The Sun is shutting down , is another LIA coming ?

[Chalnoth]

Sorry its been more then a year or a winter that the S pole has been gaining ice.

Oh, I'd love to see your evidence of this.

From 2007 to 2008 the increase of ice was signiicant in the N polor region. Another lie is about the polar bears BTW they are thriving all over the place.

Not really. The arctic sea ice is tracking the trend line just as well as it's been doing for the past thirty years:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090706_Figure3.png (from Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis)

As for the polar bears, your statements are just pure fantasy. I'd really like to see you back that up with evidence.

 

[Greatcloud]

Oh, I'd love to see your evidence of this.

FOXNews.com - Report: Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News


Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking Watts Up With That?

Not really. The arctic sea ice is tracking the trend line just as well as it's been doing for the past thirty years:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090706_Figure3.png (from Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis)

I think I will wait til this winter to see.

As for the polar bears, your statements are just pure fantasy. I'd really like to see you back that up with evidence.

“My hope is that the projections from these models are wrong, and that sea ice does not recede further,” Kempthorne said a few days later in announcing his decision to list the polar bears as a “threatened” species. “But the best science available to me currently says that this is not likely to happen in the next 45 years.” -Kempthorne (canadian scientist from study on weather to list polar bears as endangered)

In the months since Kempthorne’s decision, global warming skeptics have insisted that the climate change models used by the panel of experts were wrong, that polar bears have survived warming in the past, and that the species can adapt to a life on land by eating goose eggs and berries.

This hysteria is all based on a climate change that hasn't happened yet. I don't think it ever will and right now polar bears are thriving. ECN claims ‘Polar Bears Thriving’ inel

 

[Chalnoth]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/revealed-antarctic-ice-growing-not-shrinking/

If you would actually, um, look at the evidence presented in the articles, it doesn't show a growing ice cap. It shows, at most, steady ice coverage. And it also shows that your statement that ice coverage had grown in the summer is absolutely ludicrous.

Anyway, the primary worry for sea levels right now is not Antarctica, but rather Greenland. Though Greenland doesn't hold nearly as much ice, it is melting at an extremely rapid pace.

“My hope is that the projections from these models are wrong, and that sea ice does not recede further,” Kempthorne said a few days later in announcing his decision to list the polar bears as a “threatened” species. “But the best science available to me currently says that this is not likely to happen in the next 45 years.” -Kempthorne (canadian scientist from study on weather to list polar bears as endangered)

In the months since Kempthorne’s decision, global warming skeptics have insisted that the climate change models used by the panel of experts were wrong, that polar bears have survived warming in the past, and that the species can adapt to a life on land by eating goose eggs and berries.

This hysteria is all based on a climate change that hasn't happened yet. I don't think it ever will and right now polar bears are thriving. ECN claims ‘Polar Bears Thriving’ inel

Oh, right, so you're going to believe the word of somebody from The Heartland Institute? Seriously?

There is no evidence of increasing numbers of polar bears presented in that blog post, or in the one it links to. Just the word of somebody from a conservative think tank.

 

[Greatcloud]

Your putting words in my mouth I never infered ice was growing in the summer in Antarica. Ice there is not melting except on the left coast.

Greenland is just fine and remains static show me your sources.

Polor bear pods are all growing currently except for two which is from natural means shortly. I will give you my sources on this if you want.

":^) SOURCES

 

[Chalnoth]

Your putting words in my mouth I never infered ice was growing in the summer in Antarica. Ice there is not melting except on the left coast.

Well, I was just responding to your statement here:

Sorry its been more then a year or a winter that the S pole has been gaining ice.

But by the way, even not answering flippantly to this, none of the content of your posts showed any evidence of gaining ice in the south pole. This, however, indicates that ice has, over all, been lost:
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

By the way, the only growth in antarctic ice has been sea ice. As you have mentioned in the past, sea ice doesn't contribute to sea levels. It's land ice that matters, and that is melting (though slower than Greenland, it appears).

Greenland is just fine and remains static show me your sources.

S

Here are a couple:
BBC NEWS | Europe | Greenland ice-melt 'speeding up'
Greenland's Ice Cap is Melting at a Frighteningly Fast Rate

Polor bear pods are all growing currently except for two which is from natural means shortly. I will give you my sources on this if you want.

What source? Because you've done abysmally at supporting your statements withe vidence so far.

 

[LittleNipper]

Maybe we are catching a lucky break with all the greenhouse gases we have put in the air....

Na...we couldn't be that lucky.

No such thing as luck.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

No such thing as luck.

Just probabilities.

 

[Greatcloud]

Here are some website articles that present evidence about the polar bear still thriving despite melting.


Polar Bears “Thriving as the Arctic Warms” | Meteorology News

ECN claims ‘Polar Bears Thriving’ inel

Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up' - Telegraph

Your articles deal with projected future loses, these discuss actual counted gains. I don't see those gains changing.

 

[Chalnoth]

Here are some website articles that present evidence about the polar bear still thriving despite melting.


Polar Bears “Thriving as the Arctic Warms” | Meteorology News

ECN claims ‘Polar Bears Thriving’ inel

Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up' - Telegraph

Your articles deal with projected future loses, these discuss actual counted gains. I don't see those gains changing.

A growth in the number of polar bears in one small area is of no consequence to the population as a whole.

 

[Greatcloud]

Here this is what you need to read to be informed.


“Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.” http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Taylor/last_stand_of_our_wild_polar_bears

 

[Chalnoth]

Here this is what you need to read to be informed.


“Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.” http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Taylor/last_stand_of_our_wild_polar_bears

Funny that they're talking about polar bear populations near people. Doesn't surprise me much at all that as the polar bears have a harder time living on the ice, they'd end up being driven closer to human populations. This doesn't mean that the population as a whole is not having difficulty.

More detailed studies find significant losses overall:
The Canadian Press: More polar bear populations shrinking from declining sea ice, says new report

 

[Greatcloud]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair/2 ... rming.html

It seems that the media, is loosening it's strangle hold a bit on what is reportable science news. Eventually everyone will soften to the idea that they aren't causing global warming, and some story like this will grab the national attention and send the theory crashing into the dustbin *crash* right next to crack babies. Call it a media tipping point hahahahaha.

 

[Tenka]

Eventually everyone will soften to the idea that they aren't causing global warming, and some story like this will grab the national attention and send the theory crashing into the dustbin *crash* right next to crack babies.

Whatever the case may be it's entirely academic IMO, and doesn't change what we should be doing in the least.
We are still running out of fossil fuels, we are still ruining our environment with irresponsible industrial and agricultural practises, we still have the problem of increasing populations and decreasing resources.

Whether the Heartland Institute and their followers can ever be vindicated on the issue of climate change means nothing.

 

[Chalnoth]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/sciencefair/2 ... rming.html

It seems that the media, is loosening it's strangle hold a bit on what is reportable science news. Eventually everyone will soften to the idea that they aren't causing global warming, and some story like this will grab the national attention and send the theory crashing into the dustbin *crash* right next to crack babies. Call it a media tipping point hahahahaha.

Strangle hold? The media has always been terrible at reporting the science accurately. But this article should scare you even more. Here is the line with the meat in it:

The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change 55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery.

This would seem to indicate that if it happens that our current climate is an analogue of what happened 55 million years ago, then our climate models could be underestimating the warming by a factor of two. They could be wrong, yes. But wrong in which direction?

 

[Greatcloud]

Very interesting take on an insightful article. (slanted) *cough*. Seriously are you going to tell me that the part about what we don't know from 55 million years ago should scare me, we can trace the past and it is unlikely that so great a temperature change will occur.

That article and others like it are appearing and the word is getting out to those who really want to know. Not like you and me, my friend.

":^)

 

[Chalnoth]

Very interesting take on an insightful article. (slanted) *cough*. Seriously are you going to tell me that the part about what we don't know from 55 million years ago should scare me, we can trace the past and it is unlikely that so great a temperature change will occur.

Why not? It's happened before.

That article and others like it are appearing and the word is getting out to those who really want to know. Not like you and me, my friend.

Yes, more articles showing that we should be very, very concerned about what we are doing to the Earth's climate.

 

[Greatcloud]

Here is an article that comes from a respected source questioning AGW.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Sun Also Sets

 

[Chalnoth]

Here is an article that comes from a respected source questioning AGW.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Sun Also Sets

Investor's Business Daily? The same guys who claimed that a place like the UK with its government-run health care wouldn't allow a person like Stephen Hawking to live because of his disability? Respected my foot.

 

[Michael]

Here is an article that comes from a respected source questioning AGW.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Sun Also Sets

I must say Greatcloud, I'm still not sure what this solar cycle might do in terms of it's peak, but without a doubt it's been one of *the* most quiet in recent history (certainly satellite history). Looking at the STEREO and SOHO images today, I don't see any signs of anything changing anytime soon.

 

[Michael]

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf