http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/25/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-similar-to-what-it-was-100-years-ago/
Scientists at a loss to explain.
Scientists at a loss to explain.
Antarctic sea ice extent the same as it was 100 years ago
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
Bet some of our scientists can explain it, but it is so simple they choose not to waste time. Hehe.
I was watching CNN World or whatever the CNN international is this week on vacation. They did a segment on this and hypothesized the reason the ice shelf has remain largely unchanged is due to less population in the Southern Hemisphere. Somehow, they didn't get into it, but that equates to less susceptibility to changing environmental conditions than the Artic ice shelf which has significantly reduced in size. Also, the method for determining this was based on captain's logs from all the expeditions early in the century. They kept very detailed logs and records for positional data.
The Daily Caller? LOL!
How about understanding the whole story.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
How about understanding the whole story.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
What's to understand? I didn't read the Daily Caller website but his title was accurate. It said in the article you posted that scientists can't reach a consensus on why it's occurring and that it's going against their models.
Can I ask you: Trump claimed that climate change was a hoax. He refused to believe a connection. He wins the election, gets intel briefings, and now admits there is a connection between man and climate change, although he doesn't know how significant. So, the question is: what would it take for you to believe there is a connection between man and climate change?
He also said he would put hillary in jail. Lied, but sadly, still a better pick than her
You have zero evidence that he received any briefings on global warming. My interpretation is that he was being "open minded" with the New York Times writers who so desperately believe in global warming.
We have no idea The level, if any, of man's involvement in the extremely modest warming that has occurred since we emerged from the Little Ice Age.
A piece of the action. It's like prostitution in reverse. "Here, take American tax dollars and do nothing but screw us in the ass on trade."
You are the new king of these parts at incorrect assumptions.
I 100% believe in Climate change. How much is just natural cycle? No idea. How much are we having an impact? No idea. How much can Americans do to impact the whole planet with countries like China, Russia, and India giving 0 fvck a? No idea. Should we actively use the EPA as a weapon against certain industries and negatively impact our economy? No.
What really galls me is that they changed the term from global warming to climate change. Our climate has always been changing. Who could possibly argue that the climate is not changing.
So when the satellites show Little to no global warming, they can still claim the climate is changing. And when their models are all incorrect and project warming that is much higher than we actually realize, they can still claim the climate is changing.
Then they can call you a climate change denier. which makes or attempts to make you look ridiculous.
By the way, the EPA has admitted that their now unconstitutional clean air act that helped yo destroy the coal industry, will only impact global warming by .001%.
A lot of these neanderthals on here only believe what they want to believe and only believe what Fox News tells them they should believe. You're banging your head against a wall. Good luck anyway. Some of them have actually said scientists at NASA don't know what they are talking about.
Damn you're dumb. You want to believe the bullshit Fox News spoon feeds you. Clearly you don't know what mutually exclusive means.
You apparently don't know. I can believe only what I want or only fox news, not both. Sorry, Your Royal Guniusness.
In logic and probability theory, two propositions (or events) are mutually exclusive or disjoint if they cannot both be true (occur). A clear example is the set of outcomes of a single coin toss, which can result in either heads or tails, but not both.
Ever hear of "Anti-Trust Laws".. your MSM golden shower candidates . . are going to get SCHOOLED..big league . ..you and your ilk have been in our yard waaaaaaaaay too LONG.. your outright lies , "news" manipulation,and disgusting "representation" of so -called journalism...Are going the way of the do do bird..happy trails!!
:flushed::cry:
:scream:
....![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
[cheers]:cool2::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag::americanflag:![[thumbsup]](https://res-1.cloudinary.com/rivals/image/upload/tpajusiw2imufeahiuam.png "Thumbs up [thumbsup]")
![[jumpingsmile]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/happy/happy0028.r191677.gif "Jumping Smile [jumpingsmile]")
imp:![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Ever hear of "Anti-Trust Laws".. your MSM golden shower candidates . . are going to get SCHOOLED..big league . ..you and your ilk have been in our yard waaaaaaaaay too LONG.. your outright lies , "news" manipulation,and disgusting "representation" of so -called journalism...Are going the way of the do do bird..happy trails!!
Liberal scientist theorize that farts in the southern hemisphere travel at the speed of light to the northern hemisphere causing melting of the northern polar ice cap. This spares the southern hemisphere from man made global climate change.
If what you want to believe is what fox news tells you, those are not mutually exclusive. It could have been said more precisely though.
SACRAMENTO (AP) — California’s Legislature has approved regulations on cow flatulence blamed for greenhouse gases. The measure was approved shortly before the end of the legislative session Wednesday after its author, Democratic Senator Ricardo Lara of Bell Gardens, agreed to give dairy farms more time to comply.
The legislation seeks to reduce methane emissions to 40 percent below their 2013 levels by 2030.
The legislation seeks to reduce methane emissions to 40 percent below their 2013 levels by 2030.
We need to give a big thank you to our forefathers who had the wisdom to order the kill-off of all the Buffalo. If they had not undertaken that action....New York City and most of the east coast would now be under water.
I later thought of that after further reflection and it's true, but the odds are staggering.
This is what amuses me. The libs claim that the conservatives only follow Fox and therefore don't believe in global warming. They ignore the following:
1. All the climate models used by the IPCC have been proven wrong, very wrong and ALL on the high side.
2. The catastrophes forecasted by the global warmists haven't materialized. We still have snowfall. We still have winters.
3. Hurricane activity is way down, not way up.
4. The antarctic sea extent is near its highest ever recorded.
5. Satellite measurements, by far the most accurate, of global warming have shown no warming in over 18 years.
7. The IPCC now admits that there is far more uncertainty about global warming than they first reported.
8. Outstanding scientists have now taken the position that while CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we know far too little about the feedback loops to make any judgments on the seriousness of global warming, if any.
9. No one has solved how we move 3rd world countries to green energy without sending trillions their way. After all, we built our economies on very cheap fossil fuels. If we don't give them that same opportunity they are destined for abject poverty or we will have to redistribute trillions as subsidies to get their energy.
10. The largest solar plant in the world produces electricity at about $230/KWH. We get fossil fuels at about 30/KWH.
The zealots won't admit or accept these facts. But reasonable people should realize that the science is not settled and we can't destroy industries and jobs on this premise. I am all in favor of much more research. But by independent scientists with no political agenda by either side. I am all in favor of more research in cleaning up further fossil fuels. It does not have to be an either or proposition.
1. All the climate models used by the IPCC have been proven wrong, very wrong and ALL on the high side.
2. The catastrophes forecasted by the global warmists haven't materialized. We still have snowfall. We still have winters.
3. Hurricane activity is way down, not way up.
4. The antarctic sea extent is near its highest ever recorded.
5. Satellite measurements, by far the most accurate, of global warming have shown no warming in over 18 years.
7. The IPCC now admits that there is far more uncertainty about global warming than they first reported.
8. Outstanding scientists have now taken the position that while CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we know far too little about the feedback loops to make any judgments on the seriousness of global warming, if any.
9. No one has solved how we move 3rd world countries to green energy without sending trillions their way. After all, we built our economies on very cheap fossil fuels. If we don't give them that same opportunity they are destined for abject poverty or we will have to redistribute trillions as subsidies to get their energy.
10. The largest solar plant in the world produces electricity at about $230/KWH. We get fossil fuels at about 30/KWH.
The zealots won't admit or accept these facts. But reasonable people should realize that the science is not settled and we can't destroy industries and jobs on this premise. I am all in favor of much more research. But by independent scientists with no political agenda by either side. I am all in favor of more research in cleaning up further fossil fuels. It does not have to be an either or proposition.
That says it all.
Wow, I posted facts and you call me a buffoon. Son, you need to look in the mirror.
Great! Cali kills their own dairy industry and other state's dairies can have a new market!
Meanwhile...Democratic Senator Ricardo Lara is missing in action......what a fool.....cow farts my ass.
You are really hanging on to the "warming" part of global warming. That was part of the reason that the name changed to climate change. An increase in average temperatures does not mean that every place gets warmer. Most will get warmer on average, but you'll also see some changes in the climate models and more severe storms in some cases. I'm not going to speak to the number or severity of hurricanes. I'm not well-versed enough on that subject. I do know that warming doesn't imply that we cease to see winter weather.
Why are you clinging to that 18-year mark? I'll tell you why. It was a local outlier on the high side. That was an extremely warm year. You know what else, we've also been consistently breaking monthly temperature records over the last several years. We also hit a new record high in CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
I'll make a suggestion. Go to Alaska. Go to some of the glaciers up there, then compare what you see with photos of the same glaciers about the same time of year 50 or more years ago. The difference is staggering.
Well, I know 1 thing for sure. Good dairy comes from happy cows, and happy cows come from California, or so the commercial said.
Well, I am hanging on to the warming part because that is what the warmists claim will happen unless we rid ourselves of fossil fuels. Remember, I did not coin the phrase Global Warming, the IPCC, did as did all the other warmists. Now they change the name because warming is not occurring but the climate continues to change as it has throughout our history.
Satellite readings over the past 18 years show no warming, despite EVERY climate model claiming they would. Why is the planet not warming as the alarmists claimed?
Warmists absolutely claimed that hurricanes would increase in number and intensity. They claimed we would experience unusual droughts. They claimed storms would become more severe. They claimed winters would disappear. They made these claims, not me.
BTW, we had an El Nino 19 years ago. That is why it is an outlier. But that is irrelevant. The 18 year mark with no warming proves all the climate models wrong. We have more CO2 in the atmosphere today than ever before yet, not any discernible atmospheric warming.
Why don't you comment on the Antarctic? You mention Alaska, but not the Antarctic? Why? Because we have record sea ice extent in the Antarctic. Why is Greenland called Greenland? It is an ice packed nightmare. But in the past it was not. The climate changes. Greenland was once green, now an icepack and this is well before fossil fuel use.
The climate will always change. That is why the warmist can still claim climate change without any warming. The climate is far too complex for us to model. We needs a great deal more time and information to understand the feedback loops, if we can ever understand them.
Last edited:
The satellite readings and the terrestrial readings are diverging. I'm not going to try to explain that. I will note that more data tends to give you better fits. Cherry picking a starting point - one that you expect to be an outlier - is a horrible way to do statistical analysis. And you are expecting spot-on predictions of temperatures? If they could do that, they would be independently wealthy individuals who made fortunes in the stock market. Predictive modeling isn't exact. It is never exact. That's why it's predictive - you don't know before you predict.
I mention Alaska because I've been to Alaska. If I ever get to the Antarctic, I'll comment on that. You aren't somewhat concerned with a huge thawing of the arctic and sub-arctic though?
Do you seriously not know the history of the name of Greenland? It's commonly traced back to Erik the Red and most believe it was an attempt to convince people to go there. It was inhospitable then, same as it is now.
The climate is far too complex for us to try to model, but we map the stars, go into space, land on the moon, send probes out to get a closer look at Pluto and the far reaches of our solar system. We can't possibly understand how our climate works though. I don't disagree that the climate will always change, but that doesn't mean that you don't try to model it. If I'm meeting someone at a restaurant, I give them a time that I expect to be there. I have to predict what traffic and road conditions might be like though. Since those are often unpredictable, I don't just throw up my arms and tell them that I'll be there when I get there.
Frankly, your argument makes little sense. Yes, try and model the climate. Who could disagree. But we all know that the climate is simply too complex for our limited understanding in this very recent science. Why then destroy whole industries due to unproven theories that may well be wrong? Why raise energy prices dramatically based on models that have all been proven wrong? Why give enormous competitive advantage to China and India? They are each commissioning a new coal fired plant every two weeks. And I must say, that almost everyone would acknowledge that atmospheric measurements are much more accurate than ground based due to many factors that influence ground temperatures that have nothing to do with climate (e.g. the measurement is urban located near concrete for example).
You and other warmists have never answered this question. What do we do with 3rd world countries that want to climb out of abject poverty. We did it with cheap energy. If you deny 3rd world countries that same opportunity are you willing to transfer trillions to them to get them to use green energy? The U.N. certainly wants to see that transfer of wealth. Do you?
BTW, pretty silly to make the Alaska argument. You don't have to go to the Antarctic to see the satellite images and read the scientific research. I think you're smarter than trying to make this argument.
If the measurement is rising, you should throw it out due to other factors - like urbanization? I'm not sure that I agree with that. That has an impact. Satellites are getting you tropospheric temps. Those may not be climbing at the same rate as the temperatures on the ground and sea. Those differences may tell us something about how the process works. It's part of studying the problem.
I'm not advocating the killing of industries. I'm advocating for investing in the future - you know, like we did with the space race? If we make advancements in green energy, that pays a lot of dividends now and in the future. You don't advance without investment. In the meantime, you do an all of the above strategy for generating energy.
As for the expansion of power generation in China, India or the 3rd world, those are places where people live without any electrical power. That's a game of catch up. Those are also countries that aren't in the same agreements we are with respect to this. If I'm replacing a power plant or supplementing its output in the US, I'm going to go with the cheapest choice for that. Regulations aren't the only variable in the cost of coal or coal generated power. Natural gas is a much cheaper option than coal is today, and that has at least as much to do with the process of getting it out of the ground as anything else right now.
I'd also point out that if we are able to make significant advances in green power generation, that might be a much better option for developing countries to use - and a boon to us if we work on the technology now. The infrastructure needed to run a fossil fuel powered power generator is significantly greater than the infrastructure required to set up something that doesn't need you to regularly supply places with a fuel to burn.
I used Alaska as my example because I've seen it with my own eyes. The differences are shocking and concerning.
1. Satellite readings are more accurate. There is nothing that can impact those readings as opposed to readings from somewhere on the ground. There will be inherent flaws in ground based readings due to factors such as urbanization. Simply can't deny this fact.
2. I agree with you for an all of the above energy policy, but that is not what Obama has been doing. They killed Keystone, for example. They helped to kill coal through regulation. Let coal compete with natural gas and see what energy source wins. In the mean time, research alternative sources. I am fine with that. But forcing that energy source on the public that will only raise prices isn't a good answer.
3. Again, you avoid the 3rd world argument. Africa for example. Desperately needs cheap energy to begin to advance. The U.N. wants a huge transfer of money to get Africa to use green energy. That money will come in large part from the U.S. As for China, they have agreed to begin to reduce emissions in 2030. Will they keep their agreement? I don't trust them. We suffer now while they continue to use cheap energy and hurt our competitiveness.
4. If green energy becomes cheaper than fossil fuels, by all means use them. I doubt we see anything close to that in our lifetimes. Green energy is so much more expensive than fossil fuels. To make up that difference is a huge task. We may be better off waiting for cold fusion.
5. And you can see the Antarctic with your own eyes by looking at satellite data. Has far more range than your limited eyesight. You can't claim warming by citing Alaska and then completely ignore other parts of the world that are getting colder. Not intellectually honest.
I said something incorrect related to the satellite data, namely that it was atmospheric only. You can measure at multiple altitudes. Data shows that the stratosphere has cooled while the troposphere has warmed. That is consistent with the greenhouse effect. So when you say that satellite measurements show no increase in temperature, what altitudes are showing that, or is it some average of measurements at multiple altitudes?
With regard to the increase in heat due to urbanization, the readings are higher because the temperatures are higher. That's true if you measure it from a ground station or a satellite. The bonus of using the satellite isn't in a better accuracy in an individual measurement. It's that you aren't restricted to a discrete number of ground stations.
With respect to the 3rd world question, is it more cost effective to build infrastructure to move fossil fuels around to generate power, or is it more efficient to set up enough renewable energy stations to cover individual towns and cities? That's the open question, but it isn't like Africa and its neighboring area don't have fossil fuels to use. The infrastructure is the main problem.
With regard to the increase in heat due to urbanization, the readings are higher because the temperatures are higher. That's true if you measure it from a ground station or a satellite. The bonus of using the satellite isn't in a better accuracy in an individual measurement. It's that you aren't restricted to a discrete number of ground stations.
With respect to the 3rd world question, is it more cost effective to build infrastructure to move fossil fuels around to generate power, or is it more efficient to set up enough renewable energy stations to cover individual towns and cities? That's the open question, but it isn't like Africa and its neighboring area don't have fossil fuels to use. The infrastructure is the main problem.
