Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

basskisser wrote:
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?

This is a perfect reason why discussing any issue with you is useless.
You seem to speak a language unique to you. Maybe you can explain what
you did mean when you said "the arctic is ALL sea ice". I believed the
your statement was correct, but upon further review, it really isn't.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...
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.

Right on....

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

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?

You'll prove it.

Ready?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

According to you? Sure!

From: basskisser - view profile
Date: Tues, Dec 12 2006 12:41 pm
Email: "basskisser"
Groups: rec.boats
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:



lolRG wrote:
"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 that was perfect.



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







basskisser wrote:
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
 

"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.....

NO, definition of sea ice is not just that over the sea but the ice that is
made with sea water. And as you know ice
made with salt water melts as a much lower temp (easier to melt). Ice at
the polar cap (north pole) is several hundred feet of sea ice covered with
up to thousands of feet of water ice at temps of down to -50 degrees. The
upper levels 2-3 feet can melt and refreeze during the summer months but the
rest of the ice is too cold to melt. The thickness of the ice varies wildly
from place to place leading to, as mentioned in this thread, statistical
problems in determining melt rates if any.

Since Sea ice is easier to melt it will show the effects of any warming
trend way before the artic ice.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Tim wrote:
According to you? Sure!

Well, THANK YOU!! I'm glad I could help educate you!

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

In this context, we are talking about arctic ICE..... Do you get that
word?? Also, in this context, we are talking about the polar ice cap.
READ THE ARTICLE. So, after reading the article, would you agree or
disagree that the polar ice cap is all sea ice?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

basskisser wrote:
Tim wrote:
According to you? Sure!

Well, THANK YOU!! I'm glad I could help educate you!

you mean, that you can't rememeber what you said?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"Sam" wrote in message news:f9egh.6653$HX4.4914@trnddc03...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

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?

You'll prove it.

Ready?

There's nothing to be scared of- there just very simple yes or no questions.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

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

Looks like land to me:

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

In this context, we are talking about arctic ICE..... Do you get that
word?? Also, in this context, we are talking about the polar ice cap.
READ THE ARTICLE. So, after reading the article, would you agree or
disagree that the polar ice cap is all sea ice?


"In this context, we are talking about arctic ICE....."

Why didn't you say "polar ice cap" ICE?

In the arctic region there is ice in/on both the Arctic Sea and land masses
in the arctic. Right or wrong? You very clearly stated "arctic ICE", that
can be any where in the arctic region.

If you meant the polar ice cap you should have stated that. You said
arctic. The arctic is made of land and water, just like most any other
region.

And you complain about others reading comprehension.

In the future try to be more specific.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Tim wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Tim wrote:
According to you? Sure!

Well, THANK YOU!! I'm glad I could help educate you!

you mean, that you can't rememeber what you said?

Are you really that stupid that you think the two sentences:
"Well, Thank you. I'm glad I could help educate you!

Means the same thing as "you can't remember what you said?" Really, do
you think that?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Sam wrote:
"Sam" wrote in message news:f9egh.6653$HX4.4914@trnddc03...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

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?

You'll prove it.

Ready?

There's nothing to be scared of- there just very simple yes or no questions.

Get this straight right now. I am nor will ever be scared of you. Got
it? Really, is that understood?
Why would someone need to ask questions if they have the intelligence
to prove their point?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

ACP wrote:

In the future try to be more specific.

In the future, kiss my ass, punk. I'll do what I damned well please.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
s.com...

ACP wrote:

In the future try to be more specific.

In the future, kiss my ass, punk. I'll do what I damned well please.

My, my, my.

Just a I thought, during your quest for a black belt you must have taken a
few too many karate chops to the head.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

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

ACP wrote:

In the future try to be more specific.

In the future, kiss my ass, punk. I'll do what I damned well please.

My, my, my.

Just a I thought, during your quest for a black belt you must have taken a
few too many karate chops to the head.

No. But if you think you can push me around and tell me what to do,
I'll damned well let you know you can't. If you want to continue to act
like an asshole, you'll get treated like one. I think you're getting a
little school girl infatuation with me going as well.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

ACP wrote:

In the future try to be more specific.

In the future, kiss my ass, punk. I'll do what I damned well please.

My, my, my.

Just a I thought, during your quest for a black belt you must have taken
a
few too many karate chops to the head.

No. But if you think you can push me around and tell me what to do,
I'll damned well let you know you can't. If you want to continue to act
like an asshole, you'll get treated like one. I think you're getting a
little school girl infatuation with me going as well.


Kiss, kiss....

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

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

Sam wrote:
"Sam" wrote in message news:f9egh.6653$HX4.4914@trnddc03...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

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?

You'll prove it.

Ready?

There's nothing to be scared of- there just very simple yes or no
questions.

Get this straight right now. I am nor will ever be scared of you. Got
it? Really, is that understood?
Why would someone need to ask questions if they have the intelligence
to prove their point?


LOL!

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

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

Sam wrote:
"Sam" wrote in message news:f9egh.6653$HX4.4914@trnddc03...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

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?

You'll prove it.

Ready?

There's nothing to be scared of- there just very simple yes or no
questions.

Get this straight right now. I am nor will ever be scared of you. Got
it? Really, is that understood?
Why would someone need to ask questions if they have the intelligence
to prove their point?


LOL!


Can't answer the question, huh? Moron.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

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

In the future try to be more specific.
In the future, kiss my ass, punk. I'll do what I damned well please.
My, my, my.

Just a I thought, during your quest for a black belt you must have taken a
few too many karate chops to the head.

No. But if you think you can push me around and tell me what to do,
I'll damned well let you know you can't. If you want to continue to act
like an asshole, you'll get treated like one. I think you're getting a
little school girl infatuation with me going as well.

fBassy,
I think you have gone over the hill.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

Sam wrote:
"Sam" wrote in message
news:f9egh.6653$HX4.4914@trnddc03...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

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?

You'll prove it.

Ready?

There's nothing to be scared of- there just very simple yes or no
questions.

Get this straight right now. I am nor will ever be scared of you. Got
it? Really, is that understood?
Why would someone need to ask questions if they have the intelligence
to prove their point?


LOL!


Can't answer the question, huh? Moron.


I have proved my point.

Scared to answer a few questions?

LOL!

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

No, I'm not that stupid, and it's obvious that the standards for which
you judge others, means nothing to you, yourself.



basskisser wrote:
Tim wrote:
basskisser wrote:
Tim wrote:
According to you? Sure!

Well, THANK YOU!! I'm glad I could help educate you!

you mean, that you can't rememeber what you said?

Are you really that stupid that you think the two sentences:
"Well, Thank you. I'm glad I could help educate you!

Means the same thing as "you can't remember what you said?" Really, do
you think that?

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.


I never claimed to be an engineer. In fact, I've only been on train
maybe five times in my life. Your buddy Kevin makes the engineer claim.
You really should pay attention.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

basskisser wrote:

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.......


Every post I make, you post the same four lines. That's typical for
someone your age, I guess. Since I don't respond to all, or half, or
25%, or your posts, where do you get this stalking crap?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

basskisser wrote:

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You finally made an excellent point! Engineers make far less money
than I do.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

ACP wrote:

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

ACP wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
groups.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

In this context, we are talking about arctic ICE..... Do you get that
word?? Also, in this context, we are talking about the polar ice cap.
READ THE ARTICLE. So, after reading the article, would you agree or
disagree that the polar ice cap is all sea ice?



"In this context, we are talking about arctic ICE....."

Why didn't you say "polar ice cap" ICE?

In the arctic region there is ice in/on both the Arctic Sea and land masses
in the arctic. Right or wrong? You very clearly stated "arctic ICE", that
can be any where in the arctic region.

If you meant the polar ice cap you should have stated that. You said
arctic. The arctic is made of land and water, just like most any other
region.

And you complain about others reading comprehension.

In the future try to be more specific.



The boy is spinning this in a weak attempt to bail out. Kids...

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"Dan" wrote in message
.. .
ACP wrote:

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

ACP wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
egroups.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

In this context, we are talking about arctic ICE..... Do you get that
word?? Also, in this context, we are talking about the polar ice cap.
READ THE ARTICLE. So, after reading the article, would you agree or
disagree that the polar ice cap is all sea ice?



"In this context, we are talking about arctic ICE....."

Why didn't you say "polar ice cap" ICE?

In the arctic region there is ice in/on both the Arctic Sea and land
masses in the arctic. Right or wrong? You very clearly stated "arctic
ICE", that can be any where in the arctic region.

If you meant the polar ice cap you should have stated that. You said
arctic. The arctic is made of land and water, just like most any other
region.

And you complain about others reading comprehension.

In the future try to be more specific.

The boy is spinning this in a weak attempt to bail out. Kids...

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

I think he needs a higher GPH pump....

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Dan wrote:
basskisser wrote:

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.......


Every post I make, you post the same four lines. That's typical for
someone your age, I guess. Since I don't respond to all, or half, or
25%, or your posts, where do you get this stalking crap?


That would be the "King of the NG idiots"

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Dan wrote:

Don White wrote:

Dan wrote:


*So know you are Tim, Kevin?*



Say what! ..and you claim to be an engineer?
maybe sanitary engineer.


I never claimed to be an engineer. In fact, I've only been on train
maybe five times in my life. Your buddy Kevin makes the engineer claim.
You really should pay attention.

Donnie spend all his time wedging his nose up harry's and kevin's
asses.....you expect him to pay attention?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Dan wrote:

basskisser wrote:

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You finally made an excellent point! Engineers make far less money
than I do.


And engineers make far more than scut work detail draftsmen like kevin. :-)

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

animal wrote:


Donnie spend all his time wedging his nose up harry's and kevin's
asses.....you expect him to pay attention?


And what animal do you represent... the weasel?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message

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.

The fact that the ice is about 2 miles thick on the island of Greenland. A
copious amount of ice. Takes awhile to fly over it in a 747.

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

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

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

Sam wrote:
"Sam" wrote in message
news:f9egh.6653$HX4.4914@trnddc03...

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

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?

You'll prove it.

Ready?

There's nothing to be scared of- there just very simple yes or no
questions.

Get this straight right now. I am nor will ever be scared of you. Got
it? Really, is that understood?
Why would someone need to ask questions if they have the intelligence
to prove their point?


LOL!


Can't answer the question, huh? Moron.


I have proved my point.

Scared to answer a few questions?

No.

LOL!

You are one of the very few people that are allegedly above the age of
12 who still use those silly LOL's and such. You realize this don't you?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Tim wrote:
No, I'm not that stupid, and it's obvious that the standards for which
you judge others, means nothing to you, yourself.

Then why did you assert that it was the same thing??

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Dan wrote:
Don White wrote:
Dan wrote:


*So know you are Tim, Kevin?*


Say what! ..and you claim to be an engineer?
maybe sanitary engineer.


I never claimed to be an engineer. In fact, I've only been on train
maybe five times in my life. Your buddy Kevin makes the engineer claim.
You really should pay attention.

--
Kevin who?

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Dan wrote:
basskisser wrote:

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.......


Every post I make, you post the same four lines. That's typical for
someone your age, I guess. Since I don't respond to all, or half, or
25%, or your posts, where do you get this stalking crap?

BWAAAHAAAAA!!!!!! Every single post I made yesterday there you were.
Day before? Every post except one........

--
Infatuation.........
Infatuation......
It's driving Dan crazy.......
It's making Dan CRAAAZZZYYYY.....

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Dan wrote:
basskisser wrote:

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You finally made an excellent point! Engineers make far less money
than I do.

--
Uh, sure, okay, Dan.......we believe you......although people that
really do make good money are very rarely compelled to talk about
it.....

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

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

animal wrote:
Dan wrote:
basskisser wrote:

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.......


Every post I make, you post the same four lines. That's typical for
someone your age, I guess. Since I don't respond to all, or half, or
25%, or your posts, where do you get this stalking crap?


That would be the "King of the NG idiots"

Awe.......now Fritz will interject his worthless drivel.....

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Don White wrote:
animal wrote:


Donnie spend all his time wedging his nose up harry's and kevin's
asses.....you expect him to pay attention?


And what animal do you represent... the weasel?

Fritz is less than that, he's the weasel's asshole.....

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

basskisser wrote:

You are one of the very few people that are allegedly above the age of
12 who still use those silly LOL's and such. You realize this don't you?

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
So you do actually believe that the rings
above the bottom one have NO lubrication.

basskisser replied:

*LOL* where did I say that?



Since you don't use LOL anymore, you must be 13 now. Puberty messing you up?

-- Charlie

Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2040
 

Nice spin


basskisser wrote:
Tim wrote:
No, I'm not that stupid, and it's obvious that the standards for which
you judge others, means nothing to you, yourself.

Then why did you assert that it was the same thing??