On Jan 5, 2:55*pm, John H wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:02*pm, wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:32*pm, wrote:

On Jan 5, 12:27*pm, "CRM" wrote:

I remember the hysteria during the summer on how there would be no sea ice
this year due to global warming. I'm pretty sure it was Chuck G pushing this
BS here.

Chuck, can you relax now that the sea ice is now back to it's historical
levels?

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Did you see the reason why?:

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea
ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead,
the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly
cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to
the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Cyclical weather patterns have nothing to do with global warming. And
to be honest, the ice had less snow cover, which could quite possibly
be because of global warming.

Less snow is a cyclical weather patten itself, so by your definition,
it has nothing to do with GW. *:-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not so fast! IF the amount of snow is because of just a cyclical
weather pattern, then yes, it has nothing to do with global warming.
BUT, if the snow isn't a cyclical event then it very well COULD have
something to do with global warming.

Loogy, how would you define 'cyclical' when we're talking millions of
years. Hell, Gore's stuff was only for the past couple hundred. *That* is
cyclical in the big scheme of things. No?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Going up steadily corresponding to the industrial revolution isn't a
cycle.