A Scientist, His Work and a Climate Reckoning

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

For so many people in this thread throughout the country, it just seems you're looking for validation that it's OK to continue not caring about the world around you.

Undoubtably true.
Regardless of the GW issue, it's always a good idea to conserve what we have. It would be good if we all focused on that for now and forever.

Quote

You scream so hard against AGW. Why? why is it so important that it be wrong? to save YOU a few pennies? I suspect that's the case.

Again, undoubtably true in many cases.

Other possiblilties:
- When taxpayer dollars are being spent on it, wouldn't it be a good idea to get the most bang for the buck and spend it on those ideas that may get solutions rather than wasting it on pseudo-science that will lead to nowhere?

- And unfortunately, there are those out there who completely disregard the science and only adhere to the policies of their particular political affiliation.
This is what angers me.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Yep
You are the (self proclaimed) smartest SOB on this site

Geez...just how old are you anyway? Maturity is a good thing...you might try it someday.

Got anything to contribute to the conversation?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quade do you feel lonely? If you haven’t noticed almost everyone has gotten off of the AGW band wagon. Where is Bill V and Kalland? I think they have seen the writing on the wall and now are getting out of the eating crow business. The trend is not your friend in this matter.
Interesting how the NYT has to site a scientist that has been dead for 5 years to give the appearance of balance and legitimacy. Why do you think they made a point of highlighting that he was a republican? The only scientist that peddle this crap now; are wild eyed fanatics or profiteers.

so i guess it's an excuse to just use use use, right?

This is why i stay out of this argument. Because it makes me so angry that the "anti-AGW crowd" or whatever you want to call the right wing seem to be trying so fucking hard to look for any excuse they can to not change their ways, use whatever they want as much as they want, not conserve, not care, line their pockets, and all around be selfish.

I don't really care one way or another about the science, tbh. Other than the fact that for some people, it causes them to think twice about driving a block to the store, recycle, etc. And that's a good thing.

For so many people in this thread, it just seems you're looking for validation that it's OK to continue not caring about the world around you. You scream so hard against AGW. Why? why is it so important that it be wrong? to save YOU a few pennies? I suspect that's the case.

Nope
It is an all or nothing religous argument for those like you

Just because I do not believe as the AWG alarmist do, does not mean we think the planet should be poluted and destroyed.

So keep your argument
It does not come close to fitting anything.

The AGW agenda is about power, money and control. Has nothing to do with the purity of the planet.

It is good you stay out of the argument.
You show you do not know what it really it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Yep
You are the (self proclaimed) smartest SOB on this site

Geez...just how old are you anyway? Maturity is a good thing...you might try it someday.

Got anything to contribute to the conversation?

54 years old

As much or as little as you want
You set the path
I followed it

How about you?

Do you want to bring comment and debate or arogance to the topic?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Record high level for the dataset - maybe the satellite guys need to get with the ice guys.

Literally, you just said "Also, extent is meaningless without thickness" - and now you're challenging Kallend's figures on km^3 with your graph of km^2?

Seriously?

I'm using the same criteria he is - if you hadn't been in such a hurry to try to get in a cheap shot, you would have noticed that my initial mention of the SH ice was in response to a exent graph by kallend, that, in an AMAZING coincidence, shows km^2.

The *second* reference to it was in rebuttal to the GRACE article about loss, emphasizing that the current readings are the highest noted in the recorded history of SH ice.

I've also provided thickness plots before - these may look familiar if you're truly interested in discussing the science instead of taking potshots at the poster.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

why is it so important that it be wrong? to save YOU a few pennies? I suspect that's the case.

Of course! There are people whose livelihoods, careers, are at stake. On both sides! Of course, people point to "Big Oil" and the petrochemical industry as the evil bad guys - out to destroy the world! Can you blame them if they are feeling and/or thinking that this is war on them and this is the excuse given?

Why is it that most of the opinion articles being put out there contain attacks and affronts on the fossil fuel industry? The article cited in the original post STARTED with an attack on the petrochemical industry, then discussed the military's efforts to "go green" as a matter of economics and troop safety. The op-ed subject had ZERO to do with the Big Oil or Coal but yet the introduction was an attack. Why? Why is it there?

Do you think that coal miners in West Virginia have reason to worry about their livelihoods? They do! How about everybody who drives a car? We do. How about dairy farmers thinking that methane regulations can put them out of business when the market already sucks for them? Or taxpayers who are wondering about the billions being sent for climate change reduction and/or research? Or what about the people out there asking, "Is wholesale reduction of the capability of the American infrastructure justified? How certain are we that the world will end by 2100 if we don't do this?"

There are legitimate interests going on here. Yes, they are selfish. But there are interests on both sides! Why is the other side linking every weather phenomenon with climate change? Why isn't there a blizzard or heat wave or foggy day blamed on climate change? Why did they say 10 years ago that snow in England is a thing of the past because of climate change? Why are they changing their tune and doing a 180 on it now?

There are interests in the proponents of AGW. Ironically, they are the same as those interests of the deniers - the Almighty Dollar. Climate change research is made important, and therefore more money gets sent to it. There are people who want in on a new market that wouldn't exist but-for government regulations. The Chicago Carbon exchange just collapsed because of political climate change, economy, etc.

So what does one do when rhetoric is used to engage in rhetoric? The climate "alarmists" have had the weight of public opinion and policy support in their favor for 25 years. As I mentioned, even the lay public has a memory. "They said what's happening right now would not happen. They've been saying that something else should be happening and it isn't. Now they are saying that what is not happening now is to be expected. What the???"

This is why it is a political thing. It's not about science. Irregardless of actual fact, AGW and the extreme results predicted has been for a long time a political and legal fact! It is a political fact that New York City will be under 12 feet of water before the century is out. It is a political fact that snow won't happen in England. (Hence, what I believe, a reason why England was so woefully unprepared for it. The English leadership believed that snow was a thing they wouldn't have to deal with anymore so provisions weren't made for it. Ooops.)

I ask you, Biker - what if the climate scientists are wrong? After all, we don't know that the earth will be 8 degrees warmer in 2100 because 2100 is 90 years away. It is a prediction. Sure, there's a lort of science associated with it, but in the end it is a scientific wild ass guess.

There are a lot of people with a LOT to lose. There are estimates that, to meet the recommendations of the IPCC, spending will be in excess of $50 trillion by 2050. Even then, says the IPCC, it might not work. And to whom will this money go? For what? How will it be spent? Who will watch it? What will be the ultimate goal? How will we measure success or failure?

When the basic framework of what makes developed countries "developed" is recommended to be changed in order to forestall the development of climate change that is predicted in the future, the science should get scrutiny. Either way the policy turns out, there is a lot to lose on both sides in the long run and in the short term.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

The *second* reference to it was in rebuttal to the GRACE article about loss,

How can you rebut an article about volume using a graph of area? A measurement that in your previous post you had dismissed as meaningless?

Cheap shot? You really are congenitally incapable of admitting error, aren't you?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The *second* reference to it was in rebuttal to the GRACE article about loss,

How can you rebut an article about volume using a graph of area? A measurement that in your previous post you had dismissed as meaningless?

I rebutted an article about loss with data showing record ice in the southern hemisphere - sorry you seem to be unable to grasp that. You also ignore where I said "that ice appears to be thicker in recent years".

There also seems to be some questions about the accuracy of the measurements obtained by the GRACE satellite, as shown by Yamamoto et al:

"An accurate knowledge of Antarctic ice sheet mass trend is one of the important issues for the study of global scale sea level change. GRACE has provided information on the temporal mass variations on the Earth in the form of monthly gravity field solutions, and has enabled us to monitor the ice sheet mass changes directly. However, GRACE cannot distinguish between the various sources of the mass variations. It is well known that Post Glacial Rebound (PGR) also causes large mass trends in Antarctica."

As well, the accuracy of the information in the NASA article is questionable - further studies by Ramillien et al show the loss rate to be a quarter of what was stated in the NASA article:

"The most-recently-reporting group of seven researchers obtained some significantly different ice sheet mass balances than those obtained by Velicogna and Wahr: a loss of 107 ± 23 km3/year for West Antarctica and a gain of 67 ± 28 km3/year for East Antarctica, which results yielded a net ice loss for the entire continent of only 40 km3/year (which translates to a mean sea level rise of 0.11 mm/year), as opposed to the 152 km3/year ice loss calculated by Velicogna and Wahr (which translates to a nearly four times larger mean sea level rise of 0.40 mm/year)."

Quote

Cheap shot? You really are congenitally incapable of admitting error, aren't you?

I've admitted when I've been in error - too bad you can't seem to do the same. You pick nits to try to get a 'gotcha' post, like above.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The *second* reference to it was in rebuttal to the GRACE article about loss,

How can you rebut an article about volume using a graph of area? A measurement that in your previous post you had dismissed as meaningless?

I rebutted an article about loss with data showing record ice in the southern hemisphere - sorry you seem to be unable to grasp that.

'Record ice'? Dude, again, area != volume.

Which part of that do you have trouble with?

Quote

You also ignore where I said "that ice appears to be thicker in recent years".

Uh, yeah you did... when you were talking about a different hemisphere. Why would I have addressed that? It would have made no sense at all, being completely unrelated to the measurements in question.

Y'know, I really had thought that, this time, even you couldn't be so brazen as to pretend that there was no difference between sq and cu rather than admit a mistake. It is, quite literally, like arguing 2*2=6. Oh well, you enjoy your little game, I'm going to watch the new PF video then get some sleep.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The *second* reference to it was in rebuttal to the GRACE article about loss,

How can you rebut an article about volume using a graph of area? A measurement that in your previous post you had dismissed as meaningless?

I rebutted an article about loss with data showing record ice in the southern hemisphere - sorry you seem to be unable to grasp that.

'Record ice'? Dude, again, area != volume.

Which part of that do you have trouble with?

Quote

You also ignore where I said "that ice appears to be thicker in recent years".

Uh, yeah you did... when you were talking about a different hemisphere. Why would I have addressed that? It would have made no sense at all, being completely unrelated to the measurements in question.

Y'know, I really had thought that, this time, even you couldn't be so brazen as to pretend that there was no difference between sq and cu rather than admit a mistake. It is, quite literally, like arguing 2*2=6. Oh well, you enjoy your little game, I'm going to watch the new PF video then get some sleep.

Whoosh

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Oh well, you enjoy your little game, I'm going to watch the new PF video then get some sleep.

Good - the adults can discuss the science without the 'gotcha' attempts.

Don't forget to drink your warm milk.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

We have complete control over the climate. Everything the climate does is because of us. If the climate punishes us, it is because we have sinned by our carbon emissions.

If we purchase indulgences in the form of subsidies to "underdeveloped nations" or carbon credits we may atone for our carbon sins and find favor in the eyes of the climate.

Beware - if you dispute any of this you are a DENIER, and shall be smitten.

Thus it is written.

+1

It seems in the grand scheme of things, the right has Jesus, the left has Global warming, and we share the weekends with the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[popsjumper 2]

So how about this?

The real problem is population.
The real solution is population control.

Maybe the planet can only overcome just so much abuse. If we reduce the number of people, then the number of abusers goes down and the planet will be able to overcome the adverse aspects of human habitation.

If you favor population control, you choose the method of reducing abuse.
-exterminations
-mandatory birth control
-other

If you don't favor population control, you choose the method of reducing abuse.
-mandatory recycling
-fossil fuel rationing
-other

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[mnealtx 0]

That makes the assumption that the warming is, in fact, caused by man - does it not?

Or are you speaking to pollution in general?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[winsor 185]

Quote

So how about this?

The real problem is population.
The real solution is population control.

Maybe the planet can only overcome just so much abuse. If we reduce the number of people, then the number of abusers goes down and the planet will be able to overcome the adverse aspects of human habitation.

If you favor population control, you choose the method of reducing abuse.
-exterminations
-mandatory birth control
-other

If you don't favor population control, you choose the method of reducing abuse.
-mandatory recycling
-fossil fuel rationing
-other

And so we cut to the chase.

Regardless of "climate change," when it comes to quite how much food we can reliably produce, there exists a finite limit. It is a singularly bad idea to determine that limit experimentally.

In our glassy-eyed determination to "feed the hungry," we have gone out to unsustainable populations and afforded them the means to increase their numbers exponentially. "The road to hell..." and all that.

Killing people, while often justified, is messy, inefficient and makes for bad press. The trick is to limit the next generation, which is not a lot easier in practice.

One thing that comes to mind is to have, say, Medicins sans Frontieres pair with aid organizations and make aid contingent upon sterilization. If you can't feed yourselves, you sure as hell can't feed the next generation; if you want us to feed you, you are done having kids.

The same goes for Welfare.

This, of course, will never fly. In practice, administration of said policy would fall to people of the caliber of TSA - people who give the mentally retarded a bad name.

Since stupidity is the common denominator of humanity, a global appeal to ignorance may be our only hope. The major religions would serve nicely if they could be brought on board. Think of the Vatican's interpretation of the Mitzva to "go forth and multiply;" were they to borrow GWB's "Mission Accomplished!" banner they would make a huge step.

In any event, regardless of the merits of CO2 vs. climate, treating that as the primary issue is akin to treating the symptoms melanoma as one would a rash. Someone hung up on secondary issues is clueless, stupid, avaricious or a combination thereof.

If we address the underlying issues, the "climate change" issue will be moot; if we do not address the underlying issues, "climate change" will be the least of our worries.


BSBD,

Winsor

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The real problem is population.
The real solution is population control.

Interesting. What's interesting is that events that keep populations in control - like famines and pestilence - are just about the sole province of third world countries whose carbon footprints are small and live in places that increase albedo by kicking up so much dust.

Governments, as well, have long employed population control methods. The populations of the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, were thinned out quite nicely by the governments. Stalin as an environmentalist? Pol Pot doing his part to decrease energy consumption?

Indeed, governments have engineered famines quite nicely! Look at China's Great Leap Forward. In hindsight, Chairman Mao was doing his part to control the population and ensure the environmental protection of the planet! The NoKo regime was just showing the sort of sacrifice necessary for the planet's survival in the 1990's. We should learn from the North Koreans about the sort of sacrifice that is necessary to ensure the world's survival.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Good - the adults can discuss the science

Step 1) Learn the difference between 2 and 3 dimensions. And that really is kids stuff.

Quote

without the 'gotcha' attempts.

And you don't think it's a gotcha to 'rebut' an article about volume loss with a graph of area and suggest the "satellite guys should get with the ice guys" as a result?

You don't think it's a gotcha to seriously respond to someone else's argument with a set of data that you had already declared completely meaningless?

You are unbelievably pathetic.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Good - the adults can discuss the science

Step 1) Learn the difference between 2 and 3 dimensions. And that really is kids stuff.

Learn the difference between sea ice and land ice. The ice mass on Antarctica is primarily land ice - in some places up to 15000 feet thick.

Quote

Quote

without the 'gotcha' attempts.

And you don't think it's a gotcha to 'rebut' an article about volume loss with a graph of area and suggest the "satellite guys should get with the ice guys" as a result?

Nope - sure wasn't. Then again, unlike you I know the difference between the Arctic and Antarctic ice masses, as well as the known difficulties with the GRACE satellites in addition to the VERY short length of the GRACE data. Funny how the ecochondriacs talk about a decade not being enough time for a trend to be valid - unless, of course, it's from a satellite with less than a decade on station that shows evidence of what appears to be warming.

Quote

You don't think it's a gotcha to seriously respond to someone else's argument with a set of data that you had already declared completely meaningless?

Volume matters for the Arctic ice due to it being sea ice of a low thickess, some 5 meters or less - for land ice up to 3 miles thick like in the Antarctic, not so much.

I'm not very concerned about the Antarctic - 24 cubic miles a year means that the 5 million cubic miles of ice there will be gone somewhere around 210 THOUSAND years from now. If it's actually the 9.6 miles that the other researchers have stated, it'll be around 518 THOUSAND years from now.

Either way we'll have almost certainly gone into another ice age by then, so it will be moot.

Quote

You are unbelievably pathetic.

Another PA, how nice. Guess that warm milk didn't help your nap, did it?

Go learn something and come back when you've a modicum of intelligence to show on the matter.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

I ask you, Biker - what if the climate scientists are wrong? After all, we don't know that the earth will be 8 degrees warmer in 2100 because 2100 is 90 years away. It is a prediction. Sure, there's a lort of science associated with it, but in the end it is a scientific wild ass guess.

As I said, it doesn't really matter, does it? I would *like* it to be right so it would cause people to care about the environment, conserve, and all that.

But my wishes aren't what drive science...nor should the wishes of the anti-AGW crowd. SCIENCE should drive science. Politics shouldn't drive science. And in this case, it undeniably is, and that is a travesty.

I'm actually becoming more interested in the sociological and psychological drivers behind the proponents of both sides of the issue.

To me, it's just inherently obvious that we should change our ways to conserve the planet, clean up our air and water, protect endangered species, etc. Psychologically, it's very strange to me, as someone who is usually able to see (if not agree with) the opposite sides on issues, that i CANNOT even begin to comprehend this vehement anti-environmental stance that I see in so many posters in here.

It's like listening to people trying to tell me that the sky is green instead of blue, and arguing so passionately that it is, when I can see with my own two eyes that it is most definitely not green!

But why can't i see that other side? And why can't those on the other side see the point of view that conservation and cleanliness and care for the planet are worth a bit of short term cost? These are the questions that bother me about this issue, and it's why i get so dissatisfied with the "debate" in here....no one is really addressing this sort of thing.

*shrug*

Continue screaming about the validity of the science...I am not a climatologist, i have no irons in that fire.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Then again, unlike you I know the difference between the Arctic and Antarctic ice masses,

Then why did I have to remind you just a few posts ago which ice mass one of your previous comments had been referring too. You were attempting to use them interchangeably.

Quote

I'm not very concerned about the Antarctic

Then why did you bring it up in the first place as a response to kallend's posts about the arctic? Could it be that when it looks like there's more ice there, it matters and when it looks like less, it doesn't? Is that the level you're operating on here?

Quote

I'm not very concerned about the Antarctic - 24 cubic miles a year means that the 5 million cubic miles of ice there will be gone somewhere around 210 THOUSAND years from now. If it's actually the 9.6 miles that the other researchers have stated, it'll be around 518 THOUSAND years from now.

Ahh yes, because of course nothing important could result from, or be indicated by, a loss of Antarctic ice until it has completely vanished.

What was it you said you understood about the subject?

Quote

Another PA, how nice. Guess that warm milk didn't help your nap, did it?

Is there no opportunity you won't take to showcase your hypocrisy?

Worse. Than. Rhys.

Quote

Go learn something and come back when you've a modicum of intelligence to show on the matter.

Evidently it'd be wasted on you anyway.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

i CANNOT even begin to comprehend this vehement anti-environmental stance that I see in so many posters in here.

I think you are confusing yourself. Just because someone argues for clarity in the AGW debate does not mean they are anti environmental.








________________________________
"1981 to 1988 is 7 years"-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years,Kallend)

The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

i CANNOT even begin to comprehend this vehement anti-environmental stance that I see in so many posters in here.

I think you are confusing yourself. Just because someone argues for clarity in the AGW debate does not mean they are anti environmental.

Quote

+1

But that is how they have to argue it if they continue to wish a chozen life style on others








________________________________
"1981 to 1988 is 7 years"-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years,Kallend)

The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Then again, unlike you I know the difference between the Arctic and Antarctic ice masses,

Then why did I have to remind you just a few posts ago which ice mass one of your previous comments had been referring too. You were attempting to use them interchangeably.

Sure wasn't - but that's something ELSE you can't seem to comprehend about the whole ice issue.

Quote

Quote

I'm not very concerned about the Antarctic

Then why did you bring it up in the first place as a response to kallend's posts about the arctic?

As a counter to the constant "the Arctic is losing ice" drumbeat from him - Antarctic ice is trending up and is, in fact, at an all-time high.

Quote

Could it be that when it looks like there's more ice there, it matters and when it looks like less, it doesn't? Is that the level you're operating on here?

That seems to be the level kallend is operating on, yes. Cold winters are 'weather, not climate' and warm winters are evidence of global warming.

Quote

Quote

I'm not very concerned about the Antarctic - 24 cubic miles a year means that the 5 million cubic miles of ice there will be gone somewhere around 210 THOUSAND years from now. If it's actually the 9.6 miles that the other researchers have stated, it'll be around 518 THOUSAND years from now.

Ahh yes, because of course nothing important could result from, or be indicated by, a loss of Antarctic ice until it has completely vanished.

What was it you said you understood about the subject?

A whole hell of a lot more than you, evidently.

Quote

Quote

Another PA, how nice. Guess that warm milk didn't help your nap, did it?

Is there no opportunity you won't take to showcase your hypocrisy?

Have a tissue.

Quote

Worse. Than. Rhys.

It's ok, we don't hold that against you - honest.

Quote

Quote

Go learn something and come back when you've a modicum of intelligence to show on the matter.

Evidently it'd be wasted on you anyway.

Given the level you've shown so far, probably - get back to me in a few years though, when you're up to an acceptable level.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Sure wasn't

Sure were. It's in black and white upthread, the bit where I remind you which hemisphere you were talking about.

Quote

As a counter to the constant "the Arctic is losing ice" drumbeat from him - Antarctic ice is trending up and is, in fact, at an all-time high.

If you look at a metric that has been described, by you, as completely meaningless. In other measures, it isn't.

Now, what we have here is you attempting to contradict Kallends argument using a measurement you think is meaningless of a region of ice you don't even think is important... and you're complaining about gotcha posts?

Quote

A whole hell of a lot more than you, evidently.

Even though you think what happens to antarctic ice isn't important until it all vanishes. Tell that to a climatologist - even a non-AGW one.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Sure wasn't

Sure were. It's in black and white upthread, the bit where I remind you which hemisphere you were talking about.

Quote

As a counter to the constant "the Arctic is losing ice" drumbeat from him - Antarctic ice is trending up and is, in fact, at an all-time high.

If you look at a metric that has been described, by you, as completely meaningless. In other measures, it isn't.

Now, what we have here is you attempting to contradict Kallends argument using a measurement you think is meaningless of a region of ice you don't even think is important... and you're complaining about gotcha posts?

You know, jake...I gotta admit, you're consistent. Consistently WRONG, but consistent nonetheless.

Thickness is important when looking at the arctic ice measurements because it is THINNER and over WATER. Wind, wave and current can have LARGE effects on sea ice.

Antarctic ice, however, is primarily over LAND and is up to TWO AND A HALF MILES THICK, so no, tracking the thickness from year to year isn't a high priority.

So - Arctic ice, tracking thickness is important. Antarctic ice...not so much.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706