Originally Posted by Agnotologist

Places do depend on water.

Incorrect.

Originally Posted by Agrotologist

Some are are where people live.

The 'place' still doesn't depend on water.

Originally Posted by Agrotologist

Others are isolated. They are dependent on water for those places to function. The first to support the population; the second for the flora and fauna.

Twist it any way you like.

"Places" do not depend on water

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

The animation covers the amazing change in Arctic Sea Ice since the 17th July, only one short month ago.

Why is it amazing?
Don't you know when Arctic sea ice is at its lowest?

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Ah, a literal minded man. To each his own.

Unlike the blank minded man I'm trying to get through to.

Originally Posted by Earthling

Why is it amazing?
Don't you know when Arctic sea ice is at its lowest?

Ah, God be with the days when climate science deniers were on here nearly 24-7 claiming that Arctic Sea Ice was "recovering". Now we only hear silly bleating.

Some were even shouting the odds and wanting to lay bets on the future. Soon, they said, soon Arctic Sea Ice minima will be back where they were in 2006 and before. It's just a natural fluctuation, they shrieked. How dare you claim otherwise! Anyone who disbelieved was a t*rd, a moron, a shYte-for-brains ... you get the drift. An unpleasant lot, those science deniers.

Now, I am told the arch denier Anthony Watts will not even mention ice on his blog. Neither will Steve Mosher. It is just too embarrassing.

These are the ice trend minima for the last few years. This year's figure will be at 4.0m km^2 but quite likely below. The accelerating trend in decline is clear. Tamino's prediction for 2015 is probably going to happen this year. And that is just the area on top - underneath cubic square miles of ice are melting that will never recover.

The satellite data is universally regarded as superior for what? Mayors and harbor masters need to know exactly what their local situation is. The satellite numbers don't tell them that

Well, duh. Obviously.

You really are that blinkered, aren't you? The notion of a mean global sea level jibes against your ideology, so you imply that it is a worthless metric to estimate, and that only for estimating relative sea level is the data worth using. A convenient, if specious position. But now that it is clear, it is insufferably narrow-minded, stupid and boring. You are easily smart enough to understand this subject, but unfortunately you are far too bellicose in your predelictions. Next topic.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Well, we have had hysterical followers of Lyndon Larouche, and an incoherent glibertarian calling himself Cassandra Syndrome, turn up here occasionally yelling imprecations about genocide.

Incoherent? Is that another one of your subtle diminutive adjectives you use such as "well tamed" for black people when you exposed yourself as a racist here? Racism is not confined to abuse, it also applies to thinking that certain races are inferior to others even though you may be benign to them.

As for calling me incoherent, well I do have 4 times as many likes as you have here, so that infers that either you are even more incoherent than me, or that all the other posters here apart from the "enlightened" eco-fascists are incoherent. I suppose you think you are better than the vast majority of posters here as well as other races, but then again the environmental movement is infested with smug elitists using and abusing sustainability and a duty of care for nature, as a projection of their own latent authoritarian traits.


And as for genocide, your lot are the ones who disgracefully try to point score by using a term synonymous with holocaust denial to negatively label people who simply disagree with you. Shameful and callous modus operandi.

I never bothered much with them

The classic lament of the defeated in denial.

and they did not seem to know what they were talking about either.

Oh like you trying to argue about cognitive and social psychology and economics? Oh which reminds me,

Daniel Kahneman « Climate Sanity

This is the first for a while, ... just remember it the next time you hear climate scientists called "alarmists" and "hysterical".

Well one thing we will never call a Climate Scientist, is you.

Originally Posted by Earthling

Incorrect.The 'place' still doesn't depend on water.Twist it any way you like.

"Places" do not depend on water

Some of these do, especially the 1st, 2nd, 7th, 8th or 9th Definition of place | Collins English Dictionary

place (pleɪs )

Definitions
noun

• [
  1. *]a particular point or part of space or of a surface, esp that occupied by a person or thing
  2. a geographical point, such as a town, city, etc
  3. a position or rank in a sequence or order
  4. an open square lined with houses of a similar type in a city or town
  5. (capital when part of a street name) ⇒ Grosvenor Place
  6. space or room
  7. a house or living quarters
  8. a country house with grounds
  9. any building or area set aside for a specific purpose
  10. a passage in a book, play, film, etc ⇒ to lose one's place
  11. proper or appropriate position or time ⇒ he still thinks a woman's place is in the home
  12. right or original position ⇒ put it back in its place
  13. suitable, appropriate, or customary surroundings (esp in the phrases out of place, in place)
  14. right, prerogative, or duty ⇒ it is your place to give a speech
  15. appointment, position, or job ⇒ a place at college
  16. position, condition, or state ⇒ if I were in your place
  17. a space or seat, as at a dining table
  18. (as modifier) ⇒ place mat
  19. (mathematics) the relative position of a digit in a number See also decimal place
  20. any of the best times in a race
  21. (horse racing)
  22. (British) the first, second, or third position at the finish
  23. (US & Canadian) the first or usually the second position at the finish
  24. (as modifier) ⇒ a place bet
  25. (theatre) one of the three unities See unity (sense 8)
  26. (archaic) an important position, rank, or role

Originally Posted by barry schwarz

Well, duh. Obviously.

You really are that blinkered, aren't you? The notion of a mean global sea level jibes against your ideology, so you imply that it is a worthless metric to estimate, and that only for estimating relative sea level is the data worth using. A convenient, if specious position. But now that it is clear, it is insufferably narrow-minded, stupid and boring. You are easily smart enough to understand this subject, but unfortunately you are far too bellicose in your predelictions. Next topic.

Steve is laughably USA-centred. He actually said "Who wants to know about sea-level rise in mid-ocean?".

The people who live there, Steve, like the inhabitants of Tuvalu, Kiribati, Rodrigues, Mauritius, the Andaman Islands, Tahiti .. My wife was born on an Indian Ocean island, the rate of sea level rise is of more than passing interest to its citizens.

Article here about a research paper on European winters and the solar cycle.

AGU: Link found between cold European winters and solar activity | Watts Up With That?

The current weak cycle may have already peaked.

Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome

Article here about a research paper on European winters and the solar cycle.

AGU: Link found between cold European winters and solar activity | Watts Up With That?

The current weak cycle may have already peaked.

I don't think anyone would disagree with this comment from one of the authors:

“Climate is not ruled by one variable,” said Sirocko. “In fact, it has [at least] five or six variables. Carbon dioxide is certainly one, but solar activity is also one.”

The main point about anthropogenic global warming is the heating of the earth due to human-generated CO2 is now dominating the other factors (like solar variability, volcanic dust, ocean cycles such as ENSO etc.).



As we know, the sun has been relatively quiescent for the past few decades. When it starts to act in concert with warming due to CO2, that can only increase.