Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, someone believing a right wing "faux-scientific" fact sheet! If you cannot listen to real scientist......and only if they are not affiliated with the oil/gas industry pocketbooks....then don't bother to waste forum space.
1979 obviously had more volume and area. The point of the mention I think is that according to the position of AGW, the ice should be consistently losing to the point of reaching that "tipping point" (when the ice is supposed to spiral in loss completely).
So seeing an increase in ice in areas where even on the greatest volume and coverage in our record did not cover (combined with no consistent trend of loss in others), appears to be an issue with the above predictions of the ice.
The Arctic has been completely ignoring the the model predictions and there appears to be no consistent loss or progression to the seasons. The maximum this year is above that prediction and if the minimum this year does not run a loss below 2007, then the it will be well outside of their position to posit a losing trend.
NOTE: Image URL links are to the originating agencies (if you don't understand how to follow that, please take an intro to computers class).
Combine that with the fact that the Antarctic is WELL above the 1979-2000 average and you see that the entire argument of AGW concerning the Arctic/Antarctic ice is not falling in line with observational data (ie reality isn't accepting the models).
Again, someone believing a right wing "faux-scientific" fact sheet! If you cannot listen to real scientist......and only if they are not affiliated with the oil/gas industry pocketbooks....then don't bother to waste forum space.
Cryosphere is now a "faux-scientific" fact sheet? Or where you talking about the commentary?
Better call up UOI and tell them they aren't "real scientists". /boggle
What? I thought all the ice was gonna melt and raise the oceans and drown us all. Dammit all that scuba gear I bought appears to be for nothing now. And my ark will be put on hold until Al Gore straightens all this out.
If the Arctic doesn't follow a downturn this year, it will be outside of their models deviations, but I am sure they will find a way to "revise" the historical data in order to bring it back into line as some do with the surface records.
The funny thing is, they are really looking like idiots with the Antarctic. They can't hide that one. It is so far above the 1979-2000 average that anything but an acceptance of strong growth will make someone look like they are an idiot or a liar.
Meanwhile the continental US had one of it least snowiest and warmest winters on record.
and that would be a good thing as there is likely to be much less flooding this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25
What? I thought all the ice was gonna melt and raise the oceans and drown us all. Dammit all that scuba gear I bought appears to be for nothing now. And my ark will be put on hold until Al Gore straightens all this out.
If the Arctic doesn't follow a downturn this year, it will be outside of their models deviations, but I am sure they will find a way to "revise" the historical data in order to bring it back into line as some do with the surface records.
The funny thing is, they are really looking like idiots with the Antarctic. They can't hide that one. It is so far above the 1979-2000 average that anything but an acceptance of strong growth will make someone look like they are an idiot or a liar.
THEY never mention the Antarctic. Wonder why that is?
What's happening to the rest of the world is rather important too.
The global warming sycophants keep saying the Arctic is a barometer for the rest of the world vis a vis global warming. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
1979 obviously had more volume and area. The point of the mention I think is that according to the position of AGW, the ice should be consistently losing to the point of reaching that "tipping point" (when the ice is supposed to spiral in loss completely).
So seeing an increase in ice in areas where even on the greatest volume and coverage in our record did not cover (combined with no consistent trend of loss in others), appears to be an issue with the above predictions of the ice.
The Arctic has been completely ignoring the the model predictions and there appears to be no consistent loss or progression to the seasons. The maximum this year is above that prediction and if the minimum this year does not run a loss below 2007, then the it will be well outside of their position to posit a losing trend.
NOTE: Image URL links are to the originating agencies (if you don't understand how to follow that, please take an intro to computers class).
Combine that with the fact that the Antarctic is WELL above the 1979-2000 average and you see that the entire argument of AGW concerning the Arctic/Antarctic ice is not falling in line with observational data (ie reality isn't accepting the models).
Sea ice does not raise sea levels if it melts, only ice that is currently on top of land.
Sea ice does not raise sea levels if it melts, only ice that is currently on top of land.
And?
What does that have to do with anything I stated?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
