Polar Ice Melt Now 6 Times Greater Than 1990s

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Polar Ice Melt Now 6 Times Greater Than 1990s

Page 1 of 3

Polar Ice Melt Now 6 Times Greater Than 1990s29-09-2020 19:01
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	What is causing such greater ice melt at the poles? For those interested in definitions, this is an example of climate change: an observed change in measurements of weather, which is far beyond the range of what historical average measurements of change indicate, and is thought to be significant. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/11/polar-ice-caps-melting-six-times-faster-than-in-1990s
29-09-2020 19:37
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Ice melting during the summer? Oh my GOD!!! We are all going to die, at an alarming rate... I can almost smell the smoke from the Norwegian wildfires already, just like last year. Maybe Norway can be rid of another big chunk of that damn glacier, this year. Dude, you do realize that this is mankind's first inter-glacial. We have no measurements, or observations. All we have are the holy ice cores, mostly from the Russians, who are suspected liars. All we can do is guess, speculate, and play video games (climate models). Oh, and we could always resort to the most reliable method of divining, ripping open the gut of a goat, and reading the entrails...
29-09-2020 20:24
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	HarveyH55 wrote: Ice melting during the summer? Oh my GOD!!! We are all going to die, at an alarming rate... I can almost smell the smoke from the Norwegian wildfires already, just like last year. Maybe Norway can be rid of another big chunk of that damn glacier, this year. Dude, you do realize that this is mankind's first inter-glacial. We have no measurements, or observations. All we have are the holy ice cores, mostly from the Russians, who are suspected liars. All we can do is guess, speculate, and play video games (climate models). Oh, and we could always resort to the most reliable method of divining, ripping open the gut of a goat, and reading the entrails... Here is a description of methods for assessing sea ice measurements. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/cryosphere-oceans/sea-ice/measure I'm just focusing on the last 30 years. Are you saying all these assessed measurements are inaccurate, and there has been no significant change in polar ice melt in the past 30 years?
29-09-2020 21:07
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Spongy Iris wrote: What is causing such greater ice melt at the poles? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/11/polar-ice-caps-melting-six-times-faster-than-in-1990s Let's see here.....the article claims a 20 percent error is expected in summer time measurements. When I was in school a 20 percent error was called a C+. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
29-09-2020 21:26
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: What is causing such greater ice melt at the poles? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/11/polar-ice-caps-melting-six-times-faster-than-in-1990s Let's see here.....the article claims a 20 percent error is expected in summer time measurements. When I was in school a 20 percent error was called a C+. Should they have said ice is melting somewhere between 5.8 times or 6.2 times as fast as it was 30 years ago?

29-09-2020 21:31
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: What is causing such greater ice melt at the poles? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/11/polar-ice-caps-melting-six-times-faster-than-in-1990s Let's see here.....the article claims a 20 percent error is expected in summer time measurements. When I was in school a 20 percent error was called a C+. Should they have said ice is melting somewhere between 5.8 times or 6.2 times as fast as it was 30 years ago? What they should say is that there is no accurate way to measure total sea ice and it would be ludicrous to ask anyone to change their life one inch due to our inaccurate guestimations. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
29-09-2020 22:25
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: What is causing such greater ice melt at the poles? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/11/polar-ice-caps-melting-six-times-faster-than-in-1990s Let's see here.....the article claims a 20 percent error is expected in summer time measurements. When I was in school a 20 percent error was called a C+. Should they have said ice is melting somewhere between 5.8 times or 6.2 times as fast as it was 30 years ago? What they should say is that there is no accurate way to measure total sea ice and it would be ludicrous to ask anyone to change their life one inch due to our inaccurate guestimations. Why don't you quit nitpicking observations, just because they are impossible to measure with perfect accuracy, and debate about the substance which has been presented? If you can't do that, why bother even replying? The assessment has been made that polar ice is melting 6 times faster than it was 30 years ago. What could be the cause of this particular climate change?
29-09-2020 22:39
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: What is causing such greater ice melt at the poles? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/11/polar-ice-caps-melting-six-times-faster-than-in-1990s Let's see here.....the article claims a 20 percent error is expected in summer time measurements. When I was in school a 20 percent error was called a C+. Should they have said ice is melting somewhere between 5.8 times or 6.2 times as fast as it was 30 years ago? What they should say is that there is no accurate way to measure total sea ice and it would be ludicrous to ask anyone to change their life one inch due to our inaccurate guestimations. Why don't you quit nitpicking observations, just because they are impossible to measure with perfect accuracy, and debate about the substance which has been presented? If you can't do that, why bother even replying? The assessment has been made that polar ice is melting 6 times faster than it was 30 years ago. What could be the cause of this particular climate change? Is it so unreasonable to verify a claim before digging into the why? Due to your over achievement in gullibility, you are a perfect puppet. Good grief, they TOLD you it was C+ quality measurements. Yet, you want to find out WHO is responsible what MAY have taken place. Donkey before the cart? Cart before the wagon? Horse in front of something.... Ass in front of us! That's what it is! Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 29-09-2020 22:39
29-09-2020 22:52
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: What is causing such greater ice melt at the poles? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/11/polar-ice-caps-melting-six-times-faster-than-in-1990s Let's see here.....the article claims a 20 percent error is expected in summer time measurements. When I was in school a 20 percent error was called a C+. Should they have said ice is melting somewhere between 5.8 times or 6.2 times as fast as it was 30 years ago? What they should say is that there is no accurate way to measure total sea ice and it would be ludicrous to ask anyone to change their life one inch due to our inaccurate guestimations. Why don't you quit nitpicking observations, just because they are impossible to measure with perfect accuracy, and debate about the substance which has been presented? If you can't do that, why bother even replying? The assessment has been made that polar ice is melting 6 times faster than it was 30 years ago. What could be the cause of this particular climate change? Is it so unreasonable to verify a claim before digging into the why? Due to your over achievement in gullibility, you are a perfect puppet. Good grief, they TOLD you it was C+ quality measurements. Yet, you want to find out WHO is responsible what MAY have taken place. Donkey before the cart? Cart before the wagon? Horse in front of something.... Ass in front of us! That's what it is! Your argument that the measurements are only 80% accurate does not negate the observation.
29-09-2020 23:06
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: What is causing such greater ice melt at the poles? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/11/polar-ice-caps-melting-six-times-faster-than-in-1990s Let's see here.....the article claims a 20 percent error is expected in summer time measurements. When I was in school a 20 percent error was called a C+. Should they have said ice is melting somewhere between 5.8 times or 6.2 times as fast as it was 30 years ago? What they should say is that there is no accurate way to measure total sea ice and it would be ludicrous to ask anyone to change their life one inch due to our inaccurate guestimations. Why don't you quit nitpicking observations, just because they are impossible to measure with perfect accuracy, and debate about the substance which has been presented? If you can't do that, why bother even replying? The assessment has been made that polar ice is melting 6 times faster than it was 30 years ago. What could be the cause of this particular climate change? Is it so unreasonable to verify a claim before digging into the why? Due to your over achievement in gullibility, you are a perfect puppet. Good grief, they TOLD you it was C+ quality measurements. Yet, you want to find out WHO is responsible what MAY have taken place. Donkey before the cart? Cart before the wagon? Horse in front of something.... Ass in front of us! That's what it is! Your argument that the measurements are only 80% accurate does not negate the observation. Does an eye doctor with 80 percent correct observation get any business? Would you buy glasses using his prescription? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
29-09-2020 23:26
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: What is causing such greater ice melt at the poles? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/11/polar-ice-caps-melting-six-times-faster-than-in-1990s Let's see here.....the article claims a 20 percent error is expected in summer time measurements. When I was in school a 20 percent error was called a C+. Should they have said ice is melting somewhere between 5.8 times or 6.2 times as fast as it was 30 years ago? What they should say is that there is no accurate way to measure total sea ice and it would be ludicrous to ask anyone to change their life one inch due to our inaccurate guestimations. Why don't you quit nitpicking observations, just because they are impossible to measure with perfect accuracy, and debate about the substance which has been presented? If you can't do that, why bother even replying? The assessment has been made that polar ice is melting 6 times faster than it was 30 years ago. What could be the cause of this particular climate change? Is it so unreasonable to verify a claim before digging into the why? Due to your over achievement in gullibility, you are a perfect puppet. Good grief, they TOLD you it was C+ quality measurements. Yet, you want to find out WHO is responsible what MAY have taken place. Donkey before the cart? Cart before the wagon? Horse in front of something.... Ass in front of us! That's what it is! Your argument that the measurements are only 80% accurate does not negate the observation. Does an eye doctor with 80 percent correct observation get any business? Would you buy glasses using his prescription? That's not an accurate metaphor for what we are debating.
30-09-2020 00:06
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: What is causing such greater ice melt at the poles? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/11/polar-ice-caps-melting-six-times-faster-than-in-1990s Let's see here.....the article claims a 20 percent error is expected in summer time measurements. When I was in school a 20 percent error was called a C+. Should they have said ice is melting somewhere between 5.8 times or 6.2 times as fast as it was 30 years ago? What they should say is that there is no accurate way to measure total sea ice and it would be ludicrous to ask anyone to change their life one inch due to our inaccurate guestimations. Why don't you quit nitpicking observations, just because they are impossible to measure with perfect accuracy, and debate about the substance which has been presented? If you can't do that, why bother even replying? The assessment has been made that polar ice is melting 6 times faster than it was 30 years ago. What could be the cause of this particular climate change? Is it so unreasonable to verify a claim before digging into the why? Due to your over achievement in gullibility, you are a perfect puppet. Good grief, they TOLD you it was C+ quality measurements. Yet, you want to find out WHO is responsible what MAY have taken place. Donkey before the cart? Cart before the wagon? Horse in front of something.... Ass in front of us! That's what it is! Your argument that the measurements are only 80% accurate does not negate the observation. Does an eye doctor with 80 percent correct observation get any business? Would you buy glasses using his prescription? That's not an accurate metaphor for what we are debating. I suppose you're right in this way... In the case of eyeglasses, you would have the choice to pay for them after incorrect analysis. In the case of "climate change", I would be forced to pay for it through government theft of my money. Claims, observation, measurements must all be 100 percent correct before spending any money on "fixing" anything. However, people like you prefer to put the ass before the horse. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 30-09-2020 00:09
30-09-2020 00:29
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Gas Guzzler, I have never made an argument for carbon taxes. I do think the claim made of polar ice melting approximately 6 times faster than 30 years ago is correct.
30-09-2020 00:44
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Spongy Iris wrote: Gas Guzzler, I have never made an argument for carbon taxes. I do think the claim made of polar ice melting approximately 6 times faster than 30 years ago is correct. You really believe that? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
30-09-2020 01:00
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: Gas Guzzler, I have never made an argument for carbon taxes. I do think the claim made of polar ice melting approximately 6 times faster than 30 years ago is correct. You really believe that? I just said I think it is approximately correct. You and Harvey have not made disputes convincing enough to change my mind. Let's see if anyone else chimes in...

30-09-2020 01:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	GasGuzzler wrote:When I was in school a 20 percent error was called a C+. You were coddled. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-09-2020 01:51
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404)	Spongy Iris wrote: You and Harvey have not made disputes convincing enough to change my mind. Let me guess ... 1. You made an affirmative claim ... 2. ... based on zero valid data ... 3. ... and you are requiring other to prove your argument false. Hmmmm. Would you care to take a wild guess at what might be totally bogus with this situation? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-09-2020 03:13
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: You and Harvey have not made disputes convincing enough to change my mind. Let me guess ... 1. You made an affirmative claim ... 2. ... based on zero valid data ... 3. ... and you are requiring other to prove your argument false. Hmmmm. Would you care to take a wild guess at what might be totally bogus with this situation? . Zero valid data??? There is an abundance of data you can find showing declining ice in polar regions. Here is another link with charts and time lapse images gotten from satellite data over Greenland. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/ The Arctic sea ice has declined from approx. 7 to 4 million square kilometers over the past 30 years. Seems you want to stay stuck denying the data so you don't have to take the debate to the next level. Don't you get bored??? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GLyXJZRKjYY
30-09-2020 04:17
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Well, I suppose the summer climate fun will be over in a couple months, the ice will start to reform, at an alarming rate. Folks up north of here, will start burning stuff, daily, just to prolong their miserable lives, so they get up earlier in the morning, to dig their car our of the snow, scrap ice off the window. Just so they can drive their SUV into work, punch the clock, and slave away 8 hours of their lives, just to pay the taxes, that fund a bunch of nonsense research, that will never amount to anything... 30 years ain't nothing, pretty sure this planet has been around a few thousand years, likely longer. I really don't see how 30 years is all that significant, in the grand scheme of things. Climatologist have been fear mongering us for decades, over melting Arctic ice, rising sea levels. My state was suppose to be mostly under water, about a decade ago... Of course, much of the state of Florida has been swamp, far back as anyone can tell. Seems odd to me, that if ice melting is even 80% correct, I should have really needed a boat by now. How do you know this alarming ice melting event hasn't happened many times in the past? Ice core samples? If a lot of the Arctic ice had melt in the past, wouldn't it have also melted away some layers of ice core?
30-09-2020 04:30
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I would like to chime in.2019 and 2020 Hudson bay froze up all the way to Ontario and polar bears spread all the way down and had a great spring season the Canadian coast guard monitor this.That is real observed data.If you are going to read the Guardian and believe it that is your choice and anything posted by NASA NOAA and IPCC is an opinion based on information they wish to share not the truth.The are guilty of discarding data that does not fit in to the results they are looking for and this has been proven by many Scientists who have gone public.Be aware the North pole is migrating towards Russia and it is very simple to show ice retreating without showing the gain on the other side.I have been actively seeking the truth for 18 months and at this point am utterly convinced CO2 does not cause planetary warming to the extent that is being suggested.Remember all they warmazombies have is predictions based on models of which none have occurred and the science.I would like to share an example of how humans can be affected by information.I lived and worked at a remote cattle station in the East Gascoyne at a caravan park next to a big rock called mount Augustus.People come out to walk to the top of the mount and take in the veiw.The area is sitting on a massive Aquifer 6 times larger than all of Sydney harbour.In Perth in summer we have water restrictions as the dams run down so you get 2 days where you can run reticulation for your garden based on street numbers and you get 10 mins per staion in the morning or evening not both.People dob each other in and fines get issued and all sorts of shenanagins.Anyhoo I was doing front counter and a woman came in looking so stressed I assumed her husband had been bitten by a snake or something.She was messed up because we run our sprinklers 24/7 as if we dont the area at the back of the farmhouse turns in to a small lake.To get water we run a windmill to a gravity tank and you can not control the wind.I explained this but in her mind set we were wasting water which where she lives is precious but not where we are 1350 Km north.Spongy Iris please do not be as dumb as that women.Work it out for yourself as I did it is very rewarding.I am all for not burning coal to make steam to turn a turbine to make electricity and new technology will happen but do not try to put mankind in the dark ages over a political theory
30-09-2020 12:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: What is causing such greater ice melt at the poles? For those interested in definitions, this is an example of climate change: an observed change in measurements of weather, which is far beyond the range of what historical average measurements of change indicate, and is thought to be significant. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/11/polar-ice-caps-melting-six-times-faster-than-in-1990s What greater ice melt at the poles? Do you really believe The Guardian is actually news?? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 30-09-2020 12:21
30-09-2020 12:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Ice melting during the summer? Oh my GOD!!! We are all going to die, at an alarming rate... I can almost smell the smoke from the Norwegian wildfires already, just like last year. Maybe Norway can be rid of another big chunk of that damn glacier, this year. Dude, you do realize that this is mankind's first inter-glacial. We have no measurements, or observations. All we have are the holy ice cores, mostly from the Russians, who are suspected liars. All we can do is guess, speculate, and play video games (climate models). Oh, and we could always resort to the most reliable method of divining, ripping open the gut of a goat, and reading the entrails... Here is a description of methods for assessing sea ice measurements. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/cryosphere-oceans/sea-ice/measure I'm just focusing on the last 30 years. Are you saying all these assessed measurements are inaccurate, and there has been no significant change in polar ice melt in the past 30 years? The winter ice extent has been getting larger in recent years, not smaller. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-09-2020 12:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: What is causing such greater ice melt at the poles? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/11/polar-ice-caps-melting-six-times-faster-than-in-1990s Let's see here.....the article claims a 20 percent error is expected in summer time measurements. When I was in school a 20 percent error was called a C+. Should they have said ice is melting somewhere between 5.8 times or 6.2 times as fast as it was 30 years ago? It can't. Insufficient energy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-09-2020 12:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: What is causing such greater ice melt at the poles? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/11/polar-ice-caps-melting-six-times-faster-than-in-1990s Let's see here.....the article claims a 20 percent error is expected in summer time measurements. When I was in school a 20 percent error was called a C+. Should they have said ice is melting somewhere between 5.8 times or 6.2 times as fast as it was 30 years ago? What they should say is that there is no accurate way to measure total sea ice and it would be ludicrous to ask anyone to change their life one inch due to our inaccurate guestimations. This is dead right. It is not possible to measure the total snow and ice at the pole or upon the Earth. The best estimate of sea ice at the north pole is the winter ice extent, measured in January at that pole. This is the largest the ice sheet gets during the year. In recent years, the winter ice extent has been getting larger. That's more ice, not less. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-09-2020 12:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: What is causing such greater ice melt at the poles? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/11/polar-ice-caps-melting-six-times-faster-than-in-1990s Let's see here.....the article claims a 20 percent error is expected in summer time measurements. When I was in school a 20 percent error was called a C+. Should they have said ice is melting somewhere between 5.8 times or 6.2 times as fast as it was 30 years ago? What they should say is that there is no accurate way to measure total sea ice and it would be ludicrous to ask anyone to change their life one inch due to our inaccurate guestimations. Why don't you quit nitpicking observations, just because they are impossible to measure with perfect accuracy, and debate about the substance which has been presented? If you can't do that, why bother even replying? The assessment has been made that polar ice is melting 6 times faster than it was 30 years ago. What could be the cause of this particular climate change? Is it so unreasonable to verify a claim before digging into the why? Due to your over achievement in gullibility, you are a perfect puppet. Good grief, they TOLD you it was C+ quality measurements. Yet, you want to find out WHO is responsible what MAY have taken place. Donkey before the cart? Cart before the wagon? Horse in front of something.... Ass in front of us! That's what it is! Your argument that the measurements are only 80% accurate does not negate the observation. Random number. Argument from randU fallacy. You are just making up numbers. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-09-2020 12:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: What is causing such greater ice melt at the poles? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/mar/11/polar-ice-caps-melting-six-times-faster-than-in-1990s Let's see here.....the article claims a 20 percent error is expected in summer time measurements. When I was in school a 20 percent error was called a C+. Should they have said ice is melting somewhere between 5.8 times or 6.2 times as fast as it was 30 years ago? What they should say is that there is no accurate way to measure total sea ice and it would be ludicrous to ask anyone to change their life one inch due to our inaccurate guestimations. Why don't you quit nitpicking observations, just because they are impossible to measure with perfect accuracy, and debate about the substance which has been presented? If you can't do that, why bother even replying? The assessment has been made that polar ice is melting 6 times faster than it was 30 years ago. What could be the cause of this particular climate change? Is it so unreasonable to verify a claim before digging into the why? Due to your over achievement in gullibility, you are a perfect puppet. Good grief, they TOLD you it was C+ quality measurements. Yet, you want to find out WHO is responsible what MAY have taken place. Donkey before the cart? Cart before the wagon? Horse in front of something.... Ass in front of us! That's what it is! Your argument that the measurements are only 80% accurate does not negate the observation. Does an eye doctor with 80 percent correct observation get any business? Would you buy glasses using his prescription? That's not an accurate metaphor for what we are debating. There are no debates here. Only conversations. You aren't making much of a conversation. You are just preaching random numbers as data. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-09-2020 12:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: Gas Guzzler, I have never made an argument for carbon taxes. I do think the claim made of polar ice melting approximately 6 times faster than 30 years ago is correct. How do you know? It's not possible to measure the total snow and ice at the pole. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-09-2020 12:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: You and Harvey have not made disputes convincing enough to change my mind. Let me guess ... 1. You made an affirmative claim ... 2. ... based on zero valid data ... 3. ... and you are requiring other to prove your argument false. Hmmmm. Would you care to take a wild guess at what might be totally bogus with this situation? . Zero valid data??? That's what he said. You have zero valid data. Spongy Iris wrote: There is an abundance of data you can find showing declining ice in polar regions. None. Random numbers are not data. Spongy Iris wrote: Here is another link with charts and time lapse images gotten from satellite data over Greenland. ...deleted Holy Link... NASA is not a valid source. False authority fallacy. They are unable to measure the total snow and ice at the poles. Random numbers are not data. Spongy Iris wrote: The Arctic sea ice has declined from approx. 7 to 4 million square kilometers over the past 30 years. Random numbers. You are making shit up. Spongy Iris wrote: Seems you want to stay stuck denying the data so you don't have to take the debate to the next level....deleted insult and Holy Video... There is no debate here. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
30-09-2020 20:26
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Into the Night wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: You and Harvey have not made disputes convincing enough to change my mind. Let me guess ... 1. You made an affirmative claim ... 2. ... based on zero valid data ... 3. ... and you are requiring other to prove your argument false. Hmmmm. Would you care to take a wild guess at what might be totally bogus with this situation? . Zero valid data??? That's what he said. You have zero valid data. Spongy Iris wrote: There is an abundance of data you can find showing declining ice in polar regions. None. Random numbers are not data. Spongy Iris wrote: Here is another link with charts and time lapse images gotten from satellite data over Greenland. ...deleted Holy Link... NASA is not a valid source. False authority fallacy. They are unable to measure the total snow and ice at the poles. Random numbers are not data. Spongy Iris wrote: The Arctic sea ice has declined from approx. 7 to 4 million square kilometers over the past 30 years. Random numbers. You are making shit up. Spongy Iris wrote: Seems you want to stay stuck denying the data so you don't have to take the debate to the next level....deleted insult and Holy Video... There is no debate here. You must have seen the time lapse video from satellite data. Could you not see the surface area of the ice diminishing over the years?
30-09-2020 20:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: Into the Night wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Spongy Iris wrote: You and Harvey have not made disputes convincing enough to change my mind. Let me guess ... 1. You made an affirmative claim ... 2. ... based on zero valid data ... 3. ... and you are requiring other to prove your argument false. Hmmmm. Would you care to take a wild guess at what might be totally bogus with this situation? . Zero valid data??? That's what he said. You have zero valid data. Spongy Iris wrote: There is an abundance of data you can find showing declining ice in polar regions. None. Random numbers are not data. Spongy Iris wrote: Here is another link with charts and time lapse images gotten from satellite data over Greenland. ...deleted Holy Link... NASA is not a valid source. False authority fallacy. They are unable to measure the total snow and ice at the poles. Random numbers are not data. Spongy Iris wrote: The Arctic sea ice has declined from approx. 7 to 4 million square kilometers over the past 30 years. Random numbers. You are making shit up. Spongy Iris wrote: Seems you want to stay stuck denying the data so you don't have to take the debate to the next level....deleted insult and Holy Video... There is no debate here. You must have seen the time lapse video from satellite data. Could you not see the surface area of the ice diminishing over the years? No. All I see is manipulated video. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 30-09-2020 20:57

30-09-2020 21:12
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Into the Night wrote: No. All I see is manipulated video. Are you saying the video is lying about the changes in surface area of ice?
01-10-2020 02:16
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	The problem the meltazombies have is if that massive amount of ice has melted why has the sea not gone up and if we can really melt all the ice with a tiny bit of CO2 can we finish the job and open up the sea lanes through the North permanently and get rid of them pesky polar bears once and for all.I like steamy mangrove swamps lets get it on.Yes NASA manipulate the videos and the warming ones they do as well.I have asked this question before if I accept the globe is .9 C warmer over the last 150 years how does that melt ice that is -40 in the Arctic and -75 C in Antartica.I know you will not present a real case as you can not do it.Again stop believing everything that is put up.
01-10-2020 02:19
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	In 50 years when nothing has happened the truth will be revealed and why it was done.I grew up in the 60s and we all believed that Russia could blow the world up completely.As in gone vapourised all gas.Now we know all them trucks with rockets on the back had nothing in them and were all show and no go.
01-10-2020 02:56
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	duncan61 wrote: The problem the meltazombies have is if that massive amount of ice has melted why has the sea not gone up and if we can really melt all the ice with a tiny bit of CO2 can we finish the job and open up the sea lanes through the North permanently and get rid of them pesky polar bears once and for all.I like steamy mangrove swamps lets get it on.Yes NASA manipulate the videos and the warming ones they do as well.I have asked this question before if I accept the globe is .9 C warmer over the last 150 years how does that melt ice that is -40 in the Arctic and -75 C in Antartica.I know you will not present a real case as you can not do it.Again stop believing everything that is put up. I grew up on the side of a snow capped mountain, in Oregon. Cold. wet, miserable most of the year. Moved to Florida, only gets cold for a few day, maybe a week at a time. And that's only a few months out of the entire year. A warmer climate is a whole lot better, than a colder one. The climate guys aren't talking about a 1.5 C warming of the entire planet, all the time, equally. It's an average, and the sources used as data, selective. Computer graphical representations, aren't just hockey-stick style graphs any more either. The graphs can be nearly photo graphic images, animations, even movies. The same simulations techniques used movies these days, that save tons of money on special effects. Some people have trouble separating reality, from computer simulation.
01-10-2020 02:56
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	duncan61 wrote: The problem the meltazombies have is if that massive amount of ice has melted why has the sea not gone up and if we can really melt all the ice with a tiny bit of CO2 can we finish the job and open up the sea lanes through the North permanently and get rid of them pesky polar bears once and for all.I like steamy mangrove swamps lets get it on.Yes NASA manipulate the videos and the warming ones they do as well.I have asked this question before if I accept the globe is .9 C warmer over the last 150 years how does that melt ice that is -40 in the Arctic and -75 C in Antartica.I know you will not present a real case as you can not do it.Again stop believing everything that is put up. I am not sure about the Antarctic data anymore. Do you believe it was NASA who put up the satellites to obtain the data to make a composite time lapse video? I didn't ask if the satellite data was manipulated. It's obviously a composite video. I asked if it was a lie. I think the time lapse images showing diminishing surface area of sea ice in the Arctic is an accurate historical portrayal of surface level ice. Melting sea ice in the Arctic would not raise sea levels.
01-10-2020 06:19
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Into the Night wrote: In recent years, the winter ice extent has been getting larger. That's more ice, not less. Over the past 30 years the satellite data indicates the surface area of Arctic ice has diminished. But I think you are correct that the winters have been seeing greater freezes. Seems to me this is another indication that the summers are getting hotter in the Arctic. More evaporation. Causes cooling.
01-10-2020 11:16
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Spongy Iris wrote: duncan61 wrote: The problem the meltazombies have is if that massive amount of ice has melted why has the sea not gone up and if we can really melt all the ice with a tiny bit of CO2 can we finish the job and open up the sea lanes through the North permanently and get rid of them pesky polar bears once and for all.I like steamy mangrove swamps lets get it on.Yes NASA manipulate the videos and the warming ones they do as well.I have asked this question before if I accept the globe is .9 C warmer over the last 150 years how does that melt ice that is -40 in the Arctic and -75 C in Antartica.I know you will not present a real case as you can not do it.Again stop believing everything that is put up. I am not sure about the Antarctic data anymore. Do you believe it was NASA who put up the satellites to obtain the data to make a composite time lapse video? I didn't ask if the satellite data was manipulated. It's obviously a composite video. I asked if it was a lie. I think the time lapse images showing diminishing surface area of sea ice in the Arctic is an accurate historical portrayal of surface level ice. Melting sea ice in the Arctic would not raise sea levels. Then there is no problem.All 13 families of polar bear are thriving and seals killer whales and krill.Mackerel species and cod are now moving further North than before.Its all good news yet some people claim its bad.Go there and talk to the eskimos or the people growing crops in the north.Canadian wheat crops are now 48% greater than the 70s.Some is due to better techniques but the bulk is longer season and more land available.In Perth where I live completely opposite the North pole the winters are getting longer and colder.We are over a month into spring and it is cold and wet.The Earth is spinning.We orbit the sun Its spinning.Everything is spinning.The equator was once frozen in.why are some idiots trying to blame mankind.Have a good long look at some photos from space and tell me we can change the Ocean.I will finish with If I had school age children and found out that AGW/CC was being taught at school I would remove my child from that class.Duncan the realist duncan61
01-10-2020 18:51
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	duncan61 wrote: Then there is no problem.All 13 families of polar bear are thriving and seals killer whales and krill.Mackerel species and cod are now moving further North than before.Its all good news yet some people claim its bad.Go there and talk to the eskimos or the people growing crops in the north.Canadian wheat crops are now 48% greater than the 70s.Some is due to better techniques but the bulk is longer season and more land available.In Perth where I live completely opposite the North pole the winters are getting longer and colder.We are over a month into spring and it is cold and wet.The Earth is spinning.We orbit the sun Its spinning.Everything is spinning.The equator was once frozen in.why are some idiots trying to blame mankind.Have a good long look at some photos from space and tell me we can change the Ocean.I will finish with If I had school age children and found out that AGW/CC was being taught at school I would remove my child from that class.Duncan the realist Fish moving further north is another indication that the waters have warmed. Was the sun not around yet when the equator was frozen? Seems like you believe some pretty wild stuff. Amazing how a solar eclipse works with the sun and moon being so far from each other and so different in size. I guess it's hard to believe the people who said they landed on the moon by shooting a really big cannon at the sky. Therein lies the problem.
01-10-2020 19:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: Into the Night wrote: No. All I see is manipulated video. Are you saying the video is lying about the changes in surface area of ice? No. I am saying that the person that made that video is lying about the changes in the surface area of ice. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 01-10-2020 19:38
01-10-2020 19:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Spongy Iris wrote: duncan61 wrote: The problem the meltazombies have is if that massive amount of ice has melted why has the sea not gone up and if we can really melt all the ice with a tiny bit of CO2 can we finish the job and open up the sea lanes through the North permanently and get rid of them pesky polar bears once and for all.I like steamy mangrove swamps lets get it on.Yes NASA manipulate the videos and the warming ones they do as well.I have asked this question before if I accept the globe is .9 C warmer over the last 150 years how does that melt ice that is -40 in the Arctic and -75 C in Antartica.I know you will not present a real case as you can not do it.Again stop believing everything that is put up. I am not sure about the Antarctic data anymore. Winter polar ice extent data is recorded. This data is stored at the National Snow and Ice research center in Boulder, CO. The data currently shows that both poles are increasing in winter ice extent the past few years. In 2014, Antarctica recorded the largest winter ice extent ever recorded (a new record!). Since then, it has dimished. The past few years it is growing again. Spongy Iris wrote: Do you believe it was NASA who put up the satellites to obtain the data to make a composite time lapse video? NASA launched the rocket that hurled these satellites into orbit. They do not operate the satellites themselves, nor were they built by NASA. Spongy Iris wrote: I didn't ask if the satellite data was manipulated. It's obviously a composite video. I asked if it was a lie. The video is a lie. It is a composite of ice extent taken from a winter to a summer and shown as progressive winter ice extent. Spongy Iris wrote: I think the time lapse images showing diminishing surface area of sea ice in the Arctic is an accurate historical portrayal of surface level ice. No. Spongy Iris wrote: Melting sea ice in the Arctic would not raise sea levels. Correct. This is also true of Antarctic sea ice melting. Neither are melting. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 1 of 3

Join the debate Polar Ice Melt Now 6 Times Greater Than 1990s:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The new President elect of Haagen Dazs, demonstrating an ice cream filled donut	0	17-11-2023 14:07
The Lake Mead water level is still rising in August, when it is ALWAYS falling. So snow melt is not the	155	16-09-2023 13:46
Polar bears	9	09-09-2022 00:03
Co2 ice samples	11	02-06-2022 22:44
Arctic sea ice cover	19	09-04-2022 08:29