Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

^ You sir are an idiot. This is a waste of time and is simply detracting from the posts I made. Go waste someone else's time. The fact is that you and boontard bring nothing legitimate to the table in this discussion.

Why do you not focus on the body of the articles I posted which were posted in response to a bogus article that boontard keeps reposting and stop arguing about something that is a irrelevant to the larger discussion.

Typical right wing tactic. Bog the discussion down with nonsense when you have no legitimate argument.

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ You sir are an idiot. This is a waste of time and is simply detracting from the posts I made. Go waste someone else's time. The fact is that you and boontard bring nothing legitimate to the table in this discussion.

Why do you not focus on the body of the articles I posted which were posted in response to a bogus article that boontard keeps reposting and stop arguing about something that is a irrelevant to the larger discussion.

Typical right wing tactic. Bog the discussion down with nonsense when you have no legitimate argument.

So you continue on being an arrogant ass. Fact is the defenition of polar ice cap is important in deciding how much relevance your debunking of Boons post has. You stated the article Boon posted was talking about sea ice not the polar arctic cap, when in reality, due to the fact the polar sea cap can and surely does extend over the water, gives credebility to his post, you just choose to spin it to fit your belief and the fact that I have exposed your inaccuracies show that you very well could be then fool here. I believe that you can see that all of your posts need to be fact check as it seems you quite often talk out of your ass.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

due to the fact the polar sea cap can and surely does extend over the water, gives credebility to his post

No it does not. Read below.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

you just choose to spin it to fit your belief and the fact that I have exposed your inaccuracies show that you very well could be then fool here.

You have exposed nothing. The article that boon posted incorrectly referred to sea ice as an ice cap and that is what the article I posted was pointing out (among other discrepancies). Furthermore there is not one ice cap or sheet on the planet that is growing and you can not find any legitimate data proving it.

I have spun nothing and you have exposed nothing except for the fact that you either did not read the articles I posted or simply are not smart enough to understand them.

Once again you fail.

Once again you fail to look at the entire equation, you posted, in support of claiming the article was talking about sea ice, that polar caps are over over land I then debunked your statement by showing polar caps to be over water as well as land, thus showing what you are calling sea ice very well could be part of the arctic polar cap.

I both read and understand you article, but it seems that you are a little too dense to comprehend what i am telling you.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

hat polar caps are over over land I then debunked your statement by showing polar caps to be over water as well as land, thus showing what you are calling sea ice very well could be part of the arctic polar cap.

You did not debunk anything you blathering idiot. Like I said before you have no idea what you are talking about.

It is pointless continuing this with you. The articles I posted are very clear in what they are saying they have cited several scientific sources and thoroughly debunked the junk science in the daily mail article boon posted.

When people refer to Polar ice caps they are doing so incorrectly. It should be referred to as sea ice not an ice cap except for Antarctica which is an ice sheet because it is on land.

"Ice caps cover less than 50,000 square kilometers and usually feed a series of glaciers around its edges. While not hemmed in by any surface features (they lie on top of mountains), they are usually centered on a highest point (called a massif). Ice flows away from this highest point toward the cap’s edges.
If a glacier moves or retreats, distinctive erosional features are formed. The Great Lakes in North America were formed by glacial action.
Polar ice caps are high-latitude regions covered in ice. They are not strictly an ice cap (because they are usually larger than the 50,000 square kilometer limit used to define ice caps), but most people refer to these areas as ice caps anyway."

That said when scientists measure "sea ice" that includes ALL the ice. Even the "polar ice cap" that you incorrectly reference.

What is sea ice?

Sea ice is simply frozen ocean water. It forms, grows, and melts in the ocean. In contrast, icebergs, glaciers, ice sheets, and ice shelves all originate on land. Sea ice occurs in both the Arctic and Antarctic.

You are squawking about something that makes no fucking difference. The data that all these articles are referencing sea ice levels (including the one boon posted). Go back and read them. I am done responding to your moronic posts. Trying to explain this to you is like teaching calculus to a three year old.

A polar ice cap is a high latitude region of a planet or natural satellite that is covered in ice.[1] There are no requirements with respect to size or composition for a body of ice to be termed a polar ice cap, nor any geological requirement for it to be over land; only that it must be a body of solid phase matter in the polar region. This causes the term "polar ice cap" to be something of a misnomer, as the term ice cap itself is applied with greater scrutiny as such bodies must be found over land, and possess a surface area of less than 50,000 km²: larger bodies are referred to as ice sheets.

The composition of the ice will vary. For example Earth's polar ice caps are mainly water ice, while Mars's polar ice caps are a mixture of solid phase carbon dioxide and water ice.

Polar ice caps form because high latitude regions receive less energy in the form of solar radiation from the sun than equatorial regions, resulting in lower surface temperatures.

The Earth's polar ice caps have changed dramatically over the last 12,000 years. Seasonal variations of the ice caps takes place due to varied solar energy absorption as the planet or moon revolves around the sun. Additionally, in geologic time scales, the ice caps may grow or shrink due to climate variation.

If you actually read the defenition of polar ice cap you will see, as opposed to regular ice caps, it has no restrictions as to size or composition, or to geological requirements to be over land. It appears that you are unaware of the difference between polar ice cap and ice cap. I realize due to your absolute determination not admit that you could be wrong you will never agree to the facts, oh well they are plainly written in this post if you actually choose to look at them.
Contrary to what you say this is related to Boon's post as it shows the article is speaking of the polar ice cap not sea ice.

^
I bet I know what's thicker than the Polar Ice Cap.

Originally Posted by MrG

^
I bet I know what's thicker than the Polar Ice Cap.

You maybe?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Global Warming Alert: Arapahoe Basin In Colorado Extends Ski Season To At Least June 14 After May Snow Storms…



Arapahoe Basin announced on Wednesday that it will stay open until at least June 14 after nearly 50 inches of snow have fallen at the ski area this month.

The area initially planned to close on June 7 and is one of only three ski areas still open in North America and the only resort still open in Colorado.

Regular ski area operations will continue through June 7 and the resort will close from June 8 to 11 before reopening for the weekend on June 12.

Conditions will dictate which terrain will remain open, A-Basin says.

“With our snowy and cool spring weather, the skiing conditions are better than we have seen for years at this time in May,” Alan Henceroth, the area’s chief operating officer, said in a statement. “We will be re-opening for at least one more long weekend.”

Last season, the resort closed June 22.

The latest A-Basin has ever stayed open was August 10 in 1995."

Arapahoe Basin extends ski season to at least June 14 after May snows - The Denver Post

Al Gore not around for comment...

Booners, you know climate change and global warming are two different things, right?

Originally Posted by MrG

^
I bet I know what's thicker than the Polar Ice Cap.

You can not quantify stupid. The right wing alternate reality has sensible alternatives. Right? Just go to church. Stupid is stupid does...

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by MrG

^
I bet I know what's thicker than the Polar Ice Cap.

You can not quantify stupid. The right wing alternate reality has sensible alternatives. Right? Just go to church. Stupid is stupid does...

Why don't you address the fact that I posted the defenition of polar ice cap which does not support your statements on polar ice caps, rather continue on with your childish posts attempting to berate people who do not agree with you.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by MrG

^
I bet I know what's thicker than the Polar Ice Cap.

You can not quantify stupid. The right wing alternate reality has sensible alternatives. Right? Just go to church. Stupid is stupid does...

Why don't you address the fact that I posted the defenition of polar ice cap which does not support your statements on polar ice caps, rather continue on with your childish posts attempting to berate people who do not agree with you.

Please source your definition so that it can be evaluated and discussed with some meaning. So far you have offered a statment with no attribution or link to data to support it. Otherwise it is just a statement of personal belief, not information.

Wikelpedia

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by MrG

^
I bet I know what's thicker than the Polar Ice Cap.

You can not quantify stupid. The right wing alternate reality has sensible alternatives. Right? Just go to church. Stupid is stupid does...

Why don't you address the fact that I posted the defenition of polar ice cap which does not support your statements on polar ice caps, rather continue on with your childish posts attempting to berate people who do not agree with you.

Please source your definition so that it can be evaluated and discussed with some meaning. So far you have offered a statment with no attribution or link to data to support it. Otherwise it is just a statement of personal belief, not information.

Wikelpedia

Are you kidding....? This is 7th grade stuff.
Submit the research if you've done any. With a link.
I submit that you haven't got anything. If you do, prove it.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by bsnub

You can not quantify stupid. The right wing alternate reality has sensible alternatives. Right? Just go to church. Stupid is stupid does...

Why don't you address the fact that I posted the defenition of polar ice cap which does not support your statements on polar ice caps, rather continue on with your childish posts attempting to berate people who do not agree with you.

Please source your definition so that it can be evaluated and discussed with some meaning. So far you have offered a statment with no attribution or link to data to support it. Otherwise it is just a statement of personal belief, not information.

Wikelpedia

Are you kidding....? This is 7th grade stuff.
Submit the research if you've done any. With a link.
I submit that you haven't got anything. If you do, prove it.

Ha, not playing your game. The definition In my post clearly explains exactly what the polar ice cap is and how it differs from an ice cap.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Welcome to the world of an idiotic far right science denying creationist.

You've got to wonder if they are not a danger to themselves when they are not being monitored in the Day Care computer room. Shall I bite...?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Why don't you address the fact that I posted the defenition of polar ice cap which does not support your statements on polar ice caps, rather continue on with your childish posts attempting to berate people who do not agree with you.

Please source your definition so that it can be evaluated and discussed with some meaning. So far you have offered a statment with no attribution or link to data to support it. Otherwise it is just a statement of personal belief, not information.

Wikelpedia

Are you kidding....? This is 7th grade stuff.
Submit the research if you've done any. With a link.
I submit that you haven't got anything. If you do, prove it.

Ha, not playing your game. The definition In my post clearly explains exactly what the polar ice cap is and how it differs from an ice cap.

OK. What the hell....
What is my game? Just a general idea will do.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Welcome to the world of an idiotic far right science denying creationist.

Still waiting for a response from where I trashed your defenition of polar ice cap and all I see is your usual childish BS.

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Please source your definition so that it can be evaluated and discussed with some meaning. So far you have offered a statment with no attribution or link to data to support it. Otherwise it is just a statement of personal belief, not information.

Wikelpedia

Are you kidding....? This is 7th grade stuff.
Submit the research if you've done any. With a link.
I submit that you haven't got anything. If you do, prove it.

Ha, not playing your game. The definition In my post clearly explains exactly what the polar ice cap is and how it differs from an ice cap.

OK. What the hell....
What is my game? Just a general idea will do.

Your game is to get me into some long drawn out straw man argument when you know the definition of polar ice cap is genuine,but if you want to act like Snubbles have at it but I am not playing.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Still waiting for a response from where I trashed your defenition of polar ice cap

You didn't trash anything you blathering old fool. You are arguing over irrelevant semantics. You were trying to debunk a scientific article I posted and failed epically. The fact is that what you call the "polar ice cap" is part of the sea ice data in the article I posted.

Go back to your readers digest.

We’ve had two weeks of worrying news about the melting of Antarctica. The Larsen C and especially the remaining Larsen B ice shelves appear vulnerable to collapse, even as the glaciers of the Southern Antarctic Peninsula region have just been shown to be pouring large volumes of water into the ocean.
Most people, I think, would find this pretty alarming. However, as I wrote about these Antarctic news stories over the past two weeks, I became aware that those skeptical of human-caused climate change (whether its existence, or its severity) had found a new argument to minimize concerns about polar ice melt. In particular, I came across numerous citations of a much-read article at Forbes by James Taylor, titled “Updated NASA Data: Global warming not causing any polar ice retreat.”
There are many problems with this claim. In effect — and as we’ll see — Taylor is falling into a long climate “skeptic” tradition of pointing toward growing sea ice around Antarctica, and thereby suggesting that this trend undermines broader concerns about polar ice melt, or climate change in general. It doesn’t. (For another strong rebuttal to Taylor, see here from Slate’s Phil Plait.)
[This is climate skeptics’ top argument about Antarctica — and why it’s wrong]
To support his claim, Taylor links to a recent visualization, based on NASA satellite data, of trends in global polar sea ice. Here is the figure, which was constructed by The Cryosphere Today at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign:





As Taylor wrote, linking to this figure:

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements … In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Later, Taylor suggests that even if a “modest retreat” of polar ice — which he doesn’t think is happening — does arrive, we shouldn’t really worry about it. Such a decline “would not be proof or evidence of a global warming crisis,” he writes. “Such a retreat would merely illustrate that global temperatures are continuing their gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age.”
So can all of that really be right?
First off, the terminology being used in the passage above (“polar ice,” “polar ice caps”) is problematic. At most, the data above tell us about trends in ice covering the oceans of the polar regions, not frozen ice on land.
However, much of the concern with the melting of Antarctica, Greenland and glaciers around the world has nothing to do with sea ice — rather, it involves huge masses of ice sitting atop landmasses in polar regions. Melting of these ice sheets, glaciers and ice caps can contribute substantially to sea level rise —whereas sea ice melting cannot. So already, Taylor’s argument about “polar ice” seems much broader than it actually is.
And even when it comes to sea ice, the argument falters.
At Cryosphere Today, researchers have penned a rebuttal to Taylor, stating that contrary to his claim, there is a 5.5 percent downtrend in overall sea ice area over the period in question.
“It is misleading to claim that polar sea ice has not decreased over the historic record,” the site states. “In his last paragraph, Taylor correctly asserts that receding polar ice caps are an expected result of a warming planet. In fact, the data shows that this is exactly what is happening.”
And there’s another problem, explained the University of Illinois’ polar researcher Bill Chapman by phone. The figure above sums together sea ice trends in both the Arctic and the Antarctic, where different things are happening for different reasons. “The Arctic has decreased dramatically, and the Antarctic has increased a little bit over the same period,” Chapman said.
Taylor doesn’t appear to distinguish between what’s happening to sea ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic. But if you pull apart these two components of the analysis — as NASA itself has recently done — then sure enough, you find a sharp decline in Arctic sea ice, a modest increase in Antarctic ice, and an overall decline in total sea ice.





(NASA’s Earth Observatory/Joshua Stevens and Jesse Allen)
It’s important to stress how dramatic the Arctic sea ice decline is. Recent years have seen new lows for both winter and summer ice extent. “Data suggest that since [1972], Arctic ice has been decreasing at an average rate of about 3 percent per decade,” observes the National Snow and Ice Data Center, “while Antarctic ice has increased by about 0.8 percent per decade.”
That uptick in Antarctic sea ice is what climate “skeptics” continue to focus on — and it’s a major subtext to Taylor’s argument. But the more you look into the matter, the more you realize it’s no consolation.
First, some scientists think growing Antarctic sea ice may actually have a human component — that global warming and ozone depletion have led to shifting winds that are fueling more ice growth. And second, a little added Antarctic sea ice doesn’t do anything to allay concerns about loss of ice from Antarctica’s continent. They’re just different issues.
For more on to why Antarctic sea ice has been increasing a little, even as the continent’s vast ice shelves and glaciers have mostly been doing the opposite — well, read here.
[This is climate skeptics’ top argument about Antarctica — and why it’s wrong]
Most important of all, though, the case for worrying about what’s happening to the poles goes way beyond matters of sea ice loss (though that can have major consequences). The chief threat that the melting poles pose to the globe is the way they can raise sea level. We don’t know how much sea level rise we’re going to get, or how fast, from Greenland and Antarctica. But there are worrying signs from these ice sheets, and they contain enough potential water to dramatically alter coastlines the world over.
So in sum: 1) total (or global) polar sea ice is in fact declining, according to both NASA and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Cryosphere Today; 2) if you analyze the Arctic and Antarctic separately — which makes more sense to do, as very different things are happening to sea ice in the two places — you realize that the Arctic sea ice decline in particular is very stark; 3) there is also bad news about the melting of ice atop land, based on data that are completely outside of this discussion, but that are perhaps the most worrying of all.
So it is hard to find anything here that should make you not worry about global warming.

This is climate skeptics? latest argument about melting polar ice ? and why it?s wrong - The Washington Post

TLDR

Do the climate change Nazis have good news?
I'm feeling a bit cold right now. Is the planet still getting warmer?


What can I do to accelerate the warming?
I know every little helps.