Climate change is such a big deal...

[CrusaderFrank]

In other words, Bigfool, you are an ignorant blowhard, and prefer to stay that way. If you were serious about the reality of AGW, you would use that wonderful tool that you are typing your nonsense on to do some serious research.

There is no reality to AGW, you post stories from the Weather Channel and go, "LOOK! Manmade global warming!" and idiots like Saigon go, Amen!" and that's peer review and consensus.

That's not science

 

[Saigon]

LOL. No, that's not it at all. I started this thread discussing the eastern antarctic, that's it. Have you purchased your Chevy Volt yet?

Yes, absolutely you did!

But what you don't seem to realise is how predictable your lack of honesty is.

Any honest person would admit that while ice in Eastern Antarctica is increasing in volumue - it is falling even faster in the West.

The fact that you yet out to mislead is entirely predictable. Even now you can not admit that the Antarctic is losing ice every year - when when we both know it is.

 

[Saigon]

LOL

It's ABOVE the trend line

LOL

Do you ever read what you post?

Above is HIGHER than average = more ice

Yes, exactly.

And where does "sea ice" comes from?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL. No, that's not it at all. I started this thread discussing the eastern antarctic, that's it. Have you purchased your Chevy Volt yet?

Yes, absolutely you did!

But what you don't seem to realise is how predictable your lack of honesty is.

Any honest person would admit that while ice in Eastern Antarctica is increasing in volumue - it is falling even faster in the West.

The fact that you yet out to mislead is entirely predictable. Even now you can not admit that the Antarctic is losing ice every year - when when we both know it is.

And the East Ant ice is increasing because of AGW, amiright?

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

Are you actually willing to debate this like an adult - or are you just going to concede defeat as per usual?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

Are you actually willing to debate this like an adult - or are you just going to concede defeat as per usual?

Here's my deal: you post the results of a repeatable laboratory experiment that controls for a 200PPM increase of CO2, if the temperature rises in the tank by even .5 degrees I will admit you may be correct that AGW may be affecting the climate.

Deal?

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

I somehow thought you might jut cut and run!!

Please - don't humiliate me, don't make me look at facts! Please!!!! Have mercy!

You get back under the bed where you are safe, Frank - the facts won't get you there.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

I somehow thought you might jut cut and run!!

Please - don't humiliate me, don't make me look at facts! Please!!!! Have mercy!

You get back under the bed where you are safe, Frank - the facts won't get you there.

Facts? LOL What "Facts" have you presented?

You post an article saying the ice is increasing, you post a chart that you're incapable of understanding showing ice ABOVE the trend line and you think that means ice is melting because of AGW?

LOL

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warmers treat the scientific laboratory like Dracula meeting the sunrise while standing in a field of garlic

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is .5 degrees from an immediate 200PPM increase too high?

I thought you were predicting a 5-7 degree increase? WTF. Why don't you just show us how much temperature increases. Can you do that?

Or is it that there are too many variables in the weather system to isolate it just to the additional wisp of CO2

 

[mamooth]

Here's my deal: you post the results of a repeatable laboratory experiment that controls for a 200PPM increase of CO2, if the temperature rises in the tank by even .5 degrees I will admit you may be correct that AGW may be affecting the climate.

Mythbusters did exactly that. Only 120PPM, and got about +1.0 degrees.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I&feature=related]Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air? - YouTube[/ame]

Let the backpedalling and goalpost moving now begin ...

 

[mamooth]

Because it is a known fact that the eastern antarctic ice sheet is growing larger and colder and that it has been for many years.

Reality disagrees with you.

Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from satellite gravity measurements
---
Accurate quantification of Antarctic ice-sheet mass balance and its contribution to global sea-level rise remains challenging, because in situ measurements over both space and time are sparse. Satellite remote-sensing data of ice elevations and ice motion show significant ice loss in the range of -31 to -196Gtyr-1 in West Antarctica in recent years, whereas East Antarctica seems to remain in balance or slightly gain mass, with estimated rates of mass change in the range of -4 to 22Gtyr-1.
---

That's the old data. Which said Eastern Antarctica had slightly gained ice mass, while Western Antarctica had lost vastly more ice mass. You claimed over and over that the total ice mass change was positive, which no study has ever shown. You just flat out made that up.

If you disagree that you just made it up, then show us your data which stated that total ice mass of Antarctica was growing. If you can't, it will be taken as your admission that you did indeed did just make it all up.

---
The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) offers the opportunity of quantifying polar ice-sheet mass balance from a different perspective. Here we use an extended record of GRACE data spanning the period April 2002 to January 2009 to quantify the rates of Antarctic ice loss. In agreement with an independent earlier assessment, we estimate a total loss of 190+/-77Gtyr-1, with 132+/-26Gtyr-1 coming from West Antarctica. However, in contrast with previous GRACE estimates, our data suggest that East Antarctica is losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at a rate of -57+/-52Gtyr-1, apparently caused by increased ice loss since the year 2006.
---

That's the most recent data, which says both east and west Antarctica are losing vast amounts of ice. It will be amusing to see what excuses you come up with in order to explain why you get to ignore the data that shows you were totally wrong. After all, since you are a political cultist, you are going to disregard any data that disagrees with you.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's my deal: you post the results of a repeatable laboratory experiment that controls for a 200PPM increase of CO2, if the temperature rises in the tank by even .5 degrees I will admit you may be correct that AGW may be affecting the climate.

Mythbusters did exactly that. Only 120PPM, and got about +1.0 degrees.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I&feature=related]Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air? - YouTube[/ame]

Let the backpedalling and goalpost moving now begin ...

I didn't see the 120PPM in the video.

I'll watch again

 

[Katzndogz]

Antarctic ice melts every year, why should this one be any different?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's my deal: you post the results of a repeatable laboratory experiment that controls for a 200PPM increase of CO2, if the temperature rises in the tank by even .5 degrees I will admit you may be correct that AGW may be affecting the climate.

Mythbusters did exactly that. Only 120PPM, and got about +1.0 degrees.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I&feature=related]Mythbusters tests global warming theory - does CO2 warm air? - YouTube[/ame]

Let the backpedalling and goalpost moving now begin ...

Where did you get 120PPM CO2?

Did you watch the video before you posted it?

 

[mamooth]

I didn't see the 120PPM in the video.

That's what I assumed the gas dude was doing when he was reproducing atmospheric differences. It would have been nice if they specifically told us the gas concentrations, but it is mythbusters.

The reason no one is doing it in the lab and writing papers is because it would be like doing an experiment to show that water can be electrolyzed into oxygen and hydrogen. This is century-old science, stuff you see in grade-school science fairs.

 

[SillyWabbit]

Well, regardless of what happens out there in the real world, here in California we have something to ensure we never forget about global warming: AB 32. I wonder if the geniuses who decided to pass this monster were thinking about jabbing a knife into the gut of our already bleeding state budget. Maybe it'll prove to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

We'll see.

Thanks, environmentalist wackos. Thanks a lot.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I didn't see the 120PPM in the video.

That's what I assumed the gas dude was doing when he was reproducing atmospheric differences. It would have been nice if they specifically told us the gas concentrations, but it is mythbusters.

The reason no one is doing it in the lab and writing papers is because it would be like doing an experiment to show that water can be electrolyzed into oxygen and hydrogen. This is century-old science, stuff you see in grade-school science fairs.

Um, actually, no.

It would be quite informative to see how much each say 10PPM of CO2 increases the temperature. I mean if that's how it works...but after years of hearing about AGW I've never seen a single experiment along these lines which leads me to believe the lab is very unkind to the AGW theory

 

[flacaltenn]

I didn't see the 120PPM in the video.

That's what I assumed the gas dude was doing when he was reproducing atmospheric differences. It would have been nice if they specifically told us the gas concentrations, but it is mythbusters.

The reason no one is doing it in the lab and writing papers is because it would be like doing an experiment to show that water can be electrolyzed into oxygen and hydrogen. This is century-old science, stuff you see in grade-school science fairs.

Um, actually, no.

It would be quite informative to see how much each say 10PPM of CO2 increases the temperature. I mean if that's how it works...but after years of hearing about AGW I've never seen a single experiment along these lines which leads me to believe the lab is very unkind to the AGW theory

Doing such an experiment without a source that models the spectrum of sun is not really informative. Neither is doing the experiment in the absence of water vapor which blocks hefty parts of the CO2 absorption lines..

We have the results of such an experiment. It's called the Jurassic and adjacent periods. Where CO2 content was 10 times what it is today. Wanna give me a weather report for a typical day in Jurassic Park? Occurence rate of killer storms? Droughts? Coastal flooding?