Forethat

Meanwhile, back in reality:

Quote

In the Antarctic, the rate of ice loss slowed considerably over the month of January. During the month, extent declined 3.19 million square kilometers (1.23 million square miles), which is slower than the 1981 to 2010 average loss of 3.79 million square kilometers (1.46 million square miles).

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

For those of you worried about the emerging requirement to bring your passport when you travel abroad, I've emailed this company and asked for a quote, I'll let you all know when they reply. We might be able to get a group discount, but considering logistical efforts needed to haul an entire passport around Europe I don't expect this to be cheap.

http://www.forwardtrucking.co.uk/

In addition, as I've read several comments on here regarding having to actually SHOW the passport when you enter another country, I've asked for an indicative cost for that as well. As this is a complex matter - if experts on here are to be believed - I might be forced to get in contact with more academically skilled expertise to cope with this complex task. I'll keep you posted. 

25 minutes ago, TheDark said:

Whenever you enter a foreign country, yes, you need to have a passport to do so. In the future, this is a requirement when English passport holders (blue passport holders!), will enter Scotland. 

 

Meanwhile the rest of the EU nationals entering Scotland, will only have to carry their ID-cards. 

 

Borders are borders. 

But the question is how am I going to haul my passport around. GIven that this is a logistical nightmare that requires transportation and manpower I thought you'd be able to provide a few suggestions. Honestly, I'm having doubts now regarding the next trip to Greece - do I really have to carry that passport around?? I probably have to cancel, I'm not sure I have the logistical or physical ability to bring my passport...

Thanks for letting me know.

2 hours ago, TheDark said:

In 2025 people visiting Schengen are from England are required to keep their passports on their necks at all times when visiting Scotland. 

 

Meanwhile all the 28 EU nations (Scotland included), are simply required to carry their EU identity cards in their wallets. 

Oh no!? Are you telling me I have to carry my passport while others only have to carry an ID card? B-y he**, what am I going to do? Should I call a carrier or something? Surely I'm not expected to hurl my passport around, I don't have the luggage for that..?? Container rental perhaps...or what do you suggest??

Damn, every future holiday trip is ruined now when I have to bring a passport...

It's important to point out that being ignorant, incompetent, intellectually disadvantaged and incapable of interpreting facts is by no means a punishable offence.  

28 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Before Copernicus the widely accepted cosmological theory

"The widely accepted cosmological theory"

Ok. 

11 hours ago, bristolboy said:

 

And as I've listed the link twice, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community even back in the 60's and 70's was that greenhouse gases were warming the climate.

No <deleted> Sherlock - in the 17th century the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community was that the earth was flat, and sailors involved in long range ventures often got afraid due to fears of sailing over the edge of the world.

And now it's death by a whole range of apocalyptic and cataclysmic events....we're DOOOMED!

3 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

near all climate scientists...

97%, right...!?

Oh God....I can't take anymore of this....

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. I live near the sea and there's zero significant sea level rise over my lifetime, and recently. That's the Pacific coast BTW.

Perhaps some are reading land subsidence as rising seas. Some even claim Bangkok is going to be affected by rising sea levels when most of us know it's the city is sinking.

There's a letter to the President of the Maldives published on the Spectator blog. I wonder if the numbers have changed over the 10 years since he wrote the letter? If climate alarmists are to be believed, the sea levels will raise up to 8 meters and we're all DOOOOMED!!!

Quote

"The IPCC vision is a rise that by the year 2100 may amount to between 30cm and 50cm. This is based on model calculations. Our figure is a 5cm rise, plus or minus 15cm."

Read the letter in full here:

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2009/12/why-the-maldives-arent-sinking/

After reading posts on this topic for three years it is tiring to see that climate alarmists STILL haven't been able to comprehend the fundamental difference between the concept of acceleration and increase.

40 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

the rate now is the same rate it has been for the past 400 years,

what of it ?

well except that we reached a plateau that is, and some studies even

show a cooling has begun. no doubt that will also cause a

resounding 'hallelujah' we messed up, earth cooling this fast just gotta be mans fault, too. what will the scapegoat be ? my guess the blame will fall on fertilizers, of which co2 can be considered to belong to

The cooling issue is cyclical. In the 70's it was believed that we were being thrown into an ice age. 50 years later it's the opposite. Give it another 40-50 years and we'll be back where we started - threats of an imminent ice age.

And the less intellectually gifted will line up and let the preacher's heeeeeeaaal them all as long as they are willing to pay.

Jeeezus.....it's like a bad episode of Fawlty Towers combined with The Emperor's New Clothes and The Candid Camera.

Fact: The ice will melt whether we like it or not. It has melted before and it will melt again one day. There's nothing we can do about it. We cannot control the climate.

Climate alarmist: "We need to PANIC and we need to pay more carbon tax, otherwise the ice will melt and then we're all DOOOMED!!!" 

On a more serious note, it is quite obvious to people with a mature view on climate change that panic is usually not the preferred state for solving immensely complicated energy- and economic policy issues on a transnational level. 

Climate alarmists: "From 2014 to 2017 sea ice levels declined precipitously. We're DOOOMED!!"

Mature: "2014? You are wrong, the ice levels was at record high 2014. Here's an article to show how wrong you are: https://weather.com/science/environment/news/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-all-time-record-high-nsidc-20141008

Climate alarmists:"Ha!! You reference an article from 2014 to support your claim that Antarctic sea ice is currently at a record high level? We're DOOOMED!!!"

Honestly, we're not getting anywhere with this. 

Fact: Antarctic sea ice extent has grown for several consecutive years.

Climate alarmists: "False!!!  There was a lot more ice 1963. We're <deleted> DOOOMED!!!!"

Fact: Antarctic sea ice extent was at record levels in 2014.

Climate alarmists: "False!!! There would have been A LOT MORE ice if the earth wasn't in a cooling cycle. We're <deleted> DOOOMED!!!!"

Fact: For the third consecutive year, the ice levels in February are greater than previous year, showing that the volume of sea ice in February is increasing.

Climate alarmists: "False!!! The ice levels in September 1963 was lower. The Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically and we don’t know WHY!?? We're <deleted> DOOOMED!!!!"

In 20 years this will have been forgotten. Most likely, the increased ice levels and cooler climate will be blamed on CO2 emissions and global warming. 

"You should have paid the carbon tax to avoid the greenhouse gas effect, that way we would have avoided the global cooling. Now we're <deleted> DOOOMED!!!!"

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I take it you are referring to fossil fuels.

No, I am not.

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The search was over ages ago. Hydrogen is the way to go, and if all the money used on battery powered cars had been used to perfect hydrogen in cars we'd be using that now.

Batteries are a dead end because of limited raw materials, limited life and pollution.

Totally. Hydrogen Fuel Cells will eventually take over. A shame development of that technology got distracted and interrupted by one of the most environmentally damaging technologies there is.

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

I cited September because that's generally the month where the period of maximum sea ice extent occurs for the Antarctic. Occasionally it's October. You claimed first that sea ice extent was at record levels, then you claimed it was #2. 

Anyway, if it's current conditions you want,  the closest I can come is for January 2020. This is from the report:

"By the end of the month, extent was nearly within the interquartile range of the median extent, though still below average. January is the month of the second largest seasonal ice loss, behind December, as the Antarctic extent approaches its annual minimum, usually in February."

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

"below average" doesn't exactly jibe with anything close to record setting, does it? Or are you claiming that data you possess from February readings is going to show something vastly different? Got some data to share with us?

Give it up already. You're wrong. Live with it.

 

Of course I'm wrong if you keep moving the goalpost (the trait climate alarmist).

You wrote:

Quote

Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically and we don’t know why

But the funny thing is that it is NOT declining. What's even funnier is that you then post a picture of a diagram that shows exactly my point (thanks for that!!). 

The sea ice extent in antarctica is higher now (not in September, but NOW) than it was 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2016. Looks like it is more or less at the same level as 2016 now to be fair.

Diagram from https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

And to address my initial point: why is this data removed from the diagram posted on NSIDCs front page? Why is it that the current ice level is always presented in charts that makes it look like the level is the lowest EVER? It isn't, the sea ice extent is growing.

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

False.

Antarctic sea ice extent reached 18.2 million km² on average in September 2019, which was 0.2 million km² (or about 0.9%) below the 1981-2010 average for September. Even though many of the months leading up to September 2019 have shown large negative sea ice anomalies overall, the September 2019 sea ice extent is relatively close to average, ranking 15^th lowest in our 41-year record. September is usually the month when Antarctic sea ice cover reaches its annual maximum extent.

https://sunshinehours.net/2020/02/23/sea-ice-extent-global-antarctic-and-arctic-day-53-2020/

And just in case you're wondering, no miraculous surge of sea ice extent occurred later to make 2019 #2.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent

And....THERE you switched from discussing the current conditions, subject of the discussion, and instead decided to bring the data for September into scope.

Ok. Interesting debating technique, but whatever floats your boat...

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Here's what you wrote in post #284:

"Meanwhile, in the real world, the levels of Sea Ice in Antarctica are at the highest level in the last 30-40 years."

That's false. Stop trying to deny that's what you claimed.

So it is not the highest level in the 30-40 years, it is the second highest (the only exception being 2014)...?

OK, you make a good point.

Jeezus....

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I read no further than the date of the article: 2014-10-09.

Did you read this?

A 40-y record reveals gradual Antarctic sea ice increases followed by decreases at rates far exceeding the rates seen in the Arctic

A newly completed 40-y record of satellite observations is used to quantify changes in Antarctic sea ice coverage since the late 1970s. Sea ice spreads over vast areas and has major impacts on the rest of the climate system, reflecting solar radiation and restricting ocean/atmosphere exchanges. The satellite record reveals that a gradual, decades-long overall increase in Antarctic sea ice extents reversed in 2014, with subsequent rates of decrease in 2014–2017 far exceeding the more widely publicized decay rates experienced in the Arctic. The rapid decreases reduced the Antarctic sea ice extents to their lowest values in the 40-y record, both on a yearly average basis (record low in 2017) and on a monthly basis (record low in February 2017).

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/29/14414

Anyway, your claim isn't reconcilable with the graph you produced earlier. That should have told you something.

 

I think you're missing my point. You said it IS declining, but it isn't. You're wrong. Just admit it. 

I say it WAS declining. It's not declining anymore - it's increasing. 2018 and 2019 levels are higher than the years 2012-2017. The question is why NSIDC removed that data from the charts? Was it removed only because it would look suspicious if the sea ice extent has increased the last years? Why did they remove the data?? A mystery to me.

You can compare with the chart for the Arctic sea ice extent, which shows the data for the years 2012-2017. I should also point out that in Oct-Nov every left-winged newsagency reported that the ice was now at record low, but a couple of months later they went mum when the ice was higher than the past 5-6 years. My best guess is that if the ice continues to grow they will remove the 2012-2017 on the Arctic sea ice extent chart as well.

Image from http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Really? Not according to the graph you've posted. According to that sea ice levels have been mostly below the 1981-2010 median.

And from 2014 to 2017 sea ice levels declined precipitously.

Antarctic sea ice is declining dramatically and we don’t know why

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2208180-antarctic-sea-ice-is-declining-dramatically-and-we-dont-know-why/#ixzz6EsdEbTdg

 

As for some believe one way and some believe another,  the sum of knowledgeable someones  is far greater on one side of the issue than the other.

 

That said, I do agree with you that for reasons of pollution alone, stopping the burning of fossil fuel is a good idea. As the IMF points out, about 6 percent of the world's GDP consists of subsidies to fossil fuels. Much of that subsidy being in the form of medical care and lost productivity due to fossil fuel pollution.

 

 

It's not declining dramatically. The data shows that the volume of sea ice is increasing. From 2014 the levels declined? Here's from NSIDC 2014:

Quote

It’s official: Antarctic sea ice hit its annual winter maximum on Sept. 22, reaching a record area of 7.76 million square miles, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) announced Tuesday. That maximum extent was 595,000 square miles above the 1981-2010 average extent, the NSIDC said in a statement, and broke the consecutive records set in 2012 and 2013.

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-all-time-record-high-nsidc-20141008

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Erm....

 

Adaptation of species takes thousands of years, if not hundreds of thousands of years.

 

Humans have been burning fossil fossil fuels on an industrial scale and thus releasing CO2 stored in fossilized fuels over a period of a couple of hundred years ( the rate of burning fossil fuels/releasing fossilized CO2 has accelerated dramatically over the last 50 years).

 

So humans burning fossil fuels creating changes to the environment at a rate faster than other species can adapt.

 

Its not too hard to understand.

 

Well, I guess that is the issue - some believe that mans burning of fossil fuels creates changes to the environment at a speed that will cause mass extinction, while others claim that the changes are minute and that CO2 levels are only responsible for a small percentage of the increase.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the levels of Sea Ice in Antarctica are at the highest level in the last 30-40 years. I wonder if that is the reason NSIDC no longer plots the data for the years 2012-2018 in their diagrams....? But I'm confident there's a way to measure that it is melting somewhere, you simply have to be creative in the way you measure.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

I like the idea of not polluting the environment though, that in itself should be an incentive to stop doing it.

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Wow! If anybody has ever demonstrated an ignorance of how evolution works it's you here. Through natural selection organisms adapt to changing conditions. They don't remember or retain adaptations to what conditions were hundreds of millions of years ago. This is utter nonsense.

So what YOU are saying is that the ability to adapt through natural selection is an ability that is now lost, and if the conditions will change to what they were hundreds of million years ago they wont adapt?

Did you say utter nonsense?

4 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

whatever the chemical equilibrium that corresponds to in the seas,

mmol/L (Millimole per liter)...?

2 minutes ago, david555 said:

but English speaking no problem as long it is to Americans ????...

Probably a mile OT, but that typically fails, IMO...