Greenland's ice sheet just lost 11 billion tons of ice -- in one day

Don't forget to thank them for all those muddle headed progeny too. Seems they couldn't do anything right.

Waghams predicting an ice-free arctic is not new news.

He has been saying it is imminent his entire career. There is a name for people like that...

John

I am waiting for ice free Arctic Ocean i.e. that we finally get rid of multi-year ice that seems to cause excitement in alarmists.

When the ice melts every summer, we can start betting when the first new ice appears and about the date in the summer, when all ice has gone.

If the ice is gone this year at mid-September, that is about the last possible date, since the sun sets permanently on the pole at end of September.

Why are you reading 'alarmist mewspapers', then? It's annual averages that have the serious thinkers concerned, it's THOSE record temperatures that deserve discussion.

Never toss in dreck reports with the good stuff, because guilt by association is not an acceptible premises-and-logic argument. It's just a lame excuse for an argument.

Nonsense, the monitored stations are well mapped, and crosscheck well with other (satellite) sources. Daily excursions might be different in multiple places, but that's why you wabt scattered stations. You don't concentrate survey readings on concrete just because news reports feature 'em.

So? That's not inaccuracy, it's airflow pushing up a mountain (adiabatic cooling, the familiar expanding-gas refrigeration effect). Is it intended to be an argument? Is it intended to be a lame excuse for an argument?

Prediction is NEVER news. Recent, or current, reports are news. Prediciton happens in advance, with healthy error margins. Wadhams is probably right; arctic exploration has been very heated this last decade, too.

Getting permanently rid of the Arctic ice also has the added advantage of permitting shorter sea routes between China and Europe, thereby cutting carbon emissions from freighters and tankers. :)

Alas, it also increases carbon emissions from warships in the now-competitive Alaska/Canada/Russia/Norway economic zones. Ships never used to have to patrol those waters, though nuclear subs did excursions from time to time.

And it keeps greenie climate-change cruise ships from getting stuck in the ice.

John Doe wrote in news:qiahd4$j3e$1 @dont-email.me:

Without a proper Usenet referenced post quote included, your post is meaningless... to everyone. Not a full post quote... just the part you are replying to.

You are so hep on looking at the message headers.

Hey... boy! Why don't you try reading up on Usenet posting conventions, because you still have yet to hit the mark.

And let us know when you become a scientist.

The best he could do would be to tell us when he'd thought that he'd become a scientist, which wouldn't be all that helpful.

Somebody with an actual chance of becoming a scientist would tell us why he thought that he'd become a scientist if and when he thought that he'd become a scientist, but John Doe isn't that kind of informant.

ntl/index.html

Climate change denialist like to cherry pick data. I remember once when a guy who was a big wig at the weather channel made a video to show how recen t temperatures had leveled off. But he had done no analysis on the data, h e simply took the temperature curve and drew a level line on it without any indication that line had anything to do with the data! If you looked care fully, you could see an increasing trend in the data. I'm sure a linear re gression would have shown a level line was not the right data.

Here is a temperature graph I like.

I think it shows the problem very clearly.

Rick C wrote in news:88d67f45-9332- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Pretty good.

I like the little historical timeline reference too.

I think that is the point. He takes you on a trip of time and only at the very end does anything significant happen to the temperature... significant in the sense of clearly an aberration compared to any other global temperature change.