So APL, I must report where I get even a portion of what I include in my posts, but you can totally quote information and charts from another source using none of your own words and not have to report where you got the information? And you misquoted the intent of the chart you used!
Here is where you got that chart...
Website "What's up with that?"

You used the chart of Antarctica sea ice and reported it like it was for the whole world. That is very deceitful.

This is the chart that went along with the quote you directly used without giving credit to it. "Global sea ice area, as of Sunday morning, stood at 1.005 million square kilometers above average."



But if you look at the chart you will see that the overall trend globally is significantly downwards. The peak that your quote was pointing to is right around the average yearly peak. Just because it is above the nominal overall average does not mean it is above the peak average. You cannot point to the seasonal peak and compare it to the average. The averages are still decreasing. The peak average is way lower than 30 years ago and you would be shocked if you could see what it looked like 50 years ago. The fact that you got that information from the same website that I did and you skewed the evidence to comply with your lie proves that you will lie to make a point. That is not a Christian response.

Antarctica is a continent of land mass but the Arctic has no land mass and is ALL ICE.

From NSIDC;

"almost all of the sea ice that forms during the Antarctic winter melts during the summer. During the winter, up to 18 million square kilometers (6.9 million square miles) of ocean is covered by sea ice, but by the end of summer, only about 3 million square kilometers (1.1 million square miles) of sea ice remain.

Because sea ice does not stay in the Antarctic as long as it does in the Arctic, it does not have the opportunity to grow as thick as sea ice in the Arctic. While thickness varies significantly within both regions, Antarctic ice is typically 1 to 2 meters (3 to 6 feet) thick, while most of the Arctic is covered by sea ice 2 to 3 meters (6 to 9 feet) thick. Some Arctic regions are covered with ice that is 4 to 5 meters (12 to 15 feet) thick.


(The above antarctic pictures are not to the same scale as the Arctic pictures obviously, at least 3/1 scale difference).

According to scientific measurements, both the thickness and extent of summer sea ice in the Arctic have shown a dramatic decline over the past thirty years. This is consisistent with observations of a warming Arctic. This trend is a major sign of climate change in the polar regions and may be an indicator of the effects of global warming.

Here is the real total global sea ice extent decline graph...



And this graph only goes to 2008.

So since there is over 5 times more sea ice by volume in the Arctic than the Antarctic and the major differences in sea ice has been verifiable in the Arctic do you think it is proper for you to point to a tiny blip in the sea ice levels of the Antarctic and say it is relative to the whole worlds sea ice? So the Arctic has shown a Significant decrease of 4.1% (~500,000 km2; 193,000 mi2) per decade. And the antarctic has shown a Small increase of 0.9% (~100,000 km2; 39,000 mi2) per decade, so the total global average is declining by almost 3.9% per decade!
So for you to point to sea ice levels that rose these past two years contradicting a huge downward trend, when it is obvious that the levels do fluctuate, is very deceptive. Then to say that this implies the overall sea ice is increasing is a blatant lie. You should be ashamed of yourself, but of course you will not be.

No.

It appears I have come across something of which you are not an expert in and know everything about! Maybe you should do a search on it.


Actually, "ionosphere", is the key word you should look up with geo-engineering.

I'm surprised an SDA would reject conspiracies. Do you not understand that there's been a conspiracy going on since the foundation of the world? Do you not understand there's a certain religious entity that's been plotting and planning since the apostles' time, have their hand in most every war, in most every government, and in most every church? Are you not really aware of this?

What would you do if you saw a video interviewing government personnel and they admitted manipulating the environment on a large scale and has been going on for decades? And such information even shown on public broadcasts such as the Discovery Channel? (Another keyword to look up with the others) And seen google earth images of the antenna farms?

Me thinks you do not know as much about things as you promote yourself as knowing.


Me thinks you do not know much about making wide sweeping general statements of which you nor anyone else could possibly verify, either!


Whatever the amount of oil we're using every day, whatever one thinks the outcome will be, what effect the pollution were generating every day, all this has nothing to do with whether it is or is not causing global warming.

You don't seem to understand this. Perhaps the scientific method is another thing you don't know much about? Do you know what the null hypothesis would be in this situation?

So you think they are altering our ionosphere with HAARP? Is that what you are saying?

That is what I meant by knowing what kind of mindset you have. All the nutjobs of the world think that the US government is destroying our Ionosphere with HAARP, but it was just a testing facility and will be shut down within a year. What will you have to complain about then?

From Wiki;

HAARP is a target of conspiracy theorists like, who claim that it is capable of modifying weather, disabling satellites and exerting mind control over people, and that it is being used as a weapon against terrorists. Such theorists as yourself have blamed the program for causing earthquakes, droughts, storms and floods, diseases such as Gulf War Syndrome and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800, and the 2003 destruction of the space shuttle Columbia. Commentators and scientists say that proponents of these theories are "uninformed", as most theories put forward fall well outside the abilities of the facility and often outside the scope of natural science.

Stanford University professor Umran Inan told Popular Science that weather-control conspiracy theories were “completely uninformed,” explaining that “there’s absolutely nothing we can do to disturb the Earth’s [weather] systems. Even though the power HAARP radiates is very large, it’s minuscule compared with the power of a lightning flash—and there are 50 to 100 lightning flashes every second. HAARP’s intensity is very small.”

You are one of those nut jobs!

The Ionosphere is an extension of the Thermosphere. So technically, the ionosphere is not another atmospheric layer.

The upper atmosphere is ionized by solar radiation. Which is billions of times more powerful than the HAARP radio towers could EVER produce. That means the Sun's energy is so strong at this level, that it breaks apart molecules. So there ends up being electrons floating around and molecules which have lost or gained electrons. When the Sun is active, more and more ionization happens!

Different regions of the ionosphere make long distance radio communication possible by reflecting the radio waves back to Earth. It is also home to auroras. The experiments they were conducting was to find out the different effects of high frequency radio waves with an excited Ionosphere. In other words they were trying to find ways of communicating when the suns activity is at it's highest without disruption.

The nut jobs think its purpose was to change weather and destroy the planet. You are one of those type of people!

Ok, now I understand what you mean about corrupted data. They are just wrong, manipulated at will, and can never be relied on.

That seems odd they would bother changing it back. Worried they'd get caught or do you think they have some future plans?



James, do you think it is right to change historical data on temperatures? Of what basis do you conclude the world is getting warmer? Yesterday's corrupted data or today's corrupted data?

Kland I lived in the perfect petri dish to see the outcomes.

The climate of Alaska has changed so radically in my lifetime it is not even funny.

The permafrost used to be so thick you could build anything on it and it would stay. Now EVERYTHING is shifting up there. The roads are unsafe in many areas because of the shift. You can be driving down the road and a huge hole opens up and swallows your car because of melting permafrost. I'm sure many people in Canada could tell the same stories. The reports from Russia are the same and they have more permafrost than Alaska and Canada combined.

It's a fact that climate has changed.




Do you know what is trapped inside permafrost? More CO2 and Methane, so when it melts, just like sea ice it introduces double the amount of Greenhouse gasses so it speeds up the process. By my scientific friends analysis we are already past the tipping point and the Governments know this. That is why they are living so blatantly for today. If we were to totally stop burning fossil fuels we would not see the full outcome of the present emissions for 30 years and by then it would already be too late. All the sea ice would be gone, all the permafrost would be melted, all the oceans corral reefs would disappear. We have already destroyed more than the earth can rebound from. But we aren't even slowing down we are speeding up. More rain Forrest destroyed every day, more air pollution because of coal and oil use. More everything nasty. The great scientific minds know this.

Jesus must come soon because we turned our planet into a poison pit.

This is what really gets me... where did all the coal and oil come from? The flood correct? everything got buried and we are digging and sucking it up to burn it. So one world disaster has turned into another. The first destruction of the planet was by water, the second is BY FIRE! And there is still enough left over in the ground that when Jesus comes back the third time He will ignite it to cause hell and melt the surface to have a blank slate to renew the earth.

NASA: Satellite which will END man-made CO2 debate in orbit at last
Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 finally makes it into Space.

The satellite – which will study the absorption of sunlight by carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere – is the third attempt to get a CO2-measuring craft into space by the American space agency. The OCO-1 in 2009 and follow-up Glory in 2011 both failed when they weren’t able to complete their first stage separation.

NASA had to abandon the scheduled launch of the OCO-2 yesterday, when there were problems with the launchpad water flow.

The blast-off was particularly difficult to get right because US rocket boffins only had a 30-second window to get the sat into orbit to join the A-Train, a constellation of five international Earth-observing crafts that fly in close formation, constantly monitoring the planet.

OCO-2 is now the best carbon dioxide monitoring satellite in orbit by a long way, capable of taking up to 100,000 useful readings per day. The next best only returns around 500 measurements a day that are totally unimpeded by cloud cover.

Boffins hope that OCO-2’s data can offer clarity on just how much impact human activity has on carbon dioxide production and the processes the gas undergoes in the atmosphere, which will hopefully help lead to some answers on if and how we can do something about climate change.

http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/

OCO-2 will not be measuring CO2 directly; but actually, the intensity of the sunlight reflected from the presence of CO2 in a column of air. This measurement is unique like a fingerprint, and can be used for identification. The OCO-2 instrument will use a diffraction grating (like the back of a compact disk) to separate the incoming sunlight into a spectrum of multiple component colors.

The instrument measures the intensity of three relatively small wavelength bands (Weak CO2, Strong CO2 and Oxygen O2) from the spectrum, each specific to one of the three spectrometers. The absorption levels will indicate the presence of the different gases. By simultaneously measuring the gases over the same location and over time, OCO-2 will be able to track the changes over the surface over time.

The OCO-2 spectrometers will measure sunlight reflected off the Earth's surface. The sunlight rays entering the spectrometers will pass through the atmosphere twice - once as they travel from the Sun to the Earth, and then again as they bounce off from the Earth's surface to the OCO-2 instrument. Carbon dioxide and molecular oxygen molecules in the atmosphere absorb light energy at very specific colors or wavelengths.

The OCO-2 instrument uses diffraction grating to separate the inbound light energy into a spectrum of multiple component colors. The reflection gratings used in the OCO-2 spectrometers will consist of a very regularly-spaced series of grooves that lie on a very flat surface.

The characteristic spectral pattern for CO2 can alternate from transparent to opaque over very small variations in wavelength. The OCO-2 instrument must be able to detect these dramatic changes, and specify the wavelengths where these variations take place. So, the grooves in the instrument diffraction grating will be very finely tuned to spread the light spectrum into a large number of very narrow wavelength bands or colors. In fact, the OCO-2 instrument design incorporates 17,500 different colors, to cover the entire wavelength range that can be seen by the human eye. A digital camera covers the same wavelength range using just three colors.

OCO-2 measurements must be very accurate. To eliminate energy from other sources that would generate measurement errors, the light detectors for each camera must remain very cold. To ensure that the detectors remain sufficiently cold, the OCO-2 instrument design will include a cryocooler, which is a refrigeration device. The cryocooler keeps the detector temperature at or near -120° C (-184° F).

I watched the lift off two days ago.

Now we will know just how bad it really is. JT

From the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory/ California Institute of Technology. (the place we spend billions of dollars to check this stuff)

I wasn't asking where you lived.

And is the length of your lifetime significant? Is that the standard, your life? What about before then?
The climate at our house has changed radically from yesterday. Think that's significant?
What is really radically different is the climate of northern regions today versus about 4,000 years ago. It's been warming radically ever since.

At what point do you think it stopped warming?

And before that, it cooled radically different from before. Do you disagree with the creation record? Why do you think there are tropical fossils found up there?

You are making an assumption here. Even if it could be shown the earth was warming, it doesn't mean anything about CO2, methane, man-caused, or anything else.

By the way, did you ever say if you understood the scientific method?

You think it a disaster that all that carbon got buried and removed from the immediate environment?

James, do you think it is right to change historical data on temperatures? Which corrupted data do you go by? Yesterday's corrupted data or today's corrupted data?

"explaining that “there’s absolutely nothing we can do to disturb the Earth’s [weather] systems. "

Is this what I've been trying to say?