Red Flag Anyone?

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC


Green represents ice that was present on 09/14/2011 that was not present on 09/14/2007.
Red represents ice that was present on 09/14/2007 that was not present on 09/14/2011.

Bremen however, claims that the ice in 2007 and the ice today are essentially identical. Me thinks shenanigans most foul are afoot.
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
28,554
Reaction score
4,594
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
Going to need more info. You simply telling us what someone else said isn't good enough. We need to know if you're interpreting what he said correctly. That can't be done without a link to what you're quoting. Why do you even bother, if you're not to back up your statements?!?!
 
OP
wirebender

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
Why do you even bother, if you're not to back up your statements?!?!
I might ask you the same thing. I am still waiting for an explanation of the mechanism by which you claim that CO2 can trap and retain heat. In fact, you rarely, if ever back up anything you claim.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,401
Reaction score
7,258
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Bentwire cannot back up his accusations of fraud. As Mathew pointed out, all four groups measuring ice area have figures that are nearly the same. A little above or a little below 2007.
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
28,554
Reaction score
4,594
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
Why do you even bother, if you're not to back up your statements?!?!
I might ask you the same thing. I am still waiting for an explanation of the mechanism by which you claim that CO2 can trap and retain heat. In fact, you rarely, if ever back up anything you claim.
Been done repeatedly. Join the ranks of the liars, Wirebender. You may not agree with the explanation, but to say one has never been given, just shows how dishonest you are. Go down to the principal's office with Crusader Frank. :lol::lol::lol:
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,873
Reaction score
15,601
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
I thought someone (konrad, matthew, ian) just posted a thread on ice VOLUME versus ice EXTENT and how Volume was the more rationale way of looking at the data..
 

IanC

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2009
Messages
11,064
Reaction score
1,315
Points
245
I dont see why different groups wouldnt have different result. they use different models to analyse the available information.

as far as which is a better to measure, volume or extent, I guess it boils down to availability and accuracy of the available data. if you can accurately determine volume then it is a better metric. if there is a lot of uncertainty in volume but less in extent then maybe extent is better.

one of the problems with measuring multi-year ice is that it is dependant on previous amounts of old ice. ice extent is suceptible to the current wind conditions. so I suppose the modelling for the different groups could get different results from the same data depending on how they process it.

I believe one of the groups, PIOMAS (?), recently made large changes in its model. are they one of the groups being talked about?

it is a real shame that new models, new satellites, new anything arent run in parellel with the old methods for an extended time to get a better handle on what the effects are. perhaps they are but just not made public
 

yidnar

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
12,313
Reaction score
4,828
Points
315
Location
Inside your head.


Green represents ice that was present on 09/14/2011 that was not present on 09/14/2007.
Red represents ice that was present on 09/14/2007 that was not present on 09/14/2011.

Bremen however, claims that the ice in 2007 and the ice today are essentially identical. Me thinks shenanigans most foul are afoot.
when the ice melts in a glass of ice water does the water level rise ??:razz:
 

ScienceRocks

Democrat all the way!
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
59,455
Reaction score
6,754
Points
1,900
Location
The Good insane United states of America


Green represents ice that was present on 09/14/2011 that was not present on 09/14/2007.
Red represents ice that was present on 09/14/2007 that was not present on 09/14/2011.

Bremen however, claims that the ice in 2007 and the ice today are essentially identical. Me thinks shenanigans most foul are afoot.
when the ice melts in a glass of ice water does the water level rise ??:razz:
Nope, but no one said sea ice would rise the sea level. On the other hand melting land ice from ice sheets or glaciers surely will. Greenland, Antarctica. This topic isn't about sea levels either...:lol::lol::lol: Well one way you could rise the sea level is more open ocean=more energy being absorbed=expanding oceans. Water expands when you heat it. :lol::lol::lol::lol: Part of the rise in sea levels are because of the increasing temperature of the oceans.
 
Last edited:

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
148,375
Reaction score
16,579
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
I believe they should stop trying to think if it's global warming or not and figure out what to do about it.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,401
Reaction score
7,258
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
There is little that we can do about it, at least the next 30 years of warming are already in the pipeline. And then there is the Arctic, which has the potential to emit more GHGs than man has thus far. Problem is, we haven't the slightest notion of where the tipping point for that system is. We may not be anywhere near it, we may have already passed it.

The longer we wait to do anything about the continued emission of GHGs into the atmosphere, the more wrenching will be the consequences of doing something about it. That is pretty much the way it will be, nothing will be done until the consequences are already catastrophic.
 
OP
wirebender

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
Bentwire cannot back up his accusations of fraud. As Mathew pointed out, all four groups measuring ice area have figures that are nearly the same. A little above or a little below 2007.
Rocks, you poor moron. Are you unaware that all you need do look at the link to the picture and it will take you straight to the source? Do you guys really need directions written out in crayon in order to find the source of the picture?
 
OP
wirebender

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
Been done repeatedly. Join the ranks of the liars, Wirebender. You may not agree with the explanation, but to say one has never been given, just shows how dishonest you are. Go down to the principal's office with Crusader Frank. :lol::lol::lol:
Nope, it has never been done konradv but I wholeheartedly invite you to link to the post(s) where it has been done in order to prove that you are not a bald faced liar.

The fact, konradv, is that there is no mechanism by which CO2 can trap and retain energy therefore there is no post in which such a mechanism has been described. It would be like claiming that a post exists that describes a mechanism by which pigs grow wings and fly.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,401
Reaction score
7,258
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
So says Bentwire, just because all the physicists in the world say otherwise is hardly any reason to doubt that Bentwire is correct, right?
 
OP
wirebender

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
So says Bentwire, just because all the physicists in the world say otherwise is hardly any reason to doubt that Bentwire is correct, right?
If they all say it rocks, then you should have absolutely no problem linking to the proof. You have been asked before and this time, just as with all past requests, you will neither be able to link to any stated mechanism by which CO2 supposedly is able to trap and retain heat and especially no experimental evidence that relates to the real world.

Odd don't you think that "all" of the physicists in the world would subscribe to a thing that should be so easily proven when no scientific proof exists? Your claim that "all" physicists on board is absurd rocks. The consensus is as bogus as the claim of AGW itself.
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
28,554
Reaction score
4,594
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
So says Bentwire, just because all the physicists in the world say otherwise is hardly any reason to doubt that Bentwire is correct, right?
If they all say it rocks, then you should have absolutely no problem linking to the proof. You have been asked before and this time, just as with all past requests, you will neither be able to link to any stated mechanism by which CO2 supposedly is able to trap and retain heat and especially no experimental evidence that relates to the real world.

Odd don't you think that "all" of the physicists in the world would subscribe to a thing that should be so easily proven when no scientific proof exists? Your claim that "all" physicists on board is absurd rocks. The consensus is as bogus as the claim of AGW itself.
You're lying. The mechanism has been stated repeatedly. We can't help that you adhere to to a "bizarro physics" world view.
 
OP
wirebender

wirebender

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
1,723
Reaction score
122
Points
48
Location
NC
You're lying. The mechanism has been stated repeatedly. We can't help that you adhere to to a "bizarro physics" world view.
If I am lying then prove that I am lying. State the mechanism by which you believe that CO2 can trap and retain heat and provide a link to the experimental evidence that proves it can happen in the open atmosphere.

Telling yourself that it has been stated doesn't make it so konradv. It hasn't because no such mechanism exists and certainly no experimental evidence exists to prove a phenomenon that doesn't exist.

Step on up to the plate and prove me wrong.

And exactly what do you believe that I have said that isn't a proven reality? Do you believe I have stated anything at all that isn't factual with regard to EM fields or vectors? There is nothing esoteric or etherial about either EM fields or vectors or the physics that govern them. What, exactly do you believe I have said that violates any physical law?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top