The only thing going green is the Arctic.

[kairos]

That's great news, so you're saying that soon we'll have another area

to build cottages and to spread out our population. Sounds great to

me.

This is what anti-environment conservatives think.

[Peanutbutter]

This is what anti-environment conservatives think.

I am pro environment but hey, if the ice is melting I might as well look at the bright side. By the time it all melts we'll all be long dead, we're talking hundreds of years until it's all gone. Relax a little bit.

[gunrutz]

This is what anti-environment conservatives think.

Yes, you clearly have us all figured out, i wonder sometimes, if this so far 0.6 degree warming occured in the absence of the premise of global warming would any of you be so equally concerned about the poor planet, or would it be a case of it's only 0.6 degrees, we will just have to live with it if it gets worse. Heaven forbid we go through a natural ice age cycle again, of course we will, and most of society will perish, but then again it seems that a lot of you wouldn't mind that at all, it would of course help the poor planet, and we wouldn't have to worry about our activities warming the place by a couple of degrees possibly resulting in significant impact on our societies. Of course that impact pales in comparison to those of 100 percent proven natural cycles, but that isn't terribly important when considering the point of view of an ecofetishist, reality has little bearing on that perspective.

As an aside, and yes weather is not climate, but its been another cold winter in the arctic, colder than some a few years ago, Alaska saw averages in January several degrees below normal, of course no one talks about that since it doesn't fit the narrative, they also got record snow falls while they were recieving colder temperatures, which also doesn't fit the preferred narrative. The sea ice recovery also set records in the arctic, hopefully there will be some recovery overall and the lower temps continue, so far there seems to be a momentum in ice loss that a couple years of colder temps can't overcome. That might take a very long time, if it happens at all, it is getting warmer, but a colder, whiter arctic would be a good help to at least mitigate that. Then again, what if the next ice age is starting? What should we do ecobots? How do we fix something we barely understand and can't control, and how panicked will you be when the temp drops to below zero year round? Perhaps not at all, i mean, its ok when nature is killing us, or greatly limiting our lives, if we do relatively small damage that results in relatively small damage to our societies, that is somehow a huge problem.

Misanthropists?

[Keepitsimple]

Yes, you clearly have us all figured out, i wonder sometimes, if this so far 0.6 degree warming occured in the absence of the premise of global warming would any of you be so equally concerned about the poor planet, or would it be a case of it's only 0.6 degrees, we will just have to live with it if it gets worse. Heaven forbid we go through a natural ice age cycle again, of course we will, and most of society will perish, but then again it seems that a lot of you wouldn't mind that at all, it would of course help the poor planet, and we wouldn't have to worry about our activities warming the place by a couple of degrees possibly resulting in significant impact on our societies. Of course that impact pales in comparison to those of 100 percent proven natural cycles, but that isn't terribly important when considering the point of view of an ecofetishist, reality has little bearing on that perspective.

As an aside, and yes weather is not climate, but its been another cold winter in the arctic, colder than some a few years ago, Alaska saw averages in January several degrees below normal, of course no one talks about that since it doesn't fit the narrative, they also got record snow falls while they were recieving colder temperatures, which also doesn't fit the preferred narrative. The sea ice recovery also set records in the arctic, hopefully there will be some recovery overall and the lower temps continue, so far there seems to be a momentum in ice loss that a couple years of colder temps can't overcome. That might take a very long time, if it happens at all, it is getting warmer, but a colder, whiter arctic would be a good help to at least mitigate that. Then again, what if the next ice age is starting? What should we do ecobots? How do we fix something we barely understand and can't control, and how panicked will you be when the temp drops to below zero year round? Perhaps not at all, i mean, its ok when nature is killing us, or greatly limiting our lives, if we do relatively small damage that results in relatively small damage to our societies, that is somehow a huge problem.

Misanthropists?

Get off this board! Rational thought is not welcome here!

[eyeball]

As an aside, and yes weather is not climate, but its been another cold winter in the arctic, colder than some a few years ago, Alaska saw averages in January several degrees below normal, of course no one talks about that since it doesn't fit the narrative, they also got record snow falls while they were recieving colder temperatures, which also doesn't fit the preferred narrative.

That's not right, more extreme weather fits perfectly.

[waldo]

As an aside, and yes weather is not climate, but its been another cold winter in the arctic, colder than some a few years ago, Alaska saw averages in January several degrees below normal, of course no one talks about that since it doesn't fit the narrative, they also got record snow falls while they were recieving colder temperatures, which also doesn't fit the preferred narrative.

no - the Arctic is not some monolithic entity. This winter, temperatures over some areas of the Arctic have been warmer than the 1979-2000 benchmark average reference, while in other Arctic areas, temperatures have been lower than the average..... all of this, across the complete Arctic. Perhaps you don't actually understand the full area extent of the Arctic - yes? You start by acknowledging a weather reference - and then you presume to, 'make it the narrative'... while disparaging the "preferred narrative", without actually defining your referenced "preferred narrative". Would that "preferred narrative" be the one attached to climate, one looking at longer-term trends across the Arctic? Is that the narrative you seemingly don't prefer?

.

The sea ice recovery also set records in the arctic, hopefully there will be some recovery overall and the lower temps continue, so far there seems to be a momentum in ice loss that a couple years of colder temps can't overcome. That might take a very long time, if it happens at all, it is getting warmer, but a colder, whiter arctic would be a good help to at least mitigate that.

any single year seasonal winter recovery is, simply that... which, of course, needs to be set against the same years eventual melting season... set against continuing (overall) record temperatures across the Arctic. Of course, all of this focus on ice extent (area) must be tempered against the over-riding considerations of single-year ice versus multi-year ice, or more pointedly area vs. volume.

what's key to any single year extent reference is recognizing just how long the melting season will be... when will it start in any year. Speaking of the area of the Arctic you've highlighted as having colder temperatures this winter, this is a recent Feb 27, 2013 satellite image showing the sea-ice of the Beaufort Sea, quite literally, coming apart at the seams - described as unprecedented for this (February) time of year.

the same ice break-up event occurred last year (2012) in the Bering & Beaufort Sea... in April, bringing forward suggestions that the 2013 melting season will begin much, much sooner than the 'norm'. Of course, the record sea-ice minimum extent was established in 2012.

but, as I said, focusing on extent (area) doesn't recognize the dramatic impacts of sea-ice volume (thickness) loss... with volume now at 1/5th of its 1979 measure.

.

Then again, what if the next ice age is starting? What should we do ecobots? How do we fix something we barely understand and can't control, and how panicked will you be when the temp drops to below zero year round? Perhaps not at all, i mean, its ok when nature is killing us, or greatly limiting our lives, if we do relatively small damage that results in relatively small damage to our societies, that is somehow a huge problem.

next ice-age starting??? Based on what?

Misanthropists?

yes... that's exactly what deniers are!

.

[waldo]

Get off this board! Rational thought is not welcome here!

your kind of rational thought, hey Simple?

[bush_cheney2004]

...next ice-age starting??? Based on what?

More American data ???

[waldo]

More American data ???

do you have anything... anything, to contribute - other than your

[bush_cheney2004]

do you have anything... anything, to contribute - other than your

Yes....I believe in proper scholarship and attributions....even your "one trick pony' reference is from the USA (Myk Martinez)

Is it too much to ask for some Canadian Content when it comes to a "melting Arctic" ?

[waldo]

Yes....I believe in proper scholarship and attributions....even your "one trick pony' reference is from the USA (Myk Martinez)

Is it too much to ask for some Canadian Content when it comes to a "melting Arctic" ?

no - your entire MLW existence is predicated upon shitting on posts with your juvenile nattering. One can take a fair amount of time researching and putting together a post... only to have you drive-by and drop a meaningless and nothingness POS trolling reply. It's what you do, it's what you're about - nothing more, nothing less. Feed your pony, oh one-trick wonder!

[bush_cheney2004]

no - your entire MLW existence is predicated upon shitting on posts with your juvenile nattering. One can take a fair amount of time researching and putting together a post... only to have you drive-by and drop a meaningless and nothingness POS trolling reply. It's what you do, it's what you're about - nothing more, nothing less. Feed your pony, oh one-trick wonder!

Gee.... all of that negativity just for asking for some Canadian Content in the Canadian Politics area ? I could understand your obvious over reliance on American sources if you would at least heap as much credit for the American research (compared to what is invested and available from Canada) as you heap U.S. criticism for lack of action on so called 'climate change'.

How do you reconcile this Yankee 'denier' and but rich source of 'data' dichotomy ?

Edited March 12, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Gee.... all of that negativity just for asking for some Canadian Content in the Canadian Politics area ? I could understand your obvious over reliance on American sources if you would at least heap as much credit for the American research (compared to what is invested and available from Canada) as you heap U.S. criticism for lack of action on so called 'climate change'.

How do you reconcile this Yankee 'denier' and but rich source of 'data' dichotomy ?

nooooo... don't backpedal now - stay loud and proud with your incessant trolling. Clearly, you need to find ways to contribute! Why should one expect you to actually challenge content... or add to it... or even bring forward your own (countering) viewpoint. That would clearly take too much time/effort on your part, even if you were capable of it - which you're not. So you do what you're best at... you obviously know your skills, and your limits!

and congrats - you've derailed another thread. Well done!

[waldo]

Yes....I believe in proper scholarship and attributions....

in my post that you've taken extreme 'one-trick pony' exception to, 2 of 3 images I've used/referenced clearly show attribution - NSIDC and PIOMAS

the third... the satellite image; yes - I am remiss! Let me correct a most flagrant deficiency and properly attribute the satellite image as originating from the environmental research CryoSat-2 satellite belonging to the European Space Agency! Sorry to cut into your thunder!

[bush_cheney2004]

nooooo... don't backpedal now - stay loud and proud with your incessant trolling.

Confirmation that you cannot reconcile the constant moaning about "deniers" whilst relying on such data, from the land of "trolls" no less. I am not surprised of course, as American alphabet soup always remains on the 'climate change" menu. As an American taxpayer....I would prefer that you just thanked me and were on your way.

Please encourage your own nation to invest more time and money to gather and analyze such data as Canada is an Arctic nation as well. Walk the talk.

[waldo]

I could understand your obvious over reliance on American sources if you would at least heap as much credit for the American research (compared to what is invested and available from Canada) as you heap U.S. criticism for lack of action on so called 'climate change'.

How do you reconcile this Yankee 'denier' and but rich source of 'data' dichotomy ?

Confirmation that you cannot reconcile the constant moaning about "deniers" whilst relying on such data, from the land of "trolls" no less.

here's the point you'll never get... no one else here cares about your extreme sensitivities and your incessant need to pump your yankee fervour! No... one... cares - well, other than to highlight your one-trick pony show and pressing need to crap upon and derail any/every thread you drive-by.

if nothing else, you should respect and acknowledge others paying homage to U.S. organizations/scientists. What gives more credit to those scientists than to reference their work/research? Do your extreme sensitivities require that the reference be wrapped in the American flag within a mind-numbing USA!, USA!, USA! bleat?

your nonsense/idiocy presumes to present a reconciliation quandary where there certainly isn't one. Apparently, you can't understand there's a difference between recognizing and referencing the active work/research advancing knowledge and the opposite efforts coming from the denier side, whether that reaches directly into the political spectrum, or not. Nope - no quandary, none whatsoever!

and, again... do you actually have anything to contribute to this thread - or will you continue to derail it? Haven't you fed your pony enough yet?

[bush_cheney2004]

here's the point you'll never get... no one else here cares about your extreme sensitivities and your incessant need to pump your yankee fervour! No... one... cares - well, other than to highlight your one-trick pony show and pressing need to crap upon and derail any/every thread you drive-by.

Clearly you care, and cited such yankee data again for the umpteenth time, whilst refusing to reconcile claims of "Denier !!". This thread is about the changing Arctic, neighbour, and I do wish you would take it more seriously.

if nothing else, you should respect and acknowledge others paying homage to U.S. organizations/scientists. What gives more credit to those scientists than to reference their work/research? Do your extreme sensitivities require that the reference be wrapped in the American flag within a mind-numbing USA!, USA!, USA! bleat?

Only when the same member mocks and derides such nations for lack of action on 'climate change' while having the unmitigated gall to constantly rely on the research and analysis from the very same nation.

your nonsense/idiocy presumes to present a reconciliation quandary where there certainly isn't one. Apparently, you can't understand there's a difference between recognizing and referencing the active work/research advancing knowledge and the opposite efforts coming from the denier side, whether that reaches directly into the political spectrum, or not. Nope - no quandary, none whatsoever!

Reconciliation remains unsatisfied as long as personal and national denier insults continue to be sandwiched between torrents of research investment and resulting data from the same targeted nation, as Canada contributes far, far less.

and, again... do you actually have anything to contribute to this thread - or will you continue to derail it? Haven't you fed your pony enough yet?

This thread is not derailed....you have failed to reconcile the ongoing anti-American dichotomy vis-a-vis the 'changing Arctic' or any other climate change thread. You can begin to make amends by crediting not only U.S. organizations and scientists, but the very nation that makes it possible, no matter how much this may pain you. Thank you.....

Edited March 12, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

This thread is not derailed....you have failed to reconcile the ongoing anti-American dichotomy vis-a-vis the 'changing Arctic' or any other climate change thread. You can begin to make amends by crediting not only U.S, organizations and scientists, but the very nation that makes it possible, no matter how much this may pain you. Thank you.....

bloody hell - how lacking in self-confidence are you? Truly, how sensitive are you?

and again, no - there is no quandary, no dichotomy, no need for reconciliation. This isn't a zero-sum game... or at least it isn't other than in your view!

you want... amends!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGiYEWRzTik

so, again, I take it you have nothing to offer and actually contribute to this thread, hey?

[waldo]

Permafrost - the 'Tipping Time Bomb'

[bush_cheney2004]

bloody hell - how lacking in self-confidence are you? Truly, how sensitive are you?

My meek and good-natured sensitivities are no match for your arrogance and personal attacks.

so, again, I take it you have nothing to offer and actually contribute to this thread, hey?

Obviously I have already contributed to not only this thread (adapt...adapt...adapt), but also to your posts via taxpayer supported research by government and academia in the United States of America. You're welcome, of course.

The main intent of pointing out your longstanding inconsistencies is to demonstrate that data collection in the Arctic, analyses, and actions to adapt and mitigate the unavoidable impacts of such changes are the way to go, far from any cheap and base slur of 'denier'. Please become a champion and change agent in Canada to strive for such investment and action as well....the world is counting on it.

Edited March 12, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[shortlived]

Obviously I have already contributed to not only this thread

(adapt...adapt...adapt), but also to your posts via taxpayer supported

research by government and academia in the United States of America.

You're welcome, of course.

But what is in it for Americans to invent global warming and climate change?

Something doesn't add up.

Edited March 12, 2013 by shortlived

[bush_cheney2004]

But what is in it for Americans to invent global warming and climate change?

Something doesn't add up.

The Americans certainly did not invent 'global warming', but will seek to leverage advantages while mitigating disadvantages. The "changing Arctic" presents a mix of opportunities and challenges.

[waldo]

My meek and good-natured sensitivities are no match for your arrogance and personal attacks.

no - you're not being personally attacked, no matter how hard you're attempting to goad an attack... and then run to the mod(s). Pointing out your self-described "meek and good-natured" sensitivities - asking you to qualify your confidence and sensitivity... these are not attacks. But nice try!

if one emphasized that your continued thread drive-by, trolling, derailing, one-trick pony show was an attack on the board, proper... I trust you wouldn't take that... as a personal attack, hey?

Obviously I have already contributed to not only this thread (adapt...adapt...adapt), but also to your posts via taxpayer supported research by government and academia in the United States of America. You're welcome, of course.

in this thread, you haven't put forward a single post with any content... the entirety of your posts within this thread reflect completely upon you continuing to showcase your sensitivity over the posting of and reference to, American sourced content.

The main intent of pointing out your longstanding inconsistencies is to demonstrate that data collection in the Arctic, analyses, and actions to adapt and mitigate the unavoidable impacts of such changes are the way to go, far from any cheap and base slur of 'denier'. Please become a champion and change agent in Canada to strive for such investment and action as well....the world is counting on it.

no - the term 'denier' is a factual testament to held positions/beliefs... it's a well understood and accepted label within the lexicon. You can claim inconsistency; as I said, I could care less. When you've similarly come forward championing your same charade in the many, many, many other MLW threads, playing it against the many, many, many other MLW members... are you, similarly, pointing out their, as you say, "longstanding inconsistencies"?

so, again... have you anything to actually contribute to this thread?

[waldo]

The Americans certainly did not invent 'global warming'

pardon!!!

[bush_cheney2004]

no - you're not being personally attacked, no matter how hard you're attempting to goad an attack... and then run to the mod(s). Pointing out your self-described "meek and good-natured" sensitivities - asking you to qualify your confidence and sensitivity... these are not attacks. But nice try!

I do not "run to the mods", as that is not the Jesus way. I hope only to win your confidence and begrudging respect by pointing out the obvious inconsistencies for 'denier' slurs and dependence on American data. I recall a similar vicious attack when mentioning Canada's dismal performance as a Kyoto Protocol signatory and ratified nation. Still, I can forgive all of this as it is my nature to do so.

if one emphasized that your continued thread drive-by, trolling, derailing, one-trick pony show was an attack on the board, proper... I trust you wouldn't take that... as a personal attack, hey?

My style irks those who do not wish to be held accountable for the things they post.

in this thread, you haven't put forward a single post with any content... the entirety of your posts within this thread reflect completely upon you continuing to showcase your sensitivity over the posting of and reference to, American sourced content.

Methinks that all along the very nature of the 'American content' belies any claims of 'denier' with respect to the Arctic or any other venue for climate change musicals. Given these obvious facts and your very own actions to highlight the dedicated and prominent research being conducted in the United States of America, I cannot fathom how you can continue to libel and slur the nation or individuals therein.

no - the term 'denier' is a factual testament to held positions/beliefs... it's a well understood and accepted label within the lexicon. You can claim inconsistency; as I said, I could care less. When you've similarly come forward championing your same charade in the many, many, many other MLW threads, playing it against the many, many, many other MLW members... are you, similarly, pointing out their, as you say, "longstanding inconsistencies"?

I seek only to set the record straight with respect to your continued use of the 'denier" slur even as the very nation you cast it upon provides you with copious amounts of research data and analysis, free of charge for the most part (while I gladly pay the taxes.) Your energies would best be spent by amping up the dedication and investment in such things for your own nation, as it has a rather large Arctic footprint, one that will grow deeper as the permafrost melts.

so, again... have you anything to actually contribute to this thread?

Again, and with the greatest respect, I have already contributed and will continue to do so. Together we can face the challenges that a changing Arctic represents, while reaping the rewards from the great opportunities presented as well. God bless you, and God bless Canada !