The only thing going green is the Arctic.

[waldo]

let's put this thread back on track and stop the bullshit trolling

***bump***

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

[bush_cheney2004]

let's put this thread back on track and stop the bullshit trolling

I agree...here is more data from the University of Washington:

[bush_cheney2004]

NOAA web cam shot of the not so frozen north:

[waldo]

let's put this thread back on track and stop the bullshit trolling

.

I agree...here is more data from the University of Washington:

NOAA web cam shot of the not so frozen north:

.

this is you not trolling? I bumped a graphic related to Arctic sea-ice volume loss... I've spoken somewhat at length about sea-ice volume loss. The graphic was a new and unique perspective to this thread - one that also included the latest 2013 data. I bumped it to see if there might be some chance in hell that you'd quit your trolling. Guess not hey!

what do you do? You drop a buoy drift map without offering any comment - none whatsoever. Is there any relevance... any point you're trying to make? Anything you'd like MLW members to take away from that graphic you've linked to?

and... what else do you do? Why, you drop a nothing static image for a webcam that isn't even active for another few months. This has relevance... how?

troll on!

[bush_cheney2004]

.

this is you not trolling? I bumped a graphic related to Arctic sea-ice volume loss... I've spoken somewhat at length about sea-ice volume loss. The graphic was a new and unique perspective to this thread - one that also included the latest 2013 data. I bumped it to see if there might be some chance in hell that you'd quit your trolling. Guess not hey!

Why are you always so unhappy ? I posted relevant data for this topic.....it is not for you to control.

what do you do? You drop a buoy drift map without offering any comment - none whatsoever. Is there any relevance... any point you're trying to make? Anything you'd like MLW members to take away from that graphic you've linked to?

The relevance is obvious.....the buoy map shows us where the data has been / is being collected.

and... what else do you do? Why, you drop a nothing static image for a webcam that isn't even active for another few months. This has relevance... how?

troll on!

The NOAA web cam is used for research. Sorry if you disapprove.

[bush_cheney2004]

More from the NOAA webcam:

[waldo]

Why are you always so unhappy? I posted relevant data for this topic.....it is not for you to control. The relevance is obvious.....the buoy map shows us where the data has been / is being collected.

so... you couldn't be bothered to state what the graphic was even about... it's an irrelevant graphic when provided without any context/meaning. And, it's an incomplete representation, at best... and it's only one of several means of monitoring/data collection being used. You did this purposely to continue your charade.

The NOAA web cam is used for research. Sorry if you disapprove.

so showing a static image from some unknown date has meaning/relevance???

[bush_cheney2004]

so... you couldn't be bothered to state what the graphic was even about... it's an irrelevant graphic when provided without any context/meaning. And, it's an incomplete representation, at best... and it's only one of several means of monitoring/data collection being used. You did this purposely to continue your charade.

I am doing my best to tolerate your continued insults and unjustified umbrage. I realize that climate change can be difficult for some people to grasp at many levels, but I can assure you that everything is going to be OK in the end.

so showing a static image from some unknown date has meaning/relevance???

The meaning and relevance is that my country's NOAA is on the case. We care...we really do.

[waldo]

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.

an animation of the Feb 'big crack event'... more extensive, earlier than 'the norm' and highlighting the vulnerability of the ice-pack given the increasing loss of thicker multi-year ice. The event presents a foreboding to the coming melting season as the ice-cracks freezing over in the interim will be 'brittle', will melt first and, in turn, will present open water facilitating a quicker melting of adjacent ice floes.

[Michael Hardner]

I am doing my best to tolerate your continued insults and unjustified umbrage. I realize that climate change can be difficult for some people to grasp at many levels, but I can assure you that everything is going to be OK in the end.

I think his comment is on the mark, actually. Any diagram or data needs context otherwise it's meaningless. How can that be taken as an insult ?

[bush_cheney2004]

I think his comment is on the mark, actually. Any diagram or data needs context otherwise it's meaningless. How can that be taken as an insult ?

One member here has sought to control and dominate any climate change discussion(s) by bullying those with different sources, views, and conclusions. The attacks and insults have been relentless to the point of driving other members away from the topic.

The buoy diagram in question has self evident context, i.e. here are the locations of the data collection buoys.

[Michael Hardner]

One member here has sought to control and dominate any climate change discussion(s) by bullying those with different sources, views, and conclusions. The attacks and insults have been relentless to the point of driving other members away from the topic.

The buoy diagram in question has self evident context, i.e. here are the locations of the data collection buoys.

Personally, I don't see it - but the mods have been asked for clarification on this, so let's see what comes from that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Personally, I don't see it - but the mods have been asked for clarification on this, so let's see what comes from that.

Swell...the world waits.

[waldo]

One member here has sought to control and dominate any climate change discussion(s) by bullying those with different sources, views, and conclusions. The attacks and insults have been relentless to the point of driving other members away from the topic.

The buoy diagram in question has self evident context, i.e. here are the locations of the data collection buoys.

the only board bullying is yours... and it certainly extends beyond GW/CC discussion to all topics/forums. Any, as you say, 'control and domination' of climate change discussion reflects upon its merits as evident in displayed knowledge and interpreted/referenced sources brought forward by respective members.

I challenged you to raise the level of this thread beyond your incessant trolling. You facetiously agreed by immediately dropping 2 nonsense images without any accompanying verbiage. One image presented no context/meaning... no one would have known what it was... or that it presented nothing more than a minimal subset of the greater whole... or that it reflected upon only one of many, many monitoring/data gathering outlets being utilized. The other image was a nothing static image (undated) from a webcam. Bottom line: both images were purposely chosen and intended to continue your trolling effort to crap on the thread.

[bush_cheney2004]

the only board bullying is yours... and it certainly extends beyond GW/CC discussion to all topics/forums. Any, as you say, 'control and domination' of climate change discussion reflects upon its merits as evident in displayed knowledge and interpreted/referenced sources brought forward by respective members.

See...you're still doing it....trying to lord over what constitutes acceptable discourse on the topic. Other members have called you out on this....I am not the first. Let the mods decide.....

I challenged you.....

Members here are not accountable to you or your stifling and controlling standards intended to shut down any and all contravening views. You may challenge no one but yourself...try it sometime.

[Keepitsimple]

.....I still have him on ignore....

See...you're still doing it....trying to lord over what constitutes acceptable discourse on the topic. Other members have called you out on this....I am not the first. Let the mods decide.....

Members here are not accountable to you or your stifling and controlling standards intended to shut down any and all contravening views. You may challenge no one but yourself...try it sometime.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

.....I still have him on ignore....

yes, clearly... my cutting responses to your (failed) post offerings within this thread speak for themselves, whether it's simply something you're recycling from past MLW threads, or something new you're attempting to, without substantiation, claim.

[waldo]

See...you're still doing it....trying to lord over what constitutes acceptable discourse on the topic. Other members have called you out on this....I am not the first. Let the mods decide.....

no - I've pointed out your extreme sensitivity to anyone drawing upon sources that have any ties (however immediate or distantly remote) to the U.S. - as expressed in your incessant trolling.

Members here are not accountable to you or your stifling and controlling standards intended to shut down any and all contravening views. You may challenge no one but yourself...try it sometime.

I heartily encourage... have encouraged... 'countering views'. Clearly, if you could actually bring those forward, you wouldn't have to troll.

[bush_cheney2004]

The National Science Foundation (U.S.) has established and supports an international effort to profile yearly ice conditions in the Arctic. Remarkably, one of the instrument mooring cables is over 2.5 miles (about 4 kilometers) long.

Edited March 18, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Permafrost is monitored using boreholes in the northern hemisphere. Here is a 2002 map of borehole locations along with permafrost gradient/zone profiles for northern nations.

[Bonam]

One member here has sought to control and dominate any climate change discussion(s) by bullying those with different sources, views, and conclusions. The attacks and insults have been relentless to the point of driving other members away from the topic.

Indeed. While waldo often has valid scientific points and references, his sneering condescension style of "debate" makes it impossible to engage with him. People want to discuss issues without every sentence containing an implied insult, a thinly veiled slur, or a mocking tone, but that is impossible on climate change topics.

[waldo]

no - I respond, in kind. Given your self-proclaimed technical prowess, I appreciate you don't care to be bettered on any discussion level. At some point you'll need to get over it. As for condescending, I'm not the one continually coming down from the mount and declaring, collectively, that MLW members have no technical foundation/expertise to be presuming upon scientific related discussion. No, no... that's not me doing that. Who does that Bonam?

[Bonam]

no - I respond, in kind. Given your self-proclaimed technical prowess, I appreciate you don't care to be bettered on any discussion level. At some point you'll need to get over it. As for condescending, I'm not the one continually coming down from the mount and declaring, collectively, that MLW members have no technical foundation/expertise to be presuming upon scientific related discussion. No, no... that's not me doing that. Who does that Bonam?

On the contrary, I appreciate being "bettered" in discussions on interesting issues, and that certainly happens when debating political and ethical issues here from time to time. If I never learned anything new or encountered a challenging idea; if I believed this forum to be a den of fools, I wouldn't be here.

As for MLW members discussing the details of scientific issues, they are free to do so, but I would be lying if I said I expected MLW debate to produce any new scientific insights. Rehashing arguments from various blogs is about as high as MLW climate change debate has risen, and that is not very high, unlike debate on certain other topics, where the discussion is often at a higher level than it is in society at large. Climate science is a complex technical field, perhaps slightly easier for the layman to understand than relativity or quantum mechanics, but not by enough to make a difference. You don't see people on MLW debating the finer points of problems in the standard model, quantum gravity, or string theory, nor would you expect to. There are better mediums for such discourse. Same for the actual science of climate change.

This is, however, a good place to discuss policy issues related to climate change, and on that topic you have no greater standing than those who know nothing about the science of climate change, because while they may be ignorant of that, they may have greater insights into economics, politics, technology, or society that are just as (if not more) relevant to the policy issue.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Bonam

[waldo]

On the contrary, I appreciate being "bettered" in discussions on interesting issues

you can say it; I ain't buying it... and that's not based simply on our personal exchanges.

As for MLW members discussing the details of scientific issues, they are free to do so, but I would be lying if I said I expected MLW debate to produce any new scientific insights. Rehashing arguments from various blogs is about as high as MLW climate change debate has risen, and that is not very high, unlike debate on certain other topics, where the discussion is often at a higher level than it is in society at large.

interpreted understanding is being put forward. As I said, your condescension has come forward several times in the past when you proceed to chastise members, directly or indirectly, for presuming to put forward information... and interpreted understanding... "lowly blog rehased" information, as you say!

.

Climate science is a complex technical field, perhaps slightly easier for the layman to understand than relativity or quantum mechanics, but not by enough to make a difference. You don't see people on MLW debating the finer points of problems in the standard model, quantum gravity, or string theory, nor would you expect to. There are better mediums for such discourse. Same for the actual science of climate change.

more condescension. You're not a climate scientist... that hasn't stopped you from, occasionally, commenting. Oh my! As I said to you in the past (I believe it was you), some of us have degrees (multiple degrees)... some of us are capable of understanding to varying levels... some of us also recognize our own limitations.

This is, however, a good place to discuss policy issues related to climate change, and on that topic you have no greater standing than those who know nothing about the science of climate change, because while they may be ignorant of that, they may have greater insights into economics, politics, technology, or society that are just as (if not more) relevant to the policy issue.

your engineering blinders are shining bright. By extension, you seem to echo the same diatribe another guy here regularly trots out... that climate scientists have no place in policy discussion/decision making.

[bush_cheney2004]

....This is, however, a good place to discuss policy issues related to climate change, and on that topic you have no greater standing than those who know nothing about the science of climate change, because while they may be ignorant of that, they may have greater insights into economics, politics, technology, or society that are just as (if not more) relevant to the policy issue.

Agreed, as this is a public square for all members to express their views without fear of personal attack or insult. In many ways, the relentless campaign against "deniers" or "adapters" of any stripe reflects the larger national (Canada) and international tactics of the climate change faithful. Critics and alternate views must be silenced, so great is their self anointed and appointed cause to save the Earth !