|
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
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. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Tim wrote: Tell us? or, tell you? basskisser wrote: Tim wrote: right. Right, WHAT then? And tell us more about THE transatlantic cable, okay?! I'm sure others would like to hear about THE only transatlantic cable, but either way is fine. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
"basskisser" wrote in message ps.com... 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. LOL! |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Stanley Barthfarkle wrote: 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. I take it that you aren't quite bright enough to provide any information to back up your statements. So, instead you try to act humorous and homophobic. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
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? |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
I prefer the two-step. Goose stepping just looks gay, especially at a party. Not to mention it's hard on your arches. Easier than arching your hard on, though. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
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. I take it that you aren't quite bright enough to provide any information to back up your statements. So, instead you try to act humorous and homophobic. I love you, man. Is that homophobic enough? |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
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? Sure they do. It's just that YOUR club doesn't, and will go to any length to try and make me look wrong. I can supply information beyond belief, give clear and concise articles to back me up, and on and on, then when my point is proved beyond anyone's REASONABLE doubt, the name calling and insults begins. As far as the above goes, I've stated that the machine wouldn't be anymore effective with the ice in an ice chest or in a cardboard box, because the water flowing across the ice would melt the ice at the same rate. Then Sam started that childish name calling. And STILL hasn't shown anything to the contrary. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Stanley Barthfarkle wrote: 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. I take it that you aren't quite bright enough to provide any information to back up your statements. So, instead you try to act humorous and homophobic. I love you, man. Is that homophobic enough? No, simply further shows your ignorance, that's all. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... Sure they do. It's just that YOUR club doesn't, and will go to any length to try and make me look wrong. I can supply information beyond belief, give clear and concise articles to back me up, and on and on, then when my point is proved beyond anyone's REASONABLE doubt, the name calling and insults begins. As far as the above goes, I've stated that the machine wouldn't be anymore effective with the ice in an ice chest or in a cardboard box, because the water flowing across the ice would melt the ice at the same rate. Then Sam started that childish name calling. And STILL hasn't shown anything to the contrary. LOL! |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Stanley Barthfarkle wrote: 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. I take it that you aren't quite bright enough to provide any information to back up your statements. So, instead you try to act humorous and homophobic. I love you, man. Is that homophobic enough? No, simply further shows your ignorance, that's all. Yes, you are correct. You are a beacon of reason and rationality. Thank you for showing me the light. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
basskisser wrote:
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? Sure they do. It's just that YOUR club doesn't, and will go to any length to try and make me look wrong. I can supply information beyond belief, give clear and concise articles to back me up, and on and on, then when my point is proved beyond anyone's REASONABLE doubt, the name calling and insults begins. As far as the above goes, I've stated that the machine wouldn't be anymore effective with the ice in an ice chest or in a cardboard box, because the water flowing across the ice would melt the ice at the same rate. Then Sam started that childish name calling. And STILL hasn't shown anything to the contrary. I don't have a club, but if you were honest with yourself, you would realize that NO ONE support you or your diatribes. People who agree with everything you believe in, take off running when they see you start another one of your silly threads. Harry who is a liberal as can be even has told you that your diatribes were boring and stupid. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... As far as the above goes, I've stated that the machine wouldn't be anymore effective with the ice in an ice chest or in a cardboard box, because the water flowing across the ice would melt the ice at the same rate. Then Sam started that childish name calling. And STILL hasn't shown anything to the contrary. I can prove it to you (yet again) if you agree to answer just a few simple yes or no questions. Are you game? |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
basskisser wrote: Sure they do. It's just that YOUR club doesn't, and will go to any length to try and make me look wrong. I can supply information beyond belief, give clear and concise articles to back me up, and on and on, then when my point is proved beyond anyone's REASONABLE doubt, the name calling and insults begins. um, hmm |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
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!* |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
On 13 Dec 2006 10:27:31 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote: 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) Chuck, do you have the URL for that 'doomsday' article which basically said what you just did? Someone posted it here a few months back, and I've lost it. Thanks. -- John H *Have a great Christmas and a spectacular New Year!* |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
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. The question is how much aggravation. If it is 0.0001% of the total of green house gases it is not a problem, however, if it is 10% then it is a problem. Which is it? 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 we are the most advanced society on the planet. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
basskisser wrote:
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....... So know you are Tim, Kevin? -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
basskisser wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: basskisser wrote: Sam wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message egroups.com... Sam wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message glegroups.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? Sure they do. It's just that YOUR club doesn't, and will go to any length to try and make me look wrong. I can supply information beyond belief, give clear and concise articles to back me up, and on and on, then when my point is proved beyond anyone's REASONABLE doubt, the name calling and insults begins. As far as the above goes, I've stated that the machine wouldn't be anymore effective with the ice in an ice chest or in a cardboard box, because the water flowing across the ice would melt the ice at the same rate. Then Sam started that childish name calling. And STILL hasn't shown anything to the contrary. Conspiracy? Nice try! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
basskisser wrote: 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? Sure they do. It's just that YOUR club doesn't, and will go to any length to try and make me look wrong. I can supply information beyond belief, give clear and concise articles to back me up, and on and on, then when my point is proved beyond anyone's REASONABLE doubt, the name calling and insults begins. As far as the above goes, I've stated that the machine wouldn't be anymore effective with the ice in an ice chest or in a cardboard box, because the water flowing across the ice would melt the ice at the same rate. Then Sam started that childish name calling. And STILL hasn't shown anything to the contrary. I don't have a club, but if you were honest with yourself, you would realize that NO ONE support you or your diatribes. People who agree with everything you believe in, take off running when they see you start another one of your silly threads. Harry who is a liberal as can be even has told you that your diatribes were boring and stupid. Wrong. There's the Don and Harry show. It's a 3-way circle jerk that the boy leans on whenever it benefits him and is moronic BS. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Dan wrote:
*So know you are Tim, Kevin?* Say what! ..and you claim to be an engineer? maybe sanitary engineer. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
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. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
"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. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
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. The Artic is all sea ice, only Antarctica has land mass. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
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. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message . .. 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. The Artic is all sea ice, only Antarctica has land mass. Huh? |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Sam wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message oups.com... As far as the above goes, I've stated that the machine wouldn't be anymore effective with the ice in an ice chest or in a cardboard box, because the water flowing across the ice would melt the ice at the same rate. Then Sam started that childish name calling. And STILL hasn't shown anything to the contrary. I can prove it to you (yet again) if you agree to answer just a few simple yes or no questions. Are you game? Why would I need to answer any questions for you to prove it? |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Dan wrote: Conspiracy? Nice try! Every single post I make, there you are stalking!!! Infatuation...... Infatuation...... It's driving Dan crazy..... It's making Dan CRAAAZZZYYY....... |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Dan wrote: Wrong. There's the Don and Harry show. It's a 3-way circle jerk that the boy leans on whenever it benefits him and is moronic BS. "It's often noted that in persons with infatuation disorders, they often react to rejection with negative feelings toward the very person they are infatuated with." Infatuation...... Infatuation.... It's driving Dan crazy..... It's making Dan CRRRAAAZZZYYY..... |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
Don White wrote: Dan wrote: *So know you are Tim, Kevin?* Say what! ..and you claim to be an engineer? maybe sanitary engineer. Dan claims to be an engineer?? BWAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
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..... |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
basskisser wrote: Dan claims to be an engineer?? BWAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Simple minded people are ALWAYS easy to amuse...... " |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
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!* |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
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!* |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
"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? |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
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? |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
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? |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
"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 |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
"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. |
Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com