This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Climate change another name for Weather

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep, sure sign the polar ice cap is breaking up faster and absorbing too much of the warmth.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

Pull up a current sat image of the polar regions. http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh t's only slightly less than 20 years ago. Compare any period you want

The northern polar ice cap summer minimum was on a declining trend from 1979 until 2007, that's indisputable by anybody. If there was going to be a cold effect, it would have been in the middle of this decade in the summer season.

But the last two seasons have seen a significant INCREASE in polar ice, compared to 2007.

The cold weather CANNOT be caused by melting ice when it is in fact freezing. Look to the Sun!!!!!!

As a matter of fact, look to real science not some zealot nutters talking out of their @ss.

Think what your saying explod, that's just ridiculous. There are no credible scientists talking about anything except solar activity.
 
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

Pull up a current sat image of the polar regions. http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh t's only slightly less than 20 years ago. Compare any period you want
to 2007.
Explod is correct.
Areal extent is a small part of the equation.
Go to climate scientists specialising in polar regions for more detailed answers.
Arctic sea ice is thinner and "newer" than it has been, and the "freezing" periods are getting shorter.
The satellite image analogy is comparable to one of dining at a fine restaurant with 5 chefs 20 years ago, and today dining at McDonalds with as many short-order cooks, and not being able to tell the difference!
 

Rubbish, show me where this ice is breaking up in excess of the last 20 years of warmer trends.
 
Rob,

All I can find is the most ridiculous propaganda and/or the most preposterously tenuous science linking the breakup of the ice cap (which is actually recovering at this point) with cold weather.

There is however a preponderance of credible science linking the recent cold with lower solar activity.

Occam's razor would seem to apply here... with some conclusions to be drawn about the whole field of CC "science"/propaganda.
 
You could try reading about Arctic sea ice from the most credible source: http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Here's a snippet:
We are now into the 2009 season and sea ice coverage is clearly doing well. From a climate change perspective we will see if the tide is indeed turning in another 6 months - when the season is over and we can review the full data and not just areal extent.
 

Clearly then, explod's and your contention that break up of the Arctic ice cap being responsible for the recent very cold weather in the last couple of northern winters, is utter tosh.

Solar activity is where it's at, not CO2.

Now we've got this global warming hoax out of the way, let us start work on real environmental problems.
 
Clearly then, explod's and your contention that break up of the Arctic ice cap being responsible for the recent very cold weather in the last couple of northern winters, is utter tosh.
I love the way you choose conclusions.
Arctic sea ice extents are likely to peak in the next month or two.
A principal of global warming is that warmer oceans give rise to greater precipitation.
In northern climates, in winter, it is therefore most likely that snow events become more severe.
We can corroborate this with proven increases in glacial masses in northern Europe.
There are no surprises for climate scientists with what is now happening.
 

That's nonsense Rob. Pro AGW climate scientists are attempting to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds, with a nifty (though nonsensical) AGW causation argument for any extreme weather event.

Hotter than normal - Global warming.
Colder than normal - Global warming.
Wetter than normal - Global warming.
Drier than normal - Global warming.
More stormy than normal - Global warming.
Calmer than normal - Global warming.
Mmore hurricanes and tornadoes - Global warming.
Less hurricanes and tornadoes - Global warming.
It's just normal - Oh that's global warming too.

All the while completely ignoring natural "forcings" such as solar activity and the El Niño - La Niña cycle.

The genuinely pleasing thing is that people are catching on to the ruse in there millions and only the committed left wing ideologues hell bent on control freakery still believe it, or at least don't have some doubts.

The game, fortunately, is up.

The genuine tragedy is, as I have predicted, that genuine cases of anthropogenic environmental damage is completely ignored and folks now doubt ALL environmental concerns.
 
That's nonsense Rob.
You and ducati should get together.
There will continue to be "extreme" weather events, irrespective of global warming.
However, the present northern winter is breaking very few historical records (I'm not aware of any, but I haven't searched deeply yet).
As for "natural forcings" you refer to, they are locked into established data for what they are worth. Unfortunately they are "ephemeral" from a long term climate perspective. Unlike the pent up effects of many man-emitted greenhouse gases which take years to decades before any observable impact is apparent. And then remain in the atmosphere for decades to centuries: Accumulating steadily until action to change the balance is in place.

On the environmental front I am in 100% agreement with you.
Here also we are experiencing the effect of inaction on known impending disasters on dozens of fronts. And here also we have powerful vested interests stamping on "environmentalists" at every opportunity.
Taking the world's oceans as a case in point, find a country that has a government agency out there helping clean them up? Typically it's left to a few NGOs or concerned individuals to spring into action, but to little avail given the scale of the problem and the limit of their resources.
 
 

Jesus!

It that the best quality straw man argument + ad hominem slur you can come up with.

Seriously sub-standard both intellectually a argumentatively there SBH.

You will have to lift your game if you want to be regarded as a true GW junk science klaxon.

LOL
 

Satellite images do not show the underlying, only the recent surface snow, as you say "WHAT CAN BE SEEN". And selective shots at stratiegic times can distort the appearence even further.

And the only credible scientists are the ones that agree with your hypothesis. Have a read of "The fifth extinction" the physical evidence from actual ice samples going back millions of years has been well documented and substantiated the effects of the current ice sheet melting since mid 20th century.
 

There is one thing missing from your hypothesis... THE SCIENCE.

Where's the science linking recent cold weather with melting ice and not solar activity and/or La Niña.

Let's get real eh?
 
Just a brief foray to enter some factual information into this discussion.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/21/global-warming-antarctica
 

Attachments

  • 29nusee.gif
    690 bytes · Views: 5
And more...

The blah blah blah in this thread reinforces the FACT that we just don't know.
Of course we do.

Here is an story last year from RealClimate.org ... Climate Science from Climate Scientists.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/antarctica-is-cold/

I expect this will be shot down in flames once it is analyzed. I already see some gaping holes in logic.


http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/01/hockey-team-plays-in-antarctica/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...