Planet Rugby Forum

Bill wrote:

London Pride wrote:

Bill wrote:

London Pride wrote:Notwithstanding Mahoney's post, is the volume increasing at the same rate as the increase in area?

one would have to assume that all things being equal as the area of sea ice increased the volume of sea ice would also - and sea ice coverage in the Antarctic has increased massively its at nigh on unprecedented levels and the highest ever in recorded history

You don't know, do you? If you did, you'd show us some evidence. As it is, you're just making an assumption that is no more meritorious than assuming that volume is decreasing and area increasing.

so what you are saying is that ice coverage is increasing massively in the Antarctic because of warming and that as it gets bigger in area it somehow gets thinner like a piece of elastic?

6roucho wrote:

Bill wrote:the area of ice coverage that is increasing massively in the antarctic is in the sea too

It's increasing in winter.

You're comparing summer with winter.

The summer extent is what matters for warming because the ice reflects the summer sun, lowering the albedo of the region, reducing warming of the oceans.

Even if you take the combined year round figures for both regions, the total sea ice extent is falling considerably. The winter Arctic loss is approximately 3x the Antarctic winter gain.

You know all this anyway. You're just shamelessly trolling people.

Bill wrote:

6roucho wrote:

Bill wrote:the area of ice coverage that is increasing massively in the antarctic is in the sea too

It's increasing in winter.

You're comparing summer with winter.

The summer extent is what matters for warming because the ice reflects the summer sun, lowering the albedo of the region, reducing warming of the oceans.

Even if you take the combined year round figures for both regions, the total sea ice extent is falling considerably. The winter Arctic loss is approximately 3x the Antarctic winter gain.

You know all this anyway. You're just shamelessly trolling people.

the loss may be natural, part of a cycle who knows, we only have accurate measurements going back til the 70's anyway, plus the artic is shrinking but the antarctic is growing, just think that the first gets massive airtime while the latter gets nigh on ignored

especially by the BBC - and why is it that whenever people disagree vehemently they get accused by some of trolling but those of an opposite opinion who wont change their mind either dont?

6roucho wrote:

Bill wrote:

6roucho wrote:

Bill wrote:the area of ice coverage that is increasing massively in the antarctic is in the sea too

It's increasing in winter.

You're comparing summer with winter.

The summer extent is what matters for warming because the ice reflects the summer sun, lowering the albedo of the region, reducing warming of the oceans.

Even if you take the combined year round figures for both regions, the total sea ice extent is falling considerably. The winter Arctic loss is approximately 3x the Antarctic winter gain.

You know all this anyway. You're just shamelessly trolling people.

the loss may be natural, part of a cycle who knows, we only have accurate measurements going back til the 70's anyway, plus the artic is shrinking but the antarctic is growing, just think that the first gets massive airtime while the latter gets nigh on ignored

especially by the BBC - and why is it that whenever people disagree vehemently they get accused by some of trolling but those of an opposite opinion who wont change their mind either dont?

But we do know why the arctic ice is melting. Increasing temperatures. It's not rocket science.

And we do do know why the winter sea ice extent is increasing in Antarctica, despite the region warming: increased precipitation.

If there was summer sea in ice in Antarctica it'd certainly be decreasing too.

You may not be able to get your head round these effects, but climatologists and oceanographers can. Trust them, Bill. There's no conspiracy.

ICESAT Data Shows Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses


During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.

Abstract:

During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.

Omnologos wrote:Yikes! Global warming is moving ice from the North to the South Pole! If we don’t rein in emissions within 10 years, the planet will reach a tipping point, I mean it will literally tip over.

Or maybe not, but with all that ice in Antarctica Earth could get too heavy and fall from orbit!

Please send me 25 gigadollars and I’ll provide a solution to the underlying problem.

Fat Albert wrote:So Nasa's Jay Zwally, he of the 'Arctic Ocean Will Be Ice Free By 2012' alarmism

the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012

the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012

slow wing on 23 March 2012 wrote:

slow wing wrote:

slow wing wrote:Bill missed the other thread so Silver had to do the denialist honours on this...

slow wing wrote:Ted, no, the graph Silver posted is legit. The "15%" cut is reasonable. What Silver is doing is 'cherry-picking' the time to post that graph. He posted it because there was a short-term (~week or so) upward fluctuation that happens from time to time. If there had instead been a downward fluctuation happening now then you can be sure he wouldn't have posted the graph.

Silver is in fact invited to come back and post the updated graph from the same source on 15 September of this year. I am willing to bet it will be well below the 'average' band after the Summer melt! FA and co are however shy about taking that bet.

Thread link - Re: Climate 'tech fixes' urged for Arctic methane
Bill, will you take that bet? Will you come back to this thread on 15 September and post the updated graph? Because it is going to be embarrassing for either you or me, or at least it should be.

Bill won't take the bet...

FA didn't take the bet either. Will nobody take the bet...

6roucho wrote:Comparing the increase in Antarctic land ice to the decrease of Arctic summer sea ice is meaningless. The objective isn't to have more or less ice in the world, but not to change the climate.

In fact, increased precipitation from snow is the sub polar regions is one of the effects we least want to see happen in the north. Britain for example isn't equipped to deal with extreme winters.

6roucho wrote:Comparing the increase in Antarctic land ice to the decrease of Arctic summer sea ice is meaningless. The objective isn't to have more or less ice in the world, but not to change the climate.

In fact, increased precipitation from snow is the sub polar regions is one of the effects we least want to see happen in the north. Britain for example isn't equipped to deal with extreme winters.

Silver wrote:

6roucho wrote:Comparing the increase in Antarctic land ice to the decrease of Arctic summer sea ice is meaningless. The objective isn't to have more or less ice in the world, but not to change the climate.

In fact, increased precipitation from snow is the sub polar regions is one of the effects we least want to see happen in the north. Britain for example isn't equipped to deal with extreme winters.

The climate changes over time 6roucho. Trillions of dollars will make almost no difference. Except to the bank balance of people promoting this nonsense.

towny wrote:This thread is 49 pages of f**king idiots making fools of themselves.

Self awareness does not seem to be present in the deniers.


I can understand how the average bloke on the street may be believing the nonsense, however I can not for the life of me understand how people who's arguments get destroyed day after day, year after year can not take stock and realise that they are possibly on the wrong side of the debate.


On one side of the argument we have
- almost every relevant scientist
- every first world govt
- every comedian
- every late night talk show host

On the other side we have
- a bloke who pretends he's a 'Lord'
- a few anonymous posters on the internet
- a tiny majority of relevant scientists
- oil companies
- coal companies
- hillbillies
- crackpot ufo enthusiasts


Without even knowing what the debate was about, I would refuse to be on the second team. I would like to see the correlation between deniers and UFO believers and creationists.

I reckon the results of any study would be fascinating.

towny wrote:I would like to see the correlation between deniers and creationists. I reckon the results of any study would be fascinating.

Silver wrote:

towny wrote:This thread is 49 pages of f**king idiots making fools of themselves.

Self awareness does not seem to be present in the deniers.


I can understand how the average bloke on the street may be believing the nonsense, however I can not for the life of me understand how people who's arguments get destroyed day after day, year after year can not take stock and realise that they are possibly on the wrong side of the debate.


On one side of the argument we have
- almost every relevant scientist
- every first world govt
- every comedian
- every late night talk show host

On the other side we have
- a bloke who pretends he's a 'Lord'
- a few anonymous posters on the internet
- a tiny majority of relevant scientists
- oil companies
- coal companies
- hillbillies
- crackpot ufo enthusiasts


Without even knowing what the debate was about, I would refuse to be on the second team. I would like to see the correlation between deniers and UFO believers and creationists.

I reckon the results of any study would be fascinating.

Why do you post on a thread that you clearly know nothing about?

easyray wrote:

towny wrote:I would like to see the correlation between deniers and creationists. I reckon the results of any study would be fascinating.

I think you will find that most of them are Daily Mail readers. Jokes aside, I seriously suspect the 99% of creationists are also deniers, as they obviously all live in fantasy land.

Silver wrote:

easyray wrote:

towny wrote:I would like to see the correlation between deniers and creationists. I reckon the results of any study would be fascinating.

I think you will find that most of them are Daily Mail readers. Jokes aside, I seriously suspect the 99% of creationists are also deniers, as they obviously all live in fantasy land.

Another my green investments are not doing too well post. or are you a true the world is going to end because of tiny increases in CO2 believer.

Silver wrote:

easyray wrote:

towny wrote:I would like to see the correlation between deniers and creationists. I reckon the results of any study would be fascinating.

I think you will find that most of them are Daily Mail readers. Jokes aside, I seriously suspect the 99% of creationists are also deniers, as they obviously all live in fantasy land.

Another my green investments are not doing too well post. or are you a true the world is going to end because of tiny increases in CO2 believer.

easyray wrote:

Silver wrote:

easyray wrote:

towny wrote:I would like to see the correlation between deniers and creationists. I reckon the results of any study would be fascinating.

I think you will find that most of them are Daily Mail readers. Jokes aside, I seriously suspect the 99% of creationists are also deniers, as they obviously all live in fantasy land.

Another my green investments are not doing too well post. or are you a true the world is going to end because of tiny increases in CO2 believer.

I do not have any green investments and I do not think the world is going to end just because of CO2 increases.

Are you also a creationist Silver? You certainly seem crackpot enough to belong to that group.

Silver wrote:

easyray wrote:

Silver wrote:

easyray wrote:

towny wrote:I would like to see the correlation between deniers and creationists. I reckon the results of any study would be fascinating.

I think you will find that most of them are Daily Mail readers. Jokes aside, I seriously suspect the 99% of creationists are also deniers, as they obviously all live in fantasy land.

Another my green investments are not doing too well post. or are you a true the world is going to end because of tiny increases in CO2 believer.

I do not have any green investments and I do not think the world is going to end just because of CO2 increases.

Are you also a creationist Silver? You certainly seem crackpot enough to belong to that group.

So what do you think the deniers are denying.

Most sceptics believe mankind has a small impact but nothing to be alarmed about. It's the world is going to almost end nonsense unless we hand over trillions to the ruling elite most sceptics have a problem with.

Bill wrote:

6roucho wrote:

Bill wrote:

6roucho wrote: It's increasing in winter.

You're comparing summer with winter.

The summer extent is what matters for warming because the ice reflects the summer sun, lowering the albedo of the region, reducing warming of the oceans.

Even if you take the combined year round figures for both regions, the total sea ice extent is falling considerably. The winter Arctic loss is approximately 3x the Antarctic winter gain.

You know all this anyway. You're just shamelessly trolling people.

the loss may be natural, part of a cycle who knows, we only have accurate measurements going back til the 70's anyway, plus the artic is shrinking but the antarctic is growing, just think that the first gets massive airtime while the latter gets nigh on ignored

especially by the BBC - and why is it that whenever people disagree vehemently they get accused by some of trolling but those of an opposite opinion who wont change their mind either dont?

But we do know why the arctic ice is melting. Increasing temperatures. It's not rocket science.

And we do do know why the winter sea ice extent is increasing in Antarctica, despite the region warming: increased precipitation.

If there was summer sea in ice in Antarctica it'd certainly be decreasing too.

You may not be able to get your head round these effects, but climatologists and oceanographers can. Trust them, Bill. There's no conspiracy.

no summer sea ice in antarctica - since when?

this is what I mean about the alarmist side of the argument they throw these bombshells out there and even when people query them they either ignore it or change tack, the damage is done though as many people believe what they have said and get alarmed

the drip drip alarm method - which again the BBC is so good at

easyray wrote:

towny wrote:I would like to see the correlation between deniers and creationists. I reckon the results of any study would be fascinating.

I think you will find that most of them are Daily Mail readers. Jokes aside, I seriously suspect the 99% of creationists are also deniers, as they obviously all live in fantasy land.

6roucho wrote:Silver, you've poster on here many times that you don't accept the physics of the greenhouse effect, because it 'violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics'.

Cthulu's Trilby wrote:

6roucho wrote:Silver, you've poster on here many times that you don't accept the physics of the greenhouse effect, because it 'violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics'.

Now there's an argument I would *love* to see.

Ted. wrote:

Bill wrote:

6roucho wrote:

Bill wrote:

6roucho wrote: It's increasing in winter.

You're comparing summer with winter.

The summer extent is what matters for warming because the ice reflects the summer sun, lowering the albedo of the region, reducing warming of the oceans.

Even if you take the combined year round figures for both regions, the total sea ice extent is falling considerably. The winter Arctic loss is approximately 3x the Antarctic winter gain.

You know all this anyway. You're just shamelessly trolling people.

the loss may be natural, part of a cycle who knows, we only have accurate measurements going back til the 70's anyway, plus the artic is shrinking but the antarctic is growing, just think that the first gets massive airtime while the latter gets nigh on ignored

especially by the BBC - and why is it that whenever people disagree vehemently they get accused by some of trolling but those of an opposite opinion who wont change their mind either dont?

But we do know why the arctic ice is melting. Increasing temperatures. It's not rocket science.

And we do do know why the winter sea ice extent is increasing in Antarctica, despite the region warming: increased precipitation.

If there was summer sea in ice in Antarctica it'd certainly be decreasing too.

You may not be able to get your head round these effects, but climatologists and oceanographers can. Trust them, Bill. There's no conspiracy.

no summer sea ice in antarctica - since when?

this is what I mean about the alarmist side of the argument they throw these bombshells out there and even when people query them they either ignore it or change tack, the damage is done though as many people believe what they have said and get alarmed

the drip drip alarm method - which again the BBC is so good at

I do believe that Bill is positioning himself for the old "I was trolling all along, chortle chortle! " gambit.

You'll not get away with such an obvious ploy. We know how you climate denier propagandists operate, you're going to have to go down with the ship, rat.

towny wrote:

Silver wrote:

towny wrote:This thread is 49 pages of f**king idiots making fools of themselves.

Self awareness does not seem to be present in the deniers.


I can understand how the average bloke on the street may be believing the nonsense, however I can not for the life of me understand how people who's arguments get destroyed day after day, year after year can not take stock and realise that they are possibly on the wrong side of the debate.


On one side of the argument we have
- almost every relevant scientist
- every first world govt
- every comedian
- every late night talk show host

On the other side we have
- a bloke who pretends he's a 'Lord'
- a few anonymous posters on the internet
- a tiny majority of relevant scientists
- oil companies
- coal companies
- hillbillies
- crackpot ufo enthusiasts


Without even knowing what the debate was about, I would refuse to be on the second team. I would like to see the correlation between deniers and UFO believers and creationists.

I reckon the results of any study would be fascinating.

Why do you post on a thread that you clearly know nothing about?

Answer my question please!!

Bill wrote:

Ted. wrote:

Bill wrote:

6roucho wrote:

Bill wrote:the loss may be natural, part of a cycle who knows, we only have accurate measurements going back til the 70's anyway, plus the artic is shrinking but the antarctic is growing, just think that the first gets massive airtime while the latter gets nigh on ignored

especially by the BBC - and why is it that whenever people disagree vehemently they get accused by some of trolling but those of an opposite opinion who wont change their mind either dont?

But we do know why the arctic ice is melting. Increasing temperatures. It's not rocket science.

And we do do know why the winter sea ice extent is increasing in Antarctica, despite the region warming: increased precipitation.

If there was summer sea in ice in Antarctica it'd certainly be decreasing too.

You may not be able to get your head round these effects, but climatologists and oceanographers can. Trust them, Bill. There's no conspiracy.

no summer sea ice in antarctica - since when?

this is what I mean about the alarmist side of the argument they throw these bombshells out there and even when people query them they either ignore it or change tack, the damage is done though as many people believe what they have said and get alarmed

the drip drip alarm method - which again the BBC is so good at

I do believe that Bill is positioning himself for the old "I was trolling all along, chortle chortle! " gambit.

You'll not get away with such an obvious ploy. We know how you climate denier propagandists operate, you're going to have to go down with the ship, rat.

someone said there was no summer sea ice in the antarctic - i merely called them on it

because there is summer sea ice in the antarctic, quite a lot of it in fact - how you can call me correcting an incorrect statement, trolling is beyond me

in fact shouldnt you be labelling the person who made the incorrect statement a troll, rather than me?

I agree there is some Antarctic sea ice left in summer - I should have said that almost all of it melts, which is the terminology that NSIDC uses.

Bill wrote:

I agree there is some Antarctic sea ice left in summer - I should have said that almost all of it melts, which is the terminology that NSIDC uses.

Im not saying you are a troll groucho - Im saying its a bit odd for ted to say I am merely for taking part in a factual discussion - trolls chop and change and use any particular topic to create mayhem for their own amusement, they dont stick to their principles as those principles change if they can see an opportunity for fun by doing so

guy smiley wrote:

6roucho wrote:

Bill wrote:

I agree there is some Antarctic sea ice left in summer - I should have said that almost all of it melts, which is the terminology that NSIDC uses.

Im not saying you are a troll groucho - Im saying its a bit odd for ted to say I am merely for taking part in a factual discussion - trolls chop and change and use any particular topic to create mayhem for their own amusement, they dont stick to their principles as those principles change if they can see an opportunity for fun by doing so

Well, there are trolls and there are trolls.

I personally take every opportunity to try to provoke people on the other side of the climate debate. I believe you do the same. When we do those things we're trolling, albeit in a polemical way.

People who chop and change and use any particular topic to create mayhem are a different matter. They're just a waste of space. I try not to engage with them.

Perilously close to describing Silver's method there, Groucho.

Bill wrote:

I agree there is some Antarctic sea ice left in summer - I should have said that almost all of it melts, which is the terminology that NSIDC uses.

Im not saying you are a troll groucho - Im saying its a bit odd for ted to say I am merely for taking part in a factual discussion - trolls chop and change and use any particular topic to create mayhem for their own amusement, they dont stick to their principles as those principles change if they can see an opportunity for fun by doing so

slow wing wrote:

Bill wrote:

I agree there is some Antarctic sea ice left in summer - I should have said that almost all of it melts, which is the terminology that NSIDC uses.

Im not saying you are a troll groucho - Im saying its a bit odd for ted to say I am merely for taking part in a factual discussion - trolls chop and change and use any particular topic to create mayhem for their own amusement, they dont stick to their principles as those principles change if they can see an opportunity for fun by doing so

Your issue is that the physical world doesn't stick to your principles.

towny wrote:This thread is 49 pages of f**king idiots making fools of themselves.

Self awareness does not seem to be present in the deniers.


I can understand how the average bloke on the street may be believing the nonsense, however I can not for the life of me understand how people who's arguments get destroyed day after day, year after year can not take stock and realise that they are possibly on the wrong side of the debate.


On one side of the argument we have
- almost every relevant scientist
- every first world govt
- every comedian
- every late night talk show host

On the other side we have
- a bloke who pretends he's a 'Lord'
- a few anonymous posters on the internet
- a tiny majority of relevant scientists
- oil companies
- coal companies
- hillbillies
- crackpot ufo enthusiasts


Without even knowing what the debate was about, I would refuse to be on the second team. I would like to see the correlation between deniers and UFO believers and creationists.

I reckon the results of any study would be fascinating.

6roucho wrote:

Silver wrote:

easyray wrote:

towny wrote:I would like to see the correlation between deniers and creationists. I reckon the results of any study would be fascinating.

I think you will find that most of them are Daily Mail readers. Jokes aside, I seriously suspect the 99% of creationists are also deniers, as they obviously all live in fantasy land.

Another my green investments are not doing too well post. or are you a true the world is going to end because of tiny increases in CO2 believer.

Actually, 'green' investments are doing very well globally due to the increase in the deployment of renewable power generation, and the emergence of active carbon markets. You should get in there mate!

The transfer to renewable energy sources promoting economic growth, who'da thunk it?

6roucho wrote:

Cthulu's Trilby wrote:

6roucho wrote:Silver, you've poster on here many times that you don't accept the physics of the greenhouse effect, because it 'violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics'.

Now there's an argument I would *love* to see.

Strap yourself to your chair and then Google "Slaying the Sky Dragon".

6roucho wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

6roucho wrote:

Bill wrote:

I agree there is some Antarctic sea ice left in summer - I should have said that almost all of it melts, which is the terminology that NSIDC uses.

Im not saying you are a troll groucho - Im saying its a bit odd for ted to say I am merely for taking part in a factual discussion - trolls chop and change and use any particular topic to create mayhem for their own amusement, they dont stick to their principles as those principles change if they can see an opportunity for fun by doing so

Well, there are trolls and there are trolls.

I personally take every opportunity to try to provoke people on the other side of the climate debate. I believe you do the same. When we do those things we're trolling, albeit in a polemical way.

People who chop and change and use any particular topic to create mayhem are a different matter. They're just a waste of space. I try not to engage with them.

Perilously close to describing Silver's method there, Groucho.

Nah, I want a debate. I have no idea what Silver's objectives are.