North pole to melt this year?
- Thread starter hornpharmd
- Start date
B
bronco
Guest
Its no wonder there are some people that have a hard time accepting man made gw as fact when you have folks like Stienbeck.
Mop puts up some graphs and data and the challenge from Stienbeck is the "source" of the data. Not once does he try and say the data is wrong.
Then Stienbeck posts a link (and I have this vision of him googling furiously to find anything that will impugn mops data) and in the same link he provides one of the IPCC leaders (and Stienbeck ALWAYS says you have to consider the source) feels that the ice break-up (which Stienbeck uses as a support of his position that ice is declinig) is actually a result of too much ice forming.
Yet others are " pitiful, backwards, disgusting cretins who refuse to educate themselves on the issue."
Mop puts up some graphs and data and the challenge from Stienbeck is the "source" of the data. Not once does he try and say the data is wrong.
Then Stienbeck posts a link (and I have this vision of him googling furiously to find anything that will impugn mops data) and in the same link he provides one of the IPCC leaders (and Stienbeck ALWAYS says you have to consider the source) feels that the ice break-up (which Stienbeck uses as a support of his position that ice is declinig) is actually a result of too much ice forming.
Yet others are " pitiful, backwards, disgusting cretins who refuse to educate themselves on the issue."
B
bronco
Guest
Bronco, I considered PMing you last week, but I spend enough time on this as it is. I'd PM you now with a .pdf, but it's 4 MB. Some points:
-- I understand why you have you view of me. It's a risk I take.
-- I am presuming, based on what you've written, that you haven't read and thoroughly considered this entire thread.
-- I believe mop's points, which make up almost a third of this thread in total post numbers but which are limited to a couple of very, very basic arguments that he repeats ad infinitum, have been addressed thoroughly by others. He neither buys it nor seems willing to even consider it in any intellectually open fashion, as others also seem not to.
-- As I've noted more than once, it is easy to refute the view of mop and others not only with the links already posted by others, but by reading openly on one's own. I've posted a basic recipe for doing that. Ultimately, that's everyone's responsibility. You don't have to take my word -- or mop's -- for anything.
-- If you follow this link, which I posted earlier and which is too large to send to you, it links to probably the best and most thorough summary of what this is about. Again, it's 52 pages. Sorry, but it's what I'm talking about. Some people are willing to read or at least skim with an open mind. Others aren't. I'll assume, for the time being, that you would at least consider it. Or here's a shorter one, 22 pages, for policymakers; I haven't read it. The Link
Some basic points on climate change and global warming:
-- Dangerous warming is occurring in a very clear trend. That's not what this post is about, but it comes up tangentially. Most important in this regard is that what's happening in Austin today, or in the U.S. this month, or in the northern hemisphere this year, is irrelevant insofar as it's separated from the larger, long-term trend -- which, again, is clear and inarguable unless you're mop or one of his ilk. That's why he only talks about today or this year, time and time again, with both Antarctic ice and temperatures. For everything he posts about this year being cooler, any of us could post multiple links about record heat, year after year, for the past couple of decades, that is part of an even larger trend.
-- Temperature is only a part of the bigger climate-change picture. Global climate is a complex mechanism, and one month's temps or one area of Antarctica's ice, however nice it might look when we think wishfully, is only a little bit of the data.
-- Ice is melting in this world more than it is forming. Most worrisome is glacial melt, which will contribute to sea levels rising. Sea-ice melt, while interesting and puzzling, is a smaller part of the picture. And whatever mop says, as others have clearly pointed out, any Antarctic growth is being "offset" by other Antarctic melting and Arctic melting. But scientists don't talk about whether it's offsetting. They look at how it affects other climate patterns regionally AND wordlwide.
-- Water is basically irrelevant to the greenhouse gas issue. C02 has an impact far out of proportion to its actual volume, so small percentages mean big changes (the same is true for temps, by the way; a very small average temp change worldwide, even a few tenths of a percentage point, can have dramatic consequences).
-- I'm not a meterologist or climatologist, but I am part of a professional organization that deals with issues like this, and related ones, literally every day. I read a ton of stuff. You don't have to read a ton of stuff, but you should be willing to read more if you really want answers.
-- I do, despite blueglasshorse's call of BS, teach environmental journalism as a full-time faculty member. And I get tired of half-assed "research." I can't call it that in class because it will offend the students, and it'll come back to me. In fact, it's damned tough and extremely taxing to figure out how to say these things nicely just to be ignored time and time again. That's also part of the factor here in how I deal with naysayers, and how I believe we should deal with purposeful ******** artists.
-- The larger issue is what GT WT described as a culture war. mop and others, including ExxonMobil and its propaganda allies, are waging it. There has been an extremely well-funded and successful obfuscation campaign in this country. Google "Exxon" and "climate change." Don't just read the first few links, as Exxon is beginning to wise up -- other oil companies and big businesses, the military, and many governments did it much earlier.
I'm barely getting started, and frankly, I have other important things to do. But I think this is important enough to respond to. I hope you'll consider these points with an open mind and read more for yourself. Frankly, my kids and I are counting on you and your kids.
I hope and pray that I'm wrong. But scientific consensus says I'm probably not.
-- I understand why you have you view of me. It's a risk I take.
-- I am presuming, based on what you've written, that you haven't read and thoroughly considered this entire thread.
-- I believe mop's points, which make up almost a third of this thread in total post numbers but which are limited to a couple of very, very basic arguments that he repeats ad infinitum, have been addressed thoroughly by others. He neither buys it nor seems willing to even consider it in any intellectually open fashion, as others also seem not to.
-- As I've noted more than once, it is easy to refute the view of mop and others not only with the links already posted by others, but by reading openly on one's own. I've posted a basic recipe for doing that. Ultimately, that's everyone's responsibility. You don't have to take my word -- or mop's -- for anything.
-- If you follow this link, which I posted earlier and which is too large to send to you, it links to probably the best and most thorough summary of what this is about. Again, it's 52 pages. Sorry, but it's what I'm talking about. Some people are willing to read or at least skim with an open mind. Others aren't. I'll assume, for the time being, that you would at least consider it. Or here's a shorter one, 22 pages, for policymakers; I haven't read it. The Link
Some basic points on climate change and global warming:
-- Dangerous warming is occurring in a very clear trend. That's not what this post is about, but it comes up tangentially. Most important in this regard is that what's happening in Austin today, or in the U.S. this month, or in the northern hemisphere this year, is irrelevant insofar as it's separated from the larger, long-term trend -- which, again, is clear and inarguable unless you're mop or one of his ilk. That's why he only talks about today or this year, time and time again, with both Antarctic ice and temperatures. For everything he posts about this year being cooler, any of us could post multiple links about record heat, year after year, for the past couple of decades, that is part of an even larger trend.
-- Temperature is only a part of the bigger climate-change picture. Global climate is a complex mechanism, and one month's temps or one area of Antarctica's ice, however nice it might look when we think wishfully, is only a little bit of the data.
-- Ice is melting in this world more than it is forming. Most worrisome is glacial melt, which will contribute to sea levels rising. Sea-ice melt, while interesting and puzzling, is a smaller part of the picture. And whatever mop says, as others have clearly pointed out, any Antarctic growth is being "offset" by other Antarctic melting and Arctic melting. But scientists don't talk about whether it's offsetting. They look at how it affects other climate patterns regionally AND wordlwide.
-- Water is basically irrelevant to the greenhouse gas issue. C02 has an impact far out of proportion to its actual volume, so small percentages mean big changes (the same is true for temps, by the way; a very small average temp change worldwide, even a few tenths of a percentage point, can have dramatic consequences).
-- I'm not a meterologist or climatologist, but I am part of a professional organization that deals with issues like this, and related ones, literally every day. I read a ton of stuff. You don't have to read a ton of stuff, but you should be willing to read more if you really want answers.
-- I do, despite blueglasshorse's call of BS, teach environmental journalism as a full-time faculty member. And I get tired of half-assed "research." I can't call it that in class because it will offend the students, and it'll come back to me. In fact, it's damned tough and extremely taxing to figure out how to say these things nicely just to be ignored time and time again. That's also part of the factor here in how I deal with naysayers, and how I believe we should deal with purposeful ******** artists.
-- The larger issue is what GT WT described as a culture war. mop and others, including ExxonMobil and its propaganda allies, are waging it. There has been an extremely well-funded and successful obfuscation campaign in this country. Google "Exxon" and "climate change." Don't just read the first few links, as Exxon is beginning to wise up -- other oil companies and big businesses, the military, and many governments did it much earlier.
I'm barely getting started, and frankly, I have other important things to do. But I think this is important enough to respond to. I hope you'll consider these points with an open mind and read more for yourself. Frankly, my kids and I are counting on you and your kids.
I hope and pray that I'm wrong. But scientific consensus says I'm probably not.
blueglasshorse
1,000+ Posts
Be careful what you with for. I think the other side might have you out-gunned (literally).
Seriously though, are you really so obtuse to think that bullying will persuade anyone. Most people I know who agree with your point of view would disassociate themselves from you for at least two reasons. First, nobody likes an a-hole. Second, your approach harms the cause.
Despite what you think, I consider myself an open minded person. I have changed my position on many issues over the past 10 years, much to the chagrin of my Republican friends.
You would do well to take a basic course on persuasive writing and/or persuasive speaking. It's not the data that's unpersuasive, it's you. You call others lazy but I can list post after post that demonstrates your laziness.
I think your real frustration is your inability to effectively utilize all the knowledge you have to persuade people. So you incorrectly conclude they are unpersuadable or have inferior intellect.
Granted, there are those people who will never agree with you under any circumstances. Welcome to planet earth. However, there are many who are persuadable but who become less so with each bully post you write.
Quit blaming others for your shortcomings. I stand by my earlier assessment. You seem very knowledgeable re: all things environmental, GW in particular. However, if your purpose is to persuade, you are failing miserably. Maybe technical writing or fiction is more your thing. Persuasive writing AIN'T
Seriously though, are you really so obtuse to think that bullying will persuade anyone. Most people I know who agree with your point of view would disassociate themselves from you for at least two reasons. First, nobody likes an a-hole. Second, your approach harms the cause.
Despite what you think, I consider myself an open minded person. I have changed my position on many issues over the past 10 years, much to the chagrin of my Republican friends.
You would do well to take a basic course on persuasive writing and/or persuasive speaking. It's not the data that's unpersuasive, it's you. You call others lazy but I can list post after post that demonstrates your laziness.
I think your real frustration is your inability to effectively utilize all the knowledge you have to persuade people. So you incorrectly conclude they are unpersuadable or have inferior intellect.
Granted, there are those people who will never agree with you under any circumstances. Welcome to planet earth. However, there are many who are persuadable but who become less so with each bully post you write.
Quit blaming others for your shortcomings. I stand by my earlier assessment. You seem very knowledgeable re: all things environmental, GW in particular. However, if your purpose is to persuade, you are failing miserably. Maybe technical writing or fiction is more your thing. Persuasive writing AIN'T
I'm referring to water as a greenhouse gas, not water in general -- as another response to the post a bit further above on the general issue of water being the primary greenhouse gas, therefore we have no problem. You want to make a semantic issue of it, be my guest.
And, just to make some things clear on other points, here are three critical summary paragraphs from the shorter policymakers' synthesis that I linked above:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level (Figure SPM.1). {1.1} Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C1 is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) (Figure SPM.1).
The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and is greater at higher northern latitudes. Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans (Figures SPM.2, SPM.4). {1.1, 1.2}
Rising sea level is consistent with warming (Figure SPM.1). Global average sea level has risen since 1961 at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm/yr and since 1993 at 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm/yr, with contributions from thermal expansion, melting glaciers and ice caps, and the polar ice sheets. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. {1.1}"
And, just to make some things clear on other points, here are three critical summary paragraphs from the shorter policymakers' synthesis that I linked above:
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level (Figure SPM.1). {1.1} Eleven of the last twelve years (1995-2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850). The 100-year linear trend (1906-2005) of 0.74 [0.56 to 0.92]°C1 is larger than the corresponding trend of 0.6 [0.4 to 0.8]°C (1901-2000) given in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) (Figure SPM.1).
The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and is greater at higher northern latitudes. Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans (Figures SPM.2, SPM.4). {1.1, 1.2}
Rising sea level is consistent with warming (Figure SPM.1). Global average sea level has risen since 1961 at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm/yr and since 1993 at 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm/yr, with contributions from thermal expansion, melting glaciers and ice caps, and the polar ice sheets. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. {1.1}"
I think Steinbeck's persuasiveness depends on the reader's philosophical, political, or religious perspective. I find his posts persuasive because he writes what I know to be true. He says things forcefully and directly. I admire his perspective and agree with his posts.
Is he frustrated? Sure. There are some on HF who wouldn't be convinced if Antarctica became a winter vacation destination. It's frustrating because this debate matters. Maybe Theropods is right and the tipping point has been passed. But for the sake of all our grandchildren I hope he's wrong, and I hope that we all wake up before it trully is too late.
Is he frustrated? Sure. There are some on HF who wouldn't be convinced if Antarctica became a winter vacation destination. It's frustrating because this debate matters. Maybe Theropods is right and the tipping point has been passed. But for the sake of all our grandchildren I hope he's wrong, and I hope that we all wake up before it trully is too late.
I'm not sure who you think is disagreeing with you. Here's a quote from your link:"However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops."
In the larger context of this discussion, it's irrelevant. We don't know for sure if it's a problem, if we need to do something about it, or if we can do something about it.
There isn't huge scientific uncertainty about the negative impact of warming, excess C02 and human impacts, and the harm of net ice and snow loss.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing, although when I look back at your post and attempt to understand it, you seem to have made a factual error yourself in regard to northern sea ice.
In the larger context of this discussion, it's irrelevant. We don't know for sure if it's a problem, if we need to do something about it, or if we can do something about it.
There isn't huge scientific uncertainty about the negative impact of warming, excess C02 and human impacts, and the harm of net ice and snow loss.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing, although when I look back at your post and attempt to understand it, you seem to have made a factual error yourself in regard to northern sea ice.
Maybe no one disagrees with me; only they who do can say. I am stating that water is a major player in the GH effect. It exerts the strongest effect of all GHGs, and it is emitted by human activity. Various models predict its effect's amplification in response to other factors such as increased atmospheric methane. Strong evidence has not yet to my knowledge been gathered and published elucidating exactly to what extent water's concentration in air affects and is affected by mean global mid-tropospheric temperature changes. To say that the lack of such evidence is a refutation of water's importance is a classic argument from ignorance. I started all of this conversation on water as a GHG in response to, "Water is basically irrelevant to the greenhouse gas issue," and continued in response to, "I'm referring to water as a greenhouse gas."
In my previous post, I stated that, "uncertainty exists as to what role feedbacks play in the interrelationship of GW/CC, water, and other GHGs," so I am uncertain as to why the NOAA link I provided was quoted as saying, "huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop," as if arguing with me. I cited NOAA as evidence that calling water a GHG was accepted, not out of any attempt to delineate its complex role.
I am curious as to what factual error regarding northern sea ice coverage it seems to you that I made. The anomaly is currently negative with a magnitude less than in mid-July 2007.
My argument focally was that water is a GHG. Globally, my position is (among other things) that we need a better understanding of water as a GHG, as an albedo source, as a heat sink, as a bulk-flow thermal transport mechanism, and otherwise. I am hard-pressed to imagine that a reasonable scientist concerned about the environment would believe that (1) water is not a potent GHG, or (2) knowing more about water and its effect on GW/CC is a not good thing.
I am not some zealot, idiot, or even professional rhetorician
. I am a scientist trying to make a rather simple point regarding the nature of water. I have no animus, merely a point to make.
In my previous post, I stated that, "uncertainty exists as to what role feedbacks play in the interrelationship of GW/CC, water, and other GHGs," so I am uncertain as to why the NOAA link I provided was quoted as saying, "huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop," as if arguing with me. I cited NOAA as evidence that calling water a GHG was accepted, not out of any attempt to delineate its complex role.
I am curious as to what factual error regarding northern sea ice coverage it seems to you that I made. The anomaly is currently negative with a magnitude less than in mid-July 2007.
My argument focally was that water is a GHG. Globally, my position is (among other things) that we need a better understanding of water as a GHG, as an albedo source, as a heat sink, as a bulk-flow thermal transport mechanism, and otherwise. I am hard-pressed to imagine that a reasonable scientist concerned about the environment would believe that (1) water is not a potent GHG, or (2) knowing more about water and its effect on GW/CC is a not good thing.
I am not some zealot, idiot, or even professional rhetorician
kpg, I will stand corrected on your statement on the northern sea ice; there were no factual errors, at least per se. But it's not a "glass half full" situation as you state, either. That's an interpretation and a rhetorical statement. What's happening both there and in Antarctica are consistent with and indicative of issues we're having with warming. As far as scientific consensus is concerned, there's nothing optimistic about it being "better" than last year given what appears to be the long-term trend of thinner (and therefore less) cover and where this fits in the bigger picture, as noted best in the IPCC report.
I don't stand corrected on anything having to do with water as a greenhouse gas. I've posted links above discussing its role as a greenhouse gas. You say I'm wrong because I call it "irrelevant." A poor choice of words, yes, and I've tried to clarify, apparently to no avail. I said you were wrong because you called the ice situation a "glass half full." I've pulled back on saying you were factually incorrect, but let me tell you what impressions I've begun to form.
I think you're a good fit for the Roy Spencer camp. You're deflecting attention from the major issue, which is C02 and its impact, as well as our broader human impact. Tell us -- is it your contention that we should do nothing about climate change, that there is, in effect, no problem?
You may not be a "professional rhetorician," but you're certainly an evasive and skilled amateur. For instance, you state that you're a scientist with no animus, and then you give us an animus -- that you want to make a point. This, of course, assumes that your animus is your purpose, rather than your axe to grind. Making a point is a purpose, even when your point appears to be nothing more than to call my post into doubt. Fair enough. But I'm beginning to think you deliberately chose a word that could be interpreted in more than one way in this context, and that you have a transparent rhetorical purpose.
I'm not buying the animus issue anyway. All scientists have an animus. We demonstrate it by the very issues we choose to study; we rate something as important, or problematic, and the very clear implication is something needs to be done about it.
Or, as I'm beginning to think is your animus here, NOT done about it.
Not having paid attention to enough of your postings in the past, then, I ask you again: do you think we need to do something about excess and harmful C02 emissions, among other issues? Or are you just one of those blanket climate-change skeptics? What is exactly your point, and what is your purpose? Your key phrase on belief is "among other things," a fine evasive effort. We know where you stand on the semantics of water as a greenhouse gas and the need to know more about it (which I haven't argued against, but you know that, despite your artful implication).
Finally:
I don't stand corrected on anything having to do with water as a greenhouse gas. I've posted links above discussing its role as a greenhouse gas. You say I'm wrong because I call it "irrelevant." A poor choice of words, yes, and I've tried to clarify, apparently to no avail. I said you were wrong because you called the ice situation a "glass half full." I've pulled back on saying you were factually incorrect, but let me tell you what impressions I've begun to form.
I think you're a good fit for the Roy Spencer camp. You're deflecting attention from the major issue, which is C02 and its impact, as well as our broader human impact. Tell us -- is it your contention that we should do nothing about climate change, that there is, in effect, no problem?
You may not be a "professional rhetorician," but you're certainly an evasive and skilled amateur. For instance, you state that you're a scientist with no animus, and then you give us an animus -- that you want to make a point. This, of course, assumes that your animus is your purpose, rather than your axe to grind. Making a point is a purpose, even when your point appears to be nothing more than to call my post into doubt. Fair enough. But I'm beginning to think you deliberately chose a word that could be interpreted in more than one way in this context, and that you have a transparent rhetorical purpose.
I'm not buying the animus issue anyway. All scientists have an animus. We demonstrate it by the very issues we choose to study; we rate something as important, or problematic, and the very clear implication is something needs to be done about it.
Or, as I'm beginning to think is your animus here, NOT done about it.
Not having paid attention to enough of your postings in the past, then, I ask you again: do you think we need to do something about excess and harmful C02 emissions, among other issues? Or are you just one of those blanket climate-change skeptics? What is exactly your point, and what is your purpose? Your key phrase on belief is "among other things," a fine evasive effort. We know where you stand on the semantics of water as a greenhouse gas and the need to know more about it (which I haven't argued against, but you know that, despite your artful implication).
Finally:
first time in a good while that 2008 has actually exceeded 2007. but still way behind. 910,000 square kilometers to be more precise.
2008 had a big day, with daily melt apparently exceeding 2007 and every other year since 2002.
7 15 2002 8.917344 -0.103437
7 15 2003 8.953281 -0.034844
7 14 2004 9.157500 -0.068594
7 15 2005 8.488594 -0.058594
7 15 2006 8.104531 -0.035782
7 15 2007 7.690313 -0.094687
7 14 2008 8.600625 -0.097813
sorry...i am at a 1 week institute at yale and don't have much time for this.....but i will at least keep updating this each day!
2008 had a big day, with daily melt apparently exceeding 2007 and every other year since 2002.
7 15 2002 8.917344 -0.103437
7 15 2003 8.953281 -0.034844
7 14 2004 9.157500 -0.068594
7 15 2005 8.488594 -0.058594
7 15 2006 8.104531 -0.035782
7 15 2007 7.690313 -0.094687
7 14 2008 8.600625 -0.097813
sorry...i am at a 1 week institute at yale and don't have much time for this.....but i will at least keep updating this each day!
well....time is not going in favor of 2008 breaking any records. but today it did move a tad bit closer to 2007's record. here is McIntyre's commentary:
Day 197 Race Report
TAC- where are you?
The race report seems to go online about 11 pm Eastern. A very slight gain for 2008 over 2007, but trading baskets in the 4th quarter isn’t going to do it (and I think that this is the 4th qtr equivalent for the melt season). 2008 is about 890,000 sq km behind 2007 - and it’s hard to catch up because 2007 will continue to put strong numbers on the board next week. Even if 2008 had an entire week of 100,000 sq km days, it would still be about 750,000 sq km behind. And 2008 has shown little appetite so far for putting a string of 100,000 sq km days together. Maybe we’ll be surprised.
month day year ice diff
46 7 16 2002 8.832969 -0.084375
411 7 16 2003 8.858281 -0.095000
776 7 15 2004 9.073438 -0.084062
1142 7 16 2005 8.401094 -0.087500
1507 7 16 2006 8.079844 -0.024687
1872 7 16 2007 7.592500 -0.097813
2237 7 15 2008 8.502344 -0.100312
Day 197 Race Report
TAC- where are you?
The race report seems to go online about 11 pm Eastern. A very slight gain for 2008 over 2007, but trading baskets in the 4th quarter isn’t going to do it (and I think that this is the 4th qtr equivalent for the melt season). 2008 is about 890,000 sq km behind 2007 - and it’s hard to catch up because 2007 will continue to put strong numbers on the board next week. Even if 2008 had an entire week of 100,000 sq km days, it would still be about 750,000 sq km behind. And 2008 has shown little appetite so far for putting a string of 100,000 sq km days together. Maybe we’ll be surprised.
month day year ice diff
46 7 16 2002 8.832969 -0.084375
411 7 16 2003 8.858281 -0.095000
776 7 15 2004 9.073438 -0.084062
1142 7 16 2005 8.401094 -0.087500
1507 7 16 2006 8.079844 -0.024687
1872 7 16 2007 7.592500 -0.097813
2237 7 15 2008 8.502344 -0.100312
actually pmg i am updating it with this data every 24 hours (on average) with the latest update on the original question of this thread. sorry that actual data offends you and that you feel the need to put quotes around it as if it is somehow fake, but there it is.
by the way, if you have an actual argument with substance or logic, you ought to try it out. you are starting to look a lot like steinbeck.....all bluster but no reason.
i do post sometimes in response to other points too (such as this one)......once again, sorry that this offends you, it is not my intention at all.
mop
ps next up.....the update for today's ice melt.
by the way, if you have an actual argument with substance or logic, you ought to try it out. you are starting to look a lot like steinbeck.....all bluster but no reason.
i do post sometimes in response to other points too (such as this one)......once again, sorry that this offends you, it is not my intention at all.
mop
ps next up.....the update for today's ice melt.
Well, I know most of you have been waiting for this very important update, so I got here as quickly as I can. I'm very busy, but this is such an interesting and critical issue I just made the time to share it with you.
Another day has passed by without Colt throwing an interception or Jamal losing a fumble. Jammal seems to have a new commitment to keeping a handle on the pigskin without sacrificing his best-in-the-nation-no-questions-asked speed. I really like Jamail's new attitude. Of course, it's going to be a long season, but with Colt and Hamal doing such a fantastic job of staying focused, it's clear that great things are ahead and we are probably going to surpass the 2007 season this year in terms of fantastic accomplishments.
Here is the list of months in which they have played error-free football:
Another day has passed by without Colt throwing an interception or Jamal losing a fumble. Jammal seems to have a new commitment to keeping a handle on the pigskin without sacrificing his best-in-the-nation-no-questions-asked speed. I really like Jamail's new attitude. Of course, it's going to be a long season, but with Colt and Hamal doing such a fantastic job of staying focused, it's clear that great things are ahead and we are probably going to surpass the 2007 season this year in terms of fantastic accomplishments.
Here is the list of months in which they have played error-free football:
here is today's update......heading to providence tomorrow and have no idea what my internet access will be, so we shall see:
DAy 200
2008 has a modest gain on 2007, but loses a titch to 2005 (with which it is a closer race.) 2007 has 5 days averaging around 100,000 sq km up, so gains will be very hard in the next week. I’d be very surprised if 2008 doesn’t lose some ground in the next 5 days. 2005 has a few big days coming up so 2008 will likely lose some ground there in the short term, but could easily overtake 2005 at some point.
month day year ice diff
49 7 19 2002 8.581719 -0.089375
414 7 19 2003 8.622188 -0.085781
779 7 18 2004 8.871563 -0.098593
1145 7 19 2005 8.102188 -0.103125
1510 7 19 2006 7.875000 -0.067188
1875 7 19 2007 7.363281 -0.063907
2240 7 18 2008 8.237031 -0.100938
still over 900,000 square kilometers off.......and another day off the clock.
DAy 200
2008 has a modest gain on 2007, but loses a titch to 2005 (with which it is a closer race.) 2007 has 5 days averaging around 100,000 sq km up, so gains will be very hard in the next week. I’d be very surprised if 2008 doesn’t lose some ground in the next 5 days. 2005 has a few big days coming up so 2008 will likely lose some ground there in the short term, but could easily overtake 2005 at some point.
month day year ice diff
49 7 19 2002 8.581719 -0.089375
414 7 19 2003 8.622188 -0.085781
779 7 18 2004 8.871563 -0.098593
1145 7 19 2005 8.102188 -0.103125
1510 7 19 2006 7.875000 -0.067188
1875 7 19 2007 7.363281 -0.063907
2240 7 18 2008 8.237031 -0.100938
still over 900,000 square kilometers off.......and another day off the clock.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
