Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 106

Thread: Arctic

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,343

    Default

    Update -- Global Sea Ice is still plummeting, as of Dec 2016



    http://edmdigest.com/preparedness/po...urrent-update/

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,343

    Default

    Arctic sea ice coverage in the central #Arctic basin is tanking. It is now below the lowest point since mid October.


  3. #13
    breezy's Avatar
    breezy is offline Tree of Liberty Benefactor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Behind enemy lines
    Posts
    40,546

    Default

    Any "calculations" when NYC goes under water???

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by breezy View Post
    Any "calculations" when NYC goes under water???
    Yes


    https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...?stnid=8518750

  5. #15
    breezy's Avatar
    breezy is offline Tree of Liberty Benefactor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Behind enemy lines
    Posts
    40,546

    Default

    Is NASA going back on its analysis here?

    Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay.../#1606a3e632da

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by breezy View Post
    Is NASA going back on its analysis here?

    Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay.../#1606a3e632da
    The article to which you refer cites one source, which is http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....withtrend.jpg

    If you look at that source, you will see that it has been updated, and conditions that existed prior to 2012 have changed significantly. That source shows 2016 had less polar ice than any earlier year in the satellite record.

  7. #17
    breezy's Avatar
    breezy is offline Tree of Liberty Benefactor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Behind enemy lines
    Posts
    40,546

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyM View Post
    The article to which you refer cites one source, which is http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....withtrend.jpg

    If you look at that source, you will see that it has been updated, and conditions that existed prior to 2012 have changed significantly. That source shows 2016 had less polar ice than any earlier year in the satellite record.
    So, they have changed(updated) their data.......again.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by breezy View Post
    So, they have changed(updated) their data.......again.
    Yes, the data has been updated each year --


  9. #19
    breezy's Avatar
    breezy is offline Tree of Liberty Benefactor
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Behind enemy lines
    Posts
    40,546

    Default

    Revised, to meet the global warming agenda, you mean.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    11,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyM View Post
    I would start with what Secretary of State designate Tillerson recently said in support of a carbon tax --

    Addressing these risks requires broad-based, practical solutions

    .... We have long supported a carbon tax as the best policy of those being considered. Replacing the hodge-podge of current, largely ineffective regulations with a revenue-neutral carbon tax would ensure a uniform and predictable cost of carbon across the economy. It would allow market forces to drive solutions. It would maximize transparency, reduce administrative complexity, promote global participation and easily adjust to future developments in our understanding of climate science as well as the policy consequences of these actions.
    Babbling bull$h!t ... I see a theme but no specific problem identified accompanied by no solution(s) provided. Gotta have one to have the other ....

    Now I would offer that if there is to be any effort expended in any meaningful manner in regards to our environment, the concern be directed to the quality of our air, our water, our soil. As to temperatures, "science" has shown the earth to have experienced extremes that are cyclical and critters have either adapted or not and those that have, we run over with our vehicles or shoot for fun.

    Future development of understanding? Seriously?

    Climate science has been a "study" since man experienced the first raindrop, the first gust of wind. It's how "we've" come to dedicating 30 minutes or better of animated bobblehead babbling to describe an environmental condition in which anyone with any sense can determine for themselves in about 30 seconds or less.

    Climate science? Using natural phenomena to spook the sheep by exploiting their apathy and ignorance.

    O.W.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •