kallend 1,634 #201 April 27, 2012 www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/26/us-climate-rainfall-idUSBRE83P18C20120426... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #202 April 27, 2012 I'll get to that book when I finish this one. As conflicting as the article is, we'll read it anyway. -NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing ... -Radar and laser-based satellite data show a little mass loss at the edges of East Antarctica... -NASA/German Aerospace Center's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) suggests that since 2006 there has been more ice loss from East Antarctica than previously thought... -Overall, not much is going on in East Antarctica -- yet. -Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass -And she points out that it isn’t just the Grace data that show accelerating loss; the radar data do, too.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 384 #203 April 28, 2012 Quotewww.reuters.com/article/2012/04/26/us-climate-rainfall-idUSBRE83P18C20120426 More from NASA http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/currents-ice-loss.html Oops! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #204 April 28, 2012 The East Antarctic Ice Shelf losing mass and the Greenland Ice Shelf losing mass are contradictory to Greenhouse theory. Warming the temperature a few degrees in pace that average negative temperatures should not cause ice ablation but should cause ice to accrete more quickly. How is something that was the opposite of what was predicted something that is consistent? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,634 #205 April 28, 2012 Quote Quote www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/26/us-climate-rainfall-idUSBRE83P18C20120426 More from NASA http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/currents-ice-loss.html Oops! I already posted that. Where do you think the warmth comes from?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,634 #206 April 28, 2012 QuoteThe East Antarctic Ice Shelf losing mass and the Greenland Ice Shelf losing mass are contradictory to Greenhouse theory. Warming the temperature a few degrees in pace that average negative temperatures should not cause ice ablation but should cause ice to accrete more quickly. How is something that was the opposite of what was predicted something that is consistent? Have you considered sticking to law?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #207 April 28, 2012 Quote Quote Quote www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/26/us-climate-rainfall-idUSBRE83P18C20120426 More from NASA http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/currents-ice-loss.html Oops! I already posted that. Where do you think the warmth comes from? The scam 'science' theory that hasn't been able to find that tropical hot spot yet, where Trenberth's 'missing heat' is, or why the temps have been flat for the last 12+ years while CO2 continues to climb?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 384 #208 April 29, 2012 In 2007: This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." Now the reality from the NSIDC is: Arctic sea ice extent in March 2012 averaged 15.21 million square kilometers (5.87 million square miles)...... it was the highest March average ice extent since 2008 and one of the higher March extents in the past decade...... Ice cover remained extensive in the Bering Sea, where it has been above average all winter. Ice extent was also higher than average in Baffin Bay, between Greenland and Canada, and the Sea of Okhotsk, east of Russia. These conditions stemmed from a combination of wind patterns and low temperatures. Air temperatures were 6 to 8 degrees Celsius (11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) below average over the Bering Sea, Baffin Bay, and parts of the Sea of Okhotsk, Boosh! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,634 #209 April 29, 2012 QuoteIn 2007: This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." Now the reality from the NSIDC is: Arctic sea ice extent in March 2012 averaged 15.21 million square kilometers (5.87 million square miles)...... it was the highest March average ice extent since 2008 and one of the higher March extents in the past decade...... Ice cover remained extensive in the Bering Sea, where it has been above average all winter. Ice extent was also higher than average in Baffin Bay, between Greenland and Canada, and the Sea of Okhotsk, east of Russia. These conditions stemmed from a combination of wind patterns and low temperatures. Air temperatures were 6 to 8 degrees Celsius (11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) below average over the Bering Sea, Baffin Bay, and parts of the Sea of Okhotsk, Boosh! Whoosh. And the US midwest had a winter of above average temperatures. Why don't you look up what CLIMATE means, since apparently it escapes you.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,634 #210 April 29, 2012 Mnealtx claims that have been debunked: In the historic record, CO2 lags warming. WRONG The Antarctic is gaining ice. WRONG Your desperation is showing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #211 April 29, 2012 Quote Quote Quote *** Quote Quote Quote *** Quote Conservatives and science, lol. They're always good for a chuckle, no concept of what anecdotal evidence is. Now that's pretty funny ladies and gentlemen. In a way they have proven his point They also provide evidence that deniers are more intelligent that alarmists I wonder what percentage of climate change deniers beleive in an 8000 year old earth ? Now knowledge or intelligence is the direction you want to take this? Or since you used the word believe, are we going the alarmists and faith direction? According to my calendar, the year is 5772. An extra 7 days does not change much. Are you suggesting the Earth is another 2228 years older? I'm not sure if that constitutes heresy, blasphemy or both. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 384 #212 April 29, 2012 QuoteQuoteIn 2007: This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." Now the reality from the NSIDC is: Arctic sea ice extent in March 2012 averaged 15.21 million square kilometers (5.87 million square miles)...... it was the highest March average ice extent since 2008 and one of the higher March extents in the past decade...... Ice cover remained extensive in the Bering Sea, where it has been above average all winter. Ice extent was also higher than average in Baffin Bay, between Greenland and Canada, and the Sea of Okhotsk, east of Russia. These conditions stemmed from a combination of wind patterns and low temperatures. Air temperatures were 6 to 8 degrees Celsius (11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) below average over the Bering Sea, Baffin Bay, and parts of the Sea of Okhotsk, Boosh! Whoosh. And the US midwest had a winter of above average temperatures. Why don't you look up what CLIMATE means, since apparently it escapes you. Hey Einstein, it is called global warming not regional warming. Look at global temps, Really is this all you have? I would have loved to have you as a prof, in college. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #213 April 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteIn 2007: This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." Now the reality from the NSIDC is: Arctic sea ice extent in March 2012 averaged 15.21 million square kilometers (5.87 million square miles)...... it was the highest March average ice extent since 2008 and one of the higher March extents in the past decade...... Ice cover remained extensive in the Bering Sea, where it has been above average all winter. Ice extent was also higher than average in Baffin Bay, between Greenland and Canada, and the Sea of Okhotsk, east of Russia. These conditions stemmed from a combination of wind patterns and low temperatures. Air temperatures were 6 to 8 degrees Celsius (11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) below average over the Bering Sea, Baffin Bay, and parts of the Sea of Okhotsk, Boosh! Whoosh. And the US midwest had a winter of above average temperatures. Why don't you look up what CLIMATE means, since apparently it escapes you. Funny how you had absolutely NO problem using those same numbers as proof of warming when they were in your favor.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #214 April 30, 2012 Quote Mnealtx claims that have been debunked: In the historic record, CO2 lags warming. WRONG Missed the quote from the paper that I provided? Here, I'll re-post it for you: Substantial temperature change at all latitudes (Fig. 5b), as well as a net global warming of about 0.3 uC (Fig. 2a), precedes the initial increase in CO2 concentration at 17.5 kyr ago, suggesting that CO2 did not initiate deglacial warming. QuoteThe Antarctic is gaining ice. WRONG Positive trend overall...lemme know when shrinking glaciers start accelerating toward the sea, perfesser. QuoteYour desperation is showing. Desperation? Hardly - I'm not the one that has to explain away a dozen years of increasing CO2 with no additional warming, the lack of the tropical hotspot, Trenberth's 'missing heat', etc etc etc.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 384 #215 April 30, 2012 QuoteQuoteIn 2007: This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." Now the reality from the NSIDC is: Arctic sea ice extent in March 2012 averaged 15.21 million square kilometers (5.87 million square miles)...... it was the highest March average ice extent since 2008 and one of the higher March extents in the past decade...... Ice cover remained extensive in the Bering Sea, where it has been above average all winter. Ice extent was also higher than average in Baffin Bay, between Greenland and Canada, and the Sea of Okhotsk, east of Russia. These conditions stemmed from a combination of wind patterns and low temperatures. Air temperatures were 6 to 8 degrees Celsius (11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) below average over the Bering Sea, Baffin Bay, and parts of the Sea of Okhotsk, Boosh! Whoosh. And the US midwest had a winter of above average temperatures. Why don't you look up what CLIMATE means, since apparently it escapes you. From NASA: " The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2012 was the 19th warmest on record The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2012 was the 22nd warmest on record and the coolest since 2008 The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for March 2012 was the 16th warmest on record http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/2 A 19 years with warmer first quarters No chicken little I dont think the sky is falling It looks as if the temperatures are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #216 April 30, 2012 QuoteAn extra 7 days does not change much. Are you suggesting the Earth is another 2228 years older? For our Lord one day is like thousand years, and thousand years is like one day, I'm sure He did his mysterious way voodoo to turn 2.228 days into 2228 years. During both 500 year long nights the Lord used growing lamps to sustain photosynthesis in plants, btw. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,634 #217 April 30, 2012 Quote Quote Quote In 2007: This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." Now the reality from the NSIDC is: Arctic sea ice extent in March 2012 averaged 15.21 million square kilometers (5.87 million square miles)...... it was the highest March average ice extent since 2008 and one of the higher March extents in the past decade...... Ice cover remained extensive in the Bering Sea, where it has been above average all winter. Ice extent was also higher than average in Baffin Bay, between Greenland and Canada, and the Sea of Okhotsk, east of Russia. These conditions stemmed from a combination of wind patterns and low temperatures. Air temperatures were 6 to 8 degrees Celsius (11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) below average over the Bering Sea, Baffin Bay, and parts of the Sea of Okhotsk, Boosh! Whoosh. And the US midwest had a winter of above average temperatures. Why don't you look up what CLIMATE means, since apparently it escapes you. From NASA: " The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2012 was the 19th warmest on record The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2012 was the 22nd warmest on record and the coolest since 2008 The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for March 2012 was the 16th warmest on record http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/2 A 19 years with warmer first quarters No chicken little I dont think the sky is falling It looks as if the temperatures are. Read mnealtx's rebuttal of your argument.www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 384 #218 April 30, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote In 2007: This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." Now the reality from the NSIDC is: Arctic sea ice extent in March 2012 averaged 15.21 million square kilometers (5.87 million square miles)...... it was the highest March average ice extent since 2008 and one of the higher March extents in the past decade...... Ice cover remained extensive in the Bering Sea, where it has been above average all winter. Ice extent was also higher than average in Baffin Bay, between Greenland and Canada, and the Sea of Okhotsk, east of Russia. These conditions stemmed from a combination of wind patterns and low temperatures. Air temperatures were 6 to 8 degrees Celsius (11 to 14 degrees Fahrenheit) below average over the Bering Sea, Baffin Bay, and parts of the Sea of Okhotsk, Boosh! Whoosh. And the US midwest had a winter of above average temperatures. Why don't you look up what CLIMATE means, since apparently it escapes you. From NASA: " The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2012 was the 19th warmest on record The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for February 2012 was the 22nd warmest on record and the coolest since 2008 The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for March 2012 was the 16th warmest on record http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/2 A 19 years with warmer first quarters No chicken little I dont think the sky is falling It looks as if the temperatures are. Read mnealtx's rebuttal of your argument.www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47 Its is not an argument, it is a set of facts from NASA, and is to help you understand, warm March in Spring in the MidWestdoes not equate to global warming. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 384 #219 April 30, 2012 http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/global-sea-ice-fifth-highest-for-the-date-on-record/ Sea Ice at record levels. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #220 April 30, 2012 Quotehttp://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/global-sea-ice-fifth-highest-for-the-date-on-record/ Sea Ice at record levels. still focused on area instead of volume. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 384 #221 April 30, 2012 Its apples to apples, the same metric used to document low ice coverage is the same metric to document high. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #222 May 1, 2012 QuoteQuotehttp://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/global-sea-ice-fifth-highest-for-the-date-on-record/ Sea Ice at record levels. still focused on area instead of volume. So just how thick do you think *sea ice* is supposed to be, pray tell? Funny how that never matters when it's kallend bringing up the chart in a low-ice year.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #223 May 1, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotehttp://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/global-sea-ice-fifth-highest-for-the-date-on-record/ Sea Ice at record levels. still focused on area instead of volume. So just how thick do you think *sea ice* is supposed to be, pray tell? Funny how that never matters when it's kallend bringing up the chart in a low-ice year. so that's your problem then. In this thread, in this year, he raised volume, you replied with area charts, and now this guy is doing the same. I don't give a flying fuck what happened in 200x. (though I have to ask, are you saying that in these low ice years, it was really really thick?) VOLUME MATTERS. Every year. If you don't know why, ask a grade schooler. The amount of ice (or water) in a body cannot be calculated based on surface area. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #224 May 1, 2012 Quoteso that's your problem then. The hypocrisy in kallend's argument? Yup, that's what I have a problem with. QuoteIn this thread, in this year, he raised volume, you replied with area charts, and now this guy is doing the same. I don't give a flying fuck what happened in 200x. (though I have to ask, are you saying that in these low ice years, it was really really thick?) And here's where your point breaks down - the accelerated melting being discussed *IS* sea ice. It's also funny how a decade of flat temps weren't sufficient to show a lack of warming, but 5 years of measurements from a satellite is apparently a long enough record....so long as the data supports warming, that is. I note neither you nor kallend care to take up the point of the 'accelerated movement toward the sea' of those supposedly shrinking ice masses. QuoteVOLUME MATTERS. Every year. If you don't know why, ask a grade schooler. The amount of ice (or water) in a body cannot be calculated based on surface area. Have kallend ask the grade schooler, then, since he uses the same charts in low-ice years.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skiskyrock 0 #225 May 1, 2012 from a recent paper in Geophysical Research Letters: We find that the available observations are sufficient to virtually exclude internal variability and self-acceleration as an explanation for the observed long-term trend, clustering, and magnitude of recent sea-ice minima. Instead, the recent retreat is well described by the superposition of an externally forced linear trend and internal variability. For the externally forced trend, we find a physically plausible strong correlation only with increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration. Our results hence show that the observed evolution of Arctic sea-ice extent is consistent with the claim that virtually certainly the impact of an anthropogenic climate change is observable in Arctic sea ice already today. Notz & Marotzke, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L08502, 6 PP., 2012 The attached graphic is worth a thousand words. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
