http://www.weather.com/science/news/...asa-data-finds
--
bert

On 04/11/2015 20:06, bert wrote:
http://www.weather.com/science/news/...asa-data-finds

Just because the facts don't line up with what harry says wont stop him
lying.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:06:04 +0000, bert wrote:

http://www.weather.com/science/news/...asa-data-finds

The net gain has slowed not accelerated, bad news for the deniers.

On 04/11/2015 22:28, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:06:04 +0000, bert wrote:

http://www.weather.com/science/news/...asa-data-finds

The net gain has slowed not accelerated, bad news for the deniers.


According to the alarmists there has been decreasing ice for years,
seems they were wrong about that too.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 23:07:00 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 04/11/2015 22:28, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:06:04 +0000, bert wrote:

http://www.weather.com/science/news/...asa-data-finds

The net gain has slowed not accelerated, bad news for the deniers.


According to the alarmists there has been decreasing ice for years,
seems they were wrong about that too.

According to the NASA report,
"the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice
a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of
ice per year between 2003 and 2008."

If the temperature peaked in 1998 as we are continually told by the
deniers then the net gain should be increasing not slowing.

On 04/11/15 23:32, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 23:07:00 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 04/11/2015 22:28, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:06:04 +0000, bert wrote:

http://www.weather.com/science/news/...asa-data-finds

The net gain has slowed not accelerated, bad news for the deniers.


According to the alarmists there has been decreasing ice for years,
seems they were wrong about that too.

According to the NASA report,
"the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice
a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of
ice per year between 2003 and 2008."

If the temperature peaked in 1998 as we are continually told by the
deniers then the net gain should be increasing not slowing.

Shows how little anyone understands about ice formation in the Antarctic.

But at least the 'deniers' don't claim to have the answers - they are
merely content to demonstrate that the alarmists models don't stack up
with reality...


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 04/11/2015 23:32, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 23:07:00 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 04/11/2015 22:28, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:06:04 +0000, bert wrote:

http://www.weather.com/science/news/...asa-data-finds

The net gain has slowed not accelerated, bad news for the deniers.


According to the alarmists there has been decreasing ice for years,
seems they were wrong about that too.

According to the NASA report,
"the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice
a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of
ice per year between 2003 and 2008."

If the temperature peaked in 1998 as we are continually told by the
deniers then the net gain should be increasing not slowing.


Why would the ice not continue to melt as the alarmists claimed it has
been doing?
It doesn't require any further increase in temperature to melt ice once
it is above freezing.

On 05/11/2015 08:22, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 07:41:02 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 04/11/2015 23:32, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 23:07:00 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 04/11/2015 22:28, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:06:04 +0000, bert wrote:

http://www.weather.com/science/news/...asa-data-finds

The net gain has slowed not accelerated, bad news for the deniers.


According to the alarmists there has been decreasing ice for years,
seems they were wrong about that too.

According to the NASA report,
"the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice
a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of
ice per year between 2003 and 2008."

If the temperature peaked in 1998 as we are continually told by the
deniers then the net gain should be increasing not slowing.


Why would the ice not continue to melt as the alarmists claimed it has
been doing?
It doesn't require any further increase in temperature to melt ice once
it is above freezing.

I don't understand why the alarmists keep harping on about sea
temperatures still rising, or ice sheets continuing to melt.

There was a period of atmospheric warming towards the end of the last
century; no argument (well, not from me). But to expect sea
temperatures and amounts of polar ice to move contemporaneously with
the atmospheric temperature rise is surely ridiculous, given that the
specific heat of water, particularly when you include the latent heat
of melting of ice, is significantly higher than that of air, and is
bound to result in a delay in response.

Its a propaganda war..
they can film glaciers breaking up and say look its global warming
happening.
They don't want the fact that the same thing has been happening for
millennia to get in the way.


If they seriously believe that rising sea temperatures and decreasing
amounts of polar ice (and the latter seems questionable anyway) are
indicative of ongoing warming, why has the atmosphere stopped warming?


That would be a few centuries worth of delay but they seem to want to
ignore that.

The biggest problem the alarmists have is they keep making exaggerated
claims that just don't happen. They claim the models predict these
things but in reality they only predict these things if you go to
extremes and then they look foolish but still have groupies like harry
that believe it. Yes harry is an alarmist's groupie.

On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 08:22:04 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 07:41:02 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 04/11/2015 23:32, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 23:07:00 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 04/11/2015 22:28, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:06:04 +0000, bert wrote:

http://www.weather.com/science/news/...asa-data-finds

The net gain has slowed not accelerated, bad news for the deniers.


According to the alarmists there has been decreasing ice for years,
seems they were wrong about that too.

According to the NASA report,
"the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice
a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of
ice per year between 2003 and 2008."

If the temperature peaked in 1998 as we are continually told by the
deniers then the net gain should be increasing not slowing.


Why would the ice not continue to melt as the alarmists claimed it has
been doing?
It doesn't require any further increase in temperature to melt ice once
it is above freezing.

I don't understand why the alarmists keep harping on about sea
temperatures still rising, or ice sheets continuing to melt.

There was a period of atmospheric warming towards the end of the last
century; no argument (well, not from me). But to expect sea
temperatures and amounts of polar ice to move contemporaneously with
the atmospheric temperature rise is surely ridiculous, given that the
specific heat of water, particularly when you include the latent heat
of melting of ice, is significantly higher than that of air, and is
bound to result in a delay in response.

If they seriously believe that rising sea temperatures and decreasing
amounts of polar ice (and the latter seems questionable anyway) are
indicative of ongoing warming, why has the atmosphere stopped warming?

It hasn't. The ten warmest years ever recorded have all occurred since
1998. 2014 was the warmest year on record.

On 05/11/2015 08:22, Chris Hogg wrote:

I don't understand why the alarmists keep harping on about sea
temperatures still rising, or ice sheets continuing to melt.

Nobody's told them it's been happening ever since the last ice age.

--
F

In article . com,
dennis@home writes:
On 04/11/2015 22:28, mcp wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 20:06:04 +0000, bert wrote:

http://www.weather.com/science/news/...asa-data-finds

The net gain has slowed not accelerated, bad news for the deniers.


According to the alarmists there has been decreasing ice for years,
seems they were wrong about that too.

Given that we're still heading out of the last ice age and probably
haven't got to the mid inter-glacial period yet based on previous
cycles, and that the arctic completely vanished in the last
inter-glacial period (very suddenly when it finally broke up and
floated south), it's really only to be excpected that such warming
should be happening now, even if there were no humans on the planet.
Variations over a few decades are of no significance.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Wednesday, 4 November 2015 20:14:03 UTC, bert wrote:
http://www.weather.com/science/news/...asa-data-finds
--
bert

Full of crap aren't you?
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...ort-his/206612

On 05/11/2015 07:37, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 November 2015 20:14:03 UTC, bert wrote:
http://www.weather.com/science/news/...asa-data-finds
--
bert

Full of crap aren't you?
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...ort-his/206612


There is nothing to distort.
Its the alarmists model that has failed to predict the actual conditions.
The same model that they use to predict the end of the world as we know it.
You can deny that they got it wrong as much as you like but the facts
say that they got it wrong and there is no reason to think they have got
it right now.
While the alarmists continue to deny that they were wrong in the past
they lack credibility about current predictions based on the same models
and erroneous data.

There appears to be a general lack of confidence in the alarmists views
and that shows in the talks going on. The alarmists will be brewing up
even worse scenarios to try and get more influence.

Its growing in some places, losing in others.
I wonder if our take on this would change if, for example our life spans
were over 300 years?
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"bert" wrote in message
...
http://www.weather.com/science/news/...asa-data-finds
--
bert

"Brian-Gaff" wrote in message ...

Its growing in some places, losing in others.
I wonder if our take on this would change if, for example our life spans
were over 300 years?
Brian

Oh no! Another two hundred and forty years of this...





From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"bert" wrote in message
...
http://www.weather.com/science/news/...asa-data-finds
--
bert