North Pole Ice

Shafpocalypse Now · Post by **Shafpocalypse Now** » Sat Jul 25, 2015 6:47 pm

If the ice caps aren't melting than what's with all the stories about assorted countries traipsing around newly opened water in the North Pole looking for oil?

WildGorillaMan · Post by **WildGorillaMan** » Sat Jul 25, 2015 7:45 pm

Once you realize that every media outlet, left, right and centrist is lying to you there's a certain serenity that you achieve.

Shafpocalypse Now · Post by **Shafpocalypse Now** » Sat Jul 25, 2015 7:47 pm

Ok. I walked into that one

I'm gonna go sell some fetuses I got from partial birth abortions at planned parenthood now, brb

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Sat Jul 25, 2015 8:26 pm

ice rebounded some in 13 and 14. still:

Summer Arctic sea ice has declined by about 40% since satellite measurements began in the 1970s.

the first six months of 2015 are the hottest on record, but don't tell turd because he'll cite some quack to suggest otherwise.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:09 pm

Like this Mann, Bradley, and Hughes?

TomFurman · Post by **TomFurman** » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:22 pm

Nothing but conflict.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... after-all/

Andy83 · Post by **Andy83** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:35 am

TomFurman wrote:Nothing but conflict.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... after-all/

Stop posting that kind of shit, Tom. You're hurting dmw's feelings.

Sangoma · Post by **Sangoma** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:22 am

TomFurman wrote:Nothing but conflict.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... after-all/

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. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

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.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?

The answer to the question asked in the last paragraph would be interesting.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 12:44 pm

Andy81 wrote:
TomFurman wrote:Nothing but conflict.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... after-all/
Stop posting that kind of shit, Tom. You're hurting dmw's feelings.

perhaps the most interesting thing in that article is the admission by the heartland institute--which is funded by coal and oil-- that warming is occurring and humans are a cause:

the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors.

as for arctic ice, a two-year blip is hardly proof of anything, especially if you consider other evidence of warming:

increase in ocean temperatures
acidification of ocean as co2 dissolves in it
effects of acidification on marine species
melting of antarctic glaciers
earlier arrival of spring documented in various locations around the globe
and more

what will you all do in five - ten years when it's obvious you have been wrong?

Beer Jew · Post by **Beer Jew** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 1:09 pm

Sangoma wrote:
TomFurman wrote:Nothing but conflict.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... after-all/

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. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

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.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?
The answer to the question asked in the last paragraph would be interesting.

The author thought so too. That's why he wrote it on the next page;

The frequency of polar ice cap stories may have abated, but the tone and content has not changed at all. Here are some of the titles of news items I pulled yesterday from the front two pages of a Google News search for “polar ice caps”:

“Climate change is melting more than just the polar ice caps”

“2020: Antarctic ice shelf could collapse”

“An Arctic ice cap’s shockingly rapid slide into the sea”

“New satellite maps show polar ice caps melting at ‘unprecedented rate’”

The only Google News items even hinting that the polar ice caps may not have melted so much (indeed not at all) came from overtly conservative websites. The “mainstream” media is alternating between maintaining radio silence on the extended run of above-average polar ice and falsely asserting the polar ice caps are receding at an alarming rate.

To be sure, receding polar ice caps are an expected result of the modest global warming we can expect in the years ahead. In and of themselves, receding polar ice caps have little if any negative impact on human health and welfare, and likely a positive benefit by opening up previously ice-entombed land to human, animal, and plant life. Nevertheless, polar ice cap extent will likely be a measuring stick for how much the planet is or is not warming.

The Earth has warmed modestly since the Little Ice Age ended a little over 100 years ago, and the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors. As a result, at some point in time, NASA satellite instruments should begin to report a modest retreat of polar ice caps. The modest retreat – like that which happened briefly from 2005 through 2012 – would not be proof or evidence of a global warming crisis. Such a retreat would merely illustrate that global temperatures are continuing their gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age. Such a recovery – despite alarmist claims to the contrary – would not be uniformly or even on balance detrimental to human health and welfare. Instead, an avalanche of scientific evidence indicates recently warming temperatures have significantly improved human health and welfare, just as warming temperatures have always done.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:02 pm

dead man walking wrote:
Andy81 wrote:
TomFurman wrote:Nothing but conflict.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... after-all/
Stop posting that kind of shit, Tom. You're hurting dmw's feelings.
perhaps the most interesting thing in that article is the admission by the heartland institute--which is funded by coal and oil-- that warming is occurring and humans are a cause:

the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors.
as for arctic ice, a two-year blip is hardly proof of anything, especially if you consider other evidence of warming:

increase in ocean temperatures
acidification of ocean as co2 dissolves in it
effects of acidification on marine species
melting of antarctic glaciers
earlier arrival of spring documented in various locations around the globe
and more

what will you all do in five - ten years when it's obvious you have been wrong?

And the massive increase in hurricanes...

Andy83 · Post by **Andy83** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:32 pm

dead man walking wrote:
Andy81 wrote:
TomFurman wrote:Nothing but conflict.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... after-all/
Stop posting that kind of shit, Tom. You're hurting dmw's feelings.
perhaps the most interesting thing in that article is the admission by the heartland institute--which is funded by coal and oil-- that warming is occurring and humans are a cause:

the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors.
as for arctic ice, a two-year blip is hardly proof of anything, especially if you consider other evidence of warming:

increase in ocean temperatures
acidification of ocean as co2 dissolves in it
effects of acidification on marine species
melting of antarctic glaciers
earlier arrival of spring documented in various locations around the globe
and more

what will you all do in five - ten years when it's obvious you have been wrong?

Or what will you do in 5-10 years if you find out you were wrong? Personally I don't give a rat's ass one way or the other. If it gets warmer....longer growing season and more and better food supply. If it gets colder I'll make sure I have a lot of warm clothing on hand.

buckethead · Post by **buckethead** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:44 pm

dead man walking wrote:
what will you all do in five - ten years when it's obvious you have been wrong?

It seems like we have been 5 to 10 years from catastrophe since the mid 90s.

Which is why I still hold that the global warming movement is simply focused on the wrong question. Global warming as a concept is similar to the war on terror and the war on drugs. So broad and vague that it ends up vacuous

In fact, if I were an executive in oil and gas I would be giddy at the global warming movement. It has rendered individuals hopeless and governments idle.

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:14 pm

The only thing the global warming crowd has accomplished is moving polluting industries to countries where there is no interest in keeping them from maximizing their pollution.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09kuOAr_wkc[/youtube]

Protobuilder · Post by **Protobuilder** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 1:55 am

I'm not changing my position unless you people tell me how to remove bumper stickers from my hybrid.

baffled · Post by **baffled** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 2:06 am

Protobuilder wrote:I'm not changing my position unless you people tell me how to remove bumper stickers from my hybrid.

Sangoma · Post by **Sangoma** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:00 am

dead man walking wrote:
Andy81 wrote:
TomFurman wrote:Nothing but conflict.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... after-all/
Stop posting that kind of shit, Tom. You're hurting dmw's feelings.
perhaps the most interesting thing in that article is the admission by the heartland institute--which is funded by coal and oil-- that warming is occurring and humans are a cause:

the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors.
as for arctic ice, a two-year blip is hardly proof of anything, especially if you consider other evidence of warming:

increase in ocean temperatures
acidification of ocean as co2 dissolves in it
effects of acidification on marine species
melting of antarctic glaciers
earlier arrival of spring documented in various locations around the globe
and more

what will you all do in five - ten years when it's obvious you have been wrong?

The melting of the polar ice has been quite central in the (non-existing) debate regarding global warming: how bad it is, how everything is going to be flooded, how it is going to affect salinity and so on. Now it turns out that according to the NASA data polar ice has increased by 5 percent since 1979. It is more than 2 year blip and it proves one important thing: the polar ice is not melting.

It is important for several reasons. First, the information fed to us in the last decade by the "experts" in the media is bullshit and was not verified. From which follows the second: that all the other data thrown at the public by the climatologists - including the points you listed - is not credible. Third, that the effects of global warming are not that significant. All of which points to the conclusion that climatology is not a science, but the hybrid between politics and religion.

There is no doubt that the Earth is warming, and I can personally observe this fact. There is no convincing evidence, however, that this warming is anthropogenic and that it is going to lead to a catastrophe. Buckets is right: the argument is completely misdirected.

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 1:14 pm

buckethead wrote:
dead man walking wrote:
what will you all do in five - ten years when it's obvious you have been wrong?
It seems like we have been 5 to 10 years from catastrophe since the mid 90s.

we have been 5 to 10 years from catastrophe during my entire life, beginning with the threat of nuclear armageddon in the 50s, followed by disastrous pollution, the end of oil, global warming. the jeremiads are wearying. previously we seem to have made adjustments to avoid the worst. with warming, the possibility exists that the threat could accelerate despite our best efforts (melting of antarctic glaciers and of permafrost offer two potential examples).

we'll see, won't we.

Batboy2/75 · Post by **Batboy2/75** » Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:16 pm

What do all of these "end of the world crisis" stories have in common?

The Ginger Beard Man · Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:41 pm

Yes, whatever will we do? What will we do? What will we do?
Hurry up and do something, Chicken Little, the sky is falling!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whit ... hange-june

Herv100 · Post by **Herv100** » Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:08 am

Batboy2/75 wrote:What do all of these "end of the world crisis" stories have in common?

I'm going to go with: The proposed solutions to all the problems are more communism, totalitarianism, and overall centralization of control

Turdacious · Post by **Turdacious** » Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:48 am

Batboy2/75 wrote:What do all of these "end of the world crisis" stories have in common?

Sangoma · Post by **Sangoma** » Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:05 am

dead man walking wrote:
buckethead wrote:
dead man walking wrote:
what will you all do in five - ten years when it's obvious you have been wrong?
It seems like we have been 5 to 10 years from catastrophe since the mid 90s.
we have been 5 to 10 years from catastrophe during my entire life, beginning with the threat of nuclear armageddon in the 50s, followed by disastrous pollution, the end of oil, global warming. the jeremiads are wearying. previously we seem to have made adjustments to avoid the worst. with warming, the possibility exists that the threat could accelerate despite our best efforts (melting of antarctic glaciers and of permafrost offer two potential examples).

we'll see, won't we.

Deleted. Continuing the argument would be plain stupid.

DrDonkeyLove · Post by **DrDonkeyLove** » Tue Jul 28, 2015 5:40 am

Herv100 wrote:
Batboy2/75 wrote:What do all of these "end of the world crisis" stories have in common?
I'm going to go with: The proposed solutions to all the problems are more communism, totalitarianism, and overall centralization of control

Exactly. These people are experts. Experts make the right and necessary decisions. Therefore,.......what you said.

Yes, they've been wrong a few (most) times in the past but experts are experts and that is that. To deny that is to deny "science" .

dead man walking · Post by **dead man walking** » Tue Jul 28, 2015 12:37 pm

DrDonkeyLove wrote:
Herv100 wrote:
Batboy2/75 wrote:What do all of these "end of the world crisis" stories have in common?
I'm going to go with: The proposed solutions to all the problems are more communism, totalitarianism, and overall centralization of control
Exactly. These people are experts. Experts make the right and necessary decisions. Therefore,.......what you said.

Yes, they've been wrong a few (most) times in the past but experts are experts and that is that. To deny that is to deny "science" .

if the problem is despoilation of the commons, as is the case with air and water pollution for example, you cannot rely on individuals or even states to solve the problem. as a result of environmental laws--starting with nixon--the us is a healthier and safer land.

using the terms totalitarianism and communism to characterize the principles that lie behind the improvements seems wrong.

IGX

North Pole Ice

North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice

Re: North Pole Ice