Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Stanley Barthfarkle wrote:
The San Francisco Gate... The bellweather of unbiased journalism. g

The San Francisco Gate????? WTF?? David Perlman is the San Francisco
Chronicle Science Writer. And, did you just happen to see that there
were 15,000 scientists at the American Geophysical Union annual meeting
saying the same things? I know, I know, the party that you goose step
to has told you that global warming isn't happening. And what about the
team of scientist from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the
University of Colorado and the International Arctic Research Center at
the University of Alaska in Fairbanks? Suppose they don't know what
they are talking about, but Rush and Hannity do, huh?

Well, I take it that you don't believe the article? Prove the writer
wrong. I'll be waiting.



I love you too, man. Peace.

What an intelligent and well thought reply.....NOT.......

I take it that although you have no science to repute the article, you
must goose step to the party and try to negate it, huh?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Tim wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Well, I take it that you don't believe the article? Prove the writer
wrong. I'll be waiting.

34 years?

Damn, you ARE dumb, aren't you?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Dan wrote:
Tim wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Tim wrote:

basskisser wrote:

And in case you didn't read, or comprhend,

um, hmm

Awe, how cute. A typo has Tim all in a girlie giggle.


when did "um, hmm become a "girlie giggle"?


Relax. Simple boys are easily amused.

And HERE'S DAN......every single post I make, he stalks!

Infatuation.......
Infatuation......
It's driving Dan crazy.....
It's making Dan CRAAAZZZYYY.......

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:07:47 -0500, Dan
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL


Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro
the experts.

Small snippet:

"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

Thanks for the post, SWS, but aren't you the "STOP IT" guy? We all know
the boy lives to pick fights here and will spin them at will until the
other party is exhausted.

See any names called in that?

It's just a counter to a sfgate article that has...um....mistakes.

Such as?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

ACP wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:48:18 -0500, "ACP" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
. ..
On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL

Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro
the experts.

Small snippet:

"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

Oh boy! Stirring the pot. 8)

Not at all.

Just pointing out that science is science. And these guys know ice
science.

Some folks don't like to have anything pointed out to them, credible science
or not.

I know, I posted an article with credible science and you shortwave and
others immediately ****ed on it as not worthy.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 04:47:30 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL

Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro
the experts.

Where you are dead wrong is your belief that the "science" in the
article came from sfgate. It didn't. Try reading again. You'll see
where it came from, including NASA. As for your article, what makes you
think that THAT particular article is good, sound science, but articles
to the contrary from other scholars and study centers is not?

Essentially yes.

The IARC is the definitive, if not the only, ice science center in the
world. They are consulted on everything from ice breaking to ice
bergs to pack ice to...well you name it. Here's their charter
statement.

"The International Arctic Research Center [IARC] serves as a focal
point of integrating/synthesizing arctic research efforts in terms of
climate change and communicates the results to the global climate
research community. Our core research group interacts with a larger
number of scientists from many parts of the world, enabling climate
change research to truly be an international effort."

That's research - not observation and conclusion over a short period
of time. They have a long term view and historical data covering a
huge period of time - a much larger sample than what is covered in the
story you quoted - which, by the way, was reported in the NYT about
two week ago and is continued today.

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.

Just because it doesn't fit your party's agenda, perhaps?

And what party would that be?

RNC?

So, in your eyes, they are the ONLY scientists that are credible and
able to collect data about the North Pole ice sheet?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 04:47:30 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 12 Dec 2006 09:22:50 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL

Here 'ya go Bassy - instead of the sfgate, try some real science fro
the experts.

Where you are dead wrong is your belief that the "science" in the
article came from sfgate. It didn't. Try reading again. You'll see
where it came from, including NASA. As for your article, what makes you
think that THAT particular article is good, sound science, but articles
to the contrary from other scholars and study centers is not?

Essentially yes.

We can make this very simple. How do you know for a fact that the
scholars and study scientists in the article I posted are wrong? You've
stated that your post is "real science". That would make one think that
the universities, NASA, and other study groups are not engaging in
"real science" your eyes.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

No. No I'm not, and your petty accusations does nothing for your
credibility.


basskisser wrote:
Tim wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Well, I take it that you don't believe the article? Prove the writer
wrong. I'll be waiting.

34 years?

Damn, you ARE dumb, aren't you?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Tim wrote:
No. No I'm not, and your petty accusations does nothing for your
credibility.


Then you are grossly mistaken. It wouldn't take someone 34 years to
prove the scientists in the article wrong. Now are you mistaken, or do
you just not undestand that?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

I'm understanding that you said you would wait to prove the scientist
wrong. the year 2040? I believe that is 34 years away.

can you wait that long? or are you placing your bets now?


basskisser wrote:
Tim wrote:
No. No I'm not, and your petty accusations does nothing for your
credibility.


Then you are grossly mistaken. It wouldn't take someone 34 years to
prove the scientists in the article wrong. Now are you mistaken, or do
you just not undestand that?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Tim wrote:
I'm understanding that you said you would wait to prove the scientist
wrong. the year 2040? I believe that is 34 years away.

Yup, dumber than a post! Thanks for proving my point!

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

According to your standards, the petty accusations you make does
nothing for your credibility.


basskisser wrote:
Tim wrote:
I'm understanding that you said you would wait to prove the scientist
wrong. the year 2040? I believe that is 34 years away.

Yup, dumber than a post! Thanks for proving my point!

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Tim wrote:
According to your standards, the petty accusations you make does
nothing for your credibility.

Oh, but there not petty accusations! You've proven yourself to not know
what you are talking about here. Here, easy question. Do you REALLY
think that one would have to wait until 2040 to prove the scientist in
the article wrong or right? I mean REALLY?????

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Well, 2040 is a few years away. and even the atricle is total
speculation. you shouldn't have looked at it like solid fact.

basskisser wrote:
Tim wrote:
According to your standards, the petty accusations you make does
nothing for your credibility.

Oh, but there not petty accusations! You've proven yourself to not know
what you are talking about here. Here, easy question. Do you REALLY
think that one would have to wait until 2040 to prove the scientist in
the article wrong or right? I mean REALLY?????

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.

Maybe. According to Wikipedia - I know, it's the epitome of scientific
knowledge - we are currently living in an ice age that has lasted for
50 millions of years already. That is, we have large ice caps and
continental ice. In contrast, there have been long periods in Earth's
history where almost no perennial ice existed.

What is causing the current retreat of glaciers? It is very probable
that global warming is to a large part caused by greenhouse gases in
the athmosphere. How convincing is your evidence that the retreat is
not linked to global warming?

You should note that during the previous retreats, greenhouse gases
have likely been one contributing factor. Does this in turn prove that
you are incorrect, and the current retreat is ultimately caused by
greenhouse gases as well?

Risto

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

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

Sam wrote:
"RG" wrote in message
m...

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

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL


Because somebody tried to cool their boat cabin with it?

LOL!

Simple people are easily amused! Here's what you should do, go and get
yourself a few of those very efficient machines. Report back on the
operating costs, okay?


You mean those machines where you put cold water in, blow ambient air across
it and get hot water out?

Efficient indeed!

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 08:21:43 -0800, "Varis" wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.
Maybe. According to Wikipedia - I know, it's the epitome of scientific
knowledge - we are currently living in an ice age that has lasted for
50 millions of years already. That is, we have large ice caps and
continental ice. In contrast, there have been long periods in Earth's
history where almost no perennial ice existed.

What is causing the current retreat of glaciers? It is very probable
that global warming is to a large part caused by greenhouse gases in
the athmosphere. How convincing is your evidence that the retreat is
not linked to global warming?

You should note that during the previous retreats, greenhouse gases
have likely been one contributing factor. Does this in turn prove that
you are incorrect, and the current retreat is ultimately caused by
greenhouse gases as well?

Hmmm - let me see - the Bering/Western Asian land bridge was submerged
by the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap because the nomadic peoples of
Western Asia drove too many Hummers across to populate North America.

Yep - makes perfect sense to me - Al Gore was right.

And I don't use Widipedia for much at all - how silly of me.
Tom,
The global warming and cooling, including the 3 major ice ages were
caused by many factors, including changes in land mass caused by
tectonic plates, and the resulting changes in water currents, change in
the salinity of the water due to increases and decreases in the amount
of ice, increase of CO2 caused by natural means, and many others
reasons. All of this does not mean that our current global warming is
not being aggravated by an increase of C02 caused by burning hydrocarbons.

There are so many reasons why we should find ways to reduce pollution
and increase the efficiency of the energy we use, why do you think this
debate always focuses on an US vs THEM mentality?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

right.

and no, I am not agreeing with you


basskisser wrote:
Tim wrote:
basskisser wrote:

When you said it.

right

Glad you agree!

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Chuck Gould wrote:

In the final analysis; nobody with a motorized pleasure boat has any
license, at all, to seriously complain about the global consumption of
fossil fuel. (Sort of like Al Gore travelling around in a big SUV). A
true believer would need to sink his or her boat, junk out his or her
car (not just sell it, and transfer the problem to another person), and
take up walking, rowing, and bicycling instead.

Maybe he is demotivated by the thought that the million guys next to
him will not let go of their SUVs anyway? And... how do you know how
much gas _his_ boat consumes? :-)

Risto

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

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

Sam wrote:
"RG" wrote in message
m...

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

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGE5MTQ211.DTL


Because somebody tried to cool their boat cabin with it?

LOL!

Simple people are easily amused! Here's what you should do, go and get
yourself a few of those very efficient machines. Report back on the
operating costs, okay?


You mean those machines where you put cold water in, blow ambient air across
it and get hot water out?

Efficient indeed!

Uh, where did I EVER say that? Are you having reading comprehension
problems?
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.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Tim wrote:
right.

Right, WHAT then?
And tell us more about THE transatlantic cable, okay?!

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:02:11 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 08:21:43 -0800, "Varis" wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.
Maybe. According to Wikipedia - I know, it's the epitome of scientific
knowledge - we are currently living in an ice age that has lasted for
50 millions of years already. That is, we have large ice caps and
continental ice. In contrast, there have been long periods in Earth's
history where almost no perennial ice existed.

What is causing the current retreat of glaciers? It is very probable
that global warming is to a large part caused by greenhouse gases in
the athmosphere. How convincing is your evidence that the retreat is
not linked to global warming?

You should note that during the previous retreats, greenhouse gases
have likely been one contributing factor. Does this in turn prove that
you are incorrect, and the current retreat is ultimately caused by
greenhouse gases as well?
Hmmm - let me see - the Bering/Western Asian land bridge was submerged
by the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap because the nomadic peoples of
Western Asia drove too many Hummers across to populate North America.

Yep - makes perfect sense to me - Al Gore was right.

And I don't use Widipedia for much at all - how silly of me.
Tom,
The global warming and cooling, including the 3 major ice ages were
caused by many factors, including changes in land mass caused by
tectonic plates, and the resulting changes in water currents, change in
the salinity of the water due to increases and decreases in the amount
of ice, increase of CO2 caused by natural means, and many others
reasons. All of this does not mean that our current global warming is
not being aggravated by an increase of C02 caused by burning hydrocarbons.

There are so many reasons why we should find ways to reduce pollution
and increase the efficiency of the energy we use, why do you think this
debate always focuses on an US vs THEM mentality?

Because I hate totalitarian thought - it's my way or the highway style
of debate.

The ecosystem is much too large to apply simple answers to.

I have never once said that global warming doesn't exist and I have
never said that it doesn't impact the environment in some manner.

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.

It's only by applying research science, observational science and
differing opinions converging on a consensus that will begin to
uncover if it is or if it ain't.

My comment was not focused on your debating style, but the "Global
Warming Debate" among the vast majority of people. To me finding
alternative energy solutions and improving the efficiency of the fossil
fuel we use has benefits to all of us, EVEN if the global warming issue
is moot. I really think some people, especially some in rec.boats only
like to debate or discuss Global Warming so they can scream "See all you
do damn Reps. do is goosestep to your party line". My guess is they
would be depressed if we solved the Global Warming problem, because it
would be one less insult they could deliver. That being said, I
personally agree with most scientists who say an increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere is having an effect on our climate. This by no means says
that man is the only or even the major reason for the increase in global
temperature, but we do need to do everything possible to leave a smaller
footprint on the world's ecosystem.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:02:11 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 08:21:43 -0800, "Varis" wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.
Maybe. According to Wikipedia - I know, it's the epitome of scientific
knowledge - we are currently living in an ice age that has lasted for
50 millions of years already. That is, we have large ice caps and
continental ice. In contrast, there have been long periods in Earth's
history where almost no perennial ice existed.

What is causing the current retreat of glaciers? It is very probable
that global warming is to a large part caused by greenhouse gases in
the athmosphere. How convincing is your evidence that the retreat is
not linked to global warming?

You should note that during the previous retreats, greenhouse gases
have likely been one contributing factor. Does this in turn prove that
you are incorrect, and the current retreat is ultimately caused by
greenhouse gases as well?

Hmmm - let me see - the Bering/Western Asian land bridge was submerged
by the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap because the nomadic peoples of
Western Asia drove too many Hummers across to populate North America.

Yep - makes perfect sense to me - Al Gore was right.

And I don't use Widipedia for much at all - how silly of me.
Tom,
The global warming and cooling, including the 3 major ice ages were
caused by many factors, including changes in land mass caused by
tectonic plates, and the resulting changes in water currents, change in
the salinity of the water due to increases and decreases in the amount
of ice, increase of CO2 caused by natural means, and many others
reasons. All of this does not mean that our current global warming is
not being aggravated by an increase of C02 caused by burning hydrocarbons.

There are so many reasons why we should find ways to reduce pollution
and increase the efficiency of the energy we use, why do you think this
debate always focuses on an US vs THEM mentality?

Because I hate totalitarian thought - it's my way or the highway style
of debate.

The ecosystem is much too large to apply simple answers to.

I have never once said that global warming doesn't exist and I have
never said that it doesn't impact the environment in some manner.

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.

To say that man has no hand in global warming is short sighted.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 08:21:43 -0800, "Varis" wrote:


Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.

Maybe. According to Wikipedia - I know, it's the epitome of scientific
knowledge - we are currently living in an ice age that has lasted for
50 millions of years already. That is, we have large ice caps and
continental ice. In contrast, there have been long periods in Earth's
history where almost no perennial ice existed.

What is causing the current retreat of glaciers? It is very probable
that global warming is to a large part caused by greenhouse gases in
the athmosphere. How convincing is your evidence that the retreat is
not linked to global warming?

You should note that during the previous retreats, greenhouse gases
have likely been one contributing factor. Does this in turn prove that
you are incorrect, and the current retreat is ultimately caused by
greenhouse gases as well?

Hmmm - let me see - the Bering/Western Asian land bridge was submerged
by the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap because the nomadic peoples of
Western Asia drove too many Hummers across to populate North America.

Yep - makes perfect sense to me - Al Gore was right.

And I don't use Widipedia for much at all - how silly of me.

Yeah, what would you need Wiki for when you have Hannity, Rush and Karl
Rove telling you that man has no impact on global warming?!

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

basskisser wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:02:11 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 08:21:43 -0800, "Varis" wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.
Maybe. According to Wikipedia - I know, it's the epitome of scientific
knowledge - we are currently living in an ice age that has lasted for
50 millions of years already. That is, we have large ice caps and
continental ice. In contrast, there have been long periods in Earth's
history where almost no perennial ice existed.

What is causing the current retreat of glaciers? It is very probable
that global warming is to a large part caused by greenhouse gases in
the athmosphere. How convincing is your evidence that the retreat is
not linked to global warming?

You should note that during the previous retreats, greenhouse gases
have likely been one contributing factor. Does this in turn prove that
you are incorrect, and the current retreat is ultimately caused by
greenhouse gases as well?
Hmmm - let me see - the Bering/Western Asian land bridge was submerged
by the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap because the nomadic peoples of
Western Asia drove too many Hummers across to populate North America.

Yep - makes perfect sense to me - Al Gore was right.

And I don't use Widipedia for much at all - how silly of me.
Tom,
The global warming and cooling, including the 3 major ice ages were
caused by many factors, including changes in land mass caused by
tectonic plates, and the resulting changes in water currents, change in
the salinity of the water due to increases and decreases in the amount
of ice, increase of CO2 caused by natural means, and many others
reasons. All of this does not mean that our current global warming is
not being aggravated by an increase of C02 caused by burning hydrocarbons.

There are so many reasons why we should find ways to reduce pollution
and increase the efficiency of the energy we use, why do you think this
debate always focuses on an US vs THEM mentality?
Because I hate totalitarian thought - it's my way or the highway style
of debate.

The ecosystem is much too large to apply simple answers to.

I have never once said that global warming doesn't exist and I have
never said that it doesn't impact the environment in some manner.

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.

To say that man has no hand in global warming is short sighted.

Bassy,
I missed the part where Tom said "man has no hand in global warming",
can you show me that quote in his post?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

Because I hate totalitarian thought - it's my way or the highway style
of debate.

What is your conception of totalitarian thought?

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.

It's only by applying research science, observational science and
differing opinions converging on a consensus that will begin to
uncover if it is or if it ain't.

To my understanding that is basically what has been going on for the
last few decades within science, and so far the outcome has been that
greenhouse gases are the most likely culprit for the upward trend in
temperatures. The issue is theoretically complex - eg. there exist many
negative and positive feedback mechanisms - and the long-term data is
quite limited. Nevertheless broad evidence and professional judgement
points to a cause that can be manipulated by humanity. Even if there
were other strong contributing causes, the issue of greenhouse gases
can be addressed and the actual climate change hopefully made less
rapid and less severe.

Risto

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:02:11 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 08:21:43 -0800, "Varis" wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.
Maybe. According to Wikipedia - I know, it's the epitome of scientific
knowledge - we are currently living in an ice age that has lasted for
50 millions of years already. That is, we have large ice caps and
continental ice. In contrast, there have been long periods in Earth's
history where almost no perennial ice existed.

What is causing the current retreat of glaciers? It is very probable
that global warming is to a large part caused by greenhouse gases in
the athmosphere. How convincing is your evidence that the retreat is
not linked to global warming?

You should note that during the previous retreats, greenhouse gases
have likely been one contributing factor. Does this in turn prove that
you are incorrect, and the current retreat is ultimately caused by
greenhouse gases as well?
Hmmm - let me see - the Bering/Western Asian land bridge was submerged
by the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap because the nomadic peoples of
Western Asia drove too many Hummers across to populate North America.

Yep - makes perfect sense to me - Al Gore was right.

And I don't use Widipedia for much at all - how silly of me.
Tom,
The global warming and cooling, including the 3 major ice ages were
caused by many factors, including changes in land mass caused by
tectonic plates, and the resulting changes in water currents, change in
the salinity of the water due to increases and decreases in the amount
of ice, increase of CO2 caused by natural means, and many others
reasons. All of this does not mean that our current global warming is
not being aggravated by an increase of C02 caused by burning hydrocarbons.

There are so many reasons why we should find ways to reduce pollution
and increase the efficiency of the energy we use, why do you think this
debate always focuses on an US vs THEM mentality?
Because I hate totalitarian thought - it's my way or the highway style
of debate.

The ecosystem is much too large to apply simple answers to.

I have never once said that global warming doesn't exist and I have
never said that it doesn't impact the environment in some manner.

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.

To say that man has no hand in global warming is short sighted.

Bassy,
I missed the part where Tom said "man has no hand in global warming",
can you show me that quote in his post?

He's stated here several times in the past that man's actions are of no
consequence in regards to global warming. He INSTANTLY ****ed on the
article as bunk. Enough said.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

basskisser wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:02:11 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 08:21:43 -0800, "Varis" wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

I might also point out that this isn't the first time Arctic fields
have retreated - a little historical research on your part would find
that it might be part of a natural cycle stretching over hundreds of
years.
Maybe. According to Wikipedia - I know, it's the epitome of scientific
knowledge - we are currently living in an ice age that has lasted for
50 millions of years already. That is, we have large ice caps and
continental ice. In contrast, there have been long periods in Earth's
history where almost no perennial ice existed.

What is causing the current retreat of glaciers? It is very probable
that global warming is to a large part caused by greenhouse gases in
the athmosphere. How convincing is your evidence that the retreat is
not linked to global warming?

You should note that during the previous retreats, greenhouse gases
have likely been one contributing factor. Does this in turn prove that
you are incorrect, and the current retreat is ultimately caused by
greenhouse gases as well?
Hmmm - let me see - the Bering/Western Asian land bridge was submerged
by the melting of the Arctic Ice Cap because the nomadic peoples of
Western Asia drove too many Hummers across to populate North America.

Yep - makes perfect sense to me - Al Gore was right.

And I don't use Widipedia for much at all - how silly of me.
Tom,
The global warming and cooling, including the 3 major ice ages were
caused by many factors, including changes in land mass caused by
tectonic plates, and the resulting changes in water currents, change in
the salinity of the water due to increases and decreases in the amount
of ice, increase of CO2 caused by natural means, and many others
reasons. All of this does not mean that our current global warming is
not being aggravated by an increase of C02 caused by burning hydrocarbons.

There are so many reasons why we should find ways to reduce pollution
and increase the efficiency of the energy we use, why do you think this
debate always focuses on an US vs THEM mentality?
Because I hate totalitarian thought - it's my way or the highway style
of debate.

The ecosystem is much too large to apply simple answers to.

I have never once said that global warming doesn't exist and I have
never said that it doesn't impact the environment in some manner.

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.
To say that man has no hand in global warming is short sighted.

Bassy,
I missed the part where Tom said "man has no hand in global warming",
can you show me that quote in his post?

He's stated here several times in the past that man's actions are of no
consequence in regards to global warming. He INSTANTLY ****ed on the
article as bunk. Enough said.


Since you have not shown me one link I guess you can not find one place
where Tom stated "man has no hand in global warming".

If he has stated it several times, it should be very easy to find one of
them. Maybe you can do what you insist on everyone else doing and
Google up one instance where Tom stated man has no hand in global warming.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

If he has stated it several times, it should be very easy to find one of
them. Maybe you can do what you insist on everyone else doing and
Google up one instance where Tom stated man has no hand in global warming.

Oooookay:

Here on Oct 1, 2004, Tom states that global warming is only someone's
pet theory and doesn't even exist:

The whole Global Warming thing is somebodies pet theory and that's
about it

Here, Calif Bill says:
You forgot Clinton, LBJ, Nixon and "global warming", plus the oil refinery
blast in Texas.

To which Tom replied:

There is only so much conspiracy to spread around.

Thus saying that global warming is just a conspiracy. How could man
have a hand in global warming if it's nothing more than a conspiracy?

There's plenty more where that came from!

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"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.


--
Message posted via BoatKB.com
http://www.boatkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/boats/200612/1

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Varis wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:

In the final analysis; nobody with a motorized pleasure boat has any
license, at all, to seriously complain about the global consumption of
fossil fuel. (Sort of like Al Gore travelling around in a big SUV). A
true believer would need to sink his or her boat, junk out his or her
car (not just sell it, and transfer the problem to another person), and
take up walking, rowing, and bicycling instead.

Maybe he is demotivated by the thought that the million guys next to
him will not let go of their SUVs anyway? And... how do you know how
much gas _his_ boat consumes? :-)

Risto

All very probably true. However, nobody should call upon others to make
sacrifices that they are personally unwilling to endure. Matters not
whether it's the fundie preacher having gay sex with his meth pusher on
Saturdays and then screaming that all gays are going to hell from his
pulpit on Sunday, Al Gore traveling around in a 12 MPG SUV while
railing against mankind's acceleration of global warming, or some guy
who owns a boat suggesting that others should not do the same because
it is a frivolous use of fossil fuel.

Anything burning less fuel than my boat (about 2 gph) is probably under
sail; but darned if I would assume some moral soap box to insist that
others conserve fuel that I am personally unwilling to conserve. Every
drop of fuel burned in a pleasure boat, every drop of fuel burned in a
motor vehicle for a pleasure trip, and nearly every drop of fuel burned
in any private passenger vehicle larger or more comfortable than a
Mini-Cooper is a discretionary waste.
Show me the guy who uses nothing but solar or wind energy, walks, bikes
or rows everywhere he goes, eats no commercially grown, processed, or
transported food, buys nothing made of plastic or imported from a
country with few meaningful environmental laws (China), and that will
be the guy who has earned the right to tell the rest of us we need to
change our living standards to forestall global warming.

There's a chance that we're no more than a generation or two from the
next Dark Age.
When radiation poisoning, famine, warfare, and disease reduce the
population to a small fraction of what it is today, the survivors will
get a chance to evaluate whether suspending the use of fossil fuels,
allowing the forests to once again cover the continents, etc will have
any effect on global warming. Most of us will be long gone, and perhaps
primarily by natural causes- but our grandkids or great grandkids will
need to be lucky as well as strong and resourceful to survive in a
future that it is *already too late* to salvage. Gawd that's
depressing- good reason to own a boat. :-)

(But if you own a boat, you have no creds in the "global warming"
discussion)

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"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?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

My comment was not focused on your debating style, but the "Global
Warming Debate" among the vast majority of people. To me finding
alternative energy solutions and improving the efficiency of the fossil
fuel we use has benefits to all of us, EVEN if the global warming issue
is moot. I really think some people, especially some in rec.boats only
like to debate or discuss Global Warming so they can scream "See all you
do damn Reps. do is goosestep to your party line". My guess is they
would be depressed if we solved the Global Warming problem, because it
would be one less insult they could deliver. That being said, I
personally agree with most scientists who say an increase in CO2 in the
atmosphere is having an effect on our climate. This by no means says
that man is the only or even the major reason for the increase in global
temperature, but we do need to do everything possible to leave a smaller
footprint on the world's ecosystem.

Okay the fact is that everyone, Rep. or Dem. is guilty here. This argument
will go on until everyone is dead. This would not be unprecedented in the
scientific community. Historically speaking, scientists tend to only agree
on something after the first few generations of scientists studying and
teaching have died and can no longer argue thier early results and thoughts.
They few cases where this has not happened is when A major event takes place
that is unavoidably obvious.

One major case is when scientists stated that a huge meteor hi the Earth and
caused the dinosaurs to go extinct. When I was in elementary school they
said that this probably isn't what happened but it's a theory. Then they
found the crater the crater the meteor left and some bits of it still buried
inside. Scientists still said that this huge hole wasn't a crater and a
meteor didn't cause this. After the old scientists died there was a massive
reinterest and this theory is now generally accepted.
Another case is Plate techtonics. The thoery was put out about a hundred
years ago but it wasn't generally accepted until about fifty years ago.

One example of a major event was the theory on possible earthquake magnitude.
This is a big thing i So. Cal. The maximun magnitude of an earthquake in a
ceertain fault zone used to be calculated under the assumption that only one
segment can break at a time. The construction of of buildings in these areas
assumed this to be true even though many geologists and geomorphologists
refuted this idea. Nobody listened until the Landers Quake and several
sections broke, causing a lot more damage than it should have.

The point to all of this is that nobody in this debate is at all open minded.
Not even the scientists and especially not the politicians. I agree that to
say global warming is only caused by one thing is wrong because it negates
other possibilities but there is no real evidence saying that Global warming
does not exist, while there is a lot of evidence saying it does. Right now
fossil fuel consumption is the most likely culprit and the only way we will
know if we are right is to change something. Thats what scientific
experimentation is all about. Change something and see what the effect is.
Arguing that we aren't sure so we should stick to the status quo is very
short sighted. Now before everyone jumps all over me, I am not saying that
you or anyone here has stated that but it does seem to be the general
attitude of people that argue against global warming.

--
Message posted via BoatKB.com
http://www.boatkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/boats/200612/1

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

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. You said I was wrong.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

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

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:

If he has stated it several times, it should be very easy to find one of
them. Maybe you can do what you insist on everyone else doing and
Google up one instance where Tom stated man has no hand in global
warming.

Oooookay:

Here on Oct 1, 2004, Tom states that global warming is only someone's
pet theory and doesn't even exist:

The whole Global Warming thing is somebodies pet theory and that's
about it

Here, Calif Bill says:
You forgot Clinton, LBJ, Nixon and "global warming", plus the oil refinery
blast in Texas.

To which Tom replied:

There is only so much conspiracy to spread around.

Thus saying that global warming is just a conspiracy. How could man
have a hand in global warming if it's nothing more than a conspiracy?

There's plenty more where that came from!

Kinda like banks cannot have a profit higher than the consumer interest
rates they charge.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

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?

That is equal, in your brain to "You mean those machines where you put
cold water in, blow ambient air across
it and get hot water out?"??????? Really, IS it?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"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!

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.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?

That is equal, in your brain to "You mean those machines where you put
cold water in, blow ambient air across
it and get hot water out?"??????? Really, IS it?

You said it, not me-

LOL!

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Well, I take it that you don't believe the article? Prove the writer
wrong. I'll be waiting.



I love you too, man. Peace.

What an intelligent and well thought reply.....NOT.......

I take it that although you have no science to repute the article, you
must goose step to the party and try to negate it, huh?

(refute??)


I prefer the two-step. Goose stepping just looks gay, especially at a party.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Tell us? or, tell you?


basskisser wrote:
Tim wrote:
right.

Right, WHAT then?
And tell us more about THE transatlantic cable, okay?!