Predict Winter of 2012 Sea Ice Maximum Extent (Millions of Sq Kiliometers)

[ORH_wxman]

There is a huge gulf between being wrong or misinformed and deliberately trolling a thread - and I"m rather surprised that you would try to conflate the two. Friv has consistently been one of the best posters on the CC forum - he has strong opinions on many topics but he almost always provides solid data to support his assertions. He is respectful and helpful to those honestly seeking information. So he makes occasional mistakes - who on this forum can cast the first stone? We all make mistakes. And when corrected he admits his error and doesn't repost the same thing over and over, muddying up the threads and spreading misinformation..

Isn't that how all posters should behave? And yet, you threaten him with banishment for pointing out the obvious - that there is a double standard in effect. Talk about shooting the messenger.

This is a little bit soft and I am not going to go into details. Friv has been spared many times for making quite nasty remarks and going on long diatribes.There is no need to be going on about moderation or complaining about certain posting behavior in a thread here...by anyone...nevermind someone who has in the past had their own troubles. If people have problems with certain posts that they believe to be pure trolling or disingenuous then there is a report feature on this site.

The CC forum is a lot of opinions by definition since many of the topics being discussed on both sides have a null hypothesis that has failed to have been rejected. If there's obvious errors, they can be corrected...if someone is deliberately trolling, then report it. But both "sides" to a debate will very often see the other side as trolling as comments lose their tact.

[TerryM]

Friv, I'm sorry but you really need to get off your high horse here....so many times in the past you posted erroneous or irrelevant information and were simply corrected. Now that you do more and more of your own research on the internet on arctic sea ice, you want people to get banned if they make an erroneous claim? You can correct them with a viable source or you can make annoying posts about how people should be banned for posting irrelevant or erroneous information....if you would like the latter to be carried out here, then you can pack your bags with them since you had been guilty many times in the past.

The CC forum is not heavily moderated as it is not a central priority of Americanwx...we will not tolerate vulger or personal attacks and when they are reported, we take action. There are a few people who have been banned from this forum for that. Otherwise, if you want to debate something, at least stick to the relevant subject matter and stop bringing up your view on the conduct or moderation of this site. You have also repeatedly brought up the arctic sea ice/climate change stuff on the weather side of this site which is something you can receive a legnthy suspension for. Yet we've let it slide by trying to be more tactful and just telling it to stop.

Am I reading this sentence correctly? Taken at face value this seems to indicate that mentioning climate change when discussing weather patterns in say Alaska, or for that matter the effects of waxing or waning arctic sea ice would be grounds for suspension?

Weather this past winter season has certainly been so far from the norm, at least in my area, that any discussion that did not at least touch on climate change as a possible driver would seem, at least to me, to having been censored beyond recognition.

I really have somewhere between no and very little interest in short term (weather) forecasting, but I find it incomprehensible that a site devoted to such would suspend someone for merely mentioning what is surely one of the most important and heavily studied factors affecting the same.

I assume I must have misread your post - but even if I did not have no fear because as I said I really have no interest in short term conditions and can't imagine posting in a weather forum. I think I will do a little lurking though, just to see how people ignore the elephant (have to find a new metaphor).

Terry

[ORH_wxman]

Am I reading this sentence correctly? Taken at face value this seems to indicate that mentioning climate change when discussing weather patterns in say Alaska, or for that matter the effects of waxing or waning arctic sea ice would be grounds for suspension?

Weather this past winter season has certainly been so far from the norm, at least in my area, that any discussion that did not at least touch on climate change as a possible driver would seem, at least to me, to having been censored beyond recognition.

I really have somewhere between no and very little interest in short term (weather) forecasting, but I find it incomprehensible that a site devoted to such would suspend someone for merely mentioning what is surely one of the most important and heavily studied factors affecting the same.

I assume I must have misread your post - but even if I did not have no fear because as I said I really have no interest in short term conditions and can't imagine posting in a weather forum. I think I will do a little lurking though, just to see how people ignore the elephant (have to find a new metaphor).

Terry

Mentioning records/normas from a climatic standpoint is completely fine and very common on the weather side, but when the AGW vs natural variation debate starts to muddy up the thread, that's when it becomes a problem. That is what this sub-forum was designed for in the first place way back on eastern.

[TerryM]

Mentioning records/normas from a climatic standpoint is completely fine and very common on the weather side, but when the AGW vs natural variation debate starts to muddy up the thread, that's when it becomes a problem. That is what this sub-forum was designed for in the first place way back on eastern.

OK, apparently then I did misread your previous.

At some point, doesn't the evidence for AGW just become so over whelming that the only way to deny it is to either deny basic scientific, or to postulate that the data we're given has been altered by some vast conspiracy.

When posters bring up 'heat islands' after BEST, when snow coverage is brought into threads about ice coverage, when posters make assumptions that cycles are in play that are always just slightly longer than the period we have accurate records for, when new and unvetted theory's are trotted out to explain data that Occam's razor ascribes to CO2. At some point we just have to accept that, like it or not, the climate scientists of the world got this one right.

If you, or anyone else can tell me of a theory that explains why greenhouse gasses are not responsible for heating the atmosphere - and, at the same time explain why the atmosphere is heating - as all the data shows, I'll embrace it and sing it's praises to all that will listen, but when all I hear is rebutted arguments, disinformation and distraction, it's difficult to assume that there is anything left in contention.

Terry

[Harry]

OK, apparently then I did misread your previous.

At some point, doesn't the evidence for AGW just become so over whelming that the only way to deny it is to either deny basic scientific, or to postulate that the data we're given has been altered by some vast conspiracy.

When posters bring up 'heat islands' after BEST, when snow coverage is brought into threads about ice coverage, when posters make assumptions that cycles are in play that are always just slightly longer than the period we have accurate records for, when new and unvetted theory's are trotted out to explain data that Occam's razor ascribes to CO2. At some point we just have to accept that, like it or not, the climate scientists of the world got this one right.

If you, or anyone else can tell me of a theory that explains why greenhouse gasses are not responsible for heating the atmosphere - and, at the same time explain why the atmosphere is heating - as all the data shows, I'll embrace it and sing it's praises to all that will listen, but when all I hear is rebutted arguments, disinformation and distraction, it's difficult to assume that there is anything left in contention.

Terry

Better term would be cherry picked data. Ofcourse i don't get much into that altered conspiracy crap. They are no better then the whacko alarmist that claim the arctic will melt in a few yrs or was supposed to be melted by now or those claiming massive temp increases. That is NOT Basic science either. I get so god damn tired of seeing you people try and use that to win over the cause. It is total crap and DOES deny basic science. So lets not even go there.

As for the warming.. Natural variations aka climate change. Thus you have warmer periods ( like we are seeing ) and then cooler ones. Hopefully i need not explain why? If you don't understand what drives our weather patterns aka climate then well you should not even be discussing the subject matter. JMHO That is not directed at you but more so at those who feel the need to constantly drop in on these subjects spewing stuff they don't even understand themselves. Ofcourse a debate can be had there too with what if any effect does the sun have etc. Still many in here who do that.

Also.. Most prefer to discuss the weather not climate change in the wx forum. Not like this forum is hidden and at last check all is free to dive in or read. As ORH stated too many threads have gotten OT in the wxisde when this subject matter gets injected into the mix. Sorry to say but alot of people don't care for this subject even though the two are related. Thus why we have this forum.