Climate Change Report

[Ashliana]

I'm not at all that interested in enough to read that article; can you give me the summary?

Ice is melting faster at the north pole than it's expanding at the south pole. Antarctica has had about 193,000 additional square miles of ice past averages for the past 30 years, but the north pole is about 1,320,000 square miles below averages. As a whole, the planet is losing more and more ice, and Antarctica's small gains don't nearly make up for the loss as a whole.

Where the north pole is, but should be, and what the south pole was, and is:

[Thondalar]

Antarctica sets yet another record for sea ice area since tracking began in the 70's.

I thought global warming was causing the ice caps to melt and in 2 years Florida would be completely under water? What's happening here?!

My favorite part:

According to Meier and some other climatologists, global sea ice area is simply not a metric to consider when examining the climate system.

“A plot of global sea ice is just not informative or useful,” Meier said.

Wasn't this the same guy that was using shrinking ice deposits as an example of global warming a few years ago? And now that global sea ice area is up over a million square kilometers it's "not informative or useful".

As long as we continue to allow things like this to be politicized, and based on grants and funding from people with an agenda, we're gonna head further in the wrong direction.

[Thondalar]

Ice is melting faster at the north pole than it's expanding at the south pole. Antarctica has had about 193,000 additional square miles of ice past averages for the past 30 years, but the north pole is about 1,320,000 square miles below averages. As a whole, the planet is losing more and more ice, and Antarctica's small gains don't nearly make up for the loss as a whole.

Where the north pole is, but should be, and what the south pole was, and is:

This is completely false. GLOBAL ice is up over a million square kilometers.

[Tgo01]

Ice is melting faster at the north pole than it's expanding at the south pole. Antarctica has had about 193,000 additional square miles of ice past averages for the past 30 years, but the north pole is about 1,320,000 square miles below averages.

So you explain that the south pole is gaining ice by saying that the north pole is losing ice and this somehow...proves...what again?

[Latrinsorm]

My favorite part:



Wasn't this the same guy that was using shrinking ice deposits as an example of global warming a few years ago? And now that global sea ice area is up over a million square kilometers it's "not informative or useful".

As long as we continue to allow things like this to be politicized, and based on grants and funding from people with an agenda, we're gonna head further in the wrong direction.

He was using regional sea ice area, not global. (Specifically, the Arctic.)

As long as you continue to allow yourself to be led around by the nose by your biases, you're gonna head further in the wrong direction.

[Tgo01]

He was using regional sea ice area, not global. (Specifically, the Arctic.)

As a whole, the planet is losing more and more ice, and Antarctica's small gains don't nearly make up for the loss as a whole.

Check and mate.

Never play chess against the master unless you're prepared to lose.

[Thondalar]

He was using regional sea ice area, not global. (Specifically, the Arctic.)

So using shrinking ice as legitimate evidence of global warming is ok, but using growing ice as legitimate evidence to the contrary isn't?

As long as you continue to allow yourself to be led around by the nose by your biases, you're gonna head further in the wrong direction.

Only one of us does that on a consistent basis, and it ain't me.

[Whirlin]

So using shrinking ice as legitimate evidence of global warming is ok, but using growing ice as legitimate evidence to the contrary isn't?

Only one of us does that on a consistent basis, and it ain't me.

The article says that the ice is growing, and therefore global warming isn't happening.

The facts are that global ice values are decreasing, so the argument is inherently flawed on the most fundamental basis.



Furthermore... is it just me, or is Area a shitty measurement to use in the first place? I mean shit... by area, there's been no difference in snowfall between this last winter, and the last 5 before that.

[Ashliana]

This is completely false. GLOBAL ice is up over a million square kilometers.

By all means, dazzle us with your citation for that claim. And even if ice is up at this particular instant, we're losing critical bodies of ice.

There's a difference between sea ice and land ice; the sea ice in Antarctica melts and forms yearly, and does not affect sea levels. The land ice mass on Antarctica is thousands of years old (or more), and is being lost, even as sea ice in Antarctica has expanded a little.
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/242/
http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/1...acier-melting/
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2006-028

So you explain that the south pole is gaining ice by saying that the north pole is losing ice and this somehow...proves...what again?

Reading comprehension failure #59575 on your part, Tgo.. The north pole's ice averages are way, way below averages. The south pole's averages are slightly above averages. The planet, as a whole, is losing ice--especially the critical, sea-level-rising variety--regardless of Thondalar's fact-free assertion.

[Tgo01]

Did you read my link, Ashliana?