For the most part, I just can't be feched to dig up facts and post links to prove something that's so obvious.  I'm too fechen lazy for one thing, and secondly, I only visit a limited handful of sites these days to find shit out.  Nope, I simply don't wanna suffer information overload and get confused. 

Yeah, that happens at my age, being told 2 or 3 things and getting overwhelmed cos the brain don't multitask anymore. 

Quoting psychoak,

reply 2650

I've always responded with facts, even when ridiculing someone.  After all, when you call an idiot an idiot, you're still stating a fact.

 

This got me banned before, if I remember right...

Technically it's an opinion, not a fact.

Facts are determined by [at worst] popular opinion, and [at best] scientific analysis/testing.

"calling an idiot an idiot" has a pre-judgement/presumption of truth without verification....

 Now, if there were a poll gathering popular opinion of whether someone was an idiot or not...and the results came in the majority as 'yes' it's still only a popular opinion, really.....and that's a fact...

Well, apparently, these days facts are indeed determined by popular opinion, but that's just because people are, as a factually accurate description, idiots.  In the real world, where everyone resides but few live, facts are those things which are found to be true by observation or experience.

This would be a case of saying something hilariously dumb in response to something hilariously dumb.  Ice floating on water is a simple matter of water displacement, the Archimedes principle, specifically.  Ice, being a frozen mixture of water and the various elements contained within it, takes up more space than said water on account of it's properties when frozen, and is thus less dense.  The height at which it rides is determined by the point at which it's taking up the same space as it would in liquid form, as it still weighs the same amount when frozen.  Floating ice does indeed already occupy all the space it's going to in the ocean and finding this claim extraordinary would be extraordinarily dense.  However, the Antarctic ice is primarily on land, as Antarctica is a continent, and is thus not floating to begin with.  Only the sea ice, which is almost entirely what's been melting, is indeed not raising sea levels on account of it already doing that whole water displacement bit.

Now, if the land ice starts melting off, we'd see extensive sea level rise, but this is impossible.  Once the sea ice is gone, the ocean currents slow to a crawl and the poles freeze up hard, returning the sea ice and restarting the cycle.  It would take a radical change in temperature to have a significant melt, one not born out by facts, only observably falsified data.

I do have my facts right, you are just a brainwashed moron.  It's 8th grade science.  That ice is already in the water.  It is displacing all the water it is ever going to displace no matter what form it is in.  You have just been brainwashed and are no longer in touch with reality.  I love how you immediately draped yourself in science for the rest of your long, babbling post, when you don't understand simple 8th grade science.  You people are so amazingly ignorant and stupid I just don't even have words to describe it.  Wow.

I never said anything about ice on land, we are talking about the north pole.  No wonder you don't understand simple 8th grade science, you can't read.

Your kind are dangerous.  I'll refrain from calling you the things you have earned and deserved to be called for the sake of the forum rules, but you and your kind are dangerously ignorant.  You represent a danger to civilization, you are an enemy of civilization.  Merely calling you names really isn't going far enough.

A rather overpopulated Earth with a dominant species pumping all sorts of wonderful stuff into the atmosphere, while getting rid of most of the trees at the same time, tend to bring more recent weather variations into the ancient mix. Of course we have had a varied and interesting climatic past, from a drought ending the Akkadian Empire, to the medieval "little Ice Age" that made it easier to cross a lot of water without bringing out a boat, given the appropriate geographical considerations.

Nothing truly exclude the impact you get from numerous energy hungry civilizations though. The planet is ultimately a fairly closed and limited resource, and we are burning the candle at the available ends, and then some. To believe we are getting out of this "Scot Free", is a nice thought though. It truly is. But not with the way the world is set up. We have caused the recent weather variations, because quite frankly, it is impossible to not have had an impact at this stage.

Alas, the flogging may have killed the horse, but the gullibility of mankind will kill me...

There isn't anything unusual about the current weather around the world.  It has been, quite depressingly, unusually inactive by recorded history's standards.  There aren't loads of hurricanes, typhoons, or hurricanes and typhoons in places they shouldn't be.  There aren't abnormally high numbers of tornadoes, tornadoes in places they shouldn't be, or other overly severe thunderstorm impacts.  There aren't more droughts either, no scorching summers of doom that leave people starving by the thousands year after year.

There are less.  In the US, major hurricane strikes are at an all time low, detected EF1+ tornadoes, despite vastly better detection capabilities, are less common than they were in the 70's.  Ef3+ tornadoes are at the lowest levels since they started recording in the 50's.  The doom and gloom about how terrible our weather has been the last couple decades is entirely manufactured bullshit.  It's not just the US either, that increasing drought the world is supposedly going through?  It doesn't exist, soil moisture levels are in long term improvement over past centuries.  The claims that we're going to end up a dry dust ball are just pure bullshit.

There are, however, multiple 24 hour news channels with nothing better to do than sensationalize every little bit of piss and wind they can find.

Except that when it rains my roof leaks.  Me thinks these climate change fanatics have diluted it so it can get through the cracks easier.

Seriously, though, you are quite correct!  The world's weather hasn't altered dramatically at all, though the climate change fanatics will try to say that storms and droughts, etc, have become more severe.   That's not what I'm seeing, though.

In January 1974, Australia had its worst cyclone on record.  It hit Darwin with such devastating force the whole town was pretty much flattened.  There have been powerful cyclones to hit since then, but none as powerful as that.  Also, Brisbane went through a devastating flood in January of that year.  It was the worst flood on record and the entire city was inundated, as were suburbs for as far as the eye could see.  There have been devastating floods since, but none as severe as the flood of 1974.

We're also told the climate is warming at an alarming rate, and while there have been some hot days here and there of late, I recall years when hot days came in lots of weeks, even months at a time.  Due to a medical condition I suffer with the heat more than most, yet I suffer no more with it now than I did 20 - 30 years ago.

There is an agenda with this global warming/climate change bullshit.... and it's NOT about saving the planet.

Perhaps locally, like over cities such as Los Angeles and Beijing, but the planet is such a huge expanse that mankind is but a speck on it.  The atmosphere is an even greater expanse, and mankind is even more insignificant in terms of size... with an even lesser ability to significantly alter it.  Now this isn't to say that mankind shouldn't clean up its act, far from it, but let's be honest about it and not make it about financial gain for the powers that be, both political and corporate.  If these bastards actually cared about the planet, why didn't they start implementing laws and cleaner manufacturing practices decades ago?

The answer is simple!  Money, money and more money!   In other words, they simply didn't care.... well not until some bright spark came up with how there's more money [taxes and increased manufacturing costs] to be made from "let's pretend there's global warming and hike up the price of everything to 'so-say' remedy the situation".  Fact is, governments around the globe are still signing off on pollution with large industrial estates getting easy approval, so there's no governance or self-regulation with regard to pollution... and then there's the mining and drilling for oil, both of which contribute greatly to pollution, and both attracting tax dollars.

Put bluntly, I don't trust government [don't care whose it is] to resolve the situation.  Nor do I trust corporations to self regulate... not while there's greater profit in doing exactly as they are.  Carbon taxes and the like, they're NOT going to remedy anything.  No, they will serve only to make politicians fatter and wealthier, which is not what the planet needs right now.  There's too many rotund politicians as it is.

They're micro quakes, we get them by the thousands every year, it's normal.

The Denmark Meteorological Institute has detailed Arctic sea ice mapping data going back to 1893.  Our satellite records, which is all we use, for what I find to be obvious reasons, starts in 1979.  A cold year in a long run of cold years.  Even the warmists will admit that the 70's were a downward trend in temperature.  Those relics of the past?  They show two preceeding meltdowns in the arctic circle.  Neither quite as severe as our recent one, but both substantial, with rapid recoveries.  The ice can come back from it's current extents in just a few years.  We also have numerous pictures of submarines surfacing at the north pole, the earliest in 1959.  The ice is frequently less than 2 feet thick in places. varies greatly as it breaks up and refreezes, and can change radically in the space of a few years.

The modern nonsense is telling us something different, that the recent meltdown was the first time this happened, that all that multi-year ice can't be regained in just a few years.  It's bullshit, nonsensical conjecture at best, outright deception at worst.

This isn't limited to arctic ice either, they talk about the glaciers melting off as if it's a recent thing.  One of the places they like to mention is Glacier Bay in Alaska, how it's lost most of it's glacier in the last few decades.  I found this to be one of the funniest things in years when I heard it.  The ice is retreating for sure, it's almost gone, it's a very long hike to find ice now, and when I was a little kid, we could drive to it.  It was still hilarious though.

Check out this nice Glacier Bay travel guide and you should be able to figure out why the rapid loss of such a precious national resource due to global warming is so amusing to me.

The history of the Earth, even just the extremely recent history, is far more radical than modern politically driven science would have you believe.

Your sarcasm meter is clearly broken.

Ice core readings show that the last interglacial was substantially warmer than the current climate, by as much as 5C, despite a lower CO2 level.  They're not part of a grand conspiracy, they're just selectively ignored whenever they don't fit the political agenda.  You can't get precision from them either, they show temperatures at highly insulated points on the globe that are slow to react to the actual global temperature average.  Just in case you had any hope for your last post, they also show that temperatures are falling, after peaking in the 50's.  I know, I'm cruel.

All you need is a thirty second internet search to discover that Antarctic and Greenland ice core samples both show the Medieval and Minoan warming periods to have been greater than the modern one, as well as showing the modern warming period as having ended already.

This is the same data they say matches local temperature station data, just in case you're trying to figure out why the recent ice core data is wrong...

The planet's on an express elevator to Hell and goin' down!

Please explain the relevance of an ancient civilization that didn't understand land management and built with mud bricks falling to a drought thousands of years ago?

Fuzzy's posts are entertaining, yours lack substance and entertainment, ergo useless.