Ok Einstein.

two of those sources are about sea ice. Not Glacial ice. At least give me sources about things that matter

QUOTE
(and, for my particular topic, the ocean in the antarctic has been warmer over the last decade, and it has caused a fast increase in the ice loss of Antarctica, increases in rainfall may mitigate sea level rise from this, but it doesn't change the fact the ocean is warmer, and the ice is melting faster down there. The Ozone hole has played a role in this too, which is man made (unless your argueing that too))
/QUOTE

The Ice in Oceans is a mechanism of ice shelf loss.... since the amount is equal to the first tracking of such...

QUOTE
What i'm interested in is understanding the changes we are observing in the ocean currents and the ice caps. Whether these are human induced or a form of natural variability doesn't change how i go about understanding what is occuring.
/UNQUOTE

So he kinda did Chris but not entirely.

However since the two are tied they do go together. Thus why I chose my argument the way I did. Especially after he made me read PDF's which do NOT work well with my phone and make me have to slow read (come on, I hate reading like 50wpm, it is so friggin frustrating!!!).

He is just lucky as an Aussie he focuses on the Antartic and not the Artic... I would have fed him to the "near extinct" and yet floruishing Polar Bear population. Ask a Canuck about the Northwest Passage and they will talk about it all day, ask them how it relates to debunking global warming and they will act surprised but agree suddenly.

" Reduce it down because one thing is happening there so everything else must be wrong, and unless you can link it into the entire natural evolution of climate change, then your argument that there is more polar bears as a sign that it is natural is just silly. At best, it just proves that there is propaganda surrounding climate change, and that more research is actually needed to understand what is happening."

Actually showing the "effects of global warming" aren't global, kinda goes against the theory of a constant atmospheric process.  So does the idea that "We need more research to understand what's going on"... we were sold a pig in a poke in the 1990s and everybody knows it, now they play the game "OK OK science is hypothesis, let's POSTULATE we were right, mkay, and figure out how we prove it"

Ok, lets see about these polar bears shall we...

At the 2009 meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations* of polar bears:

    8 are declining
    3 are stable
    1 is increasing

By comparison, in 2005:

    5 were declining
    5 were stable
    2 were increasing

So polar bear subpopulations are declining...also, if their habitat is declining wouldn't that force them to look for other habitats...there could be other reasons (such as food) that could be forcing/encouraging populations to move. But hey, just because some people see more of them, must mean their numbers are increasing...but this isn't the point I was trying to make. Right now, there is a debate on the issue, and the "nay-sayers" are claiming inaccurate measuring, which DOES NOT disprove anything, but only invalidates others claims (if it is true). Noone has actually disproved global warming, they only create doubts. Furthermore, as the issue is drawn out, only accurate information will be able to bring a consensus on the matter, and be able to be used by the "nay-sayers" or the "yay-sayers" to accurately predict the causes/outcomes of climate change. I am not here supporting one side or the other (although I do have my own opinion on the matter, which I haven't brought up here) but simply pointing out that Flint's opinion hasn't disproved human-induced climate change AT ALL...

"At the 2009 meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations* of polar bears:

    8 are declining
    3 are stable
    1 is increasing

By comparison, in 2005:

    5 were declining
    5 were stable
    2 were increasing

So polar bear subpopulations are declining..."

Information given doesn't back that conclusion.  To the contrary, only 5/19 are still in decline versus 8/19, 5/19 are stable compared to 3/19 and 2/19 are increasing versus 1/19.  Trend is towards stability.

Hmm I misread the dates.  It does look like decline, unless the total numbers are stable and they're moving away from bad areas.

In court the burden lies with the accuser to come up with evidence showing they are right.

In this court the defense has successfully nulled all evidence.

"In this court the defense has successfully nulled all evidence."

No they haven't...they look for tiny indiscrepencies and then say that all data/research is false. Sure, predictions haven't been as accurate, but then again show me your models which show any current change as natural? Like I said, you haven't proved anything, but out to find flaws, which only drives the need for more accuracy.

Out of curiousity, I wonder if anyone has tested heat trapping properties of CO2 in a lab...just straight out testing with actual particle concentrations that are observed (and predict with current trends what they will be like)?

Then you end on a very weak case

Lol... Farmers Almanac has been very accurate for a very long time. Give the man a billion dollars for their family secret and you could end all of the hysteria.

And the Mayan calender had some correct predictions, does that mean we should be believing the end of the world theory? There is no way that almanac is able to predict every region accurately, otherwise every farmer in the world would know what years to plant crops and what years not to bother (like drought stricken areas in the US currently)...

As for the rest... ill do research tommorrow... sick as can be right now with bathroom visits galore. Not quite as bad as my food poisoning episode but enough to make me cry out in pain.

I'm just not well right now

"Out of curiousity, I wonder if anyone has tested heat trapping properties of CO2 in a lab...just straight out testing with actual particle concentrations that are observed (and predict with current trends what they will be like)?"

Of course not, since the ppm is an average.   The whole thing (unlike the ozone layer) is not directly observable.  It only appears when you put tens of thousands of measurements in the computer, average for areas and times that have no measurements, and then properly adjust the observations to give more weight to some of them than to others.

IF the greenhouse gas theory is correct for earth -- where'd the heat go?  2nd Law of Thermodynamics "For every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction".  Heat energy comes in, greenhouse gas says it doesnt radiate out. 

AGW said, simply, it stays heat and the earth gets hotter.

Earth isn't getting hotter and hotter.  Earth stayed flat.

Simplest explanation: Heat isn't being trapped in earth's atmosphere.

But that destroys the whole war on industrialization which is the WHOLE POINT.

No.

Must be that pollution traps heat, but, whole bunch of other things happen.  Sometimes.  Which we haven't seen. Yet.  (by 2nd Law, must be on a scale commensurate with the energy that was trapped every year it DID get hotter.  Equal & Opposite reaction.)

Or, or, ok, it DID get trapped, and earth got hotter, BUT, see, earth was going to get a lot COLDER (guesstimate) so when you realize just how cool it WOULD HAVE BEEN (can't really say but let's just run with the postulate that greenhouse effect is here now)...

Nope! The Greenhouse Effect is not presumed, it is being tested by the observations.  Occam's Razor - it isn't present.