# Sea level potential rise doubles in new study



## JimH52 (Apr 4, 2016)

Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.

And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny.  Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 4, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> 
> And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny.  Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...


Back in the day when Al Jazeera Gore was harping that the Earth was going to burn up in 10 years, that was back in 2000.  Of course now that we are 16 years past that prediction, the new one out by liberals is 100 years.  That way if it doesn't happen, those liberals wont be around to be told what morons they were.  But then again, when Al Gore left office as a VP, he wasn't worth over 1/2 billions dollars either.  Why is it liberals hate hard working businessmen and women, but adore their liberal elite uber rich people, who got rich on OUR Taxes?  Stupidity, thy name is liberal.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> 
> And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny.  Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> 
> And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny.  Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...


so dude, what is it you're asking from the conservatives here?  What is it you're going to do?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 4, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> 
> And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny.  Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...


Name one prediction of the left in the past 50 years to come true.
World starvation.
Heterosexual HIV epidemic.
World overpopulation.
Silicone breast implants.
Ozone layer disappears.
New Ice Age coming.
New world tropical age.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 4, 2016)




----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 4, 2016)

jc456 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> ...





LMAO.............

To the OP..............its falling in some places s0n..........

Its 2016.........these threads are ghey. Nobody cares anymore.


----------



## Crick (Apr 4, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> ...



How about predictions of science that have come true?  You have an obvious reality disconnect here.  You aren't arguing with the left.  You're arguing with mainstream science.

World's Fair: Isaac Asimov's predictions 50 years on - BBC News


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


Not mainstream science but consensus science.  If a whole bunch of scientists decided that the world was flat, would it be?  The temperature tonight is going to be 34 degrees in Virginia, if the Earth is warming up year after year and the ice caps are melting where is that cold temperature coming from??  If people want to willingly give  up their money so liberal elite politicians can make millions of dollars, go for it, but leave me alone.   Solar Energy Company SunEdison Said to Be Planning Chapter 11 Filing


> SunEdison Inc. is said to be planning a chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in the next couple of weeks, a big about-face for the solar-energy company, The Wall Street Journal reports.


 Just another solar company going bankrupt, while Dipshit Obama was saying how Solar was the way of the future.  Typical of liberalism, good intentions, ending in disaster.


----------



## Crick (Apr 4, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Not mainstream science but consensus science.



And what do you believe to be the difference?



andaronjim said:


> If a whole bunch of scientists decided that the world was flat, would it be?



Scientists are defined and controlled by the scientific method.  The scientific method cannot find that the world is flat.  The only thing your question reveals is that you have no familiarity with science or its methods.



andaronjim said:


> The temperature tonight is going to be 34 degrees in Virginia, if the Earth is warming up year after year and the ice caps are melting where is that cold temperature coming from??



It's 40 below zero in Antarctica.  That doesn't refute global warming.  Why don't you go somewhere - like school or your local library - and familiarize yourself with the very basics of the conversation going on here.  Then please come back.  



andaronjim said:


> If people want to willingly give  up their money so liberal elite politicians can make millions of dollars, go for it, but leave me alone.   Solar Energy Company SunEdison Said to Be Planning Chapter 11 Filing
> 
> 
> > SunEdison Inc. is said to be planning a chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in the next couple of weeks, a big about-face for the solar-energy company, The Wall Street Journal reports.
> ...



Sorry, one way or the other, everyone pays to save the world.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 4, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> 
> And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny.  Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...


A study cannot double the sea level, dumb ass.


----------



## Crick (Apr 4, 2016)

The term in use is "sea level rise" not "sea level".


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 4, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



You take "stupid comment" to an all new level....


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> The term in use is "sea level rise" not "sea level".



Thank you!  The nutjobs are out on force today.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


Like I said, not one doomsday scenario ever harped by the left has ever come close to being true.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 4, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



You are as shortsighted as your hero, Phrump.  You deny science while believing a para-gangster from New York.


----------



## Crick (Apr 4, 2016)

You said "name one prediction".  You did NOT say "name one doomsday prediction".  
How about the predictions from AGW deniers, over and over and over again for the last 20 years, that warming was over or that the world was cooling?  How have those come off?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 4, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> 
> And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny.  Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...



Wow!  Hilarious!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 4, 2016)

^ Guam, a DENIER!!! Island that refuses to validate the AWCUlt models showing it underwater


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 4, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Hilarious.  Now I'm a Trump supporter and stating fact is anti science.
Yep, so typical.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...




Star trek was more accurate.


Top 10 'Star Trek' Technologies That Actually Came True



.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 4, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ^ Guam, a DENIER!!! Island that refuses to validate the AWCUlt models showing it underwater


Or refuses to tip over too.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 4, 2016)

Frank, you will dead when southern Florida succumbs to the ocean' unless you're a vampire....which is entirely possible,j


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> You said "name one prediction".  You did NOT say "name one doomsday prediction".
> How about the predictions from AGW deniers, over and over and over again for the last 20 years, that warming was over or that the world was cooling?  How have those come off?


And what was my list?  Oh yeah, a list of Leftard doomsday predictions that never came close to being true.

Fact remains, every doomsday prediction by the left in the past 50 years has never happened.
Every.
Single.
One.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 4, 2016)

You are all like the republicans who used to deny that nicotine was addictive and cigarettes cause cancer.  Just continually defended Phillip Morris.  IDIOTS


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 4, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> You are all like the republicans who used to deny that nicotine was addictive and cigarettes cause cancer.  Just continually defended Phillip Morris.  IDIOTS


Sorry, your Southern Democrats led by racist George Wallace and Jimmy Carter gets that prize too.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 4, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > You are all like the republicans who used to deny that nicotine was addictive and cigarettes cause cancer.  Just continually defended Phillip Morris.  IDIOTS
> ...



Trump will garner less than 25% of the black vote.  According to Donald America was great before integration.  Another Phrump blunder.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 4, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> You are all like the republicans who used to deny that nicotine was addictive and cigarettes cause cancer.  Just continually defended Phillip Morris.  IDIOTS




So are you saying the slang words cancer sticks and coffin nails just appeared recently?


Please do


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 4, 2016)

I argued for years with nay saying repubs.  They were wrong then and they are wrong now.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 4, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> QUOTE]Fact remains, every doomsday prediction by the left in the past 50 years has never happened.
> Every.
> Single.
> One.



Nope. Every prediction from the mainstream scientists has come true. That's why climate science has credibility, because it's been getting everything correct for so long.

In contrast, every prediction deniers have made for the past 50 years has failed completely. Their failure record is perfect. Is that ice age here yet?

So why does Weatherman tell these crazy stories? Most likely, he thinks Hollywood movies are scientific predictions. And he actually believes all the weird fabrications that his cult feeds him.

So deniers, what's it like to be losers and laughingstocks? Does it ever get you down? Do you resort to substance abuse to numb the pain? That would explain many of your posts.


----------



## Crick (Apr 4, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You said "name one prediction".  You did NOT say "name one doomsday prediction".
> ...



Hmm... likely because science doesn't often make "doomsday" predictions.  If you want to judge mainstream science by what you and your mom used to read in the National Enquirer, find someone else to chat with.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 4, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> I argued for years with nay saying repubs.  They were wrong then and they are wrong now.



Please save Mother Gia.  Get off the internet.

"Surfing the Web uses a significant amount of electricity. The world’s data centers — cavernous buildings filled with stacks and stacks of servers filled with webpages, downloadable files, streaming video — suck up a tremendous amount of juice. The data centers around the world use about 30 billion watts of electricity, roughly equivalent to the output of 30 nuclear power plants, according to an article in the New York Times published earlier this year. Data centers in the United States account for one-quarter to one-third of that total."


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 4, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE]Fact remains, every doomsday prediction by the left in the past 50 years has never happened.
> ...


Yeah, your list of proof is..... Oh wait, you have nothing to support your claim.
Unless you wish to prove you're a total idiot and claim there is a Hetro HIV epidemic, world over population, world famine, silicone breast implants kill, etc etc.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 4, 2016)

Why should anyone care about your weird claims about silicone breast implants?

Can you explain to us what silicone breast implants have to do with climate?

You do understand the topic is climate science, right?

Oh wait, you literally don't understand. You're a hard core brainless political cultist, so whatever the topic is, you twist it to help you hate your perceived political enemies. Same as all the other deniers, in other words.

In stark contrast, the rational people here don't bring politics into it. We talk about the science. Because we can.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Hilarious.  In a thread that claims 10% of the planets surface will soon be underwater soon he says science doesn't make doomsday predictions.

In 2004 the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010.  Where are they?

In his 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich wrote: “In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”  Where are they?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 4, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Please save Mother Gia.  Get off the internet.



If you want to live in a cave, swear off technology, stop bathing, and hump trees for mother Gaia, just do it already.

Just don't expect anyone to join you, ya big stinky hippy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 4, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Frank, you will dead when southern Florida succumbs to the ocean' unless you're a vampire....which is entirely possible,j


Fucking genicodial lunatic just like every other AGWCult member


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 4, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE]Fact remains, every doomsday prediction by the left in the past 50 years has never happened.
> ...




Yea ok..... You really hate google don't you?


1871 Climate Superstition


Florida was hit by two hurricanes within two weeks in August, 1871 – including a major hurricane. It has now been eight years since Florida was hit by any hurricane, and since the US was hit by a major hurricane.
In* 1871, the New York Times was worried about climate change, just like they are now. *Nothing has changed – intellectuals are just as stupid and misinformed as they always were.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 4, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Please save Mother Gia.  Get off the internet.
> ...


Well, if you're unwilling to take steps to save Mother Gia, neither am I.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 4, 2016)

Weatherman, are you ever going to show us an actual consensus prediction by actual climate scientists that didn't happen?

No? Go fig.

I bet you can give us some more diversions and red herrings. That way, you won't have to admit you were just making it all up, and that the actual science has been pretty damn spectacular.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 4, 2016)

Really is useless to argue with the Neanderthals.  They are clueless, unless it airs on FOX.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 4, 2016)

Why stop at double? It's just another stupid failed model, they should have said 84,000 percent increase


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 4, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman, are you ever going to show us an actual consensus prediction by actual climate scientists that didn't happen?
> 
> No? Go fig.
> 
> I bet you can give us some more diversions and red herrings. That way, you won't have to admit you were just making it all up, and that the actual science has been pretty damn spectacular.




So where do news papers and magazine's,  get their information from the past 140 years ?? 


God are you such, shall I say in DENIAL?



.


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> 
> And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny.  Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...











Deny what exactly?   That the "study" is based entirely on computer models thus is nothing more than fiction?  It is you who need to learn some basics dude. 

 Just sayin...


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 4, 2016)

westwall said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> ...



That is how science works.  Or would you rather wait until Phrump tells another one of his lies.  You believe him but not science.  You are blissfully ignorant.  ENJOY YOUR FANTASY LAND.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 4, 2016)

Engineering, science, and medicine are based on modeling.  Please read a book occasionally.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 4, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman, are you ever going to show us an actual consensus prediction by actual climate scientists that didn't happen?
> 
> No? Go fig.
> 
> I bet you can give us some more diversions and red herrings. That way, you won't have to admit you were just making it all up, and that the actual science has been pretty damn spectacular.


I've yet to see a consensus prediction concerning the future of mankind by any group of scientists. Ever.
And please don't pull out the long debunked global warming/cooling "consensus".


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 4, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Engineering, science, and medicine are based on modeling.  Please read a book occasionally.


Just like the models of just a year ago said El Niño would likely bring significant precipitation to SoCal.
And what we got was another drought year.
Go figure, manmade computer models wrong again.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 4, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> 
> And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny.  Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...




I found it.....


Just a rethread of a 2005 UN failed perdiction.


Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry


*United Nations “Climate Refugees”*

I*n 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) warned that imminent sea-level rises, i*ncreased hurricanes, and desertification caused by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be particularly vulnerable in terms of producing “climate refugees.” Especially at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands, along with coastal areas.

*The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. *However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.

In the Bahamas, for example, according to the 2010 census, there was a major increase in population, going from around 300,000 in 2000 to more than 350,000 by 2010. The population of St. Lucia, meanwhile, grew by five percent during the same period. The Seychelles grew by about 10 percent. The Solomon Islands also witnessed a major population boom during that time frame, gaining another 100,000 people, or an increase of about 25 percent.



.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 4, 2016)

bear513 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> ...


Yep, 50 million people who's homes were destroyed by climate change.
We just can't find them.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 4, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...




Its ok in 2020  then in 2040 , then in 2060..... they will just copy and paste the same report just change the dates like a bad romance novel.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 4, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Really is useless to argue with the Neanderthals.  They are clueless, unless it airs on FOX.


NO.. what is useless, are morons like you who believe everything your masters tell you to spew. 

Lets look at your OP.  The author of the paper used the Nansen Geophysical Modeling program.  A program which no scientist with credibility uses today because it is so badly flawed that its outputs are fringe every time. The model has NO PREDICTIVE POWERS AND IS COMMONLY WRONG BY MAGNITUDES greater than X10.

The Predictions won't come to pass no matter how many times you spout this crap.  Just one more left wing hack masquerading as a scientist.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 4, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



A Cut and Paste job... They can hire Old Crock. He's really good at that kind of crap..

The real problem is they are already doing it today. This OP is just a copy and paste job using a bad model from the Gore predictions 16 years ago.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 4, 2016)

There is one major difference between leftist and religious doomsday scenarios. The religious readily acknowledge that their doomsday scenario is built entirely on faith. The left, on the other hand, claims that its doomsday scenarios are entirely built on science.

That there is little truth to the left-wing claim is not as important as the fact that these doomsday scenarios have undermined the status of science. How many scientists have been compromised by their joining the research-money and fame bandwagons of left-wing apocalyptic predictions? And how has this affected the public’s perceptions of science and scientists when it comes to contentious issues?


----------



## Crick (Apr 4, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> And please don't pull out the long debunked global warming/cooling "consensus".



Debunked?  By who?  When?  Where?


----------



## Crick (Apr 4, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> I've yet to see a consensus prediction concerning the future of mankind by any group of scientists. Ever.



Then what are these doomsday predictions you claim have been made and failed?


----------



## Crick (Apr 4, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Engineering, science, and medicine are based on modeling.  Please read a book occasionally.
> ...



As opposed to computer models by something/someone else?  So, how do you make predictions or projections without models Mr Weatherman?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 4, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> 
> And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny.  Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...



  Have no fear,the snow in the Caribbean will hold it at bay.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



  Good one!!!   
Do you write your own stuff?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 4, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> ...



   I'm surprised she didnt leave out "could".


----------



## Crick (Apr 4, 2016)

That they use the word "potential" makes the denier side of this thread a complete waste.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> That they use the word "potential" makes the denier side of this thread a complete waste.


Now the cultists claims that the probability of his ice melt models are 100% certain.
What a doofus.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 4, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > That they use the word "potential" makes the denier side of this thread a complete waste.
> ...



From the same group that tells us in AR5 that 93% of the excess heat is absorbed by the ocean

93%

LOL


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 4, 2016)

Crick said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > And please don't pull out the long debunked global warming/cooling "consensus".
> ...


You validate why you're a climate change cultist.  You're ignorant of key facts concerning the issue.
"According to Powell, his first study searched for peer-reviewed scientific articles supporting climate change from January 1991 to November 2012 from a scientific database. From the 13,950 results, Powell removed all the results which he determined were unimportant, and then compared the remaining results. The second study looked at November 2012 through December 2013.

But Powell himself admitted that his methods were subjective. "[F]rom the get-go I do not claim that I have found every article on global warming. I probably have not found every article that rejects global warming. What I have found is the proportion of articles with topics ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’ that reject AGW as I define reject," Powell said in the “methodology” section of his website."

Misleading ‘97 Percent of Scientists’ Claim Resurfaces in NY Times


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 4, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


*Hansen et al. 1981*
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, *213*, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. *Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.*

*Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide*

*This prediction was made in 1981, and it came true in 2007. What the scientists are predicting is not doomsday, but are much more difficult world for our descendents. And what people like you are is really dumb assholes without a clue to what is happening in the real world.*


----------



## westwall (Apr 4, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...











No, it's not.  Science is about facts and the observation of natural processes.  Computer models are neither.  Try again.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE]Fact remains, every doomsday prediction by the left in the past 50 years has never happened.
> ...


Did you know today that the temperature of Virginia was at freezing and it will again tonight?  How can it be freezing if the planet is warming year after year?  Why do libtards say when it is getting hot, that it is global warming, but then when it gets real cold, they say it is weather?  Because billions of dollars need to be made on the backs of the taxpayers, yet the libtards allow the likes of Al Jazeera Gore to make 1/2 billion dollars.  Such stupid people who vote dumbocrat.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Jim Hansen’s 99% Surety on Global Warming Doesn’t Hold Up


> Jim Hansen’s 99% Surety on Global Warming Doesn’t Hold Up


 By the way, on the melting of the west Antarctic ice sheet, they found that volcanic activity was the MAJOR cause of that melt.  OOPS , bet you didn't see that coming?
Hidden volcanoes melt Antarctic glaciers from below, study finds | Fox News


> Antarctica is a land of ice. But dive below the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and you'll find fire as well, in the form of subglacial volcanoes.


 Liberals love to leave out important information when it comes to them stealing money from others.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 5, 2016)

A Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming


> "Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science. It provides the media with a new scare story, which has been picked up by the focus groups and turned into the new religion, offering us hell if we don't all change our ways." [BBC]
> *A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly
> Caused By Global Warming*


 Do you remember in the movie An Inconvenient Lie that the Earth was warming so fast that the Arctic Freeze came down into the US making Mexico a safe zone from the freeze?  That was supposed to scare the begeezus out of us and we were supposed to PAY millions of dollars to Al Jazeera Gore to SAVE us.  Liberals fell for it hook line and sinker.  Stupid people vote Dumbocrat.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Too many big words for the RW loons.....


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 5, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



One day you will be sorry...


----------



## Crick (Apr 5, 2016)

It's probably freezing because a big lobe of the polar vortex brought an Arctic air mass your way and simultaneously took an equatorial mass of warm air into the Alaska, the American northwest and the Arctic.  The net effect on global temperatures is zip.  The cause for that big lobe of cold air?  The increased temperature in the Arctic reducing the difference between their and the poles. Ring your bell twice if you think you understand.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 5, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


I was sorry back in 2008 when the oceans began to lower and the planet was going to heal.  That energy prices would necessarily skyrocket.  That the fundamental transformation of America was going to begin.  Stupid people vote dumbocrat.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> It's probably freezing because a big lobe of the polar vortex brought an Arctic air mass your way and simultaneously took an equatorial mass of warm air into the Alaska, the American northwest and the Arctic.  The net effect on global temperatures is zip.  The cause for that big lobe of cold air?  The increased temperature in the Arctic reducing the difference between their and the poles. Ring your bell twice if you think you understand.


Do you understand what you are saying?  The increased temperature of the Arctic is causing FREEZING temperatures?  If you increase the temperature of your house, does the temperature of the house go up or down?  Think about it... If the temperature of the Arctic is making the ice melt(above 32 degrees) how can temperatures below 32 degrees come from the Arctic?  Such stupid people who vote dumbocrat.


----------



## Crick (Apr 5, 2016)

Perhaps you should get out a globe or a map and take note of the difference in longitude between Virginia and Alaska.  Then look a thing or two up.  Here is such an illustration from Wikipedia's article on Rossby Waves






In (d), Virginia would be under that long, cold, blue lobe while Alaska would be under the tan, warm lobe to its west.

Got it?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 5, 2016)

View attachment 70318


Crick said:


> Perhaps you should get out a globe or a map and take note of the difference in longitude between Virginia and Alaska.  Then look a thing or two up.  Here is such an illustration from Wikipedia's article on Rossby Waves
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How can the Arctic be melting(above 32 degrees) and freezing cold(32 degrees or below) be coming from the Arctic?


----------



## Crick (Apr 5, 2016)

Sorry dude, but you need some work in the fundamentals.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Frank, you will dead when southern Florida succumbs to the ocean' unless you're a vampire....which is entirely possible,j


so what you're saying is you won't be around either.  Funny shit though.  Yep, no accountability, I like that.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


so his and his pals mode of operation is to predict past the time they will be alive and then challenge the opposition to prove they're wrong.  Well, how the fk can one challenge the year 2100 today when we all know we won't be here. It's useless drivel.  that photo of Guam will always be there for our lives, so they have zippola as evidence to any prediction.  Any.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2016)

westwall said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> ...


Maybe you need to learn some basics. When people like you were saying that nothing at all was happening, Dr. Hansen made so pretty unequivical predictions concerning the opening of the Northwest Passage. Yes, he got it wrong. It happened far sooner than he estimated. So the Cryosphere is more sensitive to temperature increase than we thought. 

And, by the way, where the hell is that damned cooling, Mr. Westwall? Going to be in the 80's here next week. That is some cooling.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Dumb fuck, why don't you ever link to something that would back up your silly lies? Because there is nothing for you to link to. People like you are stupid beyond belief. 

The climatologists predictions have mostly been on the conservative side. And the ice melt worldwide is exceeding their worst case estimates.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2016)

westwall said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Mr. Westwall, you are one silly ass. Even the equations we use in physics are nothing but models of the real world, and many come with warnings concerning the parameters for which they can be used with any accuracy. And, when you are using models created by past observations, and the world is in the process of change, then those models are no longer that accurate, because the parameters are changing. 

Now you have in the past referred to the Maunder Minimum for predicting a cooling. What was that but a prediction based on a model? And a very poor one as we can see from the last two years and the present year.


----------



## xband (Apr 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


W


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > It's probably freezing because a big lobe of the polar vortex brought an Arctic air mass your way and simultaneously took an equatorial mass of warm air into the Alaska, the American northwest and the Arctic.  The net effect on global temperatures is zip.  The cause for that big lobe of cold air?  The increased temperature in the Arctic reducing the difference between their and the poles. Ring your bell twice if you think you understand.
> ...


Of course he understands what he is saying. You are the one that does not understand basic science.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


The Great Lakes Are Still Almost Half Frozen, And It Could Affect The Environment For Years


> The Great Lakes Are Still Almost Half Frozen, And It Could Affect The Environment For Years.


 Weather event
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/02/20/great-lakes-ice-michigan/23730017/


> *Great Lakes are freezing fast*
> Tony Wittkowski and Bob Gross, Michigan.com 9:05 a.m. EST February 20, 2015


 Weather event
Old rocks says *"Going to be in the 80's here next week."* Global warming....


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Gave you a link tard. Try to fucking disprove it...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 5, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




And the perdictions mostly have been on the conservative aide? Bwahahahahaha.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Study Shows Global Warming Data Skewed by Bad Monitoring


> That problem of poorly sited stations thanks to “encroaching urbanity” — locations near asphalt, air conditioning and airports — is well established. A sensor in Marysville, Calif., sits in a parking lot at a fire station next to an air conditioner exhaust and a cell tower. One in Redding, Calif., is housed in a box that also contains a halogen light bulb, which could emit warmth directly onto the gauge.


 Al Jazeera Gore made 1/2 billion dollars from energy taxes that were FORCED upon US.  Why don't the 99%'ers go after Al for his obscene profits?  Why is it Al Gore has mansions that burn energy like a small city and the left doesn't do shit about it? 
Fact Check: Is Al Gore's mansion a lot less green than George Bush's ranch house?


> The report says that Gore’s house used 221,000 kwh of electricity in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kwh. The report says the natural gas usage of Gore’s home is high as well, and that the Gores spent more than $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills in 2006.


 Liberals are all about "DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO".  They can live in mansions, fly around in private jets, ride in limo's while the rest of us must give up our energy usage.  Stupid people vote Dumbocrat.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


but science in the big boy and girl world takes the observed data and tracks that against the models and then adjust the models to better define future projections, yet in your science world your creepy science takes the observed data and instead of updating the models, they update the observed to match the models.  how fked up is that in your world.  Tell me that's scientific.  Please,


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Apr 5, 2016)

So, we keep asking, but the deniers are still unable to show any failed consensus predictions from actual climate scientists.

They are, of course, quite creative with their deflections. Andaronjim even managed to somehow bring both racism and Gore into it.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> So, we keep asking, but the deniers are still unable to show any failed consensus predictions from actual climate scientists.
> 
> They are, of course, quite creative with their deflections. Andaronjim even managed to somehow bring both racism and Gore into it.


that door swings both ways tooth.  You haven't presented any predictions that have come true.  BTW, I do believe there have been many posts regarding failed predictions, I believe skooks has presented them in the past.  To restart a new thread over and over is funny.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 5, 2016)

Climate Change is not a day to day event.  The change will take decades and centuries, but it will come.  Thankfully, alternative energy sources, conservation, and energy policies of the last 7 years have reduced our dependence on carbon based fuels.  The planet has a chance, but the Repooblicans fight every inch of the way.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...












Untrue.  Equations tell you EXACTLY what is going to occur if you do A+B the product is ALWAYS C.  That's what it means to be an exact science.  Something that climatology is not.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Climate Change is not a day to day event.  The change will take decades and centuries, but it will come.  Thankfully, alternative energy sources, conservation, and energy policies of the last 7 years have reduced our dependence on carbon based fuels.  The planet has a chance, but the Repooblicans fight every inch of the way.











For once you got something correct.  Climate is a process that is ongoing.  Mankind has no effect on it at all, but it is an ongoing process.  In fact, the things happening today, were begun CENTURIES ago.   Long before man had even industrialized.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 5, 2016)

We are trying to compare the antis, whose average IQ is in the double digits with PHds whose average IQ is triple digit.  We cannot expect many of the Antis to understand.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Shot:
"Dumb fuck, why don't you ever link to something that would back up your silly lies? Because there is nothing for you to link to. People like you are stupid beyond belief."

Chaser (wild accusation, no link):
"The climatologists predictions have mostly been on the conservative side. And the ice melt worldwide is exceeding their worst case estimates."


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 5, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> We are trying to compare the antis, whose average IQ is in the double digits with PHds whose average IQ is triple digit.  We cannot expect many of the Antis to understand.


Wow, how scientific.  Can't prove anything so just demonize those that don't worship your idols.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> So, we keep asking, but the deniers are still unable to show any failed consensus predictions from actual climate scientists.
> 
> They are, of course, quite creative with their deflections. Andaronjim even managed to somehow bring both racism and Gore into it.




You know how foolish old rocks and you always look when you say this?

Billions and billions read them yet you say it don't exsist.    Hell have you ever heard of the fairness doctrine? The media was 96% run by liberals untill 1987.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 5, 2016)

bear513 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> ...



Oh look they also did it 1989




In 1989, the United Nations’ Environmental Programme (UNEP), sponsor of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), predicted, “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” In 2005, UNEP warned that by 2010 some 50 million people would be “climate refugees” frantically fleeing low lying areas in the Caribbean, the Pacific Islands, China and the U.S. because of imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes and desertification caused by man-made global warming. The U.N.’s 2007 IPCC Report suggested the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 or sooner. Since then the IPCC has backed away from those predictions and, at times, even denied they were ever made.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Climate Change is not a day to day event.  The change will take decades and centuries, but it will come.  Thankfully, alternative energy sources, conservation, and energy policies of the last 7 years have reduced our dependence on carbon based fuels.  The planet has a chance, but the Repooblicans fight every inch of the way.


what do you consider climate change? Can you give an example of what climate has changed?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


2016 Prom Dresses -80%

Went to your first link, and that is what_ I found._


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


*Hansen et al. 1981*
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, *213*, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

*The prediction was made for near the end of the 21st century. The Northwest Passage first opened in 2007. Erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet was the prediction for the 21st Century. Eventually, a breakup of the West Antarctic was predicted in one of the coming centuries. That breakup has already started.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 5, 2016)

The number of repeatable lab experiments demonstrating how a 100PPM change in CO2 can raise temperature is still zero


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The number of repeatable lab experiments demonstrating how a 100PPM change in CO2 can raise temperature is still zero


so Frank, curious how all these scientific geniuses in here got so smart without ever learning about science.  Cause none of them seem to know about lab experiments or proof of concept theory. 

And I would still really like to know who invented the concept that CO2 can raise temperature without ever testing it.

And now the new magic of CO2 that it now gets even warmer as it absorbs less IR. 

so the working theory today is that less IR means warmer air.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 5, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> You will never understand, so just go away.




Understand what? Indoctrination? Drink the kool aid?


No thanks. I know history.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained,*“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. *And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.

*Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.”*

Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases.Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”

*When did he say this will happen?*

*Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.*

*Does he still believe these things?*

Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.

I’ve saved the Salon.com web page as a PDF also, *here*, just in case it should be deleted. *So not only did Dr. Hansen make the claims in the late 1980’s, he reaffirmed his predictions again in 2001.*

The scenario of the interview with Dr. Hansen looking out his window and describing the changes he envisions 20 years into the future is very plausible. As we established yesterday, Dr. Hansen’s NASA GISS office at 2880 Broadway in NYC, has a view of the Hudson River.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> We are trying to compare the antis, whose average IQ is in the double digits with PHds whose average IQ is triple digit.  We cannot expect many of the Antis to understand.












I have a PhD in geology from Caltech.  You?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 5, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Climate Change is not a day to day event.  The change will take decades and centuries, but it will come




Congratulations you just figured out what the rest of us Knew in the 2nd grade. What did you think it would never change again if man never existed


----------



## mamooth (Apr 5, 2016)

bear513 said:


> You know how foolish old rocks and you always look when you say this?



If you could just cite some actual examples of the consensus of climate scientists being wrong, you wouldn't look so desperate to change the subject.



> Billions and billions read them yet you say it don't exist.



And you're taking off on a new deflection.



> Hell have you ever heard of the fairness doctrine? The media was 96% run by liberals untill 1987.



The outright kookery of that insanity aside, it has nothing to do with climate science. So it's yet another deflection.

So, you're still whiffing, batting a perfect .000. Why don't you just admit you're making it all up? It's not like it isn't obvious, and your endless parade of deflections isn't fooling anyone.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 5, 2016)

bear513 said:


> <Quoting botched Salon interview>
> 
> While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress



And Bear whiffs again, posting the same old flawed Hansen interview. The interviewer there admitted that he screwed it up big time and misrepresented what Hansen said.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf

---
Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the message: "I went back to my book and reread the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later - probably because I'd been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question.
---

Hansen's flooding prediction was not for "20 years from the time of the interview". It was for "40 years after a doubling of the CO2 concentration". Which was 350ppm at the time, so the clock on the 40 years starts ticking whenever 700 ppm is reached, which will be a while.

It's been known for 5 years now, that the Salon interview was botched. Deniers ... don't care. Poor Bear had no hope of knowing he was parroting a lie, because his cult leaders didn't want him to know that. Point is, poor Bear whiffed again in his quest to find some sort of failed prediction.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > You know how foolish old rocks and you always look when you say this?
> ...










Is this enough?  I want to make sure you don't want more.....  If you do I can get them for you....




*The big list of failed climate predictions*
Anthony Watts / April 2, 2014


Reader “Sasha” responding to Jeff Alberts in comments provided a large list that I thought was worth sharing.

Submitted on 2014/04/02 at 8:37 am

The question wasn’t “what do people think is caused by global warming”, but “what was predicted by scientists and activists 25 years ago that would be a result of global warming.” Big difference.

*OK. Hang on to your hat!*
The original post was asking for a list of failed climate predictions, so here are 107:

*FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS* (and some related stupid sayings)


1. “Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will become milder.”
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University of Potsdam, February 8, 2006

****

2. “Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in Saxony Anhalt.”
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10, 2010.

****

3. “More heat waves, no snow in the winter… Climate models… over 20 times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should form the basis for political planning… Temperatures in the wintertime will rise the most… there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe from the east…In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between 2021 and 2050.”

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

****

4. “The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet winters.”
Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007

****

5. “Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2 emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C.”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.

****

6. “In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and wetter.”
Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

****

7. “The more than ‘unusually ‘warm January weather is yet ‘another extreme event’, ‘a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us’. … The global temperature will ‘increase every year by 0.2°C’”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment,
Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007

****

8. “Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder temperatures, it’ll fall more often as rain than as snow.”
Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

9. “We’ve mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but that doesn’t change the picture as a whole. Generally it’s going to get warmer, also in the wintertime.”
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010

****

10. “Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago will cease to exist at our latitudes.”
Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

****

11. “Good bye winter. Never again snow?”
Spiegel, 1 April 2000

****

12. “In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these benefits. In some regions up to 60% of the species could die off by 2080.”

3Sat, 26 June 2003

****

13. “Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP.”
IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann)

****

14. “Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end up being just one sixth.”
Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007

****

15. “Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be proportionately higher at higher elevations – and especially will have a powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions.”

and

“ The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to 1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses warmer winters have to be anticipated.”
Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002

****

16. “Yesterday’s snow… Because temperatures in the Alps are rising quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists. For many ski lifts this means the end of business.”
Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006

****

17. “Spring will begin in January starting in 2030.”
Die Welt, 30 Sept 2010

****

18. “Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters” … “Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many as signs of climate change.”
Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007

****

19. “Good bye winter… In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable – and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First the snow disappears, and then winter.”
Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007

****

20. “Warm in the winter, dry in the summer … Long, hard winters in Germany remain rare: By 2085 large areas of the Alps and Central German Mountains will be almost free of snow. Because air temperatures in winter will rise more quickly than in summer, there will be more precipitation. ‘However, much of it will fall as rain,’ says Daniela Jacob of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology.”
FOCUS, 24 May 2006

****

21. “Consequences and impacts for regional agriculture: Hotter summers, milder plus shorter winters (palm trees!). Agriculture: More CO2 in the air, higher temperatures, foremost in winter.”
Dr. Michael Schirmer, University of Bremen, presentation of 2 Feb 2007

****

22. “Winters: wet and mild”
Bavarian State Ministry for Agriculture, presentation 23 Aug 2007

****

23. “The climate model prognoses currently indicate that the following climate changes will occur: Increase in minimum temperatures in the winter.”
Chamber of Agriculture of Lower Saxony Date: 6 July 2009

****

24. “Both the prognoses for global climate development and the prognoses for the climatic development of the Fichtel Mountains clearly show a warming of the average temperature, whereby especially the winter months will be greatly impacted.”
Willi Seifert, University of Bayreuth, diploma thesis, p. 203, 7 July 2004

****

25. “Already in the year 2025 the conditions for winter sports in the Fichtel Mountains will develop negatively, especially with regards to ‘natural’ snow conditions and for so-called snow-making potential. A financially viable ski business operation after about the year 2025 appears under these conditions to be extremely improbable (Seifert, 2004)”.
Andreas Matzarakis, University of Freiburg Meteorological Institute, 26 July 2006

****

26. “Skiing among palm trees? … For this reason I would advise no one in the Berchtesgadener Land to invest in a ski-lift. The probability of earning money with the global warming is getting less and less.”
Hartmut Graßl, Director Emeritus,
Max Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 3, 4 Mar 2006

****

27. “Climate warming leads to an increasingly higher snow line. The number of future ski resorts that can be expected to have snow is reducing. […] Climate change does not only lead to higher temperatures, but also to changes in the precipitation ratios in summer and winter. […] In the wintertime more precipitation is to be anticipated. However, it will fall more often as rain, and less often as snow, in the future.”
Hans Elsasser, Director of the Geographical Institute of the University of Zurich, 4 Mar 2006

****

28. “All climate simulations – global and regional – were carried out at the Deutschen Klimarechenzentrum [German Climate Simulation Center]. […] In the winter months the temperature rise is from 1.5°C to 2°C and stretches from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean Sea. Only in regions that are directly influenced by the Atlantic (Great Britain, Portugal, parts of Spain) will the winter temperature increase be less (Fig. 1).”
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Press Release, Date: December 2007/January 2013.

****

29. “By the year 2050 … temperatures will rise 1.5ºC to 2.5°C (summer) and 3°C (winter). … in the summer it will rain up to 40% less and in the winter up to 30% more.
German Federal Department of Highways, 1 Sept 2010

****

30. “We are now at the threshold of making reliable statements about the future.”
Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 44, 10/2001

****

31. “The scenarios of climate scientists are unanimous about one thing: In the future in Germany we will have to live with drier and drier summers and a lot more rain in the winters.”
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 20 May 2010

****

32. “In the wintertime the winds will be more from the west and will bring storms to Germany. Especially in western and southern Germany there will be flooding.” FOCUS / Mojib Latif, Leibniz Institute for Ocean Sciences of the University of Kiel, 27 May 2006.

****

33. “While the increases in the springtime appear as rather modest, the (late)summer and winter months are showing an especially powerful warming trend.”
State Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and Geology, Saxony, p. 133, Schriftenreihe Heft 25/2009.

****

34. “Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find, Using NASA Model … Despite appearing as part of a natural climate oscillation, the large increases in wintertime surface temperatures over the continents may therefore be attributable in large part to human activities,”
Science Daily, Dr. Drew Shindell 4 June 1999

****

35. “Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

****

36. “This data confirms what many gardeners believe – winters are not as hard as they used to be. … And if recent trends continue a white Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past.”
BBC, Dr Jeremy Williams, Bangor University, Lecturer in Geomatics, 20 Dec 2004

****

37. The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover.”
Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

****

38. “Computer models predict that the temperature rise will continue at that accelerated pace if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not reduced, and also predict that warming will be especially pronounced in the wintertime.”
Star News, William K. Stevens, New York Times, 11 Mar 2000

****

39. “In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn.”
Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005

*****

40. “We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in the winter season.”
Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000

****

41. “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate about the freezing point.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001

****

42. “Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers and milder winters…9.4.2. Decreased Mortality Resulting from Milder Winters … One study estimates a decrease in annual cold-related deaths of 20,000 in the UK by the 2050s (a reduction of 25%)”
IPCC Climate Change, 2001

****

43. “The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than average winter temperature in northern Europe. …The duration of the snow season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is likely to decrease in at least most of Europe.”
IPCC Climate Change, 2007

****

44. “Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from global warming.”
WalesOnline, Sir John Houghton – atmospheric physicist, 30 June 2007

****

45. “In the UK wetter winters are expected which will lead to more extreme rainfall, whereas summers are expected to get drier. However, it is possible under climate change that there could be an increase of extreme rainfall even under general drying.”
Telegraph, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 24 July 2007

****

46. “Winter has gone forever and we should officially bring spring forward instead. … There is no winter any more despite a cold snap before Christmas. It is nothing like years ago when I was younger. There is a real problem with spring because so much is flowering so early year to year.”
Express, Dr Nigel Taylor, Curator of Kew Gardens, 8 Feb 2008

****

47. “The past is no longer a guide to the future. We no longer have a stationary climate,”…
Independent, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 27 Jul 2007

****

48. “It is consistent with the climate change message. It is exactly what we expect winters to be like – warmer and wetter, and dryer and hotter summers. …the winter we have just seen is consistent with the type of weather we expect to see more and more in the future.”
Wayne Elliott, Met Office meteorologist, BBC, 27 Feb 2007

****

49. “ If your decisions depend on what’s happening at these very fine scales of 25 km or even 5 km resolution then you probably shouldn’t be making irreversible investment decisions now.”
Myles Allen, “one of the UK’s leading climate modellers”, Oxford University, 18 June 2009

****

50. “It’s great that the government has decided to put together such a scientifically robust analysis of the potential impacts of climate change in the UK.”
Keith Allott, WWF-UK, 18 June 2009

****

51. “The data collected by experts from the university [of Bangor] suggests that a white Christmas on Snowdon – the tallest mountain in England and Wales – may one day become no more than a memory.”
BBC News, 20 Dec 2004
[BBC 2013: “Snowdon Mountain Railway will be shut over the Easter weekend after it was hit by 30ft (9.1m) snow drifts.”]

****

52. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
Guardian, 26 Aug 2006.

****

53. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p. 19), and

“…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix, Greenpeace, 2004

****

54. “Shindell’s model predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. ‘In our model, we’re seeing a very large signal of global warming and it’s not a naturally occurring thing. It’s most likely linked to greenhouse gases,’ he said.
NASA, GISS, 2 June 1999

****

55. “We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have become much milder than before and that there isn’t nearly as much snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps…especially in the foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be possible anymore.”
Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel, February 17, 2005

****

56. Planning for a snowless future: “Our study is already showing that that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years.”
Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel, 17 Feb 2005

****

57. “Rhineland-Palatinate, as will be the case for all of Central Europe, will be affected by higher than average warming rates and winters with snow disappearing increasingly.”
Prof. Dr. Hartmut Grassl, “internationally renowned meteorologist”, Director Emeritus, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 20 Nov 2008

****

58. “With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within 20 years.”
Guardian, 14 February 2004
[4 January 2013: “Nevis Range, The Lecht, Cairngorm, Glenshee and Glencoe all remain closed today due to the heavy snow and strong winds.”]

****

59. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 14 Feb 2004

****

60. “For the Baltic ringed seal, climate change could mean its demise” warned a team of scientists at the Baltic Sea Experiment (Baltex) conference in Goteborg. “This is because the warming leads to the ice on the Baltic Sea to melt earlier and earlier every year.”
Spiegel, 3 June 2006
[The Local 2013: “Late-season freeze sets Baltic ice record … I’ve never seen this much ice this late in the season.”]

****

61. Forecasters Predict More Mild Winter for Europe

Reuters, Nov 09, 2012

FRANKFURT – European weather in the coming winter now looks more likely to be mild than in previous studies, German meteorologist Georg Mueller said in a monthly report.

“The latest runs are generally in favor of a milder than normal winter, especially over northern Europe.”

****

62. “Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
Guardian, 26 August 2006.
Earlier springs and later autumns: climate change sends nature awry

****

63. “Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century.” (p19)

“…but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change … moreover an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for recreation!” (p38)

Impact of the climate change in Belgium (translated from Dutch).
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004

****

64. “The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom”
Telegraph December 14, 2006
The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom

****

65. “Jay Wynne from the BBC Weather Centre presents reports for typical days in 2020, 2050 and 2080 as predicted by our experiment.”
BBCs Climate Change Experiment
BBC - Science & Nature - Climate Change

****

66. “Cold winters would gradually disappear.” (p.4)
67. “In Belgium, snow on the ground could become increasingly rare but there would be plenty of grey sky and rain in winter..” (p.6)
The Greenpeace report “Impacts of climate change in Belgium” is available in an abbreviated version in English:
http://www.greenpeace.org/belgium/PageFiles/19049/SumIB_uk.pdf
Impacts of climate change in Belgium
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004
Climate scientist van Ypersele is Vice Chair of the IPCC.

****

68. “Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases.”
NASA, June 2, 1999
NASA GISS: Research News: Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked to Increasing Greenhouse Gases

****

69. “The global temperature will increase every year by 0.2°C”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, in Die Zeit, January 15, 2007

****

70. “Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry. It is very vulnerable to climate change; the resorts have always been marginal in terms of snow and, as the rate of climate change increases, it is hard to see a long-term future.”
David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
February 14, 2004
Global warming forces sale of Scottish winter sports resorts

****

71. “Climate change will have the effect of pushing more and more winter sports higher and higher up mountains,…”
Rolf Burki and his colleagues at the University of Zurich
On the rocks: the grim forecast for winter sports as global warming increases

****

72. “ In the future, snowdrops will be out in January, primroses in February, mayflowers and lilac in April and wild roses in May, the ponds will be full of tadpoles in March and a month later even the oaks will be in full leaf. If that isn’t enough, autumn probably won’t begin until October.”
Geraint Smith, Science Correspondent, Standard
British seasons start to shift

****

73. “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss.
Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years.

****

74. March 20, 2000, from The Independent, According to Dr David Viner of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, snowfall in Britain would become “a very rare and exciting event” and “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

****

75. September 2006, Arnold Schwarzenegger signing California’s anti-emissions law, “We simply must do everything in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late…The science is clear. The global warming debate is over.”

****

76. 1990 Actress Meryl Streep “By the year 2000 – that’s less than ten years away–earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there’ll be enormous calamities in a very short time.”

****

77. April 2008, Media Mogul Ted Turner on Charlie Rose (On not taking drastic action to correct global warming) “Not doing it will be catastrophic. We’ll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.”
[Strictly speaking, this is not a failed prediction. It won’t be until at least 2048 that our church-going and pie-baking neighbors come after us for their noonday meal. But the prediction is so bizarre that it is included it here.]

****

78. January 1970 Life Magazine “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support …the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…”

****

79. “Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “At the present rate of nitrogen build-up, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

****

80. “Earth Day” 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

****

81. April 28, 1975 Newsweek “There are ominous signs that Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically….The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it….The central fact is that…the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down…If the climate change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

****

82. 1976 Lowell Ponte in “The Cooling,”: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.”

****

83. July 9, 1971, Washington Post: “In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun’s rays that the Earth’s average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to ten years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.”

****

84. June, 1975, Nigel Calder in International Wildlife: “The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.”

****

85. June 30, 1989, Associated Press: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.

****

86. Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”

****

87. December 5, 1989, Dallas Morning News: “Some predictions for the next decade are not difficult to make…Americans may see the ’80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates.”

—****

88. Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

****

89. April 18, 1990, Denver Post: “Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert–huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado’s Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America’s rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered by NASA satellite photos are expected to re-emerge over the next 20 t0 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected ‘greenhouse effect’ scientists believe.”

****

90. Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): “By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle….Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years.”

****

91. April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet: “I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”

****

92. February 1993, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution: “Most of the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s and by the next century it will be too late.”

****

93. November 7, 1997, (BBC commentator): “It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Niños are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Niño upon El Niño, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Niño, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years.”

****

94. July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post: “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”

****

95. October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan: “The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”

****

96. Sept 11, 1999, The Guardian: “A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world.”

****

97. March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”

****

98. 1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”

****

99. 2005, Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation: “Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes.”

****

100. Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): “World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.”

****

101. June 2008, Ted Alvarez, Backpacker Magazine Blogs: “you could potentially sail, kayak, or even swim to the North Pole by the end of the summer. Climate scientists say that the Arctic ice…is currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.”
[Shortly after this prediction was made, a Russian icebreaker was trapped in the ice of the Northwest Passage for a week.]

****

102. May 31, 2006 Al Gore, CBS Early Show: “…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science…Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”

****

103. January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City: “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”

****

104. 2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain: “The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.”
[Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.]

****

105. June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’”

****

106. June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor: “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

****

107. May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”
The big list of failed climate predictions


----------



## mamooth (Apr 5, 2016)

And another whiff. Westwall gives us 107 examples of ...

1. Predictions that came true
2. Predictions that weren't actually made, having been ripped screaming out of context.
3. Predictions made by people who weren't climate scientists
4. Predictions made by a single scientist that didn't represent any sort of consensus.

So, we've still got deniers unable to show even a single case of a consensus climate science prediction being wrong.

What will it take for you deniers to stop deflecting and admit your "scientists have been wrong" nonsense is merely a dishonest mantra that the denier religion orders its acolytes to chant?


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> And another whiff. Westwall gives us 107 examples of ...
> 
> 1. Predictions that came true
> 2. Predictions that weren't actually made, having been ripped screaming out of context.
> ...













Really?  Which one of those predictions came true?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 5, 2016)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Yep, the Chicken Little Cult screams doom on every subject, environment, population, viruses, food supply, even anorexia epidemic that would kill tens of thousands of women by now.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> And another whiff. Westwall gives us 107 examples of ...
> 
> 1. Predictions that came true
> 2. Predictions that weren't actually made, having been ripped screaming out of context.
> ...




The fool yet trys to wiggle out of it

Lets just take one, how was this taken out of context? How was it not true?

*104. 2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain: “The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.”
[Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.]*




.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 5, 2016)

westwall said:


> Really?  Which one of those predictions came true?



"Milder and wetter winters", for example.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 5, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Lets just take one, how was this taken out of context? How was it not true?
> 
> *104. 2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain: “The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.”
> [Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.]*.



Cherrypicking fallacy. What was the trend following that?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Really?  Which one of those predictions came true?
> ...


where are milder wetter winters?

Shit, it's frkn spring and we still have trucks sliding off highways.  eight feet of snow isn't milder, a week under zero degrees isn't milder.  So you should market that drug you're smoking.

Oh, And I think California is still in a drought. WTF?


----------



## Crick (Apr 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. Westwall, you are one silly ass. Even the equations we use in physics are nothing but models of the real world, and many come with warnings concerning the parameters for which they can be used with any accuracy. And, when you are using models created by past observations, and the world is in the process of change, then those models are no longer that accurate, because the parameters are changing.
> 
> Now you have in the past referred to the Maunder Minimum for predicting a cooling. What was that but a prediction based on a model? And a very poor one as we can see from the last two years and the present year.





westwall said:


> Untrue.  Equations tell you EXACTLY what is going to occur if you do A+B the product is ALWAYS C.  That's what it means to be an exact science.  Something that climatology is not.



What science do you believe is an "exact" one?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2016)

westwall said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > And another whiff. Westwall gives us 107 examples of ...
> ...


January and February of this year have been the warmest ever recorded. That does look like a warmer winter, now doesn't it. Dry summers? Oregon and Washington just had a summer where the fires were so intense that they did not try to save the forests, instead they were trying to save the small towns. Damned near lost three of them in my home area.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > <Quoting botched Salon interview>
> ...




Ha try this one bitch I have the book right in front of me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, page 30 

_"I would not bet that the Mississippi Gulf Coast will get hit by a super hurricane in any particular year, but I certainly plan on it being hit again sometime over the next ten years:I wouldn't be surprised if it where hit by more then one" _Joesph Romm

the book is copyrighted  2007.........................................


*The 2014 Atlantic Hurricane Season marked the ninth consecutive year in which the U.S. did not sustain a major Category 3+ l*andfalling hurricane, which extends the alltime record by another year. It was also the quietest season in terms of named storms since 1997.” 


Inconvenient Truths: 2014 Global Natural Disasters Down Massively! …No Trend In Tornado/Cyclones Since 1950!















*Joseph J. Romm*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Joseph Romm, 2007
*Joseph J. Romm* (born June 27, 1960) is an American author, blogger, physicist[1]* and climate exper*t[2] who advocates reducing greenhouse gas emissions and global warming and increasing energy security through energy efficiency, green energy technologies and green transportation technologies.[3] Romm is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 2009, _Rolling Stone_ magazine named Romm to its list of "100 People Who Are Changing America".[4] and _Time_ magazine named him one of its "Heroes of the Environment (2009)"


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2016)

And the sea level rise continues to accelerate. A whole bunch of people with actual Phd's on their wall in oceanography are providing us with evidence of that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2016)

Tropical cyclones in the northwestern Pacific have strengthened about 10 percent since the 1970s because of warming ocean temperatures, researchers report this week in _Science Advances_. According to an extensive analysis of historical cyclone data, nearly 65 percent of typhoons now reach category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson scale, compared with around 45 percent just decades ago.


The northwestern Pacific produces some of the world’s most intense and most devastating tropical cyclones, called typhoons in the Pacific and hurricanes in the Atlantic. The category 5 super typhoon Haiyan, for instance, had record winds that reached nearly 200 miles per hour, and the 2013 storm killed at least 6,300 people in the Philippines.




Read more: History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

*Well, let us hope that 2017 finishes out that decade of no major hurricanes hitting the US. In the meantime, the Pacific has had an increase in the number and intensity of typhoons.*


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 5, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> 
> And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny.  Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...




to bad the continents are drinking the water  


Thirsty continents are slowing down expected sea level rise, scientists say


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 5, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> 
> And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny.  Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...




Oh my ALLAH,

HAIR ON FIRE>>>>>>!!!!!######

LOL

You fucktarded cultists couldn't produce any describable rise in oceans from the 20 years your cult of morons has made the claim.



AGW - the religion for retarded people.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > <Quoting botched Salon interview>
> ...





*2. France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos”*
When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Ironically at the time of Fabius’ comments, the U.N. had scheduled a climate summit to meet in Paris in December 2015 — some 565 days after his remarks. Looks like the U.N. is 65 days too late to save the world.

*3. President Barack Obama is the last chance to stop global warming*
When Obama made the campaign promise to “slow the rise of the oceans” some environmentalists may have taken him quite literally.

In 2012, the United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire that Obama’s second term was “the last window of opportunity” to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it’s “the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,” adding that if “we don’t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.”

Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.” I wonder what they now think about their predictions?

*4. Remember when we had “hours” to stop global warming?*
In 2009, world leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming.

“We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”

*5. United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown said there was only 50 days left to save Earth*
2009 was a bad year for global warming predictions. That year Brown warned there was only “50 days to save the world from global warming,” the BBC reported. According to Brown there was “no plan B.”

Brown has been booted out of office since then. I wonder what he’d say about global warming today?

*6. Let’s not forget Prince Charles’s warning we only had 96 months to save the planet*
It’s only been about 70 months since Charles said in July 2009 that there would be “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” So the world apparently only has 26 months left to stave off an utter catastrophe.

*7. The U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world*
Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”

“What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment,” he said.

Well, it’s 2015 and no new U.N. climate treaty has been presented. The only thing that’s changed since then is that Pachauri was forced to resign earlier this year amid accusations he sexually harassed multiple female coworkers.

*8. Environmentalists warned in 2002 the world had a decade to go green*
Environmentalist write George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within “as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both.”

In 2002, about 930 million people around the world were undernourished, according to U.N. data. by 2014, that number shrank to 805 million. Sorry, Monbiot.



Read more: 25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > <Quoting botched Salon interview>
> ...




1) At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist *Nigel Calder* warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”



2) The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age. --*Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

3) A high-priority government report warns of climate change that will lead to floods and starvation. ‘Leading climatologists’ speak of a ‘detrimental global climatic change,’ threatening ‘the stability of most nations.’ The scenario is eerily familiar although the document — never made public before — dates from 1974. But here’s the difference: it was written to respond to the threat of global cooling, not warming. And yes, it even mentions a ‘consensus’ among scientists. -- Maurizio Morabito

4) According to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, we only have 96 months left to save the planet.

I'm impressed. 96 months. Not 95. Not 97. July 2017. Put it in your diary. Usually the warm-mongers stick to the same old drone that we only have 10 years left to save the planet. Nice round number. Former Vice President Al Gore said we only have 10 years left 3 1/2 years ago, which makes him technically more of a pessimist than the Prince of Wales. Al's betting Armageddon kicks in January 2016 -- unless he's just peddling glib generalities. -- Mark Steyn



5) ABC Science Show presenter Robyn Williams panics about global warming:
Andrew Bolt: I ask you, Robyn, 100 metres [of sea level rises] in the next century...do you really think that?

Robyn Williams: It is possible, yes.

It is possible, no, actually.

Now Glaciologist Nikolai Osokin of the Russian Academy of Science reassures Williams about global warming:

If all ice on the earth melted, the level of the oceans would rise by 64 meters. Many coastal cities would be under water, and so would the Netherlands, a significant part of which lies below sea level. However, the Dutch and the rest of the planet may rest assured: this hypothetical catastrophe could not take place anytime within the next thousand years



6) The UK faces a "catastrophe" of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree to a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned.
Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse."

He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world's biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was "no plan B". -- October 19, 2009

*


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...










Pure and utter bullshit.  The temperature record has provably been altered to make that statement.  How about the NOAA report from 1998 that stated the global temperature at 62 degrees?  Does that one suddenly disappear because it interferes with your lie?


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Westwall, you are one silly ass. Even the equations we use in physics are nothing but models of the real world, and many come with warnings concerning the parameters for which they can be used with any accuracy. And, when you are using models created by past observations, and the world is in the process of change, then those models are no longer that accurate, because the parameters are changing.
> ...












Definition of an exact science.....


any scientific field in which accurate quantitive techniques are used and there are accurate means of testing hypotheses and repeating results  ⇒ Mathematics is an exact science.
Definition of “exact science” | Collins English Dictionary


----------



## mamooth (Apr 5, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Ha try this one bitch I have the book right in front of me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, page 30
> 
> _"I would not bet that the Mississippi Gulf Coast will get hit by a super hurricane in any particular year, but I certainly plan on it being hit again sometime over the next ten years:I wouldn't be surprised if it where hit by more then one" _Joesph Romm
> 
> the book is copyrighted  2007.........................................



And it's not a prediction. It's a statement of probability.

Keep trying, Bear. Maybe someday, you'll figure out what a prediction is.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Really?  Which one of those predictions came true?
> ...












Where have they been milder?  And how exactly is that predictive?  In some areas it has been milder while in others it has been harsher.  Far harsher than normal.  In other words it is non falsifiable.   What is the other name for a non falsifiable science?

Here's a hint...

*Science and Pseudo-Science*

*Popper described the demarcation problem as the “key to most of the fundamental problems in the philosophy of science” (Popper 1962, 42). He rejected verifiability as a criterion for a scientific theory or hypothesis to be scientific, rather than pseudoscientific or metaphysical. Instead he proposed as a criterion that the theory be falsifiable, or more precisely that “statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations” (Popper 1962, 39).*


Science and Pseudo-Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Ha try this one bitch I have the book right in front of me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, page 30
> ...











Wow.  You dance hard but not well.  Share with us the definition of "statement of probability".  I'll wait.


----------



## Crick (Apr 5, 2016)

Most Floridians plan on being struck by a hurricane every season.  We don't get hit every season, but we still plan on it.

Idiot.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 5, 2016)

bear513 said:


> 1) At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist *Nigel Calder* warned,



Not a climate scientist. In fact, he's a hard core denier.



> 2) The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age. --*Kenneth Watt, Ecologist*



Not a climate scientist. Kenneth Watt was a zoologist.
*



			3) A high-priority government report warns of climate change that will lead to floods and starvation. ‘Leading climatologists’ speak of a ‘detrimental global climatic change,’ threatening ‘the stability of most nations.’ The scenario is eerily familiar although the document — never made public before — dates from 1974. But here’s the difference: it was written to respond to the threat of global cooling, not warming. And yes, it even mentions a ‘consensus’ among scientists. -- Maurizio Morabito

Click to expand...

*That's an mystery rumor speaking of unnamed people, not a prediction.
*



			4) According to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, we only have 96 months left to save the planet.
		
Click to expand...

*
Obviously not a climate scientist. And probably not an inaccurate statement, as it was speaking of preventing events in the far future, not in those 96 months. Do try to read for comprehension, eh?

*



			5) ABC Science Show presenter Robyn Williams panics about global warming:
		
Click to expand...

*
Obviously not a climate scientist.

*



			6) The UK faces a "catastrophe" of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree to a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned.
Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse."
		
Click to expand...

*Obviously not a climate scientist. And again, not an inaccurate statement, as it's speaking of the far future, not 50 days.

So, still not a single wrong consensus prediction from climate scientists. But keep trying. I'm sure you have additional vast numbers of people who aren't climate scientists making predictions, and you'll keep posting them here.

Here's a thought. Why don't you go to the IPCC reports and show the failed predictions? If things are as you say, those reports should be full of failed predictions. Yet oddly, you haven't quoted anything from the IPCC.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 5, 2016)

westwall said:


> Wow.  You dance hard but not well.  Share with us the definition of "statement of probability".  I'll wait.



Sure thing.

I'll predict that of 6 coin flips, it's likely about half will be heads.

If 5 end up as heads, that doesn't mean the statement of probability is wrong.

And someone who wasn't hilariously ignorant of statistics would understand that.

Oh, Caltech called. They want you to stop associating yourself with them, due to the embarrassment you cause them.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 5, 2016)

westwall said:


> Where have they been milder?



Most of the world. Do keep up with temperature trends.



> And how exactly is that predictive?



It says winter temperature trends will go up. They have.



> In other words it is non falsifiable.



It's entirely falsifiable, because it's real science. If average global winter temperatures went down, it would be falsified. Climate science makes many falsifiable predictions. Instead of being falsified, they all keep being confirmed.



> What is the other name for a non falsifiable science?



Denialism.

There's literally nothing that could falsify your denialist beliefs. When something does falsify them, you simply declare the data is faked. Hence, it's clear denialism is pseudoscience. Superstition. Religion.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 5, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Really?  Which one of those predictions came true?
> ...






bear513 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Oh yea forgot the picture on my phone..


----------



## mamooth (Apr 5, 2016)

I lied? About what? Please name the specific lie.

Oh wait. This is just you having a meltdown over how badly you're getting spanked. You're not even going to pretend to address my posts any more. Instead, you're just going to throw these tantrums. Do you think you're the first denier to act that way? I carve another notch whenever it happens.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2016)

By 2030, it is very probable that Glacier National Park will have no glaciers. Yet, if they have one snowfield left that lasts over the summer, those in denial of reality will claim that disproves the whole of global warming, even though when the park was established, there were over 150 glaciers. And if Mr. Westwall lasts that long, he will be the first in line to make the denial, even though, as someone claiming a Phd in Geology, he really should know the differance between a snow field and a glacier.

And the water from all the alpine glaciers ends up in the sea.


----------



## westwall (Apr 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> By 2030, it is very probable that Glacier National Park will have no glaciers. Yet, if they have one snowfield left that lasts over the summer, those in denial of reality will claim that disproves the whole of global warming, even though when the park was established, there were over 150 glaciers. And if Mr. Westwall lasts that long, he will be the first in line to make the denial, even though, as someone claiming a Phd in Geology, he really should know the differance between a snow field and a glacier.
> 
> And the water from all the alpine glaciers ends up in the sea.












And the Park has had many times when there were no glaciers.  So what?  The only glaciers that matter are those in the Antarctic and on Greenland.  The rest of the glaciers account for so little that they truly don't really matter in the overall scheme of things.  If we went back to the rate of loss that was going on in the 1990's it would take well over 1000 years for there to be a noticeable increase.  10,000 years for the glaciers to melt to over 50% of their mass.  This hogwash about sea level rising by over a meter in 100 years is just that, hogwash.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 5, 2016)

Well now, just a whole bunch of very prominent scientists are saying otherwise. Looks to me like you don't know much of what you are talking about.


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Well now, just a whole bunch of very prominent scientists are saying otherwise. Looks to me like you don't know much of what you are talking about.












People desperate to maintain their cash flow by telling lies don't impress me in the slightest.


----------



## Crick (Apr 6, 2016)

And you base that not on the slghtest shred of evidence that they are actually lying, but on their scientific, peer-reviewed conclusions.  I think the point is that no one is  impressed by you and your unsupported and unsupportable rants.


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> And you base that not on the slghtest shred of evidence that they are actually lying, but on their scientific, peer-reviewed conclusions.  I think the point is that no one is  impressed by you and your unsupported and unsupportable rants.










I base my statement on logic, and on verifiable fact.  Unlike you.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 6, 2016)

we have been hearing from the fanatical religious left wing GW fanatics, that with the increase of CO2 that the oceans have been warming to the point that there would be an increase in the frequency and the increase in power of hurricanes.  Someone please tell me that with the melting icecaps(temperature increases) that there is a cold blob in the Atlantic that will interfere with the predictions of those fanatics(oh boo hoo, libtards fucked up again).    You think they way this was reported that an alien from outerspace caused that blob.  'Cold blob' to be a wild card in the 2016 Atlantic hurricane season


> Whether or not ocean currents draw cold water from this blob southward into tropical regions of the Atlantic could determine how active the season becomes.
> 
> With all potential factors in mind, forecasters are predicting that *tropical storms* and hurricanes in the Atlantic will total 14 this season, two more than what is considered normal.
> 
> If the cooler water migrates southward across the eastern Atlantic, then westward into tropical breeding grounds, it will lower sea-surface temperatures over the region where 85 percent of Atlantic tropical systems develop.


 At one time the libtards only predicted Hurricanes, but since 2005 the lack of storms has now caused them to put any storm into the predictions.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 6, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> we have been hearing from the fanatical religious left wing GW fanatics, that with the increase of CO2 that the oceans have been warming to the point that there would be an increase in the frequency and the increase in power of hurricanes.



Nope. You're just making up strange tales.

Increased frequency was never predicted. That's a big ol' whopper on your part.

Increased strength is predicted for the future, and we are beginning to see that.

Got any other fantasies for us, or are you just going to pout more about the "libtards" who keep spanking you and sending you home to momma in tears?



> Someone please tell me that with the melting icecaps(temperature increases) that there is a cold blob in the Atlantic that will interfere with the predictions of those fanatics(oh boo hoo, libtards fucked up again).    You think they way this was reported that an alien from outerspace caused that blob.  'Cold blob' to be a wild card in the 2016 Atlantic hurricane season Whether or not ocean currents draw cold water from this blob southward into tropical regions of the Atlantic could determine how active the season becomes.



Ruh-roh. You seem confused. First you told us those awful liberals predict more hurricanes, now you say they predict less. Can you make up your mind?

Anyways, we're glad you're here in the Environment folder. Fresh meat is always welcome. We were getting bored smacking around the same old kook losers.


----------



## westwall (Apr 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > we have been hearing from the fanatical religious left wing GW fanatics, that with the increase of CO2 that the oceans have been warming to the point that there would be an increase in the frequency and the increase in power of hurricanes.
> ...













Poor mammy, you had better confab with your masters so you can remember which lie to tell..  Here you go, I'll help...





"*An increase in extreme events increases* the risk of flooding, drought, erosion, turbidity, debris in reservoirs, nutrient and pollutant loading, and wildfires. It also impacts surface runoff and groundwater recharge rates. The severity of these impacts will range geographically. For example, increased variability in semi-arid regions will increase aquifer recharge rates, while greater variability in humid regions will decrease aquifer recharge rates as more water is lost to runoff."

Changes in Storm Intensity and Frequency


"Extreme heatwaves and heavy rain storms* are already happening with increasing regularity worldwide* because of manmade climate change, according to new research.

Global warming over the last century means heat extremes that previously only occurred once every 1,000 days are happening four to five times more often, the study published in Nature Climate Change said."

Extreme weather already on increase due to climate change, study finds


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


no it doesn't, I deny the reported reports.  I don't believe them, nor will i accept them.  I'm allowed.  So what is it exactly are you going to do?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> And the sea level rise continues to accelerate. A whole bunch of people with actual Phd's on their wall in oceanography are providing us with evidence of that.


no they are not, and no the water isn't up and it hasn't been up and you can't prove it was up. So you are again posting up mumbo jumbo about sea level fear that ain't so Joe.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Ha try this one bitch I have the book right in front of me,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, page 30
> ...


well my statement of probability is that they are full of shit and that the sea level is unchanged and will remain unchanged. Prove me wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> Most Floridians plan on being struck by a hurricane every season.  We don't get hit every season, but we still plan on it.
> 
> Idiot.


and every year the state of Illinois buys mountains of salt to put on icy roads, cause they are icy every year.  What's your point?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.  You dance hard but not well.  Share with us the definition of "statement of probability".  I'll wait.
> ...


well if you laid down all your money on that prediction, you'd be broke.  i think that would mean you were wrong and broke.  hahahahahaahhahahahaahhahhahaha


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Where have they been milder?
> ...


hey tooth, let's see how smart you are, which hemisphere, north or south is cooler?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> By 2030, it is very probable that Glacier National Park will have no glaciers. Yet, if they have one snowfield left that lasts over the summer, those in denial of reality will claim that disproves the whole of global warming, even though when the park was established, there were over 150 glaciers. And if Mr. Westwall lasts that long, he will be the first in line to make the denial, even though, as someone claiming a Phd in Geology, he really should know the differance between a snow field and a glacier.
> 
> And the water from all the alpine glaciers ends up in the sea.


and how are you held accountable if the probability doesn't come in?  See there is none, so you can say whatever you want with no repercussions.  That isn't impressive! What would be impressive is if you had something to actually lose if the probability didn't come in.  Now I'm game for that.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 6, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Well now, just a whole bunch of very prominent scientists are saying otherwise. Looks to me like you don't know much of what you are talking about.


name me one that isn't receiving government money.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 7, 2016)

westwall said:


> Poor mammy, you had better confab with your masters so you can remember which lie to tell..  Here you go, I'll help...



Yes, your usual help, where you change the topic and then declare victory for "disproving" something that nobody ever claimed.



> "*An increase in extreme events increases*



That's not talking about hurricane frequency, which was the topic.

Sucks to be you, having all the evidence contradict you, and always being forced to deflect like that.


----------



## westwall (Apr 7, 2016)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Poor mammy, you had better confab with your masters so you can remember which lie to tell..  Here you go, I'll help...
> ...









Like I said mammy, you dance real hard, just not good.  In other words you're full of poo.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Apr 7, 2016)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Your talking to a common core math whiz...  you might need to dumb it down some..


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 7, 2016)

Sea-level rise from Antarctic ice sheet could double | Penn State University

Ocean warming has previously been identified as the main cause of ice retreat occurring today. Warmer water quickly erodes the underside of floating ice sheet portions. Floating ice shelves act as buttresses for the grounded ice inland, whose base is below sea level. Once the shelves are gone, the grounded ice can move faster. However, in previous models, this process did not simulate enough melting to explain the past sea levels, with only West Antarctica collapsing even though similar areas in East Antarctica with huge amounts of ice could collapse in the same manner.

Pollard, working with Robert M. DeConto, professor of geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, looked at two further mechanisms that could account for greater melting. The first mechanism is fracturing and deepening of crevasses on the low-lying floating ice shelves by pooling of surface meltwater and rainfall caused by warming air temperatures. If emissions continue unabated, this process will begin to dominate ocean warming within 100 years. It already caused the disintegration of the Larsen B Ice Shelf in 2002.

The second mechanism comes into play once floating ice sheets disintegrate back to the grounding zone, leaving extremely high walls of ice. These walls are so high that simple physics says they cannot structurally support their weight, and then collapse into the sea, eroding the cliff further and further inland as long as the bedrock stays deep enough below sea level. Similar cliffs, with about 328 feet of ice above sea level and 2625 feet below, exist today at a few of the largest outlet glaciers in Greenland and the Antarctic Peninsula, where huge calving events occur regularly.

*Guess we will see who is correct on this.*


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > we have been hearing from the fanatical religious left wing GW fanatics, that with the increase of CO2 that the oceans have been warming to the point that there would be an increase in the frequency and the increase in power of hurricanes.
> ...


Obama Proclaims: 'Hurricane Intensity' to Increase 'As Climate Continues to Warm'


> Obama said global warming would also "make storms more costly" in proclaiming this week (May 25-31) National Hurricane Preparedness Week:
> 
> *"As the climate continues to warm, hurricane intensity and rainfall are projected to increase*, and we expect sea level rise to make storm surges more costly. That is why, last year, I issued an *Executive Order *directing the Federal Governmentto take coordinated action to prepare our Nation for the *impacts of climate change.  *


 Mamooth is guaranteed to open mouth insert foot.  Just think that Mamooth will be voting in the next election too.  It is a shame that this person who believes in global warming will continue to be their worst enemy by using fossil fuels for their electricity, and transportation, while if they remove themselves from the Earth that would help decrease the CO2 output by 1. Such hypocrites that they are.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 8, 2016)

Hurricanes And Climate Change: Storms Likely To Get Stronger And More Frequent, Study Shows


> Hurricanes And Climate Change: Storms Likely To Get Stronger And More Frequent, Study Shows


 Mamooth, here is your own liberal news org confirming that frequency was predicted.


----------



## depotoo (Apr 8, 2016)

7. The U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world
Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”

“What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment,” he said.

..........

I find it so funny how he was touted as an expert climate scientist.  Has anyone ever looked up what his degree was in?  In industrial engineering and economics, with emphasis on railways.
Why would he have ever been selected to head the ipcc?  I believe for sinister reasons.  He was easily manipulated.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 8, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> *"As the climate continues to warm, hurricane intensity and rainfall are projected to increase*



And that's happened. So, another successful prediction of climate science.

As far as your other study goes

"A new study by Kerry Emanuel, a prominent hurricane researcher at MIT, found that contrary to previous findings, tropical cyclones are likely to become both stronger and more frequent in the years to come, especially in the western North Pacific, where storms can devastate the heavily populated coastlines of Asian nations."

First, "contrary to previous findings". Thanks for confirming that the previous science did not predict more frequent hurricanes.

Second, Emanuel is predicting higher frequency in the future. You understand what the future is? As he future has not arrived, we are not able to judge his prediction.

Third, he's one guy.

You're just not very good at this. All you can do, in addition to your crying, is confirm my points.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > *"As the climate continues to warm, hurricane intensity and rainfall are projected to increase*
> ...



3 years , 10 years 100 years 1000 years from now, the 3 years was wrong, the 10 years was wrong, 100 or 1000 years we wont be here. So you wont know how the outcome will be.  Such stupid people who vote democrat.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 8, 2016)

mamooth said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > *"As the climate continues to warm, hurricane intensity and rainfall are projected to increase*
> ...


I guess Sandy which was a Cat 2 was more powerful than the Cat 3 Katrina?  Funny how you libs always lower the standards so the next time something happens, the event ends up over the standard.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 8, 2016)

Why is it when the temperature goes up, the libtards yell Global Warming(err I mean Climate Change) but then when it snows, they call it a weather event?
Snow to slick roads in midwestern, northeastern US through Saturday


> Snow to slick roads in midwestern, northeastern US through Saturday


 Just follow the money, Al Jazeera Gore made 1/2 billion dollars because stupid people gave it to him to save the planet.


----------



## Crick (Apr 9, 2016)

Do you not understand the difference between climate and weather?  The climate is warming and has been almost without cease since the turn of the last century.  The last few decades' temperatures have risen dramatically quickly. That has not eliminated snow on the planet and so, yes indeedy, it still snows here and there.  A single snow or even a week's worth of snow, is weather.  If temperatures dropped for many months and snowfall globally increased, you might be seeing a climate change.  But that's not what has happened, is it.


----------



## xband (Apr 9, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Link Tard is a new one for me and thanks. I will save it for future reference.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 9, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Why is it when the temperature goes up, the libtards yell Global Warming(err I mean Climate Change) but then when it snows, they call it a weather event?
> Snow to slick roads in midwestern, northeastern US through Saturday
> 
> 
> ...


*Damn, you are one stupid lying ass. First, sure, the mid-west got a little April snow. Set any records? Either for temperature or amount of snowfall in April for that area? In the meantime, here in Portland, Oregon, we have had a couple of days of 80 + weather that has set records. The important point is that in both cases we are speaking of weather, not climate. 

One of the primary predictions of global warming is for wider and wilder swings in weather, with an overall warming. The swings are weather, the overall warming is climate*.

UAH V6 Global Temperature Update for March, 2016: +0.73 deg. C «  Roy Spencer, PhD

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for March, 2016 is +0.73 deg. C, down a little from the February record-setting value of +0.83 deg. C (click for full size version). This makes March 2016 the warmest March in the satellite record (since 1979), and statistically tied with April 1998 for the second warmest month.

*Vice President Gore did not make his money off of people giving him money. He inherited a modest fortune from his father, invested it in high tech when that market was on a downer, and vastly increased that fortune. He was educated as a journalist, and used that education to state in layman's terms what the scientists were stating concerning global warming. And fools like you hate him for stating reality.*


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> Do you not understand the difference between climate and weather?  The climate is warming and has been almost without cease since the turn of the last century.  The last few decades' temperatures have risen dramatically quickly. That has not eliminated snow on the planet and so, yes indeedy, it still snows here and there.  A single snow or even a week's worth of snow, is weather.  If temperatures dropped for many months and snowfall globally increased, you might be seeing a climate change.  But that's not what has happened, is it.


Just the typical bullshit argument from a religiously fanatical zelot.  Of course when it is warming then it is global warming, and when this past weekend when it was freezing out, it is just weather.  If liberals didn't have this argument then it would all be a lie.  I will ask you libtards once again, if the ICECAPS are melting(*Above 32 degrees*)  how can freezing weather(*Below 32 degrees*) show up in Virginia?  Now for the deer in the headlights look.  The dunce in the corner look.  The Obama is an idiot look.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 12, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it when the temperature goes up, the libtards yell Global Warming(err I mean Climate Change) but then when it snows, they call it a weather event?
> ...


http://www.wnd.com/2007/03/40445/


> Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a “carbon neutral” lifestyle by buying “carbon offsets,” but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.


 Al Jazeera Gore, is in the top 1%er.  Why don't you go after this crook like you guys do with CEO's of a business who actually makes or provides something?  Such stupid dumbasses you liberals are.  Next time you call me a liar, you better get your fucking FACTS straight.  A dead liberal is a good liberal.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 12, 2016)

A tale of two cities:  Chicago and Houston | GunsSaveLife.com


> Similar sized cities with a lot in common.
> 
> Until you get to gun availability, temperature and homicide rates.
> 
> ...


 A little humor, but you know the liberals wont get it.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 12, 2016)

Great to have a Scientist on Board!


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 12, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Great to have a Scientist on Board!


Notice how the lib wouldn't answer  my question, just puffed it off as typical of a lefty.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 12, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> I will ask you libtards once again, if the ICECAPS are melting(*Above 32 degrees*)  how can freezing weather(*Below 32 degrees*) show up in Virginia?



Because weather isn't the same all over the world.

Damn, you're stupid. If you're trying to win this week's denier dumb-off, that was a good effort. Seriously, you're one impressive moron.



> Now for the deer in the headlights look.  The dunce in the corner look.  The Obama is an idiot look.



Actually, that's mocking laughter, as we find it hard to believe you could actually be as stupid as you sound. Are you perhaps just pretending to be retarded? Are you a liberal plant, sent here on a mission to make conservatives look like drooling imbeciles?

Sadly, I think you really are as dimwitted as you sound. As keeps being demonstrating here over and over, most deniers are rather stupid people. And they cry a lot. What a combo, wimpy and stupid.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 12, 2016)

If you raise the temperature of a house from 69 degrees to 75 degrees, will the house go up all over the house, or just in some areas?  How can temperatures above 32 degrees(Ice melt) cause temperatures below 32 degrees hundreds of miles south?  Because you liberals are dumber than a box of rocks, or left wing religious fanatical zelots, who cant come to grips that your whole life is a lie, and wont remove yourselves from the Earth, reducing the CO2 footprint , thus saving the planet.  See how moronic you are?


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 12, 2016)

mamooth said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > I will ask you libtards once again, if the ICECAPS are melting(*Above 32 degrees*)  how can freezing weather(*Below 32 degrees*) show up in Virginia?
> ...



Mamooth, this guy is so stupid, it is not worth the key strokes to argue with him....her....it.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 12, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


and yet he's ten times smarter than you or tooth.  I love it.  what is it that is wrong in his statement?  So where does the cold in the northeast come from son?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 12, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> If you raise the temperature of a house from 69 degrees to 75 degrees, will the house go up all over the house, or just in some areas?  How can temperatures above 32 degrees(Ice melt) cause temperatures below 32 degrees hundreds of miles south?  Because you liberals are dumber than a box of rocks, or left wing religious fanatical zelots, who cant come to grips that your whole life is a lie, and wont remove yourselves from the Earth, reducing the CO2 footprint , thus saving the planet.  See how moronic you are?



It was 63F in Greenland yesterday, dumbass.

Hence, your insanely stupid theory is decisively refuted by the real world. Same old same old.

And damn, you're stupid.

Seriously, you need to wear a helmet when you leave the house, to protect you when you walk into tree and utility poles.

And the other deniers here would like you to stop posting, because you're embarrassing them. Except for jc, who is at an intellectual level similar to yours.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 12, 2016)

mamooth said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > If you raise the temperature of a house from 69 degrees to 75 degrees, will the house go up all over the house, or just in some areas?  How can temperatures above 32 degrees(Ice melt) cause temperatures below 32 degrees hundreds of miles south?  Because you liberals are dumber than a box of rocks, or left wing religious fanatical zelots, who cant come to grips that your whole life is a lie, and wont remove yourselves from the Earth, reducing the CO2 footprint , thus saving the planet.  See how moronic you are?
> ...


but you haven't answered where the 32 degrees came from that is in the northeast US and Europe?  Please explain.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 12, 2016)

jc456 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



There is a huge difference in change in the weather and long term change in the climate.  But since you both have trouble chewing gum and walking, you won't ever be able to see that.  Your partisan views and very limited media sources keep you in the dark.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 12, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


how old are you?  Climate hasn't changed in your fking life time pal.  Just hasn't. You can't point to where either.  I know, I've asked others on here over and over.  So, again, where exactly does the cold air come from the north or the south?  Can't be that fking hard for you to figure out right?


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 12, 2016)

Please read this, if you can.

Climate vs Weather - Difference and Comparison | Diffen


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 12, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Please read this, if you can.
> 
> Climate vs Weather - Difference and Comparison | Diffen


So when the weather gets real cold in the middle of summer during an expedition of global warming alarmists, who got trapped in the ice, would that be a cooling event or a warming event?   December is the *SUMMERTIME *of the Antarctic.  But you already knew that didn't you pinhead?   'Stuck in our own experiment': Leader of trapped team insists polar ice is melting | Fox News


> Dec. 27, 2013: In this image provided by Australasian Antarctic Expedition/Footloose Fotography the Russian ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy is trapped in thick Antarctic ice 1,500 nautical miles south of Hobart, Australia. (AP2013)


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 12, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Please read this, if you can.
> 
> Climate vs Weather - Difference and Comparison | Diffen


Great Lakes ice coverage amazing from above


> And that's actually around 10 points more ice coverage than the same day last year, when the maximum reached 92.5 per cent - just a stone's throw away from the all-time record of 94.7 per cent, from way back in 1979.


 If the planet is warming up year after year because of the increase in CO2 how can an ice event like this happen?  Pinheads don't have much brain matter.  That is why they continue to vote Dumbocrat.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 12, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Please read this, if you can.
> 
> Climate vs Weather - Difference and Comparison | Diffen


that backs exactly what I said, you haven't seen climate change in your lifetime.  Did I st-udder?

If you think you have seen climate change, just post it up here where you experienced it.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 12, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


BTW, you still haven't stated where the 32 degrees comes from in the Northeast this week.  Come on man, have some balls and step out.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 13, 2016)

Rescuers dug through 4 feet of snow to reach stranded skiers


> "They were under about 4 feet of snow in their snow cave," said Guard Lt. Col. Matt Calabro, 38, the director of operations for the 210th Rescue Squadron, which flies the helicopters. "It was pretty deep snow up there."


 The planet is warming so there will be more snow up on Alaska?  It is a shame that Jimmy Carter,(with liberal compassion) closed the insane asylums around the country.  Otherwise people like Al Gore, Barrack Hussein Obama, Hillary Goddam Clinton, and other liberals would be filling those institutions up.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2016)

crickets.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> crickets.



A quote by George Carlin


----------



## jon_berzerk (Apr 13, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> ...




they had to stretch the time out 

because 10 years was simply too short of time to carry on with the lies


----------



## mamooth (Apr 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> but you haven't answered where the 32 degrees came from that is in the northeast US and Europe?  Please explain.



Explain?

You're a moron. That question proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So, just how did your defective brain come to the conclusion that rather normal spring weather suddenly needs a special explanation?

Go on, elaborate for us. Everyone could use the laughs. Your constant belligerent stupidity has that effect on people.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 13, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > but you haven't answered where the 32 degrees came from that is in the northeast US and Europe?  Please explain.
> ...


How is it that if the Earth is warming up year after year, because CO2 is increasing every year, how do events like what I posted about Antarctic Summer ICE INCREASE, Great Lakes ICE INCREASE, and Alaska 4 feet of SNOW INCREASE, happen?  All you can do is* DENY, DENY, DENY.*  You are a *TRUTH DENIER*.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 13, 2016)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > but you haven't answered where the 32 degrees came from that is in the northeast US and Europe?  Please explain.
> ...



Just not worth the key strokes to continue arguing with these people.  Please see Post #191.  Nuff Said....


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 13, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Of course not, you cant refute the Truth, denier, denier, denier.  You and the boob Mamooth are deniers.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 13, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



# 191


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 13, 2016)

Denier.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 13, 2016)

# 191


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





JimH52 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > crickets.
> ...


I agree.  Your experience is well known in here.  Thanks for advertising it for us.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


then go the fk away.  Who cares what you think.  Take your experience with you. It's obvious you had no intentions of discussing sea level rise. Cause there you have no experience.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 13, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> You are all like the republicans who used to deny that nicotine was addictive and cigarettes cause cancer.  Just continually defended Phillip Morris.  IDIOTS


False analogy, dumb ass.

It seems that all or most of you weak-minded global warming  *doomsday cult* members lack the ability to think logically. You have been brainwashed via repeated messaging.

Why did you use that false analogy? Is it because you've heard it over and over?

THINK!


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 13, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > You are all like the republicans who used to deny that nicotine was addictive and cigarettes cause cancer.  Just continually defended Phillip Morris.  IDIOTS
> ...



Yes, most scientist just can't think logically.  That is how they got their PHd....thinking illogically.

Read #191


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 13, 2016)

What is so logical about defunding science and education??? You republicans are about the most illogical group of people I've ever seen.

I am now a democrat! Official.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 13, 2016)

Matthew said:


> What is so logical about defunding science and education??? You republicans are about the most illogical group of people I've ever seen.
> 
> I am now a democrat! Official.


I now really feel sorry for you.  nice wool over your eyes.


----------



## Muhammed (Apr 13, 2016)

Matthew said:


> What is so logical about defunding science and education??? You republicans are about the most illogical group of people I've ever seen.
> 
> I am now a democrat! Official.


First of all, I am not a Republican. Furthermore, you don't seem to comprehend the fact that there is a difference between science and pseudoscience.

How many billions of our very limited scientific research dollars have went to bogus AGW bullshit that could have went to fund actual scientific research?

THINK!


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 14, 2016)

Matthew said:


> What is so logical about defunding science and education??? You republicans are about the most illogical group of people I've ever seen.
> 
> I am now a democrat! Official.


Good for you, but I guess you haven't noticed that inner cities are in riots that are Democrat controlled?  Or how the middle east April spring, which was created by a Democrat with a vagina, is in great turmoil?  How about how the Democrat who is a White black man has taken the national debt from 9 trillion(unpatriotic dollars) which he inherited and doubled it to over 19 trillion dollars? 

When I worked for the FDA as a contractor, the scientists there told me that with the pressure of being funded, they tried their hardest to achieve results that would keep the funding coming.  Why would these scientists do that?  Doesn't the truth matter, or only the funding?  Just follow the money....


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 14, 2016)

There is another reason for the religiously fanatical zelotry that Mamooth and JimHc shows.  Could it be that they are heavily invested in the Carbon offsets of the CCX or solar and wind companies?  That right there would be a reason they are defending the lies from the Obama admin.  Of course they know that every time Global Warming is proved wrong, it brings them fanatically closer to losing their investments.


----------



## Crick (Apr 14, 2016)

You can push that but continue to deny that the fossil fuel industry might ever act as they have been shown to act.  What an idiot.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> You can push that but continue to deny that the fossil fuel industry might ever act as they have been shown to act.  What an idiot.


huh?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> You can push that but continue to deny that the fossil fuel industry might ever act as they have been shown to act.  What an idiot.


Sounds like a Common Core student.....


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Sure, dumb fuck, and it was over 80 for a couple of days a few days ago in Portland, Oregon. So that proves that it is hot all over the US, correct. You fellows just get dumber every day,.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 14, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > You can push that but continue to deny that the fossil fuel industry might ever act as they have been shown to act.  What an idiot.
> ...


Spoken like a retarded fifth grade student. The sea level is rising, and the rate of rise is increasing. And people like you just keep denying reality.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


huh, what does your post have to do with why it was 32 where I asked?  you still haven't answered. 

Why do you supposed it's 80 degrees in oregon?  Could be from systems south right? Shit, south of there are deserts.  hmmm a little breeze north might draw warmer air, eh?  Wow, you think it's CO2 and that's what is hilarious.  Why would your area CO2 be hotter than my area of CO2.  Got an answer for that?  Same sun, same feedback loop, well?

ever hear of the Pacific Ocean and its heat?  Maybe?


----------



## jc456 (Apr 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


no it isn't, stop lying.  we know you can't justify your post.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Really, this morning we had a freeze warning, I wonder how it is hot all over the US, that this freeze snuck in, correct?  Look in the mirror and say "*You fellows just get dumber every day*".  [/quote] Damn if Mother Nature doesn't want to play the liberal game.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Oh my.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


By the way, who has been the president for the past 7 years? Did you know that in HIS first 2 years he had a majority in Congress and Senate, yet it was more important to FORCE upon US a unaffordable healthcare law, that punishes those who cannot afford to buy it, yet nothing was done about GLOBAL WARMING.  I guess in your doped up mind, you forgot all about that, didn't you?  





> Obama speech oceans receding, planet healing


 You guys are so stupid to have fallen for that line.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


Powerful April snowstorm to bury Colorado Rockies, High Plains this weekend


> * Powerful April snowstorm to bury Colorado Rockies, High Plains this weekend *


 Todays geography lessons about the US of A.  Colorado Rockies are no longer in the US.


> So that proves that it is hot all over the US, correct. You fellows just get dumber every day


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



It is weather.  It is not climate.  Now go away...


----------



## Chuz Life (Apr 14, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> 
> And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny.  Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...




So, we only have 500 Years to get to higher ground? 

Oh great. . . . now my heart is racing!


----------



## jc456 (Apr 14, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


haha LOL, right?  It is what we were talking about genius.  wow, you're good.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 14, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


No you go away, if you cant contribute any arguments that make your point then don't participate, just spewing your crap, just makes you look, liberal(stupid/moronic/retarded, etc.etc.etc.).


----------



## jc456 (Apr 14, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> 
> And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny.  Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...


BTW, what is it exactly we deny?  I agree if that fkn chunk of ice melted, you're damn fking right the water level in the sea would rise.  Wow jack, when did you wake up and see that, wow, look at that massive chunk of ice, wow, I bet if it melted the sea level would rise quite a lot?  Being observant is everything.

Now when might that happen genius?  Since in your life hasn't ice been present on that continent. And what do the records tell you how long it has been there?  Million years?  yep tomorrow old antarctic is going to fkn melt cause a scientist said so.  dude, you're fking hilarious.

BTW, the arctic on the other hand would be like a bucket full of ice melting, no increase in volume.  So arctic melt means jack shit to the sea level.  Bet you didn't know that.  You're not smart enough to know that.

BTW2, if the melt for the antarctic were 500 years out or not, I have no fkn clue nor does the pimp in the article. And since his or my sorry asses won't be around, it's tough for him to be right and me be wrong.  Or do you see it differently? You gonna hang around to see it through?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> ...


I hate to say this, but if a chunk of ice melted the water level would lower.  Ice expands and when most of a iceberg is underwater, the displacement would reverse upon melt.  If you take a full 2 liter bottle of water and freeze it, the bottle will crack open do to the expansion.  Since icebergs are not contained, the water will go back to fill in the void.
I remember this back in school when public education taught reading, writing, and arithmetic, not liberal indoctrination, putting condoms of cucumbers and how to be tolerant to insane people who are men/women that have no clue what they are.


----------



## Staidhup (Apr 14, 2016)

The earth is a living organism, constantly evolving and healing itself. All the huff and puff will not change nor alter the evolution of the earth and species living on it. So buy a freaking boat, live by example, move into a cave, sell your car, destroy your computer, phones, TV's and techno crap, try and grow your own food, and remove yourself from the grid.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 14, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


yep, it's why a pop bottle/ can or beer bottle/can left in the freezer will cause a mess in the freezer if the contents freeze.

It's why water pipes burst in the cold.

I find it funny though that it takes a scientist to show Jim that if that continent of ice ever did melt all at once, that yep, there'd be a big ass increase in fluid in the oceans.  Then he thinks we deny that.  I never have, so he is  totally fubared.  The dude isn't right about anything he posts up here.

And like I stated in that earlier post, he probably thinks the same thing of the Arctic. and then he's just stupid.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 14, 2016)

oh, one more thing, it is impossible for that continent to melt all at once.  impossible.  So even the concept fails.  It took three weeks for six inches of ice in parts of my back yard to melt in 40+ degree weather this year.  How fkn thick is that continent?  It would most likely take a hundred years or so to melt all the way.  just a guess, no science. these goofs crack me up.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




And it will be again next week.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 14, 2016)

Staidhup said:


> The earth is a living organism, constantly evolving and healing itself.



No, that's touchy-feely Gaian crap with no basis in reality. Rational people pay no attention to such hippy blathering.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 14, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


what temperature is it supposed to be?  you have a book of what temperatures are supposed to be?  oh goodie, let's see it.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 14, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Staidhup said:
> 
> 
> > The earth is a living organism, constantly evolving and healing itself.
> ...


yeah, your rational goes around screaming the sky is falling.  yeppers that's working for you not.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 14, 2016)

You people are lunatics!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 14, 2016)

Even if man* wasn't causing this warming* that was causing this sea level rise I'd still believe that we'd need to be ready to defend cities like New york, Boston, Miami and more. The water is rising.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 15, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> You people are lunatics!


This guy must be prepuberty, since all he can do is insult, but not present anything that supports his argument. JIMH52 (52 is his IQ, which he thinks makes him a Guinness) sys  Oh yeah, it is weather, you guy are lunatics, I am going to take my ball and run home now, whaaaaa, and you aren't playing fair, whaaaaa. 

(I intentionally misspelled Genius with Guinness, as he probably thinks the beer name means intelligence).   JImH52 -see picture


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 15, 2016)

#191


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 15, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > You people are lunatics!
> ...



I love your selfie!  Get someone literate to read this article to you.

Scientists warned the President about global warming 50 years ago today | Dana Nuccitelli


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 15, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> You people are lunatics!


Notice the pinhead didn't answer about what the temperature should be.  They are clueless like an elementary child.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 15, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 15, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Even if man* wasn't causing this warming* that was causing this sea level rise I'd still believe that we'd need to be ready to defend cities like New york, Boston, Miami and more. The water is rising.




I think it would cost way more then trumps wall.

You would think when the old maps of the US came out ( and fish fossils) people would stop building there?

Maybe get some prime future ocean front real estate in Kansas or something?


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 15, 2016)

You will not see coastal communities fall to the ocean, but your great grandchildren will.  But nothing for you to worry about......


----------



## jc456 (Apr 15, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> You will not see coastal communities fall to the ocean, but your great grandchildren will.  But nothing for you to worry about......


hahahahahahahahhahahaha spoken like a true libturd,  I said so, therefore I am right!!!!! yep.

Anyone catch that there wasn't choice words there like, 50% or 75% sure, nope will.  ewwwwwwwwwww he thinks he sees the future!  funny shit from a libturd that has sesame squat.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 15, 2016)

Do you think the dinosaurs were worried about the rising waters back when Pangaea was the normal?  Sometimes I think the brain of the dino's were much larger than a liberals brain.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 15, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...



You people are a waste of oxygen.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 15, 2016)

#191. Bye


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 15, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Do you think the dinosaurs were worried about the rising waters back when Pangaea was the normal?  Sometimes I think the brain of the dino's were much larger than a liberals brain.
> 
> View attachment 71476


How is it that with all that land mass being on 1 side, the Earth was able to rotate properly?  Could there have bee more land on the other side, but has been slowing turning back under the crust, as the land masses do inch by inch?  Could the water levels be rising because "Ice Meteorites" have been bombarding the Earth since the beginning?  Back in the late 1990's a scientist had put an article about these events, but it only lasted about 1 week.  He was destroyed by the left as it didn't fit in with the rising of the waters caused by man. 
Meteorites, not comets, may have brought water to Earth


> Knowing exactly where Earth's water and organic molecules originated would reveal a great deal about our planet's history and help us understand the environment in which life arose.


 Every year "ice meteorites" continue to hit the Earths atmosphere, but some people don't know this......


----------



## jc456 (Apr 15, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


bye then


----------



## mamooth (Apr 15, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> [ Back in the late 1990's a scientist had put an article about these events, but it only lasted about 1 week.  He was destroyed by the left as it didn't fit in with the rising of the waters caused by man.



Oh, do tell. If you're not just making crazy stories up again, name this scientist who was "destroyed by the left".

Back in reality, this "suppressed" science can easily be found on newspaper front pages.

Oceans are as old at the Earth

And, by the way, the current accretion rate of the earth is ... insignificant. Meteorites aren't affecting sea levels at all over any time frame short of millions of years.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 15, 2016)

mamooth said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > [ Back in the late 1990's a scientist had put an article about these events, but it only lasted about 1 week.  He was destroyed by the left as it didn't fit in with the rising of the waters caused by man.
> ...


cause you got the big camera taking video daily over the globe right? dude/dudette, you still can't stop with the stupid.  It's amazing.  Ain't you ever gonna be learning?

BTW, what kind of server do you use to archive all of the hourly video you take?


----------



## Crick (Apr 15, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Do you have anything to say regarding sea level rise?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 15, 2016)

6 feet of sea level raise would mean good bye to New orleans, Miami(most of southern florida), Tampa, Balitmore, Boston,  and New york would flooded in areas. China would lose its two most powerful cities and this is just for starters.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 15, 2016)

Matthew said:


> 6 feet of sea level raise would mean good bye to New orleans, Miami(most of southern florida), Tampa, Balitmore, Boston,  and New york would flooded in areas. China would lose its two most powerful cities and this is just for starters.


where will that water come from?

Yep six feet of water is a lot of water.  So you know that adding water in an ocean will make sea level rise, or maybe. And that those towns would suffer if a six feet add was seen.  Wow you're a pretty intelligent guy to know that.  Everyone else already knew this though, so what's your point?

Still waiting for the source of all this water add.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 15, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > 6 feet of sea level raise would mean good bye to New orleans, Miami(most of southern florida), Tampa, Balitmore, Boston,  and New york would flooded in areas. China would lose its two most powerful cities and this is just for starters.
> ...



The melting of greenland, west Antarctica and mountain glaciers. A little bit of thermal expansion caused by the warming oceans.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 15, 2016)

Matthew said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


when is that going to happen?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 15, 2016)

The link in the OP talked about that.

Instead of constantly asking for things to be explained especially for you, try getting off your lazy butt and actually reading the posts.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 15, 2016)

New research predicts that sea levels will rise more than previously expected over the next 100 to 500 years as the result of warmer atmospheric temperatures that will dissipate vertical ice cliffs. Dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels could prevent this. Alister Doyle/Reuters 
http://www.newsweek.com/ice-melt-antarctica-will-raise-sea-levels-sooner-we-thought-442868


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 15, 2016)

*Carbon Pollution Seen As Key Driver of Sea Level Rise*
By John Upton


_Published:_ April 11th, 2016



New computer modeling has shown that human influences were responsible for two-thirds of sea level rise from 1970 to 2005. By contrast, natural forces were responsible for about two-thirds of the rise in sea levels detected from 1900 to 1950. “We’re driving sea levels at the moment,” said Aimee Slangen


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 15, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *Carbon Pollution Seen As Key Driver of Sea Level Rise*
> By John Upton
> 
> 
> ...



And Big Oil has known that carbon emissions are causing climate change since the 1950's, but profits were more important than humanity.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 15, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> New research predicts that sea levels will rise more than previously expected over the next 100 to 500 years as the result of warmer atmospheric temperatures that will dissipate vertical ice cliffs. Dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels could prevent this. Alister Doyle/Reuters
> http://www.newsweek.com/ice-melt-antarctica-will-raise-sea-levels-sooner-we-thought-442868




To bad you wouldn't be alive to make a trillion dollar bet.


.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 15, 2016)

And the refrain will be, "But...but...but....three weeks back the temperature was 5 degree cooler than it was last year."  The RW loons cannot seem to understand the difference between weather and climate.  And I don't really think they can be taught the difference.  They have the dreaded cognitive degenerative disease known as "Trumpitis."


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 15, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > *Carbon Pollution Seen As Key Driver of Sea Level Rise*
> ...




Since the 50s now?


Why in your mind our there scientist smarter then the ones the U.S. hires?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 15, 2016)

Boy libtards are sure dumb, can not figure out to buy an id, the scientist they hire are dumb as a box of rocks according to them now



Lol.



.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 15, 2016)

bear513 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



This is the second time I have posted this link.  READ IT THIS TIME!

New Documents Show Oil Industry Even More Evil Than We Thought


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 16, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



I already know about it and your article comes from 1968, which is full of shit, the oil companies like Exonn didn't know untill the early 80s, 


Suppose we knew in the 50s....

   What would we have done differently? If those scientist jumped up and down and screamed about it?

After the 70s oil crisis what did we do?

We went back to buying gas guzzlers and started buying big trucks and SUVs...Americans don't want to buy any small little piece. Of shit wind up car 


Btw did they tap into that huge gas deposit off in south east Asia?

The answer is No.

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years



The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.

“Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia,” Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxon’s former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. “This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2,” or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.




.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Apr 16, 2016)

Front page Headlines in Miami today 4/16/2016
*Miami-Dade’s future may get bleaker as feds study coast*
*New study projects up to eight times as much flooding in Dade by 2045 The study is based on the most recent projections from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Corps to assess risks on 10,000 miles of vulnerable shoreline.......*


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 16, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Front page Headlines in Miami today 4/16/2016
> *Miami-Dade’s future may get bleaker as feds study coast*
> *New study projects up to eight times as much flooding in Dade by 2045 The study is based on the most recent projections from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Corps to assess risks on 10,000 miles of vulnerable shoreline.......*



And the Deniers keep on chirping like a bunch of worm happy magpies.  I suppose ignorance is bliss as long as you live far enough inland.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 16, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Front page Headlines in Miami today 4/16/2016
> ...



Or don't care about your great grandchildren......


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 16, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > 6 feet of sea level raise would mean good bye to New orleans, Miami(most of southern florida), Tampa, Balitmore, Boston,  and New york would flooded in areas. China would lose its two most powerful cities and this is just for starters.
> ...


Damn, you really are that stupid. Greenland and Antarctica are both adding water to the oceans. And will continue to well into the future, even were we to stop the emission of GHGs tomorrow, what is already in the atmosphere, there will be a least several centuries of melt. The last time that the CO2 level was 300 ppm, the sea level was about 20 ft. higher.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 16, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Front page Headlines in Miami today 4/16/2016
> *Miami-Dade’s future may get bleaker as feds study coast*
> *New study projects up to eight times as much flooding in Dade by 2045 The study is based on the most recent projections from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Corps to assess risks on 10,000 miles of vulnerable shoreline.......*




Oh God, thank God I won't live to 95 years old..you guys will never fucking stop.


Where is mammoth, crick and the rest? Who planted this story more deniers?






.

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 16, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Front page Headlines in Miami today 4/16/2016
> ...





JimH52 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Front page Headlines in Miami today 4/16/2016
> ...




The Coming Ice Age - 1978:


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 16, 2016)

bear513 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


Well, my, my. Yet, in 1981, this article was published;

*Hansen et al. 1981*
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, *213*, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. *Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.*

*This prediction was made in 1981, and the expected opening of the Northwest Passage was expected for the latter part of the 21st Century. It opened for the first time in 2007.*


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 16, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...



Where's the linky dinky do?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 16, 2016)

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Right there


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 16, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> 
> And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny.  Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...



No one is denying what you posted.    We're not denying the climate is changing.  We're not denying the earth is warming.   I don't know ANYONE that has denied that the Earth has been warming since the last ice age.

Anyone else on this forum..... Do any of you deny the Earth has been warming since the last ice age?

How much you want to bet, not a single right-winger on this forum, will respond to that in the affirmative?

Here is what we deny.   We deny that humans, which contribute at most, about 3.5% of the CO2 created yearly (the other 96.5% of CO2 created naturally), is the magical cause of a warming trend, that started long before the industrial revolution.

That's what we deny.

We also deny that the increase in CO2 is going to cause a catastrophic, Earth ending heat wave.



JimH52 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



Or we still think you people are bonkers.

You do realize that if we cut off oil use right now, your children TODAY would likely starve.  You wouldn't have any grand, or great grand children to care, or not care about.

So, it looks like your insults goes both ways.


----------



## JimH52 (Apr 16, 2016)

Global Warming : Feature Articles

So the earth warming 20 times faster is by accident?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 16, 2016)

Andy, there is not 96.5% of the CO2 being created naturally every year. In fact, other than from the fact of the oceans heating, nearly 100% of the created CO2 is from our burning of fossil fuels. There is a naturally 
occurring flux of CO2 emitted and absorbed every year. You can see it in the graphs of the CO2 that are collected worldwide. But the increase from 280 ppm to the present 400+ ppm is almost totally one hundred percent created.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 16, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Global Warming : Feature Articles
> 
> So the earth warming 20 times faster is by accident?



It's not.  But you'll never believe anything that doesn't fit with your theory.

Two problems.....






The proxy based reconstruction, was based on an entirely different method of determining temperature.

That method, could be used in present day.   But it's not.

So you are comparing two different sources of information.   And needlessly.

Point A:  I submit that the reason they specifically choose to use different data sets, is because if they had used the same method throughout, there would not have been a massive jump at the end.

Point B:  Additionally, the instrumental data, is from data gathering cites.   Some cites are out in the middle of nowhere, and others are in places that have been developed.     Temperature data in areas developed, show higher temperatures, that are not indicative of a global warming.

Point C:  The reconstruction of historical temperatures is extremely imprecise.   Data used to make these reconstructions, has a wide variation, which is shown in the "uncertainty" grey zones.    The variation is almost one full degree Celsius. 

This variation, at some points in the graph, indicate a full two degree shift in global temperatures, in under 5 years.  Now of course they place the line.... in the middle.   They average out the variations, and place the line in the middle... making it look like a slow change.   But that's an assumption.    There is no other way to look at the given data, but that it is an ASSumption, that the temperate must have been in the middle of the wide variation.

Why?    Because it could not have possibly changed that much.   It's only changed that much in.... recent years.  So therefore it could not have changed that much in the past, because that would destroy our myth that man-made CO2 is going to doom the entire planet.  

Thankfully we don't have to fool all the worlds scientists, only gullible ignorant public voters, and nimrods on internet forums.

*But like I said before,* you'll never believe anything that doesn't fit with your theory.  So go on and explain how ALL the "real" scientists believe it, and since an opinion poll is a substitute for truth, I, and those who read the science journals like me, are all wrong.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 16, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
> 
> Right there




Why did you link that one? Hiding something?



*Natural Temperature Influences*
Hansen et al. discussed the effects of solar and volcanic activity on temperatures, which are the two main natural influences on global surface temperaturechanges. Solar activity in particular posed a difficult challenge for climate modelers three decades ago, because it had not been precisely measured.

"for small changes of solar luminosity, a change of 0.3 percent would modify the equilibrium global mean temperature by 0.5°C, which is as large as the equilibrium warming for the cumulative increase of atmospheric CO2from 1880 to 1980. Solar luminosity variations of a few tenths of 1 percent could not be reliably measured with the techniques available during the past century, and thus are a possible cause of part of theclimate variability in that period."

"Based on model calculations, stratospheric aerosolsthat persist for 1 to 3 years after large volcanic eruptions can cause substantial cooling of surface air...Temporal variability of stratosphericaerosols due to volcanic eruptions appears to have been responsible for a large part of the observed climate change during the past century"

The study compared the various potential global temperature influences of both natural and human effects in Figure 2 below.





_Figure 2: Surface temperatureeffect of various global radiative perturbations, based on the one-dimensional model used in Hansen et al.Aerosols have the The ∆T for stratospheric aerosols is representative of a very large volcanic eruption.  FromHansen et al. (1981)_

Hansen et al. ran their model using combinations of the three main effects on global temperatures (CO2, solar, and volcanic), and concluded:

"The general agreement between modeled and observed temperaturetrends strongly suggests that CO2 and volcanic aerosols are responsible for much of the global temperature variation in the past century."

Due to the uncertaintyregarding solar activitychanges, they may have somewhat underestimated the solar contribution (Figure 3), but nevertheless achieved a good model fit to the observed temperature changes over the previous century.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 16, 2016)

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot.... Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone... Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.- *Washington Post 11/2/1922*
Rr


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 16, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada, Professor Gregory of YaleUniversity stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.” – Chicago Tribune August 9, 1923

The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to the conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age -Time Magazine 9/10/1923

America in longest warm spell since 1776; temperature line records a 25 year rise - New York Times 3/27/1933

“Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right…weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.” – Time MagazineJan. 2 1939

More than eighteen years of observing the fluctuations of Arctic weatherconditions in the fifty-eight Sovietscientific stations in the Far North....lead Russian meteorologists to a forecast of warmer winters and hotter summers for the North and South Poles. They believe that the earth is entering a new cycle of warmer weather. A series of curious discoveries have been announced in support of this theory. It has been noted that year by year, for the past two decades, thefringe of the Polar icepack has beencreeping northward in the Barents Sea.As compared with the year 1900, thetotal ice surface of this body of waterhas decreased by twenty per cent.Various expeditions have discoveredthat warmth-loving species of fish havemigrated in great shoals to watersfarther north than they had ever beenseen before..Our generation is living in a period when remarkable changes are taking place almost everywhere throughout the world. - Examiner April 12, 1939

A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a "serious international problem," - New York Times - May 30, 1947

Greenland's polar climate has moderated so consistently that communities of hunters have evolved into fishing villages. Sea mammals, vanishing from the west coast, have been replaced by codfish and other fish species in the area's southern waters. - New York Times August 29, 1954

After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have *reached unanimous agreement on only one point:* it is getting colder. - New York Times - January 30, 1961

Like an outrigger canoe riding before a huge comber, the earth with its inhabitants is caught on the downslopeof an immense climatic wave that is plunging us toward another Ice Age. - Los Angeles Times December 23, 1962

+-+-+-+

Col. Bernt Balchen, polar explorer and flier, is circulating a paper among polar specialists proposing that the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two. – New York Times - February 20, 1969


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 16, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Andy, there is not 96.5% of the CO2 being created naturally every year. In fact, other than from the fact of the oceans heating, nearly 100% of the created CO2 is from our burning of fossil fuels. There is a naturally
> occurring flux of CO2 emitted and absorbed every year. You can see it in the graphs of the CO2 that are collected worldwide. But the increase from 280 ppm to the present 400+ ppm is almost totally one hundred percent created.



That is factually, not correct.     The increase in PPM, is assumed to be man made, not a fact.

Moreover, the actual creation of CO2, is roughly 96.5%, from natural sources.

That is a 'fact'.  You can deny that, but you are simply disqualifying yourself from the discussion in doing so.

Trying to tie the increase in PPM to human CO2, is based on one single, and fundamentally flawed assumption.

They are assuming that prior to the industrial revolution, that CO2 creation, and absorption, was in perfect balance and harmony.   You can see this assumption, in all the eco-freak-out literature.







They assume the green arrows.  That land created CO2 is emitted at the exact same amount as land absorbed CO2.

Same with the sea.  Same amount emitted as absorbed.

With this assumed basis, then every amount of additional CO2 created by humans, magically topples the perfect balance of nature.

Thus, all of the additional CO2 in the atmosphere.... MUST....  based on the assumed magical perfect balance theory, be due to human activity which screwed up the magic balance.

Of course this assumption is entirely false, and is even proven false by the very data that the eco-freak-out people use to justify their position.



 

The irony is that, eco-freak-out people use historic CO2 levels to claim our levels are high.  Yet if we look at the exact same data, over a longer time frame, such as this example above, we can clearly see that CO2 levels have been both higher, and lower, than current day.

And crucially to my point, the one consistent aspect of CO2 levels is..... they are constantly changing.    Up and down, up and down, up and down, up and down.

But that's impossible, if the CO2 emissions and absorption rates, are in perfect balance, which is required to blame all atmosphere increases on human created CO2.

In other words... all that Eco-freak-out crap... it's all BS.  Total crap.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 16, 2016)

bear513 said:


> The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot.... Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone... Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.- *Washington Post 11/2/1922*
> Rr



Not possible....   You are saying something contradicting left-wing conventional wisdom, and is therefore automatically a forgery.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 16, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot.... Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone... Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.- *Washington Post 11/2/1922*
> ...



Global Warming — 1922?

*Warm Welcome*
*Rumor: A 1922 newspaper article warned that climate change was melting Arctic ice and disrupting wildlife.*
*David Mikkelson*
From the archive




Claim:  A 1922 newspaper article reported that "radical change in climatic conditions" was melting Arctic ice and disrupting wildlife.






 TRUE



.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 17, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
> 
> Right there


Many leading experts prior to the Hansen era, agreed that the earlier Arctic warming was real, and quite dramatic.

CLEVELAND, Feb. 16 (A.A.P.) Dr. William S. Carlson, an Arctic expert, said to-night that the Polar icecaps were melting at an astonishing and unexplained rate and were threatening to swamp seaports   by raising the ocean levels.

Leading Arctic expert from 1953

The glaciers of Norway and Alaska are only half the size they were 50 years age. The temperature around Spitsbergen has so modified that the sailing time has lengthened from three to eight months of the year,”

Leading Arctic expert from 1952

LONDON (A.P.).-The earth is getting warmer. The oceans are getting deeper. The glaciers are getting smaller. Even the fish are changing their way of life.

All this and more is going on because of a vast, unaccountable, century-by-century change, in climate. In his study at Bedford College in London, Britain’s distinguished geographer, Professor Gordon Manley, is worrying about it.

Leading geographer from 1950

Dr. Ahlman urged the establishment of an international agency to study conditions on a global basis. Temperatures had risen 10 degrees since 1900. The navigable season along Western Spitzbergen now last- ed eight months instead of three.

Leading Arctic expert from 1947

it was concluded that near Polar temperatures are on an average six degrees higher than those registered by Nansen 40 years ago. Ice measurements were on an average only 6½ feet against from 9¼ to 13 feet.

Russian report from 1940


----------



## mamooth (Apr 17, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> The increase in PPM, is assumed to be man made, not a fact.



The change in isotope ratios proves the human origin of the increase. And since you were ignorant of that simple fact, you're clearly not qualified to  be in the discussion.



> Moreover, the actual creation of CO2, is roughly 96.5%, from natural sources.



And you don't understand something as simple as an equilibrium system. Another fail.



> They are assuming that prior to the industrial revolution, that CO2 creation, and absorption, was in perfect balance and harmony.



No, no such assumption is made. You're just making stupid crap up.

And if you didn't fail so hard at all the science, you wouldn't have to scream hysterically about "eco-freaks". 

You need to grasp that you're completely ignorant of this topic, because all you do is cut-and-paste from conspiracy  blogs. Your cult masters only feed you the data deemed necessary for your programming, and that's why you get everything so wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Apr 17, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Global Warming : Feature Articles
> 
> So the earth warming 20 times faster is by accident?


Can you say exaggeration?


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 17, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Andy, there is not 96.5% of the CO2 being created naturally every year. In fact, other than from the fact of the oceans heating, nearly 100% of the created CO2 is from our burning of fossil fuels. There is a naturally
> ...


My, my, you use a chart outlining the CO2 levels in terms of millions of years, for a comparison of what has been happening in the last 150.










CO2 vs Temperature:  Last 400,000 years

Andy, you are either one dumb fuck, or a professional liar. Your chart is irrelevant to the present. And the Hockey Stick graph for the last 1000 years has been confirmed by more than a dozen differant studies using differant proxies, done by differant researchers in differant nations. 

We have just finished the two warmest years on record, and it looks like this year may rank in the top three. And you silly flap yappers just keep on yapping, and demonstrating your total ignorance.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 17, 2016)

Well.........clearly we should be either throwing non-believers in jail or burning them at the stake!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 17, 2016)

Climate Science has oversimplified the cause of warming......waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much focus on human causation.

ghey


No Proof of Man-Made Climate Change, Says Greenpeace Co-founder

www.lavoisier.com.au/.../climate-change/...proofnotco2-2009.pdf

'You can't absolutely prove, can you, that CO2 is responsible for global warming?' The Today programme out of its depth on climate science - Carbon Brief

CO2 Is Not Causing Global Warming


Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 17, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > The increase in PPM, is assumed to be man made, not a fact.
> ...




*The change in isotope ratios proves the human origin of the increase. *


The atmosphere is not homgoenous, laterally or horizontally. It varies in pressure, density, heat, composition hourly, daily, millenially, earth events such as volcanoes,earthquakes both on land and sea have local and wide area effects. Cosmis events such as sun spots and perhaps cyclical changes in the stratosphere have also affected climate. One component (C12/13 ratio) appears to have varied over a tiny fraction of geological time.
CO2 is a small fraction of sea level gases, so far all models, calculations do not include water vapour or particulates which act in the atmosphere and in reducing the ice cap/snoe level albido effect.



.


----------



## Andylusion (Apr 17, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Nothing you said, contradicted my point.  If anything, you verified my position.

From YOUR graphs.... is CO2 in constant balance prior to human involvement?  Yes or no answer please.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 18, 2016)

Matthew said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below


> Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below


 Not giving all the information is just as bad as propaganda(Joseph Goebel would be proud of you libs).
Research ship trapped in Antarctic ice because of weather, not climate change


> *Research ship trapped in Antarctic ice because of weather, not climate change*


 Then when God doesn't play the liberals game, just lie about it, as typical of sociopathic behavior.
List of expanding glaciers


> *Not by Fire but by Ice*
> 
> *THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW!*


 When the fanatical leftwing fundamentalist religious zelots realize that their money tree is in jeopardy, they start ranting and raving, calling us names, then start setting the dooms day for not 10, not 20, but 100 years since the 10 years didn't work.  Such stupid people who vote Dumbocrat.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 18, 2016)

CNN anchor suggests meteor hurtling toward Earth could be a result of global warming


> 'We want to bring in our science guy, Bill Nye, and talk about something else that’s falling from the sky, and that is an asteroid,' Feyerick says. 'What’s coming our way? Is this the effect of, perhaps, global warming? Or is this just some meteoric occasion?'


  Such stupid people who are on Communist News Network.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 18, 2016)

The thought that CO2 is the only thing affecting the climate really is about the stoopidest concept Ive ever heard. It is beyond duh.........
But don't forget......there are bozo's who really believe that but also there are the majority of these climate crusaders who aren't so stoopid and must carry the flag of the established narrative. The agenda..........is everything.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 18, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> CNN anchor suggests meteor hurtling toward Earth could be a result of global warming
> 
> 
> > 'We want to bring in our science guy, Bill Nye, and talk about something else that’s falling from the sky, and that is an asteroid,' Feyerick says. 'What’s coming our way? Is this the effect of, perhaps, global warming? Or is this just some meteoric occasion?'
> ...




Dang..........

Perhaps Planet 9's entrance into our solar system is linked to global warming?


----------



## mamooth (Apr 18, 2016)

bear513 said:


> One component (C12/13 ratio) appears to have varied over a tiny fraction of geological time.



It "appears" about to have steadily moved in one direction because we're burning fossil fuels. 

And you "feel" that theory is wrong, so you simply handwave it away. But that's not how science works. If you want to replace the prevailing theory, you have to come up with something better. So do some science, and present for us your theory of why the isotope ratio is now steadily moving in one direcion. You don't have to, of course, but you'll be ignored if you don't.



> CO2 is a small fraction of sea level gases, so far all models, calculations do not include water vapour or particulates which act in the atmosphere and in reducing the ice cap/snoe level albido effect..



No, the science closely examines water vapor, particulate and albedo effects. You're just tossing out another strange fantasy there, which is why you're ignored.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 18, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Hidden Volcanoes Melt Antarctic Glaciers from Below
> 
> Not giving all the information is just as bad as propaganda(Joseph Goebel would be proud of you libs).



And you left out the information that those volcanoes weren't new. Thus, by your own standards, you admit to being a Nazi propagandist.

So, let's see what other goosestepping you're going to show us.



> Research ship trapped in Antarctic ice because of weather, not climate change



So, you're deliberately lying about that incident, claiming it was long term climate instead of local weather that trapped the ship. You certainly are racking up the lies.



> Then when God doesn't play the liberals game, just lie about it, as typical of sociopathic behavior.
> List of expanding glaciers



So you list the few expanding glaciers, and deliberately leave out the vastly more numerous melting glaciers. You defined such withholding of information as being a Nazi propaganda tactic, which again, by your own standards, makes you such a propagandist.




> When the fanatical leftwing fundamentalist religious zelots realize that their money tree is in jeopardy, they start ranting and raving, calling us names, then start setting the dooms day for not 10, not 20, but 100 years since the 10 years didn't work.


And another deranged fantasy on your part. Boring. We get it, you like to fake crazy stories.



> Such stupid people who vote Dumbocrat.


Non-cultists don't bring politics into it. You don't see the rational people here raving about politics, yet you do it constantly. Those who can talk about the science, do talk about the science. Those who can't, they scream deranged political conspiracy theories. Your political cult has issued you your marching orders, and plainly you're a good cult soldier who always obeys.

You're not fooling anyone. We all know you're lying, as do all the scientists. Each time you lie here, you'll get called out. Your scam isn't working. Go peddle it elsewhere, unless you enjoy the humiliation.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 18, 2016)

Andylusion said:


> From YOUR graphs.... is CO2 in constant balance prior to human involvement?  Yes or no answer please.



Yes, over the short term.

And since it changed so abruptly over the short term, something that has never happened before, that indicates a human cause of the change.

Please don't deflect from that again by pointing to long-term changes, as it's not relevant.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 18, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> > From YOUR graphs.... is CO2 in constant balance prior to human involvement?  Yes or no answer please.
> ...


So when the planet went from .03% (that is 3 1/100th) of the total atmosphere to .04% (that is 4 1/100th) of the total atmosphere, the globe started warming?  I have explained this before, that the TRUE reason for Green House gasses , it water vapor.  That almost 70% of the atmosphere is water(clouds).  But do you know why liberals go after carbon products?  Because they can tax it.  If liberals could tax water vapor they would, but since they cant tax evaporation(except in small areas) they go after the next big thing.  Why else is Obummer going after Exxon, BP, and Coal.  I wonder what liberals will do, when oil, isn't around any more, and their plastic keyboards, medical supplies, and other items with plastic aren't any more?   Liberals are dumber than a box of rocks.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 5, 2016)

I don't expect the liberals to read this as then it would require them to do critical thinking, and since a liberal doesn't use a brain....

An Inconvenient Truth


> *An Inconvenient Truth*
> *The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It*
> by Albert Gore


 After 10 Years, 'An Inconvenient Truth' Is Still Inconvenient


> *After 10 Years, 'An Inconvenient Truth' Is Still Inconvenient*
> May 4, 20168:55 AM ET


 SO instead of 10 year predicted where the people responsible for the *SCAM*  are still alive and be held accountable, they libtars are predicting 100 years down the road where they can make billions of dollars from our Taxes, and when they die in 20 years not be held accountable.  This is so typical of liberal elites who steal the citizens taxes just to make the elites UBER wealthy.  And the dumbass liberal sheeple just adore them.  Even NPR is starting to get it, that GW is a scam.


----------



## Crick (May 5, 2016)

Where do you get the idea that NPR think AGW is a scam?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> Where do you get the idea that NPR think AGW is a scam?


If you are too liberal(stupid) to know, I don't have to answer you.  talking to a liberal is like talking to a wall.  Except the wall is more intelligent.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 10, 2016)

This time last year(the 2nd week of May) we were hovering around in 80 degree temperatures.  Liberals were calling it unusually warm and a couple degrees above normal as Global Warming was affecting the world.  How is it that if there is Global Warming year after year,(which is causing the ice caps to melt) that the temperatures are rising year after year?  Because liberals are the stupidest people on the planet.
The forecast for the week is as follows
*



			Washington, DC
		
Click to expand...

*


> 59
> °F °C
> Partly Sunny
> 
> ...


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> This time last year(the 2nd week of May) we were hovering around in 80 degree temperatures.  Liberals were calling it unusually warm and a couple degrees above normal as Global Warming was affecting the world.  How is it that if there is Global Warming year after year,(which is causing the ice caps to melt) that the temperatures are rising year after year?  Because liberals are the stupidest people on the planet.
> The forecast for the week is as follows
> *
> 
> ...


*How is it that if there is Global Warming year after year,(which is causing the ice caps to melt) that the temperatures are rising year after year*

I think you meant 'are not rising' right?

BTW, it would be they'd tell you that in Australia it does.  the rest of the world doesn't fking matter, but if it happens in Australia it's gold.

BTW, it makes me laugh the stupid.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > This time last year(the 2nd week of May) we were hovering around in 80 degree temperatures.  Liberals were calling it unusually warm and a couple degrees above normal as Global Warming was affecting the world.  How is it that if there is Global Warming year after year,(which is causing the ice caps to melt) that the temperatures are rising year after year?  Because liberals are the stupidest people on the planet.
> ...





> *What are some examples of hyperbole? *
> Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech.
> 
> Some common examples:
> ...


 I use this to mock the liberal argument that if the Globe is Warming, why is the temperature not as high as it was last year?  Are you down under?  You are heading into your wintertime now, how is the weather?


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


no, not down under, sitting in frigid Chicago. Almost the middle of May and still can't get above 55 degrees during the day.  Every time I post my weather, someone always posts Australia, cause somewhere cold means there is somewhere warm or hot.  Always their argument.  To a degree true, but then it means there is no added heat which destroys their warmer claim.  But they can't see that.  No sireee.

Forgot, the wind chill is below 50 so the real feel makes it colder than the thermometer says.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Well it is true that when it is Wintertime in America it is Summertime in Australia.  What I found funny as hell, was when I posted the GW scientists that got trapped in the Antarctic ice freeze, in the middle of their summertime, and not one libidiot could explain that event.

'Stuck in our own experiment': Leader of trapped team insists polar ice is melting | Fox News


> 'Stuck in our own experiment': Leader of trapped team insists polar ice is melting


----------



## jc456 (May 10, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


the other one is the arctic Polar Vortex that for the last several years has moved south into the US sometimes as far as Florida.  And then they'll say it's warmer in the Arctic.  Well duh, all the cold left and came down here.  They can't even remain consistent to their own arguments about where one area is cold another is warm.  Well sure it is.  The sun isn't spewing anymore heat.  Dude it's a knee slapper for sure around this message board daily.

And the best is when they claim it got warmer globally.  How?  It's all I ever ask, and they claim the magic of CO2.  So CO2 acts as a sun now.  Wow. Then I ask they prove their hypothesis and they call me names cause they can't validate it.  It just is cause someone studied it, or made a mathematical model.  Yet, no observed anything. Nadda. big ass nothing.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 10, 2016)

jc456 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


The reason why liberals point to CO2 as being the reason for GW, is that before the industrial revolution, the CO2 of the Atmosphere was 0.03%(three one hundredths of one percent) and 100 years later it has increased to 0.04%(four one hundredths of one percent).  Without factoring in planetary CO2, not man made.  If you realize that liberals hate all humanity, even themselves, then you understand why they blame everyone else for the woes of the planet, yet they continue to use the electricity that is generated by CO2 products, type on plastics that came from CO2 products, breathe out CO2, drive around in vehicles that use CO2 products, and warm their houses using CO2 products.  I keep asking them to do the world a favor and remove themselves from the equation by eliminating themselves but they don't ever do that, because it is THEIR world and they don't want to share it with the rest of us.


----------



## skookerasbil (May 10, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> This time last year(the 2nd week of May) we were hovering around in 80 degree temperatures.  Liberals were calling it unusually warm and a couple degrees above normal as Global Warming was affecting the world.  How is it that if there is Global Warming year after year,(which is causing the ice caps to melt) that the temperatures are rising year after year?  Because liberals are the stupidest people on the planet.
> The forecast for the week is as follows
> *
> 
> ...




Almost invariably, these people are emotional hemophiliacs......they get hysterical over something every day of their lives. Every poll shows people are not sitting around worrying about global warming. These people do because it is how they are wired. Fringe thinkers..........we all work with a handful of these types of people....the people who have to leave work hours ahead of a little snowstorm. The people who have to run to the ER if they or somebody in their family gets a sniffle. The people who have  mental meltdown if somebody is 20 minutes late to a party. So offuckingcourse they are going to get mental if they see the sea level rise by 1.5 millimeters. Normal people don't have time to waste mental energy on this kind of shit!! Exactly why the polls list global warming at the very bottom of voter concerns ( 21st out of 22 issues )


----------



## skookerasbil (May 10, 2016)

'Stuck in our own experiment': Leader of trapped team insists polar ice is melting | Fox News


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jun 22, 2016)

Plane lands at South Pole in daring winter medical rescue


> WASHINGTON (AP) — After flying through dangerous dark and cold, a rescue plane landed Tuesday at the South Pole to evacuate a sick worker from a remote U.S. science station, federal officials said.
> 
> The temperature Tuesday afternoon at the South Pole station was minus 75 degrees (minus 60 Celsius), with a wind chill that makes it feel like minus 108 degrees (minus 78 Celsius) according to the science foundation's weather station and webcam.


 The libidiots always harp when the temperature gets around 90 degrees, then yell global warming, yet when temperatures reach well under 70 degrees below zero(0), not one peep.  The dumbing down of America has proven that when uneducated people don't know REAL science, not consensus science, a fool and his money is soon parted.

IPCC Official: Climate Policy Is about Wealth Redistribution, Not Environment


> German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer gave an eye-opening interview to Neue Zürcher Zeitung (translated here), in which he said that “one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy….This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” Mr. Edenhofer was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland.


 Straight from the horses mouth.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 22, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Plane lands at South Pole in daring winter medical rescue
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON (AP) — After flying through dangerous dark and cold, a rescue plane landed Tuesday at the South Pole to evacuate a sick worker from a remote U.S. science station, federal officials said.
> ...




oh they still peep but then it is "climate change "

--LOL 

the terms change as fast as the weather 

--LOL


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 22, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Plane lands at South Pole in daring winter medical rescue
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON (AP) — After flying through dangerous dark and cold, a rescue plane landed Tuesday at the South Pole to evacuate a sick worker from a remote U.S. science station, federal officials said.
> ...



You boys ain't so swift, ere you?  It is not a temperature change on a specific day or week.  It is the average over an extended period of time and the extremes that come from climate change are ones through heat and cold.  Summers will get hotter and winters will get colder, and storms will get more intense.

Read a little...


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 22, 2016)

If Donald Trump and the National Inquirer say the World is Flat....then his Cult members know the world is flat.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jun 22, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Plane lands at South Pole in daring winter medical rescue
> ...


Could you please inform US when these storms will get more intense. I mean after Katrina in 2005, we have less frequent and less intense storms?  So do we have to wait 100 years for the end or maybe 1000 years?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jun 22, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Plane lands at South Pole in daring winter medical rescue
> ...


Since the last ice age ended what caused that warming period, because man wasn't industrialized then? Before that iceage, the temperature of the Earth was much warmer than it is today, why was that, because there were no automobiles around for dinosaurs to drive in?  Just because your liberals want to steal from the working class, and then take the money to give to their liberal special interest groups, making them UBER RICH, you just kiss their ass and bend over for them to penetrate you in the name of Global Warming Religious Fanaticism.   Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies


> Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies


 Tesla stock tanks as Wall Street reacts to bid for SolarCity


> * Tesla stock tanks as Wall Street reacts to bid for SolarCity*


  Must be nice to be a 1%'er and not have OWS on your ass.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2016)

Deniers, I'm sorry about taking your lunch money every day on the playground. I couldn't resist. It wasn't about the money. It was about how you cried so amusingly, like you're crying now. Now that I've apologized, will you stop weeping about the past humiliations that the mean ol' liberals have inflicted on you? And no, I can't promise that I'll stop humiliating you for how badly you stink at science, logic, history, common sense, and life in general.

Now, back to the thread topic, sea level rise, which deniers are working so hard to deflect from. Here are a few recent news items.

Seas Rising but Florida Keeps Building on the Coast
---
Therein lies the uneasy reality in South Florida, home to 6 million people and projected to grow by 3 million over the next three decades. Its very existence depends on the continued allure of the beaches, waterways and natural environment. Yet, by 2050, an estimated $15 billion to $36 billion of Florida’s coastal property will be threatened by sea-level rise, according to a report last year from the Risky Business Project, a Bloomberg Philanthropies effort that quantifies economic risks from climate change.
---

Monterey prepares for sea level rise
---
MONTEREY, Calif. —The city of Monterey wants to be prepared for any rises in sea level. The report staff are working with shows that by 2100, the sea levels will rise 5 feet along southern Monterey Bay.
---

As sea levels rise, Rotterdam shows how to live with water
---
When a big storm hits a coastal city like New York or New Orleans, it's often the storm surge that does the most damage — the rising water that comes with low atmospheric pressure.

But when the next big one hits Rotterdam, the Maeslant storm surge barrier will be ready for it.

The Maeslant structure is the biggest mobile barrier in the world — picture a pair of steel lattices twice the size of the Eiffel Tower, lying down on either side of the channel connecting the Netherlands’ second-biggest city to the North Sea. The Dutch built the massive gate in the 1990s to protect Rotterdam from a storm surge of up to three meters.
---


----------



## jc456 (Jun 22, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Deniers, I'm sorry about taking your lunch money every day on the playground. I couldn't resist. It wasn't about the money. It was about how you cried so amusingly, like you're crying now. Now that I've apologized, will you stop weeping about the past humiliations that the mean ol' liberals have inflicted on you? And no, I can't promise that I'll stop humiliating you for how badly you stink at science, logic, history, common sense, and life in general.
> 
> Now, back to the thread topic, sea level rise, which deniers are working so hard to deflect from. Here are a few recent news items.
> 
> ...


I'm just curious, what do you supposed is causing the rise?  Antarctica is gaining ice, and Greenland isn't melting anything unusual.  So where does all the new water come from?

BTW, excuse me for laughing,  you should be trying out at the comedy clubs with this material.

Also, I couldn't stop laughing at this:

"_Therein lies the uneasy reality in South Florida, home to 6 million people and projected to grow by 3 million over the next three decades."_

There is concern and 3 million more people are going to be there.  Dudette, doesn't get better than that sentence right there.


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers, I'm sorry about taking your lunch money every day on the playground. I couldn't resist. It wasn't about the money. It was about how you cried so amusingly, like you're crying now. Now that I've apologized, will you stop weeping about the past humiliations that the mean ol' liberals have inflicted on you? And no, I can't promise that I'll stop humiliating you for how badly you stink at science, logic, history, common sense, and life in general.
> ...



Have someone who can read, tell you what this says...

Why is southern sea ice increasing?
:


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> I'm just curious, what do you supposed is causing the rise?



Thermal expansion of seawater, and the massively increased melt off of Greenland and Antarctica. Concepts that fourth-graders understand, but which appear to be beyond you.

Remember, the directly measured evidence won't away, no matter how loudly you pray to the gods of your liars' cult by lying by denying it.


----------



## Crick (Jun 22, 2016)

JC,

Could you explain to us how the world could be getting warmer WITHOUT the ocean expanding?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 22, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


You know that says sea ice right?


----------



## Crick (Jun 22, 2016)

That's what's increasing jc.  Zwally is the only researcher out of hundreds who think the Antarctic continent is gaining ice.


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Go.find a fifth grader to read it to you.  Good Grief!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 22, 2016)

Potential, how funny. So nothing


----------



## Crick (Jun 23, 2016)

No potential, so stupid.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> No potential, so stupid.


the fn title says it<

*Sea level potential rise doubles in new study*


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 23, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > No potential, so stupid.
> ...



So, moron, if a scientific study says that a much larger sea level rise than previously predicted is now "_potential_", that to you means we don't have to worry about anything? LOLOLOLOL. Your understanding of the meaning of words is very deficient....not surprising though, given how severely retarded you are. Learn something.

*potential* 
— _adjective _

possible, capable of being or becoming: _a potential danger to safety. _


----------



## jc456 (Jun 23, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


what is it you're going to do because of it?  An airplane may fall out of the sky I don't worry about it, nope.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 23, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...





jc456 said:


> what is it you're going to do because of it?  An airplane may fall out of the sky I don't worry about it, nope.



Your rank stinking stupidly continues to astonish, JustCrazy

An airplane crash affects a few people.

Raining sea levels affect everybody on the planet, one way or another.

Pull your head out of your ass before you suffocate your brain, you poor retard......oops, too late!


----------



## jc456 (Jun 23, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


an airplane affects me every time I board one.  What are you talking about.  I drive a car daily and there is always potentials in the ride.  There's a chance that a piece of glass will fall off a building and kill someone.  Dude there is potential in every little thing we do.   What are you talking about.  The funny thing is, you have no idea how to solve your supposed problem.  So you parrot stupidity on a message board for fun.  LOL


----------



## Crick (Jun 23, 2016)

He has an excellent idea how to solve our problem.  The only problem is convincing everyone that it needs to be done.  That's what we do here.  That's why we constantly point out how wrong you all are.  It seems to be that most of you deniers are here for your money or your politics.  I'm here for my children.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jun 24, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...





> Antarctic sea ice has been growing over the last few decades but it certainly is not due to cooling - the Southern Ocean has shown warming over same period. Increasing southern sea ice is due to a combination of complex phenomena including cyclonic winds around Antarctica and changes in ocean circulation.


 Common Core science anyone?  Ice must melt so then it will increase.  And the worse part about this, is that there are people out there that actually believe this shit..


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 24, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Deniers, I'm sorry about taking your lunch money every day on the playground. I couldn't resist. It wasn't about the money. It was about how you cried so amusingly, like you're crying now. Now that I've apologized, will you stop weeping about the past humiliations that the mean ol' liberals have inflicted on you? And no, I can't promise that I'll stop humiliating you for how badly you stink at science, logic, history, common sense, and life in general.
> 
> Now, back to the thread topic, sea level rise, which deniers are working so hard to deflect from. Here are a few recent news items.
> 
> ...





jc456 said:


> I'm just curious, what do you supposed is causing the rise?  Antarctica is gaining ice, and Greenland isn't melting anything unusual.  So where does all the new water come from?
> 
> BTW, excuse me for laughing,  you should be trying out at the comedy clubs with this material.
> 
> ...





JimH52 said:


> Have someone who can read, tell you what this says...
> 
> Why is southern sea ice increasing?
> :





> Antarctic sea ice has been growing over the last few decades but it certainly is not due to cooling - the Southern Ocean has shown warming over same period. Increasing southern sea ice is due to a combination of complex phenomena including cyclonic winds around Antarctica and changes in ocean circulation.





andaronjim said:


> Common Core science anyone?  Ice must melt so then it will increase.  And the worse part about this, is that there are people out there that actually believe this shit..



No, little retard, the worst part is that there are clueless, anti-science idiots like you and JustCrazy who can't find your own asses using both hands, a roadmap and a GPS, but still imagine that you understand climate science better than the actual scientists. LOLOL.


----------



## jc456 (Jun 24, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers, I'm sorry about taking your lunch money every day on the playground. I couldn't resist. It wasn't about the money. It was about how you cried so amusingly, like you're crying now. Now that I've apologized, will you stop weeping about the past humiliations that the mean ol' liberals have inflicted on you? And no, I can't promise that I'll stop humiliating you for how badly you stink at science, logic, history, common sense, and life in general.
> ...


well we both know you have no idea about climate science and impact of sea level potentials.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 24, 2016)

mamooth said:


> Deniers, I'm sorry about taking your lunch money every day on the playground. I couldn't resist. It wasn't about the money. It was about how you cried so amusingly, like you're crying now. Now that I've apologized, will you stop weeping about the past humiliations that the mean ol' liberals have inflicted on you? And no, I can't promise that I'll stop humiliating you for how badly you stink at science, logic, history, common sense, and life in general.
> 
> Now, back to the thread topic, sea level rise, which deniers are working so hard to deflect from. Here are a few recent news items.
> 
> ...





jc456 said:


> I'm just curious, what do you supposed is causing the rise?  Antarctica is gaining ice, and Greenland isn't melting anything unusual.  So where does all the new water come from?
> 
> BTW, excuse me for laughing,  you should be trying out at the comedy clubs with this material.
> 
> ...





JimH52 said:


> Have someone who can read, tell you what this says...
> 
> Why is southern sea ice increasing?





andaronjim said:


> > Antarctic sea ice has been growing over the last few decades but it certainly is not due to cooling - the Southern Ocean has shown warming over same period. Increasing southern sea ice is due to a combination of complex phenomena including cyclonic winds around Antarctica and changes in ocean circulation.





andaronjim said:


> Common Core science anyone?  Ice must melt so then it will increase.  And the worse part about this, is that there are people out there that actually believe this shit..





RollingThunder said:


> No, little retard, the worst part is that there are clueless, anti-science idiots like you and JustCrazy who can't find your own asses using both hands, a roadmap and a GPS, but still imagine that you understand climate science better than the actual scientists. LOLOL.





jc456 said:


> well we both know you have no idea about climate science and impact of sea level potentials.



LOLOLOLOL.....That is hilarious, coming from a ignorant, anti-science, nutbagger troll like JustCrazy, who literally has "_no idea about climate science_" or much of anything else.

As he continually demonstrates....like his statement above...."_Greenland isn't melting anything unusual_".....while in the real world....

*Greenland's ice melt accelerating as surface darkens, raising sea levels | Environment | The Guardian*
The Guardian › ... › Climate change
Mar 3, 2016 - At the same time, summer near-surface temperatures in Greenland have increased at a rate of around ...
***
*Massive Glacier In Northeastern Greenland Is Melting At An Accelerated Rate | IFLScience*
www.iflscience.com › environment › ma...
Nov 12, 2015 - If the entire glacier in the northeast of Greenland melted, then global sea levels would rise by an ...
***
*Greenland ice sheet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
Wikipedia › wiki › Greenland_ice_sheet
Jump to The *melting* ice sheet - The Greenland ice sheet is a vast body of ice .... that it is melting at a rate of about 239 cubic kilometers (57 cu mi) per year. ... an accelerating rate in recent years.
***
*Greenland's Ice Is Melting Faster | UCAR Center for Science Education*
scied.ucar.edu › longcontent › greenland...
Greenland's accelerating rate of ice melt is one of many major changes in the region. The amount of sea ice in the Arctic ...
***
*Greenland ice melt 'accelerating' say scientists | Climate Home - climate change news*
www.climatechangenews.com › greenlan...
Apr 14, 2014 - NEWS: Greenland's ice loss is accelerating, suggesting that the ... They calculate that between April 2003 and April 2012, the region was losing ice at the rate of 10 billion tons a year.
***
*Greenland Ice Melt Accelerating, Satellite Data Shows | Climate Change - Live Science*
www.livescience.com › Planet Earth
Nov 19, 2012 - Satellite measurements show that Greenland loses 200 gigatons of ice each year , the amount of ice ...
***
*Icy Greenland melting at accelerating rate, study finds | Fox News*
*Fox News* › science › 2012/11/30 › icy-g...
Nov 30, 2012 - Ice loss in Antarctica and Greenland has contributed nearly half an inch to the rise in sea levels in the ...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jun 24, 2016)

Would you please explain to me with the Ice melting(Above 32 degrees) how do polar vortex Subzero(below 32 degrees) temperatures happen?  I see that consensus science *"MAY"* end the earth in 10 years, which it didn't, then it was supposed to end in 15 years , which it didn't, now it is supposed to be 100 years from now?  When you keep lowering the bar, eventually it *"MIGHT"* happen.


IPCC confirmed that global warming was a redistribution scam, why don't you understand this?  Because liberal, left wing religious fanatical nut jobs, don't like US bashing your religion.


----------



## Crick (Jun 24, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Would you please explain to me with the Ice melting(Above 32 degrees) how do polar vortex Subzero(below 32 degrees) temperatures happen?



Ice does not melt when temperatures are below 0C. It does melt when temperatures are above 0C.  Both domains may still be found on the planet. If you have some question with a little more specificity to ask, please ask away.



andaronjim said:


> I see that consensus science *"MAY"* end the earth in 10 years



No scientific consensus has ever said any such thing.



andaronjim said:


> which it didn't



Surprise, surprise



andaronjim said:


> then it was supposed to end in 15 years



No scientific consensus has ever said any such thing.



andaronjim said:


> which it didn't



Surprise, surprise



andaronjim said:


> now it is supposed to be 100 years from now?



No scientific consensus has ever said any such thing.



andaronjim said:


> When you keep lowering the bar, eventually it *"MIGHT"* happen.



When you keep lying about what you've been told; about what the scientific consensus holds in this matter, people will stop listening to you.



andaronjim said:


> IPCC confirmed that global warming was a redistribution scam, why don't you understand this?



Because they did no such thing.  One man stated that GOVERNMENTS were responding to global warming in a manner that effectively redistributed assets from those who have burned enormous amounts of fossil fuels to those who are suffering the consequences.



andaronjim said:


> Because liberal, left wing religious fanatical nut jobs, don't like US bashing your religion.



Tell you what: if you ever manage to land a blow on mainstream science's view of AGW, we'll let you know.  Till then, well... keep trying.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 24, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Would you please explain to me with the Ice melting(Above 32 degrees) how do polar vortex Subzero(below 32 degrees) temperatures happen?  I see that consensus science *"MAY"* end the earth in 10 years, which it didn't, then it was supposed to end in 15 years , which it didn't, now it is supposed to be 100 years from now?  When you keep lowering the bar, eventually it *"MIGHT"* happen.
> 
> IPCC confirmed that global warming was a redistribution scam, why don't you understand this?  Because liberal, left wing religious fanatical nut jobs, don't like US bashing your religion.



LOLOLOLOLOL......that is some of the silliest, most deranged, utterly ignorant garbage ever posted, androgenousjizeater. Not to mention your baldfaced lies.

Your complete ignorance about science and dumbfounded disbelief in science do not actually constitute an argument, fuckwit. They just demonstrate what a clueless crackpot you are.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jun 28, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Would you please explain to me with the Ice melting(Above 32 degrees) how do polar vortex Subzero(below 32 degrees) temperatures happen?  I see that consensus science *"MAY"* end the earth in 10 years, which it didn't, then it was supposed to end in 15 years , which it didn't, now it is supposed to be 100 years from now?  When you keep lowering the bar, eventually it *"MIGHT"* happen.
> ...


Notice how the libidiot didn't answer my question, just threw at me insults, typical of a public educated buffoon?


----------



## jc456 (Jun 28, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Deniers, I'm sorry about taking your lunch money every day on the playground. I couldn't resist. It wasn't about the money. It was about how you cried so amusingly, like you're crying now. Now that I've apologized, will you stop weeping about the past humiliations that the mean ol' liberals have inflicted on you? And no, I can't promise that I'll stop humiliating you for how badly you stink at science, logic, history, common sense, and life in general.
> ...


Dude , the magic word is accelerating, it's so disingenuous


----------



## Crick (Jun 30, 2016)

Accelerating is not a magic word.  Melting is the magic word.  Accelerating is simply a modifier - makes it that much worse.

So, where is your evidence that Greenland is not melting?

Where is your evidence that the almost all of the world's glaciers aren't melting?

Where is your evidence that glacial flow off Antarctica hasn't dramatically ACCELERATED?

Where is your evidence that the world's temperatures are not rising, particularly at the poles?

[NOTE: from this point on would be a thread hijack, please treat as purely rhetorical]

Where is your evidence that CO2 doesn't absorb IR?

Where is your evidence that it doesn't emit IR?

Where is your evidence that it's leaving the planet?

Where is the evidence for anything you claim to believe?


----------



## xband (Jun 30, 2016)

Florida and NYC will be underwater when the ice caps melt.


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2016)

I repeat jc

*Where is your evidence that Greenland is not melting?  Something to counter this:*





Greenland Ice Mass Balance
www.arctic.noaa.gov
*
Where is your evidence that the almost all of the world's glaciers aren't melting?  Something to counter this:*






















*Where is your evidence that glacial flow off Antarctica hasn't dramatically ACCELERATED?  Something to counter this:*





News | West Antarctic Glacier Loss Appears Unstoppable
West Antarctic Glacier Loss Appears Unstoppable





*Where is your evidence that the world's temperatures are not rising, particularly at the poles?  Something to counter this:*









Polar warming, Jan-May 2016
Global Analysis - May 2016 | State of the Climate |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)



Eh?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Accelerating is not a magic word.  Melting is the magic word.  Accelerating is simply a modifier - makes it that much worse.
> 
> So, where is your evidence that Greenland is not melting?
> 
> ...


*So, where is your evidence that Greenland is not melting?*

Who said Greenland didn't have ice melting?  It happens every year.  They also have ice calving as glaciers move every year. Most of that goes into the ocean as Ice Bergs, the Titanic hit one a long time ago, made a movie about it as well.  See, things like this have been going on for a long time.

BTW, by the time the next solstice is here, I expect that the melt season will have ended and Greenland is back to making ice.  It happens annually.

Do you have something that shows that doesn't happen?

*Where is your evidence that glacial flow off Antarctica hasn't dramatically ACCELERATED?*

What have you got that says it has?  someone using the word ACCELERATED?  LOL

BTW, do you know why glaciers actually move?  It isn't because of melt.  But why educate yourself, deal with your delusions of acceleration that makes absolutely no sense on a continent that mainly never gets to 32F and the core 12F most never in the records.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> I repeat jc
> 
> *Where is your evidence that Greenland is not melting?  Something to counter this:*
> 
> ...


it's a funny thing pictures, one can't really tell much, since one doesn't know the season the photos were actually taken.

Should I post ships that get caught in the summer ice near Antarctica?  Yeah, why not.

Forecast: More Vessels Stuck in Antarctic Ice

"Just as the Russian vessel _Akademik Shokalskiy_ and the Chinese vessel sent to rescue it were finally dislodged from the ice after being stuck since Christmas Eve, three fishing vessels have followed a United States icebreaker deep into the Ross Sea to access ice-choked fishing grounds that would otherwise be impossible for their vessels to penetrate.




The three longline fishing vessels (Korean Kostar and Sunstar and the Russian Yantar 31) that have followed the United States icebreaker research vessel (Nathaniel B. Palmer) deep into the ice of the Ross Sea (photo by Laughlin Barker).
The height of summer in the Antarctic brings the peak research, tourist, and fishing season, yet the temperatures are still usually well below freezing and the ice conditions remain unpredictable and often treacherous. Despite the increasing frequency of vessel accidents in the Antarctic, there are currently no regulations to ensure that vessels venturing into the Southern Ocean are fit to endure the harsh and icy conditions."

How about this one:

All 52 passengers rescued from ship trapped in Antarctic ice  - CNN.com

*"All 52 passengers rescued from ship trapped in Antarctic ice *

By Jethro Mullen, CNN

Updated 3:16 PM ET, Thu January 2, 2014






52 passengers rescued from trapped ship 01:43
*Story highlights*

Chief mate: Passengers are very happy now to be on the Australian icebreaker
He thanks Chinese icebreaker crew whose helicopter ferried 52 to safety
"It's 100% we're off! A huge thanks to all," a professor on the ship tweets
22 Russian crew members are still on board the trapped ship, the MV Akademik Shokalskiy
After 10 days stranded far from home, all 52 passengers from a ship stuck in Antarctic ice have now been transferred by helicopter to an Australian icebreaker.
"It's 100% we're off! A huge thanks to all," tweeted Chris Turney, an Australian professor among the group of scientists, journalists and tourists marooned on the ship.
A helicopter from a nearby Chinese icebreaker ferried passengers Thursday to the Australian icebreaker, the Aurora Australis.
The rescue is the latest chapter in a saga that began Christmas Eve after the Russian-flagged MV Akademik Shokalskiy got stuck in unusually thick ice."

Look, the year is 2014, holy sht just two years ago.  Look at all that acceleration.  BTW, the sea level never rose due to the bergs either.  Funny eh?


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2016)

*


			
				Crick said:
			
		


			So, where is your evidence that Greenland is not melting?
		
Click to expand...

*


jc456 said:


> Who said Greenland didn't have ice melting?



You did



jc456 said:


> I'm just curious, what do you supposed is causing the rise? Antarctica is gaining ice, and *Greenland isn't melting* anything unusual. So where does all the new water come from?





jc456 said:


> It happens every year.  They also have ice calving as glaciers move every year. Most of that goes into the ocean as Ice Bergs, the Titanic hit one a long time ago, made a movie about it as well.  See, things like this have been going on for a long time.
> 
> BTW, by the time the next solstice is here, I expect that the melt season will have ended and Greenland is back to making ice.  It happens annually.
> 
> Do you have something that shows that doesn't happen?



Greenland's ice mass loss, along with the much smaller seasonal signal, is displayed in the first data graph in post #345



			
				Crick said:
			
		

> *Where is your evidence that glacial flow off Antarctica hasn't dramatically ACCELERATED?*





jc456 said:


> What have you got that says it has?  someone using the word ACCELERATED?  LOL



Again, from post #345, I've got this:
News | West Antarctic Glacier Loss Appears Unstoppable



jc456 said:


> BTW, do you know why glaciers actually move?



Yes, I do



jc456 said:


> It isn't because of melt.



I never said the Antarctic glaciers had accelerated due to melt.  I have repeatedly said it is due to the breakup of coastal ice sheets which had previously blocked their flow.



jc456 said:


> But why educate yourself, deal with your delusions of acceleration that makes absolutely no sense on a continent that mainly never gets to 32F and the core 12F most never in the records.



Rather than trying to falsely comfort yourself with numbers, why don't you look u some facts?  Antarctic glaciers are accelerating dramatically.


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2016)

jc456 said:


> it's a funny thing pictures, one can't really tell much, since one doesn't know the season the photos were actually taken.



Data graphs aren't photos.  And if you think the amount of ice loss in those glacier side-by-side comparisons represent a SEASONAL change, you're a complete, bag-snorting fucking idiot.



jc456 said:


> Should I post ships that get caught in the summer ice near Antarctica?



No, you should post evidence to support the many ignorant claims you've made.  The story of the ice breaker stuck in the ice does no such thing you fucking idiot.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Crick, you really need to learn how to read.  Or at least learn some different words and phrases.  Note my comment more closely:



jc456 said:


> I'm just curious, what do you supposed is causing the rise? Antarctica is gaining ice, and *Greenland isn't melting* _*anything unusual.*_ So where does all the new water come from?



so again, I never stated Greenland doesn't melt.  Dude, I never said it.  quit making up lies cause you can't read.

Accelerating not.  Let me again state, all you have is someone using the word with no evidence of that state.  Sorry.

And because there is no accelerating, there is no chance that anyone will know what sea levels will be, so the premise is just wrong from all angles.  But, I know you don't care.  I do.

I don't like manipulation for money.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > it's a funny thing pictures, one can't really tell much, since one doesn't know the season the photos were actually taken.
> ...


*No, you should post evidence to support the many ignorant claims you've made.  The story of the ice breaker stuck in the ice does no such thing you fucking idiot.*

So ships stuck in summer ice isn't evidence, too funny.  Yeah keep feeding the masses the fudged up data that your warmer kooks keep manipulating.  I'll keep laughing.


----------



## Crick (Jul 1, 2016)

Of WHAT do you think A ship stuck in ice in A location is evidence?  That there is sea ice around the Antarctic and that the wind moves it around?  Ooh, there's some earthshaking news.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 1, 2016)

Crick said:


> Of WHAT do you think A ship stuck in ice in A location is evidence?  That there is sea ice around the Antarctic and that the wind moves it around?  Ooh, there's some earthshaking news.


Why were they there? Hahahaha


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 3, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Of WHAT do you think A ship stuck in ice in A location is evidence?  That there is sea ice around the Antarctic and that the wind moves it around?  Ooh, there's some earthshaking news.
> ...


I think they were looking for that brain you lost a while back, JustCrazy....obviously, no one found it.....


----------



## jc456 (Jul 3, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Right? Cause there boats got stuck and they evacuated, cause they weren't expecting sea ice in summer. And bingo, it trapped them, those scientists who know all about ice and climate. Excuse me while I laugh


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 4, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...





jc456 said:


> Right? Cause there boats got stuck and they evacuated, cause they weren't expecting sea ice in summer. And bingo, it trapped them, those scientists who know all about ice and climate. Excuse me while I laugh



Moronic misinformation and spin about a meaningless incident that has nothing whatsoever to do with the mountains of scientific evidence supporting the reality of human caused global warming and its consequent climate disruptions and changes. You are a gullible retard, JustCrazy!


----------



## jc456 (Jul 4, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Except that it is hilarious that you can't see the irony. But you seem to lack the ability to see facts as they are. I'm Use to it in here.


----------



## Crick (Jul 4, 2016)

Being ironic doesn't make it evidence of squat.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> Being ironic doesn't make it evidence of squat.


Sure it does, they obviously didn't expect ice or are you saying they purposely sailed into that ice so they'd need saving? Dude that's special.


----------



## Crick (Jul 9, 2016)

Dude, that's less than nothing.  They obviously DID expect ice - it's what the expedition was intended to observe.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 11, 2016)

Crick said:


> Dude, that's less than nothing.  They obviously DID expect ice - it's what the expedition was intended to observe.


how much do you supposed that nothing cost to get them out of that unexpected ice?  Or are you saying they deliberately wanted to get stuck.  You seem to be confused.


----------



## Crick (Jul 12, 2016)

No, you seem to be confused.  The purpose of the expedition was to study ice.  They thus obviously knew their was sea ice where they were headed.  They never made any suggestion that they expected to find no ice.  If you have sea ice, the potential exists to get stuck in it.  Whoever was navigating - and this would almost certainly NOT have been the scientists but the vessels captain and navigator - made an error that got them stuck.  They are not the first vessel to get stuck in the ice and they will not be the last.  As I stated earlier, the only thing the event shows is that ice is still floating around Antarctica.  No one has ever suggested otherwise.

Obviously, you and every other denier saw this as an opportunity to laugh at the people who've been making you look stupid for a good long while now.  The trouble is, it is not them that have made you look stupid.  That was the result of your choice to be stupid.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> No, you seem to be confused.  The purpose of the expedition was to study ice.  They thus obviously knew their was sea ice where they were headed.  They never made any suggestion that they expected to find no ice.  If you have sea ice, the potential exists to get stuck in it.  Whoever was navigating - and this would almost certainly NOT have been the scientists but the vessels captain and navigator - made an error that got them stuck.  They are not the first vessel to get stuck in the ice and they will not be the last.  As I stated earlier, the only thing the event shows is that ice is still floating around Antarctica.  No one has ever suggested otherwise.
> 
> Obviously, you and every other denier saw this as an opportunity to laugh at the people who've been making you look stupid for a good long while now.  The trouble is, it is not them that have made you look stupid.  That was the result of your choice to be stupid.


so crick, still doesn't make sense bubba.  if indeed the voyage was to study ice floating on the water, why not study on a boat that can manage ice?  I have to believe the captain and crew were being asked to go where they went, the captain most likely warned them of the ice and bingo there it is.  It's all on the genius' that were on that ship.  And, it is funny as hell.  First, why don't you post up their agenda since you think you know.  Let's see what you're referencing for your material.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 12, 2016)

Crick said:


> No, you seem to be confused.  The purpose of the expedition was to study ice.  They thus obviously knew their was sea ice where they were headed.  They never made any suggestion that they expected to find no ice.  If you have sea ice, the potential exists to get stuck in it.  Whoever was navigating - and this would almost certainly NOT have been the scientists but the vessels captain and navigator - made an error that got them stuck.  They are not the first vessel to get stuck in the ice and they will not be the last.  As I stated earlier, the only thing the event shows is that ice is still floating around Antarctica.  No one has ever suggested otherwise.
> 
> Obviously, you and every other denier saw this as an opportunity to laugh at the people who've been making you look stupid for a good long while now.  The trouble is, it is not them that have made you look stupid.  That was the result of your choice to be stupid.





jc456 said:


> so crick, still doesn't make sense bubba.  if indeed the voyage was to study ice floating on the water, why not study on a boat that can manage ice?  I have to believe the captain and crew were being asked to go where they went, the captain most likely warned them of the ice and bingo there it is.  It's all on the genius' that were on that ship.  And, it is funny as hell.  First, why don't you post up their agenda since you think you know.  Let's see what you're referencing for your material.



LOLOLOLOLOLOL......atta-way, JustCrazy, when you're dead ignorant and full of crackpot myths, just make up your own stories instead of looking at the actual facts of the matter.....that's the denier cult way, all right!

*Why did Antarctic expedition ship get stranded in ice?*
BBC News
By Andrew Luck-Bakeron board the Aurora Australis
21 January 2014


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > No, you seem to be confused.  The purpose of the expedition was to study ice.  They thus obviously knew their was sea ice where they were headed.  They never made any suggestion that they expected to find no ice.  If you have sea ice, the potential exists to get stuck in it.  Whoever was navigating - and this would almost certainly NOT have been the scientists but the vessels captain and navigator - made an error that got them stuck.  They are not the first vessel to get stuck in the ice and they will not be the last.  As I stated earlier, the only thing the event shows is that ice is still floating around Antarctica.  No one has ever suggested otherwise.
> ...


Well, It's not clear your point that says what I posted was out of line, but here is a quote from your article:

"In the opinion of Murray Doyle, the captain of the rescue vessel, the Aurora Australis, *the conditions around the Mertz glacier were typical of those seen in the past few years*"


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > No, you seem to be confused.  The purpose of the expedition was to study ice.  They thus obviously knew their was sea ice where they were headed.  They never made any suggestion that they expected to find no ice.  If you have sea ice, the potential exists to get stuck in it.  Whoever was navigating - and this would almost certainly NOT have been the scientists but the vessels captain and navigator - made an error that got them stuck.  They are not the first vessel to get stuck in the ice and they will not be the last.  As I stated earlier, the only thing the event shows is that ice is still floating around Antarctica.  No one has ever suggested otherwise.
> ...


Oh, and here is another excerpt that backs my statement from your article:

"In a report he has compiled in consultation with other senior expedition personnel, *Greg Mortimer has identified several weak points in the ice-side logistics. These were the responsibility of the expedition team, not Captain Kisele*v."


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 13, 2016)

Crick said:


> No, you seem to be confused.  The purpose of the expedition was to study ice.  They thus obviously knew their was sea ice where they were headed.  They never made any suggestion that they expected to find no ice.  If you have sea ice, the potential exists to get stuck in it.  Whoever was navigating - and this would almost certainly NOT have been the scientists but the vessels captain and navigator - made an error that got them stuck.  They are not the first vessel to get stuck in the ice and they will not be the last.  As I stated earlier, the only thing the event shows is that ice is still floating around Antarctica.  No one has ever suggested otherwise.
> 
> Obviously, you and every other denier saw this as an opportunity to laugh at the people who've been making you look stupid for a good long while now.  The trouble is, it is not them that have made you look stupid.  That was the result of your choice to be stupid.





jc456 said:


> so crick, still doesn't make sense bubba.  if indeed the voyage was to study ice floating on the water, why not study on a boat that can manage ice?  I have to believe the captain and crew were being asked to go where they went, the captain most likely warned them of the ice and bingo there it is.  It's all on the genius' that were on that ship.  And, it is funny as hell.  First, why don't you post up their agenda since you think you know.  Let's see what you're referencing for your material.





RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOLOLOL......atta-way, JustCrazy, when you're dead ignorant and full of crackpot myths, just make up your own stories instead of looking at the actual facts of the matter.....that's the denier cult way, all right!
> 
> *Why did Antarctic expedition ship get stranded in ice?*
> BBC News
> ...





jc456 said:


> Well, It's not clear your point that says what I posted was out of line, but here is a quote from your article:
> 
> "In the opinion of Murray Doyle, the captain of the rescue vessel, the Aurora Australis, *the conditions around the Mertz glacier were typical of those seen in the past few years*"


Yeah, so? So what, moron? Nothing about that supports your deranged denier cult myths about this event.




jc456 said:


> Oh, and here is another excerpt that backs my statement from your article:
> 
> "In a report he has compiled in consultation with other senior expedition personnel, *Greg Mortimer has identified several weak points in the ice-side logistics. These were the responsibility of the expedition team, not Captain Kisele*v."


Again, *SO FUCKING WHAT??? 

Again, Nothing about that supports your deranged denier cult myths about this event.*

The actual account makes it quite clear that what happened had nothing to do with the very real observed global warming driven changes in the Antarctic region.

From the article I cited....

*The vessel's entrapment happened at the end of the AAE's final intended day at the Antarctic coast. The expedition leaders were keen to get some of their scientists and accompanying tourist assistants to a small cluster of rocky hillocks called the Hodgeman Islands, close to land. The islands rise out of what's called fast ice - a margin of persistent ice between the land and the water's edge. Travelling eastwards and then southwards, the Shokalskiy took a route through a relatively clear patch of water, called the Mertz polynya. A polynya is an area of water kept relatively clear - much of the time - of sea ice, by a particular kind of polar wind. This katabatic wind blows pretty persistently towards the coast from the polar plateau in the continent's interior. However, routes through polynyas can close within a few hours if the distribution of sea ice in the general area changes with shifts in the wind direction and speed.

The Shokalskiy began to run into trouble towards the end of that day as it attempted to leave the area. Its location was close to the edge of a huge glacial system called the Mertz Glacier where it flows into the sea. Four years ago, the end of this glacier was smashed into many pieces by a gigantic passing iceberg named B09B. Expedition leader Chris Turney, a professor of earth sciences at the University of New South Wales, said that the ice floes that surrounded his ship appeared to have come from the eastern side of the wrecked glacier front. "It seems to have been coming from the other side of the Mertz glacier. This was very thick ice - three plus metres thick which was coming across (our path)," he said. "The captain did an amazing job, weaving a course trying to get out but it was quite clear this was a different event from anything we'd seen before."

'Little warning'
The captain and crew realised they were surrounded and stuck fast by Christmas Eve, 24 December. Chris Turney estimates that open water lay just two nautical miles ahead. However, by that point, with the ice so thick and more floes accumulating around and ahead of us, clear water might as well have been 20 nautical miles away. Within a couple of days, it was in fact that distance to open water. On Christmas Day, the captain issued an international distress call, not only because his ship was stuck fast but because there were large icebergs moving on currents in the area on trajectories that were potentially dangerous to the ship. Chris Turney said: "It looks like it was fast ice attached to the continent on the other side of the Mertz glacier and, for whatever reason, it was broken up and with strong southeasterly winds, chunks of ice were driven across our path. It was one of those events which happens occasionally (and with little warning). We were unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time."*


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > No, you seem to be confused.  The purpose of the expedition was to study ice.  They thus obviously knew their was sea ice where they were headed.  They never made any suggestion that they expected to find no ice.  If you have sea ice, the potential exists to get stuck in it.  Whoever was navigating - and this would almost certainly NOT have been the scientists but the vessels captain and navigator - made an error that got them stuck.  They are not the first vessel to get stuck in the ice and they will not be the last.  As I stated earlier, the only thing the event shows is that ice is still floating around Antarctica.  No one has ever suggested otherwise.
> ...


Sure, all it took was researching the weather patterns:

to avoid this:  "In a report he has compiled in consultation with other senior expedition personnel, *Greg Mortimer has identified several weak points in the ice-side logistics. These were the responsibility of the expedition team, not Captain Kisele*v."

I mean these are supposed to be the smartest frikn men/women in the world right? You believe everything that comes from their greasy little fingers.  So?

I said the captain did what he was asked to do and why the blame was not on him and his crew.  you called me crazy.  Well, it looks like the scientists on board were the crazies who now will have to justify what happened.  That too was in your article bubba boy.


----------



## Pop23 (Jul 13, 2016)

Muhammed said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> ...



That depends on how large the study is!

As wordy as some libs get, the water displacement if dumped in the sea could be massive!


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 13, 2016)

Pop23 said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > JimH52 said:
> ...


Not really.


----------



## Crick (Jul 13, 2016)

"Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise" does not say a study is going to have any effect on sea level.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2016)

Why would it melt and when? More political speeches with no content


----------



## RollingThunder (Jul 13, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Why would it melt and when? More political speeches with no content



Are you denier cult idiots too stupid to actually read the article cited in the OP? LOLOLOLOLOL.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 13, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would it melt and when? More political speeches with no content
> ...


Yep


----------



## westwall (Jul 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> "Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise" does not say a study is going to have any effect on sea level.








Ahhhhh yes...  the magic "could".  Which also means, "probably won't".


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2016)

Ah, the Dunning-Kreuger Effect in  full display


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 14, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> 
> And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny.  Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...


Let Me know when you learn the difference between "could double" and "will double"...

Even your subject line mocks you.

Do you know what the word "Potential" means?


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> Ah, the Dunning-Kreuger Effect in  full display


what one says when one has no actual factual material to base an argument.  Nice job....


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2016)

Darkwind said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> ...


why can't they give the probability number for this to happen?  BTW, the only way would be for the continent to lose the ice at once.  What do you think that probability is?  To give these jerk offs credence is simply ludicrous.

They only want to scare those who don't investigate such things like 90% of the planet. Trust me, con men for sure.


----------



## jc456 (Jul 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> "Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise" does not say a study is going to have any effect on sea level.


What's that probability number old crick?


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2016)

Darkwind said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, the Dunning-Kreuger Effect in  full display
> ...



Are you stupid enough to actually threaten me?  In - fucking - credible.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 14, 2016)

JimH52 said:


> Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
> 
> And still the RW lugnuts deny...deny...deny.  Thankfully, their numbers are diminishing...


Let them have all the ocean front land.   Problem solved.


----------



## Crick (Jul 14, 2016)

Now, now... let's not use Denier tactics.


----------

