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

[SFC Ollie]

Flea farts.........

 

[SwimExpert]

I know all that, but MORE is still MORE. What's the added energy doing, if not to heat the earth? Answer my question. I'll hardly entertain your question unless you do, except to say that posing it shows you don't have a clue about what's really happening. Look up "positive feedback" sometime and then get back to us.

You're viewing this as if it were a simple matter of single action addition. As if you were pouring water into a bucket, where more water equals more water. Consider for a moment:

A bucket has several small holes.
Water is poured into the bucket at a rate of X.
Water flows out of the bucket at a rate of Z.
The rate of water being poured into the bucket increases to (X+4).
You are assuming that this will lead to more water in the bucket. However, you have not considered whether (X+4) is greater than Z.

 

[SwimExpert]

Oxygen, I suppose(idiot talking point).

I'm sorry, your response must be in the form of a question.

 

[westwall]

I wonder why right wingers always seem to think in terms of black and white.

So where are you guys on the topic of global warming these days? does it not exist or is it just that humans have nothing to do with it?

Oh, it very much exists. Mans role in it is what is being argued, and the actual evidence for that, is non existent.

 

[francoHFW]

25 years does not represent even 1 billionth of climate time on this earth.

Exactly. It's like I said a few weeks ago in another thread. Drawing conclusions based on the 150ish years of the temperature record is like measuring the changes in your heart rate over the past two seconds to conclude that you're about to have a heart attack.

Scientists know the climate we've had forever, and exactly for thousands of years, as you chose to ignore because I don't remember their exact methods lol. Functional MORON....
Read these if actually care, digbat, or just tune into bs tin foil Fox etc.

Search Results
Ice core | Facts and information about Ice core at Climap
climap.net › Encyclopedia
Ice cores are used by paleoclimatologists for determining ancient climate conditions. From ice cores the scientists are able to gain information about past climate ...
Ice core basics - Antarctic Glaciers
Antarctic Glaciers › Glaciers and Climate › Ice cores
by B Davies - ‎Related articles
Jan 9, 2015 - How can we use ice cores to understand past climate? ... the ice, that continuity to today is somewhat complicated by the fact that bubbles don't ...
Glossary: Ice core - GreenFacts
GreenFacts - Facts on Health and the Environment › Home › Glossary › GHI
Since the different layers of ice are formed over time through build-up of snow, ice cores provide information on climate from different periods (up to almost one ...
ice core | geology | Encyclopedia Britannica
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/.../ice-co...
Encyclopaedia Britannica
ice core, long cylinder of glacial ice recovered by drilling through glaciers in Greenland, Antarctica, and ... Ice cores were begun in the 1960s to complement other climatological studies based on .... Hyenas and Aardwolves: Fact or Fiction?
NOVA Online | Warnings from the Ice | Stories in the Ice - PBS
NOVA Online Warnings from the Ice Stories in the Ice
PBS
You could see what the world was like when ice sheets a thousand feet thick ... Scientists collect ice cores by driving a hollow tube deep into the miles-thick ice ...

 

[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.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

They hell I did, dingbat dupe.

 

[SwimExpert]

25 years does not represent even 1 billionth of climate time on this earth.

Exactly. It's like I said a few weeks ago in another thread. Drawing conclusions based on the 150ish years of the temperature record is like measuring the changes in your heart rate over the past two seconds to conclude that you're about to have a heart attack.

Scientists know the climate we've had forever, and exactly for thousands of years, as you chose to ignore because I don't remember their exact methods lol.

No, scientists don't know those things. You don't know what information they have, or the validity of their hypotheses, or the soundness of their conclusions. Because you don't even know what it is.

Ice cores have become one of the left's favorite talking points when it comes to the global warming discussion. They say that ice cores tell us the temperature of the Earth tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago. Sometimes, over a million years ago! But what you don't know is how ice cores are used. If you did, you'd be faced with how useless they are in the way they've been parroted.

This is how ice cores are used in climate science:

Drill out an ice core. Let's say it's 20 meters long. The ice core becomes a sort of tangible timeline. The top of the ice core represents the present, the bottom of the ice core represents the time when the the bottom ice formed, and everything in between represents the passage of time in between then and now. Thus, a given point (let's say 10 meters down) represents a certain period of time. The extrapolation of dates from ice cores does actually have a good degree of reliability.

A sample is taken from a given "moment in time" from the ice core. That sample is analyzed for composition. Most pertinently, they look for the amount of CO2 dissolved in water which composes the ice from the sample. From this, they then extrapolate the approximate atmospheric concentration of CO2 at the point in history represented by that portion of the ice core. This is still reasonably possible, though there are important considerations that shroud the accuracy of this process, which tend to be ignored.

But where things really fall apart is the final step. Using this extrapolated atmospheric CO2 figure, they extrapolate the Earth's average temperature for that moment of history. This calculation is done using data from the 150 year temperature record and measurements of atmospheric CO2 in modern times, based on the same hypothesized belief that atmospheric CO2 levels can be directly tied to average temperatures. When this process is finished, the results are presented and are claimed to be evidence in support of the very premise that was used to achieve the results, i.e. that climactic changes are linked to changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.

The entire process is question begging.

 

[francoHFW]

I wonder why right wingers always seem to think in terms of black and white.

So where are you guys on the topic of global warming these days? does it not exist or is it just that humans have nothing to do with it?

Oh, it very much exists. Mans role in it is what is being argued, and the actual evidence for that, is non existent.

On Fox etc lol, chump.
Search Results
Ice core | Facts and information about Ice core at Climap
climap.net › Encyclopedia
Ice cores are used by paleoclimatologists for determining ancient climate conditions. From ice cores the scientists are able to gain information about past climate ...
Ice core basics - Antarctic Glaciers
Antarctic Glaciers › Glaciers and Climate › Ice cores
by B Davies - ‎Related articles
Jan 9, 2015 - How can we use ice cores to understand past climate? ... the ice, that continuity to today is somewhat complicated by the fact that bubbles don't ...
Glossary: Ice core - GreenFacts
GreenFacts - Facts on Health and the Environment › Home › Glossary › GHI
Since the different layers of ice are formed over time through build-up of snow, ice cores provide information on climate from different periods (up to almost one ...
ice core | geology | Encyclopedia Britannica
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/.../ice-co...
Encyclopaedia Britannica
ice core, long cylinder of glacial ice recovered by drilling through glaciers in Greenland, Antarctica, and ... Ice cores were begun in the 1960s to complement other climatological studies based on .... Hyenas and Aardwolves: Fact or Fiction?
NOVA Online | Warnings from the Ice | Stories in the Ice - PBS
NOVA Online Warnings from the Ice Stories in the Ice
PBS
You could see what the world was like when ice sheets a thousand feet thick ... Scientists collect ice cores by driving a hollow tube deep into the miles-thick ice

etc etc etc etc etc...

 

[depotoo]

http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/6200/6290/6290b.pdf
1909 map of route of Commander Peary, in finding the north pole
Index of pub trausti Iskort Jpg
This link is of the extent of sea ice from 1893 from Russia, thru 1956, with just a few years missing.

25 years does not represent even 1 billionth of climate time on this earth.

Exactly. It's like I said a few weeks ago in another thread. Drawing conclusions based on the 150ish years of the temperature record is like measuring the changes in your heart rate over the past two seconds to conclude that you're about to have a heart attack.

Scientists know the climate we've had forever, and exactly for thousands of years, as you chose to ignore because I don't remember their exact methods lol.

No, scientists don't know those things. You don't know what information they have, or the validity of their hypotheses, or the soundness of their conclusions. Because you don't even know what it is.

Ice cores have become one of the left's favorite talking points when it comes to the global warming discussion. They say that ice cores tell us the temperature of the Earth tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago. Sometimes, over a million years ago! But what you don't know is how ice cores are used. If you did, you'd be faced with how useless they are in the way they've been parroted.

This is how ice cores are used in climate science:

Drill out an ice core. Let's say it's 20 meters long. The ice core becomes a sort of tangible timeline. The top of the ice core represents the present, the bottom of the ice core represents the time when the the bottom ice formed, and everything in between represents the passage of time in between then and now. Thus, a given point (let's say 10 meters down) represents a certain period of time. The extrapolation of dates from ice cores does actually have a good degree of reliability.

A sample is taken from a given "moment in time" from the ice core. That sample is analyzed for composition. Most pertinently, they look for the amount of CO2 dissolved in water which composes the ice from the sample. From this, they then extrapolate the approximate atmospheric concentration of CO2 at the point in history represented by that portion of the ice core. This is still reasonably possible, though there are important considerations that shroud the accuracy of this process, which tend to be ignored.

But where things really fall apart is the final step. Using this extrapolated atmospheric CO2 figure, they extrapolate the Earth's average temperature for that moment of history. This calculation is done using data from the 150 year temperature record and measurements of atmospheric CO2 in modern times, based on the same hypothesized belief that atmospheric CO2 levels can be directly tied to average temperatures. When this process is finished, the results are presented and are claimed to be evidence in support of the very premise that was used to achieve the results, i.e. that climactic changes are linked to changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.

The entire process is question begging.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

Imagine that this hoopla about ice reduction were true...

-Reduction in ice will create a positive feedback loop. Ice reflects solar radiation off the surface and back out into space. As ice is eliminated it is replaced by darker surface substances which absorb more radiation.

-Increased solar radiation will make solar energy a greater commodity.

-Warmer climates will reduce the need to generate heat, and thus significantly reduce human consumption of electricity (and subsequently fossil fuels like coal and natural gas), thus reducing the carbon footprint of the human race.


Seems to me that global warming makes for liberal paradise.

 

[francoHFW]

25 years does not represent even 1 billionth of climate time on this earth.

Exactly. It's like I said a few weeks ago in another thread. Drawing conclusions based on the 150ish years of the temperature record is like measuring the changes in your heart rate over the past two seconds to conclude that you're about to have a heart attack.

Scientists know the climate we've had forever, and exactly for thousands of years, as you chose to ignore because I don't remember their exact methods lol.

No, scientists don't know those things. You don't know what information they have, or the validity of their hypotheses, or the soundness of their conclusions. Because you don't even know what it is.

Ice cores have become one of the left's favorite talking points when it comes to the global warming discussion. They say that ice cores tell us the temperature of the Earth tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago. Sometimes, over a million years ago! But what you don't know is how ice cores are used. If you did, you'd be faced with how useless they are in the way they've been parroted.

This is how ice cores are used in climate science:

Drill out an ice core. Let's say it's 20 meters long. The ice core becomes a sort of tangible timeline. The top of the ice core represents the present, the bottom of the ice core represents the time when the the bottom ice formed, and everything in between represents the passage of time in between then and now. Thus, a given point (let's say 10 meters down) represents a certain period of time. The extrapolation of dates from ice cores does actually have a good degree of reliability.

A sample is taken from a given "moment in time" from the ice core. That sample is analyzed for composition. Most pertinently, they look for the amount of CO2 dissolved in water which composes the ice from the sample. From this, they then extrapolate the approximate atmospheric concentration of CO2 at the point in history represented by that portion of the ice core. This is still reasonably possible, though there are important considerations that shroud the accuracy of this process, which tend to be ignored.

But where things really fall apart is the final step. Using this extrapolated atmospheric CO2 figure, they extrapolate the Earth's average temperature for that moment of history. This calculation is done using data from the 150 year temperature record and measurements of atmospheric CO2 in modern times, based on the same hypothesized belief that atmospheric CO2 levels can be directly tied to average temperatures. When this process is finished, the results are presented and are claimed to be evidence in support of the very premise that was used to achieve the results, i.e. that climactic changes are linked to changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.

The entire process is question begging.

Well DUH. I thought you wanted their findings DUH- and they go down a lot farther than that.

Search Results
Ice core | Facts and information about Ice core at Climap
climap.net › Encyclopedia
Ice cores are used by paleoclimatologists for determining ancient climate conditions. From ice cores the scientists are able to gain information about past climate ...
Ice core basics - Antarctic Glaciers
Antarctic Glaciers › Glaciers and Climate › Ice cores
by B Davies - ‎Related articles
Jan 9, 2015 - How can we use ice cores to understand past climate? ... the ice, that continuity to today is somewhat complicated by the fact that bubbles don't ...
Glossary: Ice core - GreenFacts
GreenFacts - Facts on Health and the Environment › Home › Glossary › GHI
Since the different layers of ice are formed over time through build-up of snow, ice cores provide information on climate from different periods (up to almost one ...
ice core | geology | Encyclopedia Britannica
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/.../ice-co...
Encyclopaedia Britannica
ice core, long cylinder of glacial ice recovered by drilling through glaciers in Greenland, Antarctica, and ... Ice cores were begun in the 1960s to complement other climatological studies based on .... Hyenas and Aardwolves: Fact or Fiction?
NOVA Online | Warnings from the Ice | Stories in the Ice - PBS
NOVA Online Warnings from the Ice Stories in the Ice
PBS
You could see what the world was like when ice sheets a thousand feet thick ... Scientists collect ice cores by driving a hollow tube deep into the miles-thick ice ...

 

[SwimExpert]

Well DUH.

So you already understand why ice core data is a flawed application for determining temperature trends from thousands of years ago?

 

[JoeNormal]

I wonder why right wingers always seem to think in terms of black and white.

So where are you guys on the topic of global warming these days? does it not exist or is it just that humans have nothing to do with it?

You criticize people for thinking in terms of black-and-white, and then ask a black-and-white question.

I wonder why leftists always seem to criticize other people based on overly simplistic interpretations of ideas. Let's take climate change, for example. They always say that conservatives don't believe in climate change, but that's not true. I'd be hard pressed to find a single person who doubts whether the climate is changing. Their skepticism is over whether humans are the cause of those changes, to what extend humans might be causing those changes, to what extent humans can mitigate such changes, and exactly what human behaviors are actually generating human effects on climate change. There is also skepticism on the soundness of reasoning and methodology for the way the scientific evidence is collected and processed, the sufficiency of available data to provide adequate context for large scale events occurring over millions of years, the reliability of research results under conditions of funding bias, and several other concerns.

So stop thinking so one dimensionally.

Well, I vividly remember all the photos of sensors being next to a/c compressors and the smear campaign against climate scientists during 'Climategate'. That looked to me like complete denial that climate change is happening. I still see some of these guys (incorrectly) caiming that there hasn't been any warming for almost 20 years. I guess if I can see any improvement in the acceptance of what's going on, it's in the fact these people are now in the minority. Then you have the camp that claims it's all good. Jeezus, how do these people function in a technological society?

 

[francoHFW]

I wonder why right wingers always seem to think in terms of black and white.

So where are you guys on the topic of global warming these days? does it not exist or is it just that humans have nothing to do with it?

You criticize people for thinking in terms of black-and-white, and then ask a black-and-white question.

I wonder why leftists always seem to criticize other people based on overly simplistic interpretations of ideas. Let's take climate change, for example. They always say that conservatives don't believe in climate change, but that's not true. I'd be hard pressed to find a single person who doubts whether the climate is changing. Their skepticism is over whether humans are the cause of those changes, to what extend humans might be causing those changes, to what extent humans can mitigate such changes, and exactly what human behaviors are actually generating human effects on climate change. There is also skepticism on the soundness of reasoning and methodology for the way the scientific evidence is collected and processed, the sufficiency of available data to provide adequate context for large scale events occurring over millions of years, the reliability of research results under conditions of funding bias, and several other concerns.

So stop thinking so one dimensionally.

Well, I vividly remember all the photos of sensors being next to a/c compressors and the smear campaign against climate scientists during 'Climategate'. That looked to me like complete denial that climate change is happening. I still see some of these guys (incorrectly) caiming that there hasn't been any warming for almost 20 years. I guess if I can see any improvement in the acceptance of what's going on, it's in the fact these people are now in the minority. Then you have the camp that claims it's all good. Jeezus, how do these people function in a technological society?

They don't, politically speaking.

 

[rdean]

Without scientists, we wouldn't even have satellite maps.

 

[depotoo]

Historic Variations in Arctic sea ice. Part II 1920-1950 Climate Etc.
a link to lots of information dating back to the 1600's from explorers, etc.

 

[Crick]

You people just get misinformation and are all tin foilers at this point....a disgrace....
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjADOAo&url=https://www.facebook.com/NOAAClimateGov&ei=IXDFVJbxC4WwyATa-YDgBA&usg=AFQjCNEiqCtfkYP1WdhS6FZWcy1eBXCOHg

At one time much of north America was covered by ice, are you saying we should strive to get that back also?

Don't be stupid.

 

[Crick]

At one time much of north America was covered by ice, are you saying we should strive to get that back also?

Ay caramba...

TRANSLATION: Shit, he got me there. But I don't dare admit it, so I'd better keep up the incoherent bluster till he goes away.

That's not how the rest of the world reads that.

 

[Crick]

You people just get misinformation and are all tin foilers at this point....a disgrace....
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjADOAo&url=https://www.facebook.com/NOAAClimateGov&ei=IXDFVJbxC4WwyATa-YDgBA&usg=AFQjCNEiqCtfkYP1WdhS6FZWcy1eBXCOHg

Ice everywhere is not a good thing.

You know that, right?

The Arctic in the same sort of shape its been throughout the development of human culture would be.