AP
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...-sea-ice_N.htm

Do natural causes account for it?

David Christainsen - meteorologist

On 4 Sep, 02:05, David wrote:
APhttp://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2008-08-27-arctic-sea-ice_N.htm

Do natural causes account for it?

David Christainsen - meteorologist

"Sea ice also serves as primary habitat for threatened polar bears."
Around 50 are shot every year, a considerably stronger impact than GW.

Mind you, its good for the seals eh? But the GreenShirts never tell
you that do they, oh no, they love the bear! What is it, something
lodged in their enfeebled brains since childhood? What happened, did
their favourite teddy-bear develop a terminal case of the mange and
have to be destroyed?


" More ominous signs " Unscientifc alarmist crap.

"climate warming is also coming larger and faster than the models are
predicting " Wrong. The models didnt predict the last 10 years of
cooling.

"Other scientists, including James Hansen" Paid 750 thousand dollars
to 'politicise science'

"more warm water that releases more heat into the air during fall
cooling, making the atmosphere warmer than normal" So, the air warms
the water, which in turn warms the air? Where do these people come
from, a home for mental retards? The entire ocean is a heat sink, not
just the arctic.

"According to scientists at the data center, sea ice is in a state of
ongoing decline that is greater than natural causes could account
for." And other scientists said techtonics was bunkum and flight
impossible.

Anyway, who gives a damn if a few Polar Bears get to miss out on
Walrus lunch. I am not going to loose any sleep over it,.

Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
matt_sykes wrote:

On 4 Sep, 02:05, David wrote:
APhttp://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2008-08-27-arctic-sea-ice_N.htm

Do natural causes account for it?

David Christainsen - meteorologist
"Sea ice also serves as primary habitat for threatened polar bears."
Around 50 are shot every year, a considerably stronger impact than GW.

The big difference is, you can see lots of pictures of shot polar bears, but
I've seen NOT A SINGLE picture of a drowned polar bear yet.
No one was able to present me a picture, not even google was able to.
After all this media hype, at least a few pictures should have been somewhere
to find.
NONE, NOTHING, NADA, ...

The old Nature shows discussed how a Polar Bear would swim 20 miles....
I don't see those any longer.

On Sep 4, 11:05*am, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
matt_sykes wrote:
On 4 Sep, 02:05, David wrote:
APhttp://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2008-08-27-arctic-sea-ice_N..htm

Do natural causes account for it?

David Christainsen - meteorologist

"Sea ice also serves as primary habitat for threatened polar bears."
Around 50 are shot every year, a considerably stronger impact than GW.

The big difference is, you can see lots of pictures of shot polar bears, but
I've seen NOT A SINGLE picture of a drowned polar bear yet.
No one was able to present me a picture, not even google was able to.
After all this media hype, at least a few pictures should have been somewhere
to find.
NONE, NOTHING, NADA, ...

Accuweather - Brett Anderson
http://global-warming.accuweather.co...luence_on.html

David Christainsen - meteorologist

On Sep 4, 2:38*pm, Peter Muehlbauer
wrote:
...
Nice to read, thanks.
It's puzzling me now, because at first NASA alleged it was the warm wind.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...-20071001.html

But as I speak from experience, I'll never trust any publication coming from
from NASA.

Which one of both NASA's findings would you prefer? Or perhaps both? Or none?

I believe ocean circulation is driving the thinning of the
Arctic ice.

I would like to get the opinions of informed people on this.

David Christainsen - meteorologist