This is great, warmers admit defeat

[skookerasbil]

Warmer world = more moisture around Antarctica.

Fact...

Did you know that Antarctica is one of the driest places on earth??? Read and learn something.

Oh Gawd........

These nuts will come up with anything.

 

[flacaltenn]

Non-responsive? I disagree.

I did read it. My comment is entirely appropriate. The only "defeat" noted is their failure to make the trip. Nowhere in the article does anyone in the expedition admit to any change in their views about AGW or global warming. That leads me to ask if YOU read it? If you did, what gave you the idea my comment was non-responsive?

There biggest mission failure was not being able to beam real time reports back into their schools so that they could preach their global warming dogma to heads full of mush... Read the threads. That was a major goal..

 

[Kosh]

Really? You didn't mean to write "My one thought is better than a million assumptions of yours and assumptions is all you have."

You are implying that I didn't mean to write that post clearly I did, you just clearly didn't comprehend it.
See how this works?

Yeah, you suck at English.

Well it is official the far left admits to being clueless based on AGW church propaganda.

 

[Abraham3]

I'm not embarrassed I have nothing to be embarrassed over. But assisting you in your quest to be embarrassed does feel good to me.

Ahhh, you're a cheap date.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Warmer + still below freezing = more ice or snow. How is this wrong???

Warmer air = more moisture.

 

[Abraham3]

Non-responsive? I disagree.

I did read it. My comment is entirely appropriate. The only "defeat" noted is their failure to make the trip. Nowhere in the article does anyone in the expedition admit to any change in their views about AGW or global warming. That leads me to ask if YOU read it? If you did, what gave you the idea my comment was non-responsive?

There biggest mission failure was not being able to beam real time reports back into their schools so that they could preach their global warming dogma to heads full of mush... Read the threads. That was a major goal..

So what? No one on the expedition has made the slightest comment that their opinions regarding AGW or the behavior of the Antarctic has been changed in the slightest by these events. That YOU people should do your damndest to make hay out of something that has no supportive value whatsoever isn't the least bit unexpected. You've got nothing else to work with.

 

[flacaltenn]

Warmer + still below freezing = more ice or snow. How is this wrong???

Warmer air = more moisture.

Its irrelevant when surface temps at the Antarctic are not getting warmer.. Isn't it? Claim victory for an excuse that hasn't happened? Yes you are..

And even if they were --- the impact of 1deg on -40C would produce how much more precipt in places that annually get 50mm??

 

[Abraham3]

Its irrelevant when surface temps at the Antarctic are not getting warmer.. Isn't it?

Ahem:

Antarctic Skin Temperature Trends between 1981 and 2007, based on thermal infrared observations made by a series of NOAA satellite sensors. Skin temperature trends do not necessarily reflect air temperature trends.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Reverend Al Gore said the polar ice caps would be gone by 2014


Ice Free Arctic Forecasts | Real Science

 

[Theowl32]

Its irrelevant when surface temps at the Antarctic are not getting warmer.. Isn't it?

Ahem:

Antarctic Skin Temperature Trends between 1981 and 2007, based on thermal infrared observations made by a series of NOAA satellite sensors. Skin temperature trends do not necessarily reflect air temperature trends.

With all of that heat hovering over the Antarctica, you can almost see how those people that think like you would go down there and think the ice would be so thinned out.

Wait, didn't you say that the ice gets thicker (just so happens) in that place?

So, what is with all of that red heat over Antarctica?

 

[Abraham3]

It is the SURFACE temperature anomaly, just like it says. It has no ice extent information at all It is a counter to FCT's comment that Antarctica is not warming.

 

[flacaltenn]

Non-responsive? I disagree.

I did read it. My comment is entirely appropriate. The only "defeat" noted is their failure to make the trip. Nowhere in the article does anyone in the expedition admit to any change in their views about AGW or global warming. That leads me to ask if YOU read it? If you did, what gave you the idea my comment was non-responsive?

There biggest mission failure was not being able to beam real time reports back into their schools so that they could preach their global warming dogma to heads full of mush... Read the threads. That was a major goal..

So what? No one on the expedition has made the slightest comment that their opinions regarding AGW or the behavior of the Antarctic has been changed in the slightest by these events. That YOU people should do your damndest to make hay out of something that has no supportive value whatsoever isn't the least bit unexpected. You've got nothing else to work with.

Ifnyou knew anything about the facts, that would be lying. But ill just assume you skipped their Mission plan that got posted which included beaming live evidence of a warming pole. Also guess you missed their pledge to plant 500 trees to null out the carbon footprint of the expedition. [[ now theyre gonna need a lot more trees to make up for all those rescue vessels]] I dont think anyone but the very committed zealots would pledge that publically..

Are you this naive about everything else in life?

 

[flacaltenn]

Its irrelevant when surface temps at the Antarctic are not getting warmer.. Isn't it?

Ahem:

Antarctic Skin Temperature Trends between 1981 and 2007, based on thermal infrared observations made by a series of NOAA satellite sensors. Skin temperature trends do not necessarily reflect air temperature trends.

Its the 21st century.. lets use sat data measuring actual surface temps..

Besides the "skin temp"" doesnt look anything like the NASA surface data..

I trust the UAh sat data.. Both those other NASA graphs are flaky. THe color scale implies warmings and coolings of 2degC per decade. And I seriously doubt that happened since 1980.

 

[flacaltenn]

Heres a different look at it from thermometers.

 

[Abraham3]

Its irrelevant when surface temps at the Antarctic are not getting warmer.. Isn't it?

Ahem:

Antarctic Skin Temperature Trends between 1981 and 2007, based on thermal infrared observations made by a series of NOAA satellite sensors. Skin temperature trends do not necessarily reflect air temperature trends.

Its the 21st century.. lets use sat data measuring actual surface temps..

The graphic I put up IS satellite data, DOES show surface temperatures and IS from the 21st century. WTF is wrong with you?

Handy graphic. No title. No units on the Y axis. X-axis completely illegible. Very impressive.

Besides the "skin temp"" doesnt look anything like the NASA surface data..

Another handy graphic. No date. No time span. No reference for the anomaly.

I trust the UAh sat data.. Both those other NASA graphs are flaky. THe color scale implies warmings and coolings of 2degC per decade. And I seriously doubt that happened since 1980.

Then you haven't been paying attention. For decades now, the poles have been warming faster than anyplace on the planet.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not THAT POLE Bullwinkle..

Youre pretty helpless around charts and graphics for an ocean engineer. Titles and dates and sources are all there. If you cnat or wont navigate to the sources or read the properties -- go back to school...