We’re Still Losing Ice at the Poles[W:32]

[Threegoofs]

Nice article by Phil Plait describing the current status of ice on the poles.

Global Warming: Ice loss continues.

Note this paragraph:

I’ll note that some people who deny global warming like to talk about ice in Antarctica increasing, not decreasing. This is at best misleading; the sea ice fluctuates every year, and has grown marginally recently, but this is tiny compared to the loss of land ice. Overall, Antarctica is losing ice, rapidly, with more melting every year.

 

[lka]

We’re Still Losing Ice at the Poles

Crap, I thought global warming was over? Didn't Obama stop it?

 

[gslack]

Nice article by Phil Plait describing the current status of ice on the poles.

Global Warming: Ice loss continues.

Note this paragraph:



View attachment 67158401

I thought you only used peer-reviewed material from journals? :lamo

A blog from slate.com doesn't exactly qualify in that category goofs, especially not when written by this guy...

Phil Plait writes Slate’s Bad Astronomy blog and is an astronomer, public speaker, science evangelizer, and author of Death from the Skies! Follow him on Twitter.

Just what the heck is a "science evangelizer" anyway? :lol:

 

[Threegoofs]

I thought you only used peer-reviewed material from journals? :lamo

A blog from slate.com doesn't exactly qualify in that category goofs, especially not when written by this guy...

Phil Plait writes Slate’s Bad Astronomy blog and is an astronomer, public speaker, science evangelizer, and author of Death from the Skies! Follow him on Twitter.

Just what the heck is a "science evangelizer" anyway? :lol:

You could have just written "nuh-uh" instead of all those words.

That actually applies to virtually every post of yours, interestingly enough.

 

[DaveFagan]

No surprises here. When it is too late, Nations will decide to do something about it. Big Energy and Republicans with their collective heads eye to eye with an ostrich with its' head in the sand will still be saying it is a result of normal solar fluctuations.

 

[gslack]

You could have just written "nuh-uh" instead of all those words.

That actually applies to virtually every post of yours, interestingly enough.

Another post showing you do not follow your own rules.. Nice...

You don't know what a science evangelist is either then.. Do you ever check your sources before posting?

 

[Threegoofs]

Nuh, uh. See?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Another post showing you do not follow your own rules.. Nice...

You don't know what a science evangelist is either then.. Do you ever check your sources before posting?

Confirmation bias is nearly always used. Change has existed in all climate studies, that is universally accepted, what varies is usually the correlation used to try to explain it. God works in mysterious ways.

 

[gslack]

Nuh, uh. See?

In other words, sources that are not from scientific literature and peer reviewed journals are fine to use when and only when, you use them.. That OP article is all the things you accuse non-warmers of posting and claim you in fact never post.. Nice work on clarifying what you actually post as opposed to what you claim you post..

 

[Wiseone]

Confirmation bias is nearly always used. Change has existed in all climate studies, that is universally accepted, what varies is usually the correlation used to try to explain it. God works in mysterious ways.

In other words, sources that are not from scientific literature and peer reviewed journals are fine to use when and only when, you use them.. That OP article is all the things you accuse non-warmers of posting and claim you in fact never post.. Nice work on clarifying what you actually post as opposed to what you claim you post..

Dozens of oil companies are attempting to start operations in the arctic as the ice melts, ExxonMobile has invested over 500 BILLION dollars in such a project. I'm pretty sure that if you're going to invest 500 billion in something you're going to be fairly sure its going to work out. That 500 billion dollar deal also involves the Russians, which I promise you aren't doing it to continue the "myth" of climate change.

Regardless of what you believe is causing it, the climate and specifically the arctic is changing. There is no denying it.

The melting north | The Economist

 

[ludin]

This is what is funny. out of 300 or so IPCC climate models only 4 were close to being correct. the other models were hugely in the wrong.
also the IPCC has determined that it won't even try to explain the recently cool off period that we have been going through. in fact they have decided to ignore it completely.

the IPCC has never been a scientific organization but a political one. more so when the head of the IPCC owns and have tons of interests in carbon trading companies. in fact he served on the board of one of the largest carbon trading companies in India.

the IPCC has even stated that man only contributes 3-5% of the total CO2 in a given year. this was forced out of them in a congressional hearing.

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph

also it appears that ocean warming and cooling play more of an affect on the climate than what the IPCC thought.

Study Ties Global Warming 'Hiatus' to Pacific Cooldown | Climate Central

 

[ttwtt78640]

Dozens of oil companies are attempting to start operations in the arctic as the ice melts, ExxonMobile has invested over 500 BILLION dollars in such a project. I'm pretty sure that if you're going to invest 500 billion in something you're going to be fairly sure its going to work out. That 500 billion dollar deal also involves the Russians, which I promise you aren't doing it to continue the "myth" of climate change.

Regardless of what you believe is causing it, the climate and specifically the arctic is changing. There is no denying it.

The melting north | The Economist

That is not a bad thing, that is taking full advantage of the change.

 

[Threegoofs]

In other words, sources that are not from scientific literature and peer reviewed journals are fine to use when and only when, you use them.. That OP article is all the things you accuse non-warmers of posting and claim you in fact never post.. Nice work on clarifying what you actually post as opposed to what you claim you post..

Can you point out how this information differs from the conclusions of the people investigating this issue?

Yeah. Didn't think so, sport.

 

[Wiseone]

That is not a bad thing, that is taking full advantage of the change.

As we should.

 

[clownboy]

Arctic sea ice volume up 50% - Technology & Science - CBC News

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I thought you only used peer-reviewed material from journals? :lamo

A blog from slate.com doesn't exactly qualify in that category goofs, especially not when written by this guy...

Phil Plait writes Slate’s Bad Astronomy blog and is an astronomer, public speaker, science evangelizer, and author of Death from the Skies! Follow him on Twitter.



Just what the heck is a "science evangelizer" anyway? :lol:

The graph is National Snow and Ice Data Center data, so blog or not, it's reliable.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Arctic sea ice volume up 50% - Technology & Science - CBC News

It's up 50% relative to last year. Not relative to what has been normal levels. If you read the first sentence of the article you find: "But 2013 volume still among lowest of past 30 years, study finds"

 

[ALiberalModerate]

That is not a bad thing, that is taking full advantage of the change.

Shell has not had the best of luck trying to take advantage of a warmer Arctic. Even with lower ice levels, its still a very inhospitable place. They basically pulled out for the time being.
Will Shell return to the Arctic to drill for oil? - CSMonitor.com

 

[clownboy]

It's up 50% relative to last year. Not relative to what has been normal levels. If you read the first sentence of the article you find: "But 2013 volume still among lowest of past 30 years, study finds"

Understood that because I read the link before I posted it. Still, the reality of the increase doesn't fit into what the so called climate scientists anticipated. That alone should indicate there are other significant factors at work here that we still do not understand.

 

[US Conservative]

Understood that because I read the link before I posted it. Still, the reality of the increase doesn't fit into what the so called climate scientists anticipated. That alone should indicate there are other significant factors at work here that we still do not understand.

 

[gslack]

Dozens of oil companies are attempting to start operations in the arctic as the ice melts, ExxonMobile has invested over 500 BILLION dollars in such a project. I'm pretty sure that if you're going to invest 500 billion in something you're going to be fairly sure its going to work out. That 500 billion dollar deal also involves the Russians, which I promise you aren't doing it to continue the "myth" of climate change.

Regardless of what you believe is causing it, the climate and specifically the arctic is changing. There is no denying it.

The melting north | The Economist

Posting another article does not substantiate the OP article, nor does it qualify as a scientific paper from a peer review source, which goofs claims he posts from..

 

[gslack]

Can you point out how this information differs from the conclusions of the people investigating this issue?

Yeah. Didn't think so, sport.

Can you explain how you can post an OP-ed piece from an alarmist, and yet still pretend you don't post such drivel and in fact only post scientific sources from peer review journals?

 

[US Conservative]

Can you explain how you can post an OP-ed piece from an alarmist, and yet still pretend you don't post such drivel and in fact only post scientific sources from peer review journals?

tgoof tells me he has a backround in clinical science, surely he can clarify.

 

[Threegoofs]

Posting another article does not substantiate the OP article, nor does it qualify as a scientific paper from a peer review source, which goofs claims he posts from..

*sigh*

You apparently cant make the distinction between original research, interpretation of original research by qualified individuals, and discussion of those interpretations in a coherent manner in an article meant for popular consumption. Plait is clearly the last in that category, and he is a very clear writer

Repeatedly saying 'nuh, uh' with a variety of different words and phrases is not helping your case. Then again, you dont really have a case, except for trying to explode minimal details into gigantic masturbatory threat killers. You excel in that.

 

[gslack]

The graph is National Snow and Ice Data Center data, so blog or not, it's reliable.

So what? The graph isn't in question here. What IS in question is the article and the person who wrote it and the manner it is being used..

An example...

Goofs cited this paragraph...

"I’ll note that some people who deny global warming like to talk about ice in Antarctica increasing, not decreasing. This is at best misleading; the sea ice fluctuates every year, and has grown marginally recently, but this is tiny compared to the loss of land ice. Overall, Antarctica is losing ice, rapidly, with more melting every year."

And then that graph.. Notice the graph is in regards to average monthly arctic sea ice extent.. Which his paragraph was referring to Antarctic land ice.. It's called a bait and switch... They make a statement regarding one thing and then slip in a graph that relates to something else. They are similar and unless a person pays attention they wouldn't notice the fact it is irrelevant to their claim...

So it's even LESS relevant..