Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Thursday, December 02, 2010

What's Up with Global Warming?

-
Antartica-Highest September snowfall on record And third largest sea-ice extent:
17 Oct 10 - "Antarctic sea ice reached its annual maximum in September. September 2010 was the third largest sea ice extent on record (2.3 percent above average), behind 2006 (largest) and 2007 (second largest).

"According to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, the continent received an average precipitation of 1.91 inches (48.4 mm) during September — nearly double the 1961–1990 average and the highest September value on record.

"Keep in mind that at an average temperature of -60 C extra precipitation is SNOW. And a new record. But don’t expect the MSM (mainstream media) to report it."

The Artic ice volume is up too. Oceans are cooler. Hurricane seasons have not been as brutal as predicted.

So what's up- is our climate getting warmer or not?

posted by Joe G @ 7:35 AM  

30 Comments:

  • At 10:27 AM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    Yes moron, the overall global temperature average is rising exactly as predicted. That doesn't mean temperatures are uniformly rising everywhere. The rising temperatures have caused critical shifts in ocean currents and wind patterns which alters local climates - some cooler, but most warmer.

    Given your penchant for getting your 'scientific' info from wingnut anti-science sites, it's not surprising you don't understand climate change either.

     

  • At 10:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    thortrad:
    the overall global temperature average is rising exactly as predicted.

    Any evidence for that?

    Given your penchant for lying and talking out of your ass, it's not surprising that you would just spew some bald assertion as if that refutes the scientific data that shows the ice is not retreating and the hurricane seasons are not getting worse.

    And we STILL aren't as warm as we used to be.

    The climate changes regardless of humans.

     

  • At 11:53 AM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    T: "the overall global temperature average is rising exactly as predicted."

    Any evidence for that?

    Yes moron. There's tons of confirming data, like all that here on the NASA-GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) site

    NASA-GISS

     

  • At 12:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So the temp is still going up but the ice cover is getting more and more extensive?

    What's wrong with that picture?

     

  • At 1:13 PM, Blogger Ghostrider said…

    So the temp is still going up but the ice cover is getting more and more extensive?

    One localized part of the globe has a short term increase in ice surface area, not volume. If you read the literature you'll see the ice is still melting from below and is much thinner than previously measured. That's due to warming temperature driven changes in ocean currents, as was already explained

    What's wrong with that picture?

    Same thing that's wrong every time you start preaching about science. You're an ignorant idiot who doesn't bother to read or learn about the big picture of what's actually happening. Then you try to cover for your lack of knowledge with threats and insults.

    But you are fun to laugh at, especially when that 13 year old girl kicked your ass with her science acumen.

     

  • At 2:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So we have more bald assertions followed by an outright lie.

    Life is good in evotard land...

     

  • At 3:20 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Antarctic ice growing:

    "Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Allison said.

    Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Center shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years.

     

  • At 4:03 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Why don't you use cite actual data? http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

    BTW, planning to take up my challenge (posted on AtBC)? Or are you . . . chicken?

     

  • At 4:08 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    In case you find the reading difficult, let me explain: East Antarctica may be bigger geographically but it's a "high, cold desert." West Antarctica is smaller geographically but, because it's like "a frozen Hawaii, with penguins," it has a lot more ice. That's why "The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002."

    Is that so hard to understand?

     

  • At 4:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi Dave!

    Why can't you properly post a link?

    The shit you posted didn't bring me to any data.

    And no I haven't read your challenge as I won't get back to that spetic tank until next week.

    Are you too chicken to challenge me to my face?

     

  • At 4:27 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    East Antarctic ice growth offsets the west's loss:

    Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

    And you know why the west's ice gets pushed out and then falls off? Because there is more being made behind it and pushing it out to sea where it just hangs in the water until the weight just forces it to break off.

     

  • At 4:27 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Here is the link.

    And of course I'm too chicken to challenge you to your face. I have no doubt that you'd beat the crap out of me, because that's the kind of person you are. Your bluster is a compensation for your intellectual (cough cough) shortcomings.

     

  • At 4:38 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    In a typical misrepresentation, the article you just cited says that "the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded." But area and volume are different things.

    Dr. Allison is one scientist, and his estimates are contested. And even Dr. Allison, like the vast majority of research scientists in the field, believes in anthropogenic global warming.

     

  • At 4:44 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dave:
    But area and volume are different things.

    Typical misrepresentation- they also said it is thicker.

    And then there are reports of under-ice volcanic activity. But let's blame it all on man because we are libertards...

     

  • At 4:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So what is your sorry-ass challenge?

     

  • At 4:51 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Dr. Allison may think it's thicker, but he doesn't know. Of course, nobody knows for sure, but most data -- and what's happening in Greenland -- suggest that Antarctic ice is destabilizing now or will destabilize fast.

    My challenge is here. I doubt you'll agree, but someone has to give you a chance to be reasonable, even if you won't give yourself one.

     

  • At 4:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    real facts on antarctic ice:

    As of April 2009, sea surface temperatures surrounding
    Antarctica are mostly colder than average.
    (Image: NOAA)

    As of May 2009, sea ice surrounding Antarctica is
    about 1.0 million square kilometers greater than average.
    (Image: University of Illinois)

     

  • At 4:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dave,

    This blog (not this thread) is an answer to your "challenge".

    Also your "challenge" contains an equivocation.

    YOUR paper needs to explain why blind, undirected chemical processes are the better explanation and you need to provide actual data that demonstrates such processes can construct a functional multi-part system.

    As for the thickness of the ice sheet- they drilled and measured it Dave.

     

  • At 4:59 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Hilarious, Joe. The paragraph beginning "What about the ice mass of Antarctica" talks entirely about the area of sea ice, which is not a measure of mass.

     

  • At 5:01 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Where on this blog have you met that challenge? I haven't seen a reasonable explanation of your views, much less one without name-calling.

     

  • At 5:01 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dave:
    The paragraph beginning "What about the ice mass of Antarctica" talks entirely about the area of sea ice, which is not a measure of mass.

    Sea ice has mass Dave. Also they explained the reasoning- if the sea ice is greater then it is a sure sign it is colder. And if it is colder then the warmth isn't melting the ice.

    Under-ice volcanic activity- look it up.

     

  • At 5:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Many blog entries Dave, starting with January 9, 2006, which is basically the same post I used for a similar challenge on another forum.

     

  • At 5:10 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    My challenge contained no equivocation. It simply asked each of us to provide a reasonable explanation, without name-calling, of why you think ID, and I think evolution, provides a good scientific explanation of life. The terms are exactly the same for each of us. I'm not going to agree to a challenge where you have to meet one standard and I have to meet another.

    You may think you've met the challenge on this blog, but if so, you've never done so in a single post. To get your reasoning, one has to wade through many posts which are nothing but insults. Try to put a solid argument in one place without name-calling.

     

  • At 5:11 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    O for crying out loud, Joe:

    "about 1.0 million square kilometers greater than average"

    -- SQUARE kilometers. That's area.

    -- CUBIC kilometers would be volume, and roughly proportional to mass.

     

  • At 5:14 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dave:
    My challenge contained no equivocation.

    Yes, it did. Ya see dave, "evolution" is not being debated (ID is not anti-evolution).

    So when ypu said:

    "If you agree, I will write an explanation, in my own words and without name-calling, of why I think evolution is a good scientific explanation of life."

    That is a bullshit equivocation

    Dave:
    You may think you've met the challenge on this blog, but if so, you've never done so in a single post.

    Strange how I just provided a link to my doing that very thing.

     

  • At 5:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dave:
    O for crying out loud, Joe:

    "about 1.0 million square kilometers greater than average"

    -- SQUARE kilometers. That's area.

    -- CUBIC kilometers would be volume, and roughly proportional to mass.

    They drilled the ice and measured its thickness- did you read the OP?

     

  • At 5:23 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    Is this what you mean?

    "Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years."

    They drilled and measured in East Antarctica, where the ice is thin. None of your references talk about drilling in West Antarctica, where the ice mass is thick.

     

  • At 5:26 PM, Blogger Hermagoras said…

    I'll be happy to stipulate that my essay explains why I think that non-teleological evolution is the best scientific explanation of life. I'll read your post carefully and see if it meets the criteria I set out.

     

  • At 5:29 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dave:
    They drilled and measured in East Antarctica, where the ice is thin.

    It's getting thicker.

     

  • At 5:31 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Dave:
    I'll read your post carefully and see if it meets the criteria I set out.

    I can definitely refine that post- my point is just that what you asked for has already been done.

    As for your paper you need to produce some positive evidence that non-telic processes can construct a functional multi-part system- or at least some positive evidence other than attacking ID.

    And if you can do that you will be doing far more than any scientist has ever accomplished...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home