Global warming computer models confounded as Antarctic sea ice hits new record high

Since you wont answer I will explain it to the rest of the readers.
First you say increased ice in the Antarctic supports global warming. When asked what decreasing ice means in the same scenario you flat out refuse to answer.
Ill explain why. You realize that you want to say it supports global warming but then also realized how asinine it would be to state in this forum, that increased ice means global warming then state decreased ice also means global warming. You also realize how asinine it would be to state increasing ice means global warming but decreasing ice doesn't. Yes in the painted corner you are sitting in I would dodge as well and attempt to change the subject by asking another question.

 

You didn't prove anything by an article posing an opinion that is even disagreed with in the article. You also have totally ignored what you were trying to disprove, the OP, when you have been shown the IPCC information that proves the OP.

 

LOL - nice try but no cigar. All you are doing is trying to create a scenario that has no meaning. There is no reduction in sea ice in the southern hemisphere but somehow you need to ask the question. Or maybe you are trying to compare ice formation in the northern hemisphere to what is happening in the south. That pretty much means you are geographically challenges as much as you are with science.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure thats the answer, but back to the topic at hand. Why am I asking the question I am, and more importantly why have you proven incapable of answering it?

 

Why are you deflecting with a question that has nothing to do with the OP, the topic at hand? You have been proven wrong so try and deal with it.

 

How do you know the question has nothing to do with the OP unless you answer it?

 

To use a progressives phrase, "What difference does it make." You were wrong so your question is irrelevant.

 

I asked you a very specific question. Since you know what increased ice in the Antarctic means then by default you know what decreased ice would mean. Are you going to tell us what your same science says about that or not? Do you scientists really not know what the answer to that question is? Ive just exposed your science as a joke with one simple question that you originated.

 

It's obvious they are looking for a pretext to tax and "regulate" everything in existence, and that CO2 emissions, which they often broadly define as "carbon emissions", are the perfect Trojan horse.

 

Computer models are used to apply science, which I think is different than practicing science itself.

 

Dark energy?

 

Lol, every year for the last decade they have made these claims. The sea ice is expanding. The land ice is shrinking. Sea ice comes and goes. Land ice takes thousands of years to accumulate. Also land ice increases sea levels, sea ice doesn't. There is nothing baffling about the growth of Antarctic sea ice. They've been explaining it for a very long time.

 

Dr David Evans is an electrical engineer and mathematician, who earned six university degrees over ten years, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering (digital signal processing): PhD. (E.E), M.S. (E.E.), M.S. (Stats) [at Stanford], B.E. (Hons, University Medal), M.A. (Applied Math), B.Sc.[University of Sydney]. His specialty is in Fourier analysis and signal processing. He trained with Professor Ronald Bracewell late of Stanford University.

You mean this quack ain't a "climate scientist"? How are we supposed to take him seriously?

 

We can take him seriously when he provides peer reviewed research that is accepted amongst the scientific community. But you are a libertarian so what majority of intelligent people believe you will be on the opposite side.

 

More consensus guff. Science is not a popularity contest, it is a method.

I know you are but what am I?

 

Actually peer reviewed science determines if the scientific method was followed by fellow scientist. Otherwise anyone could make crap up. But I understand that is a serious dilemma for global warming deniers because their peers would pick their trash science apart.

 

Who's we? It's not a fact. A fact is something we know to be true. What you have stated is an opinion based on other opinions

 

It is a fact actually. Just basic science.

 

Sorry. It's neither a fact nor basic science. The fact is, the earth's climate is cyclical and out of man's control in any way shape or form. If we could control the climate, we would. We can't so we don't.

 

Not at all. CO2 traps heat. We put a lot of CO2 in the air. The science behind that is simple. The question isn't if that increased heat, it's a question of how much. But there is no question in academia that man is increasing heat through it's emissions of gasses.

 

then I suggest that you sit quietly in the dark and try not to breathe.

 

You are increasing something through a gaseous emission, but it's not the warmth of earth's climate/

 

Co2 trapping heat isn't even a question these days. That's basic science.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure it is. It doesn't just disappear.

 

You can continue believing in the false notion that man has caused some kind of climate change, but your false belief doesn't mean it's true.

What I really don't understand is how anyone can actually believe that when no scientific data supports that claim. It's only supported by political policy ideas. The belief in man made climate change suggests that those people suffer from some mental health abnormality of some kind. There's no other explanation for this delusional belief

 

Good job. Two of the articles are about the north pole. One agrees with me............and one is the Daily Mail, the obvious first choice regarding matters of science