wrote:
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.

No, it is coincidental.

BAR wrote:
wrote:
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.

No, it is coincidental.


You have no cred to make such a statement.

hk wrote:
BAR wrote:
wrote:
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.

No, it is coincidental.


You have no cred to make such a statement.

You have no "cred" to refute my statement.

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:44:09 -0500, hk wrote:

BAR wrote:
wrote:
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.

No, it is coincidental.

You have no cred to make such a statement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold..._b_154982.html

"One of the last, desperate canards proposed by climate alarmists is
that of the polar ice caps. Look at the "terrible," "unprecedented"
melting in the Arctic in the summer of 2007, they say. Well, the ice
in the Arctic basin has always melted and refrozen, and always will.
Any researcher who wants to find a single molecule of ice that has
been there longer than 30 years is going to have a hard job, because
the ice has always been melted from above (by the midnight Sun of
summer) and below (by relatively warm ocean currents, possibly
amplified by volcanic venting) -- and on the sides, again by warm
currents. Scientists in the alarmist camp have taken to referring to
"old ice," but, again, this is a misrepresentation of what takes place
in the Arctic."

--

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that
a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes
that it will also make better soup."

H.L. Mencken

On Jan 5, 5:41*pm, BAR wrote:
wrote:
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.

No, it is coincidental.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Prove that to me.

wrote:
On Jan 5, 5:41 pm, BAR wrote:
wrote:
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.
No, it is coincidental.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Prove that to me.

You are looking at a 200 year period of time in a 4.5 billion year
period of time.