Satellite photos show uncomfortable truth

[CrusaderFrank]

You have said repeatedly that we have no evidence. What do you find in AR5 or in the thousands of peer reviewed scientific studies on which the IPCC bases its conclusions? Do you really consider yourself both educationally qualified and sufficiently knowledgeable about those particular thousands of research papers to conclude no evidence exists?

ROFL

Much shorter than most of the dumb fuck comments here. But just a dumb.

The fact remains, Crick, Oreginecman, and so many others have present real scientific papers from real scientists. You people present shit and try to pretend it is real. Flap-yap doesn't buy shit in the real world, and that is all you have.

Presented papers, but no evidence

 

[Crick]

Was that supposed to be an example of your evidence?


Frank, do you understand what the term "evidence" means?

 

[SSDD]

Was that supposed to be an example of your evidence?


Frank, do you understand what the term "evidence" means?

Evidence might be clear examples that the climate is outside of the limits of natural variation...actual evidence that proves a point....and correlation does not equal causation...actual evidence would be proof of causation...got any?

 

[Crick]

..actual evidence would be proof of causation...got any?

You, more than Kosh or JC456, need a course in B-A-S-I-C science. Unfortunately, I'm quite certain you'd get less out of it than would they. I'd actually be surprised if you could find an instructor that would let you remain in the class for the entire term.

 

[RKMBrown]

..actual evidence would be proof of causation...got any?

You, more than Kosh or JC456, need a course in B-A-S-I-C science. Unfortunately, I'm quite certain you'd get less out of it than would they. I'd actually be surprised if you could find an instructor that would let you remain in the class for the entire term.

You're the one that needs a remedial science class. You, along with the rest of you dim bulbs that think CO2 is gonna kill us all.

 

[Crick]

It will kill some folks. I'm sure it already has. But it won't kill us all.

 

[jc456]

..actual evidence would be proof of causation...got any?

You, more than Kosh or JC456, need a course in B-A-S-I-C science. Unfortunately, I'm quite certain you'd get less out of it than would they. I'd actually be surprised if you could find an instructor that would let you remain in the class for the entire term.

Well, we're waiting. got that proof of causation?

 

[jc456]

It will kill some folks. I'm sure it already has. But it won't kill us all.

more mumbo jumbo with no evidence. You are a kick s0n! a LoSiNg one at that!

 

[RKMBrown]

You're the one that needs a remedial science class. You, along with the rest of you dim bulbs that think CO2 is gonna kill us all.

It will kill some folks. I'm sure it already has. But it won't kill us all.

Wait, what? How many people has CO2 killed? ROFL, I've got to here this one. You do realize that carbon dioxide is not carbon monoxide, right?

You do realize that the percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere is 0.039% this vs 21% for oxygen, right? You do realize that plants convert CO2 to oxygen right? You do realize that plants grow faster and use water more efficiently when CO2 is increased right? You do realize that CO2 would have to be ~ 250 times (2+ orders of MAGNITUDE) HIGHER in concentration before it became toxic to humans right? CO2 is not a poison it is a natural and necessary part of the atmosphere. The result of increased CO2, if that happens, will be a massive increase in plant growth that will offset the increase, until the system achieves equilibrium.

Are you talking about people in space suits? ROFL dude.. put down the shovel while your ahead.

 

[SSDD]

..actual evidence would be proof of causation...got any?

You, more than Kosh or JC456, need a course in B-A-S-I-C science. Unfortunately, I'm quite certain you'd get less out of it than would they. I'd actually be surprised if you could find an instructor that would let you remain in the class for the entire term.

Yammering rather than providing the requested evidence....how unsurprising is that? By the way, did you see the "newly discovered" photos take of the arctic in the 1960's....huge holes in the ice....here is one taken in September 1969 by the NIMBUS satellite...look at the amount of open water and compare it to today....Seems that today's "ice loss" is far from unprecedented....as I said, the reason you people want to restrict the debate to very limited time periods is that if you look at actual climate history, your stupidity and senseless hysterics is self evident.

 

[Crick]

.

Yammering rather than providing the requested evidence....how unsurprising is that?

Considering your attempt to require proof on a natural sciences question, not surprising at all.

By the way, did you see the "newly discovered" photos take of the arctic in the 1960's....huge holes in the ice....here is one taken in September 1969 by the NIMBUS satellite...look at the amount of open water and compare it to today.

Okay, let's.

...Seems that today's "ice loss" is far from unprecedented....as I said, the reason you people want to restrict the debate to very limited time periods is that if you look at actual climate history, your stupidity and senseless hysterics is self evident.[/QUOTE]

Don't be an idiot. Data is being presented where its available. Can YOU measure the actual ice extents from this photograph?

 

[jc456]

.

Yammering rather than providing the requested evidence....how unsurprising is that?

Considering your attempt to require proof on a natural sciences question, not surprising at all.

By the way, did you see the "newly discovered" photos take of the arctic in the 1960's....huge holes in the ice....here is one taken in September 1969 by the NIMBUS satellite...look at the amount of open water and compare it to today.

Okay, let's.

...Seems that today's "ice loss" is far from unprecedented....as I said, the reason you people want to restrict the debate to very limited time periods is that if you look at actual climate history, your stupidity and senseless hysterics is self evident.

Don't be an idiot. Data is being presented where its available. Can YOU measure the actual ice extents from this photograph?

I see you remain stuck in a rut. I provide you with the maps from the 1930s, you ignore it. Which is typical for your ilk. Yep never look at the facts. Right, it's your favorite thing to do. Look for more mumbo jumbo.

 

[Kosh]

I know let us start to study climate during a warming phase and then blame it on humans..

 

[Old Rocks]

You're the one that needs a remedial science class. You, along with the rest of you dim bulbs that think CO2 is gonna kill us all.

It will kill some folks. I'm sure it already has. But it won't kill us all.

Wait, what? How many people has CO2 killed? ROFL, I've got to here this one. You do realize that carbon dioxide is not carbon monoxide, right?

You do realize that the percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere is 0.039% this vs 21% for oxygen, right? You do realize that plants convert CO2 to oxygen right? You do realize that plants grow faster and use water more efficiently when CO2 is increased right? You do realize that CO2 would have to be ~ 250 times (2+ orders of MAGNITUDE) HIGHER in concentration before it became toxic to humans right? CO2 is not a poison it is a natural and necessary part of the atmosphere. The result of increased CO2, if that happens, will be a massive increase in plant growth that will offset the increase, until the system achieves equilibrium.

Are you talking about people in space suits? ROFL dude.. put down the shovel while your ahead.

Oh my, the fucking dummy with the 160 IQ! And, no, I do not realize that all plants grow faster and use water more efficiently at higher CO2 levels, because all plants do not. And nobody is talking about toxic levels of CO2, we are talking about climate changing levels of CO2. And that is already here.

Now, you state that there will be a massive increase in plant growth if there is an increase in CO2. So, where is that massive increase in plant growth, Homer? After all, the CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm.

 

[Old Rocks]

I know let us start to study climate during a warming phase and then blame it on humans..

Hey Kosh, when are you actually going to post something that reflects more than a single digit IQ?

 

[Old Rocks]

The Northwest Passage has been attempted since the 15th century. Nobody was able to do it until 1903, and then it was done only in a three year trip. Since 2000, many boats and some ships have done it with no problems, and without the assistance of ice breakers. Not every year, but enough of them to label Hansen't predictions that he made in 1981 concerning it's opening as accurate.

That the useless and ignorant flap-yappers of this board are not aware of this is simply the confimation of their state of willfull ignorance.

 

[alpine]

90+% of scientists and 90+% of scientific papers published support the view of man made global warming.

Whoever opposing to this statistical data, we simply call hopeless "ignorant"...

 

[Kosh]

Hey Kosh, when are you actually going to post something that reflects more than a single digit IQ?

This from one the AGW cut and paste religious cult.

 

[Crick]

I know let us start to study climate during a warming phase and then blame it on humans..

What warming phase?

 

[RKMBrown]

You're the one that needs a remedial science class. You, along with the rest of you dim bulbs that think CO2 is gonna kill us all.

It will kill some folks. I'm sure it already has. But it won't kill us all.

Wait, what? How many people has CO2 killed? ROFL, I've got to here this one. You do realize that carbon dioxide is not carbon monoxide, right?

You do realize that the percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere is 0.039% this vs 21% for oxygen, right? You do realize that plants convert CO2 to oxygen right? You do realize that plants grow faster and use water more efficiently when CO2 is increased right? You do realize that CO2 would have to be ~ 250 times (2+ orders of MAGNITUDE) HIGHER in concentration before it became toxic to humans right? CO2 is not a poison it is a natural and necessary part of the atmosphere. The result of increased CO2, if that happens, will be a massive increase in plant growth that will offset the increase, until the system achieves equilibrium.

Are you talking about people in space suits? ROFL dude.. put down the shovel while your ahead.

Oh my, the fucking dummy with the 160 IQ! And, no, I do not realize that all plants grow faster and use water more efficiently at higher CO2 levels, because all plants do not. And nobody is talking about toxic levels of CO2, we are talking about climate changing levels of CO2. And that is already here.

Now, you state that there will be a massive increase in plant growth if there is an increase in CO2. So, where is that massive increase in plant growth, Homer? After all, the CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm.

Where did I say "all plants" you POS liar?

Where is your evidence that CO2 levels have had any negative affects whatsoever on the climate?

Send me a 100m grant and I'll gladly do the research. Otherwise you'll just have to be happy with closed environment experiments. You look them up, I'm bored with you.