North pole to melt this year?

GT...all of that was in the article. i was not misrepresenting that at all. i was pointing out that it looks like the arctic has its own issues separate from global warming. while we are picking quotes out of the article:



In reply to:
The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.




and


In reply to:
"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.
 
The title of the link:

"The Arctic May Be Just Fine After All"

Which was a total misrepresentation of what the linked article said.

texasflag.gif
 
fair point GT....my thinking was that if this is all natural, we have nothing to worry about, but i guess there are natural disasters that still suck and we should worry about.

point well taken. i will leave it as identified so that your posts previous will stand as fair corrections.
 
mop it seems you are talking about ice you see. To my understanding it is the ice thickness that is falling year in year out no matter what and is the biggest concern.
 
Also what is the point of the data you are posting? Shouldn't we be looking at trends not single data points? Tell me at the end of the year if it has been a hot or cool year overall. Then tell me about the 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 50 year trends in that regards.

Hate to see you post this data every day otherwise.
 
hornpharmd....you started this thread with a panic piece proclaiming that the north pole may be ice free by summer's end.....clearly that has long since proven to be complete hype. i decided to follow the summer's ice journeys. not sure what we know about the thickness, but the last article i posted made some scary points about that. having said that, this is not a skeptic site! is one source for these questions.


In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Not a panic piece. Just a discussion topic to counter the previous declaration by yourself that all of the ice had refrozen over the winter. That is just not true though. You have switched the topic again and again to the south pole ice. But the point remains that the North pole is seeing ice decline and it is the thickness of the ice that is even more important than the land mass ice.

May 7th NYT article

Not just a panic topic, there are real scientists that had predicted the possibility:
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
the last article you linked is interesting....the first 2 are just more of the same and do not represent anything of substance. if you have been watching the updates you know that the ice coverage is 850,000 square kilometers above last year at this time, with almost NO chance of catching last year. remember, last year, while bad, was no where CLOSE to melting all the way. so the fact that this year is 850,000 square kilometers above last year's melt means we are VERY far from melting all the way this year.

for them to point to one day of extreme ice loss last week and use it to say anything more than "this is interesting" is misleading and dishonest. the simple fact is that the ice is doing far better in terms of coverage than last year in spite dire predictions to the contrary.

the only question of concern in my mind is about the thickness of the ice.


by the way.....what did you mean in your original post when you said: "I agree that life does not begin after fertilization. " you presented that as a statement of science. would you mind pointing me to any scientist who would support this claim?
 
i tell you what GT....here is a challenge for you. why don't you find the most optimistic prediction of how much we can affect change with realistic depictions of reductions and post it here. i don't care if it is from al gore....just find the best one you can and let's see what it says.
 
MOP has gone from arguing that climate change isn't real, and even if it is real it isn't anthropogenic. Now he suggests that even if it is real and caused by man, there nothing effective we can do about it.

I suggest we do everything we can. Build nuclear plants. Develop new technology. Wean ourselves from fossil fuels. Change our idiotic behavior. Will this completely reduce the effects of pumping countless tons of CO2 into the atmosphere? Probably not. But it will have some effect and that's better than what Bush and MOP propose.

Prayer's nice MOP, but remember God helps those who help themselves.

texasflag.gif
 
GT....have you always had such a hard time keeping up? i have not once argued that climate change wasn't real, just that it wasn't as anthropogenic as we are being led to believe. i have said repeatedly that it appears that the world has warmed by about .8 degrees celsius in the past 100 years.

so how about that challenge? are you up to it?
 
GT...you are a bigot because you constantly make reference to my beliefs as a Christian as if it is ok to insult me because i am a Christian. if you plugged in "black" or "gay" or any other type of person and insulted them similarly you would be clearly seen as a bigot. as it stands, you are clearly a bigot against me due to my faith.

i am not opposed to science either. this is just more of your thinly veiled bigotry. i have been trying to have an honest discussion based upon evidence. so how about you? are you up to the challenge? i notice you are going the way of your comrade steinbeck....who rarely actually debated evidence, but would merely use empty rhetoric to try and refute me.
 
This thread is an interesting microcosm of how these discussions go. We start with alarmist reports that the North pole might melt this year. When it is doubted, back on page one, the GW pushers begin making over the top insulting and condescending remarks. As the evidence comes in, the alarmist reports turn out mistaken. Now, reporting that the evidence shows the alarmist reports mistaken, those reporting it are attacked personally, (and, as usual, along religiously bigoted lines).

What is so hard to understand about a position that the earth has warmed ever so slightly over a hundred years, that we really are not sure why, that man-made sources may be responsible for some very small fraction of that increase, that the portion of man-made responsibility which can be eliminated with all-out change to our way of life is an even smaller sliver of that unknown small fraction of that ever-so-slight increase over 100 years..... such that, reasonable measures to reduce our impact on the planet should be pursued, but there is insufficient indication to commit any financial suicide on this evidence? Mop was only rightly pointing out that if you wanted to spend inordinate resources on this concern, it may make more sense to prepare than to try to prevent a trend that MAY be of warming but IS almost surely out of our control.
 
VYFan seems not to have been paying attention.

MOP, I'm happier when I don't respond directly to you. However, this point is important and I'll make this last objection. I don't dislike you because you are Christian. I dislike you because you insist on attacking science. Some Christians do that (e.g., Dembski, Johnson, & Behe) but many do not (Ken Miller and many others). It's not your faith I object to, it's your attack on reason.

texasflag.gif
 
Actually, it's a fair point that I haven't paid attention. I kind of read the first and last page. Sorry if I was off point. Still, the tenor of personal attacks seems there, where if the GW assumptions are questioned, you must be a blithering idiot, probably a religious kook.
 
GT...you are blatantly a bigot. i feel no need to sugarcoat that for you. if i plugged in other people groups into your lame excuse, no one would buy it. i suspect no one who is honest with themselves is buying it now. my global warming posts put forth far more raw data than anything else and FAR more raw data than those of you who oppose me on almost entirely emotional grounds. don't kid yourself. you are a bigot.
 
I don't like MOP. That makes me a 'bigot.' Oh well, it could be worse. I could have a problem with racial minorities, religious minorities, or women. Instead I'm biased against idiots. My bad.

texasflag.gif
 
What has become of hornfans? In the old days, threads were bumped because of ice cream cones melting in the hands of attractive young ladies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top