- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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
"The ice is not melting."
Really? You bought that, did you?
And the leaves are falling and the sky is blue .....so what ?
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.
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...
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.
It still surprises me they found the planes.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.
So 3 miles over(which direction?) and 268 feet down.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.
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 ?
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
And the trend recently has definitely been towards a lower overall ice volume in the arctic.
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."
"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
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
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?