Jump to content

Storm Mode in effect

Photo

Now we know who pays our trolls


584 replies to this topic

#176
TerryM

  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined August 10, 2011

Regardless of Climate Change or not, the solutions to "prevent" it are so radical and not conditioned in current economic realities no thinking person would ever consider them. If India/China don't get on board, it's game over anyway, welcome to the real world. The solutions are fantasy-land regardless of the political outcome. Carbon Credits (worthless), Geo-engineering (arrogance), Useless supra-governmental agencies, and a threat to economic freedom worldwide are NOT solutions for me or you. The only people who would benefit from such solutions are the makers who have created them as Hegelian response to take control as we go from a controlled petro based economy to a contrived regulatory and alt. energy economy. That doesn't sound like much of a choice for the common man.


So it's your contention that if Global Warming scenario's play out as forecast, it would be so radical and expensive to do anything - that no one should consider it?

I believe that is :

Fantasy Theme #9

'climate change mitigation as money-spinning scam'



as used by the 'Institute of Public Affairs', and Australian think tank linked to Heartland Institute.

It's fascinating how these fabrications make their way around the globe.

Thanks for playing.

#177
cheetah440

  • Banished from the land

  • 10,316 posts
  • Joined November 12, 2010

As a fellow denizen of the Lowell/Acton/Sudbury region of Eastern MA, that's a bit tough. The guy's already all wet - this exercise would be superfluous. How much snow did we get this year anyway?. I counted about 8" total, including the 2" of glop on Halloween.........

Remember that run of years we had not too long ago when there were over 90-100 days of snow cover per winter here?
Weather not climate, I know, but this year has been the worst in my memory locally.


So what are you saying? That because we are having a warm and snowless winter that it is linked to man caused climate change?

Are you implying this?

#178
MariettaWx

  • Meow

  • 6,614 posts
  • Joined December 9, 2010

Regardless of Climate Change or not, the solutions to "prevent" it are so radical and not conditioned in current economic realities no thinking person would ever consider them. If India/China don't get on board, it's game over anyway, welcome to the real world. The solutions are fantasy-land regardless of the political outcome. Carbon Credits (worthless), Geo-engineering (arrogance), Useless supra-governmental agencies, and a threat to economic freedom worldwide are NOT solutions for me or you. The only people who would benefit from such solutions are the makers who have created them as Hegelian response to take control as we go from a controlled petro based economy to a contrived regulatory and alt. energy economy. That doesn't sound like much of a choice for the common man.


Nice post! This really lays out the reasons why we need to look harder at solutions for our massive amounts of carbon release and try and find solutions that will work.

#179
PhillipS

  • 1,078 posts
  • Joined August 7, 2011

Regardless of Climate Change or not, the solutions to "prevent" it are so radical and not conditioned in current economic realities no thinking person would ever consider them. If India/China don't get on board, it's game over anyway, welcome to the real world. The solutions are fantasy-land regardless of the political outcome. Carbon Credits (worthless), Geo-engineering (arrogance), Useless supra-governmental agencies, and a threat to economic freedom worldwide are NOT solutions for me or you. The only people who would benefit from such solutions are the makers who have created them as Hegelian response to take control as we go from a controlled petro based economy to a contrived regulatory and alt. energy economy. That doesn't sound like much of a choice for the common man.


Your unsupported opinion is noted. Thank you for sharing it - I'm sure we are all enlightened by your contribution.

#180
cheetah440

  • Banished from the land

  • 10,316 posts
  • Joined November 12, 2010

Regardless of Climate Change or not, the solutions to "prevent" it are so radical and not conditioned in current economic realities no thinking person would ever consider them. If India/China don't get on board, it's game over anyway, welcome to the real world. The solutions are fantasy-land regardless of the political outcome. Carbon Credits (worthless), Geo-engineering (arrogance), Useless supra-governmental agencies, and a threat to economic freedom worldwide are NOT solutions for me or you. The only people who would benefit from such solutions are the makers who have created them as Hegelian response to take control as we go from a controlled petro based economy to a contrived regulatory and alt. energy economy. That doesn't sound like much of a choice for the common man.


And people who have left a career in one field and joined "green" energy would benefit greatly.

Do you know anyone, a single person, in the "green" energy field who does not believe in man caused climate change?

Meanwhile, these same people gutter snipe people who work in various fields remotely connected to real energy exploration. hmmmmmm.

#181
wxtrix

  • I am an unpopular electric eel in a pool of catfish.

  • 17,211 posts
  • Joined November 11, 2010

http://thinkprogress...ming/?mobile=nc


Should probably find other sources than Think Progress, the online voice of the Center for American Progress, a highly politicized Dem think-tank funded heavily by George Soros. What some people think Fox is, on the conservative side, Think Progress really is, on the radical, hard left side.

Just saying, this misconception that the people who want action on climate change are actually advancing an anti-capitalist agenda isn't helped when one uses anti-capitalist sources.

I suspect anyone whose only source is WUWT would be rather roundly criticized.


I usually stay slient in a forum that seems more a proxy for PR than an actual place of reasoned debate, because I'm not a climate expert. Just pointing out that Think Progress may not be the best source for factual reporting,



total strawman. no one here is solely using ThinkProgress as the source of this story.

here's Nature on Heartland's tactics: http://www.nature.co...NATURE-20110728

please go back to staying silent instead of adding to the crapping of of threads. I have no idea how this thread got taken off track into another MWP discussion, but it's a shame that threads are allowed to be derailed so many times.

#182
wxtrix

  • I am an unpopular electric eel in a pool of catfish.

  • 17,211 posts
  • Joined November 11, 2010

And people who have left a career in one field and joined "green" energy would benefit greatly.

Do you know anyone, a single person, in the "green" energy field who does not believe in man caused climate change?

Meanwhile, these same people gutter snipe people who work in various fields remotely connected to real energy exploration. hmmmmmm.




and those oil and gas and mining companies fund entire wings of sciences and dictate what can and can't be presented at some scientific conferences. surely your lofty principles of free discussion will compel you to denounce that behavior.

#183
TerryM

  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined August 10, 2011

and those oil and gas and mining companies fund entire wings of sciences and dictate what can and can't be presented at some scientific conferences. surely your lofty principles of free discussion will compel you to denounce that behavior.


And of course also fund the propaganda organizations that are the interest of this thread.

#184
bluewave

  • 10,919 posts
  • Joined November 12, 2010

Regardless of Climate Change or not, the solutions to "prevent" it are so radical and not conditioned in current economic realities no thinking person would ever consider them. If India/China don't get on board, it's game over anyway, welcome to the real world. The solutions are fantasy-land regardless of the political outcome. Carbon Credits (worthless), Geo-engineering (arrogance), Useless supra-governmental agencies, and a threat to economic freedom worldwide are NOT solutions for me or you. The only people who would benefit from such solutions are the makers who have created them as Hegelian response to take control as we go from a controlled petro based economy to a contrived regulatory and alt. energy economy. That doesn't sound like much of a choice for the common man.


The whole carbon credits scheme is doomed to fail anyway.

http://www.reuters.c...E81B06Y20120212

#185
TerryM

  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined August 10, 2011

The whole carbon credits scheme is doomed to fail anyway.

http://www.reuters.c...E81B06Y20120212



#186
TerryM

  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined August 10, 2011

The whole carbon credits scheme is doomed to fail anyway.

http://www.reuters.c...E81B06Y20120212


Is this intended as part of the " to late to do anything now" propaganda meme pushed by the paid hacks at Heartland?

If so, while addressing EU airline regs re carbon, I don't think it's saying the whole carbon credit thing is done.

#187
bluewave

  • 10,919 posts
  • Joined November 12, 2010

Is this intended as part of the " to late to do anything now" propaganda meme pushed by the paid hacks at Heartland?

If so, while addressing EU airline regs re carbon, I don't think it's saying the whole carbon credit thing is done.


I won't make a difference if countries like China are on the fast track to destruction.

http://www.chinahush...ution-in-china/

#188
TerryM

  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined August 10, 2011

I won't make a difference if countries like China are on the fast track to destruction.

http://www.chinahush...ution-in-china/


Ugly pictures - should we start a thread about China?

#189
PhillipS

  • 1,078 posts
  • Joined August 7, 2011

And people who have left a career in one field and joined "green" energy would benefit greatly.

Do you know anyone, a single person, in the "green" energy field who does not believe in man caused climate change?

Meanwhile, these same people gutter snipe people who work in various fields remotely connected to real energy exploration. hmmmmmm.


If you were referring to my change from aerospace to renewable energy - that was a swing and a miss. My career change was not motivated by my concerns about AGW but rather by learning and understanding 'Peak Oil' and its implications for the US and other developed nations. We are terribly vulnerable so long as we are addicted to fossil fuel and dependent on foreign suppliers. BAU is simply not sustainable. Since I live in Texas I'm aware of how much has changed since the oil boom days. Here's the plot of Texas oil production since 1935:

Posted Image

And that's with massive expenditure in secondary and tertiary recovery technologies. A good introductory article on oil production in various regions of the US can be found here. Similar oil field depletion curves are available for other oil producing countries. We will run out of affordable oil before we run out of oil, but oil is a finite resource so we need toswitch to sustainable alternatives. Our current fossil fuel based economy is similar in some ways to the whale oil economy of the 1800s. How well did that one do when the whale populations crashed?

If burning fossil fuels had absolutely no effect on our climate it would still be necessary to make the switch to renewable energy sources. There really isn't a choice in that. Our only choice is whether we start making the transition now while energy is still relatively cheap - or will we wait until supplies collapse and try to transition in the middle of the resulting energy/economic/political crisis?

#190
bluewave

  • 10,919 posts
  • Joined November 12, 2010

Ugly pictures - should we start a thread about China?


Well the move to reduce emissions has to be global, it can't be unilateral if you want it to work.

#191
TerryM

  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined August 10, 2011

Well the move to reduce emissions has to be global, it can't be unilateral if you want it to work.


I think it has to start somewhere.

The 'I won't do it unless he goes first', just means everyone sinks together. They've been pushing this as far back as their claims that second hand smoke won't hurt you, and besides if restaurants in this city regulate against it, everyone will just eat in the next town.

I think it's one of the oldest - and possibly most harmful claims that Heartland has pushed.

Thanks for bringing it up.

#192
PhillipS

  • 1,078 posts
  • Joined August 7, 2011

Well the move to reduce emissions has to be global, it can't be unilateral if you want it to work.


I've heard this canard for years and it has alway struck me as illogical on several levels. Perhaps you can enlighten me (and others) on why this makes sense to you and other skeptics. Your statement distills down to "Why bother?"

From a top-down point of view there is a strong case to be made for mitigating an impending crisis as soon as it is recognized - this approach has several names: lead by example, take the moral high ground, a stitich in time saves nine, and so forth. It may be expensive to reduce GHG emissions and transition to more sustainable energy sources - but it is cheaper today than it will be in, say, forty years. Energy, materials, and labor costs are all rising. And, yes, I've studied the economic models that discount the cost of future mitigation efforts by claiming that we'll all be richer in the future. Those models are based on assumptions of unlimited resources and unrealistic economic growth - so they are about as plausible as predictions of flying cars and vacations on the Moon. If you have a broken pipe or leaky roof is it better to fix it now - or ignore it in hopes that you'll win the lottery in a month and be richer? (hint - it's smarter to fix it now)

Another advantage of tackling GHG emissions now is to make money. As many have pointed out, new technologies will be needed - and the countries that develop and market those technologies will be the ones to reap the profits. Shouldn't the US at least be in the running? If the answer is yes then we should be investing in R&D in the technology fields that will be needed and encouraging entrepreneurs to start up new ventures to implement the technologies. Granted, a large percentage of the startups will fail but that is true of any industry.

Your assertion fails from a bottom-up, grassroots, point of view, too. If your neighborhood is threatened by wildfire is it pointless to unilaterally save your house unless you can save all of the neighbors' houses, too? Or, since we are talking about the behavior of other countries perhaps a different analogy would be better. If your neighbors are engaged in an activity you know is harmful, say, dealing drugs - are you seriously saying that unless all of them stop their drug dealings it make sense to join them and start cooking meth in your basement? If you can't beat 'em then join 'em, right? Doesn't it make sense to do what you can - even knowing that your efforts may fall short of completely solving a problem?

I know that my reducing my GHG footprint is not going to make a noticable difference in AGW - but I also know that there are millions of people like me and our aggregate efforts are orders of magnitude more significant. Change - whether it's civil rights or recycling or reducing GHGs or whatever - begins on an individual level. Why bother? - because it's important.

#193
MariettaWx

  • Meow

  • 6,614 posts
  • Joined December 9, 2010

lol, at you guys painting bluewave as a skeptic on climate change or that his statements were wrong. His statement was not "Why bother".... He is one of the most on topic, level-headed posters on the board. Leave the denier and skeptic tags for true deniers and skeptics or you will lose all credibility. I think it's too late for some of you though...

#194
PhillipS

  • 1,078 posts
  • Joined August 7, 2011

lol, at you guys painting bluewave as a skeptic on climate change or that his statements were wrong. His statement was not "Why bother".... He is one of the most on topic, level-headed posters on the board. Leave the denier and skeptic tags for true deniers and skeptics or you will lose all credibility. I think it's too late for some of you though...


When sombody posts denialist themes - why shouldn't they be considered a denialist?

#195
TerryM

  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined August 10, 2011

lol, at you guys painting bluewave as a skeptic on climate change or that his statements were wrong. His statement was not "Why bother".... He is one of the most on topic, level-headed posters on the board. Leave the denier and skeptic tags for true deniers and skeptics or you will lose all credibility. I think it's too late for some of you though...


Frankly i thought Phillips's essay was one of the best I've seen in some time.

BTW

What is this obsession with loss of credibility, you've used the phrase on any number of otherwise unrelated threads. I think most tend to find arguments that they already agree with to be more credible than those that we disagree with, or even those with which we're not familiar. If wide credibility was a valid concern one could easily achieve it by simply repeating popular arguments. To broaden the scope of the subject sometimes arguments need to be made that are either unpopular, or that present a new or unique perspective.
For many this blog in more about learning than about trying to influence opinion. For these an adherence to risk averse, credibility at all costs, strategy's is counterproductive,

#196
MariettaWx

  • Meow

  • 6,614 posts
  • Joined December 9, 2010

Frankly i thought Phillips's essay was one of the best I've seen in some time.

BTW

What is this obsession with loss of credibility, you've used the phrase on any number of otherwise unrelated threads. I think most tend to find arguments that they already agree with to be more credible than those that we disagree with, or even those with which we're not familiar. If wide credibility was a valid concern one could easily achieve it by simply repeating popular arguments. To broaden the scope of the subject sometimes arguments need to be made that are either unpopular, or that present a new or unique perspective.
For many this blog in more about learning than about trying to influence opinion. For these an adherence to risk averse, credibility at all costs, strategy's is counterproductive,


Lack of scientific credibility flies in the face of the scientific method.

#197
cheetah440

  • Banished from the land

  • 10,316 posts
  • Joined November 12, 2010

If you were referring to my change from aerospace to renewable energy - that was a swing and a miss. My career change was not motivated by my concerns about AGW but rather by learning and understanding 'Peak Oil' and its implications for the US and other developed nations. We are terribly vulnerable so long as we are addicted to fossil fuel and dependent on foreign suppliers. BAU is simply not sustainable. Since I live in Texas I'm aware of how much has changed since the oil boom days. Here's the plot of Texas oil production since 1935:

Posted Image

And that's with massive expenditure in secondary and tertiary recovery technologies. A good introductory article on oil production in various regions of the US can be found here. Similar oil field depletion curves are available for other oil producing countries. We will run out of affordable oil before we run out of oil, but oil is a finite resource so we need toswitch to sustainable alternatives. Our current fossil fuel based economy is similar in some ways to the whale oil economy of the 1800s. How well did that one do when the whale populations crashed?

If burning fossil fuels had absolutely no effect on our climate it would still be necessary to make the switch to renewable energy sources. There really isn't a choice in that. Our only choice is whether we start making the transition now while energy is still relatively cheap - or will we wait until supplies collapse and try to transition in the middle of the resulting energy/economic/political crisis?


If renewable energy sources can compete, then great. I'm all for it.

If it takes massive taxes for that to happen, along with major increases in cost, then no, I'm not for it.

Right now, renewables are a loser, and losing ground btw. If renewables can't compete in this climate, well then, good luck to you.

"In 1949 nearly 91% of America's total primary energy came from coal, oil, and natural gas. The balance came from renewables, with hydropower being a dominant contributor. By 2008 the market share for coal, oil and natural gas, along with nuclear, had grown to 92.5% of total primary energy in the U.S. with the remainder coming from renewables."

http://www.forbes.co...bert-bryce.html

#198
cheetah440

  • Banished from the land

  • 10,316 posts
  • Joined November 12, 2010

lol, at you guys painting bluewave as a skeptic on climate change or that his statements were wrong. His statement was not "Why bother".... He is one of the most on topic, level-headed posters on the board. Leave the denier and skeptic tags for true deniers and skeptics or you will lose all credibility. I think it's too late for some of you though...


The word you're dancing around and searching for is cult. It explains everything.

#199
TerryM

  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined August 10, 2011

Lack of scientific credibility flies in the face of the scientific method.



If credibility is what you are seeking - your side probably won't find it on this thread, which is about those paid to disrupt the teachings of science in the classroom and on the internet.

If Heartland believed that science would prove them right, they wouldn't be trying to stop the teaching of science in schools.

#200
wxtrix

  • I am an unpopular electric eel in a pool of catfish.

  • 17,211 posts
  • Joined November 11, 2010

If renewable energy sources can compete, then great. I'm all for it.

If it takes massive taxes for that to happen, along with major increases in cost, then no, I'm not for it.

Right now, renewables are a loser, and losing ground btw. If renewables can't compete in this climate, well then, good luck to you.

"In 1949 nearly 91% of America's total primary energy came from coal, oil, and natural gas. The balance came from renewables, with hydropower being a dominant contributor. By 2008 the market share for coal, oil and natural gas, along with nuclear, had grown to 92.5% of total primary energy in the U.S. with the remainder coming from renewables."

http://www.forbes.co...bert-bryce.html




more stupid trolling. Robert Bryce--good grief.

#201
MariettaWx

  • Meow

  • 6,614 posts
  • Joined December 9, 2010

If credibility is what you are seeking - your side probably won't find it on this thread, which is about those paid to disrupt the teachings of science in the classroom and on the internet.

If Heartland believed that science would prove them right, they wouldn't be trying to stop the teaching of science in schools.


I don't belong to or have a side, but thanks. What are the different sides in this forum? What side do you think I'm on and why do you feel that way?

#202
The_Global_Warmer

  • F R E S H

  • 8,778 posts
  • Joined November 13, 2010

And people who have left a career in one field and joined "green" energy would benefit greatly.

Do you know anyone, a single person, in the "green" energy field who does not believe in man caused climate change?

Meanwhile, these same people gutter snipe people who work in various fields remotely connected to real energy exploration. hmmmmmm.



If by real energy you mean oil/natural gas. You are just making that up. You can't get any more absurd than that.

#203
bluewave

  • 10,919 posts
  • Joined November 12, 2010

I think it has to start somewhere.

The 'I won't do it unless he goes first', just means everyone sinks together. They've been pushing this as far back as their claims that second hand smoke won't hurt you, and besides if restaurants in this city regulate against it, everyone will just eat in the next town.

I think it's one of the oldest - and possibly most harmful claims that Heartland has pushed.

Thanks for bringing it up.


Heartland is just a symptom of the problem. People push political agendas that favor a quick buck
over a sustainable future for everyone. The whole push for globalization including during the Clinton/Gore
administration has actually made the problem more difficult to address. Driving heavy industries offshore
to places like China with no laws that protect the environment actually accelerates co2 emissions
globally. Ironically, the trade policies of Clinton and Gore effectively took off the table anything that
Gore wanted to do in regards to global warming.

#204
The_Global_Warmer

  • F R E S H

  • 8,778 posts
  • Joined November 13, 2010

I don't belong to or have a side, but thanks. What are the different sides in this forum? What side do you think I'm on and why do you feel that way?



Since you have out right denied bottom ice melt in the arctic during late September/October, even though it happens all year in places. I would say that makes you a denier or skeptic. You denied proven science when the proper evidence was presented. Then you went on an insult spree calling me incompetent in the process while I was providing the data for you, that you denied.

#205
MariettaWx

  • Meow

  • 6,614 posts
  • Joined December 9, 2010

Since you have out right denied bottom ice melt in the arctic during late September/October, even though it happens all year in places. I would say that makes you a denier or skeptic. You denied proven science when the proper evidence was presented. Then you went on an insult spree calling me incompetent in the process while I was providing the data for you, that you denied.


I never denied the existence of bottom melt. I said that the "proof" you were presenting to backup your claim didn't prove or show bottom melt. There is actually a post of mine where I clearly acknowledge bottom melt.

Edit:
Page 85 of the Arctic sea ice thread, people can make a judgement for themselves if they care to look at it.
http://www.americanw.../page__st__2940

#206
bluewave

  • 10,919 posts
  • Joined November 12, 2010

I've heard this canard for years and it has alway struck me as illogical on several levels. Perhaps you can enlighten me (and others) on why this makes sense to you and other skeptics. Your statement distills down to "Why bother?"

From a top-down point of view there is a strong case to be made for mitigating an impending crisis as soon as it is recognized - this approach has several names: lead by example, take the moral high ground, a stitich in time saves nine, and so forth. It may be expensive to reduce GHG emissions and transition to more sustainable energy sources - but it is cheaper today than it will be in, say, forty years. Energy, materials, and labor costs are all rising. And, yes, I've studied the economic models that discount the cost of future mitigation efforts by claiming that we'll all be richer in the future. Those models are based on assumptions of unlimited resources and unrealistic economic growth - so they are about as plausible as predictions of flying cars and vacations on the Moon. If you have a broken pipe or leaky roof is it better to fix it now - or ignore it in hopes that you'll win the lottery in a month and be richer? (hint - it's smarter to fix it now)

Another advantage of tackling GHG emissions now is to make money. As many have pointed out, new technologies will be needed - and the countries that develop and market those technologies will be the ones to reap the profits. Shouldn't the US at least be in the running? If the answer is yes then we should be investing in R&D in the technology fields that will be needed and encouraging entrepreneurs to start up new ventures to implement the technologies. Granted, a large percentage of the startups will fail but that is true of any industry.

Your assertion fails from a bottom-up, grassroots, point of view, too. If your neighborhood is threatened by wildfire is it pointless to unilaterally save your house unless you can save all of the neighbors' houses, too? Or, since we are talking about the behavior of other countries perhaps a different analogy would be better. If your neighbors are engaged in an activity you know is harmful, say, dealing drugs - are you seriously saying that unless all of them stop their drug dealings it make sense to join them and start cooking meth in your basement? If you can't beat 'em then join 'em, right? Doesn't it make sense to do what you can - even knowing that your efforts may fall short of completely solving a problem?

I know that my reducing my GHG footprint is not going to make a noticable difference in AGW - but I also know that there are millions of people like me and our aggregate efforts are orders of magnitude more significant. Change - whether it's civil rights or recycling or reducing GHGs or whatever - begins on an individual level. Why bother? - because it's important.


Why do you call me a skeptic? I would rather that this world was run by scientists and artists instead of politicians.
economists, and big monied interests. Calling people names will never advance your argument. The world is not
going to adopt scientifically rational policies that they feel will harm their economic growth. Why do you think
that its been so difficult to seriously address the whole global warming issue internationally?

#207
The_Global_Warmer

  • F R E S H

  • 8,778 posts
  • Joined November 13, 2010

I never denied the existence of bottom melt. I said that the "proof" you were presenting to backup your claim didn't prove or show bottom melt. There is actually a post of mine where I clearly acknowledge bottom melt.




I posted a cross section of a graph from a a United States Military ran website they created and the subsequent article they published with the graph talking about the bottom melt in the Beaufort Sea that ran until the first week of November before it finally caved and rapid ice growth took off.


Posted Image


Unless you do not know what that graph means or represents then there is no reason to deny the bottom ice melt.

The Graph shows the battle the bottom of the ice where the water was to warm for ice growth from Sept-Nov. And the air temperature Sept-Nov.

The bottom fought off the air temps into November before finally caving.

In fact the ice still lost thickness, even slightly till late October.


after posting this, you still denied it.





Here is my OP:

http://www.americanw...post__p__993594

I don't see anywhere after that on page 85 where you admitted it. I guess that post was not enough evidence for something that is obvious.

#208
MariettaWx

  • Meow

  • 6,614 posts
  • Joined December 9, 2010

I posted a cross section of a graph from a a United States Military ran website they created and the subsequent article they published with the graph talking about the bottom melt in the Beaufort Sea that ran until the first week of November before it finally caved and rapid ice growth took off.


Posted Image


Unless you do not know what that graph means or represents then there is no reason to deny the bottom ice melt.

The Graph shows the battle the bottom of the ice where the water was to warm for ice growth from Sept-Nov. And the air temperature Sept-Nov.

The bottom fought off the air temps into November before finally caving.

In fact the ice still lost thickness, even slightly till late October.


after posting this, you still denied it.


People can go back and read on page 85 or so of the sea ice thread and see what really happened. There is no point in rehashing it when the discussion we had is readily available.

http://www.americanw.../page__st__2940

#209
TerryM

  • 3,338 posts
  • Joined August 10, 2011

Deepclimate thinks they have a fix on the 'Anonymous Donor' of Heartland Institute infamy.

http://deepclimate.o...nonymous-donor/

14 million dollars sounds like an awful lot just to mess with kids minds.

'Course Heartland also works to keep our internet bills high - perhaps that is part of 'Anonymous Donor's" motivation.

#210
dabize

  • 914 posts
  • Joined January 20, 2011

So what are you saying? That because we are having a warm and snowless winter that it is linked to man caused climate change?

Are you implying this?


Jesus, read the post.......I'm chatting.
Anecdotes are statistically worthless and I acknowledge that.

Im not implying anything........what are you inferring?





Reply to this topic



  

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users