Arctic waters not freezing

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed:... every time you have a strong low, you get a Canadian cold front? It's not coincidence.

litesong wrote:
Often, when there is a cold front over the U.S., the Present High Arctic Berserker, PHAB, or FAB

is elevated in temperature,

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: This is your answer?

GasGuzzler wrote:

litesong wrote:
Often, when there is a cold front over the U.S., the Present High Arctic Berserker, PHAB, or FAB

is elevated in temperature,

This is your answer?

As I suspected your actual knowledge on the subject that you so often post about is absolute zero. No need to continue with the copy and paste.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: when stuck for an answer...

litesong wrote:It is good to see an AGW denier liar whiner change my answer. No, the below is my answer:
Often, when there is a cold front over the U.S., the Present High Arctic Berserker, PHAB, or FA

is elevated in temperature, specially at times the High Arctic is in 24 hours of darkness.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: Why would the Arctic have elevated temp when the US has had a recent strong cold front....

GasGuzzler wrote:

litesong wrote:It is good to see an AGW denier liar whiner change my answer. No, the below is my answer:
Often, when there is a cold front over the U.S., the Present High Arctic Berserker, PHAB, or FA

is elevated in temperature, specially at times the High Arctic is in 24 hours of darkness.

I did not change your answer. I simply cut out the bogus FAB

(Futile Artificial Bullshit) crap you've pasted about 438 times.

You are constantly posting about local weather events, which is fine with me. But you've been fully uncovered now and your understanding is ZERO of what it is you would like you talk about.

Maybe it was my fault and I missed something in your answer, so I'll be extremely clear and number my questions....and maybe you could number your answers if you have any?

1. Date of the Hudson Bay snow storm you spoke of, please.

2. What effect does Arctic Oscillation have on US cold fronts and Siberian warm fronts, please.

3. Why would the Arctic have elevated temp when the US has had a recent strong cold front, please.

Thanks, and have a great day

GasGuzzler wrote: Date of the Hudson Bay snow storm you spoke of, please.

Excess AGW generated energy in the atmosphere is breaking down the Arctic circulation,

which usually corralled the Arctic cold in the Arctic,

except for historical occasional massive Arctic breakouts.

The Arctic circulations have developed long meanderings north & south from their past more circular patterns.

With the breakdown, southern heat (with excess AGW generated energy) is regularly pumping into the Arctic.

litesong wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote: Date of the Hudson Bay snow storm you spoke of, please.

Good to know that "gaslighter" needs babysitting:
http://www.mlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2017/03/see_the_reasons_for_massive_wi.html
From the article:
The center was near Hudson Bay when Michigan was getting slammed with damaging winds.
//////
Also the Newfoundland & Labrador storm systems of 180kph.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/03/11/police-in-newfoundland-urge-drivers-to-stay-off-roads-due-to-extreme-winds_n_15299558.html

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: AO is evenly negative and positive over the last 100+ years...

GasGuzzler wrote:

Excess AGW generated energy in the atmosphere is breaking down the Arctic circulation,

How does CO2 break down a circulation?

which usually corralled the Arctic cold in the Arctic,

Depends on OA phase.

except for historical occasional massive Arctic breakouts.

AO is evenly negative and positive over the last 100+ years

The Arctic circulations have developed long meanderings north & south from their past more circular patterns.

This is called a negative Arctic Oscillation and is normal.

With the breakdown, southern heat (with excess AGW generated energy) is regularly pumping into the Arctic.

Send me a link?

Wake wrote:
Now look what you've done - Chief Limpwrist is going to blather on for another week talking to himself and convincing himself he's right by quoting himself.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: Chief Limpwrist is going to blather on for another week ....

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: unicorns fart rainbows. I tried.

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: unicorns fart rainbows. I tried.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" never tried to get science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. Meanwhile:
http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/siv_annual_polar_graph.png

[b]GasGuzzler wrote: Please don't....give Wake the credit.....i want credit

GasGuzzler wrote:

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: unicorns fart rainbows. I tried.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" never tried to get science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. Meanwhile:
http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/siv_annual_polar_graph.png

Please don't quote me and give Wake the credit. If I made you mad then I want credit for pissing in your Cheerios! Sorry Wake.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: litesong is easy....

litesong wrote: As of March 1, this year's to date Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 18600 cubic kilometers, almost 2000 cubic kilometers more than....any other year & over 11,000+ cubic kilometers more than the to date average year in the 1980's....

litesong wrote:

litesong wrote: As of March 1, this year's to date Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 18600 cubic kilometers, almost 2000 cubic kilometers more than....any other year & over 11,000+ cubic kilometers more than the to date average year in the 1980's....

Correction:
As of March 1, this year's to date Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 18600 cubic kilometers, almost 2000 cubic kilometers LESS than....any other year & over 11,000+ cubic kilometers LESS than the to date average year in the 1980's....

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed:

litesong wrote:

litesong wrote: As of March 1, this year's to date Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 18600 cubic kilometers, almost 2000 cubic kilometers more than....any other year & over 11,000+ cubic kilometers more than the to date average year in the 1980's....

Correction:
As of March 1, this year's to date Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 18600 cubic kilometers, almost 2000 cubic kilometers LESS than....any other year & over 11,000+ cubic kilometers LESS than the to date average year in the 1980's....

Thanks so much for the update!

GasGuzzler wrote:

litesong wrote:

litesong wrote: As of March 1, this year's to date Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 18600 cubic kilometers, almost 2000 cubic kilometers more than....any other year & over 11,000+ cubic kilometers more than the to date average year in the 1980's....

Correction:
As of March 1, this year's to date Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 18600 cubic kilometers, almost 2000 cubic kilometers LESS than....any other year & over 11,000+ cubic kilometers LESS than the to date average year in the 1980's....

Thanks so much for the update!

I'll get the ice log books updated immediately.

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

litesong wrote:

litesong wrote: As of March 1, this year's to date Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 18600 cubic kilometers, almost 2000 cubic kilometers more than....any other year & over 11,000+ cubic kilometers more than the to date average year in the 1980's....

Correction:
As of March 1, this year's to date Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 18600 cubic kilometers, almost 2000 cubic kilometers LESS than....any other year & over 11,000+ cubic kilometers LESS than the to date average year in the 1980's....

Thanks so much for the update!
I'll get the ice log books updated immediately.

....the ice extent was a real low record and has recovered so rapidly that what is plain was that it was a weather event and not climate change.

litesong wrote:Ya say nuthin' new.

GasGuzzler wrote:

litesong wrote:Ya say nuthin' new.

This....From none other than Chief Copynpaste

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gaslighter" gushed: Damn Siberian warm front.

litesong wrote:
It appears that 2017 Arctic sea ice extent maximum could have reached its peak sometime ago, & like 2015 & 2016, will NOT reach 14 million square kilometers extent maximum.... just remarkable!! Arctic sea ice VOLUME growth should continue to or into April, but only as a bit more sea ice thickening, not as extra southward expansion frontage. All three years have been very close to the 14 million square kilometer mark, AND even for extended periods of time. But each of the trio has left a graph profile like a volcano with its top blown off & below the 14 mark.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Damn Siberian warm front.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: It turns out that:
1: The IPCC and NOAA have used falsified temperature data. 3. NOAA purposely and with full knowledge and probably at the urging of Obama....

litesong wrote: Yes, the Siberian warm front was (& still is) predominant, pumping lots of excess AGW energy into the High Arctic (FAB

has leaped to 7degC over temperature). However, the Present High Arctic Berserker, or FAB

has existed for 185+ days & gained southern excess AGW energy from most all directions providing a seldom ending supply of heat to the 6 months of High Arctic darkness, FROM ANY DIRECTION FROM WHICH THE WIND WAS BLOWING. The extended & extending life of FAB

, in the darkness of the late fall, winter & early spring High Arctic is one of the extraordinary events of AGW.

litesong wrote:

litesong wrote:
It appears that 2017 Arctic sea ice extent maximum could have reached its peak sometime ago, & like 2015 & 2016, will NOT reach 14 million square kilometers extent maximum.... just remarkable!! Arctic sea ice VOLUME growth should continue to or into April, but only as a bit more sea ice thickening, not as extra southward expansion frontage. All three years have been very close to the 14 million square kilometer mark, AND even for extended periods of time. But each of the trio has left a graph profile like a volcano with its top blown off & below the 14 mark.

Robert Scribbler makes mention of this year's Arctic sea ice maximum extent:
https://robertscribbler.com/2017/03/20/frailest-ever-winter-sea-ice-facing-a-cruel-cruel-summer/

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Damn Siberian warm front.

It turns out that:

1: The IPCC and NOAA have used falsified temperature data. This is because the temperatures are from highly urbanized areas that have grown from almost farmland to very large cities such as Moscow, Seoul, Korea, Tokyo, Japan and the like. Their corrections were purposely undervalued since farm areas close to these points showed NO heating at all above normal variations. It turns out that we are in a cooling period at the moment and not a warming.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/

The author of this article is a psychologist and since the real problem is with the twisted psychology of True Believers this would be appropriate. Of course he doesn't give his references and they are more than strong enough even for the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Well, probably not since it doesn't back AGW up.

2. I have argued that CO2 is NOT a "greenhouse gas" and it turns out that there is only ONE paper that has actually measured admixtures of gas containing O2, H2O and CO2. The paper is rather technical but here is the conclusions:

"Conclusions

This assessment demonstrates that the effect of an increased warming caused by an increase of absorptivity of infrared radiation (IR) by water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide does not happen in nature.

On the overlapping absorption spectral bands of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the carbon dioxide propitiates a decrease of the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture in the atmosphere, not an increase, as AGW proponents argue.

Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth's surface and the Earth's atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases."

3. NOAA purposely and with full knowledge and probably at the urging of Obama counterfeited their papers to add to the IPCC conference by - of course - Obama.

So this is NOT a science or a question of science - it is pure unadulterated politics as those of us with a head on our shoulders detected 15 years ago.

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Damn Siberian warm front.

It turns out that:

1: The IPCC and NOAA have used falsified temperature data. This is because the temperatures are from highly urbanized areas that have grown from almost farmland to very large cities such as Moscow, Seoul, Korea, Tokyo, Japan and the like. Their corrections were purposely undervalued since farm areas close to these points showed NO heating at all above normal variations. It turns out that we are in a cooling period at the moment and not a warming.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/

The author of this article is a psychologist and since the real problem is with the twisted psychology of True Believers this would be appropriate. Of course he doesn't give his references and they are more than strong enough even for the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Well, probably not since it doesn't back AGW up.

2. I have argued that CO2 is NOT a "greenhouse gas" and it turns out that there is only ONE paper that has actually measured admixtures of gas containing O2, H2O and CO2. The paper is rather technical but here is the conclusions:

"Conclusions

This assessment demonstrates that the effect of an increased warming caused by an increase of absorptivity of infrared radiation (IR) by water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide does not happen in nature.

On the overlapping absorption spectral bands of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the carbon dioxide propitiates a decrease of the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture in the atmosphere, not an increase, as AGW proponents argue.

Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth's surface and the Earth's atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases."

3. NOAA purposely and with full knowledge and probably at the urging of Obama counterfeited their papers to add to the IPCC conference by - of course - Obama.

So this is NOT a science or a question of science - it is pure unadulterated politics as those of us with a head on our shoulders detected 15 years ago.

The part of this scenario that I have trouble following is the question of motive. What did NASA, NOAA, and the Obama administration have to gain?

Frescomexico wrote:

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Damn Siberian warm front.

It turns out that:

1: The IPCC and NOAA have used falsified temperature data. This is because the temperatures are from highly urbanized areas that have grown from almost farmland to very large cities such as Moscow, Seoul, Korea, Tokyo, Japan and the like. Their corrections were purposely undervalued since farm areas close to these points showed NO heating at all above normal variations. It turns out that we are in a cooling period at the moment and not a warming.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/

The author of this article is a psychologist and since the real problem is with the twisted psychology of True Believers this would be appropriate. Of course he doesn't give his references and they are more than strong enough even for the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Well, probably not since it doesn't back AGW up.

2. I have argued that CO2 is NOT a "greenhouse gas" and it turns out that there is only ONE paper that has actually measured admixtures of gas containing O2, H2O and CO2. The paper is rather technical but here is the conclusions:

"Conclusions

This assessment demonstrates that the effect of an increased warming caused by an increase of absorptivity of infrared radiation (IR) by water vapor due to overlapping spectral bands with carbon dioxide does not happen in nature.

On the overlapping absorption spectral bands of carbon dioxide and water vapor, the carbon dioxide propitiates a decrease of the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture in the atmosphere, not an increase, as AGW proponents argue.

Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth's surface and the Earth's atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases."

3. NOAA purposely and with full knowledge and probably at the urging of Obama counterfeited their papers to add to the IPCC conference by - of course - Obama.

So this is NOT a science or a question of science - it is pure unadulterated politics as those of us with a head on our shoulders detected 15 years ago.

The part of this scenario that I have trouble following is the question of motive. What did NASA, NOAA, and the Obama administration have to gain?