A cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the ice cap

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by mocgator, Sep 9, 2013.

  1. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    Actually, I asked you a simple question. Instead of answering, you came back with some arrogant response asking for a cogent thought. Refusing to entertain your needless insults is not thin skin; It is simply a preference to carry out debates in adult fashion. Sorry if that is too much for you.
  2. neisgator
    Offline

    neisgator Belligerent Gator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    10,618
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Quincy IL
    Ratings Received:
    +106
    And?
    Do you get that one year and 20 years are the same on a geological scale?
  3. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    24,769
    Likes Received:
    2,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,734
    That was your response to Rade asking if you really believe the Earth is cooling?

    Deflect and insult. Nice. :whistle:

    I realize you're not the Lone Ranger taking that strategy around here...but it's no way to hold a meaningful discussion.
  4. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    24,769
    Likes Received:
    2,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,734
    Sure. You do realize this isn't a geology discussion. :joecool:
  5. neisgator
    Offline

    neisgator Belligerent Gator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    10,618
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Quincy IL
    Ratings Received:
    +106
    No, it is a time discussion.
  6. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    24,769
    Likes Received:
    2,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,734
    Sure. One year being meaningless in that dscussion in context of climate change.

    Twenty years is also a short duration, but is certainly more useful for trending, and comparing actuals to a projection. Which twenty years you're talking about makes a difference in context too. Where does it stand in context of solar cycles, and marine cycles.

    We've dropped to the bottom of the range of IPCC projections duing this La Nina cycle, and appear about to be headed below them this ear. When we get through the next El Nino cycle, we should know whether temperatures swung back up well into the range the models project, or if they stayed below projections or towards the low end... either scenario tells us useful information about the accuracy of the models.
  7. neisgator
    Offline

    neisgator Belligerent Gator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    10,618
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Quincy IL
    Ratings Received:
    +106
    You are too smart to think 20 years show a trend. It isn't even a pimple on an elephants ass.
  8. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    24,769
    Likes Received:
    2,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,734
    If you're comparing to roughly 100k cycles, sure it doesn't mean anything.

    But twenty more years of data from today, added in with daa we aleady have?

    That will certainly give us a better idea of how accurate these IPCC models are... with context of swings from El Nino to La Nina to El Nino again, and over two decades of reduced solar activity.
  9. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Yes indeed.
  10. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    But...but...the IPCC tells us that solar activity has no impact on the climate of the earth!

    :laugh:
    • Like Like x 1
  11. surfn1080
    Offline

    surfn1080 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +144
  12. wargunfan
    Offline

    wargunfan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2010
    Messages:
    4,567
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Inside your head.
    Ratings Received:
    +189
    Well, I just think one silly baiting question deserves another.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. TheGator
    Offline

    TheGator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2008
    Messages:
    12,450
    Likes Received:
    3,643
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Utah
    Ratings Received:
    +4,654
    [​IMG]
    • Like Like x 1
  14. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    I guess the problem was your assumption, since I was asking a serious question. I'm not interested in silly baiting questions, whatever they are.
  15. Emmitto
    Offline

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,342
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +440
    Would this be an awkward time to point out that this year's "growth" amounts to the 6th lowest sea ice cover on record?
  16. oldgator
    Offline

    oldgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,605
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +139
    to clowns on both sides of this debate(including those in this thread)

    1. One year stat is not proof one way or another
    2. to the OP especially---you cite data pertaining solely to the ice around the North Pole. The issue is Global Warming not North Pole warming or cooling. The article fails to mention the South Pole(Antarctica). And the article fails to mention the OVERALL weather for the entire earth.

    any claims that Global Warming is occurring or not occurring that only offers as proof a one year regional(in this case northern ice cap) is a sham and full of feces.

    I believe both sides of the argument have tendency to present BS..

    And both sides also fail to realize the main issue----that is, that as the debate goes on govt, industry, etc aren't addressing a major issue----how weather is a major problem in many areas of the U.S. regardless of whether or not it is from Global Warming or not. You clowns are like two starving people insisting on arguing which came first the chicken or the egg---and starve while debating, rather than eating the chicken and eggs they have in the refrigerator. The classic Nero fiddling while Rome burns scenario
  17. gregthegator
    Offline

    gregthegator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,446
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +278
    while an accurate observation...it IS VERY interesting to see a pot calling all kettles black...in this PARTICULAR thread were neither side can change a ANYTHING going on...

    now in threads were a person COULD make a difference by VOTING differently...don't look IN THE mirror w/your comments...
  18. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    We know only two things, unequivocally.

    1.) Climate changes and will always change
    2.) CO2 atmospheric concentrations have been increasing, almost certainly mostly due to man made causes.

    Science is trying to understand how #1 occurs naturally. Science is also trying to understand what, if any impact #2 has on the environment and on climate change.

    Right now, both seem to be poorly understood.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. oldgator
    Offline

    oldgator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    13,605
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +139
    greg, try to stay on this thread's topic instead of babbling about some vague BS regarding other threads.
  20. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    Well again, I think "poorly" is an inadequate word to describe partial understanding of complex phenomena, but more to the point, your view of the state of the science differs from the majority experts. In such a disagreement, it isn't clear to me what to do.

    A lot of people on this board believe that evolutionary biology requires tremendous amounts of "faith", but as somewhat of an expert in that area, I can personally attest that this is an inaccurate view of the state of the science. I'm not an expert in climate science, so I must rely on the views of others. To me, the most prudent approach is to take the view of the majority of climate scientists seriously.

Share This Page