Kained

So no one else should be allowed the benefits of modern technology, except those who already have it? Can you not see what you will become if you follow this position to it's eventual outcome? Instead of fighting human nature, it should be nurtured, we should be going forwards as a species; yet your position will only drag us backwards.

This could probably have it's own thread but lets expand on the paradox, during the Martian Noachian epoch (4.6 to 3.5 billion years ago) water also flowed. The problem, like our own discussions will have a much more complex solution than the partisan positions we currently present. Without further information we can't resolve the paradox but i consider it only a paradox because of our limited information. A snooker may not be a snooker if you look to use the indirect approach (cushions) or a third dimension (chipping it over the blocking ball).

Venus as a comparative example is always going to be unbelievably bad. Venus has no known plate tectonics, although it has a high level of volcanic activity, it is unlikely to have a distinct inner core as it has a very weak or no magnetosphere, atmospheric pressure is 93 times that of Earth, it's rotation is longer than it's orbit and finally it has a CO2 rich atmosphere with a thick layer of sulfur dioxide clouds. Venus is given as an example of the run away green house effect but how the example can ignore the other factors affecting Venus is beyond words.

The actual link in the article is to here: Cryosphere Today Homepage From there you can find the Current Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomoly which shows that Antarctic sea-ice this year (2008) reached its highest level since satellite records began in 1979. I can understand that you would want to question the article but you can't do that by making the same mistakes it did. Ignoring the vitriol about man, you understand in the first sentence that reforestation could have helped but in the second sentence you couldn't help but attribute it as a trigger event, something even the authors don't do. And there was me thinking that the Little Ice Age didn't happen, ah but now it does because it can be attributed to man.

Question: The graph for CO2 is built using four different data sources. 2001-1958: South Pole Air Flask Data 1958-1220 B.P.: Law Dome, Antarctica 1220 B.P.- 2302 B.P.: Taylor Dome, Antarctica 2302 B.P.- 414k B.P.: Vostok Ice Core Data According to this source: CO2 vs Temperature Would the 2001 - 1958 period have a greater resolution while the ice cores have a smoothing effect on the CO2 values?

i disagree, over the short time scale it has temporarily been in equilibrium but the carbon cycle has naturally fluctuated over time, otherwise there wouldn't be evidence of increased atmospheric carbon from ice cores. Your bath analogy has no feedback mechanisms either positive or negative while the ice cores show that there are.

The water goes out the overflow pipe, the system wouldn't work over a sustained period if it was so perfectly balanced.

Contrarians? Why is it necessary to engage in insulting behaviour to support your arguments? Let your arguments stand for what they are and if they are right then they will be proven so. If you're ignoring two features of scientific theory which are to be falsifiable and making testable predictions. Global or local? What is your scale of change? Without a definition of scale it is hard to determine something as fact.

Sf in the Real Climate article they don't tackle why Antartica and the surrounding ocean warm, leaving it as an unknown. Neither do they tackle how the process ends. Even with the extra CO2 it only states that it could amplify the warming phase. This seems a little vague?

That was perfect osm.

GW i would really like it if you would provide the links to your articles and not just the text. From the article itself i get the impression that there was a recent change in the weather pattern that had an affect on the Artic ice. The article admits something similar happened in the 30's but tries to minimise the implications. So instead of trying to understand why there was a change in the weather pattern an assumption is made that it is somehow due to the hypothetical Global Warming.

An interesting question, if the Artic is in trouble then the additional shipping won't help.

I don't know whether to find that statement humorous or a worrying indication of authoritarian dogma. The article is third party circumstantial evidence from the general manager of a company that wishes to promote shipping in the area. You will of course note that they used an A1 super ice-class vessel, with the range for that type being A5 the highest and D0 the lowest ice strengthening. Obviously someone thought there was some risk involved. It will be interesting if they are able to regularly repeat the trip.

I realised i still wasn't being balanced by not including Paul.

True it wasn't a particularly focused statement. Your response is much more well rounded where Paul's and Iceberg's wasn't, yes there must be a balance and broad statements only help to factionalise the discussion. Knowing a few accountants though, i would actually think that they get paid more for their ability to interpret tax law to the benefit of their clients, within the boundaries of the legal system. That's more a question on the difference between morale and legal systems though.

Does your statement make Climate Change more or less lucrative? Or is your statement not actually a rebuttal but rather an attempt to obfuscate any further argument?

Where's the evidence for your hypothesis in your analogy?

Cheers Ossie, i just couldn't see GW's logic of an early refreeze relying on the amount of open water, when it should rely on the conditions affecting the potential to freeze. The amount that can be refrozen as you say is of course dependent on the amount available to refreeze.

Could you explain the logic of that argument?

It certainly is an interesting anomaly for October but is there any supporting evidence for this? I ask because the GISS anomaly map for the UK shows a significant positive anomaly in October which is not supported by the CET.