# Arctic sea ice melting toward record



## Chris (May 20, 2010)

Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record 
By: Bob Weber, The Canadian Press 

19/05/2010 5:02 PM

Arctic sea ice is on track to recede to a record low this year, suggesting that northern waters free of summer ice are coming faster than anyone thought.

The latest satellite data show ice coverage is equal to what it was in 2007, the lowest year on record, and is declining faster than it did that year.

"Could we break another record this year? I think it's quite possible," said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.

"We are going to lose the summer sea-ice cover. We can't go back."

Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record - Winnipeg Free Press


----------



## elvis (May 20, 2010)

yawn


----------



## GWV5903 (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record
> By: Bob Weber, The Canadian Press
> 
> 19/05/2010 5:02 PM
> ...



Go back to sleep.....


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2010)

GWV5903 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record
> ...



Is that your mantra?


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2010)

EVERYONE knows how much hotter it feels to wear a black T-shirt, rather than a white one, on a warm day.

In the same way, the melting of sea ice in the Arctic, revealing the dark water below, has been shown by Australian scientists to be the main cause of unusually rapid warming at the top of the world.

Confirmation of this "feedback loop" means the region is likely to continue to warm strongly, with greater loss of sea ice and possible melting of the ice sheets.

James Screen and Ian Simmonds, of the University of Melbourne, said the rise in surface temperatures in the Arctic in the past 20 years had been more than double the global average.

Melting ice makes the Arctic a vicious circle


----------



## konradv (May 20, 2010)

_Melting ice makes the Arctic a vicious circle _
----------------------------

Add to that methane, also a potent greenhouse gas, previously trapped below ice and now being released and we have another feedback loop at work.  That's why the complaint that CO2 is such a small part of the atmosphere doesn't hold water.  Like an amplifier on your stereo, a small change in the setting can have a big effect on the sound.


----------



## JimH52 (May 20, 2010)

I am sure the nuckle dragging Baggers on this board will come up with a good excuse for this one.


----------



## Tom Clancy (May 20, 2010)

Hmm.. right.


----------



## JimH52 (May 20, 2010)

tom clancy said:


> hmm.. Right.



right on cue!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 20, 2010)

What is the source of the second graph? Also, you are showing a rise of 0.5 for the Medivial Warm Period, which may have been correct for the Europe, but was not the case for the rest of the world. The Mann graph is for the whole world.

So you graph comparison is apples and oranges. And dishonest, as you well know.

The Arctic Ice had a big jump in March after tracking the same as 2007 for much of the winter. Unfortunetly, the coverage from that freeze is thin, and now the winds have pushed the thicker ice, what little there is left, east of Greenland, where it will rapidly melt.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 20, 2010)

konradv said:


> _Melting ice makes the Arctic a vicious circle _
> ----------------------------
> 
> Add to that methane, also a potent greenhouse gas, previously trapped below ice and now being released and we have another feedback loop at work.  That's why the complaint that CO2 is such a small part of the atmosphere doesn't hold water.  Like an amplifier on your stereo, a small change in the setting can have a big effect on the sound.



*Of course our short bus members will reject any real work done by real scientists.*

Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming : Abstract : Nature


Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming
K. M. Walter1, S. A. Zimov2, J. P. Chanton3, D. Verbyla4 and F. S. Chapin, III1

Top of pageLarge uncertainties in the budget of atmospheric methane, an important greenhouse gas, limit the accuracy of climate change projections1, 2. Thaw lakes in North Siberia are known to emit methane3, but the magnitude of these emissions remains uncertain because most methane is released through ebullition (bubbling), which is spatially and temporally variable. Here we report a new method of measuring ebullition and use it to quantify methane emissions from two thaw lakes in North Siberia. We show that ebullition accounts for 95 per cent of methane emissions from these lakes, and that methane flux from thaw lakes in our study region may be five times higher than previously estimated3. Extrapolation of these fluxes indicates that thaw lakes in North Siberia emit 3.8 teragrams of methane per year, which increases present estimates of methane emissions from northern wetlands (< 640 teragrams per year; refs 1, 2, 46) by between 10 and 63 per cent. We find that thawing permafrost along lake margins accounts for most of the methane released from the lakes, and estimate that an expansion of thaw lakes between 1974 and 2000, which was concurrent with regional warming, increased methane emissions in our study region by 58 per cent. Furthermore, the Pleistocene age (35,26042,900 years) of methane emitted from hotspots along thawing lake margins indicates that this positive feedback to climate warming has led to the release of old carbon stocks previously stored in permafrost.

Top of pageInstitute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska 99775, USA 
Northeast Science Station, Cherskii 678830, Russia 
Department of Oceanography, Florida State University, Florida 32306, USA 
Forest Science Department, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska 99775, USA


----------



## Old Rocks (May 20, 2010)

As Arctic Ocean warms, megatonnes of methane bubble up - environment - 17 August 2009 - New Scientist

It's been predicted for years, and now it's happening. Deep in the Arctic Ocean, water warmed by climate change is forcing the release of methane from beneath the sea floor.

Over 250 plumes of gas have been discovered bubbling up from the sea floor to the west of the Svalbard archipelago, which lies north of Norway. The bubbles are mostly methane, which is a greenhouse gas much more powerful than carbon dioxide.

The methane is probably coming from reserves of methane hydrate beneath the sea bed. These hydrates, also known as clathrates, are water ice with methane molecules embedded in them.

The methane plumes were discovered by an expedition aboard the research ship James Clark Ross, led by Graham Westbrook of the University of Birmingham and Tim Minshull of the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, both in the UK


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2010)

Hmmmm, they claim that the ice is thinner then it actually is, they claim it is melting faster than it actually is (this year saw the latest beginning of the ice breakup in years) and they will only admit to natural cycles when forced too....


World's climate could cool first, warm later - environment - 04 September 2009 - New Scientist

Sounds like par for the course for the AGW fraudsters.


----------



## konradv (May 20, 2010)

westwall said:


> Hmmmm, they claim that the ice is thinner then it actually is, they claim it is melting faster than it actually is (this year saw the latest beginning of the ice breakup in years) and they will only admit to natural cycles when forced too....
> 
> 
> World's climate could cool first, warm later - environment - 04 September 2009 - New Scientist
> ...



You're the fraud!  "They will only admit to natural cycles when forced too...." is a lie.  No climate scientist would deny natural cycles.  That's why the whole subject is so complex and why we're even having this discussion.  Fortunately, we know the properties of CO2 and that its been going up.  So, unless the deniers have an "out" for the principle of Conservation of Energy, warming is in our future, if greenhouse gas concentrations keep going up.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 20, 2010)

*So here we are six years down the road from this forecast, and things are still getting warmer. In spite of a strong and persistant La Nina, and a near record low in solar activity and TSI, 2008 turned out to be either the 8th or 10th warmest year on record. 2009 tied for the second warmest year on record. And 2010 may well go down as the warmest year on record, for at least one year.

Were the scientists wrong about the NAO? No. But they definately underestimated the strength of the warming.*

World's climate could cool first, warm later - environment - 04 September 2009 - New Scientist

Cold Atlantic
Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. "But how much? The jury is still out," he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase.

Latif said NAO cycles also explained the recent recovery of the Sahel region of Africa from the droughts of the 1970s and 1980s. James Murphy, head of climate prediction at the Met Office, agreed and linked the NAO to Indian monsoons, Atlantic hurricanes and sea ice in the Arctic. "The oceans are key to decadal natural variability," he said.


----------



## Si modo (May 20, 2010)

konradv said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmmm, they claim that the ice is thinner then it actually is, they claim it is melting faster than it actually is (this year saw the latest beginning of the ice breakup in years) and they will only admit to natural cycles when forced too....
> ...



Your dishonesty is on display.  You have been told that unless CO2 concentrations are the only variable in any warming, your point is nothing more than nonsense and you've been told this at least four times by me.  Also, correlation is not causation.  At least the fourth time by me, again.

Willfull ignorance or dishonesty on your part?  I say both.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 20, 2010)

More dishonesty by Si. No one ever claimed that CO2 was the only variable. In fact, it has been pointed out many times by the honest posters here that the TSI, NAO, and La Nina, El Nino oscilations all contribute to the variability of the weather. 

However, CO2 is the biggest single factor now that we have increased the amount in the atmosphere by nearly 40%. In spite of the fact that we should have started a slow descent into another ice age at present, we are instead rapidly warming. The reason why is contained in this site from the American Institute of Physics.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Si modo (May 20, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> More dishonesty by Si. No one ever claimed that CO2 was the only variable. In fact, it has been pointed out many times by the honest posters here that the TSI, NAO, and La Nina, El Nino oscilations all contribute to the variability of the weather.
> 
> However, CO2 is the biggest single factor now that we have increased the amount in the atmosphere by nearly 40%. In spite of the fact that we should have started a slow descent into another ice age at present, we are instead rapidly warming. The reason why is contained in this site from the American Institute of Physics.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


If I said someone did say it was the only variable, you might have a point.  What I said (now at least the fifth time) is that if CO2 concentration were the only variable, then the kid's point would not necessarily  be nonsense.

I know.  It's a difficult distinciton to make, for morons.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 20, 2010)

Si;

Your dishonesty is on display. You have been told that unless CO2 concentrations are the only variable in any warming, your point is nothing more than nonsense and you've been told this at least four times by me. Also, correlation is not causation. At least the fourth time by me, again.

*And what other variable has changed by an apreciable percentage? And for the fourth time again, you spout nonsense.*


----------



## Si modo (May 20, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Si;
> 
> Your dishonesty is on display. You have been told that unless CO2 concentrations are the only variable in any warming, your point is nothing more than nonsense and you've been told this at least four times by me. Also, correlation is not causation. At least the fourth time by me, again.
> 
> *And what other variable has changed by an apreciable percentage? And for the fourth time again, you spout nonsense.*


I have no idea what you are trying to say.  Not in the least.

Perhaps someone can help you to articulate something.


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> As Arctic Ocean warms, megatonnes of methane bubble up - environment - 17 August 2009 - New Scientist
> 
> It's been predicted for years, and now it's happening. Deep in the Arctic Ocean, water warmed by climate change is forcing the release of methane from beneath the sea floor.
> 
> ...






Hi oldie,

I have a few problems with this story you posted.  First of all it assumes the plumes are coming from methane hydrates and while they admit that the methane could be from a primary source they think it unlikely because of the amount of gas...I guess they are unfamiliar with the spill currently going on in the Gulf.

The problem with the hydrate theory is the simple fact that methane hydrate really does exist in a very narrow range.  And not where they are finding the plumes.

https://www.llnl.gov/str/Durham.html 

Has a very nice comprehensive view of methane hydrate formation and stability issues.  Please note that at the low depths associated with the archipelago there is neither the pressure nor the low temperature to form the hydrates in the first place.  At high preassure the hydrates can survive up to a temperature of 275 kelvin which is 2 degrees above freezing.  At low pressures such as at low depth that drops to around 225 kelvin which is the temp you find in a lab and nowhere else.

The graph below shows the temperature drop with depth and as you can see the depth of the archipelago is above the thermocline.


If you have any further information on this I would love to see it.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 20, 2010)

Study: Arctic seabed methane stores destabilizing, venting

Study: Arctic seabed methane stores destabilizing, venting
March 4, 2010 A section of the Arctic Ocean seafloor that holds vast stores of frozen methane is showing signs of instability and widespread venting of the powerful greenhouse gas, according to the findings of an international research team led by University of Alaska Fairbanks scientists Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov. 


The research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is leaking large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.

&#8220;The amount of methane currently coming out of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is comparable to the amount coming out of the entire world&#8217;s oceans,&#8221; said Shakhova, a researcher at UAF&#8217;s International Arctic Research Center. &#8220;Subsea permafrost is losing its ability to be an impermeable cap.&#8221;


----------



## Old Rocks (May 20, 2010)

A much more complete look at the formation and existance of the ocean clathrates, around the world.

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/oilgas/publications/methane_hydrates/CongressReport.pdf


----------



## Chris (May 20, 2010)

The release of arctic methane will accelerate global warming by an huge amount. 

It really is the tipping point.


----------



## syrenn (May 20, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Study: Arctic seabed methane stores destabilizing, venting
> 
> Study: Arctic seabed methane stores destabilizing, venting
> March 4, 2010 A section of the Arctic Ocean seafloor that holds vast stores of frozen methane is showing signs of instability and widespread venting of the powerful greenhouse gas, according to the findings of an international research team led by University of Alaska Fairbanks scientists Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov.
> ...


Sheesh  

How many times do I have to explain that abrupt climate change is a natural event of the earth?

Hot Warm Cold, Cold Warm Hot!


----------



## elvis (May 20, 2010)

Chris said:


> The release of arctic methane will accelerate global warming by an huge amount.
> 
> It really is the tipping point.



oh no!  uncle Al.  Uncle Al.


----------



## elvis (May 20, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Si;
> ...



chris can't help him.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 20, 2010)

Tom Clancy said:


> Hmm.. right.



You do understand the difference between the "globe" and "Europe", right? Or did you mama drop you repeatedly off the statue of liberty?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 21, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Study: Arctic seabed methane stores destabilizing, venting
> ...



Have you a Doctorate in climatology? If not, then perhaps you could post a link to someone that does who is saying just that.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 21, 2010)

elvis said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Now if it isn't ol' Rent-a-Boy himself.


----------



## westwall (May 21, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






Based on the people who have them, Doctorates in climatology are good for wiping your ass and very little else.


----------



## syrenn (May 21, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Have you a Doctorate in climatology? If not, then perhaps you could post a link to someone that does who is saying just that.



Interesting question. Do _you_ have a Doctorate in climatology?


----------



## Chris (May 22, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Study: Arctic seabed methane stores destabilizing, venting
> ...



How many times do I have to explain that if you double atmospheric CO2 it will cause the earth to warm?


----------



## elvis (May 22, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



does chris rent you?  is that how that works, Monica?


----------



## Chris (May 22, 2010)

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that. 

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries. 

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says. 

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. 

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html


----------



## westwall (May 22, 2010)

Chris said:


> The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.
> 
> The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.
> 
> ...







Based on how inacurate the models have allways been I am not the slightest bit concerned.


----------



## Chris (May 23, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.
> ...



I have no doubt you are smarter than the boys at MIT.

But I bet they can spell the word, "always."


----------



## Big Fitz (May 23, 2010)

I see the cargo cultists are out again worshiping Chicken Little.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 23, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Have you a Doctorate in climatology? If not, then perhaps you could post a link to someone that does who is saying just that.
> ...


No, he doesn't.  But he pretends to be the sole authority on what is and isn't science from his Maintenance shack at his Oregon mill.

The herald of truthiness and fact he is... in his own mind.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 23, 2010)

> More dishonesty by Si. No one ever claimed that CO2 was the only variable. In fact, it has been pointed out many times by the honest posters here that the TSI, NAO, and La Nina, El Nino oscilations all contribute to the variability of the weather.



Oh how quickly they forget their own mantra.  You've been screaming till blood spattered us from your shredded vocal chords how we have to stop CO2.  Nothing else would do.  You typed your little fingers to skeletal nubs with fake science and bullshit activist links 'proving' that CO2 was the holy grail of climate change.

Now... not so much?  buh?

Do you have a SHRED of intellectual integrity?  Did you ever?


----------



## westwall (May 23, 2010)

Chris said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...






Smarter than some not as smart as others.  And yes allways has allways been a problem!  I am afraid it is an artifice of my upbringing.  Some day you may hear the tale....


----------



## westwall (May 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > More dishonesty by Si. No one ever claimed that CO2 was the only variable. In fact, it has been pointed out many times by the honest posters here that the TSI, NAO, and La Nina, El Nino oscilations all contribute to the variability of the weather.
> 
> 
> 
> ...






The answers are no and no.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2010)

syrenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Study: Arctic seabed methane stores destabilizing, venting
> ...



How many times does someone have to explain it to you that you are a stupid, clueless bimbo who doesn't know shit about anything. Let alone anything scientific. You really ought to just shut your trap and stop making a fool out of yourself.


----------



## Gatekeeper (May 23, 2010)

For everyone concerned about the CO2 emissions causing global warming and Arctic Ice melting, *try staying OFF the internet and cease the blogging in USMB!* 

Greening the Internet: How much CO2 does this article produce? - CNN.com
AND


> A pair of Sun Fire T2000 servers draws 2*320Watts. Double that number for cooling and infrastructure, so you need 33628KWh in three years. That's 0.5KWh for every blog! One KWh electral power created in a coal power plant creates 1700 grams of CO2 - so the global warming effect of this blog is comparable to a runner running 21 kilometers (or sitting in front of his computer for one whole day).


Your CO2 footprint when using the internet : Rolf Kersten's Weblog
AND


> A typical search through the online giant's website is thought to generate about 7g of carbon dioxide. Boiling a kettle produces about 15g.



Two Google searches 'produce same CO2 as boiling a kettle' - Telegraph


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 23, 2010)

Bull shit, In fact the Antarctic the last few years have seen record high sea ice. The Arctic has seen the most ice in a decade. Stupid feeding horse crap to the people.


----------



## Dr Grump (May 23, 2010)

As somebody wrote recently. 97 percent of climatologists (note naysayers I say climatologists - you know the guys and gals who've spent every moment of their working lives studying this shit, not some Horray Henry's with an opinion and NOT scientists) said global warming is happening and humans are the cause of some of it. If 97 percent of doctors told you the food you were about to eat contained deadly toxins, would you eat it?

Only dumbarse right-wing Yanks say it ain't happening...wonder why...


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 23, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> As somebody wrote recently. 97 percent of climatologists (note naysayers I say climatologists - you know the guys and gals who've spent every moment of their working lives studying this shit, not some Horray Henry's with an opinion and NOT scientists) said global warming is happening and humans are the cause of some of it. If 97 percent of doctors told you the food you were about to eat contained deadly toxins, would you eat it?
> 
> Only dumbarse right-wing Yanks say it ain't happening...wonder why...




It has NOT warmed in 10 years Dr.Grumps. The sciencist pretty much admitted that they where messing with the data in the emails. Where is this 2c going to come from since we're where during the 20th century at the highest solar output in 2,000 years and now fully out of the little ice age? Makes no sense. It is the heat island effect with that solar max period that made us warm up and now we have leveled off. I feel sorry for all those people that worked there whole lifes just to be feed shitty data. In fact that data was destroyed. 

If there is global warming than more food for all. I doubt it.

Science don't give a fllying rats ass about the majority, but it does care about data and finding out what is right or wrong based on it. It is not political or numbers game in science.


----------



## Dr Grump (May 23, 2010)

Matthew said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > As somebody wrote recently. 97 percent of climatologists (note naysayers I say climatologists - you know the guys and gals who've spent every moment of their working lives studying this shit, not some Horray Henry's with an opinion and NOT scientists) said global warming is happening and humans are the cause of some of it. If 97 percent of doctors told you the food you were about to eat contained deadly toxins, would you eat it?
> ...



Hey, if you can prove your ascertains via climatologists, be my guest. I've read thread after thread on this board and others, and have yet to see a valid argument by naysayers. A lot of dodgy links, scientists (NOT climatologists) offering an opinion, but nothing solid.

In saying that, I'm not even saying global warming is a bad thing. It might be, it might not be....


----------



## Big Fitz (May 23, 2010)

> As somebody wrote recently. 97 percent of climatologists (note naysayers I say climatologists - you know the guys and gals who've spent every moment of their working lives studying this shit, not some Horray Henry's with an opinion and NOT scientists) said global warming is happening and humans are the cause of some of it. If 97 percent of doctors told you the food you were about to eat contained deadly toxins, would you eat it?
> 
> Only dumbarse right-wing Yanks say it ain't happening...wonder why...



If you caught your doctor cooking the tests to make you think you had cancer when you are perfectly healthy, you would sue the shit out of him and have him criminally prosecuted.  The same thing is happening here.  The diagnosis is cancer, and the tests have been falsified to make it look that way so they can profiteer from the treatment to follow.  They have shown their unsuspecting colleagues, who assuming the tests are true say "well if this is the case, of COURSE you have cancer!"  Now it's show that every positive test is a LIE.

This from fraudulent data, massaged numbers and very very selective research designed to hide raw data and actual methodology, which when FINALLY exposed turns out to be deliberately designed to achieve a very particular result regardless of the data you enter.

If that's what you were presented with, yes, you'd believe it too.

*ALL DATA PRE-CLIMATEGATE IS NOW SUSPECT. UNTIL PROVEN TO BE UNCORRUPTED AND ACCURATE MUST BE IGNORED AND REDONE.*

There is your whole problem.  Start over.  Till then you get nothing.  Nothing's going to happen in the next 30 years that we can do a thing about anyway.  Okay, nothing in the next 3000 years will be anything we can do something about.


----------



## syrenn (May 23, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> How many times does someone have to explain it to you that you are a stupid, clueless bimbo who doesn't know shit about anything. Let alone anything scientific. You really ought to just shut your trap and stop making a fool out of yourself.



Thanks pot. And my compliments back to you as well.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 23, 2010)

The Anthropogenic Global Warmist Chorus Presents a holiday classic

This is what I'm starting to hear every time I see a new fear mongering thread by Crocks & Co.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2010)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Based on that comment, your brains are good for wiping your ass and very little else.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.
> ...



Given how wrong you are about everything and given how accurate the models have actually proved to be, the conclusion is that you are an idiot who has no idea what is really happening but just repeats tired, lame, lying denier cult misinformation and myths.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> I see the cargo cultists are out again worshiping Chicken Little.


I see BigFistedAss is out making a fool out of himself again. I guess it comes naturally to you.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > More dishonesty by Si. No one ever claimed that CO2 was the only variable. In fact, it has been pointed out many times by the honest posters here that the TSI, NAO, and La Nina, El Nino oscilations all contribute to the variability of the weather.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow, you really are a major retard, bigfistedass.

Just because there are other factors that affect our climate does not invalidate the fact that mankind's carbon emissions are the major contributing factor in the current abrupt global warming/climate changes.


----------



## Intense (May 23, 2010)

What ever Happened To The Erupting Iceland Volcano?
 By Dr. Tim Ball  Thursday, April 29, 2010 
This photo (left) taken on April 27, 2010 shows that the Eyjafjallajokull volcano continues to erupt in Iceland, but the story has fallen off the very small mainstream media tabletop. We need to put in perspective what happened and what it means. 

There are two major stories. The first was the information provided by the United Kingdom Meteorological Office (UKMO) that was used to ground all the flights. They provided maps of the distribution of the ash cloud and made these available on their web site. 



The site is still providing information but it is also providing an analysis of the model used to generate the forecasts. This is the Numerical Atmospheric Modelling Environment (NAME) that uses information from their larger Met Office Unified Model (UM). The NAME model was using wind and precipitation data from the UM and those are two of the most unreliable variables in any model. This is frequently a problem, for example, we now know wind and ocean currents explained much of the variation in Arctic Ice attributed solely to temperature. It is clear the models did not work in their prediction of Iceland volcanic dust distribution and the UKMO basically says so, &#8220;Throughout the event Met Office scientists compared our forecasts with the observations of volcanic ash. The main conclusion is that the forecasts of ash have been consistent with the observations available at the time. Although, it is important to note that there are limitations in both the forecast model and the observations.&#8221;

We knew this already because computer model expert Tim Palmer, leading climate modeler at the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts, said; &#8220;I don&#8217;t want to undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain.&#8221; They could also have known the model predictions would fail because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) failed to determine vertical profiles of aerosols that include volcanic ash because of meteorological conditions. 

&#8220;Comparisons of in situ measurements against those from global atmospheric models are complicated by differences in meteorological conditions and because in situ measurements are representative of conditions mostly at or near the surface while the direct and indirect RFs depend on the aerosol vertical profile.&#8221;

The failed UKMO forecast comes on the heels of previous disastrous summer and winter forecasts. Many have called for closing down the agency. 

This will increase those demands especially if, as is expected, the airlines sue the government for the lost revenue caused by groundings based on the model outputs. Of course, as usual, the taxpayer will pay the bill.  

Composition of the Atmosphere
The second story is the continued output of the volcano and the implications for long-term atmospheric change.  All volcanic activity releases gases especially water vapor and CO2. There are various estimates of the CO2 output but they are only estimates. Willis Eschenbach, in a crude estimate based on outputs from nearby volcanoes, said it was 200,000 tonnes per day.  It is a minute fraction of the global total, but a bigger percentage of the human production and the longer the eruption continues the greater the volume. However, the output of volcanic dust is a more important factor. 

One of the problems with attempts to determine how much volcanic dust was in the atmosphere from Iceland is we don&#8217;t know the normal background levels. Hubert Lamb, founder of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia, who would turn in his grave to know what has transpired there, in 1970 created what he called a Dust Veil Index (DVI). &#8220;Lamb&#8217;s Dust Veil Index (DVI) is a numerical index that quantifies the impact of a particular volcanic eruption&#8217;s release of dust and aerosols over the years following the event, especially the impact on the Earth&#8217;s energy balance. DVIs have been calculated for eruptions occurring from 1500 through 1983. The methods used to calculate the DVI have been intercalibrated to give a DVI of 1000 for the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883.&#8221; 

Historical Examples
Global temperatures are currently declining as solar activity declines. A continuation of dust particle injections from the Iceland volcano will add to the cooling, especially in the Northern Hemisphere. This relationship is important because the impact of previous volcanic eruptions varies depending on what the temperature was doing at the time. For example, Laki, which erupted in 1783, was at the beginning of lower temperatures associated with the Dalton Minimum (Figure 2.) Similarly, the eruption of Tambora in 1815 was within the same period and trend. It also shows the projected sunspot numbers for the upcoming two solar cycles. 

What ever Happened To The Erupting Iceland Volcano?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2010)

Matthew said:


> Bull shit, In fact the Antarctic the last few years have seen record high sea ice. The Arctic has seen the most ice in a decade. Stupid feeding horse crap to the people.



LOLOLOL....you're really wedded to those loony denier cult delusions. You really ought to jerk your head out of your ass and look at some real science instead of just those lying denier cult blogs, dufus.






*April 2010 compared to past years
*
Average ice extent for April 2010 was 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) *below* the average extent for the month.

*March - Overview of conditions*

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for March 2010 was 15.10 million square kilometers (5.83 million square miles). This was 650,000 square kilometers (250,000 square miles) *below* the 1979 to 2000 average for March

*February - Overview of conditions
*
Arctic sea ice extent averaged for February 2010 was 14.58 million square kilometers (5.63 million square miles). This was 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) *below* the 1979 to 2000 average for February

*January - Overview of conditions*

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for January 2010 was 13.78 million square kilometers (5.32 million square miles). This was 1.08 million square kilometers (417,000 square miles) *below* the 1979 to 2000 average for January

*Arctic sea ice extent remains low; 2009 sees third-lowest mark*

This is a press release from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record.

NSIDC Director and Senior Scientist Mark Serreze said, &#8220;It&#8217;s nice to see a little recovery over the past couple years, but there&#8217;s no reason to think that we&#8217;re headed back to conditions seen back in the 1970s. We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades.&#8221;

The average ice extent over the month of September, a reference comparison for climate studies, was 5.36 million square kilometers (2.07 million square miles) (Figure 1). This was 1.06 million square kilometers (409,000 square miles) greater than the record low for the month in 2007, and 690,000 square kilometers (266,000 square miles) greater than the second-lowest extent in 2008. However, ice extent was still 1.68 million square kilometers (649,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 September average (Figure 2). Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 11.2 percent per decade, relative to the 1979 to 2000 average (Figure 3).




*Arctic Sea Ice Down to Second-Lowest Extent; Likely Record-Low Volume

Despite cooler temperatures and ice-favoring conditions, long-term decline continues*

2 October 2008

This is a press release from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Arctic sea ice extent during the 2008 melt season dropped to the second-lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979, reaching the lowest point in its annual cycle of melt and growth on September 14, 2008. Average sea ice extent over the month of September, a standard measure in the scientific study of Arctic sea ice, was 4.67 million square kilometers (1.80 million square miles) (Figure 1). The record monthly low, set in 2007, was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles); the now-third-lowest monthly value, set in 2005, was 5.57 million square kilometers (2.15 million square miles).

The 2008 season strongly reinforces the thirty-year downward trend in Arctic ice extent. The 2008 September low was 34% below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 and only 9% greater than the 2007 record (Figure 2). Because the 2008 low was so far below the September average, the negative trend in September extent has been pulled downward, from &#8211;10.7 % per decade to &#8211;11.7 % per decade (Figure 3).

NSIDC Senior Scientist Mark Serreze said, &#8220;When you look at the sharp decline that we&#8217;ve seen over the past thirty years, a &#8216;recovery&#8217; from lowest to second lowest is no recovery at all. Both within and beyond the Arctic, the implications of the decline are enormous.&#8221;

Conditions in spring, at the end of the growth season, played an important role in the outcome of this year&#8217;s melt. In March 2008, thin first-year ice covered a record high 73% of the Arctic Basin. While this might seem like a recovery of the ice, the large extent masked an important aspect of sea ice health; thin ice is more prone to melting out during summer. So, the widespread thin ice of spring 2008 set the stage for extensive ice loss over the melt season.

Through the 2008 melt season, a race developed between melting of the thin ice and gradually waning sunlight. Summer ice losses allowed a great deal of solar energy to enter the ocean and heat up the water, melting even more ice from the bottom and sides. Warm oceans store heat longer than the atmosphere does, contributing to melt long after sunlight has begun to wane. In August 2008, the Arctic Ocean lost more ice than any previous August in the satellite record.

NSIDC Research Scientist Walt Meier said, &#8220;Warm ocean waters helped contribute to ice losses this year, pushing the already thin ice pack over the edge. In fact, preliminary data indicates that 2008 probably represents the lowest volume of Arctic sea ice on record, partly because less multiyear ice is surviving now, and the remaining ice is so thin.&#8221; (See Figure 4.) 




*Arctic Sea Ice Shatters All Previous Record Lows

Diminished summer sea ice leads to opening of the fabled Northwest Passage
*
1 October 2007

This is a press release from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979. The average sea ice extent for the month of September was 4.28 million square kilometers (1.65 million square miles), the lowest September on record, shattering the previous record for the month, set in 2005, by 23 percent (see Figure 1). At the end of the melt season, September 2007 sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000 (see Figure 2). If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 is now approximately 10 percent per decade, or 72,000 square kilometers (28,000 square miles) per year (see Figure 3).

Arctic sea ice has long been recognized as a sensitive climate indicator. NSIDC Senior Scientist Mark Serreze said, &#8220;Computer projections have consistently shown that as global temperatures rise, the sea ice cover will begin to shrink. While a number of natural factors have certainly contributed to the overall decline in sea ice, the effects of greenhouse warming are now coming through loud and clear.&#8221;

One factor that contributed to this fall&#8217;s extreme decline was that the ice was entering the melt season in an already weakened state. NSIDC Research Scientist Julienne Stroeve said, "The spring of 2007 started out with less ice than normal, as well as thinner ice. Thinner ice takes less energy to melt than thicker ice, so the stage was set for low levels of sea ice this summer.&#8221;

Another factor that conspired to accelerate the ice loss this summer was an unusual atmospheric pattern, with persistent high atmospheric pressures over the central Arctic Ocean and lower pressures over Siberia. The scientists noted that skies were fairly clear under the high-pressure cell, promoting strong melt. At the same time, the pattern of winds pumped warm air into the region. While the warm winds fostered further melt, they also helped push ice away from the Siberian shore. NSIDC Research Scientist Walt Meier said, "While the decline of the ice started out fairly slowly in spring and early summer, it accelerated rapidly in July. By mid-August, we had already shattered all previous records for ice extent."

Arctic sea ice receded so much that the fabled Northwest Passage completely opened for the first time in human memory (see Figure 4). Explorers and other seafarers had long recognized that this passage, through the straits of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, represented a potential shortcut from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Roald Amundsen began the first successful navigation of the route starting in 1903. It took his group two-and-a-half years to leapfrog through narrow passages of open water, with their ship locked in the frozen ice through two cold, dark winters. More recently, icebreakers and ice-strengthened ships have on occasion traversed the normally ice-choked route. However, by the end of the 2007 melt season, a standard ocean-going vessel could have sailed smoothly through. On the other hand, the Northern Sea Route, a shortcut along the Eurasian coast that is often at least partially open, was completely blocked by a band of ice this year.

In addition to the record-breaking retreat of sea ice, NSIDC scientists also noted that the date of the lowest sea ice extent, or the absolute minimum, has shifted to later in the year. This year, the five-day running minimum occurred on September 16, 2007; from 1979 to 2000, the minimum usually occurred on September 12. NSIDC Senior Scientist Ted Scambos said, &#8220;What we&#8217;ve seen this year fits the profile of lengthening melt seasons, which is no surprise. As the system warms up, spring melt will tend to come earlier and autumn freezing will begin later.&#8221;

Changes in sea ice extent, timing, ice thickness, and seasonal fluctuations are already having an impact on the people, plants, and animals that live in the Arctic. NSIDC Research Scientist and Arctic resident Shari Gearheard said, &#8220;Local people who live in the region are noticing the changes in sea ice. The earlier break up and later freeze up affect when and where people can go hunting, as well as safety for travel.&#8221;

NSIDC scientists monitor and study Arctic sea ice year round, analyzing satellite data and seeking to understand the regional changes and complex feedbacks that we are seeing. Serreze said, &#8220;The sea ice cover is in a downward spiral and may have passed the point of no return. As the years go by, we are losing more and more ice in summer, and growing back less and less ice in winter. We may well see an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summer within our lifetimes.&#8221; The scientists agree that this could occur by 2030. Serreze concluded, &#8220;The implications for global climate, as well as Arctic animals and people, are disturbing."


----------



## Intense (May 23, 2010)

The only constant is change.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2010)

Intense said:


> The only constant is change.



And right now, due to mankind's actions, the world is constantly changing into a warmer world with less ice at the poles and in the glaciers. So what's your point? Or perhaps you just like pontificating vague, meaningless generalities and pretending that it is an intelligent comment.


----------



## syrenn (May 23, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > The only constant is change.
> ...




Rather arrogant to believe that it is* only* mankind actions don't you think?


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 23, 2010)

syrenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Yeah, the enso(el nino/la nina) has a very pronounce effect on global temperatures of at least .1 to .5c of shift. One of the main reasons 1998 was as warm as it was is because of the strongest el nino in history. Also when you consider that solar output from the solar cycles can have effects on the climate of upwards of .1-.2c within only a few years you can't possible say that man kind is the only factor. Like I said above to Dr.Grump that between 1940-2000 had the highest solar output in 2000 years, or since the days of the mid evil warm period. 

Also there are many other factors that control sea ice and global temperatures.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 23, 2010)

Intense said:


> The only constant is change.



In that is what climate does.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2010)

syrenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



The problem for you is that that a 'straw-man' argument. Neither I nor any of the other realists on this forum nor the world's climate scientists have ever claimed that mankind's actions are the only factors affecting the climate. What is being pointed out, on the basis of decades of scientific research and mountains of data and evidence, is that it is mankind's carbon emissions and our deforestation practices that are the main driving forces behind the current abrupt warming which is being overlaid over the natural slow long term climate trends, which would have naturally been moving the world in the direction of a new ice age several thousand years down the line. Now we're headed towards a much warmer world, possibly as warm as it was many tens of millions of years ago during the age of the dinosaurs. This would not be a good thing for the human race.


----------



## syrenn (May 23, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



And again, have we never in the earths history had abrupt climate change before this warming?  No ice ages before this one?  No melting s? The earth moves from hot to cold and cold to hot? It is arrogant to believe that mankind is the ONLY reason for climate change.


----------



## Activist Too (May 23, 2010)

NOAA Scientists could have helped us to get into general knowlege, much of this years ago, except they were being gagged, their work censored and repressed, and careers threatened for even thinking about publishing their ongoing findings!  Take a look at the work being done in the arctic by NOAA climate scientists.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 23, 2010)

Activist Too said:


> NOAA Scientists could have helped us to get into general knowlege, much of this years ago, except they were being gagged, their work censored and repressed, and careers threatened for even thinking about publishing their ongoing findings!  Take a look at the work being done in the arctic by NOAA climate scientists.



I think all data should be layed on the table. But it should not be fudged or bought off either for political reasons. Science should be about the data and facts. Anyways, if we're seeing a run away warming than science will prove it, but as of this moment I'm not convinced.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2010)

syrenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...


Yes we have. Scientists have identified the various factors, like continental drift, volcanoes, ocean currents, the earth's tilt, and comets and meteorites, that have produced such changes. None of those other factors can be seen to be in play this time. 

Many of these previous abrupt climate changes that have occurred naturally in Earth's history have been the triggers for mass extinctions. Did you know that? Some of these abrupt climate changes that caused some of the biggest mass extinctions seem to be linked to massive CO2 releases that raised world temperatures which then in turn triggered large scale releases of methane hydrates on the ocean floor which really warmed things up. The excess CO2, besides warming the Earth suddenly, also acidified the oceans and killed most life there. Scientists are observing the beginnings of that process of acidification now in our oceans. 

You really don't seem to understand that just because climate changes *can* be natural doesn't mean that they *have to be* natural. We have collectively raised the CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere by about 40% in the last two centuries, mostly in the last century and with the rate of emissions rising yearly. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and that is an established scientific fact. The Earth is currently warming up rapidly due the excess CO2 absorbing more of the outgoing infrared radiation from the Earth's surface after it has been heated by the sun. What is hard for you to understand about that?


----------



## Chris (May 23, 2010)

syrenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



No one is saying that.


----------



## Chris (May 23, 2010)

Matthew said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




Such as the Sun.

But the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and yet the ice continues to melt.

Why?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 23, 2010)

syrenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Are you working at being unintelligent? Yes, we have had adrupt climate changes before in the earth's history. In fact, the most of them have been because of very rapid increases in GHGs, the usual suspect being Trapp Volcanics. Now we have a rapid increase in the GHGs, caused by man's use of fossil fuels. Do you think that the physics of the atmosphere are going to change, merely because we are the cause of the increase in the GHGs in the atmosphere?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 23, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > More dishonesty by Si. No one ever claimed that CO2 was the only variable. In fact, it has been pointed out many times by the honest posters here that the TSI, NAO, and La Nina, El Nino oscilations all contribute to the variability of the weather.
> ...


You can solve the whole thing by bringing enough evidence to prove conclusively the following.

1. Carbon Dioxide is the SOLE factor in global climate change or include all it's related factors.

2. Prove that these factors are being altered specifically by mankind's activity ONLY.

3. Show that there is conclusive data this is a bad thing for the planet and ALL living things on it.

4. Prove that you are being damaged directly by this activity.

Do those four things and I'll be with you.  Should be simple.  BUT, since there is a problem with all evidence collected pre-2009, you will have to redo your work eliminating everything done in previously tainted studies.

Have fun.  Till then, all you got is "Ding! Fries are done."


----------



## Old Rocks (May 23, 2010)

Matthew said:


> Activist Too said:
> 
> 
> > NOAA Scientists could have helped us to get into general knowlege, much of this years ago, except they were being gagged, their work censored and repressed, and careers threatened for even thinking about publishing their ongoing findings!  Take a look at the work being done in the arctic by NOAA climate scientists.
> ...



We are not seeing a runaway warming. No one has said that that is the case. What is being said, is that could happen, given past geologic history. And we just don't know where that tipping point is at. 

The "fudged data" is the same arguement that the tobacco industry used against the Surgeon General's finding concerning the relationship between tobacco and certain diseases. In fact, those denying the validity are even using the same scientific whores to make this arguement against the data gathered by thousands of scientists from around the world.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 23, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > The only constant is change.
> ...


Debunking patent stupidity in four words.

"Where are the Dinosaurs?"

Was that climate change due to man?  By your logic only man changes climate.  After all, it was MUCH hotter when Dinosaurs walked the Earth, wasn't it?

Donde estas los Dinosaurs, Pedro?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> By your logic only man changes climate.



No, that's your logic.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



*Hav e fun yourself, you lying crock. You set up a series of strawmen, and then hoot and holler in ignorant derision. Your basic dishonesty is there for all to see.*


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 23, 2010)

Chris said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Oceans cover most of the planet and have the ability to hold heat for many years. One of the main reasons for long wait for big solar climate changes. It is true that the sun is at it's lowest level in 80 years and will have some effect, and maybe the reason why the temperature increase global has stopped warming over the last 8 years. 

One factor within these interglacial periods is that as the temperature warms be it causes by the sun or something else. You almost always get a increase in green house gases, which enhances it some what.  Methane, increase of water vapor within the atmosphere. But it has more of affect of making the warm period last longer then a pronounce warming. In which cause makes earth climate system more stable then it would other wise be. 

It took 50 years for huge effects to occur with the little ice age, with around 1-1.5c of overall global cooling. The climate shift 9,500 years ago had about 3-5 times that.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 23, 2010)

Matthew said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > As somebody wrote recently. 97 percent of climatologists (note naysayers I say climatologists - you know the guys and gals who've spent every moment of their working lives studying this shit, not some Horray Henry's with an opinion and NOT scientists) said global warming is happening and humans are the cause of some of it. If 97 percent of doctors told you the food you were about to eat contained deadly toxins, would you eat it?
> ...



Man, have you even looked at the numbers? The last decade has been the warmest on record. The decade before that was warmer than the prior decade. And the coming decade will be warmer than any before it in the time we have been keeping records.

No, you dumb ass. The data was not destroyed. The data that East Anglia had from other sources was dumped. The original source of the data still has the data.

Leveled off? The last four months are the warmest ever measured for that period.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 23, 2010)

Matthew said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



You are alluding to the end of the Younger Dryas. That was caused by an influx of fresh water off of the Canadian Shield that shut down the thermohaline circulation. And it did not take 50 years. The climate changed in less than a decade.

Two examples of abrupt climate change


----------



## Big Fitz (May 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > By your logic only man changes climate.
> ...


No, by my rather solid logic, mankind has almost no impact on planetary climate.  He can have strong localized impact, but that's it.  We're more likely to poison ourselves than change the weather.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



We increase the atmospheres content of CO2 by 40%, of CH4 by 150%, and add GHGs that nature has never seen before with as much as 20,000 times as much effectiveness of CO2, but we cannot have any affect on the Planetary Climate.

And one little oil well way out in the Gulf cannot have an major affect, either.


----------



## Chris (May 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



There is a hole in the ozone bigger than Antarctica that mankind created.

There is a garbage patch in the Pacific Ocean twice the size of Texas that mankind created.

There is an oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico the size of Maryland that mankind created.

And mankind has almost doubled the level of atmospheric CO2 worldwide in the last 200 years. We continue to add 10 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. The scientists at MIT estimate that there is a 90% probability that this will increase global temperatures between 4-7 degrees in the next 100 years.

We are changing the weather....


----------



## del (May 23, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > The only constant is change.
> ...



no, silly, that's why we have you.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 23, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...





Based on 150 years years of data around the world with data being crappy as hell. Can you really trust that to the .5f? There is a whole crap load of assuming when measuring the global temperatures, and I wouldn't think it is better than a *2f* or so +- idea of global temperatures. Take this and add in to that the heat island effect in which many of the cities that temperature stations where built in, once had grass around them, but today are buildings, cement around them. You get the picture. It is impossible for even us within the United states to have a super accurate temperature of more then .2f within the last 50 years, how on earth can you say or trust the data within third world countries going back over 100 years?

I wouldn't even start within 1f. But that is just me. There has also been other times of the arctic being ice free within the last 150 years, so this is not the first time. You also have to consider winds and ocean currents when thinking about this.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 23, 2010)

> 1. Carbon Dioxide is the SOLE factor in global climate change or include all it's related factors.
> *
> You can kiss my ass, as no one here has said any such damned thing. You are being completely dishonest, throwing up a strawman of an arguement.*



ROFLMAO  Freak out much cause you can't prove conclusively what you say is happening?  You're priceless at times, you know that?  I've not seen an infant throw that big of a spazz since I had to deal with a kindergartner who didn't wanna go on the bus fall down and start throwing dirt in the air screaming like a banshee.  Luckilly their parent was there to apply the solution.  A good solid spanking.



> 2. Prove that these factors are being altered specifically by mankind's activity ONLY.
> *
> Once again, kiss my ass, liar!*



Only documented liar here is you... again.  You've been touting this since the day I saw you trying to advocate your retardation here with deliberately falsified data.  Once busted, you've not changed course one iota.  And don't kiss my ass.  I have an idea where you've been.



> 3. Show that there is conclusive data this is a bad thing for the planet and ALL living things on it.
> 
> *Really stupid thing to say. Of course, the cockroaches will do better. They don't like cold climates.*



Right.  that's why we have an overwhelming number of them here in the north where it hard freezes for 5 months out of the year.   Is this your attempt at evidence?  Or flinging more poop?  Nope... definitely poop.  It smells like bullshit.



> 4. Prove that you are being damaged directly by this activity.
> 
> *When the food prices start soaring as the crops are affected by the change, all those unprepared will be damaged. Untill then the damage in the gulf is quite adaquete to demostrate what kind of damage the fossil fuel industry is doing to all of us.*



Well then, you should have no problem rebuilding a scientific base in which to file a case in which you can show direct causal result towards specific fields and people.  That is the test of lawsuits by gross negligence which this most definitely would be.

As for the oil in the gulf... that's pollution, not climate change.  The two are distinct and separate.  The fact you are trying to combine the two is intellectually disingenuous.



> Hav e fun yourself, you lying crock. You set up a series of strawmen, and then hoot and holler in ignorant derision. Your basic dishonesty is there for all to see.



You're the only lying crock here.  Your tantrum shows me once again, you are unable to handle the truth that you have to start from scratch to prove something that doesn't exist... 

your presupposition about climate and man's role in it.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



That's not logic, that's just an assertion.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 23, 2010)

Chris said:


> Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record
> By: Bob Weber, The Canadian Press
> 
> 19/05/2010 5:02 PM
> ...



Nice that they can predict how much ice will melt this year. 

They can't predict the weather more then a week out but they know exactly how much ice is gonna melt this year.

My how convenient.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 23, 2010)

Once again for the cheap seats.

Pollution is not climate change.  Pollution is environmental destruction that will have a chance to poison us or make conditions difficult to live in unless we clean it up.  

Plastic.  Not natural to nature.  

CFCs that eat Ozone.  Not natural.

Oil.  VERY natural and spills happen all the time.  Just generally not this big.  The gulf coast will be fine in 15-30 if we don't do something too stupid like overuse solvents and cleaning agents near/on shore.  Zooplankton and Phytoplankton are known to eat oil, at least certain species after the bacteria have broken it down.  I've seen shots of beaches in France that suffered after a very large spill 30 years after the fact and unless you dug down a foot and a half, you could not even tell it happened.  Beneath that, it was darker sand that had some oil in it, but generally speaking no worse than road tar.

Pollution and climatology are two separate entities.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...


An assertion based on logic and evidence.  A distinction without a difference.  Don't you have more heroin to do or crack to smoke Spuddytuber?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 23, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



No, its an assertion based on a general feeling you have that the Earth's climate is just too big for little ole man to fuck it up.


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



No question that man has done some things to harm the planet, but the oceans will make sure that the Atmosphere don't get kicked to off the bucket. Yet


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 23, 2010)

Matthew said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



The oceans are only absorbing half to the extra CO2.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...


Then go ahead and prove my four points.  Otherwise shut your crackhole Spuddy.


----------



## syrenn (May 23, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Yes we have. Scientists have identified the various factors, like continental drift, volcanoes, ocean currents, the earth's tilt, and comets and meteorites, that have produced such changes. None of those other factors can be seen to be in play this time.
> 
> Many of these previous abrupt climate changes that have occurred naturally in Earth's history have been the triggers for mass extinctions. Did you know that? Some of these abrupt climate changes that caused some of the biggest mass extinctions seem to be linked to massive CO2 releases that raised world temperatures which then in turn triggered large scale releases of methane hydrates on the ocean floor which really warmed things up. The excess CO2, besides warming the Earth suddenly, also acidified the oceans and killed most life there. Scientists are observing the beginnings of that process of acidification now in our oceans.



Brovo, finally we speak. I agree. You have seen me speak about abrupt climate change in other threads, what makes you think I don't understand all of the implications. Yes, I know that abrupt climate change changes the face of the earth and all life that exists upon it. I understand that abrupt climate change is responsible for mass extinctions. I do not expect humans to survive the next radical change no matter if that change is warm or cold. The continents are still moving, volcanoes are still alive and active both above and below the oceans, ocean currents are still changing, and the earth has just recently tilted. All of which still are contributing to the C02 levels.  



RollingThunder said:


> You really don't seem to understand that just because climate changes *can* be natural doesn't mean that they *have to be* natural.



 As a matter of fact, I do know that. I have never said otherwise. Nor have I ever stated that mankind is not contributing to this current increase in levels. I see your point and understand it well, do you see mine? 



RollingThunder said:


> We have collectively raised the CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere by about 40% in the last two centuries, mostly in the last century and with the rate of emissions rising yearly.



 I do not dispute that the levels are, per your assertion, shall we say increased by 40%. You cannot *definitely* say that the increase is 100% due to human interactions with the environment. There is no way to calculate the precise contribution. So saying that man alone has increased the C02 levees 40% is arrogance. You can rightly claim that man is contributing to C02 levels, but you cannot claim the complete 40%. It could be just as easily humans are only contributing 1%.  



RollingThunder said:


> CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and that is an established scientific fact. The Earth is currently warming up rapidly due the excess CO2 absorbing more of the outgoing infrared radiation from the Earth's surface after it has been heated by the sun. What is hard for you to understand about that?



It is not hard for me to understand at all. I do understand it. I will ask you the same measure of understanding.


----------



## gslack (May 23, 2010)

Chris said:


> Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record
> By: Bob Weber, The Canadian Press
> 
> 19/05/2010 5:02 PM
> ...



LOL, I love when you guys try this tactic.... You post one extreme claim and when it is shown to be bullshit you grab the same type of claims from another media source and rinse, then repeat like good little tools....

lets just fix the claims in the OP and the headline in the article by actually reading the article shall we....

The headline reads; _*"Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record"*_

But after reading Your article we see it says these all too telling things.... THe first line..

_"Arctic sea ice is *on track* to recede to a record low this year, *suggesting* that northern waters free of summer ice are coming faster than anyone thought."_

Funny but I was under the assumption "on track" and "suggesting" would mean its a possibility not a fact.... hmm thats not what the headline said now is it.... Bullshit number 1...

next your article said....

_"*Could we break another record this year? **I think it's quite possible,"* said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo."_

Ah okay so its possible and not a fact or anything so direct and clear as the headline would lead us to believe.... Bullshit number 2....

Moving on your article said...

_"We are going to lose the summer sea-ice cover. We can't go back."_

Oh really? so how did we get 10% of the 30% we lost since 1979 in one season? We got back 10% in 2008 and some more back 2009 according to the other thread you started on this.... hmm funny..... Bullshit number 3....

Once again in your article....

_*"In April, the centre published data showing that sea ice had almost recovered to the 20-year average."*_

What????? THey just tried to claim we couldn't get the ice back??? WTF????? BUllshit number 4....

And the most telling thing in the entire article......

_*"Will (thawing) this year be particularly fast?" asked Serreze. "We don't know. We really don't know."*_

Yeah....Says it all doesn't it.... They just don't know, seems odd how sure the headline made them sound.... yeah BULLSHIT NUMBER 5.........

I could go on and show every bit of bullshit in it but I think those things right there are more than sufficient to show this is a PR snowjob.....

Nice work guys, you are a big help in outting this AGW fraud....


----------



## westwall (May 23, 2010)

Dr Grump said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Grump said:
> ...







Hey Dr. Gump

I suggest you read Phil Jones's admission that there has been NO WARMING since 1998 and he was the head of the CRU that is THE LEADING AGW organization on the planet.
So 97% are wrong according to HIM.


----------



## westwall (May 23, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > I see the cargo cultists are out again worshiping Chicken Little.
> ...






If you had a vocabulary greater than 3oo words, expletives included we might actually care what you said.  But, as you don't, we don't   And I was wrong, you may be a smart sloth, but you are not a smart primate.


----------



## westwall (May 23, 2010)

Chris said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Yes the AGW crowd are saying exactly that.  You blissfully ignore the scientific method and the basic rules of experimentation.   Old Fraud thinks that it is totally acceptable to "extrapolate" temperatures for a 1200 kilometer swath of the arctic whereas in the exact science that is considered manufactured data and unusable.  Yet you clowns crow about how accurate your data is....then find that you have no raw data at all.  All you have is "value added" data....even Jon Stewart thinks that is a problem and he is as pro AGW a non scientist media person you could get.  If you've lost him...you've lost the plot boys.


----------



## westwall (May 23, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Activist Too said:
> ...






What a baldfaced lie old fraud.....what a joke.


----------



## Activist Too (May 23, 2010)

I agree everything should be out in full view, including the disagreements within the scientific community about the pattern that their research might show.  There is change.  One major conflict is whether the instability and changes equate to global warming or global cooling.  And another element that must be factored in is the continuing volcanic activity which also appears to have an impact on climate due to the filtering of sunlight.  

Scientists can only look at known past events and those subsequent events or changes which may or may not have a direct corrolation, and then looking at those patterns, look (aided by modern computer capabilities) at the possible projected patterns we might see in the future.  

I think people would very much benefit themselves and others  if they adopt an acceptance of the process of climate adjustment and change and open their minds to being a bit more analytical about what is actually going on and what effect(s) over time it may be having.  Calmly.

All the name calling, and hysteria is doing no one any good.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 23, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > SpidermanTuba said:
> ...



I noticed Obama has given you something new to hate. 3 months ago BP was just a gas station with green signs.

Now they're the Devil.

See how easy it is to keep you nimrods' minds off of what's really going on in Washington.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 23, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


I had him down with Eukaryotes, liver flukes, insurance salesmen and math tutors.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2010)

syrenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Yes we have. Scientists have identified the various factors, like continental drift, volcanoes, ocean currents, the earth's tilt, and comets and meteorites, that have produced such changes. None of those other factors can be seen to be in play this time.
> ...


I don't really mean to be nasty now that we are talking on a more factual level but it didn't happen before because this is the first time I've seen you say anything that wasn't either really ignorant or actually crazy, such as your casual acceptance as OK with you if the human race goes extinct. 




syrenn said:


> I agree. You have seen me speak about abrupt climate change in other threads, what makes you think I don't understand all of the implications. Yes, I know that abrupt climate change changes the face of the earth and all life that exists upon it. I understand that abrupt climate change is responsible for mass extinctions. I do not expect humans to survive the next radical change no matter if that change is warm or cold.


A very odd attitude. You seem to be still confusing climate changes driven by natural factors, that may well be beyond our control, with the current changes that we are causing and that are therefore somewhat changeable if we can change what we doing that is causing them. I know there is now inertia in the system, involving the CO2 residency time in the atmosphere, that will continue to warm the Earth and change the climate for some time no matter what we do right now but the more fossil carbon we continue to dump into the atmosphere now, the farther out of whack the climate will get at its point of maximum change.  




syrenn said:


> The continents are still moving, volcanoes are still alive and active both above and below the oceans, ocean currents are still changing, and the earth has just recently tilted. All of which still are contributing to the C02 levels.


Do you actually realize how slowly the continents are moving? They make snails look like hummingbirds on crack. Volcanoes are still active and some are erupting but they contribute less than 1% of the CO2 that mankind is emitting. A very large volcano can cause some temporary cooling for a few years as ash and sulfates blanket the upper atmosphere and reflect more light back out into space, and it may cause a very small pulse of warming later after the atmosphere clears due to the CO2 emitted by the volcano but overall these are minor blips in the climate, not the kind of major world altering changes our activities are creating.

"_Still changing ocean currents_"??? The main ocean currents are still pretty stable. There may be one down by Antarctica that has changed some. So what? What is your point and what effect would these "changing currents" have and what is causing them to change anyway?

The Earth "_has just recently tilted_"??? I think this would be big news to astronomers. LOLOL. I going to have to ask you to try to back that one up with some hard evidence or I will continue to laugh at you about it. 

"_All of which still are contributing to the C02 levels_"??? Volcanoes a little bit but the movement of continents? Nope. Undersea currents? Nope, no carbon emissions there. "Tilting Earth"??? No again, I'm afraid. No CO releases there either.







syrenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > You really don't seem to understand that just because climate changes *can* be natural doesn't mean that they *have to be* natural.
> ...


The evidence points to mankind being the major, dominating cause of the current warming trend. Given that, what is your point?





syrenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > We have collectively raised the CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere by about 40% in the last two centuries, mostly in the last century and with the rate of emissions now rising yearly.
> ...


Well now we get to the reason I see you as someone who is getting their information on this subject from biased denier cult blogs or the rightwingnut echo chamber. You have been misinformed on this. I *can definitely say* that the increase is due to human influences. If you had actually studied the real science on this you would know how scientists have been able to determine this but your sources have kept this info from you.

There are other indicators and evidence for this but the most direct one is this:
*"Isotopic analysis of atmospheric CO2 confirms that fossil fuel burning is the source of most of the CO2 increase, unlike during prior interglacial periods.[34]"*

34 - ^  Schimel D (1996). "CO2 and the carbon cycle". in Houghton JT, Meira Filho LG, Callander BA, Harris N, Kattenberg A, Maskell K. Climate change 1995: the science of climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 76-86. ISBN 0-521-56436-0. OCLC 123378640  

If you'd like, I can easily find a lot more citations on this point. Here is a real simple version of the facts on this from here.

"Additional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes (eg ? carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.






Figure 2: Annual global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacture in GtC yr?1 (black), annual averages of the 13C/12C ratio measured in atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa from 1981 to 2002 (red). ). The isotope data are expressed as ?13C(CO2)  (per mil) deviation from a calibration standard. Note that this scale is inverted to improve clarity. (IPCC AR4)"

Here some more evidence you should really consider with an open mind. I don't have time to insert all the links in this article so if you want to see the hyperlinked version, please go to the original wiki page.

*Attribution of recent climate change*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search
This article is semi-protected indefinitely in response to an ongoing high risk of vandalism.
Further information: Global warming, Climate change, and Climate change denial

Attribution of recent climate change is the effort to scientifically ascertain mechanisms responsible for relatively recent changes observed in the Earth's climate. The effort has focused on changes observed during the period of instrumental temperature record, when records are most reliable; particularly on the last 50 years, when human activity has grown fastest and observations of the upper atmosphere have become available. The dominant mechanisms to which recent climate change has been attributed all result from human activity. They are:[1]

    * increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
    * global changes to land surface, such as deforestation
    * increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols.

Attribution of recent change to anthropogenic forcing is based on the following facts:

    * The observed change is not consistent with natural variability.
    * Known natural forcings would, if anything, be negative over this period.
    * Known anthropogenic forcings are consistent with the observed response.
    * The pattern of the observed change is consistent with the anthropogenic forcing.

Recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have concluded that:

    * "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."[2]; It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of warming during the past half century can be explained without external forcing (i.e., it is inconsistent with being the result of internal variability), and very unlikely that it is due to known natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling. [1]
    * "From new estimates of the combined anthropogenic forcing due to greenhouse gases, aerosols, and land surface changes, it is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750."[1]
    * "It is virtually certain that anthropogenic aerosols produce a net negative radiative forcing (cooling influence) with a greater magnitude in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere.[1]

The panel defines "very likely," "extremely likely," and "virtually certain" as indicating probabilities greater than 90%, 95%, and 99%, respectively.[1]
Contents
[hide]

    * 1 Key attributions
          o 1.1 Greenhouse gases
          o 1.2 Land use
                + 1.2.1 Livestock and land use
          o 1.3 Aerosols
    * 2 Attribution of 20th century climate change
    * 3 Detection vs. attribution
    * 4 Scientific literature and opinion
    * 5 Findings that complicate attribution to CO2
          o 5.1 Warming sometimes leads CO2 increases
          o 5.2 Warming on other planets?
    * 6 See also
    * 7 References
    * 8 Further reading
    * 9 External links

Key attributions
Greenhouse gases
Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research version 3.2, fast track 2000 project

Scientific consensus has identified carbon dioxide as the dominant greenhouse gas forcing. (The dominant greenhouse gas overall is water vapor. Water vapor, however, has a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 10 days) and is very nearly in a dynamic equilibrium in the atmosphere, so it is not a forcing gas in the context of global warming.[3]) Methane and nitrous oxide are also major forcing contributors to the greenhouse effect. The Kyoto Protocol lists these together with hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6),[4] which are entirely artificial (i.e. anthropogenic) gases which also contribute to radiative forcing in the atmosphere. The chart at right attributes anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to eight main economic sectors, of which the largest contributors are power stations (many of which burn coal or other fossil fuels), industrial processes (among which cement production is a dominant contributor[5]), transportation fuels (generally fossil fuels), and agricultural by-products (mainly methane from enteric fermentation and nitrous oxide from fertilizer use).
Land use

Climate change is attributed to land use for two main reasons. While 66% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions over the last 250 years have resulted from burning fossil fuels, 33% have resulted from changes in land use, primarily deforestation.[5] Deforestation both reduces the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by deforested regions and releases greenhouse gases directly, together with aerosols, through biomass burning that frequently accompanies it. A second reason that climate change has been attributed to land use is that the terrestrial albedo is often altered by use, which leads to radiative forcing. This effect is more significant locally than globally.[5]
Livestock and land use

Worldwide, livestock production occupies 70% of all land used for agriculture, or 30% of the ice-free land surface of the Earth.[6] Scientists attribute more than 18% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to livestock and livestock-related activities such as deforestation and increasingly fuel-intensive farming practices.[6] Specific attributions to the livestock sector include:

    * 9% of global carbon dioxide emissions
    * 35-40% of global methane emissions (chiefly due to enteric fermentation and manure)
    * 64% of global nitrous oxide emissions, chiefly due to fertilizer use.[6]

Aerosols

With virtual certainty, scientific consensus has attributed various forms of climate change, chiefly cooling effects, to aerosols, which are small particles or droplets suspended in the atmosphere.[7] Key sources to which anthropogenic aerosols are attributed[8] include:

    * biomass burning such as slash and burn deforestation. Aerosols produced are primarily black carbon.
    * industrial air pollution, which produces soot and airborne sulfates, nitrates, and ammonium
    * dust produced by land use effects such as desertification

Attribution of 20th century climate change
IPCC
Assessment reports:
First (1990)
1992 sup.
Second (1995)
Third (2001)
Fourth (2007)
Fifth (2014)
UNFCCC | WMO | UNEP
One global climate model's reconstruction of temperature change during the 20th century as the result of five studied forcing factors and the amount of temperature change attributed to each.

Over the past 150 years human activities have released increasing quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This has led to increases in mean global temperature, or global warming. Other human effects are relevantfor example, sulphate aerosols are believed to lead to coolingand natural factors also contribute. According to the historical temperature record of the last century, the Earth's near-surface air temperature has risen around 0.74 ± 0.18 °Celsius (1.3 ± 0.32 °Fahrenheit).

A historically important question in climate change research has regarded the relative importance of human activity and non-anthropogenic causes during the period of instrumental record. In the 1995 Second Assessment Report (SAR), the IPCC made the widely-quoted statement that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate". The phrase "balance of evidence" suggested the (English) common-law standard of proof required in civil as opposed to criminal courts: not as high as "beyond reasonable doubt". In 2001 the Third Assessment Report (TAR) refined this, saying "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".[9] The 2007 fourth assessment report (WG1 AR4) strengthened this finding:

    * "Anthropogenic warming of the climate system is widespread and can be detected in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the free atmosphere and in the oceans. Evidence of the effect of external influences, both anthropogenic and natural, on the climate system has continued to accumulate since the TAR."[5]

Over the past five decades there has been a global warming of approximately 0.65 °C (1.17 °F) at the Earth's surface (see historical temperature record). Among the possible factors that could produce changes in global mean temperature are internal variability of the climate system, external forcing, an increase in concentration of greenhouse gases, or any combination of these. Current studies indicate that the increase in greenhouse gases, most notably CO2, is mostly responsible for the observed warming. Evidence for this conclusion includes:

    * Estimates of internal variability from climate models, and reconstructions of past temperatures, indicate that the warming is unlikely to be entirely natural.
    * Climate models forced by natural factors and increased greenhouse gases and aerosols reproduce the observed global temperature changes; those forced by natural factors alone do not[9].
    * "Fingerprint" methods indicate that the pattern of change is closer to that expected from greenhouse gas-forced change than from natural change.[10]
    * The plateau in warming from the 1940s to 1960s can be attributed largely to sulphate aerosol cooling.[11]

In 2001, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences released a report supporting the IPCCs conclusions regarding the causes of recent climate change. It stated, "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earths atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes are also a reflection of natural variability."[12][13][14]
Detection vs. attribution
Per capita greenhouse gas emissions by country including land-use change

Detection and attribution of climate signals, as well as its common-sense meaning, has a more precise definition within the climate change literature, as expressed by the IPCC[15].

Detection of a signal requires demonstrating that an observed change is statistically significantly different from that which can be explained by natural internal variability.

Attribution requires demonstrating that a signal is:

    * unlikely to be due entirely to internal variability;
    * consistent with the estimated responses to the given combination of anthropogenic and natural forcing
    * not consistent with alternative, physically plausible explanations of recent climate change that exclude important elements of the given combination of forcings.

Detection does not imply attribution, and is easier to show than attribution. Unequivocal attribution would require controlled experiments with multiple copies of the climate system, which is not possible. Therefore, attribution, as described above, can only be done within some margin of error. For example, the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report says "it is extremely likely that human activities have exerted a substantial net warming influence on climate since 1750," where "extremely likely" indicates a probability greater than 95%.[1]

Following the publication of the Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001, "detection and attribution" of climate change has remained an active area of research. Some important results include:

    * A review of detection and attribution studies by the International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group[16] found that "natural drivers such as solar variability and volcanic activity are at most partially responsible for the large-scale temperature changes observed over the past century, and that a large fraction of the warming over the last 50 yr can be attributed to greenhouse gas increases. Thus, the recent research supports and strengthens the IPCC Third Assessment Report conclusion that 'most of the global warming over the past 50 years is likely due to the increase in greenhouse gases.'"
    * Multiple independent reconstructions of the temperature record of the past 1000 years confirm that the late 20th century is probably the warmest period in that time
    * Two papers in the journal Science in August 2005[17][18] resolve the problem, evident at the time of the TAR, of tropospheric temperature trends. The UAH version of the record contained errors, and there is evidence of spurious cooling trends in the radiosonde record, particularly in the tropics. See satellite temperature measurements for details; and the 2006 US CCSP report.[19]
    * Barnett and colleagues say that the observed warming of the oceans "cannot be explained by natural internal climate variability or solar and volcanic forcing, but is well simulated by two anthropogenically forced climate models," concluding that "it is of human origin, a conclusion robust to observational sampling and model differences"[20]

Scientific literature and opinion
Main article: Scientific opinion on climate change

Some examples of published and informal support for the consensus view:

    * The attribution of climate change is discussed extensively, with references to peer-reviewed research, in chapter 12 of the IPCC TAR, which discusses The Meaning of Detection and Attribution, Quantitative Comparison of Observed and Modelled Climate Change, Pattern Correlation Methods and Optimal Fingerprint Methods.
    * An essay[21] in Science surveyed 928 abstracts related to climate change, and concluded that most journal reports accepted the consensus. This is discussed further in scientific opinion on climate change.
    * A 2002 paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research says "Our analysis suggests that the early twentieth century warming can best be explained by a combination of warming due to increases in greenhouse gases and natural forcing, some cooling due to other anthropogenic forcings, and a substantial, but not implausible, contribution from internal variability. In the second half of the century we find that the warming is largely caused by changes in greenhouse gases, with changes in sulphates and, perhaps, volcanic aerosol offsetting approximately one third of the warming."[22][23]
    * In 1996, in a paper in Nature titled "A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere", Benjamin D. Santer et al. wrote: "The observed spatial patterns of temperature change in the free atmosphere from 1963 to 1987 are similar to those predicted by state-of-the-art climate models incorporating various combinations of changes in carbon dioxide, anthropogenic sulphate aerosol and stratospheric ozone concentrations. The degree of pattern similarity between models and observations increases through this period. It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities, although many uncertainties remain, particularly relating to estimates of natural variability."
    * Some scientists noted for their somewhat skeptical view of global warming accept that recent climate change is mostly anthropogenic. John Christy has said that he supports the American Geophysical Union (AGU) declaration, and is convinced that human activities are the major cause of the global warming that has been measured.[24]






syrenn said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas and that is an established scientific fact. The Earth is currently warming up rapidly due the excess CO2 absorbing more of the outgoing infrared radiation from the Earth's surface after it has been heated by the sun. What is hard for you to understand about that?
> ...



It is still not clear just what you think you're saying that you think I don't understand. Given that we are definitely causing this ongoing and accelerating warming trend, what is your point exactly?


----------



## gslack (May 23, 2010)

Love the method trolling blunder.... if its already bashed to smithereens just re-post in another thread or add some more to it and repeat.....

LOL, so.... Ed... Why not actually defend that piece the first time?


----------



## Activist Too (May 23, 2010)

Back when I studed Geography and environment and climate, we learned the effects of ocean currents on climate, and on patterns of temperature range in various locations along the coasts of various continents.  It is the oceans currents and the movement of warmer and cooler water that creates in part the climate ranges of locations on our planet.  It is why the Pacific Northwest is not as frigid as one might expect for its latitude, and why Great Britain also is not a deep freeze.  It also affects patterns of precipitation.  I think there are maps you can look at and read about all of this on line.  Possibly at the NOAA web site.  If temperatures and currents then changed, it would have a dramatic impact on world climate zones.


----------



## Chris (May 23, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Show me where any climate scientist says that CO2 is the only reason for climate change.

Please provide a link.


----------



## Chris (May 23, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



The Sun is at it's lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the polar ice cap is still melting.

Why?


----------



## elvis (May 23, 2010)

Chris said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



because you're a load that should have been spit.


----------



## gslack (May 23, 2010)

Activist Too said:


> Back when I studed Geography and environment and climate, we learned the effects of ocean currents on climate, and on patterns of temperature range in various locations along the coasts of various continents.  It is the oceans currents and the movement of warmer and cooler water that creates in part the climate ranges of locations on our planet.  It is why the Pacific Northwest is not as frigid as one might expect for its latitude, and why Great Britain also is not a deep freeze.  It also affects patterns of precipitation.  I think there are maps you can look at and read about all of this on line.  Possibly at the NOAA web site.  If temperatures and currents then changed, it would have a dramatic impact on world climate zones.



Yeah I have noticed for so-called climatologists they are ominously silent in regards to the other well known and factual particulars of climate... They ignore the North Atlantic Oscillation, The arctic oscillation, and the Antarctic oscillation. And the only mention of the North Atlantic current was in their PR movie "day after tomorrow".. And they even fudged that up terribly..

Just more evidence of this being a political agenda rather than a scientific one...


----------



## Activist Too (May 23, 2010)

As with any segment of society, there are ethical and unethical people to be found everywhere.  There are examples to be found of unethical medical researchers, environmental scientists, FDA investigators and Dr's, university professors, grocery store clerks, defense contractors, the Pentagon and the FBI,  to name a few.  

It is mushy headed thinking to lump everyone together and try to discredit every individual because of a "few bad apples."  The pressure was being applied to people who stubbornly wished to publish their work which opposed the last administrations political and economic views.  I fear that our current administration may not be much better due to the obvious compromises I see that are becoming clear regarding Obama's relationship to industry.  

Only those who seek to stop all inquiry and discussion would say some of the things I've read that have been said here.  Openminded discussion would better serve all of us.  Why are some of you so threatened?  The tempest in a teapot created by some to try to prevent most if not everyone from clearly being able to consider what may really be happening and why,  is not helpful.  

But then, I'm one of those types of people who wants to know the truth and deal with it.  I know people who will do almost anything to avoid acknowledging what they do not want to be true, for whatever reason.  

The problem is the degree to which the issue will affect all of our lives.  Natural selection does exist; some will adapt and change; some will not.  And if the change is so dramatic, none can?  We become an interesting post notation in someone's history journal.


----------



## Chris (May 23, 2010)

gslack said:


> Activist Too said:
> 
> 
> > Back when I studed Geography and environment and climate, we learned the effects of ocean currents on climate, and on patterns of temperature range in various locations along the coasts of various continents.  It is the oceans currents and the movement of warmer and cooler water that creates in part the climate ranges of locations on our planet.  It is why the Pacific Northwest is not as frigid as one might expect for its latitude, and why Great Britain also is not a deep freeze.  It also affects patterns of precipitation.  I think there are maps you can look at and read about all of this on line.  Possibly at the NOAA web site.  If temperatures and currents then changed, it would have a dramatic impact on world climate zones.
> ...




What climatological journals do you read?


----------



## gslack (May 23, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Activist Too said:
> ...



Yeah, gonna try the "you're not educated/smart enough/informed enough to talk about this" tactic huh???

Yeah nice, then you sir are definitely not any of the above..... Way to show your true nature there buddy....


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



If you ever posted anything other than your usual empty drivel and nonsense, maybe someone would actually give a flying f... what you say. As it is, no one cares. I only respond occasionally to your insanity because it is fun to mock and denigrate your utter stupidity and cluelessness.


----------



## gslack (May 23, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



LOL, why its the sock back for more..... Tell me socko, why do you re-post already busted pieces over and over?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 23, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You are clearly one of the most delusional, actually insane, totally ignorant denier cult trolls ever to pollute a forum, slack-jawed-idiot, so don't ever expect me to pay any attention to your deranged nonsense. You live in a fantasy world of your own that is impenetrable to facts or truth. You are a worthless waste of time and energy so I will only respond to you when I feel like making fun of you and your pitiful, uneducated pea-brained posts.


----------



## gslack (May 24, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Yeah, Yeah, denier cultist troll, got it.... you say that every time I bust you.... So.... Any chance you actually defending one of your trolling posts? Or is it just going to be wash, rinse, repeat all the time?


----------



## Chris (May 24, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Thanks for proving my point.

You really don't know what climatologists research, do you?


----------



## ScienceRocks (May 24, 2010)

Activist Too said:


> Back when I studed Geography and environment and climate, we learned the effects of ocean currents on climate, and on patterns of temperature range in various locations along the coasts of various continents.  It is the oceans currents and the movement of warmer and cooler water that creates in part the climate ranges of locations on our planet.  It is why the Pacific Northwest is not as frigid as one might expect for its latitude, and why Great Britain also is not a deep freeze.  It also affects patterns of precipitation.  I think there are maps you can look at and read about all of this on line.  Possibly at the NOAA web site.  If temperatures and currents then changed, it would have a dramatic impact on world climate zones.




So true. Those ocean currents do in fact have one of the largest impacts on earth's climate. Also there are "phases" one being the ENSO going from warm to cold(nino to nina) and another NAO, and many more. Some years the wind pattern can be different from the next and within a longer period of time like decades can have its set-ups. Like the warm and cold periods within the Atlantic hurricane seasons. From the 1930-1960's was a very active period with warmer Atlantic sst's and lower shear, but during the 1970s to early 1990 had a very inactive cool phase. In yet again during the last 15 years we've been in a warm phase once again. You can look at every ocean on the planet with tropical cyclone development and see patterns in each one, one phase being more active, while another can be more active for another basin and quitter for the other basin. Who's to say that we're not in a phase that is for a warmer planet and less ice at the poles? Looks like a pattern to me.

There is so many different factors within climate that it is currently impossible to predict what it will do. In fact we only have about 100 years world wide with any kind of worth while data, but sure go ahead rely on some african temperature station with a idiot running it that don't understand or care about accuracy. The problem is the data is not good enough to convince me one way or the other globally, sure within North America and Europe the temperature data is good enough, but the last few years have seen some very cold weather within those area's. Which leads me not to be sure.

Truth is even if those scientist where right. Would we  know what we're looking at and if it's accurate enough to be taken seriously with everything else in mind. We will start getting a idea what is going to happen within the next 50 years. 

Any ways good post.


----------



## gslack (May 24, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



No you just proved my point... You idiots can't think or reason for yourselves. You follow a path made out for you by your perceived betters... you think they are the experts so they are not to be questioned. Even if their logic is unsound, even if they are continuously wrong, even if they lie and get caught doing it, and even if they are proven time again to mislead you.

So tell me chris, if you actually read these so-called science journals; why do we never see you posting from them? Matter of fact all you do is grab headlines from your favorite media of the day and mindlessly call it evidence..... MSNBC, or any other biased media's take on what is in a science journal, is not reading a science journal.....

What you think this is the first time have had a tool try this ploy? Get a clue chris oldsocks tries this every time he is nailed and has no way out... Just like oldoscks, when you can no longer excuse or justify the BS in your AGW nonsense you resort to trying to tell us we are unfit to dispute it.... Doesn't matter if we bust it all to hell using logic and reason, or even if we take the actual science your articles are claimed to be from and show how they twisted it plain as day; you tools try and pretend we are unfit to debate it...

Well tool, we do a far better job showing our ability to debate this than you do.... At least I don't try and stop you by telling you're not fit for it... Despite the fact all you do is parrot the AGW media and post what they tell you the science says rather than what it actually says....


----------



## syrenn (May 24, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> A very odd attitude. You seem to be still confusing climate changes driven by natural factors, that may well be beyond our control, with the current changes that we are causing and that are therefore somewhat changeable if we can change what we doing that is causing them. I know there is now inertia in the system, involving the CO2 residency time in the atmosphere, that will continue to warm the Earth and change the climate for some time no matter what we do right now but the more fossil carbon we continue to dump into the atmosphere now, the farther out of whack the climate will get at its point of maximum change.



You see this is where being emotional is getting you into hot water. You assume that I don't think chaining how much C02 humans emit is important. That still does not blind me to the fact that the earth will warm and warm to the point of human extinction. With or without our help. 




RollingThunder said:


> Do you actually realize how slowly the continents are moving? They make snails look like hummingbirds on crack.



They move in geologic time. I am sure you have seem me say this before.



RollingThunder said:


> Volcanoes are still active and some are erupting but they contribute less than 1% of the CO2 that mankind is emitting. A very large volcano can cause some temporary cooling for a few years as ash and sulfates blanket the upper atmosphere and reflect more light back out into space, and it may cause a very small pulse of warming later after the atmosphere clears due to the CO2 emitted by the volcano but overall these are minor blips in the climate, not the kind of major world altering changes our activities are creating.



Just as it is possible that humans are also only a blip.



RollingThunder said:


> "_Still changing ocean currents_"??? The main ocean currents are still pretty stable. There may be one down by Antarctica that has changed some. So what? What is your point and what effect would these "changing currents" have and what is causing them to change anyway?



Ocean currents change all the time. El Nino and El Nina are both parts of these changes.



RollingThunder said:


> The Earth "_has just recently tilted_"??? I think this would be big news to astronomers. LOLOL. I going to have to ask you to try to back that one up with some hard evidence or I will continue to laugh at you about it.



You may have missed the bit about  the Chillian earthquake. 

NASA - Chilean Quake May Have Shortened Earth Days
Chile Earthquake May Have Tipped Earth's Axis, Shortened Days | Inhabitat - Green Design Will Save the World 



RollingThunder said:


> "_All of which still are contributing to the C02 levels_"??? Volcanoes a little bit but the movement of continents? Nope. Undersea currents? Nope, no carbon emissions there. "Tilting Earth"??? No again, I'm afraid. No CO releases there either.



All of which contribute to the natural climate change of the earth.



RollingThunder said:


> The evidence points to mankind being the major, dominating cause of the current warming trend. Given that, what is your point?



The evidence suggests that we are a major player. Suggesting something in and of itself is not definitive.



RollingThunder said:


> Well now we get to the reason I see you as someone who is getting their information on this subject from biased denier cult blogs or the rightwingnut echo chamber. You have been misinformed on this. I *can definitely say* that the increase is due to human influences. If you had actually studied the real science on this you would know how scientists have been able to determine this but your sources have kept this info from you.



Actually no. I know nothing of your "biased denier cult blogs or the rightwingnut echo chamber". So you see, that is not where I base my points. You can say definitely that we contribute.  You can not definitely say what that percentage is. 




RollingThunder said:


> It is still not clear just what you think you're saying that you think I don't understand. Given that we are definitely causing this ongoing and accelerating warming trend, what is your point exactly?



That the earth warms and cools. It always has and it always will.


----------



## westwall (May 24, 2010)

Chris said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...






I highly doubt that Chris.

Even Phil Jones...you remember him don't you, has said there has been no warming for 12 years.  How do you explain that old chum?  You guys remind me of the Monty Python sketch "the Argument Clinic"  We present factual evidence of the AGW crowds doctoring of data, making up data wholesale, refusing publications and all you have is "no we didn't".

What a joke your whole BS "science is now...what is sad is climatology is damaged for decades and the arrogant asshole bastards like Mann, and Jones have done serious harm to the real sciences as well.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

And just to make you boys happy I linked the UK Daily Mail newspaper article for you as if it comes from a sceptical blog you folks seem to think the information is not valid.  Of course if it comes from a warmer centric blog it's A-OK....yet more evidence that you boys are CLUELESS.  It's not about the message, it's about the data.  But you guys wouldn't know about that as you don't care about data as admitted to by old fraud.  And you twits wonder why only 25% of the population believes you anymore


----------



## westwall (May 24, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Activist Too said:
> ...







Why bother reading propoganda....


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



LOLOLOLOLOLOL. That sums up you anti-science denier cult dingbats perfectly. LOL. Why bother reading when you're so crazy that you think you already know all the answers? LOL. You are such an insane freak, walleyed, you're really funny to watch, like a monkey on a string.


----------



## gslack (May 24, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Ya know socko you would actually BE funny if you read them.... But you don't either... Just like chris, you two trolls grab a headline and article from your usual AGW propaganda gathering list, post it here, usually with out even reading anything but the headline, and claim its science because they mention or link to a science journal paper... And what I have shown repeatedly is they and you usually lie about the science they link to...... Or you are just too blond or ignorant to understand it...

This OP's article shows this point of fact.. The headline makes a bold statement of fact that the actual article and people interviewed or cited in it do not claim at all... But then idiotic little PR whoring trolls like you 3 don't understand the difference obviously....

For future reference; when they say words like "maybe" or "could" and especially when they "we don't know" like the OP article did; it means exactly that.... LOL you morons make this all too easy..


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I know you believe all of your self-congratulatory fantasies and ignorant drivel but nobody else does. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding what is being said in the articles posted here. I don't think you understand how to tie your shoes. 

A case in point: the OP article of which you claim - "_The headline makes a bold statement of fact that the actual article and people interviewed or cited in it do not claim at all_". LOL. You are such a lying, confused little shit-for-brains.

The headline: *Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record*

What the article says that matches what the headline says:

*Arctic sea ice is on track to recede to a record low this year*, suggesting that northern waters free of summer ice are coming faster than anyone thought.

*The latest satellite data show ice coverage is equal to what it was in 2007, the lowest year on record, and is declining faster than it did that year.*

"We are going to lose the summer sea-ice cover. We can't go back."

*Ice cover has already fallen back to where it was in 2007 at this time of year and is disappearing at a faster pace than it did then.* Serreze said winds, cloud cover or other weather conditions could slow the melt, but he points out that the decline is likely to speed up even more in June and July.

*"What we think is thick multi-year ice late in the summer is in fact not," he said. "It's heavily decayed first-year ice. When that stuff starts to reform in the fall, we think it's multi-year ice, but it's not."

Arctic explorers and scientific expeditions are finding more open water and untrustworthy ice ever, said Barber.

He pointed out the Arctic continued to lose multi-year ice even in 2008 and 2009, when total ice coverage rebounded somewhat.

True multi-year ice  the thick, hard stuff that stops ships  now comprises about 18 per cent of the Arctic ice pack. In 1981, when Barber first went north, that figure was 90 per cent.

"This is all just part of a trajectory moving toward a seasonally ice-free Arctic," he said. "That's happening more quickly than we thought it would happen."*

© 2010 Winnipeg Free Press. All Rights Reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


What are you going to claim next, gsock-troll? That the CO2 is not coming from fossil fuels but is coming from the decaying green cheese that the moon is made of? LOL. You are such a retard!


----------



## Big Fitz (May 24, 2010)

When you catch your doctor faking tests that say you have cancer, should you continue to believe him?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> When you catch your doctor faking tests that say you have cancer, should you continue to believe him?



I know you believe the denier cult conspiracy theories about all the world's climate scientists "faking" their research and data but nobody with any intelligence or understanding of science does.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 24, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > When you catch your doctor faking tests that say you have cancer, should you continue to believe him?
> ...


Ever seen the signatory list for the scientists petition denying global warming?  Tens of thousands of people better educated than you and me disbelieve that bullshit.

How's it coming on proving my four points?  It shouldn't be too har...  Ohhh that's right.  You can't.  The evidence doesn't exist.  Oohhh my bad.  Calling out your voodoo religion.

Again.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 24, 2010)

Suggested Climatology Summer Reading:

Your SUV is melting the Polar Ice Caps

No, we still can't demonstrated AGW in a lab but be afraid, be very afraid and stop asking questions

Carbon Credits for Dummies


----------



## Si modo (May 24, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > When you catch your doctor faking tests that say you have cancer, should you continue to believe him?
> ...


Not quite.


> An Insult to All Science  Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale
> Thursday, December 24th 2009, 1:33 AM EST
> 
> How do we know our medication is effective; that our vehicle is safe; that the bungee cord in our jump will not break? Most of the population has taken it on faith  faith in the integrity of the scientists  that these questions have been sufficiently studied and answered. And they have been, through effective communication of science in the scientific community. Knowledge is consistently exchanged using our currency, peer-review, until the point where the public benefits from the application of science in our everyday lives. Weve had faith in the value of that currency, until now.
> ...


An Insult to All Science ? Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale | Climate Realists


----------



## Old Rocks (May 24, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



God, what a real dummy you are. Oh yes, the mighty OISM petition.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch

Your four points are shit. As is your intellect. The crap you post is contempable. 

All the Scientific Societies of the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So are we to take the babble of a scientificaly literate as equal to the real scientists? I think not, the hell with your nonsense, liar Fritz.


----------



## elvis (May 24, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


another rough night with chris, eh rockhead?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 24, 2010)

Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



*Another fucking line of lies. There is no way to be polite when reading this kind of shit. An attack on the integrity of scientists. Just as the tobacco people used scientists that whored their credentials for the corperations money, these people are doing the same. Trying to create a climate of doubt, where no scientific doubt exits. From the National Academy of Sciences of the United States;*

U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as &#8220;settled facts&#8221; that &#8220;the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities&#8221;  Climate Progress

*Look up the reports and see what they say compared to a posier on a message board.*

U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as settled facts that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities
New report confirms failure to act poses "significant risks"
May 19, 2010 
A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.

Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.


The National Academy released three reports today on Americas Climate Choices.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 24, 2010)

elvis said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Having fantisies, our little Rent-a-Boy representative?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 24, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Suggested Climatology Summer Reading:
> 
> Your SUV is melting the Polar Ice Caps
> 
> ...



Demonstrated in 1858, idiot child.


----------



## elvis (May 24, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



No, fuckstain.  Just because your head is throbbing because chris doesn't have a padded headboard doesn't mean you have to come on here and be an asshole.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 24, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


You got nothing, you fucking know it but are so desperate to be right rather than know truth, you've backed yourself into a corner, the science you worshiped has been debunked by the ones who did it, and now your only way out is to either go into catatonia and be dragged out unconscious or deal with the walk of shame that YOU ARE WRONG!  I'm just waiting for the point where you start advocating imprisoning all those who disagree with you.

All you have to do is redo your work, prove my four points and I'll fight right along side you... for private sector solutions to save the world from the threat of CO2.  But see.  It's not a threat.  Not even one of our making.  This is all about control by progressives you love not saving the world.

Hey!  I'll even meet you halfway.  Propose non-governmental solutions that the free market can pick up and run with.  Build a better, faster, stronger, greener product.  If it's good and cheap, even I'll buy it thereby accomplishing your goal.  See that's the thing with all you closet socialists.  You want them to obey, not follow.

So fuck you and one have one for your horse with one more for the road, Range Rider.


----------



## Si modo (May 24, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



When scientists have no integrity, of course other scientists will attack them.  

The fact that has to be explained to you speaks volumes.

Sometimes I feel like I am posting Captain Obvious posts, but then we have some serious stupid at USMB.


----------



## elvis (May 24, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



But, but, Uncle Al told him........


----------



## Old Rocks (May 24, 2010)

And what do your 'johns' tell you, Rent-a-Boy?


----------



## elvis (May 24, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> And what do your 'johns' tell you, Rent-a-Boy?



Rent-a-boy?  Is that how you hooked up with Chris?  how much did you have to pay for him?  Zona wants to know.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 24, 2010)

elvis said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And what do your 'johns' tell you, Rent-a-Boy?
> ...


Don't be insulted.  That's his idea of foreplay.  Sweet little nothings you'll respond to.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 24, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


Yeah, I've heard of that and it is bullshit just like most the trumped up crap you braindead cultists believe in. I should have known that an extremely ignorant hard core denier cultist like you would still be fool enough to take that massively debunked propaganda ploy seriously.
*
Oregon Petition*

This fraud is the source of the Denier myth that (variously) 17,000, 30,000, 60,000 etc "scientists have signed a petition denying man caused global warming.

The Oregon Petition is a project by Arthur B. Robinson head of the tiny, industry funded so-called Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

It is an updated version of his notoriously fraudulent earlier attempts , the most recent being the 1998 Oregon Petition.

It's even been debunked at the Skeptics Society (the irony) "Misleading by Petition &  Just What is the Consensus on Global Warming?

For a thorough debunking of the alleged science accompanying the Petition

    * Of moles and whacking: Oregon Petition, Redux
    * Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
    * The Oregon Petition
    * Debunking the Oregon Petition Project
    * debunked Oregon Petition on global warming
    * Ignore Oregon petition
    * Infamous Oregon Global Warming Petition
    * RealClimate scientists take on latest manifestation of global warming disinformation campaign


Most of the names (of those that are legitimate, which aren't many) are from over a decade ago, in some cases almost twice that age - like there's been no updates in the science recently?

Quote from National Academy of Sciences

"The petition was so misleading that the National Academy issued a news release stating that:

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science." Source

Some of the alleged signatories are actually dead.

Of tobacco apologist Frederick Seitz see (enough said)

Oh yeah, here's another example of Denier math (19=500) when counting "skeptics"

And on and on; it's a joke. A sad pathetic joke that is a waste of everyone's time.

***
A more up to date debunking of the Oregon Petition is available here:

*What if the Oregon Petition names were real?*







Big Fitz said:


> Tens of thousands of people better educated than you and me disbelieve that bullshit.


Everybody is better educated than you are, retard. I've met dogs who seemed better educated. You are as completely clueless about my education though as you are everything else. However not many scientists and only a handful of actual climate scientists reject anthropogenic causes for the current abrupt warming. Your belief that there are large numbers of scientists who disagree with AGW is an artifact of the the propaganda campaign that has duped you so completely but it is not really true. 






Big Fitz said:


> How's it coming on proving my four points?  It shouldn't be too har...  Ohhh that's right.  You can't.  The evidence doesn't exist.  Oohhh my bad.  Calling out your voodoo religion. Again.


LOLOLOL...you delusional little cretin. You have no 'points', you have only denier cult drivel and nonsense. Don't expect me to go hunting for some nonsense you may (or may not) have posted at some nebulous time in the past. If you imagine that you have anything valid, post it again. It will turn out to be as idiotic as everything else you've posted, I'm sure.


----------



## gslack (May 25, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Id put the names on that list against the names on your list any day... Guys who sell out like your pseudo-scientists are no longer scientists... THey by their own hand and careless security have shown their level of integrity and ethical standards..... From their misleading use of inconsequentials and deceptive manipulation of data, to their unconscionable abuse of of the public trust to further themselves and their backers agenda; they have shown themselves the lowest of the low...

So id put em up against your list anyday douchebag propaganda boy...


----------



## RollingThunder (May 25, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


I naturally assumed that an insanely delusional retarded troll like you, slack-jawed-troll, would of course still believe in the thoroughly debunked and discredited piece of shit called the Oregon Petition. You are, as usual, just frothing at the mouth and spewing deranged nonsense. 

Just out of curiosity, exactly what "list of names" of mine are you hallucinating about? Are you perhaps insanely referring to the list of scientific organizations mentioned in the OP on the 'World Consensus About Anthropogenic Climate Change' thread?


----------



## gslack (May 25, 2010)

Ah lol, you have nos list of scientists do you..thats right.....LOL


----------



## Si modo (May 25, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Suggested Climatology Summer Reading:
> ...


Strawman.  So typical of you.  I would say it was dishonesty on your part, but I am pretty sure you just don't get much of anything.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 25, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Suggested Climatology Summer Reading:
> ...



I'm not even mad any more. 

I know you can't demonstrate your "Deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause instant, cataclysmic and irreversible changes" in a lab setting, so you trot out the "CO2 really is a greenhouse gas!" argument time and time again in response.

Do you think you rail at Catholics for their faith because they remind you so much of your perverted version of "science"?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 25, 2010)

> You are as completely clueless about my education though as you are everything else.



I know you are an egotistical elitist who has a lower IQ than some pairs of pants I've worn.  I've met many idiots who were sentient enough to jump through hoops put out for doctorates but couldn't function in society. This is not a great endorsement of anything other than your tolerance for pain and wasting money.  I also know you're a liar, a retread, and a bigger loudmouth know-it-all than even me without a shred of shame or ability to think for yourself or follow a chain of logic.

So that's what I do know about you.  Nothing to crow about.



> You have no 'points', you have only denier cult drivel and nonsense.



The truth scares you a lot doesn't it.  I think you fear-piddled as you typed that.  get a towel.



> So id put em up against your list anyday douchebag propaganda boy...



And yet you haven't been able to.  My four points stand strong because you run away like a little bitch.

You can't prove conclusively man's at fault.

You can't prove conclusively that CO2 is really the source of a threat to life on this planet.

You can't prove that we can actually affect what's going on in any meaningful way.

You can't prove any harm's been done.

Therefore, you don't even have a case worth a hill of dung beetles in a court of law.

Again.  If Climate Change is man's fault, where are the dinosaurs?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 25, 2010)

You call this Science?


----------



## konradv (May 25, 2010)

_"Deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause *instant, cataclysmic and irreversible changes*"_
---------------------------------

Do you have cite for when someone said that or is it just something you pulled out of thin air?  I don't know of anyone that's said that, so assuming I'm right about its origin, this is just another thing to file under *DENIER LIES*.


----------



## Si modo (May 25, 2010)

konradv said:


> _"Deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause *instant, cataclysmic and irreversible changes*"_
> ---------------------------------
> 
> Do you have cite for when someone said that or is it just something you pulled out of thin air?  I don't know of anyone that's said that, so assuming I'm right about its origin, this is just another thing to file under *DENIER LIES*.


What is a denier denying?

Note:  This is an automated message.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 25, 2010)

konradv said:


> _"Deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause *instant, cataclysmic and irreversible changes*"_
> ---------------------------------
> 
> Do you have cite for when someone said that or is it just something you pulled out of thin air?  I don't know of anyone that's said that, so assuming I'm right about its origin, this is just another thing to file under *DENIER LIES*.


You need to learn to use the quote function here bud. Are you saying the first part or the second part?

The first half disproves itself by sheer logic.  Damn that stuff.  We're here, we've had major bouts of CO2 before and we've warmed and cooled inspite of it or with it.  So that throws out the irreversible aspect.

The second part I have one question:  What are the "lies" being spread?  All I see are you throwing up false assertations based on sciencey like material and a bunch of handwavium saying that it proves we're responsible.  And when it is quickly disproven or shown to come from compromised sources, you scream lie.  This is not a lie this is a debunking OF a lie.  So where, pray tell, are the lies?

It's almost as if you hope the accusation, screamed loud enough, will make it truth. and shut down all questions or accurate exposure of fraud.  But no.  That couldn't be the case!


----------



## Chris (May 25, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > _"Deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause *instant, cataclysmic and irreversible changes*"_
> ...



You just described yourself.


----------



## Chris (May 25, 2010)

University of Manitoba researcher David Barber said in 1981, 90 percent of the Arctic ice pack was made of multiyear ice&#8211;the kind that stops ships. Now, multiyear ice has dwindled to 18 percent

Arctic Sea Ice Melt Parallels 2007 Record Low Level | AHN


----------



## Big Fitz (May 26, 2010)

Chris said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...


All you have to do is prove it, but dammit, reality keeps debunking your assertations.  I'll still meet you halfway.  Show me free market solutions.

The onus of proof (that means responsibility) is on you to prove it is happening, and you most certainly have not.  Start over.  Clean slate.  No presuppositions and study what IS happening instead of trying to be a fascism delivery system


----------



## konradv (May 26, 2010)

_The onus of proof (that means responsibility) is on you to prove it is happening, and you most certainly have not. Start over. Clean slate. No presuppositions and study what IS happening* instead of trying to be a fascism delivery system* _
------------------------------------

Isn't there some onus on the deniers, too?  It's not enough to simply slough this off as a political question!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 26, 2010)

konradv said:


> _"Deminimus increases in the atmospheric trace element CO2 cause *instant, cataclysmic and irreversible changes*"_
> ---------------------------------
> 
> Do you have cite for when someone said that or is it just something you pulled out of thin air?  I don't know of anyone that's said that, so assuming I'm right about its origin, this is just another thing to file under *DENIER LIES*.



So you don't even know what your hypothesis is?????!!!

Tell me in your own simple words what you believe the central thesis of AGW is.  Please!


----------



## Si modo (May 26, 2010)

konradv said:


> _The onus of proof (that means responsibility) is on you to prove it is happening, and you most certainly have not. Start over. Clean slate. No presuppositions and study what IS happening* instead of trying to be a fascism delivery system* _
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Isn't there some onus on the deniers, too?  It's not enough to simply slough this off as a political question!


First of all, nothing is proven in science, it is only supported.

With that established, no, there is no onus on a denier (whatever that is).  The one making the claim and/or proposing a hypothesis/theory must support that hypothesis/theory.  

IF and only IF a claim and/or hypothesis/theory is actually supported, then the onus is on the one disagreeing to actually rebutt it.

Ball in your (and so many other's) court.

It's called burden, and it rests firmly on the one claiming that something exists or is true.  If one wishes to be logical, that is.


----------



## westwall (May 26, 2010)

konradv said:


> _The onus of proof (that means responsibility) is on you to prove it is happening, and you most certainly have not. Start over. Clean slate. No presuppositions and study what IS happening* instead of trying to be a fascism delivery system* _
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Isn't there some onus on the deniers, too?  It's not enough to simply slough this off as a political question!







Poor delusional konrad,

All of the AGW agenda is politicially and monetarily driven but you are too blind to see....


----------



## Big Fitz (May 26, 2010)

The only onus on those who disbelieve is to show where the science is wrong.  A few (gslack, Crusader Frank, Dude, Westwall) have been consistently doing this.  I've managed to find enough logic holes in your theory from time to time that you can drive a freight train through.  Plus then you get into the political side of it where following the money has lead into a den of scum and villiany the likes of which have never before been seen in 'reputable science'.

We do not have to prove anything.  We just have to show why not.


----------



## Chris (May 26, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> The only onus on those who disbelieve is to show where the science is wrong.  A few (gslack, Crusader Frank, Dude, Westwall) have been consistently doing this.  I've managed to find enough logic holes in your theory from time to time that you can drive a freight train through.  Plus then you get into the political side of it where following the money has lead into a den of scum and villiany the likes of which have never before been seen in 'reputable science'.
> 
> We do not have to prove anything.  We just have to show why not.



The science is not wrong.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% causes the earth to retain heat.

Please prove that wrong.


----------



## rdean (May 26, 2010)

Republican Scientists Theory of Melting Sea Ice:  God picked the ice up and put it up on top of the mountains and made it look like "snow".


----------



## westwall (May 27, 2010)

Chris said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > The only onus on those who disbelieve is to show where the science is wrong.  A few (gslack, Crusader Frank, Dude, Westwall) have been consistently doing this.  I've managed to find enough logic holes in your theory from time to time that you can drive a freight train through.  Plus then you get into the political side of it where following the money has lead into a den of scum and villiany the likes of which have never before been seen in 'reputable science'.
> ...






Dr. Phil Jones "there has been no heating since 1998"  Please explain that!


----------



## gslack (May 27, 2010)

Chris said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > The only onus on those who disbelieve is to show where the science is wrong.  A few (gslack, Crusader Frank, Dude, Westwall) have been consistently doing this.  I've managed to find enough logic holes in your theory from time to time that you can drive a freight train through.  Plus then you get into the political side of it where following the money has lead into a den of scum and villiany the likes of which have never before been seen in 'reputable science'.
> ...



Why dont you prove anything.... All you do is repeat the same crap just like your pal socko....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 27, 2010)

Chris said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > The only onus on those who disbelieve is to show where the science is wrong.  A few (gslack, Crusader Frank, Dude, Westwall) have been consistently doing this.  I've managed to find enough logic holes in your theory from time to time that you can drive a freight train through.  Plus then you get into the political side of it where following the money has lead into a den of scum and villiany the likes of which have never before been seen in 'reputable science'.
> ...



40% sounds like a huge number until you tell the rest of the story. Even with a 40% increase you're dealing with an atmospheric trace element. We're not Venus, we're Earth and at 380 PPM even with the 40% Increase CO2 is still a rounding error.

Moreover, when the reading were first made the scale dealt with Earth atmosphere in 10,000's; that is, CO2 was estimated at 3-4 parts per 10,000, so with a margin for error it's anywhere from 2-5. Our accuracy has increases 2 orders of magnitude in the last 100 years so it's extremely shady at best to hang your hat on these imaginary 40% increases

Additionally, is the increase, to the extent that it even exists on the scale proposed, a cause or an effect of any warming? It could be that as the planet warms more CO2 is released into the atmosphere.


----------



## konradv (May 27, 2010)

Chris said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



I post how I please.  If you can't recognize your own words, that's your problem.  I'm not interested in thanks, rep or your opinion of how I post.


----------



## Si modo (May 27, 2010)

konradv said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Those observation skills of yours need some tweaking.  Haven't had your coffee yet, maybe?


----------



## westwall (May 27, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *So here we are six years down the road from this forecast, and things are still getting warmer. In spite of a strong and persistant La Nina, and a near record low in solar activity and TSI, 2008 turned out to be either the 8th or 10th warmest year on record. 2009 tied for the second warmest year on record. And 2010 may well go down as the warmest year on record, for at least one year.
> 
> Were the scientists wrong about the NAO? No. But they definately underestimated the strength of the warming.*
> 
> ...







How about some perspective with this little bit of propoganda.  Greenland has 3,000,000 cubic kilometers of ice.  The warmers are telling us that it is losing 200 cubic kilometers per year.  So it is losing .007% of its mass every year...That means it will take about 15, 000 to 16,000 years for it to go away.  And that is assuming that the warming comes back anytime soon.  So far there has been no warming since 1998 (admitted to by Dr. Jones himself) and the best estimates are it will continue to cool for another 20-30 years.  So how do you answer those little problems boys?


----------



## Chris (May 28, 2010)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *So here we are six years down the road from this forecast, and things are still getting warmer. In spite of a strong and persistant La Nina, and a near record low in solar activity and TSI, 2008 turned out to be either the 8th or 10th warmest year on record. 2009 tied for the second warmest year on record. And 2010 may well go down as the warmest year on record, for at least one year.
> ...



By asking for a link.


----------



## Chris (May 28, 2010)

University of Manitoba researcher David Barber said in 1981, 90 percent of the Arctic ice pack was made of multiyear ice&#8211;the kind that stops ships. Now, multiyear ice has dwindled to 18 percent.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7018784377


----------



## gslack (May 28, 2010)

Chris said:


> University of Manitoba researcher David Barber said in 1981, 90 percent of the Arctic ice pack was made of multiyear icethe kind that stops ships. Now, multiyear ice has dwindled to 18 percent.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice Melt Parallels 2007 Record Low Level | AHN



Keep repeating the same phrase so we can all see how this bullshit really is...


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2010)

Chris said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > The only onus on those who disbelieve is to show where the science is wrong.  A few (gslack, Crusader Frank, Dude, Westwall) have been consistently doing this.  I've managed to find enough logic holes in your theory from time to time that you can drive a freight train through.  Plus then you get into the political side of it where following the money has lead into a den of scum and villiany the likes of which have never before been seen in 'reputable science'.
> ...


Don't need to.  Half the board just showed you why.

1. Phill Jones himself claims now there has been no warming for about 15 years

2. 40% increase in 0.04% of the atmospheric content, of which it is ESTIMATED 0.6% is produced by man.  That's not going to retain much heat.  Combine with that the fact that water vapor forms around 5% of the atmosphere and is a much more active and effective greenhouse gas.

3. We aren't even up to the temperatures of the medieval warm period where civilization thrived and flourished helping pull us into the age of exploration and renaissance.

4.  The sun is the #1 source of heat on this planet, and it has been in a declining cycle for well over a year possibly into 2 now were we can be experiencing dramatic cooling if sunspot activity doesn't pick up.  This is more important than the composition of the atmosphere.  

Common sense shit here, buddy.  You need new uncorrupted data.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2010)

> I post how I please. If you can't recognize your own words, that's your problem. I'm not interested in thanks, rep or your opinion of how I post.



good to know you don't give a fuck about netiquette.  I'm actually surprised at your recalcitrance.


----------



## Chris (May 29, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet we just had the warmest March on record and the ice cap has melted to its lowest level ever recorded at this time of year.

Why?


----------



## Chris (May 29, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > University of Manitoba researcher David Barber said in 1981, 90 percent of the Arctic ice pack was made of multiyear icethe kind that stops ships. Now, multiyear ice has dwindled to 18 percent.
> ...



I would love to because you have no answer for it.

And the ice continues to melt....


----------



## Big Fitz (May 29, 2010)

> he Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet we just had the warmest March on record and the ice cap has melted to its lowest level ever recorded at this time of year.



Yeah.   I heard that too.  But you know what?  Those surface stations still aren't corrected.  So guess what?  That data's bad too.  You can't do good science with broken instruments.  If I snapped the end off your ruler so you can't measure accurately and told you to do a very specific job, you can't with that tool.  You will be wrong.

Second, before I believe this, my personal experience in MN where they ALSO claimed it was the second warmest on record, we have had a very cool April and May.  My personal experience was far different than what the claim has been.  I would have said we had a very average spring.  I wanna see a comparison of day by day temperatures to previous years before I listen to this.  Too often bad assertions are hidden by worse math for agendas.

Of course, you have one last thing you still haven't proven:  That this is even an problem.  You've alleged it would be, but history says otherwise.  If it really IS warming, it is a good thing overall for plants who thrive on increased CO2 and longer growing seasons.  To animals which most of them enjoy increased ranges of environment.  To humanity, which enjoys and has enjoyed increased productivity and functionality.

Remember, that these climatologists have, since Katrina, been predicting record years of storms or more severe storms.  All predictions have been a bust.  Of course, if they keep betting on black 13 on the roulette wheel sooner or later it will hit, but it won't make them right.  It will make them lucky.  So this year, someone has asserted a monkey can do a better job, and has decided to put NOAA up against a monkey to see who comes closer.

Let's see who does better, okay?

Dr. Hansimian predicts hurricanes


----------



## gslack (May 29, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Oh really?..... ANd the first time you posted it and I slapped you with it was an accident? Want me to go and bring that post back up here? I will if thats how you want to be embarrassed again...


----------



## gslack (May 29, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record
> ...



LOL, I love when you guys try this tactic.... You post one extreme claim and when it is shown to be bullshit you grab the same type of claims from another media source and rinse, then repeat like good little tools....

lets just fix the claims in the OP and the headline in the article by actually reading the article shall we....

The headline reads; _*"Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record"*_

But after reading Your article we see it says these all too telling things.... THe first line..

_"Arctic sea ice is *on track* to recede to a record low this year, *suggesting* that northern waters free of summer ice are coming faster than anyone thought."_

Funny but I was under the assumption "on track" and "suggesting" would mean its a possibility not a fact.... hmm thats not what the headline said now is it.... Bullshit number 1...

next your article said....

_"*Could we break another record this year? **I think it's quite possible,"* said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo."_

Ah okay so its possible and not a fact or anything so direct and clear as the headline would lead us to believe.... Bullshit number 2....

Moving on your article said...

_"We are going to lose the summer sea-ice cover. We can't go back."_

Oh really? so how did we get 10% of the 30% we lost since 1979 in one season? We got back 10% in 2008 and some more back 2009 according to the other thread you started on this.... hmm funny..... Bullshit number 3....

Once again in your article....

_*"In April, the centre published data showing that sea ice had almost recovered to the 20-year average."*_

What????? THey just tried to claim we couldn't get the ice back??? WTF????? BUllshit number 4....

And the most telling thing in the entire article......

_*"Will (thawing) this year be particularly fast?" asked Serreze. "We don't know. We really don't know."*_

Yeah....Says it all doesn't it.... They just don't know, seems odd how sure the headline made them sound.... yeah BULLSHIT NUMBER 5.........

I could go on and show every bit of bullshit in it but I think those things right there are more than sufficient to show this is a PR snowjob.....

Nice work guys, you are a big help in outting this AGW fraud....

I can repeat myself too tool ... Care to tell me how I have no answer for it again? Lying and pretending it wasn't already shown to be fraudulent is pretty pathetic chris....


----------



## gslack (May 29, 2010)

Want me to slap your latest article which repeats the last one as well?

Okay...

Your link.....Arctic Sea Ice Melt Parallels 2007 Record Low Level | AHN

Just in the middle/top section of that article you linked to it says this....

*"The center pointed out the ice extent for April was the largest for that month in the past 10 years. It laid the phenomenon to changing wind patterns that caused older, thicker ice to move southward along Greenlands east coast, where it will probably melt in summer."*

Wow chris, looks like your article doesn't blame the melt on AGW.... Seems a changing wind pattern is to blame...... Busted again either not reading what you cite or not understanding it... When are you tools going stop this silliness?  Every dam time you, oldsocks, or trollingblunder post or cite an article you take the headlines and go with it and dont even bother reading it...

Its way too easy slapping you 3 now... All I have to do is read the crap you throw up here LOL


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2010)

Chris said:


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






A link for what?  I just used the accepted figures provided by your own side and did some simple math.  I would assume that you can do simple math?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 30, 2010)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > *So here we are six years down the road from this forecast, and things are still getting warmer. In spite of a strong and persistant La Nina, and a near record low in solar activity and TSI, 2008 turned out to be either the 8th or 10th warmest year on record. 2009 tied for the second warmest year on record. And 2010 may well go down as the warmest year on record, for at least one year.
> ...



The only problem here is your moronic inability, or perhaps deliberate unwillingness, to comprehend what is happening. 

Your first stupidity is ignoring the obvious fact that, since Greenland is "_losing 200 cubic kilometers per year_" now that it wasn't losing before, then the climate must have warmed up quite a bit.

Your second stupidity is assuming that the current rate of ice loss is going to stay constant even though the rate has been increasing sharply over the last 40 years and is still accelerating. See article at end.

Your third stupidity is the straw-man argument that the 'problem' would be for the Greenland ice sheet "_to go away_" or completely disappear and since this would take, according to your naive and distorted math, tens of thousands of years, then there is no problem. That is just idiotic. The ice mass loss from Greenland is already contributing to sea level rise and that contribution is just going to be increasing every year. 

The collapse and breakup of ice sheets is not a linear process and the possibility of sudden catastrophic collapses of portions of the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets is very real. Such collapses would result in rapid sea level changes measured in feet.

Your forth stupidity was trying to once again sell that moldy old debunked denier cult myth of "_no warming since 1998 (admitted to by Dr. Jones himself)_" In fact, Dr Jones said that there was a warming trend of +0.12°C per decade for the narrow band of years, 1995  to 2009, that the interviewer picked, but that the trend, while coming close, did not quite reach the 95% confidence level that statisticians refer to as 'statistically significant' (a scientific term that I'm sure you and the other denier dingbats are totally unfamiliar with and so will grievously misinterpret). Using longer time periods, like 30 or 40 years or more, the warming trend is very statistically significant.

_Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

BBC - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Dr Jones - Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods. _

You anti-science denier cultists and your wacky dogmas are both hilarious and pathetic. How stupid does someone have to be to believe in "no warming since 1998" when the scientific record says this:

*2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade*

NASA
01.21.10

*2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record*, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that *in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880*.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade -- due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean -- 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. *The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years -- 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 -- as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began.
*
&#8220;There&#8217;s always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year&#8217;s ranking, but usually that misses the point,&#8221; said James Hansen, the director of GISS. &#8220;There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated."

The near-record temperatures of 2009 occurred despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America. High air pressures in the Arctic decreased the east-west flow of the jet stream, while also increasing its tendency to blow from north to south and draw cold air southward from the Arctic. This resulted in an unusual effect that caused frigid air from the Arctic to rush into North America and warmer mid-latitude air to shift toward the north.

"Of course, the contiguous 48 states cover only 1.5 percent of the world area, so the U.S. temperature does not affect the global temperature much,' said Hansen.

In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 0.8°C (1.4°F) since 1880. 
***

*Study: Greenland ice loss accelerating*

USA Today
Mar 24, 2010

The Greenland ice sheet, the world's second-largest, is continuing to experience ice loss due to global warming, according to a new study.

What's new about this study is that the ice loss, which has been well-documented over southern Greenland, is *now spreading up along the northwest coast*, with this *acceleration* likely starting in late 2005.

"*The changes on the Greenland ice sheet are happening fast, and we are definitely losing more ice mass than we had anticipated*," says study co-author Isabella Velicogna of the University of California-Irvine. "We also are seeing this trend in Antarctica, a sign that warming temperatures really are having an effect on ice in Earth's cold regions."

*Air temperatures over the Greenland ice sheet have increased by about 4 degrees since 1991, which most scientists attribute to a buildup of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere.*

"This is a phenomenon that was undocumented before this study," study co-author John Wahr of the University of Colorado says.  "Our speculation is that some of the big glaciers in this region are sliding downhill faster and dumping more ice in the ocean."

Scientists used a combination of satellite and GPS measurements to document the ice loss.

The mass loss is equivalent to about 0.02 inch of global sea-level rise per year. If the entire Greenland ice sheet melted, which is not predicted, scientists estimate that global sea levels would rise about 20 feet, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

The Greenland ice sheet covers most of the island, and is about 656,000 square miles in size, roughly three times the size of Texas.

*The paper was published this month in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.*

Copyright © 2010 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## westwall (May 30, 2010)

Poor Blunder,

First off you seem to think that actions we do today result in effects tomorrow.  That is simply not the case.   The glacial melt we see in Greenland began hundreds of years ago and is continuing (or not, depends on who's figures you look at) through the present and will continue, or not, regardless of what we humans do.  

Your viewpoint is so myopic that you just can't wrap your pea sized brain around the fact that what is occuring began CENTURIES AGO and will continue on for a few more centuries.

You guys allways say we call you names and ignore the science when that is your purview, you have no science, other than that which is made up out of whole cloth so to defend your bs you attack the messengers and try to vilify them...much like the defence lawyer attacking the rape victim and trying to prove "she had it coming"...you people are despicable.

You denigrate science and have damaged the credibility of science for at least a generation.  You have no respect for ethics or science or the very real world of cause and effect.

You continue to try and imply that the world is going to die if nothing is done when there is 
overwhelming and incontrovertible historical proof that when the earth is warm all critters prosper, whether it be the plants, or the four legged critters or people.  

You blissfully bury your head in the sand of religious dogma (yes you are the ones guilty of that particularly vile form of intellectual dishonesty now...the church actually employs scientists to keep abreast of developments while you keep referring to the predictions of 25 years ago, and how exactly did those pan out anyway?  Not too blooody good from what I can see) and completely ignore all that is presented and instead trot out the same ridiculous arguments that have been shattered and disproven and cast upon the scrap heap of pseudo science, like alchemy and eugenics and a whole host of other even more undesireable fields of study.

Congrats, your particular brand of religion is now the laughing stock of the world.  25% of first world population believes in your drivel and that number is falling fast.  As more evidence is exposed of the AGW agenda and how horribly they have twisted science in the pursuit of money ther will be a further drop.  So far all of the major western powers have abandoned your agenda because it is crap.  Only the US (and this is because Obama has quite a few people in his administration poised to make a busload of cash off of the programs) is still pursuing the bs agenda...and now it is faltering here as well.

You can post your data from fraudulent organizations with their fraudulent methodology all you want...but the truth is still the same, they lied, they are lying, they are going to continue to lie and they have been caught.  A lot of them are going to go to prison for fraud for stealing BILLIONS of dollars from the US taxpayer.

So feel free to keep on yapping.  The effect is going to be the same.  AGW theory is wrong.  The agenda behind the theory is dying fast.  The perpetrators are going to be prosecuted and a bunch of them will end up in prison....where they should be!


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2010)

Hey Walleyes, when you get back from your latest survival hike in Lower Slobovia, how about posting some real peer reviewed articles supporting your point of view? You surely can have your buddy Si give you a list.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 30, 2010)

*Here is a report for the coldest year of the decade, 2008. Why don't you read it and find out how much ice was added to the Greenland Ice Cap in 2008.*

Arctic Report Card - Greenland - Box, et al.

Greenland

J. E. Box1, L.-S. Bai1, R. Benson1, I. Bhattacharya1, D. H. Bromwich1, J. Cappelen2, D. Decker1, N. DiGirolamo3, X. Fettweis4, D. Hall5, E. Hanna6, T. Mote7, M. Tedesco8, R. van de Wal9, and M. van den Broeke9

1Byrd Polar Research Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 
2Danish Meteorological Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark
3Science Systems Applications Inc. and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
4Department of Geography, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
5NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
6Department of Geography, University of Sheffield, England
7Department of Geography, University of Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia
8Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, City College of New York, New York, New York
9Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

October 19, 2009 

Summary

An abnormally cold winter across the southern half of Greenland led to substantially higher west coast sea ice thickness and concentration. Even so, record-setting summer temperatures around Greenland, combined with an intense melt season (particularly across the northern ice sheet), led the 2008 Greenland climate to be marked by continued ice sheet mass deficit and marine-terminating ice disintegration.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Hey Walleyes, when you get back from your latest survival hike in Lower Slobovia, how about posting some real peer reviewed articles supporting your point of view? You surely can have your buddy Si give you a list.






Why don't you?  Oh that's right they corrupted the process by denying sceptical articles.  Ergo the process is broken, which means that whatever they published is now worthless.
Congrats on a great way to butcher the scientific method.  It takes a real pro to set the whole of science back a generation

And you're just jealous that I am far better travelled than you.  So get off your lazy butt and hit the trail!  I am headed for the Heaphy Track on the south island of New Zealand next September.  It's north from Karamea and is one of the best walks I've ever done so I decided to do it again 25 years after so I could see what has changed.  You should give it a try some time.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2010)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Walleyes, when you get back from your latest survival hike in Lower Slobovia, how about posting some real peer reviewed articles supporting your point of view? You surely can have your buddy Si give you a list.
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 31, 2010)

Old Rocks longs for the good ole days when everything north of the Ohio River was under 600 feet of ice.

We've been losing ice for the past 12,000 years.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks longs for the good ole days when everything north of the Ohio River was under 600 feet of ice.
> 
> We've been losing ice for the past 12,000 years.






Absolutely correct.   I almost feel sorry for old fraud.  He clearly has never lived beyond the confines of his computer so has no real experience of the outside world.  It is sad that these folks never get off of their lazy butts and feel the wind blowing through their hair at 15,000 feet or so.  It is truly a wonderful experience!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 31, 2010)

westwall said:


> Poor Blunder,
> 
> First off you seem to think that actions we do today result in effects tomorrow.  That is simply not the case.   The glacial melt we see in Greenland began hundreds of years ago and is continuing (or not, depends on who's figures you look at) through the present and will continue, or not, regardless of what we humans do.
> 
> Your viewpoint is so myopic that you just can't wrap your pea sized brain around the fact that what is occuring(sic) began CENTURIES AGO and will continue on for a few more centuries.


It is really funny to watch when you just make up your own 'science' off the top of your head. Unfortunately for your fantasies, nothing happened "hundreds of years ago" to cause Greenland to melt. What has happened is that mankind's CO2 emissions have been building up in the atmosphere and warming the planet and melting the ice. 

If I challenge you to tell us just exactly what it is that "began CENTURIES AGO" that is supposedly melting the Greenland ice sheets, you will change the subject.






westwall said:


> You guys allways(sic) say we call you names and ignore the science when that is your purview, you have no science, other than that which is made up out of whole cloth so to defend your bs you attack the messengers and try to vilify them...much like the defence(sic) lawyer attacking the rape victim and trying to prove "she had it coming"...you people are despicable.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are such a delusional loon, walleyed. LOL. The world scientific community is solidly behind the reality of anthropogenic global warming and all of the papers getting published in peer-reviewed science journals support the scientific reality of AGW but you say: "_you have no science_". LOLOLOLOLOLOL. You trot out your denier cult pseudo-science that can only get 'published' on Exxon sponsored blogs and imagine that it is real. You are lost in some serious hallucinations there, walleyed.






westwall said:


> You denigrate science and have damaged the credibility of science for at least a generation.  You have no respect for ethics or science or the very real world of cause and effect.


This is called 'projection' and is common among the quasi-insane like you denier cultists. It is your anti-science propaganda, slander and lies that have denigrated science, you cretin. You have no knowledge of or understanding of or respect for science. You have repeatedly shown yourself to be an ignorant, uneducated, low IQ nitwit who confuses your own political dogmas with scientific arguments.





westwall said:


> You continue to try and imply that the world is going to die if nothing is done when there is
> overwhelming and incontrovertible historical proof that when the earth is warm all critters prosper, whether it be the plants, or the four legged critters or people.


More of your unadulterated bullshit, walleyed. Abrupt climate changes cause extinction events - that's what the paleontological history shows.






westwall said:


> You blissfully bury your head in the sand of religious dogma (yes you are the ones guilty of that particularly vile form of intellectual dishonesty now...the church actually employs scientists to keep abreast of developments while you keep referring to the predictions of 25 years ago, and how exactly did those pan out anyway?  Not too blooody(sic) good from what I can see) and completely ignore all that is presented and instead trot out the same ridiculous arguments that have been shattered and disproven and cast upon the scrap heap of pseudo science, like alchemy and eugenics and a whole host of other even more undesireable(sic) fields of study.


You're just full of those old denier cult myths and superstitions today, aren't you walleyed? LOL. You're far too intellectually deficient to ever have "disproven" anything  but I'm sure those delusions are a comfort to you. Actually the predictions from 25 years ago proved to be pretty accurate. Here's a discussion of one prediction and the lies you deniers tell about it.

_Objection: In 1988, Hansen predicted dire warming over the next decade -- and he was off by 300%. Why in the world should we listen to the same doom and gloom from him today?

Answer: While in some instances it is ignorant repetition of misinformation, at its source this story is a plain lie.

In 1988, James Hansen testified before the U.S. Senate on the danger of anthropogenic global warming. During that testimony he presented a graph -- part of a paper published soon after. This graph had three lines on it, representing three scenarios based on three projections of future emissions and volcanism.






Line A was a temperature trend prediction based on rapid emissions growth and no large volcanic event; it was a steep climb through the year 2000 and beyond.

Line B was based on modest emissions growth and one large volcanic eruption in the mid 1990s.

Line C began along the same trajectory as Line B, and included the same volcanic eruption, but showed reductions in the growth of CO2 emission by the turn of the century -- the result of hypothetical government controls.

As it happens, since Hansen's testimony, emissions have grown at a modest rate and Mt. Pinatubo did in fact erupt, though in the early 1990s, not the middle. In other words, the Line B forcings scenario came remarkably close to predicting what actually came to pass.

Not coincidentally, the observed temperature trend has tracked closely with the Line B prediction as well.

Hansen was right on the money, and the models he used proved successful.

Unfortunately, when Patrick Michaels made his testimony before Congress in 1998, ten years later, he saw fit to erase the two lower lines, B and C, and show the Senators only Line A. He did so to make his testimony that Hansen's predictions had been off by 300% believable. He lied by omission. This lie was picked up by Michael Crichton in his novel State of Fear (one of many omissions, confusions, and falsehood in that book -- see here).

To my knowledge, Patrick Michaels has never owned up to his deception, either with an apology and retraction or with an explanation, and consequently the urban myth lives on to this day.

©2010. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)
_




westwall said:


> Congrats, your particular brand of religion is now the laughing stock of the world.  25% of first world population believes in your drivel and that number is falling fast.  As more evidence is exposed of the AGW agenda and how horribly they have twisted science in the pursuit of money ther will be a further drop.  So far all of the major western powers have abandoned your agenda because it is crap.  Only the US (and this is because Obama has quite a few people in his administration poised to make a busload of cash off of the programs) is still pursuing the bs agenda...and now it is faltering here as well.
> 
> You can post your data from fraudulent organizations with their fraudulent methodology all you want...but the truth is still the same, they lied, they are lying, they are going to continue to lie and they have been caught.  A lot of them are going to go to prison for fraud for stealing BILLIONS of dollars from the US taxpayer. So feel free to keep on yapping.  The effect is going to be the same.  AGW theory is wrong.  The agenda behind the theory is dying fast.  The perpetrators are going to be prosecuted and a bunch of them will end up in prison....where they should be!


Just more of your delusional denier cult drivel, idiotic conspiracy theories and bullshit propaganda. You have lost all connection to reality. AGW theory is still supported by the world scientific community because all of the evidence still supports that theory. Your denial of it is still just your anti-scientific denial of reality for political reasons.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2010)

Trolling Blunder,

You said, 

 "Abrupt climate changes cause extinction events - that's what the paleontological history shows."

I suggest you take that particular statement down to any university with a earth sciences department and present that to them.  You see if it could be proven then voila you have an instant PhD in geology.

The reason why I say this is because NO ONE KNOWS what caused ANY of the mass extinctions.  There are many theories and depending on which extinction you are talking about, some or nearly no evidence to support any one particular theory of that particular extinction.

So your statement is incorrect on all levels.  Go back and try again.  And next time put some more effort into it, currently you're failing the class.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 31, 2010)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Walleyes, when you get back from your latest survival hike in Lower Slobovia, how about posting some real peer reviewed articles supporting your point of view? You surely can have your buddy Si give you a list.
> ...


Very cool.  Make sure to take pictures of some of the same natural features you did back then... assuming you did.  We then can compare any changes. LOL

Of course the changes meaning will vary from person to person.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 31, 2010)

westwall said:


> Trolling Blunder,
> 
> You said,
> 
> ...



It is always amusing to watch you try to get all 'sciencey' when it is so obvious that you're completely ignorant about science in all its aspects.

*Climate Change Played Major Role in Mass Extinction of Mammals 50,000 Years Ago, Study Finds*

ScienceDaily (May 18, 2010)  An international team of scientists has discovered that climate change played a major role in causing mass extinction of mammals in the late quaternary era, 50,000 years ago. Their study, published in Evolution, takes a new approach to this hotly debated topic by using global data modelling to build continental 'climate footprints.'

"Between 50,000 and 3,000 years before present (BP) 65% of mammal species weighing over 44kg went extinct, together with a lower proportion of small mammals," said lead author Dr David Nogues-Bravo from the Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate in University of Copenhagen. "Why these species became extinct in such large numbers has been hotly debated for over a century."

During the last 50,000 years the global climate became colder and drier, reaching full glacial conditions 21,000 years before present time. Since then the climate has become warmer, and this changing climate created new opportunities for colonization of new regions by humans. While both of these global change actors played significant roles in species extinction this study reveals that changing climate was a significant force driving this mass extinction.

"Until now global evidence to support the climate change argument has been lacking, a large part of existing evidence was based on local or regional estimates between numbers of extinctions, dates of human arrivals and dates of climate change," said Dr Nogues-Bravo. "Our approach is completely different. By dealing with the issue at a global scale we add a new dimension to the debate by showing that the impact of climate change was not equal across all regions, and we quantify this to reveal each continent's "footprint of climate change."

The study shows that climate change had a global influence over extinctions throughout the late quaternary, but the level of extinction seems to be related to each continent's footprint of climate change. When comparing continents it can then be seen that in Africa, where the climate changed to a relatively lesser extent there were fewer extinctions. However, in North America, more species suffered extinction, as reflected by a greater degree of climate change.

A key piece of evidence in the humans versus climate debate is the size of the extinct mammals. It has always been assumed that humans mainly impacted on populations of large mammals, while if climate change played the key role there should be evidence of large impacts on small mammals as well as the larger animals.

The team's results show that continents which suffered larger climate change impacts suffered larger extinctions of small mammals and viceversa, further strengthening the idea that climate change was a key factor in controlling past extinctions on a global scale.

This research has important implications for the current study of climate change, not only in revealing the role of the climate in causing extinction in mammals, but also by demonstrating how the effect will be different across regions and continents.

"Our results show that continents with the highest 'climate footprints' witnessed more extinctions then continents with lower 'climate footprints'. These results are consistent across species with different body masses, reinforcing the view that past climate changes contributed to global extinctions."

"While climate change is not the only factor behind extinction, past, present or future, we cannot neglect in any way that climate change, directly or indirectly, is a crucial actor to understand past and future species extinctions.," said Miguel Araújo, a co-author of the paper from the National Museum of Natural Sciences in Spain.

Copyright © 1995-2010 ScienceDaily LLC    All rights reserved

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2010)

One thing common to all the extinction events was a rapid buildup of GHGs.

Earth's five mass extinction events

What Veron 2008 found was each mass extinction event corresponded to periods of quickly changing atmospheric CO2. When CO2 changes slowly, the gradual increase allows mixing and buffering of surface layers by deep ocean sinks. Marine organisms also have time to adapt to the new environmental conditions. However, when CO2 increases abruptly, the acidification effects are intensified in shallow waters owing to a lack of mixing. It also gives marine life little time to adapt.

So rate of change is a key variable in nature's ability to adapt. The current rate of change in CO2 levels has no known precedent. Oceans don't respond instantly to a CO2 build-up, so the full effects of acidification take decades to centuries to develop. This means we will have irretrievably committed the Earth to the acidification process long before its effects become anywhere near as obvious as those of mass bleaching today. If we continue business-as-usual CO2 emissions, ocean pH will eventually drop to a point at which a host of other chemical changes such as anoxia (an absence of oxygen) are expected. If this happens, the state of the oceans at the end Cretaceous 65 million years ago will become a reality and the Earth will enter the sixth mass extinction.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Trolling Blunder,
> ...







What was that about biased sources?  Oh that's right you guys get to use biased sources and we do not.  You give no rerasonable reason you just "feel" it should be that way I guess.  Well your source is a well known warmist organization so I will counter with a group that for the most part is neutral.

Of Mammals and Mass Extinctions - Scitizen

Shock of shocks, the paleontological record is pretty inconclusive on the causes of the purported extinction not to mention the upcomming extincion event (whenever that occurs).
Yet more frighten the native bs that is no longer working...try again blunder.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> One thing common to all the extinction events was a rapid buildup of GHGs.
> 
> Earth's five mass extinction events
> 
> ...






Yet again you venture into my realm for the customary upbraid.  So here goes, first off the first extinction event is not the Ordovician/Silurian extinction in point of fact the first is the Pre Cambrian Cambrian energy crisis that caused the development of hard parts in creatures around the globe at approximately 600 -570 million years ago.  Before that all creatures were jellylike.  No one has a clue what percentage of life went extinct at that time.

Now here is a more comprehensive (and more to the point a NON-BIASED viewpoint.  Unlike the extraordinarily bised Skeptic article, BTW did you know the editor of that particular magazine is pissed off that people are no longer renewing their subscriptions because they are tired of his incredibly biased reporting?  No I didn't think you would know that, or report it more to the point) review of the 5 agreed upon (though they do report that there may be up to 20 mass extinction events depending on whos definition you use....and more to the point LACK of CO2 seems to be more of a problem,   The rest of his opinion is just plain stupid and untrue.

Mass extinction - New World Encyclopedia

Here is a selection with the pertinant section in bold...

Ordovician-Silurian extinction
The Ordovician-Silurian extinction (about 444 mya), which may have comprised several closely spaced events, was the second largest of the five major extinction events in Earth history in terms of percentage of genera that went extinct. (The only larger one was the Permian-Triassic extinction (about 251 mya).)

The End Ordovician extinctions occurred approximately 447 to 444 million years ago and mark the boundary between the Ordovician period and the following Silurian period. During this extinction event, there were several marked changes in the isotopic ratios of the biologically responsive elements carbon and oxygen. These changes in the isotopic ratios may indicate distinct events or particular phases within one event. At that time, all complex multicellular organisms lived in the sea, and of them, about 100 marine families covering about 49 percent of genera (a more reliable estimate than species) of fauna became extinct (Rohde 2005). The bi-valve brachiopods and the tiny, colonial bryozoans were decimated, along with many of the families of trilobites, conodonts, and graptolites (small, marine colonial animals).

The most commonly accepted theory is that they were triggered by the onset of a long ice age, perhaps the most severe glacial age of the Phanerozoic eon, which ended the long, stable greenhouse conditions typical of the Ordovician period. *The event was preceded by a fall in atmospheric CO2*, which selectively affected the shallow seas where most organisms lived.   As the southern supercontinent Gondwana drifted over the South Pole, ice caps formed on it. Evidence of these has been detected in late Ordovician rock strata of North Africa and then-adjacent northeastern South America, which were south-polar locations at the time. Glaciation locks up water from the oceans, and the interglacials free it, causing sea levels repeatedly to drop and rise. During the glaciation, the vast shallow intra-continental Ordovician seas withdrew, which eliminated many ecological niches, then returned carrying diminished founder populations lacking many whole families of organisms, then withdrew again with the next pulse of glaciation, eliminating biological diversity at each change (Emiliani 1992).

The shifting in and out of glaciation stages incurred a shift in the location of bottom water formation&#8212;from low latitudes, characteristic of greenhouse conditions, to high latitudes, characteristic of icehouse conditions, which was accompanied by increased deep-ocean currents and oxygenation of the bottom water. An opportunistic fauna briefly thrived there, before anoxic conditions returned. The breakdown in the oceanic circulation patterns brought up nutrients from the abyssal waters. Surviving species were those that coped with the changed conditions and filled the ecological niches left by the extinctions.

The end of the second event occurred when melting glaciers caused the sea level to rise and stabilize once more.

Scientists from the University of Kansas and NASA have suggested that the initial extinctions could have been caused by a gamma ray burst originating from an exploding star within 6,000 light years of Earth (within a nearby arm of the Milky Way Galaxy). A ten-second burst would have stripped the Earth's atmosphere of half of its ozone almost immediately, causing surface-dwelling organisms, including those responsible for planetary photosynthesis, to be exposed to high levels of ultraviolet radiation. This would have killed many species and caused a drop in temperatures. While plausible, there is no unambiguous evidence that such a nearby gamma ray burst has ever actually occurred.

The rebound of life's diversity with the permanent re-flooding of continental shelves at the onset of the Silurian saw increased biodiversity within the surviving orders.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2010)

And this is an example of a balanced viewpoint on global warming.  They report the data and make no attempt at a political statement, instead choosing to present both sides of an argument with corresponding avenues for further research.  How refreshing.  Like science is supposed to be.


Greenhouse effect - New World Encyclopedia


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2010)

old fraud wrote

 "So rate of change is a key variable in nature's ability to adapt. The current rate of change in CO2 levels has no known precedent. Oceans don't respond instantly to a CO2 build-up, so the full effects of acidification take decades to centuries to develop"

This pure unadulterated horse crap.  The oceans have zero problem adapting to anything in the atmosphere, and furthermore the "acidification" nonsense has been proven false many times so quit trotting that old mule out...he's too tired.

My gosh your lack of understanding is prodigious.  You have to really work at this to be this ignorant.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (May 31, 2010)

> The oceans have zero problem adapting to anything in the atmosphere



What does that statement even mean?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 31, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> > The oceans have zero problem adapting to anything in the atmosphere
> 
> 
> 
> What does that statement even mean?



Ol' walleyed is a troll so it really doesn't mean anything. He just makes up his drivel on the fly off the top of his head and hopes everyone else is as ignorant as he is and won't notice what asinine nonsense he posts. He is a pathetic tool of the fossil fuel industry and lower than a wart on a toad's asshole.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 31, 2010)

No need to insult toads, or even warts.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> > The oceans have zero problem adapting to anything in the atmosphere
> 
> 
> 
> What does that statement even mean?






Welcome back, who'd you piss off?  And the statement means exactly what it says.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> SpidermanTuba said:
> 
> 
> > > The oceans have zero problem adapting to anything in the atmosphere
> ...







Coming from you this is a high compliment thanks!


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> No need to insult toads, or even warts.






I agree warty toads are some of my best friends!


----------



## gslack (Jun 1, 2010)

Just a reminder... The thread title is; "Arctic sea ice melting toward record"..

The article the OP linked to actually said "could be" and possibly and things like that. Contradicting the claims of the title. I pointed this out and then in the attempts at posting the same claims by other sources, i did the same thing.. proving categorically this is a deliberate misleading claim to serve an agenda and act as a PR piece.

So what do you think the warmers try and do? They try and bury the thread in a mountain of the same already proven exaggerated claims from multiple sources all saying the exact same or similar things.. None of it anymore substantial than the original OP and none of it any more factual or accurate.

Got news for all of you clowns... The little white speck on chicken shit is chicken shit too.. Exaggerated and misleading claims, whether they come from the NOAA or the Huffington post, are still exaggerated and misleading claims...And all the reposting and attempts at confounding the topic will not change this fact.

You trolls think you can manufacture truth or consent by shouting down opposition or burying it under mountains of nonsense. Well got news for ya.. All the people who tried that in the past, eventually got busted. And your side has been busted. Your side is done on this now, even they know it... Their next hope is to ride on the oil spill and vilify oil drilling enough and dupe people into believing cap and trade will harm the oil companies.....

LOL, and you fucking tools will change your belief in CO2 as the culprit and start the "it doesn't matter" mantra.  Just like it went from warming to climate change, and al gore went from the savior to the hypocrite who isn't a scientist, you will claim it doesn't matter if the planet isn't warming because oil is evil and the only way to stop them is to make it too expensive for them to do it...

Well better wake up tools... THe fact is some of the largest investors in cap and trade are the oil companies. And why not? They will be able to create a problem, either real or imagined, and then they can charge for the product and then make money from the cap and trade markets  al gore helped create and invests in and get their money back for the problems their product caused. Its a win, win....

But hey you go right on ahead and be as ignorant as you want to be....LOL


----------



## dab11999 (Jun 1, 2010)

So, what exactly do you say to someone who is standing on the tracks and you've just told them a train is coming and they are giving you the finger for being a bagger whatever that really is?
Of course, the other non-baggers, whatever those are, will simply blame you for not saving him in more timely manner by providing irrefutable proof that the train existed beyond all reasonable doubt without his actually having to turn around and look for himself.
I like the way the Bible puts it; Let those who are foolish, be foolish still.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 1, 2010)

gslack said:


> Just a reminder... The thread title is; "Arctic sea ice melting toward record"..



Quite true, and it is indeed melting towards a new record low. Thanks for the reminder, troll.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2010)

Lots more arctic ice than you boys have been reporting.  Data courtesy of the US Navy and collated by Watts up with that.  Of course if he touched it it must be bad but the Navy HAS to know how thick the ice is for its boomers.....unlike the AGW folks who go up and freeze their toucases off in an effort to show the ice is gone...not!


Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008 | Watts Up With That?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 1, 2010)

westwall said:


> Lots more arctic ice than you boys have been reporting.  Data courtesy of the US Navy and collated by Watts up with that.  Of course if he touched it it must be bad but the Navy HAS to know how thick the ice is for its boomers.....unlike the AGW folks who go up and freeze their toucases off in an effort to show the ice is gone...not!
> 
> 
> Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008 | Watts Up With That?



LOLOLOL....so the paranoid conspiracy theory du jour on dingbat denier cult blogs is 'secret data', eh? More ice than is being reported? LOL. Jeez, you're gullible, walleyed.

*Arctic Sea Ice Extent & Volume at Record Lows for the Date*
Submitted by Nick Sundt on Sat, 05/29/2010 - 09:44

On 28 May, the extent of Arctic sea ice dropped to a record low for the date of 11,162,188 km2, surpassing the previous record low of 11,199,844 km2 set on 28 May 2006.  Since reaching a seasonal maximum of approximately 14,407,344 km2 on 31 March, the extent of sea ice has fallen a staggering 3,245,156 km2 or 2,016,446 square miles.  That is an area roughly half the size of the entire United States (including Alaska) and represents a decline of roughly 55,950 km2 per day (34,766 square miles per day). While the extent of Arctic sea ice normally declines during the "melt season" that typically begins in March and continues into September, the decline is unusually rapid for this time of year.

Meanwhile, the sea ice volume for the date is at a record low, falling 9-10,000 km3 below the average (1979-2009) values for the date.  That volume, greater than that of Lakes Michigan and Huron combined (8,260 km3 or 1,980 cu mi), is the largest negative anomaly on record (i.e. for all dates since 1979).

In addition to being a very large  volume in absolute terms, the volume also is large relative to the total volume of Arctic sea ice.  According to a model developed by the  University of Washington's Polar Science Laboratory (PSL), the average Arctic sea ice volume in late May averaged around 26,000 km3 during the 1979-2009 period. The current negative anomaly in ice volume therefore represents a loss of around one third of the average sea ice volume.

    * © 2010 World Wildlife Fund

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lots more arctic ice than you boys have been reporting.  Data courtesy of the US Navy and collated by Watts up with that.  Of course if he touched it it must be bad but the Navy HAS to know how thick the ice is for its boomers.....unlike the AGW folks who go up and freeze their toucases off in an effort to show the ice is gone...not!
> ...






Now what was that argument you said about biased sources there blunder.  Seems to me the WWF is one of THE most biased and untruthful organizations out there...seems to me if I remember correctly some of their claims got into a certain IPCC report and were proven to be complete BS.  GREAT SOURCE DOOD!


----------



## gslack (Jun 1, 2010)

LOL so the troll does exactly what I said he would do... he doesn't try and argue the merits of the OP or any of the subsequent nonsense he or anyone else puts up. He just posts more nonsense....

THanks for helping me to out you fake...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2010)

westwall said:


> And this is an example of a balanced viewpoint on global warming.  They report the data and make no attempt at a political statement, instead choosing to present both sides of an argument with corresponding avenues for further research.  How refreshing.  Like science is supposed to be.
> 
> 
> Greenhouse effect - New World Encyclopedia



Positive feedback and runaway greenhouse effect
When there is a loop of effects, such as the concentration of a greenhouse gas itself being a function of temperature, there is a feedback. If the effect is to act in the same direction on temperature, it is a positive feedback, and if in the opposite direction it is a negative feedback. Sometimes feedback effects can be on the same cause as the forcing but it can also be via another greenhouse gas or on other effects, such as change in ice cover affecting the planet's albedo.

Positive feedbacks do not have to lead to a runaway effect. With radiation from the Earth increasing in proportion to the fourth power of temperature, the feedback effect has to be very strong to cause a runaway effect. An increase in temperature from greenhouse gases leading to increased water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas, causing further warming is a positive feedback (Terradaily 2006). This cannot be a runaway effect or the runaway effect would have occurred long ago. Positive feedback effects are common and can always exist while runaway effects are much rarer and cannot be operating at all times.

If the effects from the second iteration of the loop of effects is larger than the effects of the first iteration of the loop this will lead to a self perpetuating effect. If this occurs and the feedback only ends after producing a major temperature increase, it is called a runaway greenhouse effect. A runaway feedback could also occur in the opposite direction leading to an ice age. Runaway feedbacks are bound to stop, since infinite temperatures are not observed. They are allowed to stop due to things like a reducing supply of a greenhouse gas, or a phase change of the gas, or ice cover reducing towards zero or increasing toward a large size that is difficult to increase.

The runaway greenhouse effect could also be caused by liberation of methane gas from hydrates by global warming if there are sufficient hydrates close to unstable conditions. It has been speculated that the PermianTriassic extinction event was caused by such a runaway effect (Racki and Wignall 2005). It is also thought that larger area of heat absorbing black soil could be exposed as the permafrost retreats and large quantities of methane could be released from the Siberian tundra as it begins to thaw (Pearce 2006), methane being 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (Miller 2000).


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2010)

westwall said:


> Lots more arctic ice than you boys have been reporting.  Data courtesy of the US Navy and collated by Watts up with that.  Of course if he touched it it must be bad but the Navy HAS to know how thick the ice is for its boomers.....unlike the AGW folks who go up and freeze their toucases off in an effort to show the ice is gone...not!
> 
> 
> Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008 | Watts Up With That?



So who are we to trust. The people at the University of Washington, or an undegreeded ex-weatherman that has been caught repeatedly lying?


----------



## gslack (Jun 1, 2010)

BLah BLAH BLAH!

Doomed I say Doomed!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 1, 2010)

gslack said:


> BLah BLAH BLAH!
> 
> Doomed I say Doomed!



I assume you're talking about your last few remaining brain cells.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lots more arctic ice than you boys have been reporting.  Data courtesy of the US Navy and collated by Watts up with that.  Of course if he touched it it must be bad but the Navy HAS to know how thick the ice is for its boomers.....unlike the AGW folks who go up and freeze their toucases off in an effort to show the ice is gone...not!
> ...






When he is publishing information from reputable sources you have to go with him.  Especially in light of the fact that at least he is not under a criminal investigation....unlike one of the leading lights of the AGW movement.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > And this is an example of a balanced viewpoint on global warming.  They report the data and make no attempt at a political statement, instead choosing to present both sides of an argument with corresponding avenues for further research.  How refreshing.  Like science is supposed to be.
> ...








Jeez old fraud, same poop different day.  The operative word in that whole post is "could".
So far their coulds havn't ina any way at all.  They have been trying to frighten people with "coulds" and "possibly's" and "mights" and "suggests" for two frikin decades now......and so far they have had no joy.  This is how dodgy dealers on ebay evade fraud charges.  They say this "might" be a Van Gogh worth millions and after you pay several hundred thousand for it and find out it's not you can't go after the scammer....This is well known bunco artist lingo.

Give it a rest.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > BLah BLAH BLAH!
> ...






You have an untouchable lead in that race Blunder.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 1, 2010)

westwall said:


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




Why wouldn't you just go directly to those "reputable sources" themselves, instead of reading the filter put on them by someone who never even finished college?


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


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





The last I looked the sources are unfiltered, the way they should be...not cut and pasted to remove the parts that conflict with your agenda like old fraud and others have done.

College football huh?  I notice the tag has disappeared....why is that if it was truly nothing?


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 1, 2010)

westwall said:


> College football huh?  I notice the tag has disappeared....why is that if it was truly nothing?



It was an old tag that showed up after the admins deleted my current profile.

USC was California St football champs in 2003
LSU was national champs


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Lots more arctic ice than you boys have been reporting.  Data courtesy of the US Navy and collated by Watts up with that.  Of course if he touched it it must be bad but the Navy HAS to know how thick the ice is for its boomers.....unlike the AGW folks who go up and freeze their toucases off in an effort to show the ice is gone...not!
> ...


Start over.  From scratch.  All new untainted scientists, universities and organizations.  Test the tools to make sure they are not out of calibration from misleading environmental effects like what's found on most surface stations in the US.

Till they produce proof of global warming that is repeatable and testable by independent sources from them, it does not exist and no legislation or policy need be drafted or discussed.

That's all you have to do.  Open, transparent, repeatable, and all new.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 1, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


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



*The science is open right now. There are a great many sources that have the same data for the increase in the CO2. The absorbtion spectra of CO2 and the other GHGs has been known for 150 years.

And why does it have to be all new? Are you suggesting that we repeat all the drilling in Greenland, Antarctica, and the alpine glaciers? Are you suggesting that we throw out all the data on the Arctic Ice decline for the last 30 years? 

No, we are not going to play that game. The data and observations stand. *


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






Virtually none of this is true.  The warmists have completely corrupted the peer review methodology and have destroyed whatever credibility they may have had.  None of the current crop of "climatology scientists" has a whiff of credibility and more to the point they will never get it again.  They screwed the pooch in a big way and the best thing they could do to help the science of climatology, and all science for that matter, is to resign and creep off to a homeless shelter where they could volunteer their services.

Keep the raw data and throw out the rest.  Keep the core samples (obviously, we're not talking scorched earth have some sense about it) but redo the interpretations that were done by the disgraced scientists...heck do them all over again.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 1, 2010)

> I see. Just do nothing for at least another decade or two. And when the inevitable disaster is upon us, blame it on whatever liberal happens to be around at the moment.



There is no current proof of an imminent disaster.  There are only your liars and fearmongers trying to push through fascism saying there is.  This is not science, this is bullying.


----------



## SpidermanTuba (Jun 1, 2010)

Big Fitz said:


> > I see. Just do nothing for at least another decade or two. And when the inevitable disaster is upon us, blame it on whatever liberal happens to be around at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no current proof of an imminent disaster.  There are only your liars and fearmongers trying to push through fascism saying there is.  This is not science, this is bullying.



I sincerely hope that in all aspects of your life you wait for 100% proof of imminent disaster before taking any action to prevent it.


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > I see. Just do nothing for at least another decade or two. And when the inevitable disaster is upon us, blame it on whatever liberal happens to be around at the moment.
> ...






Toober,

Even the most draconian of the warmists plans would lower the temperature by half a degree in 100 years time.  Statistically that is insignificant.  More to the point they agree with that figure.  And that is assuming that the CO2 theory is correct (which currently it ain't lookin to good regardless of how vehemently konradv supports it) and all of that for the priviledge of filling the Gorites pockets with our cash and greatly affecting our standard of living...but not the Goreites mind you, they will be living high on the hog with your money.

Being an adult means that sometimes you have to wait and gather more evidence because sometimes (MTBE as an example) the cure is worse than the disease.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 1, 2010)

SpidermanTuba said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > I see. Just do nothing for at least another decade or two. And when the inevitable disaster is upon us, blame it on whatever liberal happens to be around at the moment.
> ...


Show me the proof.  Allow it to be retested and checked by an independent agency that is not involved in your precious 'peer review' club of cargo cultists and make sure your math is right.  Present all the raw data.  

I'm not going to be willing to go off on some half-assed abdication of my civil and human rights just so you can stop wearing your tinfoil hat spuddytumor.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 2, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *The science is open right now. .... *


  You *finally* said something sensible.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

westwall said:


> Even the most draconian of the warmists plans would lower the temperature by half a degree in 100 years time.  Statistically that is insignificant.  More to the point they agree with that figure.  And that is assuming that the CO2 theory is correct (which currently it ain't lookin to good regardless of how vehemently konradv supports it) and all of that for the priviledge of filling the Gorites pockets with our cash and greatly affecting our standard of living...but not the Goreites mind you, they will be living high on the hog with your money.
> 
> Being an adult means that sometimes you have to wait and gather more evidence because sometimes (MTBE as an example) the cure is worse than the disease.



You have no understanding of this subject at all so these figures you pull out of your ass are inevitably just raw bullshit. You're just another kooky cultist trying to deny the reality that the rest of the world recognizes. You have no scientific backing for your position because all of your arguments are politically based.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Even the most draconian of the warmists plans would lower the temperature by half a degree in 100 years time.  Statistically that is insignificant.  More to the point they agree with that figure.  And that is assuming that the CO2 theory is correct (which currently it ain't lookin to good regardless of how vehemently konradv supports it) and all of that for the priviledge of filling the Gorites pockets with our cash and greatly affecting our standard of living...but not the Goreites mind you, they will be living high on the hog with your money.
> ...


Here's a dose of reality:  The state of the science does not allow for any reasonable conclusion about the magnitude of impact and significance of anthropogenic CO2 on the Earth's temperature and ancillary effects.


----------



## konradv (Jun 3, 2010)

Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Only if we accept your concept of reasonableness.  The fact that you say we can't make conclusions about what would happen if CO2 and the other greenhouse gases keep going up, despite the fact that we emit more in a day than the earth's volcanoes do in a year, flies in the face of any sort of reasonable scientific inquiry that I know of.  Are you planning to get the Laws of Chemistry and Physics repealed?!?!  That's the only way.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2010)

Si modo said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Interesting point that you have there. We have consistantly underestimated the impact in the last two decades. The melt of the North Polar Cap, the wasting of the Alpine Glaciers, and the melting observed in the Greenland and Anartic Ice Caps all exceed what were thought to be alarmist projections only ten years ago.

The outgassing of the Arctic Ocean Clathrates have been a very unpleasant surprise, as has the extent of the production of CO2 and CH4 by the permafrost.

A23A

You are correct. The state of the science is such that we still are underestimating the speed and magnitude of the effects of AGW.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


Only, *I* said that the state of the science does not allow for any reasonable conclusion about the magnitude of impact and significance of anthropogenic CO2 on the Earth's temperature and ancillary effects.

It's called reading comprehension.  Give it a try sometime.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2010)

Your first, old gal. You are stateing that the people at the AGU convention know nothing about which they speak. In fact, all you ever do is try to create doubt about other real scientists.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Your first, old gal. You are stateing that the people at the AGU convention know nothing about which they speak. ....


Really?  Surely you can show where I have said that.  Go for it.



> ....  In fact, all you ever do is try to create doubt about other real scientists.


Nah.  I just tell it like it is.  The state of the science does not allow for any conclusion about the magnitude of effect and significance of anthropogenic CO2 on global temperatures and any ancillary effects.

I would apologize for not being a true believer as you are, but when talking science I prefer applying the logic of scientific discovery.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2010)

And, of course, no one at the National Academy of Sciences is capable of doing that, correct?

ACC Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change

Advancing the Science of Climate Change

A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems, concludes this panel report from the America's Climate Choices suite of studies. As decision makers respond to these risks, the nation's scientific enterprise can contribute both by continuing to improve understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change, and by improving and expanding the options available to limit the magnitude of climate change and adapt to its impacts. To make this possible, the nation needs a comprehensive, integrated, and flexible climate change research enterprise that is closely linked with action-oriented programs at all levels.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> And, of course, no one at the National Academy of Sciences is capable of doing that, correct?
> 
> ACC Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change
> 
> ...



And, apparently, you think the panel is composed of nothing but scientists, right?



You also seem to think that is peer-reviewed work.

See, there is a reason we use peer-review in science.  This way, we prevent science from being soiled by politics as much as is reasonably possible. 

Wanna play some more at science, Rocks?  You soil it.  You, and those like you, are its enemies.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2010)

Dr. Hansen and 97% of the climatologists in the world also soil the science, right? The scientists of that are members of the AGU and GSA also soil science? 

Old gal, you are a real fruitcake.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Dr. Hansen and 97% of the climatologists in the world also soil the science, right? The scientists of that are members of the AGU and GSA also soil science?
> 
> Old gal, you are a real fruitcake.


What part of peer-review has you so confused, exactly?

Again, peer-review keeps politics out of science asmuch as is possible.

You keep bringing it in.

You soil the science by doing so.

You are an enemy of science.


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> And, of course, no one at the National Academy of Sciences is capable of doing that, correct?
> 
> ACC Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change
> 
> ...



BULLSHIT!!!!!

_"A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring,_ 

no shit climate is always changing tool....

_is caused largely by human activities,_

BUlLSHIT!!! Prove it.....


_and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems, concludes this panel report from the America's Climate Choices suite of studies."_

Really? prove that too then.....

You are a tool and a proven and documented lar and shameless propagandist.... So anything you claim is suspect....


----------



## Si modo (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > And, of course, no one at the National Academy of Sciences is capable of doing that, correct?
> ...



Here's the thing.  Nothing in science is proven, rather falsifiable theories/hypotheses which are supported with repeatable experiments, physical data, and physical observations stands until falsified.

And, those theories/hypotheses are reviewed by scienctists and only scientists.  When reviewed by politicians also, they lose any credibility as scientific theories/hypotheses.

Simple and all part of the logic of scientific discovery.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2010)

What a line of bullshit! Because a politician looks at a scientific theory, and states "I see consequences that need to be addressed", that scientific theory is invalidated?

Damn, you are waxing really, really stupid to support you misguieded ideological beliefs. Diving off into the denial of reality.


----------



## Si modo (Jun 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> What a line of bullshit! Because a politician looks at a scientific theory, and states "I see consequences that need to be addressed", that scientific theory is invalidated?
> 
> Damn, you are waxing really, really stupid to support you misguieded ideological beliefs. Diving off into the denial of reality.


Are you dense or what?

One more time:  The theory/hypothesis MUST be both falsifiable AND supported by physical observations and experiments.  Peer-review rules on the soundness of methods and logic of the science.  Politicians do not, except for you.

It's humorous that you call the logic of scientific discovery bullshit.  This is exactly what I mean by your inability to get out of the starting gate in these discussions.  You call the most simple basics bullshit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2010)

Well, old gal, it has been nice talking to you, but I have things that I must do.


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists say Arctic sea ice melting toward record
> ...



My response to the OP writers claims... I think it best if the warmer trolls are going to try this bringing up old threads to get the last word and hide the truth tactic, I should make sure the truth in the thread is reposted as well.


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






What a lying sack of horse poo you are old fraud.  The AGW cultists have CONSISTENTLY OVERESTIMATED ALL EFFECTS..which is why they have a hit rate of about .010 over the last thirty years.  Go back to the first Earth Day and see the predictions they made then and compare to what is happening now.....they didn't get a single thing correct.  Great job!


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, old gal, it has been nice talking to you, but I have things that I must do.






Good!  Please, please, please don't come back.  We need intelligent conversations here not Monty Python argument clinic nonsense from the likes of you.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 3, 2010)

On the other hand, the report from NSIDC looks pretty darn normal for the Arctic and I'm not seeing much alarm there:



> During April, Arctic sea ice extent declined at a steady pace, remaining just below the 1979 to 2000 average. Ice extent for April 2010 was the largest for that month in the past decade. At the same time, changing wind patterns have caused older, thicker ice to move south along Greenlands east coast, where it will likely melt during the summer. Temperatures in the Arctic remained above average.
> 
> Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for April 2010 was 14.69 million square kilometers (5.67 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data.
> Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Yes, they found the WWF was getting payoffs from the polar bears to distort the science.......LOLOLOLOLOL. You are such a loon, walleyed. 

I notice that you are unable to dispute the data and numbers in that article on sea ice extents and volumes. And I mean 'dispute' by offering scientific evidence to the contrary. You can't because there isn't any. All you've got is your nutso denier cult dogmas and myths.





westwall said:


> ..seems to me if I remember correctly some of their claims got into a certain IPCC report and were proven to be complete BS.  GREAT SOURCE DOOD!


I know that you anti-science denier cultists love to denigrate all real science and reputable scientists but that is because your whole propaganda effort depends on confusing people about the reality of the scientific evidence and conclusions regarding anthropogenic global warming/climate change. In the real world the World Wildlife Fund is a well respected scientific research organization that produces a lot of sound science about the environment. A couple of things from their reports were improperly cited or referenced in the IPCC report. 

One of them was a claim that the Amazon Rain Forrest is sensitive to droughts. Turns out that the claim is quite correct. The IPCC has been criticized for using the WWF as a source but that turns out to be a sort of clerical error. They were supposed to cite the original sources that the WWF report used, instead of just citing the WWF.

*The IPCC got the science right about drought and fire threats to Amazon, but got its citations wrong*

Union of Concerned Scientists

A sentence in Chapter 13 of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability states: "Up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation."

In other words, global warming may be putting the Amazon basin at risk of more frequent and severe droughts. In drought years, trees are more likely to die and forests become more susceptible to fires. In wet years, fires often stop at the forests' edge because the forest soil is so moist.

The passage cites a report from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), an organization that includes more than 1,000 government and NGO member organizations, and nearly 11,000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries. (News stories have inaccurately described the report as a sole product of WWF.)

It would have been preferable for the IPCC to have cited the original scientific peer-reviewed literature rather than the WWF-IUCN report. Further, the WWF-IUCN report was scientifically correct, but it did not cite the correct papers by Dan Nepstad, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center on Cape Cod, and his colleagues.

John Cook, the editor of SkepticalScience.com, summarized the citation error in the WWF-IUCU report:

"The WWF correctly states that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998 -- this figure comes from Nepstad et al. 1999. However, the 40 percent figure comes from several other papers by the same author that the WWF failed to cite. A 1994 paper estimated that around half of the Amazonian forests lost large portions of their available soil moisture during drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). In 2004, new rainfall data showed that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die (Nepstad et al. 2004). The results from these papers are consistent with the original statement: 'Up to 40 percent of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.'"

It is also worth noting that Nepstad and other researchers further confirmed the link between drought and fire in papers published after the IPCC's deadline for research that could be included in this section of its 2007 report.

Cook continues:

"Subsequent research has provided additional confirmation of the Amazonian forest's vulnerability to drought. Field measurements of the soil moisture critical threshold found that tree mortality rates increase dramatically during drought (Nepstad et al. 2007). Another study measured the effect of the intense 2005 drought on Amazonian biomass (Phillips et al. 2009). The drought caused massive tree mortality leading to a fall in biomass. This turned the region from a large carbon sink to a carbon producer. The paper concluded that 'such events appear capable of strongly altering the regional carbon balance and thereby accelerating climate change.'"

While the IPCC should have cited the original peer-reviewed literature, not a summary of that literature by WWF and IUCN, the basic science was sound. And regardless of how the IPCC cited the references, tropical forests are increasingly vulnerable to drought and fire because of climate change as well as from forest degradation from destructive logging practices. 

©2010 Union of Concerned Scientists

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 3, 2010)

So RollingThunder.  You're one of those who honestly believes the "Union of Concerned Scientists" is a more credible source on this stuff than NSIDC?


----------



## Si modo (Jun 3, 2010)

I was asked to join the Union of Concerned Scientists one time.  I looked into them and decided no fucking way did I want to be associated with them.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 3, 2010)

Si modo said:


> I was asked to join the Union of Concerned Scientists one time.  I looked into them and decided no fucking way did I want to be associated with them.



They do some good stuff.  But my geologist friend, physicist friend, and one who does science in a discipline I can never remember say they are far more political than scientific and sometimes border on unethical in data they use.  So far as we know, they have never been known to take anything other than the leftwing position on anything.  The fact that Sourcewatch and its sister organizations think UCS is just wonderful says to me that they bear watching.


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






Yeah right blunder...these clowns have their heads so far up the ass of the IPCC they can only see brown.  A REAL credible source you quote ther.  I don't need to counter what they say...it has been proven false by three others on this board other than me so why waste time.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

Si modo said:


> I was asked to join the Union of Concerned Scientists one time.  I looked into them and decided no fucking way did I want to be associated with them.




LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.......ROTFLMFAO...you're really funny, in a very retarded sort of way.

The UCS doesn't invite hamburger flippers like you to join, douche-bag. Nice try but you've long since revealed yourself to be an ignorant moron with no knowledge of science.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> So RollingThunder.  You're one of those who honestly believes the "Union of Concerned Scientists" is a more credible source on this stuff than NSIDC?



Wow, you're really, really confused. I never said that. I consider the NSIDC to be an excellent source of valid information. So is the UCS, although their focus is not exclusively on the Arctic like the NSIDC. They are not in conflict with one another.

So tell me, do you see more sea ice in the Arctic now than in 1979 or just the opposite?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > So RollingThunder.  You're one of those who honestly believes the "Union of Concerned Scientists" is a more credible source on this stuff than NSIDC?
> ...



Looks like it spread out more over the years.

Cool image. Is there something like that for the Antarctic?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Well, actually it looks like it shrank quite a bit "over the years". But then you've already demonstrated that you have a lot of trouble comprehending what you see or read.


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

hey chris's sock can we see the rest of the pics in between those years now?

yeah ya posted the chain before and got embarrassed by it didn't ya douchebag.... What happened? Care to explain why you cut out the rest of the pics this time?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Northern Russia to the north about 300-400 miles, there is no ice and again some parts of Northern Canada has less ice today, but see how much wide spread the thick ice is with the "darker color" of purple in areas that has ice. Meaning a larger percentage of the ice on those maps to ice ratio is thicker then 1979 by my estimates about 2x times the area. Do you agree?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> hey chris's sock can we see the rest of the pics in between those years now?


hey satan's diarrhea you can see all the pics you want if you're smart enough to know how to use the internet. But that's not very likely, is it? 





gslack said:


> yeah ya posted the chain before and got embarrassed by it didn't ya douchebag.... What happened? Care to explain why you cut out the rest of the pics this time?


No, you're confusing me with that uncle who molested you with a sock on his hand when you were a kid. Your delusions are getting more intense. Seek professional help.


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > hey chris's sock can we see the rest of the pics in between those years now?
> ...



LINK?

LOL you get busted and your excuse is what? Oh i see now more postulating and nonsense...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 3, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



"Busted"??? LOLOLOLOL. You have a strange little imaginary world you live in, gtard.


----------



## gslack (Jun 3, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



i see what your problem is now.... you are getting that aching feeling like oldsocks has these days... That feeling that you been had, and despite that feeling you keep repeating the mantra because its all you know.... Sorry man, best to let old instances of ignorance go  lest they become the groundwork for the next batch of blind faith...


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2010)

Blunder/old fraud has come unhinged it looks like to me.  He insults like a 6 year old, he posts info from known fraudsters and expects sane people to believe it.  He has definately gone off the plot.  It's sad to see someone lose control this way.  All the negative info about the collapse of his religion has obviously negatively affected him.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 4, 2010)

westwall said:


> Blunder/old fraud has come unhinged it looks like to me.  He insults like a 6 year old, he posts info from known fraudsters and expects sane people to believe it.  He has definately gone off the plot.  It's sad to see someone lose control this way.  All the negative info about the collapse of his religion has obviously negatively affected him.



What is really funny is watching you denier cultists spew your worthless blather and pretend that you're smarter than the entire world scientific community when actually you're obviously ignorant, moronic rightwingnut yokels with your heads up Rush's ass.


----------



## gslack (Jun 4, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Blunder/old fraud has come unhinged it looks like to me.  He insults like a 6 year old, he posts info from known fraudsters and expects sane people to believe it.  He has definately gone off the plot.  It's sad to see someone lose control this way.  All the negative info about the collapse of his religion has obviously negatively affected him.
> ...



Dude you keep calling us denier cultists...

okay tool what cult are we in? Were do we meet? We don't post alike, we don't repeat one anothers assertions, and none of posts from the same 2-3 scripted lists... But you and your sock/troll army do all of those things...

You post and when you get nailed oldsocks shows up, he gets nailed and you show up, and both of you on cue... You post from the same sources, you use the same arguments, the only difference is your a bigger idiot than he is.... oh and lets not forget you both seem to have multitudes of "new" or "newish" posters who somehow find your threads in this mass of a board right away and not only comment but attack those who oppose you right off...

If there is any cult around here you guys are in it....


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 4, 2010)

*Two very informative sites concerning Arctic Ice. Of course, anyone with a brain could have simply googled arctic ice, and came up with these sites.*

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today


----------



## gslack (Jun 4, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> *Two very informative sites concerning Arctic Ice. Of course, anyone with a brain could have simply googled arctic ice, and came up with these sites.*
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
> 
> Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today



Nice try doucehbag, can't change an entire thread with a couple links tool....


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2010)

Yes old fraud the NSIDC has some interesting information if you choose to read it.  Of course they are still using the GISS data for Canada that is based on that single weather station based in that town so that it could maximise the Urban Island Effect, but other than that they say this

"The very late maximum ice extent, on March 31, means that the melt season started almost a month later later than normal.

As we noted in last month's post, the late growth in ice extent came largely from expansion in the southernmost Bering Sea, Barents Sea, and Sea of Okhotsk. These areas remained cool, with northeasterly and northwesterly winds, keeping the overall ice extent close to the average for the month of April."

So riddle me this batman...if the temps are so much warmer (very much in doubt based on the source of their temperature data) in the Arctic, why did the melting begin so much later than the previous year?  Also if it so much warmer why is the ice near average for the month of April?

These are basic questions that should give anyone pause.  The figures don't add up if you believe the GISS data.  On the other hand if you ignore the GISS data (which I now firmly do based on all of their protocol violations) then the NSIDC information makes perfect sense.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2010)

More bad news for the cargo cult:








> *The undeath spiral*
> 
> *Over the last three years, Arctic Ice has gained significantly in thickness.* The graph above was generated by image processing and analysis of PIPS maps, and shows the thickness histogram for June 1 of each year since 2007.
> 
> ...



The undeath spiral | Watts Up With That?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 4, 2010)

westwall said:


> Yes old fraud the NSIDC has some interesting information if you choose to read it.  Of course they are still using the GISS data for Canada that is based on that single weather station based in that town so that it could maximise the Urban Island Effect, but other than that they say this
> 
> "The very late maximum ice extent, on March 31, means that the melt season started almost a month later later than normal.
> 
> ...



It seems to me that "warmer than normal" does not necessarily translate into 'more melting'.  Sub freezing is still sub freezing even if the temperature is warmer.

And though I am no scientist, it seems quite logical to me that if some of the ice doesn't melt now and then at both poles, the ice caps would continue to expand until the Earth is just one giant ice ball.   And given the millions and millions of years of ebb and flow in climate change swinging back and forth between mostly tropical climates to ice ages, trying to establish a 'norm' using data from a half century of record keeping borders on the absurd.


----------



## theHawk (Jun 4, 2010)

Chris said:


> EVERYONE knows how much hotter it feels to wear a black T-shirt, rather than a white one, on a warm day.
> 
> In the same way, the melting of sea ice in the Arctic, revealing the dark water below, has been shown by Australian scientists to be the main cause of *unusually rapid warming *at the top of the world.
> 
> ...




What's so unusual about the warming?  That arctic ice sheet used to cover all of North America, its been melting for the last 15,000 years.


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes old fraud the NSIDC has some interesting information if you choose to read it.  Of course they are still using the GISS data for Canada that is based on that single weather station based in that town so that it could maximise the Urban Island Effect, but other than that they say this
> ...






Foxfyre you may not be a scientist but your observational skills are excellent.  As is your logic.  Everything you say is factually true.


----------



## theHawk (Jun 4, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes old fraud the NSIDC has some interesting information if you choose to read it.  Of course they are still using the GISS data for Canada that is based on that single weather station based in that town so that it could maximise the Urban Island Effect, but other than that they say this
> ...




Exactly.  You never hear these doom and gloom libs talk about past ice ages.  You'll never hear them mention the fact that our world has been much warmer, and much colder at many points in its history.  They claim to embrace scientific fact, but the truth is they ignore scientific facts that don't suit their political agenda.


----------



## gslack (Jun 4, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yes old fraud the NSIDC has some interesting information if you choose to read it.  Of course they are still using the GISS data for Canada that is based on that single weather station based in that town so that it could maximise the Urban Island Effect, but other than that they say this
> ...



BINGO!

I said a similar thing to oldsocks and his sock army before and they cried like babies over it...

1.4 degrees F rise out of a temp of  - 20+ degrees F is not going to change the levels of ice... And neither will a rise of 2 or more degrees either. At least not in the time frame they are claiming. ice ages take a long time to become ice ages. just as warming periods take a long time to warm. By their logic it happens in a hundred years or less...

Massive and rapid heat or cold changes on this planet do not happen because of an increase in some trace gases... They happen the same way they always happened, the Sun... GHG's do not cause warming, they amplify existing warming. The very nature of the word Greenhouse should tell them this...

if ya have a greenhouse is it warm in winter? No of course not... Is it warm in summer? Certainly.. The greenhouse amplifies the Sun and traps the radiant heat energy inside longer than an open structure. This same principle applies to GHG's. Take away the sun and what happens? no radiant energy to trap and no heat.... And again this applies to GHG's as well.

These retards forget the simple logic in favor for the "I'm saving the planet" rhetoric. With them Its not about science, in reality its about a ideology. An Idea that they can save the planet. it gives them power. They suddenly don't feel like an insignificant spec, but a being capable of saving an entire world. The entire concept that its not in need of saving, or that its not something they can actually do anything about anyway never enters into it....

Thats why no matter how many times their scientists are wrong, the predictions fail, the data is found faulty, their leaders lie to them, and no matter how many times the planet changes what its doing opposite their claims; they will still claim its in trouble and they are the ones to save it.....

it went from global cooling to global warming. Went from global warming to climate change. That alone should be enough to wake them up, but as you see it did nothing. They just cling on to the next claim and excuse and keep on marching.. All that is just semantics, they know they are destined for greatness, and no amount of truth will dissuade them...


----------



## Chris (Jun 4, 2010)

Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years 

Date: 04-Jun-2010

The shrinking amount of sea ice that covers the Arctic Ocean today is the smallest it has been in the last few thousand years, a new study suggests. 

The sea ice that normally covers huge swaths of the Arctic Ocean has been retreating and thinning over the last few decades, due to the amplified warming at the North Pole, which is a consequence of the buildup of greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere. 

The most dramatic sea-ice melt in recent years came in 2007, when sea-ice extent (or the area of ocean covered by the ice) dropped to its lowest level since 1979, when satellite measurements began. This event also opened up the fabled Northwest Passage. 

Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years | Science & Environment | Peacefmonline.com


----------



## Chris (Jun 5, 2010)

theHawk said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The only one with a political agenda is you.

The fact that we have almost doubled atmospheric CO2 in the last 200 years, and that this increase in greenhouse gases is warming the earth is irrefutable.

Unless you work for Tom Colburn the Senator from Big Oil....


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 5, 2010)

Chris said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



And yet the CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the mean temperatures have been warmer in the past and the Earth seemed to manage just fine.  Claimed proof that humankind contributed all or even a small fraction of any increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is certainly refutable.  Also any claimed proof that the anthropogenically produced CO2 is creating any significant or unmanageable 'issues' for humankind is also refutable.


----------



## jeffrockit (Jun 5, 2010)

Chris said:


> Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years
> 
> Date: 04-Jun-2010
> 
> ...



And yet with all the hysteria we get this
Pacific Islands Growing, Not Sinking


----------



## Chris (Jun 5, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years
> ...



Which has absolutely nothing to do with the thread.

But thanks for playing.


----------



## Chris (Jun 5, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,haaaa............

Oh, thanks for that. I needed a good laugh.

We are adding 10 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, and the Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 levels are the highest they have been in 600,000 years, which is as far back as the ice cores go.

Once again, thanks for the laugh...


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2010)

Chris said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...






So much for the "deniers" thinking they know everything.  Chris this statement is absolutely un-proveable.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2010)

Chris said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...






And Chris you seem to keep forgetting that first came the warming, then came the massive CO2 increase.  Why is that?


----------



## d'Anconia (Jun 5, 2010)

So I don't get it.  In the past when ice started melting and CO2 was on the rise, what eventually reversed the process?


----------



## Chris (Jun 5, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Wrong answer.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

We are adding 10 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

Therefore, we are causing the earth to warm.

Nice try, though.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2010)

Chris said:


> Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years
> 
> Date: 04-Jun-2010
> 
> ...






And the only way you can attribute this fact to AGW is to ignore two basic tenets of science, the first being correlation does not equal causation and the second is of course Occams Razor.  We have well documented historically warmer periods independent of any possible effect by man.  Why is it that all of a sudden we are the only possible source of the heating this time?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 5, 2010)

Chris said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...




Maybe beating a dead horse, but when thinking about earths avg temperature, we can look back 500 million years. Antarctica has had its ice caps around 20-25 million years as we started to slowly stair climb into the current ice age period, also as the continent moved southward it had less solar output because the curvature of the earth have less focused light,,,lastly long winters nights like we have today became the norm. So yes, it was not just the fact that the climate of earth cooled that made Antarctica the way it is today, but a few other factors. 

Yes within our current cycle, if you believe that we're not coming out of it in which between 1-3 million years the periods between ice ages if I remember where far shorter. More of a short wave instead of a long wave sin. This became more so from 5-10 million years. 

Who know, we may get super lucky and skip out of the 15-20 million year ice age within our life times, which would be very lucky of you, because that's a one and a trillion chance and you should be having a party like you can't believe if it happens within your life. Pretty much the same odds of having 2, 5 mile wide asteroids aimed at earth within a years time. 

But lets say it does happen? In we do or are seeing right now the coming out of the ice age. I think it would make you excited to see something like this that has never happened within human history; the ending of the overall ice age. 

Do you think this is a possibility?


----------



## Chris (Jun 5, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years
> ...



That is a strawman argument. No one is saying that we are the only possible source of the heating at this time. 

But the solar scientists say that the solar changes are causing only a fraction of the warming in the last century, and now the sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years. So it should be getting cooler, but it isn't.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2010)

Chris said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...





Nice try yourself, it does so in only one spectrum band (that being the 14.77 micron band) all other spectrums have no effect which the scientists way back thenwere not able to figure out.  So yes it does but not nealry as much as was originally thought.  In fact much, much, much less.

GREENIE WATCH

I am sure you will ignore the link as it comes from a skeptic blog but if you are brave enough follow the science do some research yourself and come to your own conclusions.  Stop blindly following the baseless science that you have believed for so long.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2010)

Chris said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...






Excuse me?  Strawman argument?   No one is saying we are the only source heating at this time?...do I  really need to post your own thread where you say exactly that?  Do I need to post ALL of the threads where the warmers on this board say that ad nauseum?
Come on, don't make a fool of yourself.


----------



## Chris (Jun 5, 2010)

"it does so in only one spectrum band"

Thanks for agreeing with me and proving my point.


----------



## Chris (Jun 5, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I never said that we were the only source of warming.

In fact I was the first one on this board to point out that the sun was at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, and that this past winter would be cooler than we had seen for a while.

So don't lie about what I have said.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2010)

Dude said:


> More bad news for the cargo cult:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow dingbatdood, you just believe any old bullshit that pops up on the denier cult blog run by a very clueless and incompetent retired weatherman who's shilling for the fossil fuel industry. You really think that fool knows more than NASA? You denier cultists are a hoot.

*New NASA Satellite Survey Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning*

ScienceDaily (July 8, 2009)  Arctic sea ice thinned dramatically between the winters of 2004 and 2008, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick older ice as the dominant type for the first time on record. The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic's ice cover.

Scientists from NASA and the University of Washington in Seattle conducted the most comprehensive survey to date using observations from NASA's Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite, known as ICESat, to make the first basin-wide estimate of the thickness and volume of the Arctic Ocean's ice cover. Ron Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., led the research team, which published its findings July 7 in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans.

The Arctic ice cap grows each winter as the sun sets for several months and intense cold ensues. In the summer, wind and ocean currents cause some of the ice naturally to flow out of the Arctic, while much of it melts in place. But not all of the Arctic ice melts each summer; the thicker, older ice is more likely to survive. Seasonal sea ice usually reaches about 2 meters (6 feet) in thickness, while multi-year ice averages 3 meters (9 feet).

Using ICESat measurements, scientists found that overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 0.17 meters (7 inches) a year, for a total of 0.68 meters (2.2 feet) over four winters. The total area covered by the thicker, older "multi-year" ice that has survived one or more summers shrank by 42 percent.

Previously, scientists relied only on measurements of area to determine how much of the Arctic Ocean is covered in ice, but ICESat makes it possible to monitor ice thickness and volume changes over the entire Arctic Ocean for the first time. The results give scientists a better understanding of the regional distribution of ice and provide better insight into what is happening in the Arctic.

"Ice volume allows us to calculate annual ice production and gives us an inventory of the freshwater and total ice mass stored in Arctic sea ice," said Kwok. "Even in years when the overall extent of sea ice remains stable or grows slightly, the thickness and volume of the ice cover is continuing to decline, making the ice more vulnerable to continued shrinkage. Our data will help scientists better understand how fast the volume of Arctic ice is decreasing and how soon we might see a nearly ice-free Arctic in the summer."

In recent years, the amount of ice replaced in the winter has not been sufficient to offset summer ice losses. The result is more open water in summer, which then absorbs more heat, warming the ocean and further melting the ice. Between 2004 and 2008, multi-year ice cover shrank 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) -- nearly the size of Alaska's land area.

During the study period, the relative contributions of the two ice types to the total volume of the Arctic's ice cover were reversed. In 2003, 62 percent of the Arctic's total ice volume was stored in multi-year ice, with 38 percent stored in first-year seasonal ice. By 2008, 68 percent of the total ice volume was first-year ice, with 32 percent multi-year ice.

"One of the main things that has been missing from information about what is happening with sea ice is comprehensive data about ice thickness," said Jay Zwally, study co-author and ICESat project scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "U.S. Navy submarines provide a long-term, high-resolution record of ice thickness over only parts of the Arctic. The submarine data agree with the ICESat measurements, giving us great confidence in satellites as a way of monitoring thickness across the whole Arctic Basin."

The research team attributes the changes in the overall thickness and volume of Arctic Ocean sea ice to the recent warming and anomalies in patterns of sea ice circulation.

"The near-zero replenishment of the multi-year ice cover, combined with unusual exports of ice out of the Arctic after the summers of 2005 and 2007, have both played significant roles in the loss of Arctic sea ice volume over the ICESat record," said Kwok.

Copyright © 1995-2010 ScienceDaily LLC    All rights reserved

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## jeffrockit (Jun 5, 2010)

Chris said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



sure it does as it is another example of the warmers being wrong


----------



## Chris (Jun 5, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Not really.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> It seems to me that "warmer than normal" does not necessarily translate into 'more melting'.  Sub freezing is still sub freezing even if the temperature is warmer.


Well, since the scientific measurements and the satellite pictures all show that the Arctic ice is melting away, your understanding of this is obviously based on your own ignorance of this subject. Of course you overlook the fact that the temperature of the water under the Arctic ice is not "sub freezing" or it would be frozen.




Foxfyre said:


> And though I am no scientist, it seems quite logical to me that if some of the ice doesn't melt now and then at both poles, the ice caps would continue to expand until the Earth is just one giant ice ball.


You are definitely no scientist. In fact you seem really ignorant about science. Why are you posting ignorant opinions about a subject you know so little about?




Foxfyre said:


> And given the millions and millions of years of ebb and flow in climate change swinging back and forth between mostly tropical climates to ice ages, trying to establish a 'norm' using data from a half century of record keeping borders on the absurd.


Your delusion that the data climate scientists are only working with consists of only a half century of record keeping borders on the insane and only demonstrates how very little you know about this topic.


----------



## jeffrockit (Jun 5, 2010)

Chris said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



I give you links supporting my argument and the best you can come back with is "not really". I guess if I were still in school, I would respond with a "sez you". Perhaps you should work on your debating skills and your comprehension.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2010)

Chris said:


> "it does so in only one spectrum band"
> 
> Thanks for agreeing with me and proving my point.






It proves nothing.  CO2 has many spectrums that have no effect at all but the AGW folks calculate the whole thing.  When it is calculated correctly it does not have the effect you all claim.  Quit trying to be a smart aleck and have a cogent conversation, we have enough juvenile behavior with trolling blunder.


----------



## Chris (Jun 5, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > "it does so in only one spectrum band"
> ...



Sorry, it is tough to have a coversation with someone that claims CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. 

Why do you think Venus is hotter than Mercury?


----------



## Chris (Jun 5, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Personal insults are not going to stop the ice cap from melting.

You guys really are grasping at straws.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2010)

theHawk said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > EVERYONE knows how much hotter it feels to wear a black T-shirt, rather than a white one, on a warm day.
> ...



LOLOLOLOL.....jeez, dude, you seem even more ignorant than the other denier cultists and I would have bet that was impossible. You really believe that the ice sheets that covered North America and Europe melted away in a linear progression starting 15,000 years ago? LOLOLOLOL. You must have flunked every science course you ever took, if indeed you ever took any to begin with, which seems doubtful.







The last glaciation started to end about 15,000 years ago with some up and downs but it finished melting about ten or eleven thousand years ago and the average world temperatures have been pretty stable since then. The current warming *is* unusual in the context of this long period of climate stability.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2010)

theHawk said:


> Exactly.  You never hear these doom and gloom libs talk about past ice ages.  You'll never hear them mention the fact that our world has been much warmer, and much colder at many points in its history.


Scientists talk about these things all the time and they understand what they're talking about. You don't. Your belief that ice ages and warmer periods are ignored is just another of your denier cult delusions.




theHawk said:


> They claim to embrace scientific fact, but the truth is they ignore scientific facts that don't suit their political agenda.


A perfect description of you farrightwingnut demented denier cultists. Pretty near all of your arguments are basically political and not scientific.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2010)

Chris said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...




Ahh there you go puttin words in my mouth and that is not kosher old bean.  I never said it was not a GHG, I said it was being overvalued as a GHG.  All of the AGW agenda is to over estimate the effects of CO2.  All of the AGW agenda is to misrepresent the numbers and to manufacture data.  Please read my other posts, if AGW is occuring I want to know it.

Unfortunately because of the outrageous violations of scientific protocol, and the outright fabrication of most of the data that has been used to formulate policy I no longer believe anything that the AGW proponents say.  I was a firm believer in AGW until I did a ton of research and realised that the theory was wrong.  Then when I found out that the people driving the bus were making bazillions off of the project at the expense of the taxpayers I got quite cross.  I don't like being lied too.  Clearly you don't mind yet.

And the last time I checked the atmosphere of Venus is considerably denser than ours, on the order of 80-90 atmospheres at the surface if I remember correctly, that is roughly the equivalent of being 1 kilometer deep in the ocean.  It is also .24 or .25 au closer to the sun, it has a slower rotational speed than the earth, 240 or so days, and it's atmosphere is almost entirely CO2.  So it is hotter than Mercury because of the density of its atmosphere as the primary driving variable.  It could have an atmosphere of pure argon and would probably be just as hot.

Trying to compare the two is like comparing an apple with a bowling ball.  Yes they are certainly both round (well mostly, whereas the planets are both oblate spheroids, but I think you get my drift)...but after that there really isn't a whole lot that's similar.


Here is another site (I know it is a prohibited skeptic blog but I have to look at your so you have to look at mine) and it gives a better picture of why CO2 is not the GHG it is claimed to be.  Yes it is a GHG.  But no it is not nearly as effective as claimed.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> And yet the CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the mean temperatures have been warmer in the past and the Earth seemed to manage just fine.


What an idiotic post. Saying that the "Earth seemed to manage just fine" ignores the fact that our problem with global warming has to do with the fact that there are now nearly 7 billion humans living on the Earth, many of them living very near the coasts and all of us dependent on a world agricultural system that is very vulnerable to even small climate changes. The planet Earth may "manage just fine" but we humans won't.





Foxfyre said:


> Claimed proof that humankind contributed all or even a small fraction of any increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is certainly refutable. Also any claimed proof that the anthropogenically produced CO2 is creating any significant or unmanageable 'issues' for humankind is also refutable.


Wrong again, denier cultist retard. Mankind has raised atmospheric CO2 levels by almost 40% over pre-industrial levels and this is confirmed by analyzing the carbon isotope balance in the carbon dioxide. The increase is clearly from fossil fuel sources.

You couldn't 'refute' your way out of a wet paper bag, numbnuts.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2010)

Chris said:


> We are adding 10 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, and the Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 levels are the highest they have been in 600,000 years, which is as far back as the ice cores go.



Just a point of clarification, Chris. Mankind's CO2 emissions are actually approaching 30 billion tons per year. Some sources will refer to just the weight of the carbon, which is a bit less than 9 billions tons per year. The weight of carbon emissions differs from that of carbon dioxide emissions because carbon dioxide is 3.67 times heavier than carbon alone.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 5, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > We are adding 10 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, and the Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 levels are the highest they have been in 600,000 years, which is as far back as the ice cores go.
> ...




China is going to cause that to keep going up. They've said that they went to build a coal plant every week and they don't give a damn about the environment. Look at their rivers or a satellite, and you will shit moving out over the pacific like you can't believe. The United states is the most advance and clean nation for the ratio of what we produce. Clean is good and we should be, but if your right and we're fucked than we some how gots to pull china into it; I don't think they give a damn. I went clean water and air, but if your right about this global warming then we only have a small part next to that cluster fuck. They have 4 times the population of the united states.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 5, 2010)

Chris said:


> Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years
> 
> Date: 04-Jun-2010
> 
> ...



Now as I asked before, provide some actual evidence man is causing any of it. The claim that CO2 is causing it is simply not true. For one CO2 rising FOLLOWS rising temperatures not the other way around. There is NO scientific evidence to support the claim that CO2 increases have caused any of the problems. Further there has been NO RISE in temperatures since 1998 and CO2 has continued to rise at previous rates. This alone proves the point CO2 is not the cause of increased temperatures.

Provide some evidence.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 5, 2010)

Chris said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Because _*any*_ atmosphere will hold more heat than _*no*_ atmosphere, simpleton.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 5, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > And yet the CO2 levels have been higher in the past and the mean temperatures have been warmer in the past and the Earth seemed to manage just fine.
> ...



So, just as populations have had to adapt and adjust and change locations during previous climate changes, it is possible that folks may have to do that again in the future.

I suspect that if we were somehow able to bust the entire world population back to the pre-industrialization era, something that would cause untold misery and suffering to most of humankind, you would see very little if any decrease in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.  At any rate, the reduction would be too little to reverse any climate change that is happening.

And the last I read up, you could put all those almost 7 billion people in Texas and have a population density about the same as San Francisco.  Were that done, it would leave a very large amount of the world empty of people.

The way to combat all the world's problems is to encourage modernization and prosperity.  It is the world's most affluent people who demand a clean environment, protection of species, and who appreciate aesthetic beauty.  Make as many people prosperous as possible and you'll see innovation that will allow us to live in as much peace as possible with our environment and whatever climate change will occur.

Keep people poor, and keeping a roof over their head and food in their mouths takes precedence over any other issues.  Some of the airbrained ideas of the pro-AGW activbsts would doom whole large groups of people to more generations of crushing poverty.

And I'm guessing you don't have a clue what a 'numbnut' is.


----------



## nraforlife (Jun 5, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> ............ Pretty near all of your arguments are basically political and not scientific.



I wager you say that to yourself every time you look in a mirror.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2010)

Unless the SUV is 600,000 years old the ice core samples are fucking useless.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years
> ...



Wow....you are spectacularly clueless, jeffrockhead. The thread topic is Arctic sea ice so you are way off topic but the real hoot is how awful and phony your source is. You must be really gullible to believe a nutjob like Benny Peiser or anything off of denier cult blog like his. He is a social anthropologist and has no education, training or experience in climate science. He is a proven liar. His claims about the islands are false. You've been duped, again.

*Benny Peiser*

Benny Peiser is a UK social anthropologist on the Heartland Institute "Global warming experts" list. He runs CCNet (network) and is frequently quoted in Local Transport Today, a transport journal that frequently features the views of climate change skeptics.

*Peiser makes invalid claims on climate change scientific consensus*

Peiser's "claim to fame" in the war on climate change science was a 2005 study that he claimed refuted an earlier study by Dr. Naomi Oreskes.

Originally published in the prestigious publication, Science, the Oreskes study looked at 928 research papers on climate change and found that 100% agreed with the scientific consensus.[1] Peiser originally stated in January 2005 that Oreskes was incorrect and that "in light of the data [Peiser] presented... Science should withdraw Oresekes's study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science. On October 12, 2006, Peiser admitted that only one of the research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that study was NOT peer-reviewed and was published by American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Peiser's incorrect claims were published in the Financial Post section of the National Post, in a May 17, 2005 commentary authored by Peiser himself.[2][3][4]

*Peiser states "an overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed"*

Peiser claims to be a climate change "skeptic," but on October 12, 2006 Peiser states: "I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact." However, he also states that "... this majority consensus is far from unanimous," and that "there is a small community of sceptical researchers that remains extremely active." [1]

*Peiser is a Social Anthropologist, and not a Climate Scientist or Climate Policy Analysist*

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.

Peiser's departmental webpage describes him as:-[5]

    * Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology, Liverpool John Moores University
    * Main research interests:
          o societal evolution and neo-catastrophism
          o social implications of historical impact disasters and the current impact hazard
          o ritualised and sanctioned violence
          o origins and evolution of sport


(Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.3.)


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Now as I asked before, provide some actual evidence man is causing any of it. The claim that CO2 is causing it is simply not true. For one CO2 rising FOLLOWS rising temperatures not the other way around. There is NO scientific evidence to support the claim that CO2 increases have caused any of the problems. Further there has been NO RISE in temperatures since 1998 and CO2 has continued to rise at previous rates. This alone proves the point CO2 is not the cause of increased temperatures.
> 
> Provide some evidence.



I already debunked your denier cult delusions and myths over here.

You are wrong about everything you claim here. You've been bamboozled by the clever propaganda campaign that the fossil fuel industry has mounted to confuse people about the reality and dangers of global warming/climate change, in an attempt to delay world action to limit carbon emissions and thus their profits.


----------



## driveby (Jun 5, 2010)

westwall said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You're about 2 years too late for that, chrissy joined in 2008 .......


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Unless the SUV is 600,000 years old the ice core samples are fucking useless.


Spoken like a true denier cult retard. And totally meaningless.


----------



## gslack (Jun 5, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Unless the SUV is 600,000 years old the ice core samples are fucking useless.
> ...



Like my knew sig? yeah its a link to the post where you said it too....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Unless the SUV is 600,000 years old the ice core samples are fucking useless.
> ...



Can the ice core samples give you an estimate on the amount of the far more powerful greehouse gas H2O? NO!

So, again, they're useless in proving your AGW stupidity


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Unless the SUV is 600,000 years old the ice core samples are fucking useless.
> ...





Blunder,

If you wish for anyone to take you seriously ever again you need to lay off the infantile insults, post cogent arguments, apologise to gslack for your incredible cad like behavior,  and then and only then will anyone listen to what you have to say.  Right now you are regarded as a 3 year old throwing a temper tantrum so we don't hear you....got it?

Good, now go away.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 5, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


That pretty much covers the general attitude of the AGW cargo cultists to begin with.

Question their "facts", provide other data that tends to debunk and disprove the theory, and/or point out the logical flaws in the conclusions they've drawn, and they screech _*DENIER!*_, as though this is Salem in the 1690s.

They've become so old hat that it's now rather amusing.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Your every post just serves as another example of how extremely ignorant you are about all this, CrusaderRabbit.

Denier Cult Myths: *Climate scientists never talk about water vapor* -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory.

Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.

If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.

This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.

An article from RealClimate -- "Water vapor: feedback or forcing?" -- has a good discussion of this subject.

©2010. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Walleyedretard

Fuck you, asswipe.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 5, 2010)

> . . . .According to the US Department of Energy, about 14.8% of the total CO2 is man-made. The remainder is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires [25].
> 
> At the current rate of increase, CO2 will not double its current level until 2255. . . .
> 
> ...



And since it is highly unlikely that despite what humans do, CO2 levels will increase at their current rate for the next 245 years, draconian measures to curb humankind's freedoms, options, opportunities, and choices are simply unwarranted as the international pro-AGW community, including our own President, propose to do.

And even if the worst case scenario should play out, humankind will certainly have naturally devised ways to cope with it over the next 200+ years.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 5, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> > . . . .According to the US Department of Energy, about 14.8% of the total CO2 is man-made. The remainder is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires [25].
> >
> > At the current rate of increase, CO2 will not double its current level until 2255. . . .
> >
> ...



The crap you find on some nutjob's denier cult blog is not credible, but of course you're too ignorant and deluded to notice. T J Nelson is not a climate scientist and has no education or experience in that field. Here's what an actual climate scientist has to say about his pseudo-science. From here, 15th comment.

*Nelson appears to base his entire argument on the 'fact' that CO2 contributes 4 to 8% of the total greenhouse effect (of 33 deg C), and therefore a doubling of CO2 can only increase the total greenhouse effect proportionatly. Apart from being wrong about the effect of CO2 (around 9 to 25% of the longwave absorbtion depending on how you calculate the overlaps (see our previous post), this is way too linear a calculation to be applicable. In particular, he assumes that water vapour amounts are independent of the temperature (they are not). There are a number of other obvious bloopers (ie. "In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is less than the previous increase". No. Logarithmic means that the effects of doubling are constant). So in toto, it's not too impressive a thesis. See our posts on climate sensitivity (or here) for more considered information. - Dr. Gavin Schmidt*


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 5, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > > . . . .According to the US Department of Energy, about 14.8% of the total CO2 is man-made. The remainder is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires [25].
> ...



My guy has no dog in the fight whatsoever, invites anybody to correct his work and he does correct whatever errors are found, and he provides a very impressive bunch of footnotes of sources where he researches the information he uses.  He also has a PhD in physics which puts him a whole lot closer to climate science than any education your guy can claim.

Your guy is a mathematician turned climate modeler who gets all his funding from the government and isn't about to put that at risk by challenging the pro-AGW crowd in any way.

From the Global Warming Conference in Copenhagen last year:



> . . . .the name of the game last week, as we see from a sample of quotations, was to win headlines by claiming that everything is far worse than previously supposed. Sea level rises by 2100 could be "much greater than the 59cm predicted by the last IPCC report". Global warming could kill off 85 per cent of the Amazon rainforest, "much more than previously predicted". The ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica are melting "much faster than predicted". The number of people dying from heat could be "twice as many as previously predicted".
> 
> None of the government-funded scientists making these claims were particularly distinguished, but they succeeded in their object, as the media cheerfully recycled all this wild scaremongering without bothering to check the scientific facts. . . .
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> > . . . .According to the US Department of Energy, about 14.8% of the total CO2 is man-made. The remainder is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires [25].
> >
> > At the current rate of increase, CO2 will not double its current level until 2255. . . .
> >
> ...



Yup, and BP stated they had means to handle a spill ten times as large as the one they are not able to handle at all, right now.

Yes, humanity will handle the climate change. Just as it did in the days before we were a technological species. A very significant portion of us will die.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...






OK little boy, we understand you're still having a temper tantrum.....go sit in the corner till you calm down.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > > . . . .According to the US Department of Energy, about 14.8% of the total CO2 is man-made. The remainder is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires [25].
> ...







Non sequiter arguments have no place here old fraud.  And prior to our developing a technological society the worlds population was fairly constant.  Yes there was a gradual increase but it would be measured in the tens of millions increase over a 50 or hundred year time frame.  It was not till we became a technological society that we were able to witness the massive growth of the human population and that is attributable to better hygiene, sanitation, food supply, transport, medicine, etc.

I agree with Foxfyre, if we do indeed elevate the third world to first world status the growth rate of humanity will decline precipitously and we will most assuredly figure out a way to prevail.  All you warmists ever do is whine about how many will die when your very policies ensure that people will indeed perish.  You present no constructive methods to deal with the very real problems we have.

All you can come up with is take money away from people and give it to rich people to make them very rich.  Plunging the rest of humanity into poverty with all of the attendant issues that ensue.

Have you learned nothing?


Year Population 
 (in millions) 

10000 BC 4 
5000 BC 5 
4000 BC 7 
3000 BC 14 
2000 BC 27 
1000 BC 50 
500 BC 100 
200 BC 150 
0 170 
200 AD 190 
400 AD 190 
500 AD 190 
600 AD 200 
700 AD 210 
800 AD 220 
900 AD 240 
1000 AD 265 
1100 AD 320 
1200 AD 360 
1300 AD 360 
1400 AD 350 
1500 AD 425 
1550 AD 480 
1600 AD 545 
1650 AD 545 
1700 AD 610 
1750 AD 720 
1800 AD 900 
1850 AD 1200 
1875 AD 1325 
1900 AD 1625 
1925 AD 2000 
1950 AD 2500 
1975 AD 3900 
1999 AD 6000


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2010)

Toba


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years
> ...



*Gladly. This is from the American Institute of Physics. Note the work on the absorbtion spectra of H20, CO2, CH4 was done in 1858 by Tyndal;*

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
Like many Victorian natural philosophers, John Tyndall was fascinated by a great variety of questions. While he was preparing an important treatise on "Heat as a Mode of Motion" he took time to consider geology. Tyndall had hands-on knowledge of the subject, for he was an ardent Alpinist (in 1861 he made the first ascent of the Weisshorn). Familiar with glaciers, he had been convinced by the evidence  hotly debated among scientists of his day  that tens of thousands of years ago, colossal layers of ice had covered all of northern Europe. How could climate possibly change so radically?         



One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (infrared radiation) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.  


Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere. (For a more complete explanation of how the "greenhouse effect" works, follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models of Climate.)(1)


----------



## gslack (Jun 5, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



UTTER BULLSHIT FROM START TO FINISH....



> Denier Cult Myths: *Climate scientists never talk about water vapor* -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory.
> 
> Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.



BUllshit... On various levels... 

1. CO2 varies by temperature as well.... Its a fact warmer oceans release more CO2, colder water much, much less CO2...

2. This sentence in the above quote.. _"It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds."_ 

Really??? Including clouds??? Water vapor forms clouds you idiot, so yeah including clouds...... Yeah, bullshit alarm going off yet?

3. This sentence above...._"It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature."_ 

Really?? Then since CO2 varies with temperature its is not considered a "forcing" either.... Unbelievable, the lack of critical thought shown by anyone buying this bunch of pseudo-science BS..... Dude they are making fun of you, and you not only allow it, but you think buying this bullshit makes you appear smart or intelligent.....



> If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.
> 
> This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.
> 
> CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.



BULLSHIT!

1. What the fuck does "(in terms of climate response times)" mean exactly? pretty ambiguous statement really, could mean anything... We call that a bullshit statement. Its one of these weaselly things you can say that is neither true nor false because its entirely interpretive. They don't have to prove that, so they use it to make it sound scary....Some scientists...

2. THis sentence.... "If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times)."

Really??? So if I spray a hose into the air all day it will rain some time in my yard or nearby because of it? LOL, sure it will pal sure.... Rain has much more to do with temperatures than simply how much H2O is in the air... Why does it hardly rain in Los Angeles despite all the people using water every minute for everything??? Well tool its because of its unique position and the weather patterns and winds prone to that area. All the H2O they use is evaporated and then where does it go? Well it follows the weather, winds, and temps in that area, and a great deal of it ends up dumped in places like rain forests...

Completely ignorant and anyone who uses this as some kind of evidence of anything other that the authors ignorance, is a complete moron....

3. This entire paragraph really....._"This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans."_

OMFG!!!! Dude seriously prove any bit of that anyway you can, I would love to see it..

precipitation would remove H2O from the air??? And that would make the earth even colder?????
 WTF??????

The author of that crap is an IDIOT!!!! And anyone who cites him is a moron!!! 



> CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.



More bullshit....

1. The following sentence..... _"CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess."_

Oh Really???? So CO2 from fossil fuels is different than other CO2? And natural sinks are the only way it is removed from the atmosphere now? Meaning of course no ocean acidification from man made CO2 emissions... If fossil fuel CO2 (man made) relies on sinks to be removed from the atmosphere than no way it can be adding to the oceans acidity.... 

You fucking idiots will cite anything and call it evidence even if its claims nullify all your other claims... LOL too funny...


Seriously, did you actually READ ANY OF IT BEFORE YOU POSTED IT?????


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Toba






I assume you're referring to the Mt. Toba explosion and the supposed near extinction of humanity?  I remember one theory put the global population of humans down to fifteen thousand or so.

Cute theory but has many, many problems.  First off if humanity were indeed reduced to 1000 breeding pairs as one individual suggested, then so must the rest of the megafauna of the period and there is no supportive evidence of this.  It would have been a mass extinction event that would most certainly have made it into the paleontological record and yet it is not there.

Also there is ample evidence that the Neanderthals made it through the event quite handily just as they did the Riss glaciation which lasted for 50,000 years from 180,000 to 130,000 years bp.  Also Java man made it through to about 4,000 years bp so the Toba extinction event has many many problems.


----------



## westwall (Jun 5, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...







I see your site and raise you this one.

The Disputed Area which causes Global Warming.


Also just having an atmosphere of any kind increases the temperature of any planet you wish to speak of.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 6, 2010)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



So on the one hand we have the American Institute of Physics and on the other hand, disputing the AIP, we have a random kook with a masters in microbiology and no education or experience in climate science who runs a denier blog. LOLOLOLOL....you are such a funny clueless lunatic, walleyedretard.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2010)

*Not a single citation of a scientific paper to back up this dingbats claims. The whole article is bogus. And addressed in the AIP site.

Come on, Walleyes, you can't just grab any kook out of the bushes to dispute real scientists.*

The Disputed Area which causes Global Warming.

The Disputed Area


There is no valid mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming, because CO2 absorbs the limited radiation available to it in about ten meters (Heinz Hug). An increase in CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. Since scientists know this, a fake mechanism is contrived for the top of the troposphere based on thin spectrum shoulders. But again, an increase in CO2 only shortens the distance radiation travels, which does nothing significant to increase the temperature. And there is no way to get the supposed temperature increase at the top of the troposphere, which is very cold, to produce heat at ground level.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2010)

Come on, Walleyes, post some links for your information.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 6, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Did you just admit that H20 is responsible for 85% of the greenhouse effect?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 6, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yes he did.  But he discounts that, and the fluctuations of water vapor in the atmosphere, as unimportant in the face of the relatively very small percentage of CO2 humankind introduces into the atmosphere as well as observable evidence of runaway CO2 into the atmosphere in eras long before the industrial revolution has been a factor.


----------



## westwall (Jun 6, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Come on, Walleyes, post some links for your information.






Oh must I, can you do nothing for yourself?  OK, here is one site I found after a cursory check....

Mount Toba Eruption &#8211; Ancient Humans Unscathed, Study Claims  Anthropology.net

Here's a favorite source of yours so that people can see what you base your opinion on,
You should notice at the top they say the following..

"This documentation needs attention from an expert on the subject. See the talk page for details. WikiProject Geology or the Geology Portal may be able to help recruit an expert. (September 2009)"

Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And this link deals with the genetic conditions of the possible effects of the explosion.

Mt Toba Eruption 74,000 years ago

Now I love volcanoes as much as any geologist.  And I know what they can accomplish having been near them at full boil.  And I assure you that they are extraordinarily powerful
and when there is another Long Valley Caldera type eruption, most life will perish down wind from that eruption. 

 But the Toba theory as I said has some major problems.  First off the genetic bottleneck occured sometime between 50,000 and 150,000 years ago.  That is quite simply far too much time to have to deal with.  If the bottleneck occured 5,000 years plus or minus the Toba explosion I would certainly be more inclined to give it some creedence, but 100,000 years?  I think that is asking an awful lot...don't you?

Secondly the ash fall was predominantly on the Indian subcontinent.  So while I agree that 
life would certainly be much more difficult there, we once again do not see a mass extinction of the megafauna (like tigers etc.) in the region.  If people couldn't make it neither could anything else.

Lastly there is actually quite a lot of archeaological evidence that shows people doing quite well after the Toba eruption and Java man did very well indeed up till around 40,000 years bp (I missed a zero on my first post).

So yes it's an interesting hypothesis, but it still lacks quite a bit of evidence to support it.  Doesn't mean it didn't happen, just means it lacks the evidence so far.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 6, 2010)

Topic of thread:  Arctic sea ice melting toward record

Here's the latest research soon to be published in Quarternary Science Reviews, a highly respected, peer-reviewed science journal.

*Arctic ice at low point compared to recent geologic history*

June 6, 2010 

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Less ice covers the Arctic today than at any time in recent geologic history.

Thats the conclusion of an international group of researchers, who have compiled the first comprehensive history of Arctic ice.

For decades, scientists have strived to collect sediment cores from the difficult-to-access Arctic Ocean floor, to discover what the Arctic was like in the past. Their most recent goal: to bring a long-term perspective to the ice loss we see today.

Now, in an upcoming issue of Quarternary Science Reviews, a team led by Ohio State University has re-examined the data from past and ongoing studies -- nearly 300 in all -- and combined them to form a big-picture view of the poles climate history stretching back millions of years.

The ice loss that we see today -- the ice loss that started in the early 20th Century and sped up during the last 30 years -- appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years, said Leonid Polyak, a research scientist at Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. Polyak is lead author of the paper and a preceding report that he and his coauthors prepared for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

Satellites can provide detailed measures of how much ice is covering the pole right now, but sediment cores are like fossils of the oceans history, he explained.

Sediment cores are essentially a record of sediments that settled at the sea floor, layer by layer, and they record the conditions of the ocean system during the time they settled. When we look carefully at various chemical and biological components of the sediment, and how the sediment is distributed -- then, with certain skills and luck, we can reconstruct the conditions at the time the sediment was deposited.

For example, scientists can search for a biochemical marker that is tied to certain species of algae that live only in ice. If that marker is present in the sediment, then that location was likely covered in ice at the time. Scientists call such markers proxies for the thing they actually want to measure -- in this case, the geographic extent of the ice in the past.

While knowing the loss of surface area of the ice is important, Polyak says that this work cant yet reveal an even more important fact: how the total volume of ice -- thickness as well as surface area -- has changed over time.

Underneath the surface, the ice can be thick or thin. The newest satellite techniques and field observations allow us to see that the volume of ice is shrinking much faster than its area today. The picture is very troubling. We are losing ice very fast, he said.

Maybe sometime down the road well develop proxies for the ice thickness. Right now, just looking at ice extent is very difficult.

To review and combine the data from hundreds of studies, he and his cohorts had to combine information on many different proxies as well as modern observations. They searched for patterns in the proxy data that fit together like pieces of a puzzle.

*Their conclusion: the current extent of Arctic ice is at its lowest point for at least the last few thousand years.*

As scientists pull more sediment cores from the Arctic, Polyak and his collaborators want to understand more details of the past ice extent and to push this knowledge further back in time.

During the summer of 2011, they hope to draw cores from beneath the Chukchi Sea, just north of the Bering Strait between Alaska and Siberia. The currents emanating from the northern Pacific Ocean bring heat that may play an important role in melting the ice across the Arctic, so Polyak expects that the history of this location will prove very important. He hopes to drill cores that date back thousands of years at the Chukchi Sea margin, providing a detailed history of interaction between oceanic currents and ice.

"Later on in this cruise, when we venture into the more central Arctic Ocean, we will aim at harvesting cores that go back even farther", he said. "If we could go as far back as a million years, that would be perfect."

###

Polyaks coauthors on the report hailed from Penn State University, University of Colorado, University of Massachusetts, the U.S. Geological Survey, Old Dominion University, the Geological Survey of Canada, University of Copenhagen, the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, Stockholm University, McGill University, James Madison University, and the British Antarctic Survey.

This research was funded by the US Geological Survey and the National Science Foundation.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2010)

lol he gets busted and suddenly everyone is off topic now....LOL


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 6, 2010)

gslack said:


> lol he gets busted and suddenly everyone is off topic now....



The only thing busted here is your brain, g'tard. I notice that once again, as usual, you have no real response to actual scientific research that invalidates your denier cult myths.


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > lol he gets busted and suddenly everyone is off topic now....
> ...



Dumbass I posted full post showing your bullshit and you ignored it and posted more of the same bullshit. Its what you do ...

And since you decided to show your ass and insult my mother with no apology, you do not deserve anything more than contempt.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 6, 2010)

No evidence, huh?



> _*Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008*_
> 
> The Navy requires accurate sea ice information for their operations, and has spent a lot of effort over the years studying, measuring, and operating in Arctic ice both above and below, such as they did in the ICEX 2009 exercise.
> 
> ...



Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008 | Watts Up With That?

Lemmie guess...The United States Navy is now a bunch of "deniers!"


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



UTTER BULLSHIT FROM START TO FINISH....



> Denier Cult Myths: *Climate scientists never talk about water vapor* -- the strongest greenhouse gas -- because it undermines their CO2 theory.
> 
> Answer: Not a single climate model or climate textbook fails to discuss the role water vapor plays in the greenhouse effect. It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds. It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature.



BUllshit... On various levels... 

1. CO2 varies by temperature as well.... Its a fact warmer oceans release more CO2, colder water much, much less CO2...

2. This sentence in the above quote.. _"It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds."_ 

Really??? Including clouds??? Water vapor forms clouds you idiot, so yeah including clouds...... Yeah, bullshit alarm going off yet?

3. This sentence above...._"It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature."_ 

Really?? Then since CO2 varies with temperature its is not considered a "forcing" either.... Unbelievable, the lack of critical thought shown by anyone buying this bunch of pseudo-science BS..... Dude they are making fun of you, and you not only allow it, but you think buying this bullshit makes you appear smart or intelligent.....



> If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.
> 
> This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.
> 
> CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.



BULLSHIT!

1. What the fuck does "(in terms of climate response times)" mean exactly? pretty ambiguous statement really, could mean anything... We call that a bullshit statement. Its one of these weaselly things you can say that is neither true nor false because its entirely interpretive. They don't have to prove that, so they use it to make it sound scary....Some scientists...

2. THis sentence.... "If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times)."

Really??? So if I spray a hose into the air all day it will rain some time in my yard or nearby because of it? LOL, sure it will pal sure.... Rain has much more to do with temperatures than simply how much H2O is in the air... Why does it hardly rain in Los Angeles despite all the people using water every minute for everything??? Well tool its because of its unique position and the weather patterns and winds prone to that area. All the H2O they use is evaporated and then where does it go? Well it follows the weather, winds, and temps in that area, and a great deal of it ends up dumped in places like rain forests...

Completely ignorant and anyone who uses this as some kind of evidence of anything other that the authors ignorance, is a complete moron....

3. This entire paragraph really....._"This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans."_

OMFG!!!! Dude seriously prove any bit of that anyway you can, I would love to see it..

precipitation would remove H2O from the air??? And that would make the earth even colder?????
 WTF??????

The author of that crap is an IDIOT!!!! And anyone who cites him is a moron!!! 



> CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.



More bullshit....

1. The following sentence..... _"CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess."_

Oh Really???? So CO2 from fossil fuels is different than other CO2? And natural sinks are the only way it is removed from the atmosphere now? Meaning of course no ocean acidification from man made CO2 emissions... If fossil fuel CO2 (man made) relies on sinks to be removed from the atmosphere than no way it can be adding to the oceans acidity.... 

You fucking idiots will cite anything and call it evidence even if its claims nullify all your other claims... LOL too funny...


Seriously, did you actually READ ANY OF IT BEFORE YOU POSTED IT?????


RE-POST for the tool who tried to ignore it...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 6, 2010)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Come on, Walleyes, post some links for your information.
> ...



*Damn, a reasonable post. With an excellant source cited. Thank you, again.*


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


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



Yeah and he obviously READ the source well enough too....Learning anything yet tool?


----------



## jeffrockit (Jun 6, 2010)

Chris said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Claiming personal insults (which there were not) will not change the fact that you warmers have been proven wrong, your "scientist" have been proven as liars that falsify info to fit their personal belief system. That is not how science works because if it were we would probably still believe the Earth is flat. I would say those are more than "straws". When faced with facts that the islands are increasing in size, you chose to divert the discussion.


----------



## jeffrockit (Jun 6, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



You lost me with the immature name calling. I gave that up in high school but maybe you are still their. Don't like the facts, attack the messenger or the site it is posted on or any number of outs you warmers seem to have.


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2010)

Another attempt at this same topic from chris??

How many times you going to try this same topic dude?

Its been busted every time so far, but hey its not about truth because truth is what you make it right???

LOL


----------



## gslack (Jun 6, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Sourcewatch??? Again!!!!

Already busted that liberal PR firm twice now... Shall we do it again??


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 7, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Hey dingleberry, how about linking some sites for your points? You do know how to do that, do you not? Otherwise, your yap-yap is just unsupported yap-yap.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 7, 2010)

Come on, Suckee......  Demonstrate that Source Watch is wrong. We have demonstrated numerous times that your wingnut sources are not only wrong, but supported by those who stand to lose money if action is taken to alleviate the problems that the inevitable change in climate will create.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 7, 2010)

More than I ever learned from you, Suckeee........   Now why don't you give me a pleasant surprise and post something that is interesting, informative, and accurate?


----------



## gslack (Jun 7, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> More than I ever learned from you, Suckeee........   Now why don't you give me a pleasant surprise and post something that is interesting, informative, and accurate?



Like the way I wreck your bullshit propaganda? Sure just post some more....


----------



## gslack (Jun 7, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Come on, Suckee......  Demonstrate that Source Watch is wrong. We have demonstrated numerous times that your wingnut sources are not only wrong, but supported by those who stand to lose money if action is taken to alleviate the problems that the inevitable change in climate will create.



Already did that..remember? it was you who helped me...LOL


----------



## gslack (Jun 7, 2010)

Like this post for instance???

Ocean Acidification #92

here is its contents....




gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Credentials not held
> ...



yeah they lied man......


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 7, 2010)

gslack said:


> Like this post for instance???
> 
> Ocean Acidification #92
> 
> ...



I tried googling Watts and could not find any sources, including wikipedia which usually lists people's education and degrees, that talk about his education or degrees. Even the sites like the Heartland Institute who promote Watts don't cite any degrees or talk about his education. He had worked as a TV broadcast weather reporter for 25 years and although he managed to get the AMS Seal of Approval, he never managed to get their actual certifications, the Certified Broadcast Meteorologist or the Certified Consulting Meteorologist. As the SourceWatch piece on him mentions:
_Some online lists incorrectly refer to Watts as "AMS Certified"[8], but this is incorrect; the American Meteorological Society reserves its "AMS Certified" designation for its Certified Broadcast Meteorologists and Certified Consulting Meteorologists[9], and Watts possesses neither certification.[10],[11]_ 

The AMS website says this about the Seal of Approval:
_*AMS Seal of Approval*

The AMS is no longer accepting applications for the Seal of Approval Program

*The AMS Seal of Approval was launched in 1957 as a way to recognize on-air meteorologists for their sound delivery of weather information to the general public.* Among radio and television meteorologists, the AMS Seal of Approval is sought as a mark of distinction.

To earn the Seal of Approval, a broadcast meteorologist must have applied to the Society offering evidence of education and professional experience sufficient to meet established national standards, along with three examples of his or her work. The application was judged by a national board of examiners to assess four elements: technical competence, informational value, explanatory value, and communication skills.

Applications for the Seal of Approval were accepted from 1959 - 2008. There have been over 1700 Seals awarded._

As the SourceWatch site mentions:
_Watts grew up around Cincinnati, Ohio and reportedly attended Purdue University[1], studying Electrical Engineering and Meteorology.[2]. Watts's "About" page mentions neither his Purdue attendance nor whether he graduated. [3]. Watts has not been willing to say whether he graduated.[4]

"Anthony began his broadcasting career, in 1978 in Lafayette, Indiana."[5]_

Possibly Watts got his Seal at a time when the degree requirements weren't as strict as they later became. It is rather curious that he won't reveal his educational background. But of course, he was basically just a talking head weather presenter on the tube, not a full fledged working meteorologist doing any research in the field.

I did find this:

_*Does Anthony Watts have a college degree?*
Tuesday, October 27, 2009

(I should clarify, the issue isn't whether he has a diploma or not, it's whether he has the relevant scientific education, or any scientific education for that matter. The self-taught - who've always graded their own tests, as it were - frequently don't realize what they don't know.)
-----

Neither the Wikipedia nor SourceWatch page on climate inactivist blogger Anthony Watts mentions his academic background, which leads one to wonder if he has a degree at all, much less in a relevant field.

So I asked. First I emailed him, at his company address, but got no reply; then I phoned the company, ITWorks, and asked Lisa, the nice woman at the other end of the line. She went off to find out, but returned empty-handed, saying he wasn't willing to provide that information.

So the next time you're face-to-face with Anthony, don't be at a loss for words; ask him where and when he got a degree, and in what field - then add what you find to Wikipedia and SourceWatch. _


So maybe you should call him and ask him yourself, g'tard, instead of guessing.

Of course, none of that really affects the fact that his efforts to discredit the US temperature records have been repeatedly debunked by professional climate scientists.


----------



## gslack (Jun 7, 2010)

HAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA!

You posted the exact same excuse old socks posted...... How coincidental is that??????

you can lie all you want to but this is from the AMS site itself tool..

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AMS SEAL OF APPROVAL PROGRAM
Applications for the AMS Seal of Approval Program will be accepted until 31 December 2008. After that date, only applications for the AMS Certified Broadcast Meteorologist Program will be accepted. In order to be eligible to apply for the AMS Seal of Approval, applicants must meet the requirements listed under one of the below sections.

*(A) Hold a Bachelor's (or higher) degree in meteorology or atmospheric science.

(B) Hold a Bachelor's degree (or higher) in "other sciences and engineering" and be engaged in an activity in which the applicant's knowledge is being applied to the advancement or application of the atmospheric or related sciences. Acceptable degrees will be determined after a review of the applicant's college/university transcripts. Arts and humanities are not included; therefore, degrees in English, literature, philosophy, languages, journalism, communications and business administration would not lead to eligibility for Seal application. In addition to a degree in a related science, applicants must also have completed at least 12 semester credit hours in meteorology with 8 of the 12 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 3 of the 5 core areas is required). See (C) for a description of the core areas.
*
(C) This set of requirements is intended to recognize individuals without a degree from an accredited institution but who have at least a minimal educational background in the underlying science and substantial experience in the field. Individuals accepted under this category must have at least 20 semester credit hours in meteorology with 12 of the 20 credits in core classes (a minimum of 2 credits in each of 4 of the 5 core areas is required). In addition, applicants must have 3 out of the last 5 years professional experience in the field. This requirement must be fulfilled by experience that requires independent analysis, interpretation and scientific judgment. It may not be fulfilled by experience that involves nothing more than routine observations or passing on information created by someone else.


yeah you are fucking outted and so is sourcewatch they lied plain and simple.....


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 7, 2010)

G, it's why I've stopped paying attention to them.  It's like fighting with a tape loop that somehow gets more personally in it's posts as time goes on.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 7, 2010)

I used to have as my sig line:

I pledge from this day forward, to the best of my ability, not to feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of utter futility."

I of course break my pledge now and then, but I do find it helpful to remind myself of it now and then.  Makes the world a whole lot less frustrating.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 7, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


No, what is UTTER BULLSHIT FROM START TO FINISH IS YOU, G'TARD. What I posted is sound science, something you're totally unfamiliar with, you little twit.





gslack said:


> BUllshit... On various levels...


That's you and your posts all right - pure bullshit. You have no idea what you're talking about. You just make up your own pseudo-"facts" and pretend you know more than the scientists who have spent their lives researching all this.






gslack said:


> 1. CO2 varies by temperature as well.... Its a fact warmer oceans release more CO2, colder water much, much less CO2...


More of your bullshit, g'tard. CO2 levels *do not* vary significantly by temperature. This is another example of you just making it up without any scientific backing for your drivel.





gslack said:


> 2. This sentence in the above quote.. _"It is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 36% to 66% to the overall effect for vapor alone, 66% to 85% when you include clouds."_
> 
> Really??? Including clouds??? Water vapor forms clouds you idiot, so yeah including clouds...... Yeah, bullshit alarm going off yet?


My bullshit alarm goes off whenever you post anything, slack-jawed. Water vapor has a different effect than clouds so they are often considered separately. This is just more of your general ignorance of science.






gslack said:


> 3. This sentence above...._"It is however, not considered a climate "forcing," because the amount of H2O in the air basically varies as a function of temperature."_
> 
> Really?? Then since CO2 varies with temperature its is not considered a "forcing" either....


But CO2 levels do not vary significantly with temperature. You try to 'reason' from idiotically wrong premises and you just wind up with more bullshit. You are very apparently far too stupid and ignorant to even understand the difference between a climate 'forcing' and a climate 'feedback', moron.




gslack said:


> Unbelievable, the lack of critical thought shown by anyone buying this bunch of pseudo-science BS..... Dude they are making fun of you, and you not only allow it, but you think buying this bullshit makes you appear smart or intelligent.....


G'tard, you are an idiot so don't even think of talking about "critical thought". What is really unbelievable is that you seem to be able use a computer. I would have guessed that you would have trouble tying your own shoes.






gslack said:


> > If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times). Similarly, due to the abundance of ocean on the earth's surface, if you somehow removed all the water from the air, it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.
> >
> > This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans.
> >
> ...


You don't know what it means so it must be bullshit. LOL. Classic. I know what it means and so do the scientists and most everybody else who reads that. You're just too retarded to comprehend plain English. Everything you say is a "bullshit statement" because you are so ignorant about science.





gslack said:


> Its one of these weaselly things you can say that is neither true nor false because its entirely interpretive. They don't have to prove that, so they use it to make it sound scary....Some scientists...


No, it's not, it is actually quite clear and straightforward. You're just too idiotic and deluded to be able to comprehend it. 





gslack said:


> 2. THis sentence.... "If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times)."
> 
> Really??? So if I spray a hose into the air all day it will rain some time in my yard or nearby because of it? LOL, sure it will pal sure....


Are you really that stupid? Oh, what am I saying, of course you are. You're actually stupid enough to imagine that the tiny amount of water you could put in the air changes the overall humidity for your area. You are a true retard, g'sock.





gslack said:


> Rain has much more to do with temperatures than simply how much H2O is in the air... Why does it hardly rain in Los Angeles despite all the people using water every minute for everything??? Well tool its because of its unique position and the weather patterns and winds prone to that area. All the H2O they use is evaporated and then where does it go? Well it follows the weather, winds, and temps in that area, and a great deal of it ends up dumped in places like rain forests...


You are soooo ignorant. LA sits next to an ocean and the amount of water vapor in the air moving over LA has almost nothing to do with the water usage of its inhabitants. It sometimes doesn't rain that much there because most of the water in the air blows east and only condenses when it rises to go over the mountains. Other times it pours there and they have floods. Nobody said the rain happens exactly where the water is evaporating. The fact is though that if the amount of water vapor in the air get high then it rains out somewhere.






gslack said:


> Completely ignorant ... a complete moron....


Yes, you are indeed. As you demonstrate with every post you make.





gslack said:


> 3. This entire paragraph really....._"This has the interesting consequence that if you could somehow instantly remove all CO2 from the atmosphere, the temperature would begin to drop, causing precipitation to remove H2O from the air, causing even further drops, in a feedback effect that would not end until no liquid water was left, only ice sheets and frozen oceans."_
> 
> OMFG!!!! Dude seriously prove any bit of that anyway you can, I would love to see it..
> 
> precipitation would remove H2O from the air??? And that would make the earth even colder?????


Precipitation = rain
H2O = water
Precipitation removes H2O from the air. Too bad you're too stupid to understand that, g'tard. 
Water vapor is a greenhouse gas so yes, removing the water vapor from the air would cause more cooling which would cause more water to condense and rain out causing more cooling. Exactly what they said, dumbass.





gslack said:


> The author of that crap is an IDIOT!!!! And anyone who cites him is a moron!!!


You can't understand it so the _author_ is an idiot? LOLOLOL. No, slack-jawed, it is obvious to anyone with an above room temperature IQ that it is you that is the moronic idiot.






gslack said:


> > CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your previous nonsense was very stupid but this is ultra-stupid. Fossil fuel CO2 is the same as natural CO2 except for a very slight difference in the isotope ratios. Since we haven't yet come up with any good ways to artificially remove CO2 from the atmosphere, natural carbon sinks are, in fact, the way CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. Natural carbon sinks include the oceans, moron. I think you have 'sinks', as it is used here, confused with that thing in your kitchen, as might be expected from such a complete retard as you. 





gslack said:


> You fucking idiots will cite anything and call it evidence even if its claims nullify all your other claims... LOL too funny...


It is very funny that you are sooooo clueless and yet so sure that your idiotic misinterpretations of all the info in that article are correct.  

_*Carbon sink*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A carbon sink is a natural or artificial reservoir that accumulates and stores some carbon-containing chemical compound for an indefinite period.

The main natural sinks are:

    * Absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans
    * Photosynthesis by plants and algae_






gslack said:


> Seriously, did you actually READ ANY OF IT BEFORE YOU POSTED IT?????


I not only read it, I understood it. Something you failed to do, as usual.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 7, 2010)

gslack said:


> HAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA!
> 
> You posted the exact same excuse old socks posted...... How coincidental is that??????


It is hardly "coincidental" that when two people have the correct information, they would agree.





gslack said:


> you can lie all you want to but this is from the AMS site itself tool..
> 
> REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AMS SEAL OF APPROVAL PROGRAM
> 
> yeah you are fucking outted and so is sourcewatch they lied plain and simple.....


If you can turn up some direct evidence showing that Watts actually got a degree in Meteorology, then you might have a case but I don't think you can. Do you really think that if he had a degree, he would keep it secret? LOL.

And as I said before, none of that really affects the fact that his efforts to discredit the US temperature records have been repeatedly debunked by professional climate scientists. Watts is professional denier but he is no climate scientist and his blog, 'Wattatwat', is filled with denier cult propaganda and idiotic misinformation.


----------



## westwall (Jun 7, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > HAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA!
> ...






Little boy,

I have had the displeasure of dealing with twerps far more intelligent than you ever will be. You are a cretin, a bufoon, someone of no account. You have demonstrated that you are no better than the pimple on a mosquito's bum.

Until you apologise to gslack for your incredibly inafantile behavior you are not welcome in the adult world. Until you apologise to gslack I am ostracizing you and I suggest the other adults do likewise.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 7, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I really don't give a fuck what you think, dirtbag. You're a total retard and your threads are all nonsense, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. Now you're going to run away because you can't handle being exposed as such a lying loon.


----------



## gslack (Jun 7, 2010)

LOL trolling thunder blew a gasket.... he's repeating himself like an idiot now....

LOL what's wrong little fella you crying again?????


----------



## gslack (Jun 7, 2010)

A few simple points for the idiot tool trolling blunder....

You said...


			
				trollingblunder said:
			
		

> Your previous nonsense was very stupid but this is ultra-stupid. Fossil fuel CO2 is the same as natural CO2 except for a very slight difference in the isotope ratios. Since we haven't yet come up with any good ways to artificially remove CO2 from the atmosphere, natural carbon sinks are, in fact, the way CO2 is removed from the atmosphere. Natural carbon sinks include the oceans, moron. I think you have 'sinks', as it is used here, confused with that thing in your kitchen, as might be expected from such a complete retard as you.



Yeah I was making fun of your article you cited.. it said this....



> CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, stays in the atmosphere for centuries before natural sinks finish absorbing the excess. This is plenty of time to have substantial and long-lasting effects on the climate system. As the climate warms in response to CO2, humidity rises and increased H2O concentration acts as a significant amplifier of CO2-driven warming, basically doubling or tripling its effect.



SO..... Why did your article try and imply CO2 from man is somehow different than CO2 from nature?? yeah pretty fucking stupid huh just like you said tool..... Ok so now We are really laughing at you....

And (there is more) why did YOUR articel try and imply "natural sinks" were some kind of extra thing? yeah they tried to sell it differently in that part above.. By reading your cited article it gives the distinct impression natural sinks are something outside the normal CO2 cycle and man made CO2 is only removed by them... So... again its called pointing out your articles stupidity and bullshit... Got it yet???

All of my answers were responsive to your article tool.... LOL, you really are this ignorant aren't you... OMG.... Dude get out and talk to people in the real world for a while... Seriously...


----------



## gslack (Jun 7, 2010)

This all too true especially when it comes to these warmers...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 8, 2010)

gslack said:


> A few simple points for the idiot tool trolling blunder....
> 
> You said...
> 
> ...


They didn't try to "imply" that at all. You're just too retarded to comprehend what people are saying. Mankind is putting 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year and that extra CO2 swamps the natural processes of carbon emission and sequestration that has been in a natural balance for many thousands of years. The natural carbon sinks get overwhelmed and can't take the excess CO2 out of the air so it accumulates in the atmosphere, as the records of rising CO2 levels illustrate. Basic climate science, which you are, of course, completely ignorant of.




gslack said:


> yeah pretty fucking stupid huh just like you said tool..... Ok so now We are really laughing at you....


No moron, I said you were pretty fucking stupid, as you've just now once again demonstrated.





gslack said:


> And (there is more) why did YOUR articel(sic) try and imply "natural sinks" were some kind of extra thing?


They stated the matter clearly and didn't "imply" any such thing. The natural sinks are what is currently removing the natural CO2 emissions and a portion of mankind's emissions too but their capacity is limited and excess CO2 is accumulating and raising atmospheric levels of this powerful greenhouse gas. 





gslack said:


> yeah they tried to sell it differently in that part above.. By reading your cited article it gives the distinct impression natural sinks are something outside the normal CO2 cycle and man made CO2 is only removed by them...


That's just your inability to understand simple English because you're so retarded, g'tard. Natural sinks are half of the normal CO2 cycle, the other half being the natural carbon emissions. You're an idiot. 




gslack said:


> So... again its called pointing out your articles stupidity and bullshit... Got it yet???


No, it's called you making a fool of yourself again because you're too brain-damaged to comprehend simple science, slack-jawed.





gslack said:


> All of my answers were responsive to your article tool....


No, all your answers were just more of your senile bullshit based on your total inability to understand what the article was saying, g'turd.





gslack said:


> LOL, you really are this ignorant aren't you... OMG.... Dude get out and talk to people in the real world for a while... Seriously...


I think everybody but your denier cult butt-buddies can see clearly who is the ignorant one here, g'sock. In the real world, you and the other denier cultists are seen as the new 'flat earth society' and all the intelligent people laugh at you.


----------



## gslack (Jun 8, 2010)

LOL, so when faced with your own ignorance and the full display of your pseudo-scientists, bullshitting you... You tell me I am too stupid to get it..... Okay.....LOL, so then why didn't you understand who made the points you attributed to me?

LOL, if ya had read it like you claim, you would have known I was using their claims and speaking fo their statements. But clearly you thought they were my own or that i was making them up using bits of your article... So any explanation for that??? Or am I too stupid to understand its all part of your master plan????

LOL, you set yourself up to look like a moron for what purpose exactly??????


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 8, 2010)

The only way you're gonna get him to shut up GS, is to ignore him.  That is pretty effective.

Meanwhile, I was reading that on this day in 1783, the volcano Laki, in Iceland, erupted and continued to do so for eight months killing over 9,000 people.  That eruption was credited for a seven-year famine.

Given the mentality of some of our brethren these days, they would have blamed that on anthropogenic global warming too.   Or would have considered it insignificant in face of the comparably miniscule effect on climate that can be attributed to modern human activity.


----------



## gslack (Jun 8, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> The only way you're gonna get him to shut up GS, is to ignore him.  That is pretty effective.
> 
> Meanwhile, I was reading that on this day in 1783, the volcano Laki, in Iceland, erupted and continued to do so for eight months killing over 9,000 people.  That eruption was credited for a seven-year famine.
> 
> Given the mentality of some of our brethren these days, they would have blamed that on anthropogenic global warming too.   Or would have considered it insignificant in face of the comparably miniscule effect on climate that can be attributed to modern human activity.



you're probably right fox, but I have difficulty letting deliberate liars off the hook... Its the Libra in me coming out I suppose LOL...


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 8, 2010)

gslack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The only way you're gonna get him to shut up GS, is to ignore him.  That is pretty effective.
> ...



Yeah well I'm Virgo.  Practical to the core.


----------



## gslack (Jun 8, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Touche'... LOL scary combo....


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 8, 2010)

gslack said:


> LOL, so when faced with your own ignorance and the full display of your pseudo-scientists, bullshitting you...


The only thing I've faced here is your abysmal ignorance and your insane bullshit, g'tard.





gslack said:


> You tell me I am too stupid to get it..... Okay....


Absolutely!!! As you have made obvious to everyone but your denier cult buttbuddies who are almost as stupid as you are.




gslack said:


> LOL, so then why didn't you understand who made the points you attributed to me?


I was addressing the fallacious and pretty idiotic 'points' you imagined you were making based on your total inability to understand what was being said in that article.






gslack said:


> if ya had read it like you claim, you would have known I was using their claims and speaking fo their statements.


I read it and I understood the article. You read it in your own retarded, half-assed way and couldn't comprehend what was being said. All of your idiotic misinterpretations were ridiculously wrong, as I pointed out in detail. You are a moronic nutjob and you can't understand plain English.





gslack said:


> But clearly you thought they were my own or that i was making them up using bits of your article...


Your stupid misunderstandings of what was being said were definitely your own. Like this one: "_Why did your article try and imply CO2 from man is somehow different than CO2 from nature??_". The article did not say or imply that. You're just too moronic to see that. 





gslack said:


> So any explanation for that???


Sure. You're an ignorant idiot. Same explanation for all of your drivel and lies.






gslack said:


> Or am I too stupid to understand????


Why yes, you are way too stupid to understand what is being said by those scientists. As you have made very obvious in all of your retarded posts.


----------



## gslack (Jun 8, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, so when faced with your own ignorance and the full display of your pseudo-scientists, bullshitting you...
> ...



Funny how you adopted the same lame tactic 3 of your ilk tried to use when they couldn't hang any longer..... Separating each line or two like a OCD victim in the hopes you can make the thread too asinine and redundant for anyone to bother reading or caring...

So either you been following me around, talking with the other 3 morons who tried it lately, or you are one of the many proxies or socks.... matters little really, all it does is show your lack of ability to think critically and hang when you get called out in such an obvious and undeniable manner....

So how many identities can we expect to see on here? Come on tool we already know you're someones sock, out with it now... How many do you have here? you go ahead and keep it up, make sure no one doubts you are a cowardly puppet master douchebag...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 8, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



I see you still have no actual response to the exposure of your idiotic errors and misunderstandings of the article on the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas. Very typical of you to try to divert the debate into your obsession with 'socks' and how persecuted you imagine yourself to be. LOLOLOLOL. You are such a retard, g'tard.


----------



## gslack (Jun 8, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



Response???? TO what you calling me stupid for two posts????

LOL, dude you are an idiot....


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 8, 2010)

*DENIER MYTH#18:* _The influence of CO2 cannot match the influence of water vapor, and since the impacts of water vapor are largely unknown and outside direct human control, human beings cannot be the source of global heating _

*Debunking:* First off, there is no doubt that water vapor is directly responsible for the bulk of the greenhouse effect (~60% according to Table 3 of Earths Annual Global Mean Energy Budget). As such, water vapor could far outweigh the direct effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Unfortunately, because of the complexity of the Earths water cycle, figuring out what the effects of water will be isnt simple.

As the atmosphere heats up, it can hold more water vapor. As such, we can reasonably expect that the hotter the air is, the more humid it can be and, because water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas, the hotter the air will get. This positive feedback leads us to an obviously erroneous conclusion  that we should already be boiling. Since were not, there must be something that provides negative feedback to at least partly compensate for the positive feedback, and there is  precipitation in the form of rain, snow, sleet, hail, etc. Small local variations in temperature can create massive differences in the amount of water vapor present in the local atmosphere  a hot high pressure system drives the humidity down and stops precipitation, while a cooler low pressure system permits condensation and then rain or snow. All in all, this means that water vapor that enters the atmosphere persists there a very short period of time  about 11 days   while CO2 persists in the atmosphere for decades to centuries.






Now, since people cant directly control water vapor, the only way we have to influence it is via temperature. If the greenhouse effect boosts global temperature somewhat, we should realistically expect that the amount of water vapor in the air should be increasing. Similarly, if global temperatures drop for some reason (for example, a large volcanic eruption dumping massive amounts of aerosols into the air), we should expect to see water vapor concentrations decrease. In the lower atmosphere, the available data points to increasing water vapor content, but because of large variations in local humidity from day to night, from day to day, and from season to season, no-one currently knows exactly how much more water vapor is going into the air (IPCC Working Group 1 Assessment Report 4, Chapter 3, Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change, page 273). And unfortunately, the upper troposphere (the region of the atmosphere believed to be most important for water vapors effects on global heating) has no conclusive direct data on water vapor concentrations. Instead, the increase in water vapor in this part of the atmosphere has been indirectly checked by the increase in this regions temperature. Since water vapor is such a powerful greenhouse gas, any increase in temperature in this region of the atmosphere should be largely a result of the effects of water vapor (IPCC Working Group 1 Assessment Report 4, Chapter 3, Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change, Figure 3.21, page 275).

But perhaps most importantly, the fact that the concentration of water vapor does increase and decrease along with external temperature changes was proven as a result of the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo. The temperature dropped for several years, and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere dropped at the same time, and roughly in the same pattern (Figure 2, below).






 When the authors of the paper looked at their general climate models, they discovered that, once they corrected for an El Nino that occurred right after Pinatubo erupted, the model only produced roughly equivalent cooling if water vapor feedback was included in the model (Figure 4, below).






What does all of this mean? Basically, water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas than CO2, but because CO2 will cause heating independently of water vapor, as man-made CO2 increases global heating, water vapor will increase too, boosting the amount of warming with a positive feedback loop. How much exactly is up for debate, and theres not a long enough data series on water vapor in the atmosphere to know everything. But just because humans cant increase or decrease water vapor in the air directly doesnt mean that CO2 heating of the air wont do so indirectly.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 8, 2010)

After a late start to the melt season in the Arctic, the ice is melting faster than ever and is already below the levels of the 2007 season which was the lowest on record overall and also below the 2006 levels for May which were the lowest for this month. Here's the latest from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

*Arctic sea ice extent declines rapidly in May
*

NSIDC
June 8, 2010

In May, Arctic air temperatures remained above average, and sea ice extent declined at a rapid pace. At the end of the month, extent fell near the level recorded in 2006, the lowest in the satellite record for the end of May. Analysis from scientists at the University of Washington suggests that ice volume has continued to decline compared to recent years. However, it is too soon to say whether Arctic ice extent will reach another record low this summer&#8212;that will depend on the weather and wind conditions over the next few months.

Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent averaged 13.10 million square kilometers (5.06 square miles) for the month of May, 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. The rate of ice extent decline for the month was -68,000 kilometers (-26,000 square miles) per day, almost 50% more than the average rate of -46,000 kilometers (18,000 square miles) per day. This rate of loss is the highest for the month of May during the satellite record.

Ice extent remained slightly above average in the Bering Sea, and below average in the Barents Sea north of Scandinavia, and in Baffin Bay.
graph with months on x axis and extent on y axis 





_Figure 2. The graph above shows daily sea ice extent as of June 7, 2010. The solid light blue line indicates 2010; dashed green shows 2007; solid pink shows 2006, and solid gray indicates average extent from 1979 to 2000. The gray area around the average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. Sea Ice Index data.
&#8212;Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center_

Conditions in context

As we noted in our May post, several regions of the Arctic experienced a late-season spurt in ice growth. As a result, ice extent reached its seasonal maximum much later than average, and in turn the melt season began almost a month later than average. As ice began to decline in April, the rate was close to the average for that time of year.

In sharp contrast, ice extent declined rapidly during the month of May. Much of the ice loss occurred in the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk, indicating that the ice in these areas was thin and susceptible to melt. Many polynyas, areas of open water in the ice pack, opened up in the regions north of Alaska, in the Canadian Arctic Islands, and in the Kara and Barents and Laptev seas.

The polynyas are clearly visible in high-resolution passive microwave images from the Advanced Microwave Sounding Radiometer (AMSR-E) aboard NASA&#8217;s Aqua satellite. What do current ice conditions mean for the minimum ice extent this fall? It is still too soon to say: although ice extent at present is relatively low, the amount of ice that survives the summer melt season will be largely determined by the wind and weather conditions over the next few months.
average monthly data from 1979-2009.  Monthly May ice extent for 1979 to 2010 shows a decline of 2.4% per decade.

May 2010 compared to past years

Average ice extent for May 2010 was 480,000 square kilometers (185,000 square miles) greater than the record low for May, observed in 2006, and 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) below the average extent for the month. The linear rate of decline for May over the 1979 to 2010 period is now -2.41% per decade.

The rate of decline through the month of May was the fastest in the satellite record; the previous year with the fastest daily rate of decline in May was 1980. By the end of the month, extent fell near the level recorded in 2006, the lowest in the satellite record for the end of May. Despite the rapid decline through May, average ice extent for the month was only the ninth lowest in the satellite record.

Persistent warmth in the Arctic

Arctic air temperatures averaged for May were above normal, continuing the temperature trend that has persisted since last winter. Temperatures were 2 to 5 degrees Celsius (4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) above average across much of the Arctic Ocean. A strong anticyclone centered over the Beaufort Sea produced southerly winds along the shores of Siberia (in the Laptev and East Siberian seas), resulting in warmer-than-average temperatures in this area. The Canadian Arctic Islands were an exception to the general trend, with temperatures slightly cooler than average over much of the region.





_figure 5: chart of ice volume model Figure 5. The chart above, from the University of Washington Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System, shows anomalies in ice volume by month. Ice volume is expressed in units of 1000 cubic kilometers (240 cubic miles), and is computed relative to averages for the period 1979 to 2009.
&#8212;Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center courtesy University of Washington
_

Models indicate low ice volume

Ice extent measurements provide a long-term view of the state of Arctic sea ice, but they only show the ice surface. Total ice volume is critical to the complete picture of sea ice decline. Numerous studies indicate that sea ice thickness and volume have declined along with ice extent; unfortunately, there are no continuous, Arctic-wide measurements of sea ice volume. To fill that gap, scientists at the University of Washington have developed regularly updated estimates of ice volume, using a model called the Pan Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS).

PIOMAS uses observations and numerical models to make ongoing estimates of changes in sea ice volume. According to PIOMAS, the average Arctic sea ice volume for May 2010 was 19,000 cubic kilometers (4,600 cubic miles), the lowest May volume over the 1979 to 2010 period. May 2010 volume was 42% below the 1979 maximum, and 32% below the 1979 to 2009 May average. The May 2010 ice volume is also 2.5 standard deviations below the 1979 to 2010 linear trend for May (&#8211;3,400 cubic kilometers, or -816 cubic miles, per decade).

PIOMAS blends satellite-observed sea ice concentrations into model calculations to estimate sea ice thickness and volume. Comparison with submarine, mooring, and satellite observations help increase the confidence of the model results. More information on the validation methods and results is available on the PIOMAS ice volume Web site.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 8, 2010)

gslack said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Come on, Suckee......  Demonstrate that Source Watch is wrong. We have demonstrated numerous times that your wingnut sources are not only wrong, but supported by those who stand to lose money if action is taken to alleviate the problems that the inevitable change in climate will create.
> ...



No, you didn't. That's one of your delusions, you retarded troll. You were never able to show any evidence that Watts ever got any degree, let alone one in Meteorology. You're still idiotic enough to believe that he wouldn't list his degrees if he had any.


----------



## txlonghorn (Jun 8, 2010)

Chris said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Not really


----------



## gslack (Jun 8, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



OH quit lying troll.... Jesus man you are like a broken record... he had to have the proper education and or training to get the certification you twit... THe AMS said so themselves now get over it fuck head....

Everyone is lying but your side....HAHAHAHAHAHA! We are all in on it too even the AMS... What a moron..


----------



## gslack (Jun 8, 2010)

HAHHHAHHAHAHAHA!! 

You done crying over your own words yet crybaby???

LOL, boo hoo! big mean gslack is citing your own words and its not fair!

HAHAHHAAHAHAHHAA! bitch.....


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 8, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...


You are the lying troll, g'tard. You repeat the same debunked denier cult crap all the time. 

You're making an inference from a list of current AMS requirements without any idea whether or not those standards have changed any over the last 25 years and without any direct evidence to support your contention. There is nothing anywhere on his site or anywhere else on the web listing any degrees. You really are stupid enough to think he wouldn't brag about any degrees he had if he had any. 

But the real point is that, whether or not he received some kind of Bachelors degree four decades or so ago, he is a crackpot who pushes pseudo-science that has been repeatedly debunked and disproved by professional climate scientists. I guess it is entirely to be expected that you crackpot denier cultists would think he's great.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 8, 2010)

gslack said:


> HAHHHAHHAHAHAHA!!
> 
> You done crying over your own words yet crybaby???
> 
> ...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 8, 2010)

This is really cool and interesting to watch occur. I like watching the climate change and weather and other things like this. I think they're cool.


----------



## gslack (Jun 9, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



No you are full of shit again....

The old AMS certification seal is what he had before he retired. Years later (nearly 10) after he retired they started using the new seal... I listed the requirements for the old seal...

SO stop your ignorant bullshit lying now, because you are telling lies about an entire field of study now.... You aren't just attacking one meteorologist you are attacking meteorology when you try this nonsense...

Get over it, you got bullshitted by lying POS, PR firms like sourcewatch trying to push an agenda...

And BTW, how many times did you have to cry like a bitch before a mod finally got tired of hearing you cry over my quote???

LOL, Beating you like a rug punk...LOL


----------



## gslack (Jun 9, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > HAHHHAHHAHAHAHA!!
> ...



CRYBABY!


----------



## konradv (Jun 9, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> After a late start to the melt season in the Arctic, the ice is melting faster than ever and is already below the levels of the 2007 season which was the lowest on record overall and also below the 2006 levels for May which were the lowest for this month. Here's the latest from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
> 
> *Arctic sea ice extent declines rapidly in May
> *
> ...



    I see why you've been harrassed so much.  When the deniers can't refute the facts, they always turn to invective.  Keep up the good work.


----------



## gslack (Jun 9, 2010)

Aww look its the resident sock suck up..... LOL


----------



## Oddball (Jun 9, 2010)

konradv said:


> I see why you've been harrassed so much.  When the deniers can't refute the facts, they always turn to invective.  Keep up the good work.


Seems to me the "deniers" in the U.S. Navy refuted all them purrty colored charts and graphs, with a little actual reality, in *#325*.

Keep up the selective choices of "facts".


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 9, 2010)

Dude said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > I see why you've been harrassed so much.  When the deniers can't refute the facts, they always turn to invective.  Keep up the good work.
> ...



Yeah, dood, but it only seems that way to you because you're another dimwitted denier cultist who's easily duped by some half-assed pseudo-science from an scientifically unqualified, lying denier cult nutjob's website called Wattatwat.

The NSIDC looks at the whole Arctic and the Navy did some measurements in only a few limited areas.

You are really gullible. And yes, I will keep choosing real facts over the lies, spin and misinformation you foolishly swallow.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 9, 2010)

konradv said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > After a late start to the melt season in the Arctic, the ice is melting faster than ever and is already below the levels of the 2007 season which was the lowest on record overall and also below the 2006 levels for May which were the lowest for this month. Here's the latest from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
> ...



Both post bear repeating.


----------



## gslack (Jun 9, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



lol you would repeat your socks and do so regularly regardless its truth of lack of it...

Do you really want me to pick this apart again?? It's really easy....


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 9, 2010)

Suckeee.....   the only thing you can successfully pick is your nose.


----------



## gslack (Jun 9, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Suckeee.....   the only thing you can successfully pick is your nose.



Well since you asked so nicely its the least I can do..... BRB


----------



## konradv (Jun 9, 2010)

The only believe the Navy, because they seem to support their bias.  If it were the other way around, they'd be calling the Navy idiots.  This is ONLY about politics.  They don't give a damn that the Navy said it at all, just that somebody did.


----------



## gslack (Jun 9, 2010)

konradv said:


> The only believe the Navy, because they seem to support their bias.  If it were the other way around, they'd be calling the Navy idiots.  This is ONLY about politics.  They don't give a damn that the Navy said it at all, just that somebody did.



HAHHAHAHAHAHAAHA!

How fucking old are you?? Seriously, now no more bullshit you really can't be older than a high schooler....

The Navy has to have accurate accounts of weather and climate dumb ass... THey cannot afford to get bogged down in a political BS debate over climate, they have a country to protect you nit wit....


----------



## gslack (Jun 9, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> After a late start to the melt season in the Arctic, *the ice is melting faster than ever **and is already below the levels of the 2007 season which was the lowest on record overall and also below the 2006 levels for May which were the lowest for this month.* Here's the latest from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.



BULLSHIT!!!! That is not what the article says.... 
"_In May, Arctic air temperatures remained above average, and sea ice extent declined at a rapid pace. *At the end of the month, extent fell near the level recorded in 2006,* the lowest in the satellite record for the end of May. Analysis from scientists at the University of Washington suggests that ice volume has continued to decline compared to recent years. However, it is too soon to say whether Arctic ice extent will reach another record low this summerthat will depend on the weather and wind conditions over the next few months."
_

Pretty much sets the tone for the rest of this nonsensical and twisted claim... The headlines say one thing, the article and data say another once again.....



> *Arctic sea ice extent declines rapidly in May
> *
> 
> NSIDC
> ...



None of that backs the claims in the paragraph trollingblunder added above, and it certainly does not back the claims of the headline or title it features above... All it does tell us it was varied and in some areas and aspects it was warmer or had less ice... Not the same thing as the headline would lend to believe... once more these tools grab a headline and go with it.... Fucking idiots...


> *Ice extent remained slightly above average in the Bering Sea, and below average in the Barents Sea north of Scandinavia, and in Baffin Bay.*
> graph with months on x axis and extent on y axis
> 
> 
> ...



What???? How in the hell can they say its warmer and the ice is melting at a record level, and then tell us the Bering sea Ice extent was above normal?? Not fucking likely is it.... yeah more bullshit twisting of science to give a false scenario....


> Conditions in context
> 
> *As we noted in our May post, several regions of the Arctic experienced a late-season spurt in ice growth. As a result, ice extent reached its seasonal maximum much later than average, and in turn the melt season began almost a month later than average. As ice began to decline in April, the rate was close to the average for that time of year.*
> 
> ...



So last month there was a ICE GROWTH SPURT???? WTF??? You fuckheads told us it was a record loss for ice last month as i recall.... WTF man you people have no sense at all anymore.. Ah and we see right there by their own source it has no bearing on what the ice will be over the summer or next winter.. So much for the accumulated ice loss claims... Gimme a break ...


> May 2010 compared to past years
> 
> *Average ice extent for May 2010 was 480,000 square kilometers (185,000 square miles) greater than the record low for May, observed in 2006, and 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) below the average extent for the month. *The linear rate of decline for May over the 1979 to 2010 period is now -2.41% per decade.
> 
> *The rate of decline through the month of May was the fastest in the satellite record; the previous year with the fastest daily rate of decline in May was 1980.* By the end of the month, extent fell near the level recorded in 2006, the lowest in the satellite record for the end of May. Despite the rapid decline through May, average ice extent for the month was only the ninth lowest in the satellite record.



Ah so its not a record then.... Got it so they lied by twisting the facts again...Duly noted... Since satelite data is the key here... So since the last couple decades or so.... Yeah its called bullshit and there it is....



> Persistent warmth in the Arctic
> 
> *Arctic air temperatures averaged for May were above normal, continuing the temperature trend that has persisted since last winter.* Temperatures were 2 to 5 degrees Celsius (4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) above average across much of the Arctic Ocean. *A strong anticyclone centered over the Beaufort Sea produced southerly winds along the shores of Siberia (in the Laptev and East Siberian seas), resulting in warmer-than-average temperatures in this area.* *The Canadian Arctic Islands were an exception to the general trend, with temperatures slightly cooler than average over much of the region.*
> 
> ...



So there ya have it... It was a trend since last winter.. THats it? So its a warmer year and not a trend after all. thanks for admitting that, at least we can find truth hidden in it if we look... But wait!

Holy shit! A strong anti-cyclone created strong southerly winds resulting warmer than average temps in the areas of siberia and such???? WTF???? So weather trends are the cause of this warming after all??? yep more bullshit......


> Models indicate low ice volume
> 
> *Ice extent measurements provide a long-term view of the state of Arctic sea ice, but they only show the ice surface. Total ice volume is critical to the complete picture of sea ice decline. Numerous studies indicate that sea ice thickness and volume have declined along with ice extent; unfortunately, there are no continuous, Arctic-wide measurements of sea ice volume. **To fill that gap, scientists at the University of Washington have developed regularly updated estimates of ice volume, using a model called the Pan Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS).*
> 
> ...



And there it all is in a nuthsell.. THey took the data and used a computer model to make the rest of it up.... NICE...... LOL, so the data didn't show what they needed so they ran it through a computer model and made it say what they wanted..... Nice works pseudo-scientists.....

There you have it... BUllshit at its finest...


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2010)




----------



## Oddball (Jun 9, 2010)

> _*Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008*_
> 
> The Navy requires accurate sea ice information for their operations, and has spent a lot of effort over the years studying, measuring, and operating in Arctic ice both above and below, such as they did in the ICEX 2009 exercise.
> 
> ...



Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008 | Watts Up With That?

Lemmie guess...The United States Navy is now a bunch of "deniers!"


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2010)

Nice post.....except it is now June, and the ice is melting even faster than 2007.

Sorry about that...


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2010)




----------



## Oddball (Jun 9, 2010)

Right...You're telling is God's honest truth, and people who risk damaging jillion dollar submarines if they're wrong about ice thickness are lying to us.

Putz.


----------



## gslack (Jun 9, 2010)

Post all the bullshit you want, and try as hard as you can to bury the truth tools... All it does is show how utterly dishonest and unethical you and all your scoks/proxies are....LOL


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2010)

gslack said:


> Post all the bullshit you want, and try as hard as you can to bury the truth tools... All it does is show how utterly dishonest and unethical you and all your scoks/proxies are....LOL



You can't handle the truth.

The poles are melting, the glaciers are melting, and the earth is getting warmer, in spite of the fact that the Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 9, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Post all the bullshit you want, and try as hard as you can to bury the truth tools... All it does is show how utterly dishonest and unethical you and all your scoks/proxies are....LOL
> ...



In which makes sense being that we're in a interglacial period. Do you agree?


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2010)

Matthew said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Up to a point, yes. 

But the question is, how much of this increased temperature is because we have almost doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Most climatologist agree that the additional CO2 has added about 1 degree to the earth's temperature, and the scientists at MIT estimate that the temperature will increase 4 to 7 degrees in the next century.


----------



## gslack (Jun 9, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Post all the bullshit you want, and try as hard as you can to bury the truth tools... All it does is show how utterly dishonest and unethical you and all your scoks/proxies are....LOL
> ...



Sorry all the data disputes the headlines and horror stories I showed that all too clearly using all your socks/proxies links as they were...

And thanks to another the Navy disputes that claim as well..... later sock, thanks for playing...


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Sorry, buckaroo, your data is old.

It's June, not May. 

Next.


----------



## gslack (Jun 9, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Wasn't MY data tool..... it was trolling blunders LOL....HAHAHAHAHHA! nice work genius...


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2010)

Arctic sea ice coverage was the highest in 10 years at the end of March. Then, it decreased at the fastest rate since satellite records started (which began in 1979) during the month of May. It was very near the record low May coverage of 2006 by the end of the month.

This flip-flop in data trends was foreseen by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) scientists earlier this year. The reason? Although the March amount of sea surface covered by ice was the highest since 2001, the majority of this ice was less than three years old. This means it is thinner and less compact than &#8220;older&#8221; ice, and has been melting away at a greater pace in the past 30 years, of average.

The primary mechanism for this rapid melt is a warm southerly air current over much of the arctic region. Surface air temperatures have been well above average in the northern latitudes, as much as 9 degrees over the norm which of course contributed to the quick decrease in ice.

Arctic sea ice and a hot Texas summer: Is there a connection?


----------



## gslack (Jun 9, 2010)

Chris said:


> Arctic sea ice coverage was the highest in 10 years at the end of March. Then, it decreased at the fastest rate since satellite records started (which began in 1979) during the month of May. It was very near the record low May coverage of 2006 by the end of the month.
> 
> This flip-flop in data trends was foreseen by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) scientists earlier this year. The reason? Although the March amount of sea surface covered by ice was the highest since 2001, the majority of this ice was less than three years old. This means it is thinner and less compact than older ice, and has been melting away at a greater pace in the past 30 years, of average.
> 
> ...



Yeah and your sock/pal trollingblunder posted it based on the headline and didnt read it again.. I busted him using the article he posted... get it.... Lil  slow aren't ya....

SLowly.... HE POSTED THE ARTICLE.... Go that?... I SHOWED THE FACT THE HEADLINE DID NOT MATCH WHAT THE ARTICLE SAID OR THE DATA IT CONTAINED IN IT SHOWED...NONE OF THE DATA CAME FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE THAN HIS....

Jesus dude read something....


----------



## jeffrockit (Jun 9, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



It was linked in my first response but since it did not agree with the warming belief system, was discounted as a useless site. You again with the infantile name calling. When you grow up, perhaps a debate will be worth it, until then, keep showing yourself as a name caller rather than an adult with something worthwhile to say.


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Arctic sea ice coverage was the highest in 10 years at the end of March. Then, it decreased at the fastest rate since satellite records started (which began in 1979) during the month of May. It was very near the record low May coverage of 2006 by the end of the month.
> ...



Your posts are becoming irrational. Have you been drinking?

Sea ice was high in March and then melted at the highest rate ever recorded. Why? Because the Sun was at its lowest level of activity in 80 years. Now the influence of the additional greenhouse gases is coming into play with the higher Sun angle.

And my source is the NSIDC which showed the increase in ice in the winter and the decrease the last two months.


----------



## Chris (Jun 9, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Warming is not a belief, it's a reality.

The earth is warming and the ice is melting.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 9, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...




Yes, I agree with that. The solar min is going to make the things even weirder.


----------



## Chris (Jun 10, 2010)

Matthew said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



The solar min is over. This winter was its last hurrah.

We continue to pump 10 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, so the CO2 effect grows stronger and stronger. But even more worrisome are the feedback effects of the melting ice cap. Open ocean heat absorption and the release of frozen arctic methane could accelerate the warming.


----------



## gslack (Jun 10, 2010)

Chris said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



YO SLOW BOY!!!!

Pay attention....

My post was using your boys own source.. As in the one HE (trollingblunder) cited and sourced in his post before got it? I did not supply any of the data, it was all 100% his data from the NSIDC... Yeah the same NSIDC you are using now....Got it yet?

His original post I responded to...#354

Please follow the link and try to keep up...

My response post ... #368

Again follow the link and try to keep up here..

Now you can see plain as day it is NOT my data..... Its the NSIDC's data, and HE (trollingblunder) your pal supplied it all here....

So if you don't like the data blame the NSIDC and your pal or sock....


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 10, 2010)

I'm beginning to think its an exercise in futility Gslack.  I think you're most probably right.  But I think the warmers will just keep posting those same tired, flawed, or selective sources again and again until we get tired of responding to them.  And then they'll think they won.  And then the thread will fade into oblivion.  And sooner or later somebody will start a new thread on global warming.

Oh well.  It's something to do.


----------



## jeffrockit (Jun 10, 2010)

Chris said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



As usual, you are wrong but completely blinded by your belief system and not science.

Not that you will read them because they don't fit your agenda, but one can try:

Climate myths: The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist 

From the Copenhagen summit
Copenhagen climate change summit: The world is COOLING not warming says scientist Peter Taylor ... and we're not prepared | Mail Online

Scientist opposing the warming belief
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ice In The Greenhouse: Earth May Be Cooling, Not Warming


----------



## gslack (Jun 10, 2010)

Chris said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



BULLSHIT its not a belief.. 

A few hundred years ago, the most educated minds in Europe was certain the earth was flat... Ya know who in Europe at the time knew it was round? Sailors.... They knew it and it showed in their charts and navigation... But the church was in control of education back then and the church didn't want to have to accept they were wrong or the Bible didn't mention it so it had to be wrong... 

So no scientists or educated people at the time would even consider it in public... in private however they knew better and even helped and traded knowledge with the navigators and map makers....

That sound familiar fool????

It's the age old fear tactic to control the masses you twit.. nothing new here... The game is the same only the players have changed.. now its not the church because they do not hold power like they did. Today its the governments who hold power so this time its used to get a CO2 tax on life.... 

Grow up dreamer you are the same ignorant people who thought Columbus was going to sail off the edge of the world way back when. They believed it because their presumed betters or the ones deemed holiest and wisest, told them so. And no amount of common sense, sound logic, and deductive reason based on everyday sensory input, and the words of the very men who actually had the most knowledge on it was enough to sway them..

you are the peasants back then all buying into bullshit. This time its not fear of gods wrath that motivates you, its the fear of natures wrath.... hello???? Getting any of this yet?

You fucking idiots crack me up.... You get told by your own sources how it is but you fail to read it. You take a headline or a claim made out of context or just simply made up, and yell "Eureka! I have it" like an idiot....


----------



## gslack (Jun 10, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> I'm beginning to think its an exercise in futility Gslack.  I think you're most probably right.  But I think the warmers will just keep posting those same tired, flawed, or selective sources again and again until we get tired of responding to them.  And then they'll think they won.  And then the thread will fade into oblivion.  And sooner or later somebody will start a new thread on global warming.
> 
> Oh well.  It's something to do.



LOL, I guess I like poking the crazies...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 10, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



This was caused by 
1# A powerful solar minimum that hit bottom in 2007-2008. Look at 1996-1997 time frame for the effects the solar min had. Not just the volcano that happened in the early 1990s. Look at the Dalton grand minimum for more. ->Maunder minimum=little ice age. 

2# La nina.

Yes the world was cooling off because of those factors, but the world has turned around and has warmed close to 1998 during the first 3-4 months(If you believe the temperature data) this year because of the strongest el nino in 12 years. El nino or enso is causing the up and downs. It is the main short term global temperature changer there is outside of a very big volcano. See Enso controls the temperature of much of the Pacific in some ways and controls weather patterns world wide. Some areas half way around the world can totally have different effects on the weather one year to the next because of it.

Like one area can have a nino and have a snowy weather out on the east coast and another can have a nina and have snowy weather out west.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 10, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Jeff, old boy, do you ever bother to read your links?

Climate myths: The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

The answer came in a series of studies published in 2005 (see Sceptics forced into climate climbdown).

One study in Science revealed errors in the way satellite data had been collected and interpreted. For instance, the orbit of satellites gradually slows, which has to be taken into account because it affects the time of day at which temperature recording are taken. This problem was always recognised, but the corrections were given the wrong sign (negative instead positive and vice versa).

A second study, also in Science, looked at the weather balloon data. Measurements of the air temperature during the day can be skewed if the instruments are heated by sunlight. Over the years the makers of weather balloons had come up with better methods of preventing or correcting for this effect, but because no one had taken these improvements into account, the more accurate measurements appeared to show daytime temperatures getting cooler.

The corrected temperature records show that tropospheric temperatures are indeed rising at roughly the same rate as surface temperatures. Or, as a 2006 report by the US Climate Change Science Program (pdf) puts it: "For recent decades, all current atmospheric data sets now show global-average warming that is similar to the surface warming." This one appears settled.

There is still some ambiguity in the tropics, where most measurements show the surface warming faster than the upper troposphere, whereas the models predict faster warming of the atmosphere. However, this is a minor discrepancy compared with cooling of the entire troposphere and could just be due to the errors of margin inherent in both the observations and the models


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 10, 2010)

Matthew said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



2000 to 2009, warmest decade on record. 1990 to 1999, second warmest decade on record. 1980 to 1989, third warmest decade on record. 2010, first year of the coming decade, already showing signs of being the warmest year yet recorded. 

One might say a trend is evident here.


----------



## gslack (Jun 10, 2010)

More BULLSHIT mantra....


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 10, 2010)

Link, Suckeee......? Or do you honestly believe silly one liners are equal to what real scientists state?


----------



## gslack (Jun 10, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Link, Suckeee......? Or do you honestly believe silly one liners are equal to what real scientists state?



Go shit in your hat tool... You post lying propaganda willingly... You have lied in this forum time and again blatantly and deliberately, so anything you say is suspect..


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 10, 2010)

Poor ol' Suckeee......  Cannot answer reality, resorts to mindless name calling. 

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 10, 2010)

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

June 8, 2010
Arctic sea ice extent declines rapidly in May
In May, Arctic air temperatures remained above average, and sea ice extent declined at a rapid pace. At the end of the month, extent fell near the level recorded in 2006, the lowest in the satellite record for the end of May. Analysis from scientists at the University of Washington suggests that ice volume has continued to decline compared to recent years. However, it is too soon to say whether Arctic ice extent will reach another record low this summer&#8212;that will depend on the weather and wind conditions over the next few months.

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for May 2010 was 13.10 million square kilometers (5.06 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data. 
&#8212;Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

High-resolution image Overview of conditions 

Arctic sea ice extent averaged 13.10 million square kilometers (5.06 million square miles) for the month of May, 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. The rate of ice extent decline for the month was -68,000 kilometers (-26,000 square miles) per day, almost 50% more than the average rate of -46,000 kilometers (18,000 square miles) per day. This rate of loss is the highest for the month of May during the satellite record.

Ice extent remained slightly above average in the Bering Sea, and below average in the Barents Sea north of Scandinavia, and in Baffin Bay.


----------



## gslack (Jun 10, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Poor ol' Suckeee......  Cannot answer reality, resorts to mindless name calling.
> 
> Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis



No its factual and all here in this forum.. I have decided i am tired of poking you... Until you bring something new, original or compelling, and not re-hashed nonsense like your usual; i will save my time...


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 10, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> I'm beginning to think its an exercise in futility Gslack.  I think you're most probably right.  But I think the warmers will just keep posting those same tired, flawed, or selective sources again and again until we get tired of responding to them.  And then they'll think they won.  And then the thread will fade into oblivion.  And sooner or later somebody will start a new thread on global warming.
> 
> Oh well.  It's something to do.



You have yet to respond with anything that is credible.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 10, 2010)

Oh my, my feelings are so hurt.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 10, 2010)

gslack said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



It is hardly surprising that a retarded ideologue like the slack-jawed-idiot, for whom all of this is political (or perhaps just deranged) and not scientific, would be ignorant enough to make these claims. He is always making completely unsupported claims about subjects he knows nothing about because he heard Rush or some other denier cult propagandist say it. Once again he has displayed his ignorance and imbecility for all to see.

*Myth of the Flat Earth*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For mythologies involving the belief in a Flat Earth, see Flat Earth.





_Illustration of the spherical Earth in a 14th century copy of L'Image du monde (ca. 1246).
_
The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat, instead of spherical. During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was essentially dead. Flat-Earth models were in fact held at earlier (pre-medieval) times, before the spherical model became commonly accepted in Hellenistic astronomy.[1].

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of "flat earth darkness" among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[2]

David C. Lindberg and Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".[3][4]

Jeffrey Burton Russell says the flat earth mythology flourished most between 1870 and 1920, and had to do with the ideological setting created by struggles over evolution. [1]

    * "... with extraordinary [sic] few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat."[5]
    * Russell concludes that Irving, Draper and White were the main writers responsible for introducing the erroneous flat-earth myth that is still with us today." [2] [3]

In 1945 the Historical Association listed "Columbus and the Flat Earth Conception" second of twenty in its first-published pamphlet on common errors in history.[6]
Contents

Origin

In Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians, Jeffrey Russell (professor of history at University of California, Santa Barbara) claims that the Flat Earth theory is a fable used to impugn pre-modern civilization, especially that of the Middle Ages in Europe.[7]

James Hannam wrote:

    * The myth that people in the Middle Ages thought the earth is flat appears to date from the 17th century as part of the campaign by Protestants against Catholic teaching. But it gained currency in the 19th century, thanks to inaccurate histories such as John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Atheists and agnostics championed the conflict thesis for their own purpose ... [4]

Conflict between religion and science

The 19th century was a period in which the perception of an antagonism between religion and science was especially strong. The disputes surrounding the Darwinian revolution contributed to the birth of the conflict thesis,[2] a view of history according to which any interaction between religion and science almost inevitably would lead to open hostility, with religion usually taking the part of the aggressor against new scientific ideas.[8]
[edit] Irving's biography of Columbus

The first accounts of the legend have been traced to the 1830s. In 1828, Washington Irving's highly romanticised and inaccurate biography, The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus,[9] was published and mistaken by many for a scholarly work.[10] In Book III, Chapter II of this biography, Irving gave a largely fictional account of the meetings of a commission established by the Spanish sovereigns to examine Columbus's proposals. One of his more fanciful embellishments was a highly unlikely tale that the more ignorant and bigoted members on the commission had raised scriptural objections to Columbus's assertions that the Earth was spherical.[11]

But in reality, the issue in the 1490s was not the shape of the Earth, but its size, and the position of the east coast of Asia. Historical estimates from Ptolemy onwards placed the coast of Asia about 180° east of the Canary Islands.[12]. Columbus adopted an earlier (and rejected) distance of 225°, added 28° (based on Marco Polo's travels), and then placed Japan another 30° further east. Starting from Cape St. Vincent in Portugal, Columbus made Eurasia stretch 283° to the east, leaving the Atlantic as only 77° wide. Since he planned to leave from the Canaries (9° further west), his trip to Japan would only have to cover 68° of longitude.[13]

Furthermore, Columbus mistakenly used a much shorter length for a degree (he substituted the shorter 1480 m Italian "mile" for the longer 2177 m Arabic "mile"), making his degree (and the circumference of the Earth) about 75% of what it really was.[14] The combined effect of these mistakes was that Columbus estimated the distance to Japan to be only about 5,000 km (or only to the eastern edge of the Caribbean) while the true figure is about 20,000 km. The Spanish scholars may not have known the exact distance to the east coast of Asia, but they certainly knew that it was significantly further than Columbus' projection; and this was the basis of the criticism in Spain and Portugal, whether academic or amongst mariners, of the proposed voyage.

The disputed point, therefore, was not the shape of the Earth, nor the idea that going west would eventually lead to Japan and China, but the ability of European ships to sail that far across open seas. The small ships of the day (Columbus' three ships varied between 20.5 and 23.5 m  or 67 to 77 feet  in length and carried about 90 men) simply could not carry enough food and water to reach Japan. In fact, the ships barely reached the eastern Caribbean islands. Already the crews were mutinous, not because of some fear of "sailing off the edge", but because they were running out of food and water with no chance of any new supplies within sailing distance. They were on the edge of starvation.[15] What saved Columbus, of course, was the unknown existence of the Americas precisely at the point he thought he would reach Japan. His ability to resupply with food and water from the Caribbean islands allowed him to return safely to Europe. Otherwise his crews would have died, and the ships foundered. The academics were right: it was not possible for a 1492 ship to sail west across open oceans directly to Japan; mariners would die long before their proposed arrival.


----------



## gslack (Jun 10, 2010)

Sock attack!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 10, 2010)

gslack said:


> Sock attack!


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 10, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Sock attack!
> ...



Is foxfluffer g'sock's sock or vice versa? Or are they *both* just retarded farrightwingnut idiots from the astroturfed cult of denial that the fossil fuel industry has created to be their stooges?

And of course, once again, as usual, g'sock has no real response, this time to this most recent demonstration of his clueless idiocy and belief in myths like this "_a few hundred years ago, the most educated minds in Europe was certain the earth was flat_" nonsense. LOLOLOLOLOL.


----------



## gslack (Jun 10, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Ah dammit you caught me.... Fox has been here a lot longer than me,posts a lot nicer than me, and just to show how devious I truly am; we are on at the same time...... I am eeeevilll!....


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2010)

gslack said:


> Sock attack!


Non sequitur sock attack, no less.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 10, 2010)

Dude said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > Sock attack!
> ...



As might be expected from someone as retarded as you've shown yourself to be, doodles, you seem to have no idea what "non sequitur" means.

G'sock's post - "_A few hundred years ago, the most educated minds in Europe was certain the earth was flat_".

My response - "Myth of the Flat Earth
During the early Middle Ages, virtually all scholars maintained the spherical viewpoint first expressed by the Ancient Greeks. By the 14th century, belief in a flat earth among the educated was essentially dead."

Moron!!!


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2010)

Non sequitur _*and*_ ad hominem...Trolling Blunder has just hit the daily double! 

Gonna go for the trifecta?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 10, 2010)

Wow.  I've been checking in here now and then, get a little dizzy from the de ja vu, and move on.  But you guys must have been hitting some serious nerves in the more fanatical AGW wingnut division.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 10, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



Sorry.  Gslack is perfectly capable of holding his own in these things and needs no help from me.  Anyway I don't have the balls for that.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 10, 2010)

Dude said:


> Non sequitur _*and*_ ad hominem...Trolling Blunder has just hit the daily double!
> 
> Gonna go for the trifecta?



So you still can't quite grasp the meaning of "non-sequitur", eh retard?

Actually I'm combining the posting of factual information with the perfectly reasonable attacks on your intelligence that your idiotic posts engender and deserve.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2010)

I know what it means and you're invoking it, whether you choose to recognize it or not.

What you're posting is propaganda, hearsay and ad hominems, not facts.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 10, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Actually I was making fun of your obsession with 'socks', g'tard, but I might have known that that would be over your head. You may well be "evil", but mostly you're just very, very stupid and clueless about everything. And you still have no real response to the destruction of your little myth that "_a few hundred years ago, the most educated minds in Europe was certain the earth was flat_". LOLOLOLOL.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2010)

Right...And now the supposedly "most educated minds" on the planet are allegedly certain that changing climate is caused by the activities of industrialized man.

So, in a twisted sort of way, your "flat Earf" comments are apropos...Just not in the way you may have "thought (for lack of a better term).


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 10, 2010)

Dude said:


> I know what it means and you're invoking it, whether you choose to recognize it or not.
> 
> What you're posting is propaganda, hearsay and ad hominems, not facts.



LOL. The wikipedia article on the' flat Earth myth' is all propaganda and hearsay??? Wow, doodles, you're an even bigger retard than I thought. LOLOLOL.

Dictionary.com

non se·qui·tur
&#8211;noun
1.
Logic . an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.

Origin:
< L: it does not follow

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

Cultural Dictionary
non sequitur  [(non sek -wuh-tuhr)]

A thought that does not logically follow what has just been said: &#8220;We had been discussing plumbing, so her remark about astrology was a real non sequitur.&#8221; Non sequitur  is Latin for &#8220;It does not follow.&#8221;

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. 

Dictionary.com, LLC. Copyright © 2010. All rights reserved. 

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

The slack-jawed-idiot posts his mistaken and rather retarded ideas about how just a few centuries ago "_the most educated minds in Europe was certain the earth was flat_" and I respond with evidence that he is dead wrong and you 'think' that that is a non-sequitur? ROTFLMAO.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 10, 2010)

Normally I'm on the other side from Rolling thunder, but the people that put those articles together at Wikipedia source good historic data and sources. He put his history up, but it seems all that people can put forward is name calling. If you disagree and have better history please post it. I don't went the anti-Global warming side to be seen badly.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > I know what it means and you're invoking it, whether you choose to recognize it or not.
> ...


Right...It doesn't follow because it is _*you*_ who is taking on the argument of the flat-Earfer, not those who stand in skepticism and defiance of the anthropogenic gullible warming orthodoxy....Which itself also more classic Freudian projection.

Dare to now look up "hearsay" and "ad hominem", professor?


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 10, 2010)

Dude said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



That makes no sense at all. Are you drunk? Or just retarded?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2010)

Of course it makes no sense...Cultists aren't interested in making sense.

BTW...I hear that there's a space ship, hiding behind a comet,  that you can get passage aboard  if only you.....


----------



## gslack (Jun 10, 2010)

I challenge that wikkipedia article..... LOL, I think its full of shit and tells a bullshit story about science and religion back then.... The church controlled Spain, and all of Europe was under the same yoke at the time.

And as I said in my post.... 


> "* But the church was in control of education back then and the church didn't want to have to accept they were wrong or the Bible didn't mention it so it had to be wrong...
> 
> So no scientists or educated people at the time would even consider it in public... in private however they knew better and even helped and traded knowledge with the navigators and map makers...."*



Yeah you embarrassed yet? you should be.. once again you took a few lines and jumped the gun without READING what I wrote or said......

HAHAHAHHAHAHA! let's review that again shall we.... I said the following ....



> So no scientists or educated people at the time would even consider it in public... in private however they knew better and even helped and traded knowledge with the navigators and map makers...."[/SIZE][/B]



WOW, so I said they would never say it in public because the church would not accept it, but in private they knew better.... yeah you fucking idiotic, non-reading, little douchebag POS...... HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Once again, totally and completely made fool of yourself....


----------



## Oddball (Jun 10, 2010)

gslack said:


> I challenge that wikkipedia article.....


Well, that should be the first objection to just about anything posted from Wiki.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 10, 2010)

Dude said:


> Of course it makes no sense...Cultists aren't interested in making sense.


Well yeah, doodles, I knew that but it is good of you to admit it. It might the first step on your recovery from moral bankruptcy and severe cultic retardation.


----------



## gslack (Jun 10, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it makes no sense...Cultists aren't interested in making sense.
> ...



Make sure you go have your socks and proxies come in and bury your mistake and hide your embarrassment now dumbass....

no comment on your fuck up huh???? Not surprised not much you can say after that one...


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 10, 2010)

gslack said:


> I challenge that wikkipedia article..... LOL, I think its full of shit and tells a bullshit story about science and religion back then.... The church controlled Spain, and all of Europe was under the same yoke at the time.
> 
> And as I said in my post....
> 
> ...



I guess it must be typical of retards that they imagine that they can "challenge" evidence and scholarship with their own unsupported statements. The g'tard is, as usual, almost incomprehensible in his unhinged ravings and is once again in denial of a reality that is obvious to everyone else, except possibly his fellow retard and butt-buddy, Doodles.


*Debunking the Myth*
Wikipedia - From 'Myth of the Flat Earth'

Since the early 20th century, a number of books and articles have been devoted to debunking this myth, with varying effect.

Louise Bishop wrote:

    * *Virtually every thinker and writer of the thousand-year medieval period affirmed the spherical shape of the earth.*[21]

21 -   Louise M. Bishop - The Myth of the Flat Earth - citing chapter 11 of Misconceptions about the Middle Ages  By Stephen J. Harris, Bryon Lee Grigsby


----------



## gslack (Jun 10, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > I challenge that wikkipedia article..... LOL, I think its full of shit and tells a bullshit story about science and religion back then.... The church controlled Spain, and all of Europe was under the same yoke at the time.
> ...



What did I say tool???

Come on punk don't be a wuss man up now and tell me what I said in my post... I will do it for you again...



> So no scientists or educated people at the time would even consider it in public... in private however they knew better and even helped and traded knowledge with the navigators and map makers...."[/SIZE][/B]



Come on punk what DID I say????


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 10, 2010)

Suckeee...... no one cares what you said. One can simply assume it was as equally assanine as most of your posts.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jun 10, 2010)

gslack said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > gslack said:
> ...



What you said, g'tard, is just more of your retarded nonsense. You got shown up again as a clueless fool talking about things you have no knowledge of and so now you're denying the reality of what just happened, as usual for you.


----------



## gslack (Jun 10, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Suckeee...... no one cares what you said. One can simply assume it was as equally assanine as most of your posts.



I am not talking to you sock, I am talking to your alter ego...


----------



## gslack (Jun 10, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



yeah thats a QUIT... Thank you tool.... No kiss my ass you hack....


----------



## westwall (Jun 10, 2010)

RollingThunder said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it makes no sense...Cultists aren't interested in making sense.
> ...






The troll has still not apologised has it?  Why is anyone engaging it in conversation?


----------



## gslack (Jun 11, 2010)

westwall said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Hmmm...good point... it has lost its flair since the break down he has suffered.. kind of pathetic like oldsocks these days... I suppose their hearts just not in it anymore....

I believe I may take your advice and ignore the twerp now.. its pointless anyway.. but I just wonder how many times we speak to him incognito anyway...


----------



## Oddball (Jun 11, 2010)

So, has anyone disproved the _*U.S. friggin' Navy *_yet?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 11, 2010)

Dude said:


> So, has anyone disproved the _*U.S. friggin' Navy *_yet?



Denyers!  They run on Nuclear energy ferchristsakes!


----------



## gslack (Jun 11, 2010)

Dude said:


> So, has anyone disproved the _*U.S. friggin' Navy *_yet?



That would be a big fat NO! LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 12, 2010)

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Polar Sea Ice Cap and Snow - Cryosphere Today


----------



## Oddball (Jun 12, 2010)

What do either of those screeds have to lose if they're wrong?

If we're going  to play the appeal to authority game, I'll side with the guy who stands to lose a billion dollar piece of hardware and scores of lives if he's wrong.


----------



## westwall (Jun 12, 2010)

Dude said:


> What do either of those screeds have to lose if they're wrong?
> 
> If we're going  to play the appeal to authority game, I'll side with the guy who stands to lose a billion dollar piece of hardware and scores of lives if he's wrong.






Me too!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 12, 2010)

Dude said:


> What do either of those screeds have to lose if they're wrong?
> 
> If we're going  to play the appeal to authority game, I'll side with the guy who stands to lose a billion dollar piece of hardware and scores of lives if he's wrong.



Amen to that.  You look at Al Gore, by nobody's definition anything close to a scientist, hawking his AGW religion and making gazillions of dollars doing it even as he pretends his 10,000 foot mansion in Tennessee is okay because he'll trade some carbon credits later on.  He'll probably defend his brand new $9 million dollar mansion he just bought in California in the same way.  And his personal jet that he flies all over the world.  And his business enterprises he is setting up to sell carbon credits.

See any solar panels here?






Would Al Gore be an AGW religionist if he wasn't able to accumulate an obscene fortune doing that?  He sure isn't walking the walk is he.

Add to that scientists who are living quite comfortably by raking in massive government and foundation grants to study anthropological global warming.  So long as they support it.  As we have all seen, scientists who don't buy into the AGW kool-ade drinking cult aren't anywhere near as successful attracting the money.

I'll go with the guy who doesn't have a dog in the fight as being more honest about the whole picture than those who stand to lose major money if they should join the skeptic crowd.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 12, 2010)

Al Gore is a businessman. A rather successful one, at that. Took a modestly wealthy inheritance, and, by investing in the hi-tech market when it was on a downer, made that into a large fortune.

He purchased a California mansion for a bargain price. That is good business. 

He did not make money off of his film, but he did win the gratitude of most of the citizens of the world that have seen it.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 12, 2010)

Algore is a straight-up carnie hustler, who was born on third base and acts as though he hit a triple.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 12, 2010)

He never had two failed wars to his name. Nor did he take a government in very good financial shape, and bankrupt it in eight years. Not only that, his business ventures make money, he does not need the Bin Laden family to bail him out, as Bush repeatedly did.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 12, 2010)

We need a Godwin-esque corollary for deflections to_* GEORGE BOOOOOOOOOSH! *_


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 12, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> He never had two failed wars to his name. Nor did he take a government in very good financial shape, and bankrupt it in eight years. Not only that, his business ventures make money, he does not need the Bin Laden family to bail him out, as Bush repeatedly did.


I would like to hear your definition of "Failed" as well as your definintion of "Successful" in regards to war.  Are we talking Vietnam, Korea or what?  

You are coming off as an absolute lunatic in all sectors of thought and society jumping at conspiracies of your own making behind every cloud.

As an antidote to your obvious descent into madness, may I suggest you tune in to the Jason Lewis show out there?  May give you a life line to sanity again.  He's on in the Portland area on KXL 750am 9-midnite.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 12, 2010)

Dude said:


> We need a Godwin-esque corollary for deflections to_* GEORGE BOOOOOOOOOSH! *_



I agree.  A rubber stamp or something to acknowledge the George Bush deflections and also the resurrection of Godwin's law.  Would save a lot of time.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 12, 2010)

George Bush was not perfect, but his economy had unemployment of 4-6.5 percent instead of Obongo's 9-10.2 percent. Obongo's economy overall is far worst then any presidents since the depression. Also Obama has failed at most everything and doubled our national debt at a rate that would make George Bush blush! So if your going to blame George Bush please to be honest blame Barack Hussein Obama for doing far worst. I'm sick of the double standard.


----------



## gslack (Jun 12, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> He never had two failed wars to his name. Nor did he take a government in very good financial shape, and bankrupt it in eight years. Not only that, his business ventures make money, he does not need the Bin Laden family to bail him out, as Bush repeatedly did.



So he inherited a zinc mining lease on his daddy's property, a lucrative bit oil stock from occidental petroleum, and lets not forget he married old money too..

Along with that he used his position as VP to sell a false science and utter shameless fear driven attack to further his own business ventures which would lead to a tax on life.

And no he didn't have any wars to his name... yeah had to hold the big chair for that didn't he... But then the cluster fucks in Somalia and Kosovo was part of the clinton BS.... But no Gore didn't have any wars to his name... Nor anything else beyond the global warming pseudo-science....


----------



## westwall (Jun 12, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Al Gore is a businessman. A rather successful one, at that. Took a modestly wealthy inheritance, and, by investing in the hi-tech market when it was on a downer, made that into a large fortune.
> 
> He purchased a California mansion for a bargain price. That is good business.
> 
> He did not make money off of his film, but he did win the gratitude of most of the citizens of the world that have seen it.






He is only successful because he used his political connections to pass legislation that was beneficial to his companies old fraud.  If you or I had done the same we would be in prison on a whole host of government violations.  Just remember Jack Abramoff (who just got out of prison) he was doing basically the same thing...only his connections aren't quite as good.


----------



## Chris (Jun 13, 2010)

Dude said:


> So, has anyone disproved the _*U.S. friggin' Navy *_yet?



Do you even bother to read the posts?

Apparently not.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 13, 2010)

I'll score that a big _*NO*_.


----------



## Chris (Jun 13, 2010)

Dude said:


> I'll score that a big _*NO*_.



Like I said. You don't read the posts here.

The issue that the deniers refuse to acknowledge, even though I have brought it up in about a hundred posts, is that the Sun just went through its lowest level of activity in 80 years. As a result the polar ice was thicker this winter. But in the last few months the ice cap experienced its fastest period of melting since records have been kept. Why? Because as the Sun's activity is increasing, the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 is having a greater effect. Now the ice is at its lowest level for this time of year since the satellite era began.


----------



## westwall (Jun 13, 2010)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > I'll score that a big _*NO*_.
> ...






This is not true Chris.  The ice pack melt started later than it had in decades and the ice is still thicker than it has been in years.  You cultists manipulate the data to suit your agenda, but the science is coming out and you people are losing.  Which is good.


----------



## Chris (Jun 13, 2010)




----------



## Chris (Jun 13, 2010)

Arctic sea ice coverage was the highest in 10 years at the end of March. Then, it decreased at the fastest rate since satellite records started (which began in 1979) during the month of May. It was very near the record low May coverage of 2006 by the end of the month.

This flip-flop in data trends was foreseen by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) scientists earlier this year. The reason? Although the March amount of sea surface covered by ice was the highest since 2001, the majority of this ice was less than three years old. This means it is thinner and less compact than &#8220;older&#8221; ice, and has been melting away at a greater pace in the past 30 years, of average.

The primary mechanism for this rapid melt is a warm southerly air current over much of the arctic region. Surface air temperatures have been well above average in the northern latitudes, as much as 9 degrees over the norm which of course contributed to the quick decrease in ice.

Arctic sea ice and a hot Texas summer: Is there a connection?


----------



## gslack (Jun 13, 2010)

Chris said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > So, has anyone disproved the _*U.S. friggin' Navy *_yet?
> ...



No dumbass the ones who don't read the posts or the articles they cite are you and your sock/troll army.... Already busted you and the 3 stooges doing this too many times to even count.... On you for one we have your brilliant use of the satellite ice coverage animation you posted here and then tried to pretend it was my animation.. it was your animation, I just actually watched the animation without a preconceived outcome.....

Not one of you have an ethical core you will not sell out to push this bullshit.... So when you show some honesty and integrity regarding this, maybe we will take you seriously again. So far all we have seen is you grabbing headlines and going with it and not bothering to read the articles or data. And when called on it, or your data/article shown to be incorrect, or the claims in the headlines or asserted by you to be false, you run away, come back as another identity and bury it under Propaganda, or lie and or pretend it never happened....

you are dishonest, and that is enough for most of us to treat you with contempt... So when we dismiss you as a liar, remember it was your doing...


----------



## Oddball (Jun 13, 2010)

Look out!...Don't make him post another chart or graph from the hoaxers on you again!


----------



## westwall (Jun 13, 2010)

Chris said:


>






Oh yes this is great, they are measuring the exact 8% of the ice pack that supports their cause and ignoring the rest that doesn't.  Real effective if yo can pull it off...which they can do with people like you.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 13, 2010)

What do you want from the UCAR crooks who got caught with their data-fudging pants down in the CRU e-mail scandal?


----------



## westwall (Jun 13, 2010)

dude said:


> what do you want from the ucar crooks who got caught with their data-fudging pants down in the cru e-mail scandal?






exactly!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 13, 2010)

After observing this and the other active global warming threads for a few days now, there are a couple of questions that keeps nagging at me.

I KNOW why some of us believe the skeptics.  They simply are making more sense and making the more credible case these days.  They may yet be proved wrong.  But if they are right, think of all the gazillions of laws, policies, and monies spent that won't need to be expended in a way that will take away from our freedoms, choices, options, and opportunties.

But given the blessings to humankind if we aren't in any danger from anthropological global warming, why are some of you guys so reluctant to look at what those skeptics are saying?  Why are you so anxious for them to be wrong?

I know why some believe the AGW gurus.  They represent a leftwing, socialist, and authoritarian perspective that is quite appealing to Leftist or those who admire and exalt the gurus in that camp.  They honestly believe it is possible that government authority will get us much closer to a utopian society than we could ever achieve on our own.

But given the errors that have been repeatedly demonstrated in their conclusions, the obvious fortunes that will be acquired by the advocate leaders, why are the little people so eager to embrace those conclusions?   How can they believe them so strongly that they seem almost desperate for them to be right?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 13, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> *But given the errors that have been repeatedly demonstrated in their conclusions,* the obvious fortunes that will be acquired by the advocate leaders, why are the little people so eager to embrace those conclusions?   How can they believe them so strongly that they seem almost desperate for them to be right?


I used to believe that they were mere errors until the CRU e-mail and IPCC scandals broke.

The people at the top of this aren't making petty human errors, they're perpetrating the greatest money-grubbing hoax since Piltdown Man.


----------

