Global Climate Change Science News

[pErvinalia]

I predict rofl smilies. You know MM has lost an argument when he starts spraying rofl around..

[L'Emmerdeur]

And why are they all so quiet about Antarctica? All the latest evidence points to no loss of ice levels in the last 100 years. They squeal about every ice sheet that breaks away, which happens all the time. (After all, Antarctica is one gigantic glacier) But they keep very quiet about the actual ice levels.

Who are "they" and what "latest evidence" are you referring to?

[Jason]

IIRC mistermack has a point about the predictions being that the ice caps would be completely gone by now. I can't be sure, I don't pay much attention to AGW wibble.

[Animavore]

IIRC mistermack has a point about the predictions being that the ice caps would be completely gone by now. I can't be sure, I don't pay much attention to AGW wibble.

Literally no one said they'd be gone by now. At some point in the future - Yes.

[pErvinalia]

MM's (and other non-thinkers like Seth) argument is fallacious anyway. Because past models (which used exponentially less processing power, and had less data to use) weren't accurate, AGW must be a made up conspiracy. It's primary school level logic fail.

[Animavore]

And why are they all so quiet about Antarctica? All the latest evidence points to no loss of ice levels in the last 100 years. They squeal about every ice sheet that breaks away, which happens all the time. (After all, Antarctica is one gigantic glacier) But they keep very quiet about the actual ice levels.

Who are "they" and what "latest evidence" are you referring to?

He's talking about this I presume.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rming.html

[Animavore]

Sea ice levels aren't that important. When sea ice melts it doesn't effect sea levels. When land ice breaks off and slips into the sea; then we've got problems.

[Hermit]

I am uncertain about how much of global warming is of anthropogenic in origin, but still, that article sucks donkey's ball. It basically says we can keep exhausting non-renewable resources and keep polluting our environment at the present rate without causing any adverse consequences for the next generation and the one after. Christopher Booker is doing a hatchet job on behalf of Exxon et al. Or maybe he is a useful, perhaps willingly so, idiot for the Daily Mail whose owner is in cahoots with the 1%ers.

So, here is my contribution (again) to the discussion:

[L'Emmerdeur]

And why are they all so quiet about Antarctica? All the latest evidence points to no loss of ice levels in the last 100 years. They squeal about every ice sheet that breaks away, which happens all the time. (After all, Antarctica is one gigantic glacier) But they keep very quiet about the actual ice levels.

Who are "they" and what "latest evidence" are you referring to?

He's talking about this I presume.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rming.html

As noted by Hermit, the value of an article in The Daily Mail is highly dubious in regards to legitimate information on climate science. I didn't even bother to click on the link. However, using the title of the article I was able eventually to find the actual paper itself, which available for free as a PDF: "Estimating the extent of Antarctic summer sea ice during the Heroic age of Antarctic Exploration"

Essentially the authors have compared estimates (based on ship log books) of the extent of the ice in the Antarctic during the period 1897–1917 with relatively recent satellite observations. Very interesting, but hardly conclusive, as they themselves note.

[Tero]

Daily Mail finds ice in Southern ocean. We know. The ice has increased 1.8% in bla bla years. It has been explained.

[Jason]

and by "better" we mean more expensive because we just drove up the price of the most fundamental commodity in our economy, energy, by a factor of..? So be grateful future generations, you may never be able to afford your own home but your air is so clean.

[Animavore]

and by "better" we mean more expensive because we just drove up the price of the most fundamental commodity in our economy, energy, by a factor of..? So be grateful future generations, you may never be able to afford your own home but your air is so clean.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

[Jason]

Your mother.

[pErvinalia]

[Hermit]

and by "better" we mean more expensive because we just drove up the price of the most fundamental commodity in our economy, energy, by a factor of..? So be grateful future generations, you may never be able to afford your own home but your air is so clean.

lolwut? Energy production from renewable resources is continuously getting cheaper. And it is renewable.

"Base load" diversion coming up in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ....