The only thing going green is the Arctic.

[bush_cheney2004]

like I said, please check your sensitivities at the MLW login. Keep flogging your strawman... are you still ticked over my refuting your per-capita emissions claim?

Thank you...I shall. More disappointed than ticked that equal measure / credit is not given for climate change religion research for the 'denier nation' (that you often cite). But no matter what, America is here for you at every climate change turn. Sorry that Kyoto thingy didn't work out for

you.

.

can you... did you... see Russia from there?

No, but I could sure hear them rascally Rooskies on passive arrays

yes, it was a leap - yours. But thanks for acknowledging it. You think you heard it! So you have no study then, hey... fine, my reference stands, then!

Your American reference ?

But this is interesting... you are now calling it a guess, yet you spoke of it as a definitive... a fact. Not sure what your 35-year old anecdote has to do with... anything.

Yes...it is a definitive guess....nobody can pinpoint the exact moment of net sink/source transition, and it will likely waffle about for years.

.

again, degrees of denial. You appear to favour not accepting consensus attribution, and by so doing, as I stated, you avoid discussing mitigation. Again, you deny the consensus attribution. Have I slurred you by saying this?

No, you have only slurred yourself with such behaviour, as others have indicated.

[waldo]

No, you have only slurred yourself with such behaviour, as others have indicated.

I won't bother responding to the rest of your uber-sensitive, one-trick pony statements. However, continuing with your distracting "slur campaign", as I said, you don't accept the consensus attribution - you deny it. It allows you to also avoid accepting, to deny, mitigation requirements. Would you prefer it if I referred to you as a "Non-Acceptor"?

[bush_cheney2004]

I won't bother responding to the rest of your uber-sensitive, one-trick pony statements. However, continuing with your distracting "slur campaign", as I said, you don't accept the consensus attribution - you deny it. It allows you to also avoid accepting, to deny, mitigation requirements. Would you prefer it if I referred to you as a "Non-Acceptor"?

Do as you please with your slur factory. But there are many people who do not fall into your binary view of this issue. Warming vs. 'anthropogenic warming' is not a hate crime, not even in Canada.

[waldo]

Do as you please with your slur factory. But there are many people who do not fall into your binary view of this issue. Warming vs. 'anthropogenic warming' is not a hate crime, not even in Canada.

my crack research staff advises a quick MLW search on the thread shows you were the first to use the identifier 'denier' in this thread...

a quick tally shows 16 of your posts/replies where you directly used the identifier... I used it directly 7 times (and 2 of those 7 were in-line quotes of my own original usage, replying to your nonsense).

but this is nothing new... this is what 'Non-Acceptors' do when they attempt to distract away from the topic at hand.

[GostHacked]

over-the-top much... you've certainly been here long enough to know this same discussion on labels has occurred several times previously. It's a nonsense distraction. What is your label, du jour?

what's the negative connotation that you personally associate with the label denier, the label understood and accepted within the lexicon?

It would be like calling you a 'truther'.

[GostHacked]

not that this will matter much, but how much does the breaking of the ice by man contribute to the overall decline of the Arctic ice coverage? This warming seems to be welcomed by those in the shipping industry as it would allow quick transfer of items from north America to Europe and Russia.

When ice is one solid piece it will melt at a much slower rate than if it was two pieces or several pieces.

When I freeze water in a glass, it goes up, when I melt it, the water level goes down again. Water expands when frozen into ice. Unlike most other things that contract the colder it gets. So if anything the sea levels would go down if all this ice melted. There is no land mass in the Arctic like there is in Antartica. So it's the ice cube in the world's glass.

[Keepitsimple]

Interesting how Arctic ice is at it's seventh lowest level since 1979.....but the Antarctic is at it's second highest! No one seems to want to talk about that fact though.

Arctic sea ice is nearing its winter maximum and will soon begin its seasonal decline. Ice extent remains below average, in part a result of the persistence of the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation that has kept winter temperatures warmer than average. The Antarctic passed its summer minimum ice extent, reaching the second highest level in the satellite record at this time of year, primarily due to continued higher-than-average ice in the Weddell Sea.

Link: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[bush_cheney2004]

Interesting how Arctic ice is at it's seventh lowest level since 1979.....but the Antarctic is at it's second highest! No one seems to want to talk about that fact though.

Link: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Good point, and noted by some in the blogosphere. There is consensus that the current crop of 'expert' climate change models did not predict or correctly identify this unexpected outcome. So lets just flip the poles and call it a day.

[bush_cheney2004]

my crack research staff advises a quick MLW search on the thread shows you were the first to use the identifier 'denier' in this thread...

And purposely so to great effect.

a quick tally shows 16 of your posts/replies where you directly used the identifier... I used it directly 7 times (and 2 of those 7 were in-line quotes of my own original usage, replying to your nonsense).

But using climate change parlance, my 'denier' use-per-post/replies is lower.

but this is nothing new... this is what 'Non-Acceptors' do when they attempt to distract away from the topic at hand.

The topic is proven, and when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.

[Accountability Now]

Interesting how Arctic ice is at it's seventh lowest level since 1979.....but the Antarctic is at it's second highest! No one seems to want to talk about that fact though.

Link: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

I thought this too but I read the following stating:

Here’s some fodder for the crowd that scoffs at global warming: Antarctic ice has grown more solid over the last 20 years.

So says a video report by BBC science editor David Shukman, who notes that in Antarctica, “The bulk of the ice sheet is largely unchanged, or even getting slightly thicker.”

But before the jeering gets too loud: The overall condition of all polar ice, is, you guessed it, melting. That takes into account considerable thawing in the Arctic, as well as in coastal areas of western Antarctica that buck the continent’s hardening trend.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/global-warming-antarctic-ice-growing-thicker/7056

[waldo]

Interesting how Arctic ice is at it's seventh lowest level since 1979.....but the Antarctic is at it's second highest! No one seems to want to talk about that fact though.

Link: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

it's been talked about several times before on MLW. Of course, you're not distinguishing between Antarctic land ice, ice-sheets, which are melting at an accelerated rate, and Antarctic sea-ice which has shown growth... in certain areas. Equally, you can't be bothered to ask the basic question - why are certain sea-ice areas of the Antarctic growing in size? It's certainly not because it's cooling around Antarctica; rather, surrounding ocean has been warming more than the rest of the world's oceans. What could it be... what could it be, hey Simple?

as I said in my earlier post, as follows, one reason is an increase in the 'westerly circumpolar winds'... which causes increased sea-ice transport resulting in open water areas which freeze.

Of course in the Antarctic there is more ice than normal, no doubt you fine people already knew that.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

but I guess what you didn't know, is that it's the Antarctic Ice Sheet melt... not the Antarctic Sea Ice conditions, that is significant... and the Antarctic Ice Sheets are melting, increasingly. I guess what you didn't know is that the Antarctic Sea Ice regularly melts, every year, almost completely (summer to winter). But yes, there is an increase in the winter-time Antarctic Sea Ice, a small rate increase, one with substantial natural year-to-year variability. More pointedly, per the NSIDC (National Snow Ice Data Center), "the increase is attributed to a changing climate pattern, one associated with a gradual increase in the westerly circumpolar winds; a condition associated with the loss of ozone and increases in greenhouse gases."

.

on edit add:

1. supporting citation in regards to increasing wind affect on Antarctic sea-ice: Why Antarctic Sea Ice Cover Has Increased Under the Effects of Climate Change

2. relatively recent changes in continued Antarctic land ice-sheet mass loss... over the last decade, overall loss of ice in Antarctica has remained at a relatively constant diminishing rate - with data suggesting a 50% increase in Antarctic ice loss (IMBIE)

Edited March 14, 2013 by waldo

[waldo]

So if anything the sea levels would go down if all this ice melted. There is no land mass in the Arctic like there is in Antartica. So it's the ice cube in the world's glass.

rising sea-level concern reflects upon land ice-sheet melt (see Greenland, see Antarctica)

[shortlived]

I read an article only a few days back stating that February this year had the ice breaking up where it broke up in March last year. The ice flows are way thinner, so it is ice volume not ice surface coverage, however ice surface coverage does matter. none the less there is less and less multiyear ice leading the flows to be very brittle.

Its like the difference between having a sapling or an old oak tree. This is more like a tree that has grown and is now decomposing.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/large-fractures-spotted-in-arctic-sea-ice-15728

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674huge_arctic_sea_ice_crack_below-average_ice_extent_for_2013_data_cente/

and for interest

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/thinning-ice-turns-arctic-into-algae-hotspot-15601

and the cashgrab

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/02/17/arctic-ice-melt-is-accelerating-even-in-fall-and-winter/

Edited March 15, 2013 by shortlived

[waldo]

another impact graphic... anyone for an Arctic sea-ice volume 'death-spiral'... any of you recovering ice advocates... anyone, anyone?

[bush_cheney2004]

another impact graphic...

More splendid graphics and links from the 'denier' nation. I wonder if they can be trusted ?

[waldo]

More splendid graphics and links from the 'denier' nation. I wonder if they can be trusted ?

stop trolling... by the by, you were being talked of - over here

[bush_cheney2004]

stop trolling... by the by, you were being talked of - over here

Is that a 'yes' or a 'no' ? The melting Arctic is a serious matter and I just want to be sure we are getting the best research and information. My tax dollars are being spent for such things far beyond anything being spent in Kyoto Fail nations.

[waldo]

do you have anything to contribute - other than trolling... and continuing to front your 'denier nation' strawman?

[bush_cheney2004]

do you have anything to contribute - other than trolling... and continuing to front your 'denier nation' strawman?

I understand why you refuse to reconcile your "denier' slurs against the very nation on which you depend on so much for data and research. My contributions are in the way of hard earned tax dollars, far more than you have contributed.

[waldo]

I understand why you refuse to reconcile your "denier' slurs against the very nation on which you depend on so much for data and research. My contributions are in the way of hard earned tax dollars, far more than you have contributed.

again:

do you have anything to contribute - other than trolling... and continuing to front your 'denier nation' strawman?

[bush_cheney2004]

again:

If you insist, I contribute that while Canada not only completely failed after ratifying the Kyoto Protocol treaty, it also failed to invest in Arctic research and adaptation strategies. For a nation with such a large Arctic footprint, one would expect more.

[waldo]

If you insist, I contribute that while Canada not only completely failed after ratifying the Kyoto Protocol treaty, it also failed to invest in Arctic research and adaptation strategies. For a nation with such a large Arctic footprint, one would expect more.

as I said, now several times, you/your country has absolutely no standing in questioning/challenging any country... any country's participation in Kyoto. Your country abrogated its signed Kyoto Protocol commitment. Your country has no standing. You can keep trolling with references to Kyoto... you/your country have no standing in regards Kyoto.

in the past I've referenced Nrcan work/research in the Arctic... I've also referenced the work of several prominent Canadian scientists doing research in the Arctic. Troll on - its how you roll!

[bush_cheney2004]

as I said, now several times, you/your country has absolutely no standing in questioning/challenging any country... any country's participation in Kyoto. Your country abrogated its signed Kyoto Protocol commitment. Your country has no standing. You can keep trolling with references to Kyoto... you/your country have no standing in regards Kyoto.

...and yet 'my country' had slower percentage growth in emissions than 'your country' which actually ratified the treaty with much fanfare, only to Kyoto Fail. Meanwhile, 'my country' continued to invest in climate change research far beyond anything invested in Canada, and your constant references to American public and private organizations is evidence of this.

in the past I've referenced Nrcan work/research in the Arctic... I've also referenced the work of several prominent Canadian scientists doing research in the Arctic. Troll on - its how you roll!

Yes, you have referenced some Canadian sources, but this is dwarfed by the references you make to your main go to sources. Other members here can quote them by name, so often they are referenced. I know it can be difficult to acknowledge the contributions and efforts of others, even as the colossal Kyoto Fail unfolded, but it is time to move on. The "deniers" have won, and collect more data than you.

Edited March 17, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

I could give a FF about your extreme sensitivities, your incessant need to crap upon and derail any/every thread with your ongoing insistence in hyping all that is America the Great! You continue to troll... you continue to push your trumped up strawman. Get over it. Move on. In looking back at years dated threads, you've been playing this same B.S. charade, post-after-post, thread-after-thread, for years on end. Get over it! Move on!

again:

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!

[bush_cheney2004]

I could give a FF about your extreme sensitivities, your incessant need to crap upon and derail any/every thread with your ongoing insistence in hyping all that is America the Great! You continue to troll... you continue to push your trumped up strawman. Get over it. Move on. In looking back at years dated threads, you've been playing this same B.S. charade, post-after-post, thread-after-thread, for years on end. Get over it! Move on!

I am content in knowing that even as PM Harper wisely put a bullet in your Kyoto Fail nightmare, you have kept the faith with data and research from the 'denier' nation. NASA, and Goddard, and all the rest will still be there for you in your quest for answers as we boldly confront climate change...together.