Jeff Rigby wrote:
"scbafreak via BoatKB.com" u25927@uwe wrote in message
news:6ab5e3ba16976@uwe...
"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php

All this means is that they don't feel that using these trends to measure
effects of global warming may not be accurate. This doesn't actually say
anything about wether or not itactually is happening. If you read a
little
bit further, as in the next paragraph, you see this:

This analysis implies that deficiencies of present-day models, such as the
oversimplification of ice dynamics, make simulation of fundamental
ice-albedo
feedback most difficult.

Translation = It is hard to tell what exactly is going on with these
specific
methods that they are testing. Again no examination of Global warming.

On top of all of that the original article did not show what tests they
used
to measure any global warming but did talk about the recedance of ice and
the
low rate of ice return. This sort of calculation is done every year when
the
weatherman says how many inches snow has fallen and then it melts
afterwards.
Not to complicated. The scientists are simply stating that less ice being
created and more being melted is a sign of something.

Maybe you should actually read the stuff you are quoting and not pick out
a
sentence or two that you have no idea what it means and spew it out as
gospel.

You missed where they stated that a possible reason for less Artic Sea Ice
was that weather patterns are
moving some of the ice south where it melts faster. NOT that the Sea Ice is
melting because of warmer temps.
This seems to make some sense since the temps haven't gone up to have that
much effect (8% decrease in sea ice
as viewed from a satellite).

AND a reason we find fault with articles posted (basskisser) by you is that
you play with the subject titles. To say that artic ice is melting is
incorrect, it's only Artic SEA ice. Temps would have to increase
drastically beyond what is predicted for 2040 for artic ice to melt.

Uh, the arctic is ALL sea ice.....

basskisser wrote:
Dan claims to be an engineer??
BWAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Simple minded people are ALWAYS easy to amuse...... "

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:42:02 -0500, Paul F wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:37:13 -0800, -rick- wrote:


Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I do refuse to believe in single cause theory if only because of what
you detailed in your post. There are any number of factors for the
cause, it can be part of a natural cycle or we may be in for another
period of more temperate climates.

Nobody knows for sure and to single out one factor as the cause for
the sky falling is not only silly, but short sighted.

Well that straw man is certainly down for the count, but
seriously I've not heard any one claim there is only one
cause but rather discuss those that we could affect.


Perhaps among the more enlightened like us who actually look at other
issues. Other schmucks follow Al Gore and company blindly into the
pits of Global Warming.


Exactly. If the entire population of the world spit into the ocean at
the same time, the ocean level would rise.....but it would not be
significant.

The GW debate has become far too political, as can been seen by who's
"side" the major players politics lie. A second red flag is the was the
GW alarmists frame the "debate" such as "consensus" "the science is
settled" "those opposed are in the pockets of big oil" etc.

Are Grady Whites having some problems we should know about?
--
John H

*Have a great Christmas and a spectacular New Year!*

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:49:44 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

On 12/13/2006 6:42 PM, JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:01:42 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

basskisser wrote:
Sam wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...
Sam wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Uh, where did I EVER say that? Are you having reading comprehension
problems?
Here is again-

" So, you do realize that that water, in order to cool with any
noticeable
amount, would be quite warm, usually warmer than the ambient air
temperature, don't you?"


I'd STILL like to know, however, how, if you are flowing equal amounts
of water at equal temps., how the ice chest will make it more
effective.
Who said that?
You did. I said that it would make no difference whether the ice was in
an ice chest or in a cardboard box.
*I* said it makes a difference while the ice/water is below ambient and
makes no difference at ambient.
*You* said it makes no difference regardless of ice/water temp.

You said I was wrong.
You are.

LOL!
Holy ****! Are you really that bad at reading comprehension???
Okay, here's an easy one. Show me one bit of proof that the machine
would be more effective with the ice in a chest as opposed to a
cardboard box.

Bassy,
Have you ever noticed that everyone you debate has reading comprehension
skills? That everyone you debate are as ignorant as can be? I don't
believe anyone in rec.boats has ever been able to follow one of your
arguments, and I really can't remember anyone saying, "You know Bassy, I
think you are correct in this matter". I know there are many people who
agree with you on certain issues, but no one ever supported you in any
of your diatribes. Why is that?



Bassy posted a troll and got at least nine different people arguing with
him in multiple posts. He must be orgasmic by now. I'd say he was correct
in thinking he could get an argument going!
--
John H

*Have a great Christmas and a spectacular New Year!*


You and numnutz Reggie facilitating again? Do either of you ever have
anything useful to post here?

Go check your last couple dozen posts, Harry. They've shown you to be a
very neat (but name-calling) guy!
--
John H

*Have a great Christmas and a spectacular New Year!*

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeff Rigby wrote:
"scbafreak via BoatKB.com" u25927@uwe wrote in message
news:6ab5e3ba16976@uwe...
"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php

All this means is that they don't feel that using these trends to
measure
effects of global warming may not be accurate. This doesn't actually
say
anything about wether or not itactually is happening. If you read a
little
bit further, as in the next paragraph, you see this:

This analysis implies that deficiencies of present-day models, such as
the
oversimplification of ice dynamics, make simulation of fundamental
ice-albedo
feedback most difficult.

Translation = It is hard to tell what exactly is going on with these
specific
methods that they are testing. Again no examination of Global warming.

On top of all of that the original article did not show what tests they
used
to measure any global warming but did talk about the recedance of ice
and
the
low rate of ice return. This sort of calculation is done every year
when
the
weatherman says how many inches snow has fallen and then it melts
afterwards.
Not to complicated. The scientists are simply stating that less ice
being
created and more being melted is a sign of something.

Maybe you should actually read the stuff you are quoting and not pick
out
a
sentence or two that you have no idea what it means and spew it out as
gospel.

You missed where they stated that a possible reason for less Artic Sea
Ice
was that weather patterns are
moving some of the ice south where it melts faster. NOT that the Sea Ice
is
melting because of warmer temps.
This seems to make some sense since the temps haven't gone up to have
that
much effect (8% decrease in sea ice
as viewed from a satellite).

AND a reason we find fault with articles posted (basskisser) by you is
that
you play with the subject titles. To say that artic ice is melting is
incorrect, it's only Artic SEA ice. Temps would have to increase
drastically beyond what is predicted for 2040 for artic ice to melt.

Uh, the arctic is ALL sea ice.....

And where do you get the idea there is no land in the arctic?

Tim wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Dan claims to be an engineer??
BWAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Simple minded people are ALWAYS easy to amuse...... "

Always? Do you have any evidence of this claim?

ACP wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeff Rigby wrote:
"scbafreak via BoatKB.com" u25927@uwe wrote in message
news:6ab5e3ba16976@uwe...
"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php

All this means is that they don't feel that using these trends to
measure
effects of global warming may not be accurate. This doesn't actually
say
anything about wether or not itactually is happening. If you read a
little
bit further, as in the next paragraph, you see this:

This analysis implies that deficiencies of present-day models, such as
the
oversimplification of ice dynamics, make simulation of fundamental
ice-albedo
feedback most difficult.

Translation = It is hard to tell what exactly is going on with these
specific
methods that they are testing. Again no examination of Global warming.

On top of all of that the original article did not show what tests they
used
to measure any global warming but did talk about the recedance of ice
and
the
low rate of ice return. This sort of calculation is done every year
when
the
weatherman says how many inches snow has fallen and then it melts
afterwards.
Not to complicated. The scientists are simply stating that less ice
being
created and more being melted is a sign of something.

Maybe you should actually read the stuff you are quoting and not pick
out
a
sentence or two that you have no idea what it means and spew it out as
gospel.

You missed where they stated that a possible reason for less Artic Sea
Ice
was that weather patterns are
moving some of the ice south where it melts faster. NOT that the Sea Ice
is
melting because of warmer temps.
This seems to make some sense since the temps haven't gone up to have
that
much effect (8% decrease in sea ice
as viewed from a satellite).

AND a reason we find fault with articles posted (basskisser) by you is
that
you play with the subject titles. To say that artic ice is melting is
incorrect, it's only Artic SEA ice. Temps would have to increase
drastically beyond what is predicted for 2040 for artic ice to melt.

Uh, the arctic is ALL sea ice.....

And where do you get the idea there is no land in the arctic?

I never GOT that idea. Where did I say that? Reading comprehension
problem AGAIN?

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeff Rigby wrote:
"scbafreak via BoatKB.com" u25927@uwe wrote in message
news:6ab5e3ba16976@uwe...
"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php

All this means is that they don't feel that using these trends to
measure
effects of global warming may not be accurate. This doesn't actually
say
anything about wether or not itactually is happening. If you read a
little
bit further, as in the next paragraph, you see this:

This analysis implies that deficiencies of present-day models, such as
the
oversimplification of ice dynamics, make simulation of fundamental
ice-albedo
feedback most difficult.

Translation = It is hard to tell what exactly is going on with these
specific
methods that they are testing. Again no examination of Global warming.

On top of all of that the original article did not show what tests they
used
to measure any global warming but did talk about the recedance of ice
and
the
low rate of ice return. This sort of calculation is done every year
when
the
weatherman says how many inches snow has fallen and then it melts
afterwards.
Not to complicated. The scientists are simply stating that less ice
being
created and more being melted is a sign of something.

Maybe you should actually read the stuff you are quoting and not pick
out
a
sentence or two that you have no idea what it means and spew it out as
gospel.

You missed where they stated that a possible reason for less Artic Sea
Ice
was that weather patterns are
moving some of the ice south where it melts faster. NOT that the Sea Ice
is
melting because of warmer temps.
This seems to make some sense since the temps haven't gone up to have
that
much effect (8% decrease in sea ice
as viewed from a satellite).

AND a reason we find fault with articles posted (basskisser) by you is
that
you play with the subject titles. To say that artic ice is melting is
incorrect, it's only Artic SEA ice. Temps would have to increase
drastically beyond what is predicted for 2040 for artic ice to melt.

Uh, the arctic is ALL sea ice.....

Looks like land to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A...ircle_sign.jpg

"basskisser" wrote in message
ps.com...

ACP wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jeff Rigby wrote:
"scbafreak via BoatKB.com" u25927@uwe wrote in message
news:6ab5e3ba16976@uwe...
"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php

All this means is that they don't feel that using these trends to
measure
effects of global warming may not be accurate. This doesn't
actually
say
anything about wether or not itactually is happening. If you read a
little
bit further, as in the next paragraph, you see this:

This analysis implies that deficiencies of present-day models, such
as
the
oversimplification of ice dynamics, make simulation of fundamental
ice-albedo
feedback most difficult.

Translation = It is hard to tell what exactly is going on with these
specific
methods that they are testing. Again no examination of Global
warming.

On top of all of that the original article did not show what tests
they
used
to measure any global warming but did talk about the recedance of
ice
and
the
low rate of ice return. This sort of calculation is done every year
when
the
weatherman says how many inches snow has fallen and then it melts
afterwards.
Not to complicated. The scientists are simply stating that less ice
being
created and more being melted is a sign of something.

Maybe you should actually read the stuff you are quoting and not
pick
out
a
sentence or two that you have no idea what it means and spew it out
as
gospel.

You missed where they stated that a possible reason for less Artic Sea
Ice
was that weather patterns are
moving some of the ice south where it melts faster. NOT that the Sea
Ice
is
melting because of warmer temps.
This seems to make some sense since the temps haven't gone up to have
that
much effect (8% decrease in sea ice
as viewed from a satellite).

AND a reason we find fault with articles posted (basskisser) by you is
that
you play with the subject titles. To say that artic ice is melting is
incorrect, it's only Artic SEA ice. Temps would have to increase
drastically beyond what is predicted for 2040 for artic ice to melt.

Uh, the arctic is ALL sea ice.....

And where do you get the idea there is no land in the arctic?

I never GOT that idea. Where did I say that? Reading comprehension
problem AGAIN?

"Uh, the arctic is ALL sea ice....." implies all ice, no land.

ACP wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"scbafreak via BoatKB.com" u25927@uwe wrote in message
news:6ab5e3ba16976@uwe...
"Analysis of records (Figures 2, 3) also shows that long-term ice
trends are small and generally not statistically significant (at 95%
level), while trends for shorter records are not indicative of the
long-term tendencies due to large-amplitude LFO."

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~ig.../ice/index.php
All this means is that they don't feel that using these trends to
measure
effects of global warming may not be accurate. This doesn't actually
say
anything about wether or not itactually is happening. If you read a
little
bit further, as in the next paragraph, you see this:

This analysis implies that deficiencies of present-day models, such as
the
oversimplification of ice dynamics, make simulation of fundamental
ice-albedo
feedback most difficult.

Translation = It is hard to tell what exactly is going on with these
specific
methods that they are testing. Again no examination of Global warming.

On top of all of that the original article did not show what tests they
used
to measure any global warming but did talk about the recedance of ice
and
the
low rate of ice return. This sort of calculation is done every year
when
the
weatherman says how many inches snow has fallen and then it melts
afterwards.
Not to complicated. The scientists are simply stating that less ice
being
created and more being melted is a sign of something.

Maybe you should actually read the stuff you are quoting and not pick
out
a
sentence or two that you have no idea what it means and spew it out as
gospel.

You missed where they stated that a possible reason for less Artic Sea
Ice
was that weather patterns are
moving some of the ice south where it melts faster. NOT that the Sea Ice
is
melting because of warmer temps.
This seems to make some sense since the temps haven't gone up to have
that
much effect (8% decrease in sea ice
as viewed from a satellite).

AND a reason we find fault with articles posted (basskisser) by you is
that
you play with the subject titles. To say that artic ice is melting is
incorrect, it's only Artic SEA ice. Temps would have to increase
drastically beyond what is predicted for 2040 for artic ice to melt.
Uh, the arctic is ALL sea ice.....

Looks like land to me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A...ircle_sign.jpg



You are correct, while some people refer to the Arctic Ocean as the
arctic, their are 3 definitions that are considered acceptable, and all
the area above the arctic circle is one of the more common ones.