Following the US Rural vs Urban data comparison I posted a few weeks back, here is one for the Arctic
-
FACT... All the major ice sheets in the world have been in retreat for decades if not centuries and perhaps millenia. Ice melts when it gets WARMER!
PogoboyMtK wrote:
FACT All the major ice sheets in the world have been in retreat for decades if not centuries
If its a fact how can it be so ambiguous? They have either been in retreat for decades or centuries or millenia. Surely since its a fact you know precisely how long they have been melting for and dont have to guess? Secondly, its also not true. Antarctic sea ice has been steadilly increasing for about 40 years or so. (Unless of course you dont consider it 'major'). In fact it has just set a new record for sea ice extent: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent[^] In combination with the arctic we have this total sea ice graph: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg[^] Wshich does appear to be steadilly decreasing, although perhaps this is due to increased volatillity rather than a decrease in maximums, which seem to be fairly constant. Of course the big porblem that a warming arctic and a cooling antarctic poses for AGW is the fact the both poles are supposed to warm according to the theory. And if the data doesnt fit the theory then the theory is wrong.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
And if you spent any amount of time here, you'd realize that F_B's incessant AGW drivel is boring the piss out of everyone here. Except himself, of course. Clearly, Ian is a regular here. Your insinuation that he's cruising the internet looking for trouble, and this was an instance of that, is obviously wrong. Which raises the question - do you scan the internet and post comments to anything that offends you or you don't understand? I can't think of anything more pathetic.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
LunaticFringe wrote:
Which raises the question - do you scan the internet and post comments to anything that offends you or you don't understand?
What the hell do you mean? That I don't understand the :zzz: symbol or feel offended by it? Get a grip! I am also a regular here. I agree with fat_boy's position, that AGW is a big and extreemely costly hoax. Very often I open his links, but not always. I do find many of them interesting. I seldom comment on them, don't need to. What really pisses me off is the endless tail of post with :zzz: :zzz: that some of you on every occation add to the original post. What is the point? Not interested? OK. Go away. Shut up. I don't see why you even open fat_boy's post in the first place. You know very well what he is writing about.
-
4 anyone else want to show us their debating skills?
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
sure, what are we debating? ooooh I see, another Global Warming post; I debated the first time, the second, but after 100 posts about the same subject it gets boring, bring new subjects to debate and I'll be more than happy to throw in my 2 cents, but for now :zzz:
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
LunaticFringe wrote:
Which raises the question - do you scan the internet and post comments to anything that offends you or you don't understand?
What the hell do you mean? That I don't understand the :zzz: symbol or feel offended by it? Get a grip! I am also a regular here. I agree with fat_boy's position, that AGW is a big and extreemely costly hoax. Very often I open his links, but not always. I do find many of them interesting. I seldom comment on them, don't need to. What really pisses me off is the endless tail of post with :zzz: :zzz: that some of you on every occation add to the original post. What is the point? Not interested? OK. Go away. Shut up. I don't see why you even open fat_boy's post in the first place. You know very well what he is writing about.
Actually, fat_boy started the " :zzz: " game, using that reply on several of my logical rebuttals to his points. Previously, we would sometimes spend days debating over a single thread, but got tired of him distorting the facts, making illogical inferences, and oversimplifying every issue. I, and others, finally realized there's just no point, so we replaced all of that anti-climactic debate with :zzz: And there's your history lesson on fat_boy and AGW :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
PogoboyMtK wrote:
FACT All the major ice sheets in the world have been in retreat for decades if not centuries
If its a fact how can it be so ambiguous? They have either been in retreat for decades or centuries or millenia. Surely since its a fact you know precisely how long they have been melting for and dont have to guess? Secondly, its also not true. Antarctic sea ice has been steadilly increasing for about 40 years or so. (Unless of course you dont consider it 'major'). In fact it has just set a new record for sea ice extent: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a_new_record_for_antartic_total_ice_extent[^] In combination with the arctic we have this total sea ice graph: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg[^] Wshich does appear to be steadilly decreasing, although perhaps this is due to increased volatillity rather than a decrease in maximums, which seem to be fairly constant. Of course the big porblem that a warming arctic and a cooling antarctic poses for AGW is the fact the both poles are supposed to warm according to the theory. And if the data doesnt fit the theory then the theory is wrong.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
They have either been in retreat for decades or centuries or millenia.
We simply haven't had reliable records dating back far enough to determine the true extent of when the retreat started. That's why there is ambiguity in this.
fat_boy wrote:
Secondly, its also not true. Antarctic sea ice has been steadilly increasing for about 40 years or so. (Unless of course you dont consider it 'major'). In fact it has just set a new record for sea ice extent: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a\_new\_record\_for\_antartic\_total\_ice\_extent\[^\]
And it's growing, why??? I can find biased articles, too.
fat_boy wrote:
Of course the big porblem that a warming arctic and a cooling antarctic poses for AGW is the fact the both poles are supposed to warm according to the theory. And if the data doesnt fit the theory then the theory is wrong.
It turns out you're wrong... Antarctic ice is growing because of global warming which has caused snowfall to increase in the southern pole region. The region itself has seen the same temperature increases as the rest of the planet.
-
fat_boy wrote:
They have either been in retreat for decades or centuries or millenia.
We simply haven't had reliable records dating back far enough to determine the true extent of when the retreat started. That's why there is ambiguity in this.
fat_boy wrote:
Secondly, its also not true. Antarctic sea ice has been steadilly increasing for about 40 years or so. (Unless of course you dont consider it 'major'). In fact it has just set a new record for sea ice extent: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a\_new\_record\_for\_antartic\_total\_ice\_extent\[^\]
And it's growing, why??? I can find biased articles, too.
fat_boy wrote:
Of course the big porblem that a warming arctic and a cooling antarctic poses for AGW is the fact the both poles are supposed to warm according to the theory. And if the data doesnt fit the theory then the theory is wrong.
It turns out you're wrong... Antarctic ice is growing because of global warming which has caused snowfall to increase in the southern pole region. The region itself has seen the same temperature increases as the rest of the planet.
PogoboyMtK wrote:
It turns out you're wrong... Antarctic ice is growing because of global warming which has caused snowfall to increase in the southern pole region. The region itself has seen the same temperature increases as the rest of the planet.
I found it remarkably interesting that (at least when I caught this, probably 5 years ago now) Antarctica technically qualified as a desert due to lack of precipitation. Generally not something someone considers. It does put a nice odd angle on the 'but they're growing, so it can't be getting warmer' argument.
-
Oh, I see. :zzz: is an insult, where 'another dick'... is not. You're boring and obsessed. Anyone who fails to cater to your obsession is a dick, an AGW fanatic, etc. It's really pretty amusing- you have no idea of my beliefs on the subject, but since I don't share your mental disturbance, you assume I'm against you. :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz: :zzz:
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
fat_boy wrote:
They have either been in retreat for decades or centuries or millenia.
We simply haven't had reliable records dating back far enough to determine the true extent of when the retreat started. That's why there is ambiguity in this.
fat_boy wrote:
Secondly, its also not true. Antarctic sea ice has been steadilly increasing for about 40 years or so. (Unless of course you dont consider it 'major'). In fact it has just set a new record for sea ice extent: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/a\_new\_record\_for\_antartic\_total\_ice\_extent\[^\]
And it's growing, why??? I can find biased articles, too.
fat_boy wrote:
Of course the big porblem that a warming arctic and a cooling antarctic poses for AGW is the fact the both poles are supposed to warm according to the theory. And if the data doesnt fit the theory then the theory is wrong.
It turns out you're wrong... Antarctic ice is growing because of global warming which has caused snowfall to increase in the southern pole region. The region itself has seen the same temperature increases as the rest of the planet.
Quite simply, you havent the faintest idea what you are talking about: In fact there is photographic evidence showing the ADVANCE of glaciers in Switzerland during the LIA. How does that fact fit your world? As for you stating the south pole has increased in temperature, you are wrong: http://www.john-daly.com/stations/amundsen.gif[^] Of course you are free to check this if you like.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
PogoboyMtK wrote:
It turns out you're wrong... Antarctic ice is growing because of global warming which has caused snowfall to increase in the southern pole region. The region itself has seen the same temperature increases as the rest of the planet.
I found it remarkably interesting that (at least when I caught this, probably 5 years ago now) Antarctica technically qualified as a desert due to lack of precipitation. Generally not something someone considers. It does put a nice odd angle on the 'but they're growing, so it can't be getting warmer' argument.
-
Quite simply, you havent the faintest idea what you are talking about: In fact there is photographic evidence showing the ADVANCE of glaciers in Switzerland during the LIA. How does that fact fit your world? As for you stating the south pole has increased in temperature, you are wrong: http://www.john-daly.com/stations/amundsen.gif[^] Of course you are free to check this if you like.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Quite simply, you havent the faintest idea what you are talking about:
Someone saying that usually fits the bill.
fat_boy wrote:
In fact there is photographic evidence showing the ADVANCE of glaciers in Switzerland during the LIA. How does that fact fit your world?
Since you're basically being Cartman and telling me to suck your balls... I say "PRESENT THEM". I very much doubt you can produce them considering the LIA happened somewhere between 1250 and 1650. :omg: They will probably have gone "missing" :omg: . I do, however, present you this Clickey as proof that you're a complete idiot.
fat_boy wrote:
As for you stating the south pole has increased in temperature, you are wrong: http://www.john-daly.com/stations/amundsen.gif\[^\] Of course you are free to check this if you like.
Again... You are biasing you're data exceptions rather than the rule. Variation exists. Fluctuation exists. I suppose NASA knows nothing, right? Clickey
-
fat_boy wrote:
Quite simply, you havent the faintest idea what you are talking about:
Someone saying that usually fits the bill.
fat_boy wrote:
In fact there is photographic evidence showing the ADVANCE of glaciers in Switzerland during the LIA. How does that fact fit your world?
Since you're basically being Cartman and telling me to suck your balls... I say "PRESENT THEM". I very much doubt you can produce them considering the LIA happened somewhere between 1250 and 1650. :omg: They will probably have gone "missing" :omg: . I do, however, present you this Clickey as proof that you're a complete idiot.
fat_boy wrote:
As for you stating the south pole has increased in temperature, you are wrong: http://www.john-daly.com/stations/amundsen.gif\[^\] Of course you are free to check this if you like.
Again... You are biasing you're data exceptions rather than the rule. Variation exists. Fluctuation exists. I suppose NASA knows nothing, right? Clickey
PogoboyMtK wrote:
LIA happened somewhere between 1250 and 1650
1750 is the date used by the IPCC as the point at which the LIA cooling ceased. And yes, NASSA are lying. If you didnt know that then you dont know anything about the way in which NASA (GISS run by Hansen) use software to extend the warming of a particular station 1500 miles into the surrounding region and thus show non existant warming. This naturally shows that based on a one small area of the west antarctic peninsula they can show the graphic you linked to. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/[^] And as you yourself pointed out, the rest of Antarctica is cooling, and so proved your previous statement that the south pole is warming is wrong. Anyway, here is alegorical evidence about the advance of glaciers in Switzerland: Farms and villages in the Swiss Alps were destroyed by encroaching glaciers during the mid-17th century[^] http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm[^] http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html[^] http://www.historicalgeophysics.ax/sp/11.pdf[^] http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/064.htm[^] http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/lec19.htm[
![http://www.john-daly.com/stations/amundsen.gif\[^\]](http://www.john-daly.com/stations/amundsen.gif%5C%5B%5E%5C%5D){kind=link}