"John M." wrote:

On May 26, 2:12 pm, Whata Fool wrote:

This is 2008, how do those years compare with this year,
the ice hasn't reached the summer melt yet,

Well, you can check the progress daily for yourself. Go to:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

where you will be able to see that this years melt is already ahead
of the record year (2007) on the same date.

No I won't, and neither will the average person, video
requiring proprietary viewing programs is a pain, and most
of that page is old news.

What on earth are you talking about. Just look at the graph:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...urrent.365.jpg

or get a 5-yr-old child to do it if you are unsure of how to use the
Web.


Is that what you do? The video there is propaganda if
it is not updated, last year is not this year.


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....365.south.jpg

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 27/05/08 17:00, in article
, "John M."
wrote:


or get a 5-yr-old child to do it if you are unsure of how to use the
Web.

Whataffool is "graph challenged"


Sounds like you can't show warming,


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....365.south.jpg

Whata Fool wrote:

(PeterBP) wrote:

Whata Fool wrote:

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 25/05/08 4:12, in article ,
"Whata Fool" wrote:

How would you suggest calculating the total volume,
drill bore holes every kilometer and measure the thickness?


Land ice is computed from satellite radar measurements. Accurate
estimates of the volume is only recently available. Otherwise
it is mostly military measurements.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html

for info on "How Does Arctic Sea Ice Form and Decay"

For the thinning part http://psc.apl.washington.edu/thinning/thinning.html

the comment there is

"Comparison of sea-ice draft data acquired on submarine cruises between
1993 and 1997 with similar data acquired between 1958 and 1976 indicates
that the mean ice draft at the end of the melt season has decreased by
about 1.3 m in most of the deep water portion of the Arctic Ocean, from 3
..1
m in 1958--1976 to 1.8 m in the 1990s. The decrease is greater in the
central and eastern Arctic than in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
Preliminary evidence is that the ice cover has continued to become thinne
r
in some regions during the 1990s."

Past history, not relevant.

I get it. You don't know what science is about at all, do you?
Long-range data series are very relevant.

Another egotistical GW nut talking about a person instead
of the subject matter.

Geez, thats ironic.


The OP is in a long running propaganda blitz claiming it
is warming and has warmed, globally and somehow globally affects
pretty much only the Arctic.

References to "propaganda" instead of solid argumentation and evidence
is a very poor tactic in trying to disprove something.

He posted a link that did not mention any year in the
21st century that I saw, was I mistaken?

And this somehow makes it irrelevant to the subject? I suppose data from
1999 would be crossed out by you as well on that count.



This is 2008, how do those years compare with this year,
the ice hasn't reached the summer melt yet,

Oh yeah, and what happened in 1958 can't possible have even the
slightest connection to what happens in 2008, can it? Sigh.

--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!

Whata Fool wrote:

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 26/05/08 22:10, in article ,
"Whata Fool" wrote:

It does not show the coming summer, and it looks like less
of a negative anomaly for the time of year it ends since about 2004.

Non-sense, as usual.

The trend in the decline of summer ice coverage has been established for
years. That tendency is supported the overall thinning of the total ice,
which makes survival through the summer less and less likely.

Next, a decrease in the ice coverage anomaly low
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...rrent.anom.jpg

does not have to be continuous. If can fluctuate from at its low from
year to year but the overall trend can still be downward

There is nothing that says the trend can't start to move upward,

Thats called wishful thinking. But for fun, you wanna bet on that? $100
here (not that thats much worth anymore) say's it won't.

I have the money and my word is good.

Can we get an ajudicator that accepts PayPal transfers and will outline
the conditions for winning the bet?

your clumsy attempt to spread propaganda is not worth responding to.

Lets see if you'll back your trolling up with more than just word spew.

--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals

"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!

"Dan Luke" wrote:


"Earl Evleth" wrote:

or get a 5-yr-old child to do it if you are unsure of how to use the
Web.

Whataffool is "graph challenged"



That's a very charitable view of his limitations.


Both of you need to attend the control meeting tonight
and learn the new AGW script.

Earl Evleth wrote:

On 27/05/08 20:33, in article
, "Dan Luke"
wrote:

Whataffool is "graph challenged"



That's a very charitable view of his limitations.


Well broadly he is intellectually challenged

Can't talk about the science, so you talk about a fool.

On May 28, 2:06 am, Whata Fool wrote:
"John M." wrote:



On May 26, 2:12 pm, Whata Fool wrote:

This is 2008, how do those years compare with this year,
the ice hasn't reached the summer melt yet,

Well, you can check the progress daily for yourself. Go to:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

where you will be able to see that this years melt is already ahead
of the record year (2007) on the same date.

No I won't, and neither will the average person, video
requiring proprietary viewing programs is a pain, and most
of that page is old news.

What on earth are you talking about. Just look at the graph:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...urrent.365.jpg

or get a 5-yr-old child to do it if you are unsure of how to use the
Web.

Is that what you do? The video there is propaganda if
it is not updated, last year is not this year.

What part of "current 365" did you not understand?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....365.south.jpg

Hint: Explain to your 5-yr-old that "south" is not the Arctic.

"John M." wrote:

On May 28, 2:06 am, Whata Fool wrote:
"John M." wrote:



On May 26, 2:12 pm, Whata Fool wrote:

This is 2008, how do those years compare with this year,
the ice hasn't reached the summer melt yet,

Well, you can check the progress daily for yourself. Go to:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

where you will be able to see that this years melt is already ahead
of the record year (2007) on the same date.

No I won't, and neither will the average person, video
requiring proprietary viewing programs is a pain, and most
of that page is old news.

What on earth are you talking about. Just look at the graph:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...urrent.365.jpg

or get a 5-yr-old child to do it if you are unsure of how to use the
Web.

Is that what you do? The video there is propaganda if
it is not updated, last year is not this year.

What part of "current 365" did you not understand?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....365.south.jpg

Hint: Explain to your 5-yr-old that "south" is not the Arctic.

And the Arctic is not the globe.

This winter was a lot colder on average than last year,
whatever is causing the Arctic to experience warmer temperatures is
related to the same thing that causes western Europe to be warmer
than the same latitude in eastern Europe.

Frankly, I don't see a warmer Arctic as a real big problem,
and if the SH is colder, it would seem to balance the global average.

But send your complaints to Mother Nature, and get back to
reality, there are a lot more important things than 0.6 degrees.

On May 28, 10:20 am, Whata Fool wrote:
"John M." wrote:



On May 28, 2:06 am, Whata Fool wrote:
"John M." wrote:

On May 26, 2:12 pm, Whata Fool wrote:

This is 2008, how do those years compare with this year,
the ice hasn't reached the summer melt yet,

Well, you can check the progress daily for yourself. Go to:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

where you will be able to see that this years melt is already ahead
of the record year (2007) on the same date.

No I won't, and neither will the average person, video
requiring proprietary viewing programs is a pain, and most
of that page is old news.

What on earth are you talking about. Just look at the graph:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...urrent.365.jpg

or get a 5-yr-old child to do it if you are unsure of how to use the
Web.

Is that what you do? The video there is propaganda if
it is not updated, last year is not this year.

What part of "current 365" did you not understand?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....365.south.jpg

Hint: Explain to your 5-yr-old that "south" is not the Arctic.

And the Arctic is not the globe.

This winter was a lot colder on average than last year,
whatever is causing the Arctic to experience warmer temperatures is
related to the same thing that causes western Europe to be warmer
than the same latitude in eastern Europe.

Frankly, I don't see a warmer Arctic as a real big problem,
and if the SH is colder, it would seem to balance the global average.

But send your complaints to Mother Nature, and get back to
reality, there are a lot more important things than 0.6 degrees.

The temperature change is a symptom, just as it would be in a
homeothermic animal like you. Running a fever in itself is not the
problem.

"John M." wrote:

On May 28, 10:20 am, Whata Fool wrote:
"John M." wrote:



On May 28, 2:06 am, Whata Fool wrote:
"John M." wrote:

On May 26, 2:12 pm, Whata Fool wrote:

This is 2008, how do those years compare with this year,
the ice hasn't reached the summer melt yet,

Well, you can check the progress daily for yourself. Go to:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

where you will be able to see that this years melt is already ahead
of the record year (2007) on the same date.

No I won't, and neither will the average person, video
requiring proprietary viewing programs is a pain, and most
of that page is old news.

What on earth are you talking about. Just look at the graph:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...urrent.365.jpg

or get a 5-yr-old child to do it if you are unsure of how to use the
Web.

Is that what you do? The video there is propaganda if
it is not updated, last year is not this year.

What part of "current 365" did you not understand?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....365.south.jpg

Hint: Explain to your 5-yr-old that "south" is not the Arctic.

And the Arctic is not the globe.

This winter was a lot colder on average than last year,
whatever is causing the Arctic to experience warmer temperatures is
related to the same thing that causes western Europe to be warmer
than the same latitude in eastern Europe.

Frankly, I don't see a warmer Arctic as a real big problem,
and if the SH is colder, it would seem to balance the global average.

But send your complaints to Mother Nature, and get back to
reality, there are a lot more important things than 0.6 degrees.

The temperature change is a symptom, just as it would be in a
homeothermic animal like you. Running a fever in itself is not the
problem.

The globe has no normal temperature, the annual average can
vary by a large amount from year to year and it is meaningless,
simply because the data being used was never meant to be used
in such a manner.

There might be some significance _if_ there were NO self
regulating processes, like an increase in evaporation with an
increase in daily temperature, but there is usually moisture
present on and in the surface, so temperature self regulates
most of the time.

This obviously means the hottest places are where there is
no moisture on or in the surface, and that fact is clearly true,
deserts get warmer in daytime.


Add to the confusion about temperature the fact that too much
emphasis is placed on IR radiation in GreenHouse Gas theory, water
on the surface is capable of cooling the air to near freezing, but
the moderating effect of the huge mass of the atmospheric N2 and O2
keeps the temperature much warmer because the air can absorb visible
and UV energy from the sun, and because the air is warmer by convection
from the surface.

IR radiation does equalize temperatures in the atmosphere to some
extent, and cools the surface at night, and cools the upper atmosphere,
but the mass of the atmosphere is too great for swings in temperature
very great in extent or time, weather fronts themselves bear this out,
it is the difference in temperature and moisture that enables storms,
and the shorter the distance between temperature differences the more
severe the storm.

Most of the future telling by the IPCC and some misguided NASA or
NOAA writers present generalities that do not hold true in all cases,
even the presumption that these specialists are qualified to advise
national decision making is misguided, there simply is no reason to
even try to predict such a slow moving process when far more death
and destruction requires immediate and urgent expenditures of money
to reduce suffering.

The juxtapositions of warm, moist and cold masses of air are not
predictable by any means other than a magic crystal ball more than
a couple of weeks in advance, and the should be the focus and the limit
of attempts to model and predict weather.

Just by reducing the emphasis on IR radiation as a warming process,
some return to reality can occur, and the education talents can be better
used in creating energy efficient devices and systems.

I find it infuriating that with all the bull**** talk about the distant
future drowns out the sincere efforts by individuals to move toward using
less fuel of any kind, in my case, just a simple heat pump only would be
wonderful thing allowing me to keep warm and comfortable for half the cost,
and would reduce my carbon footprint for space heating in half.
And the egotistical AGW freaks posting in alt.global-warming wrongly
accuse me of not caring and not doing anything, but they all took a trip
over the holiday weekend, while I stayed home trying to find a simple
heat pump without the valving and plumbing and more expensive heat
exchangers needed to make a combo A/C and heat pump with a humidifier
function and other cost adding features I don't need.