are based on that.

Ask any AGW proponent. The evil oil companies get the numbers they want out of science all the time.

Why is it magically beyond reproach when it is paid by anyone else?

The gov has motive to get scewed results just as much if not more than the oil companies.

If ATSers can agree on anything, it is that the gov always strives for more tax money and more control over people.

Which ironically enough, is exactly what the AGW agenda is all in favor of.

Do you not see the hypocracy?

Your argument doesn't work at all.

We have a republican congress and senate and their biggest donors are from the energy industry yet science and the scientists that still get government funding are still telling them and the world AGW is real and impending.

Your logic has failed.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

According to over 90% of the scientist who study this. When over 90% of the weathermen* I trust say a hurricane is coming my way, I will heed the warning.

You should maybe travel the world, or just take a tour with google earth to see the damage that humans have caused this planet.

It is asinine to deny all the stuff we are pumping into the atmosphere, oceans, waterways, and aquifers will not have serious consequences for this planet and all of her inhabitants.

(* Joe Bastardi is an example of a weatherman I do not trust)

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Kali74

You do know that "IPCC" stands for "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change", right? It was created by political powers.

Ah, well. You seem pretty convinced, I fear my posts to you are but beautiful exercises in futility. I trust you will find no objection if I employ my time in some more useful pursuits.

Good day.