skierinvermont Posted April 25, 2011 Author Share Posted April 25, 2011 Sorry BB predicting above average ice for a month or two is completely indefensible. I would have given you 10:1 odds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Sorry BB predicting above average ice for a month or two is completely indefensible. I would have given you 10:1 odds. I'd give lower odds to some of the predictions Hansen has made. Well, actually 0% odds, since they didn't happen. FWIW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Sorry BB predicting above average ice for a month or two is completely indefensible. I would have given you 10:1 odds. Where did I say this ? Quote me, and if you manipulate my post, you get your 4th fail of the night. And I don't care what you "give" me, because you're just like the rest of us.... a non Qualified, Non Scientist. Watch yourself here, just a suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 25, 2011 Author Share Posted April 25, 2011 Where did I say this Andrew .P.? Quote me, and if you manipulate my post, you get your 4th fail of the night. And I don't care what you "give" me, because you're just like the rest of us.... a non Qualified, Non Scientist. Watch yourself here, just a suggestion. Right here. "we should see arctic ice maintain above normal extent for a month or two..." It's a bad prediction regardless of the qualifier. Ice hasn't gone above average for a month since 2003. We're starting the long term recovery now probably, this winter should see the arctic ice maintain above normal extent/area etc for a month or two unless the wind becomes unfavorable and flushes/compacts the ice. We probably won't see the ice, in the long run, get back to average for another 7-10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Right here. "we should see arctic ice maintain above normal extent for a month or two..." It's a stupid prediction regardless of the qualifier. Ice hasn't gone above average for a month since 2003. And you omitted where I said "unless conditions become unfavorable" in the same/or another quote... which they did, due to a combination of 4 drivers working heavily against the Ice Pack, and are still doing so now. EVERYONE: Feel Free to Go Back and Look at Eastern and see my Quote saying "Unless conditions become unfavorable"... skierinvermont will not admit it too, which sucks. This now has nothing to do with AGW and climate change, but arguing over what wen't wrong with the Synoptic pattern this winter in tandom with a +QBO, +AMO, and a -NAO/-AO during the Heart of Re-Freeze season....that since the -AO/-NAO occured thru Mid JAN, we had less Ice By then, and it was Flushed out when the +NAO/+AO took over full force in late JAN....., before we saw a lax in that PNA ridge off the Pacific Coast in MAR that helped the Ice a Little. That, and the +AMO, which has been the driver in Arctic Temperature... led to a mess of predictions. It had nothing to do with "foolishness", as Andrew tends to assert. In fact, the only think "foolish" is this Thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 25, 2011 Author Share Posted April 25, 2011 And you omitted where I said "unless conditions become unfavorable" in the same/or another quote... which they did, due to a combination of 4 drivers working heavily against the Ice Pack, and are still doing so now. No I didn't omit it.. it's right there in the quote. Both in the original post, and in my post above. Moreover, your qualifier is irrelevant. In fact, it's your qualifier that reveals a fundamental failure to understand the effect of global warming and the loss of multi-year ice on the long-term decline of ice extent. We have had favorable weather and wind since 2003 many times, and yet we have not gone above average for a single month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 It is absolutely fraudulent to chop off half the comment and take it out of context. This is how to be a manipulative hack 101. Kinda like "chopping off" half of last century's tree ring proxy data???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 The quotes weren't shortened in the media. The quotes weren't shortened until you shortened them in your unending hackery. In or out of context, was the meaning of the phrase to imply much less frequent snows....or that children are mysteriously going to become blind??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sickman Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 This thread is pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.