Jack Frost

10 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Yeah except the ice is barely half as thick. Be quiet until you learn something. Some of us have been following this thread for a decade. We've seen arrogant newbies like you come and go. A few stay and learn something. But nobody that's been around the block would say something as foolish as what you've just said.

SS,

Don't let skiboy bully you.  

It's actually kinda sad that some have been following arctic sea ice extent for a decade.  

Now the data for the past several million years or so would be most interesting....

Moronic attacks expected and most welcome - just living la vida local.... 

2 hours ago, PhillipS said:

Dr Barry is welcome to come here to engage.

Gee, I wonder why more folks with PhDs in Atmospheric Physics don't come here to engage?

On February 5, 2017 at 11:53 PM, csnavywx said:

I'm more than willing to engage at length on this, but this phrasing leaves room for backsliding or goalpost-moving later. It also implies you have other objections besides the issue you raise. I want an intellectually honest conversation where there is no chance to drag the conversation through the weeds or possibility of engagement in an obstacle-course style argument where an endless stream of objections is thrown up after the first is countered. Basically, I'm trying to provoke you to think honestly about your position and set a standard that can be falsified*. Please provide the a full accounting of what it would take to convince you that it is human-caused climate change. The reason is that I want to know ahead of time if it's even possible to change your mind on the issue. If your personal standard is, for instance, too high (e.g. Earth must become Venus-like), then obviously no amount of data or argument will meet it and I've wasted my time.

*Holding a scientifically-sound position means it includes the possibility of being falsified if a defined set of conditions are met. If it can't, it's speculative, hypothetical and/or faith-based and I'm not here to engage in that line of conversation.

I agree generally with your post.

Please engage with Dr. Berry.

16 hours ago, csnavywx said:

Out of curiosity, what evidence would you have to see to convince you that it is mainly climate anthropogenic climate change? What standard would it have to meet?

For starters, refute or cite to a paper or papers that refutes the following:  http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/

Please provide the cv(s) of the author(s) so that we can all assess credibility.

Thanks. 

I do enjoy this thread because it is empirical.

However, yawn.  To the extent that the extent of arctic sea ice moves in one direction or the other, the tie to Global Warming / Climate Change is tenuous at best non-existent.  Has anyone checked out the latest survey of underwater sources releasing geolocked carbon?  The AO?  PDO?

Much more interested in the relative humidity in the stratosphere and the direct relationship to increases in C02.  Just sayin....