[Lemmy]

I guess maybe they don't teach this stuff in school anymore.

[ShepherdsDog]

It's not so much the axial tilt, they both face towards and away from the sun an equal amount of time, but the fact that the ice in the south is built up on the ground which holds the cold, as opposed to the Arctic ice which sits on sea water for the most part. And no, what you are suggesting isn't taught in primary, high school or university.

[DrCaleb]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

It's not so much the axial tilt, they both face towards and away from the sun an equal amount of time, but the fact that the ice in the south is built up on the ground which holds the cold, as opposed to the Arctic which sits on see water for the most part. And no, what you are suggesting isn't taught in primary, high school or university.

Not quite equal. The Earth's orbit isn't circular, but elliptical. Earth is closer to the sun during the southern hemisphere summer than it is during the northern hemisphere summer. The sun is therefore slightly more intense in the southern hemisphere during it's summer.

And you point out another situation; ice may be building inland, but the Western Antarctic ice shelves are being lost quickly due to warming seas.

[ShepherdsDog]

that'll keep the crustal shift from ever happening if we stay bottom heavy....won't have to relabel our compasses.

[BartSimpson]

Antarctic sea ice coverage for this year is about identical to that of 1979 (maybe a bit more really). Meaning that there's nothing much to be alarmed about as we've seen this before.

[ShepherdsDog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

It's not so much the axial tilt, they both face towards and away from the sun an equal amount of time, but the fact that the ice in the south is built up on the ground which holds the cold, as opposed to the Arctic which sits on see water for the most part. And no, what you are suggesting isn't taught in primary, high school or university.

Not quite equal. The Earth's orbit isn't circular, but elliptical. Earth is closer to the sun during the southern hemisphere summer than it is during the northern hemisphere summer. The sun is therefore slightly more intense in the southern hemisphere during it's summer.

And you point out another situation; ice may be building inland, but the Western Antarctic ice shelves are being lost quickly due to warming seas.

Yes, you are correct. Thanks for pointing out perihelion and aphelion, and pointing out the south pole receives more intense sunlight during its summer.

[N_Fiddledog]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Fiddly Fiddly:

Now if you had said the earth tilts more towards the sun at the north pole on its axis you'd have a point

I thought that's what I did say.

No. Here's what you said.

Lemmiwinks Lemmiwinks:

Too bad it's the north pole that faces the sun.

Are you going to try to break Andy's record for amount of times I have to quote your idiotic statement back to you before you get that it was idiotic?

By the way what was your point supposed to be anyway?

Bart was sneering about how warmists sometimes try to excuse away ice when it's not supposed to be there by saying it's the "wrong kind of ice". Then you made your idiotic statement about how the North pole faces the sun which sounded like you were trying to say the south pole didn't get sun.

If that wasn't what you were hinting at, what on earth was it?

[BartSimpson]

Just saying here but neither pole faces the sun for the reason that neither pole is in the tropics.

[DrCaleb]

I'm surprised that Congress hasn't demanded all their emails by now.

[Lemmy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

No. Here's what you said.

Lemmy Lemmy:

Too bad it's the north pole that faces the sun.

Are you going to try to break Andy's record for amount of times I have to quote your idiotic statement back to you before you get that it was idiotic?

Well silly me for presuming we were starting with a grade 11-level baseline understanding of the way the earth tilts on its axis and moves about the sun. When I said "faces the sun" I was making a colloquial simplification. In the future, I'll be more explicit rather than presuming you to have the general knowledge possessed by most highschool students.

FiddlyDiddly FiddlyDiddly:

By the way what was your point supposed to be anyway?

That arctic ice is more important than antarctic ice in terms of moderating the effects of climate change. And that's what I said right at the very beginning! But that's your tactic, always: befuddle the big picture with nitpicking minutia until the point gets lost.

[N_Fiddledog]

Lemmiwinks Lemmiwinks:

FiddlyDiddly FiddlyDiddly:

By the way what was your point supposed to be anyway?

That arctic ice is more important than antarctic ice in terms of moderating the effects of climate change. And that's what I said right at the very beginning! But that's your tactic, always: befuddle the big picture with nitpicking minutia until the point gets lost.

And I find it smile-worthy how you Prog-speak guys are demanding your "colloquial simplifications" when you speak, but become such literalists when anybody else does.

But here's the more significant problem. Even if you were only speaking in hyperbole it did not address the larger point Bart was making with his "colloquial simplification" - that being catastrophic climate science cannot be addressed by falsification as required by scientific method, because you guys just move the goal posts. In the case he draws attention to, warmists are saying "What a minute did I say amount of ice? No, I meant type of ice."

If you were speaking in hyperbole it did not address Bart's point. It only distracted from it.

In fact if you were trying to make the point you are claiming now, you were only proving Bart's point. At one time both poles were supposed to melt according global warming theory. NASA is now telling us that's not happening. So with this explanation of your "colloquial simplification" you are now saying, "Did we say both poles, no, we just meant the North would melt." Get it? Even if you're telling the truth now, you didn't challenge Bart's point. You proved it.

And that's why you needed to be challenged.

[Lemmy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And I find it smile-worthy how you Prog-speak guys are demanding your "colloquial simplifications" when you speak, but become such literalists when anybody else does.

Back to boxes and labels, eh? Whatever.

[N_Fiddledog]

Lemmy Lemmy:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And I find it smile-worthy how you Prog-speak guys are demanding your "colloquial simplifications" when you speak, but become such literalists when anybody else does.

Back to boxes and labels, eh? Whatever.

Snot talk won't work, because you'll get back double what you give, and you're wrong on the subject matter of the actual issue. How long before you figure that out?

[Lemmy]

Never am I surer that I'm right than when an internet crank-job like you tells me I'm wrong.

[N_Fiddledog]

Good for you. Let me help you out then. You're wrong

If fact let me add to your pleasure and tell you some more about why you're wrong.

What's happening is - as has been mentioned - some melt is occurring in the western Antarctic. Also in the Northern Peninsula that stretches up towards the tropics.

Now this tends to allow some such as yourself, who like to insinuate without actually saying it out loud, that this both proves AGW is happening when it's convenient to say so, but deny they expected any warming in the Antarctic (cause it's different, you see) when it's not convenient.

However this new study takes into account the overall ice including the West, so I no longer have to get distracted explaining to you how different natural influences such as undersea volcanoes, or tropical currents might affect the West. Nor do you get to pretend without actually saying it that the western melt might have something to do with human influences. Because I will say, why just the West then, and why not enough to create an overall melt?

Most directly though, you don't get to even hint the evil "carbon pollution" might be melting the Antarctic and raising sea levels anymore. It's just not. And I get to say, "Cause NASA says so".