Global Warming

[GeorgeH]

You don’t even read what is written before posting your boring response.

Minimum ice would be around midsummer. Why not just admit you read my post wrong? Maybe laugh about it?

[Rorschach]

You don’t even read what is written before posting your boring response.

Minimum ice would be around midsummer. Why not just admit you read my post wrong? Maybe laugh about it?

When you understand what a YEAR is I'll worry about the rest of the crap you post on this.

As for min or max.... you seem to fail to understand the point I was making. That would be your problem not mine. You can concentrate all you like on the glass half empty... part of the equation... but the glass half full part was the part i was referring to. IE the Maximum.

Do let me know when the penny drops for you.

[GeorgeH]

You can’t even admit you misread my post. Fuck you are tedious, boring, so fragile of ego you have to win every point even when you are completely wrong.

YAAWWWWWWWNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!

[Rorschach]

Do I really have to start explaining this all over to you again... that would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
As for your ad hom.... if you flame me don't expect I will not return fire.

I am not responsible for you not being able to understand my argument. Your bias seems to be the problem, not my explanation.

You wonder why people cant be bothered with you... or why IQS just gives you short shrift, at least I try with you where other just give up.

Your last post seems to be more about YOU than me.

[Rorschach]

My original point in answer to your crap.

Arctic ice melt....

Global warming? Satellite data shows Arctic sea ice coverage up 50 percent!
by Dan McGrath on December 16, 2013 in Al Gore, Failed predictions, Global Cooling, Ice
By Michael Bastasch

It was only five years ago in December that Al Gore claimed that the polar ice caps would be completely melted by now. But he might be surprised to find out that Arctic ice coverage is up 50 percent this year from 2012 levels.

“Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years,” Gore said in 2008.

The North Pole is still there, and growing. BBC News reports that data from Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft shows that Arctic sea ice coverage was nearly 9,000 cubic kilometers (2,100 cubic miles) by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 6,000 cubic kilometers (1,400 cubic miles) during the same time last year.

Remember the cries when the Northwest passage was open for the first time....
since...
since...
since the last time it was open...

Remember Gore and the Polar Bear scare....
well...
Polar Bear numbers are...
you guessed it...

UP!

Oh and Monkey boy the Arctic "Climate" Council says most of the melting up there has been due to recent increases in Methane.... you'll need to pass that onto the ALP so they can work out a tax for that too.

Oh and Monk....
why do you think Greenland is called GREENland?

Your response was to ignore the entire post and flood with yet another version of your crap claim.

[Rorschach]

Yet the minimum ice extent this year was less than the minimum last year and both are more than two standard deviations from the longer term minimum.

Mind you, ice extent is not a good measurement—ice can spread due to winds and currents—so the volume of ice is more normally used and that is shrinking too.

Yet we haven't even had Winter in the northern hemisphere this year Monk.... too easy...
Waaaaay too easy.
As for ice.... YOU were the one using it for your argument not me.

My position is correct... YOU on the other hand ignored as usual then flooded as usual.
No proper debate no factual refutation of the points brought up.
Just another FAIL Monkey Boy....

Why do I bother you are not worth the effort?

[Rorschach]

Since you failed to even provide excerpts with dates then lets just say this....

2014 Satellite data has shown that Arctic Sea ice is getting thicker, while Antarctic Sea Ice is continuing to expand to near record levels...

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/ ... eased.html

BTW all this proves is that the planet we live on is a dynamic one where change is the norm.
let me know when you get that explained to you.

[IQS.RLOW]

Where is Aussie?

Monk is being thrashed in debate so its normally about this time we hear the pitter patter of tiny little feet running in to protect his lover.

[GeorgeH]

Temperature rising in climate change debate
PETER HANNAM18 Sep, 2014 03:58 PM
Across Australia, fire crews are gearing up for another difficult season of bushfires.

Whether an El Nino event forms or not in the Pacific — and odds remain about 50:50 — it's becoming almost a given that large tracts of south-eastern Australia will burn during all but the wettest summers.

Climatologists say Australian summers are as much as a month longer because of global warming. The window for off-season hazard-reduction burning is narrowing.

In Australia, heatwaves are becoming more intense and prolonged, conditions that can rapidly prime the bush for major blazes, as fire authorities well understand.

For most of the rest of us, such trends can be lost in our naturally variable weather — recall how a month of mostly rainy days made Sydneysiders long for spring. Misleading recent commentary about the reliability of data-gathering only adds to public confusion.

In fact, records have been tumbling in Australia at a remarkable rate.

Few noticed that the 24 months to July this year were easily the warmest such period in records going back to 1910, with national mean temperatures a full one degree above the 1961-90 yardstick.

Prior to 2012, the largest anomaly, at 0.76 degrees, was during 2004-2006, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

NASA and Japan's Meteorological Agency have reported last month was the hottest August on record for global surface land and sea temperatures. Recent months include the equal-warmest April and warmest May and June even before an El Nino event gives worldwide temperatures a nudge higher.

The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) added to the tally of worrying reports with its confirmation that atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels last year rose at a record annual rate of almost 3 parts per million to 396.

About a quarter of those emissions end up in the oceans — as a result, our seas are turning more acidic at a rate not seen in 300 million years.

Corals, crustaceans and another calcifying organisms struggle to build shells or skeletal material in more acidic waters.

Other processes unleashed include reduced mixing. Warmer, lighter surface water is less likely to be exchanged with cooler, often nutrient-rich waters from below, another blow to healthy oceans.

According to Andrew Glikson, a paleoclimate scientist at the Australian National University, the chemistry of the atmosphere hasn't changed this fast since the Chicxulub asteroid slammed into the Earth 66 million years ago, bringing the abrupt end of the dinosaurs.

Against this backdrop, we can expect a fllurry of climate-related reports and protests ahead of the UN's Climate Summit in New York on September 23.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has declined the opportunity to join US President Barack Obama and about 125 of the world's leaders at the summit, an absence that only stokes doubts over how serious his government takes climate change.

Certainly, it is not a priority and rarely mentioned in government reports, while some Coalition MPs even dismiss global warming as a hoax.

Mr Abbott has also surrounded himself by outspoken climate change sceptics such as Dick Warburton, who helmed the government's review of the Renewable Energy Target and called for a major reduction in the goal. Maurice Newman, chairman of PM's Business Advisory Council, says the world is heading for a period of global cooling.

Signs Canberra may be opting for ideology over science extend beyond its efforts – so far blocked – to scrap the Climate Change Authority and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

There's even an emerging difference between Canberra and Macquarie St., as the Herald has pointed before, on these issues.

Senior members of the NSW government were aghast when Federal counterparts tried to discourage Mike Baird from choosing Blair Comley as his new secretary of Premier and Cabinet.

Comley's crime, apparently, was to have been the former head of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency in the Gillard government with oversight for the carbon price.

The premier rightly ignored the interference, declaring Comley to have been the best candidate for the job.

Such petty wrangling, though, is likely to be looked on dimly by not-so-future generations.

As one senior climatologist told the Herald last week, "climate systems do not care whether you choose to believe in [global warming] or not".

Or, as Michel Jarraud of the WMO put it: "The laws of physics are non-negotiable."

(smh/Age)

I guess the “pause” is just hot air, if you will excuse the pun

[Outlaw Yogi]

why do YOU think Greenland was called Greenland?

You and I have debated this previously. Well I debated and you tried to argue despite your complete lack of debating skills.

Greenland was dubbed so by an outlaw - Erik the Red - to try to fool others into thinking it was a nice 'green' place, as opposed to the ice and rock reality. It's actually well known and documented history, but then schizos never let facts get in the way of a good fantasy, hey?