25 year satellite map of old ice disappearing from Arctic. Pubs drone on about new ice that is irrel

[IanC]

but yet you can't show an experiment that shows adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures. Go for it fool, let's see that experiment, or will you follow the more stupid montra?

Tell us what happens to the energy CO2 absorbs. You like to pose questions. How about answering a few? If CO2 absorbs energy and the concentration is going, doesn't that mean more energy is being absorbed? What happens to it?

I, for one, have been telling you for five years where the energy has gone.

simply put, there is surface/air boundary where the ~8% surface radiation that is absorbed by CO2 gets absorbed to extinction. it used to take about ten meters of air but now it only takes ~9.5m. once absorbed the CO2 molecule can either re-emit the photon, or more likely the CO2 molecule collides wwith another molecule and the energy of the CO2 specific photon gets added to the kinetic energy of the atmosphere. the kinetic energy of the atmosphere produces blackbody radiation in all directions.

both the surface and the atmosphere produce ~10% of their radiation that escapes directly through the atmospheric window to space. EVERY interation loses energy, CO2 specific energy is captured and transformed into blackbody radiation within tens of meters of the surface.

the cloudtops are also a boundary where energy is released similarly to the surface.

CO2 does slow the loss of radiation but it is not some magic multiplier of energy.

 

[francoHFW]

Sure. lol
Tell us about all the great new ice in the Arctic. And I did give the experiment any 12 year old can do that proves CO2 retains heat.

 

[jc456]

Sure. lol
Tell us about all the great new ice in the Arctic. And I did give the experiment any 12 year old can do that proves CO2 retains heat.

dude, that isn't the experiment we're looking for, holy crap. No dude, we want the one that after the CO2 retains the heat, add 120 PPM of CO2 and see if it gets hotter.

 

[Freewill]

The warmers fear about the ice coverage is that with less more Sun will be absorbed and thus heating will be even greater. Go to any site you want and you will see that the ice coverage has been pretty much tracking within standard deviation. As Franco blurted correctly, even though he did mean to, is that it is irrelevant if it is new ice or old ice that is just another bit of BS the warmers want to say trying to seem intelligent and trying to scare the weak minded.

Buddy boy, weak minded dolts like you don't know enough to know what is scary and what is not.

Old ice is thick, and not easily broken up by a storm, can have a couple of meters melted off, and still have plenty of ice underneath. New ice is thin, eaily broken up by storms, and melts rather quickly come spring. And that is why we see this;





Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2011 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.

Polar Science Center PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

There is no use arguing with you when you just make stuff up. Go to the supplied link and see an interactive chart of ice coverage. I certainly can not detect a problem.

Or else you can go to the arctic and check ids of all the ice to determine its age.

 

[skookerasbil]

Sure, Pubtroll. That would be magic.

How do people not get something?

The debate is moot at this point.........I dont care if 2 million scientists say AGW is real. I dont care if 30,000 Phd scientists say it is not.

What matters is.......are the policy makers caring?

So far,........they arent caring!!! And heres the poop........unless they are waterskiiing on Lake Michigan in mid-January wearing bikinni's, nobody is caring about what the scientists are saying.

Its called life in Realville s0ns!!!

I know, I know..........it sucks........but Im a bottom line guy!!!

Oh.......internet science hobbying = ghey

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/8abb9baf6-4.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[westwall]

Sure. lol
Tell us about all the great new ice in the Arctic. And I did give the experiment any 12 year old can do that proves CO2 retains heat.

According to your high priests the Arctic was supposed to be ice free by 2013. How exactly is that working out for you????



Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'


BBC NEWS Science Nature Arctic summers ice-free by 2013

 

[francoHFW]

Sure. lol
Tell us about all the great new ice in the Arctic. And I did give the experiment any 12 year old can do that proves CO2 retains heat.

According to your high priests the Arctic was supposed to be ice free by 2013. How exactly is that working out for you????



Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'


BBC NEWS Science Nature Arctic summers ice-free by 2013

Too gd close for comfort, Pub dupe. see OP.

 

[francoHFW]

Sure, Pubtroll. That would be magic.

How do people not get something?

The debate is moot at this point.........I dont care if 2 million scientists say AGW is real. I dont care if 30,000 Phd scientists say it is not.

What matters is.......are the policy makers caring?

So far,........they arent caring!!! And heres the poop........unless they are waterskiiing on Lake Michigan in mid-January wearing bikinni's, nobody is caring about what the scientists are saying.

Its called life in Realville s0ns!!!

I know, I know..........it sucks........but Im a bottom line guy!!!

Oh.......internet science hobbying = ghey

Yup, who cares about science or facts. Well, no one cares about brainwashed hater dupes anymore. You're like dinosaurs- you don 't realize you're dead for a while.

 

[francoHFW]

Sure. lol
Tell us about all the great new ice in the Arctic. And I did give the experiment any 12 year old can do that proves CO2 retains heat.

According to your high priests the Arctic was supposed to be ice free by 2013. How exactly is that working out for you????



Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'


BBC NEWS Science Nature Arctic summers ice-free by 2013

ONE GUY said in 2007 that it could happen that soon, lying dumbass. It's close.

 

[JoeNormal]

How do people not get something?

The debate is moot at this point.........I dont care if 2 million scientists say AGW is real. I dont care if 30,000 Phd scientists say it is not.

What matters is.......are the policy makers caring?

So far,........they arent caring!!! And heres the poop........unless they are waterskiiing on Lake Michigan in mid-January wearing bikinni's, nobody is caring about what the scientists are saying.

Its called life in Realville s0ns!!!

I know, I know..........it sucks........but Im a bottom line guy!!!

Oh.......internet science hobbying = ghey

Holy shit, that's probably the most staggeringly shallow thing I've ever read. Congratulations, you must be proud.

 

[westwall]

Sure. lol
Tell us about all the great new ice in the Arctic. And I did give the experiment any 12 year old can do that proves CO2 retains heat.

According to your high priests the Arctic was supposed to be ice free by 2013. How exactly is that working out for you????



Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'


BBC NEWS Science Nature Arctic summers ice-free by 2013

Too gd close for comfort, Pub dupe. see OP.

Really? The global ice level is higher now, than it was 30 years ago. Arctic ice is within the two standard deviation for the last 40 years.

 

[westwall]

Sure. lol
Tell us about all the great new ice in the Arctic. And I did give the experiment any 12 year old can do that proves CO2 retains heat.

According to your high priests the Arctic was supposed to be ice free by 2013. How exactly is that working out for you????



Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'


BBC NEWS Science Nature Arctic summers ice-free by 2013

ONE GUY said in 2007 that it could happen that soon, lying dumbass. It's close.

Me, lying? Excuse me but you're the only liar here boyo. Here you go, here are some that claim by 2015 as well...


Enjoy!

Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe scientist Environment The Guardian

Remember All Those Breathy Predictions About An Ice Free Arctic By 2015 Nevermind... - Forbes


Kerry in 09 Ice-Free Arctic by Summer 2013 National Review Online
Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013 Sierra Club Canada
BBC NEWS Science Nature Arctic ice is at tipping point

And on, and on, and on. Next time you call someone a liar you had best be looking in the mirror, little boy.

 

[francoHFW]

Lot of difference between "will be" and "could be", hater dupe. And BS, unless you can't tell the difference between old ice that takes decades to melt and new ice that can melt in weeks. Pro-pollution dupes...

 

[westwall]

Lot of difference between "will be" and "could be", hater dupe. And BS, unless you can't tell the difference between old ice that takes decades to melt and new ice that can melt in weeks. Pro-pollution dupes...

Your whole scientific meme is based on "could's", "might's" and "may's". Show us a prediction that you AGW clowns have made that did not have one of those words in it. Go ahead little hater dupe. Present us ONE.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure. lol
Tell us about all the great new ice in the Arctic. And I did give the experiment any 12 year old can do that proves CO2 retains heat.

According to your high priests the Arctic was supposed to be ice free by 2013. How exactly is that working out for you????



Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'


BBC NEWS Science Nature Arctic summers ice-free by 2013

Too gd close for comfort, Pub dupe. see OP.

Really? The global ice level is higher now, than it was 30 years ago. Arctic ice is within the two standard deviation for the last 40 years.

Barely within two standard deviations.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

 

[Old Rocks]

Lot of difference between "will be" and "could be", hater dupe. And BS, unless you can't tell the difference between old ice that takes decades to melt and new ice that can melt in weeks. Pro-pollution dupes...

Your whole scientific meme is based on "could's", "might's" and "may's". Show us a prediction that you AGW clowns have made that did not have one of those words in it. Go ahead little hater dupe. Present us ONE.

Since you are supposed to be a Phd Geologist, you know damned well that in scientific papers, one seldom states anything without qualifying it. You are playing to the audience of imbeciles here, Walleyes, not to those with any kind of scientific education. That is why most here with such an education hold you in such low esteem.

Now, tell me, when are you going to get around to presenting your proof that AGW is not real in a venue where it counts? Like maybe at one of the AGW conferances. Or one of the GSA conferances. The answer is never, because you and the rest of the deniars totally lack any kind of evidence. You are paid shills, whoring your scientific credentials to the energy corperations. And as such, are held in contempt by the vast majority of working scientists. And that is why you are constantly calling over 95% of all scientists frauds. Because that is what you are.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2011 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.

Polar Science Center PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

It would not take much of a drop for the arctic ocean to be essentialy ice free for a short time. We really don't know what effect that will have, but we are certainly going to find out.

 

[jc456]

Lot of difference between "will be" and "could be", hater dupe. And BS, unless you can't tell the difference between old ice that takes decades to melt and new ice that can melt in weeks. Pro-pollution dupes...

Your whole scientific meme is based on "could's", "might's" and "may's". Show us a prediction that you AGW clowns have made that did not have one of those words in it. Go ahead little hater dupe. Present us ONE.

I love it, I just posted this same remark on the 'Winning' thread. hahahahahahaahahahahaha, that cracks me up. Thanks for the laugh this morning Wall!!!!

 

[jc456]

Lot of difference between "will be" and "could be", hater dupe. And BS, unless you can't tell the difference between old ice that takes decades to melt and new ice that can melt in weeks. Pro-pollution dupes...

Your whole scientific meme is based on "could's", "might's" and "may's". Show us a prediction that you AGW clowns have made that did not have one of those words in it. Go ahead little hater dupe. Present us ONE.

Since you are supposed to be a Phd Geologist, you know damned well that in scientific papers, one seldom states anything without qualifying it. You are playing to the audience of imbeciles here, Walleyes, not to those with any kind of scientific education. That is why most here with such an education hold you in such low esteem.

Now, tell me, when are you going to get around to presenting your proof that AGW is not real in a venue where it counts? Like maybe at one of the AGW conferances. Or one of the GSA conferances. The answer is never, because you and the rest of the deniars totally lack any kind of evidence. You are paid shills, whoring your scientific credentials to the energy corperations. And as such, are held in contempt by the vast majority of working scientists. And that is why you are constantly calling over 95% of all scientists frauds. Because that is what you are.

yeah, that's it. Today, January 27, 2015, the more stupid post.