Climate Alarmist Blunders

[Jack Hays]

The ice is not melting, yet still the scaremongers blunder on - Telegraph

The real global warming disaster: green taxes, a suicidal energy policy and wasting billions on useless windmills

eace:lamo

 

[flogger]

The ice is not melting, yet still the scaremongers blunder on - Telegraph

The real global warming disaster: green taxes, a suicidal energy policy and wasting billions on useless windmills

eace:lamo

AGW health status update .... its All Gone Wrong :doh

 

[Deuce]

"The ice is not melting."

Really? You bought that, did you?

 

[flogger]

"The ice is not melting."

Really? You bought that, did you?

And the leaves are falling and the sky is blue .....so what ?

 

[Deuce]

And the leaves are falling and the sky is blue .....so what ?

Is this because you read those articles about a 60% "rebound" in arctic ice extent?

 

[longview]

Here is an interesting bit of data.
Alaskan glacier thaws revealing ancient forest - UPI.com
So maybe several times in the last 2300 years, that part of Alaska has been glacier free long
enough for forest to grow.
I wonder what the ancient tree rings will tell us about how old the trees were when covered.

 

[Fisher]

Here is an interesting bit of data.
Alaskan glacier thaws revealing ancient forest - UPI.com
So maybe several times in the last 2300 years, that part of Alaska has been glacier free long
enough for forest to grow.
I wonder what the ancient tree rings will tell us about how old the trees were when covered.

Well it is like I posted before on this subject--woolly mammoth were herbivores. They wouldn't be finding frozen ones in Siberia if Siberia had not been a plant-rich environment at some point. Ice core samples from Greenland have also shown it may have been 4 degrees warmer on average there during human existence than it is today.

 

[jmotivator]

Here is an interesting bit of data.
Alaskan glacier thaws revealing ancient forest - UPI.com
So maybe several times in the last 2300 years, that part of Alaska has been glacier free long
enough for forest to grow.
I wonder what the ancient tree rings will tell us about how old the trees were when covered.

And what kind of cars the cavemen were driving. That's what I really want to know. Obviously the Flinstones were wrong... or Fred contributed a lot more CO2 and methane than the models account for...

 

[Diogenes]

And what kind of cars the cavemen were driving. That's what I really want to know. Obviously the Flinstones were wrong... or Fred contributed a lot more CO2 and methane than the models account for...

Perhaps it was something in his diet?... :mrgreen:

 

[longview]

The glacier Girl is an interesting story.
Exhuming the Glacier Girl • Damn Interesting
So in 46 years, 268 feet of Ice had accumulated.
That is over 6 feet of ice per year, that is a lot of ice.

 

[Deuce]

The glacier Girl is an interesting story.
Exhuming the Glacier Girl • Damn Interesting
So in 46 years, 268 feet of Ice had accumulated.
That is over 6 feet of ice per year, that is a lot of ice.

That is a lot of ice. First year, you're like "Man, that's a lot of ice this year!" Second year, you can't find your house.

 

[longview]

That is a lot of ice. First year, you're like "Man, that's a lot of ice this year!" Second year, you can't find your house.

It still surprises me they found the planes.
They said

since the planes had crash-landed, an astonishing 268 feet of ice had accumulated over them, and they had been carried three miles by the drifting glacier.

So 3 miles over(which direction?) and 268 feet down.
And then to recover the plane, and make it fly again.

 

[flogger]

Is this because you read those articles about a 60% "rebound" in arctic ice extent?

I dont but again ... so what ? Are you ever going to make a point about this some time soon ?

 

[Deuce]

I dont but again ... so what ? Are you ever going to make a point about this some time soon ?

Yes, my point is the idea that "ice isn't melting" is hilariously easy to disprove, and the fact that you've bought into that idea is also hilarious.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yes, my point is the idea that "ice isn't melting" is hilariously easy to disprove, and the fact that you've bought into that idea is also hilarious.

Ice always melts. Ice always freezes. Yawn.:coffeepap

 

[Deuce]

Ice always melts. Ice always freezes. Yawn.:coffeepap

And the trend recently has definitely been towards a lower overall ice volume in the arctic.

 

[Jack Hays]

And the trend recently has definitely been towards a lower overall ice volume in the arctic.

And more in the Antarctic. Yawn.:coffeepap

 

[Deuce]

And more in the Antarctic. Yawn.:coffeepap

Totally different magnitudes. The loss of arctic ice is rapid, antarctic hasn't been such a strong trend. Some studies even suggest a loss of mass. (note: mass and volume, not area.)

Overall, planetwide? Less ice. Which makes the premise of this thread incorrect, yes?

Yawn, indeed. Another regurgitated falsehood from the "skeptics."

 

[Jack Hays]

Totally different magnitudes. The loss of arctic ice is rapid, antarctic hasn't been such a strong trend. Some studies even suggest a loss of mass. (note: mass and volume, not area.)

Overall, planetwide? Less ice. Which makes the premise of this thread incorrect, yes?

Yawn, indeed. Another regurgitated falsehood from the "skeptics."

I don't believe you can support that assertion.

[h=2]According to NOAA data, all time Antarctic sea ice extent record was set on Sept 22nd, 2012[/h] Posted on September 29, 2012 by Anthony Watts
At the blog “sunshine hours” it seems the Antarctic has set a new record. He writes: As you may know, I have been using Cryosphere’s Antarctic Sea Ice Area data to show the record levels of Antarctic Sea Ice. But I … Continue reading →

 

[Deuce]

"Extent" is a similar measure to "area." But since we're trying to talk about the amount of ice, you'd agree volume or mass is a better measure, yes?

 

[Jack Hays]

"Extent" is a similar measure to "area." But since we're trying to talk about the amount of ice, you'd agree volume or mass is a better measure, yes?

If the extent is a record then I'm comfortable that volume & mass are healthy too.eace

 

[Deuce]

If the extent is a record then I'm comfortable that volume & mass are healthy too.eace

That's an interesting assumption, but if you'd prefer assumptions to data, I guess we're done here.

 

[Jack Hays]

That's an interesting assumption, but if you'd prefer assumptions to data, I guess we're done here.

I don't prefer anything, but I'm comfortable with my logical inference.eace

 

[Deuce]

I don't prefer anything, but I'm comfortable with my logical inference.eace

So what you're telling me is that in a question of whether or not ice is melting, you don't prefer measurements of ice mass over a logical "inference" of whether or not ice might be losing mass.


...ok then.


That's like saying "Hey, I don't prefer the bathroom scale over logical inference in determining whether or not I've lost weight." Me, I prefer the bathroom scale, but you go with "logic" I suppose.

 

[Jack Hays]

So what you're telling me is that in a question of whether or not ice is melting, you don't prefer measurements of ice mass over a logical "inference" of whether or not ice might be losing mass.


...ok then.


That's like saying "Hey, I don't prefer the bathroom scale over logical inference in determining whether or not I've lost weight." Me, I prefer the bathroom scale, but you go with "logic" I suppose.

Less ice in the Arctic, more ice in the Antarctic. Not very controversial.eace