Sea Ice Growing at Fastest Pace on Record
 

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13385

What we didn't already know unless you drink the Al Gore Koolaid.

-S

I guess you missed the part where he said "hot areas will get hotter and cold areas will get colder". You just proved his point.

Maybe you should at least taste the punch before declaring it to be poison. Did you even watch the movie?

,edit.

Did you read the article you linked to?

Hardly. Did you notice he only fed you 300 years of data - approximately the lowest point of our mini ice age until now? Or did he fail to mention the glacier melt that has been steady and started before the use of hydrocarbons? NO! He conveniently left that part out.

So hows your Kool Aid? You swallowed a ton of it.

-S

Yawn.

Once again, second run:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...df/ngeo338.pdf

Don't sweat it Mothballs, he never fully reads the articles he posts.

I seem to remember a similar thread where the author of the article Subman posted acually admitted in a postscript that the evidence that he had used to support about 90% of his argument was in fact wrong; didn't stop ol' Subman from running with it though, despite me drawing his attention to it several times.

selective reading:rotfl: :rotfl:

Doesn't bother me. :)

Selective reading? The person who read it to him didn't finish it.

Some people are so blinded by their own bigotry towards anything they don't believe they can't see the truth or open their minds to any other possibilities. It's fun to occasionally poke them with a stick just to watch them get all excited.

Who cares? :|\\

Once were underwater it wont matter much anyhow.

So live it up while you can, spend your savings!

Thats what Im doing! :rock:

There is a important difference between weather and climate.

Explain to me where I have selective reading. Since you can't, I'd say the above is an attack on me based on selective reading since they didn't bother to read the article! :D :p

-S

PS. I forgot to mention the record cold even in non arctic areas last year, and expected to be worse this year. But everyone in this thread seems to be on the Al Gore Kool Aid.

Not to poke at you, but if you know anything about science (And the media gets this wrong all the time by the way), Sea Ice is 'floating' ice. If all the floating ice in the world melted, it has no effect on sea level.

-S

PS. I guess if it had no affect on Sea Level, then it wouldn't be so dramatic now would it?

Like I said whether its Sea Ice, Glaciers, Obama, whatever, ....

I DON'T REALLY, HONESTLY, TRULY, CARE! :arrgh!:

I am not a self proclaimed know-it all like many posters. The reason why I don't know the difference between Sea Ice and Glaciers is, because I choose not to.

Ignorance is bliss. :yep:

Also don't worry about poking me I am quite durable. I have been spit on in real life and had to take it. So I am sure a little ribbing on a video game forum can be tolerated. :sunny:

I am just posting so I can get my post count up anyway. :doh:

As per my post in this thread Where Is Everybody?( Big Drop )

Actually - if all the sea ice - aka floating ice melted - it would be all the ice - because as it melts the stuff held underwater by the weight will rise - so ultimately it would all end up on the surface and it would melt.....

Except that global warming is a huge farce. 1 degree average change in the last 100 years - and remember they were using thermometers in places like siberia for some of their "numbers" - anyone wanna bet a russian made thermometer circa 1900~ would even be accurate to 1 degree???

No one looks to things like sunspots, cyclical airstream patterns, carbon absorbtion by the oceans, etc. Its just like they scream "theres a hole in the ozone layer!" - yea there is - every winter. Every summer its closed up - and its over the freaking pole, not over where people are. Besides - there are answers to global warming that are very easy - just the wacko's would rather control your lives by limiting what you can do, what you can eat, what you can use - than actually fix the problem that is their "claimed" concern.

So Subman - right there with ya bud!

i belive you just stole Subman1's motto

Some people do, like me for instance.

My earlier point was only that some people will form an opinion and never look back. It's fun to poke them with a stick so you can watch them jump up and down as they try to shove their conclusion down everyone's throat. :) A closed mind gathers no intelligence.

About global warming in general, I'm not convinced either way. I still look at all of the arguments, facts, data, etc. and learn more every day. It may be cyclic, it may be caused my man. I can't say for sure.

Some of the evidence that man is having an effect on the environment is convincing, and some of the evidence that's it just part of the natural process is just as convincing.

One thing is for sure. There are some things we can do nothing about. There are some thing we can change. Out of the things that we can change, we should. Not to the extreme but maybe start heading in that direction. Evolution, not revoloution.

Wouldn't it be better to err on the side of caution? If it is us [humankind] causing it, and we can develop the technologies to change that, then we should. Tis better to try to be a part of the environment rather than continue to exploit it and take the risk.

Bottom line is, the planet will survive, with or without us. The earth isn't going anywhere, we are. We need to keep looking at the problem(s) with an open mind and educate ourselves so we can make the best decision.

I'll put my stick away for now. (But I was having so much fun with it :()

Question: how does the ice breaking off from the shelves and floating freely factor in to sea ice levels?

That is true, since you keep proving me right. Your ignorance has allowed others to sell you on something akin to the moon being cheese, and you're happy about it. Glad you pointed that out.

-S

Ice floating displaces the exact same amount of water that it is in itself water - something the media can't figure out as well as some others that I see. From a shelf however, if that shelf is land based, then you have something displacing water that was once not of that water, so in effect, you are adding water to water and it will rise.

This is not happening in the last year in either Antarctica or Alaska since both land masses are increasing their glacier ice like never before recorded. Alaska in particular has added more ice than it lost to its most famous glaciers for the first time in recorded history.

-S

Here's a visual of what whatshisname just said:
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resour...c.icesimulate/

If you read the [ENTIRE] article with this link, you'll also notice:
Now you have to factor in the Global Ocean Conveyor:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin....html&edu=high


The problem [I see] with the whole global warming debate is that there's so many inter-related systems at work, so many data points to consider, and so many variables that change every time you change any one data point, it's easy to extrapolate data to prove your point. For or against, you can always come up with "proof" you are correct.

Nobody knows for sure. If you think you're right, you're full of chit.

That always leads me back to, we should just change the things that we can. If there is a possibility that we are having a negative impact on the environment we should do what we can to mitigate those affects.

Stop burning fossil fuels and start developing renewable energy would be a good starting point.

Some people are eternally calling for infinite ammounts of information (and then always some more), they claim that that way we should gain more education, but at the same time they are forever determined to ignore it right away anyway, since for them the solution lies in pacifying their troubled mind and convince themselves that it is okay to live on like they use to do, since there is no need to be worried or to change something, and so: round and round the carussel goes, and except the same "reasonable argument" of why more information is needed, no other talking is ever being done - but this one talking ad nauseum.

Has anybody even cared to read and try to understand what the article I linked is about? It is about a change in methodology that allowed them first time ever to do a meta-analysis that compares observation data not with generalised data as usual models produce them, but to compare them explicitly on the basis of just those cells of models that correspondent with the cells of observed data. That way they were able to delete the influence of intemittend and third variables, allowing them to attribute changes of climate being found in studies to just one simple cause: the human variable. Other variables may exist, but theirninfluence is not decisive. It is a question of methodology and thus the important thing is a bit hidden and does not sound sensational, but in fact it is a complete new level of analysis quality.

The question wether or not the warming at the pole is man-caused, must no longer be asked.

You guys can carry on to just ignore the unwelcomed news and make demands for more study and information, but that does not make you any smarter, while the climate issue - caused by man! :yep: - continues to unfold, completely unimpressed by your "reasonable scepticism".

the irony here is: the data you always demand - already is there. You just have not heared the shot, because you don't want to hear it. According to the motto: a problem I don't care about, is a problem that does not exist anymore. Out of sight - out of mind.

Beginning of this week there was a TV film, a 15-20 minute article in a TV-magazine about the lobbying industry at the EU headquarters in Brussel. The size of this lobbying is frightening, it outclasses the whole political and bureaucratical administration of the EU in size. Dozens of billions are spend by the industry for lobbying, to prevent any laws and regulations that a given company does not like. The anti-climate lobby is one of the biggest factions in lobbying, and one of the greatest spenders. Billions get spend on campaings and pseudo-scientific structures and institutions that are then used to replace the real scientific institutions, and to change the latter's scientific literature and data with propaganda material that gives the impression to be scientific, but is not, and is manipulative and suggestive instead. Lobbying itself has grown into one of the greatest businesses on this planet. No other administration gets as massively targetted by it than the EU, not in Asia, not the (also heavily targetted) US congress. And American companies and their lobbying representations are the major players in the game.

seeing these eternal round-and-round debates about doubting the human factor in climate change in order to prevent changes that would effect short termed profit interests, I must say that obviously it is billions very well spend, from the industry's position. I knew that it were several hundred millions per year being spent on it, but that it actually reaches into the several billions, was new for me.

Climate scepticism - in plain English: f#ck off, I do not want to change my way of life, it does not matter what happens when I'm gone.