• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Alarmist Blunders

"The ice is not melting."

Really? You bought that, did you?

He's didn't have to buy it. Simple facts are usually free. It's mind numbingly stupid self destructive self deceptions that you really have to work for. that mythical man made climate change should require that enormous personal political power be shifted to a ruling elite who live high carbon lifestyles to shame to oriental potentates of old, for instance.
 


But past its sell-by date. The study you cite refers to measurements from 2003 to 2010, the rebounds in ice at both poles are from this year.

But compare even your data to the detailed conditions of the poles as recently as 1940. Oh, wait, you can't! There were no satellites even as recently as that, nor high altitude overflights, nor detailed surface studies. My my. People willing to impoverish, well oddly rarely themselves, but certainly others, based largely on guesswork.
 
These discussions get tiring. Everybody agrees that there has been a recovery from the Little Ice Age. Recovery from ice ages tend to include the melting of some ice. It is a stupid proxy argument for the real debate about whether MAN is causing the recovery from the Little Ice Age or whether it is natural variation.

The slowing of the warming and the slowing of the melting while CO2 rises indicates that something other than CO2 was the cause of the bulk of the warming, and the ice melt, and there is perilously little evidence that the ice melt in the Arctic is even extraordinary. The best that can be argued is that maybe the ice melt in the Summer of 2012 is the biggest in 100 years maybe, but dependable records of true ice extents don't even extend back that long.

The funny thing is the ice melt was originally a point of concern when is was assumed that the lack of arctic ice cover would cause the extinction of local species like the polar bear. Talks of sea ice melt just a few years ago were accompanied by pictures of poor stranded bears on ice flows. But now that connection has been thoroughly debunked, and the supposed extinction event turned out literally to be one scientist who saw three dead bears in a few square miles of ocean and multiplied that by the total area of the polar bear habitat range. Not only were the bears not going extinct, there numbers were on the rise. It turns out that the bears only venture onto the ice because that was where their food went, but as ice retreats, so do the seals who need land as much as the bears do... so the ice retreats, the bears move back to land and the seals come with them. No crisis.

So now the debate over the arctic sea ice is almost entirely cosmetic... there is no real threat to anything if we did have full melt of the arctic sea ice in a given summer. But this should have been assumed long ago because if the alarmist dogma were true then the polar bears would have died out long ago as the arctic sea has been ice free several times in the last 600,000 years (the current estimate of the age of the polar bear species).

So anyway, it's a proxy debate that lost its teeth a few years ago when it turned out the polar bears would be just fine.
 
But past its sell-by date. The study you cite refers to measurements from 2003 to 2010, the rebounds in ice at both poles are from this year.

Yes. Exactly. This year. One. One year of "rebound" after the previous year's record low. (in the arctic anyway) This year's "rebound" doesn't even make it back to the trend line. A statistician would laugh if you gave him that data plot and declared ice was not melting.
 
Yes. Exactly. This year. One. One year of "rebound" after the previous year's record low. (in the arctic anyway) This year's "rebound" doesn't even make it back to the trend line. A statistician would laugh if you gave him that data plot and declared ice was not melting.

The ice has been melting in the North yet increasing in the south and again........... SO WHAT !
 
The ice has been melting in the North yet increasing in the south and again........... SO WHAT !

Agreed. And I predict that the ice will increase in the north and decrease in the south over the next six months. As it always does... :mrgreen:
 
Agreed. And I predict that the ice will increase in the north and decrease in the south over the next six months. As it always does... :mrgreen:

Lets just say there wont be any ocean surfing done in Kansas any time soon :D
 
Last edited:
The ice has been melting in the North yet increasing in the south and again........... SO WHAT !

I don't know, this isn't my thread.

Lets just say there wont be any ocean surfing done in Kansas any time soon :D

Yeah, nobody there owns a surfboard!
 

Ice mass would be more related to precipitation. Especially in ANtarctica where there is ground under the ice for much of the continent. No water underneath to freeze like in the arctic where there is no large land mass. If the ice coverage area has increased, and if what you say is true regarding the ice mass and it has indeed decreased, than we should assume less precipitation, and colder temperatures...
 
Yes. Exactly. This year. One. One year of "rebound" after the previous year's record low. (in the arctic anyway) This year's "rebound" doesn't even make it back to the trend line. A statistician would laugh if you gave him that data plot and declared ice was not melting.

He might laugh, so long as he wasn't at the North Pole. In that case, he'd be frozen to death and encased in ice.
 
Ice mass would be more related to precipitation. Especially in ANtarctica where there is ground under the ice for much of the continent. No water underneath to freeze like in the arctic where there is no large land mass. If the ice coverage area has increased, and if what you say is true regarding the ice mass and it has indeed decreased, than we should assume less precipitation, and colder temperatures...

Ice mass is indeed substantially related to precipitation. But also temperature.

But again, this isn't my thread. "Ice isn't melting, therefore climate something something" is somebody else's argument. I'm just pointing out that yes, actually, ice is melting.
 
Ice mass is indeed substantially related to precipitation. But also temperature.

But again, this isn't my thread. "Ice isn't melting, therefore climate something something" is somebody else's argument. I'm just pointing out that yes, actually, ice is melting.

NO not necessarily.. Ice is more related to precipitation, and even more so when that ice is on top of solid land. There really is no other means it can grow substantial new ice. Antarctica has a landmass underneath the ice, therefore if the expanse of ice is indeed growing, the land mass of course remains the same size, so the ice must be forming over the oceans. If so, then you must at least concede it must be cold enough for that to happen, and if so any "warming" would be inconsequential, and the ice would not expand like it has been of late if it were indeed so.

So using our noodle.. Ice expanding out from land but getting thinner over land, would indeed point to colder temps, and less precipitation..

Can the ocean freeze?

Climate of Antarctica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, the 5,000 pound elephant in the room which no one sees.. Salt water freezes at about 28.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Anytime the sea water reaches that temp or below that temp and sea water will start to form sea ice. ANtarctica has been recorded as low as −128.6 °F and as high as 58.3°F at varying places, those are the records. The interior has an average annual mean of about −70°F. ANd the coasts which are warmer have a monthly mean of about −18.4°F in August and about 26.6°F in January.. Now none of those averages or means are above the freezing point of sea water.. SO, the ice isn't melting due to temperature of the surroundings yet. Any ice lost over the seas would be due to either precipitation or warmer waters coming in from elsewhere due to natural water flow.
 
With countries like China, India and America operating underground water irrigation we are creating a water-based food bubble which is already taking place in the Middle East where the grain production is down due to lack of water. With the annual addition of 80,000,000 people per year we are approaching a world water catastrophe. More countries are switching to meat diets and meat needs grain. With every degree Celsius rise in temperature there is approximately a 10-15 % decrease in grain yield. With China doing little to reduce its CO2 emissions and other nations doing even less we may be on an unstoppable course. If this warming is not curtailed we will not be able to stop it from worsening every decade.
 
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."




The skepticism is with regard to whether or not there is warming. The skepticism reflects doubts on the cause of the warming, the uniqueness of the warming and the remedy of the warming.

What you have just regurgitated is another falsehood from the Diehards.
 
Yes. Exactly. This year. One. One year of "rebound" after the previous year's record low. (in the arctic anyway) This year's "rebound" doesn't even make it back to the trend line. A statistician would laugh if you gave him that data plot and declared ice was not melting.



The real nugget of the comment is that the range of data from GRACE is pretty brief.
 
Is the bottom of the glacier melting away as the top accumulates 268 additional feet of snow and ice?
I would go with...unlikely, but that is a good point.
Is the ice plane of Greenland increasing in altitude?
 
With countries like China, India and America operating underground water irrigation we are creating a water-based food bubble which is already taking place in the Middle East where the grain production is down due to lack of water. With the annual addition of 80,000,000 people per year we are approaching a world water catastrophe. More countries are switching to meat diets and meat needs grain. With every degree Celsius rise in temperature there is approximately a 10-15 % decrease in grain yield. With China doing little to reduce its CO2 emissions and other nations doing even less we may be on an unstoppable course. If this warming is not curtailed we will not be able to stop it from worsening every decade.



Is there a connection between the various points you have included in this post?
 
With countries like China, India and America operating underground water irrigation we are creating a water-based food bubble which is already taking place in the Middle East where the grain production is down due to lack of water. With the annual addition of 80,000,000 people per year we are approaching a world water catastrophe. More countries are switching to meat diets and meat needs grain.
I do not see much I can disagree with you in this part of your statement,
the lack of fresh water could impact all of us soon.

With every degree Celsius rise in temperature there is approximately a 10-15 % decrease in grain yield. With China doing little to reduce its CO2 emissions and other nations doing even less we may be on an unstoppable course. If this warming is not curtailed we will not be able to stop it from worsening every decade.
This second statement is where I think you went off the tracks.
An increase in temperature would move the planting zones north,
and create more arable land for farming.
Growing grain on virgin land, would vastly increase yields.
The single degrees rise may limit the use of some grains, but may just as well allow others.
 
Back
Top Bottom