quote:



And the Forbes, Post, op-ed is not backed up by facts. It is simply the assertion of a guy who makes a living working for the oil industry. And has been explained to you before if it is snowing more over Antarctica it is because the air over the continent has gotten substantially warmer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Eh Ken,

Still no counter to the washington post article:

"media stories rarely if ever mention that ice is accumulating over the larger area of East Antarctica and that the continent as a whole is gaining snow and ice mass"

Didn't we already go over the 8th grade physical science necessary to know that Antarctica must warm before it can snow appreciably?

Yes, but he ignored it.

Lets see - data from about 1982 to 2000 show a cooling trend for the antarctic. Kind of blows a hole in your theory right there doesn't it?
I have no theory. I was simply restating 8th grade physical science which shows that if it is too cold, precipitation in the form of snow is not going to happen (ever hear the old timers talking about it being too cold to snow?) It's basic physics.
Doran et al. (2002)[14][15] find that "Although previous reports suggest slight recent continental warming our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn.

The point is - that IF global warming were true - that 18 year period would show continuous warming reflecting the increasing co2 concentration.
No it wouldn't. It isn't "Global warming" because every place doesn't get warmer as the average temps increase. That's why those in N Europe are more worried. One of the worst case scenarios has them going into a deep freeze if the N Atlantic gyre were to collapse.

The Anarctic may have subsequently warmed. But this is just another indication that your theory is shit. You can't predict when it will warm - or why.
Again, it isn't my theory, it's scientific fact that precipitation is impossible if it is too cold. I can't help it if you slept through 8th grade physical science. You claim that scientists cannot predict when it will warm but you claim with certainty that it IS NOT HAPPENING and yet, you apparently failed 8th grade science. Can you see the hypocrisy?
Most of the recent reports are saying that wind patterns are shifting closer to the poles. Which has the effect of causing the ice to ridge up - and thus causes less melting.

That may be true in the North but in Antarctica, the ice cannot 'ridge up' as it is on a continent for fucks sakes, not sea ice.
Thus neither the accumulation of ice - or the lack thereof are evidence of global warming.

So, if all the ice melts, it isn't getting warmer?

It is quite ironic - that those intrepid explorers trying to retrace Mawson's expedition are trapped in ice - when Mawson's video reveals an ice free bay... in 1912

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Regardless of your snide,
backpressure from the sea ice makes a material difference to the speed of the glaciers march to the sea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:



And the Forbes, Post, op-ed is not backed up by facts. It is simply the assertion of a guy who makes a living working for the oil industry. And has been explained to you before if it is snowing more over Antarctica it is because the air over the continent has gotten substantially warmer.

Wrong and wrong. The op-ed you claim isn't backed up by facts directly quotes data at the national snow & ice data center (as I posted).

And you saying its snowing in antartica - without any science to support it is a complete waste of breathe.
You might as well be saying "martians delivered it". Post a study or two that says the increased snow is caused by increased temperatures and I'll read it.

MOST people think that the difference is caused by the polar vortex shrinking, not by the change in temperature.

quote:

No, I never edited your posts. You simply lied. And I still await your retraction and apology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Regardless of your snide,
backpressure from the sea ice makes a material difference to the speed of the glaciers march to the sea.

The ice in Antarctica averages 1.9 KM in thickness and it has the highest average altitude of any continent. Your backpressure theory is wrong as even 100 feet of sea ice can't hold back a glacier that is 1.9 Km thick coming from an altitude of over 2 miles..


You're grasping at straws and demonstrating scientific illiteracy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Regardless of your snide,
backpressure from the sea ice makes a material difference to the speed of the glaciers march to the sea.

The ice in Antarctica averages 1.9 KM in thickness and it has the highest average altitude of any continent. Your backpressure theory is wrong as even 100 feet of sea ice can't hold back a glacier that is 1.9 Km thick coming from an altitude of over 2 miles..


You're grasping at straws and demonstrating scientific illiteracy.

Not my theory. Go blame the people at the snow & ice data center.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Steven Goddard of the Real Science blog has the goods on Time magazine. From the 1974 Time article “Another Ice Age?”:

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.

And guess what Time is saying this week? Yup:

But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex—which can top 100 mph (161 k/h)—keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when the winds weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the Arctic air can escape and spill southward, bringing Arctic weather with it. In this case, nearly the entire polar vortex has tumbled southward, leading to record-breaking cold.

Yep. So polar vortexes are signs of global warming and global cooling.

But, more importantly:

Arrhenious proposed global warming due to carbon dioxide in 1870.
Why is it .. exactly.. that it didn't happen in 1870?

Or if global warming is right, why exactly did TIME (and scientists of that time think we were at the outset of global cooling? Clearly scientists then did not believe global warming.

But the underlying cause has been the same - constantly increasing global emissions...

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Steven Goddard of the Real Science blog has the goods on Time magazine. From the 1974 Time article “Another Ice Age?”:

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.

And guess what Time is saying this week? Yup:

But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex—which can top 100 mph (161 k/h)—keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when the winds weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the Arctic air can escape and spill southward, bringing Arctic weather with it. In this case, nearly the entire polar vortex has tumbled southward, leading to record-breaking cold.

Yep. So polar vortexes are signs of global warming and global cooling.

But, more importantly:

Arrhenious proposed global warming due to carbon dioxide in 1870.
Why is it .. exactly.. that it didn't happen in 1870?

Or if global warming is right, why exactly did TIME (and scientists of that time think we were at the outset of global cooling? Clearly scientists then did not believe global warming.

But the underlying cause has been the same - constantly increasing global emissions...

This from a guy who is telling me that the shape of the arctic pressure zones and storms does not matter (*snicker*), and that balmy winds from the sea are entering deep in the interior of the antarctic (*snicker*) leading to more snow in the interior (*snicker*)

And.....Hilly was it?  I am an oldtimer who is, as anachronistic as it may seem, alive today, and will tell you today there is a reality that it is too cold to snow.  So, that 'old wives tale' (which it certainly is not) is as true today as it was in the halcyon days of yore.

We are still out there.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

As anyone who looks into the Time article will find out, it was sensationalist journalism with no significant scientific backing.

As to climate change in 1870 it was happening but the changes were small, mostly sea levels were rising as the seas warmed, and wide scale tracking of weather information had only just begun so there was not a century of measurements to show a steady upward rise as there is now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

And the current hysteria over AGW is also sensationalism journalism and junk science without serious scientific underpinning. Your models are WRONG.

As for 1870 - arrhenious predicted that the carbon output that was occurring then would warm the world - making it easier for the world to be fed, etc etc.

His calculations called for global temperature increases. They never happened. It is a bit ironic you can so casually overlook that the first person to propose the idea was spectacularly wrong.

It is *also* ironic that you overlook that he thought it a good thing....not catastrophic.


Tell me Ken. In the 150 years of "global warming" - how much has the temperature increased?
How much have the seas raised?
Which glaciers have melted.

Tell me where the catastrophe was that occurred that in the words of al gore could end all life.
Apparently I missed the memo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

As anyone who looks into the Time article will find out, it was sensationalist journalism with no significant scientific backing.

As to climate change in 1870 it was happening but the changes were small, mostly sea levels were rising as the seas warmed, and wide scale tracking of weather information had only just begun so there was not a century of measurements to show a steady upward rise as there is now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
In fact, I never gave a definitive cause for why there is more snow occurring in the anarctic, I merely objected when DomKen said there was less snow and ice in the Antarctic.

When he then conceded there was more ice and snow (after much denial) he then said it was a sign of global warming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

And the current hysteria over AGW is also sensationalism journalism and junk science without serious scientific underpinning. Your models are WRONG.

As for 1870 - arrhenious predicted that the carbon output that was occurring then would warm the world - making it easier for the world to be fed, etc etc.

His calculations called for global temperature increases. They never happened. It is a bit ironic you can so casually overlook that the first person to propose the idea was spectacularly wrong.

quote:

Tell me Ken. In the 150 years of "global warming" - how much has the temperature increased?

quote:

How much have the seas raised?

quote:

Which glaciers have melted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

And the current hysteria over AGW is also sensationalism journalism and junk science without serious scientific underpinning. Your models are WRONG.

As for 1870 - arrhenious predicted that the carbon output that was occurring then would warm the world - making it easier for the world to be fed, etc etc.

His calculations called for global temperature increases. They never happened. It is a bit ironic you can so casually overlook that the first person to propose the idea was spectacularly wrong.

His calculations were based on a very primitive understanding of the atmosphere and how the atmosphere radiates and absorbs heat. Your obsession with a scientist that worked 140+ years ago is bizzare.

quote:

Tell me Ken. In the 150 years of "global warming" - how much has the temperature increased?

slightly over 1C

quote:

How much have the seas raised?

right at 8 inches on average.

quote:

Which glaciers have melted.

All of them. Some a lot more than others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Yes DK, the concept of 'Theory of Climate Change' is totally lost on this and many other conservatives. An when they spread crap like this, all they are doing is helping Democrats win public office across the nation. Doesn't take much convincing towards the moderates that they are more likely to get stuff accomplished by siding with Democrats then then Republican/Tea Party when showing material like Phydeaux.....

Bullshit, conservatives don't deny the climate is changing, we just deny the bullshit progressive claim that man is the cause of the change. You progressives have put junk science up on a pedestal, and refuse to see the truth that the climate is going to change, always has, and always will. It's the nature of the universe.

Man can neither accelerate nor decelerate the changing climate, and the only people who say otherwise are making money hand over fist convincing progressives that man is the cause of all climate changes.

Sooner or later you guys will leave Storybrooke and return to sanity.