Pages

Jump to bottom

8 comments

1 pat  Apr 18, 2009 9:28:38pm

I have written a bit about this. Not only does it appear to be true, but the temperature has decreased in the last 60 years. Not much, a mere 1 degree F, but enough to make the whole global warming scenario unlikely. Because there is no way a regional heat pump could do such a thing.

2 Dirk Diggler  Apr 19, 2009 9:01:04am

The science is settled.

3 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Apr 21, 2009 8:03:35am

I am astonished at this.

Some people here are so absolutely invested in the their desire to pretend that climate change is not real that they would rather believe a biased pice from Fox News than the actual satellite images and the actual scientists. This is Fox. They are not exactly unbiased here, and this article is complete fantasy in as much as the title of it would convince you that the opposite of the truth is happening.

Come on people. This article is propaganda. Look at the title, and then read the body of the article, even Fox acknowledges that the ice is western Antarctica is going - and for that matter it was reported even here at LGF.

The science is settled. The data that we scientists are pointing at just happes to say that the caps are going.

Here is the actual data.

nsidc.org

“Overview of conditions
Sea ice extent averaged over the month of March 2009 was 15.16 million square kilometers (5.85 million square miles). This was 730,000 square kilometers (282,000 square miles) above the record low of 2006, but 590,000 square kilometers (228,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.”

Further, even though Ice bounced back a bit from the record low - and no that does not mean a reversal of the long term trend, rather an oscillation, the ice is thinner and less old.

4 ConservativeAtheist  Apr 21, 2009 9:40:03am

re: #3 ludwigvanquixote

Ludwig, they’re talking about Antarctic ice extent which IS clearly above the 1979 to 2000 average.

By the way, who says climate change isn’t happening? The climate always changes.

5 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Apr 21, 2009 12:41:12pm

re: #4 ConservativeAtheist

Ludwig, they’re talking about Antarctic ice extent which IS clearly above the 1979 to 2000 average.

By the way, who says climate change isn’t happening? The climate always changes.

Respectfully, one of the things that is very difficult about posting actual data here is that no one who has made up their mind already ever reads it. If they do, they decide it must be fake.

Again. “590,000 square kilometers (228,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.”

The data I presented was taken from direct satellite observations. It is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Their data needs to be accurate because of our submarine fleet amongst other things.

If I hear the damned canard that “the climate is always changing” - so there is nothing to be concerned at - again I think I shall bite someone.

The physics -and I am a professional physicist, so I actually have the right to say this strongly - says that AGW is real.

6 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Apr 21, 2009 12:53:01pm

re: #4 ConservativeAtheist

Ludwig, they’re talking about Antarctic ice extent which IS clearly above the 1979 to 2000 average.

By the way, who says climate change isn’t happening? The climate always changes.

Also, to clarify, I know the difference between the North and the South poles. My problem with this is the disingenuous way that this is represented, and the all to eager way that some people here swallow it whole.

OK so Eastern Antartica has a little more ice than usual - in places it didn’t really before (that is a shift in currents, and something you should worry about in of itself) while the West is melting in places that it hasn’t in many tens of thousands of years. Which is another shift that is not nothing - as in a system that was stable for tens of thousands of years has changed.

In the mean time, the North polar regions are dramatically thinnner and are dramatically melting.

If you were to believe this article - and certainly the false and silly implications of the posters here who so desperately want to believe that this is not real, then the assumption of their argument is, Hey, Eastern Antarctica has a bit more ice - therefore you don’t need to worry about the dramatic changes in the West, the dramatic changes in the North polar region or the shifted currents.

A less deluded view would be to notice that climactic conditions from currents to ice regions are dramatically shifting in very short timescales compared to the age of the ice or the current flows. You then might ask what caused this - and it is NOT solar anomalies.

7 ConservativeAtheist  Apr 21, 2009 4:36:03pm

Wow, sorry I touched a nerve. In quick succession, you claimed that people who don’t agree with you: don’t read, are disingenuous, are silly, and are deluded. And then you want to bite them. Nice.

I appreciate your link to NSIDC data summaries. Of course the link I provided to the University of Illinois also presents similar satellite derived data.

Your statements about ice extent distributions in Antarctica are interesting. Only the western peninsula has seen any significant ice extent shrinkage. Most of the rest of Antarctica is at or above the 1979-2000 average.

When you state that the polar ice has been stable (as in unchanging?) for tens of thousands of years, you do realize, I hope, that between 12,000 and 15,000 years ago, we were leaving the most recent ice age, and the global ice extent was indeed changing?

I notice in your latest posts, you have shifted from the term “climate change” to Anthropogenic Global Warming. So I’ll ask again, … Who says AGW is not happening? Perhaps you meant to say Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, and there we may have some disagreements.

8 Cain  Apr 21, 2009 5:32:49pm
Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

“Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally,” Dr Allison said.

To LudwigVanAssClown - Thanks for the scold. I’d prefer to take the word of an actual scientist (one who is comfortable providing his name and title) like Ian Allison than some jerkoff online who referred to himself as “we scientists”. Get a life loser.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Ranked-Choice Voting Has Challenged the Status Quo. Its Popularity Will Be Tested in November. JUNEAU — Alaska’s new election system — with open primaries and ranked voting — has been a model for those in other states who are frustrated by political polarization and a sense that voters lack real choice at the ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 275 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1