30 days to go

[Old Rocks]

The present amount of ice in the Arctic Ocean is 3.155 square kilometers. The lowest, in 2007 was at about day 251, it is now day 231. In 2007, the lowest figure for the ice was 2.91 square kilometers. So we have only about 100,000 square kilometers to go before eclipsing that record. And by the looks of the curve here, we will blow right by it.

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

 

[Mad Scientist]

Orthodox Marxism blames Capitalism for environmental problems. This group would promote Science and Technological development for the sake of mastering nature.

Just like you do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Because of manmade global warming?

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody cares

 

[RollingThunder]

Because of manmade global warming?

That's right, CrazyF*ck, the ice in the Arctic is indeed melting because of manmake global warming.

I'm curious to see just what wacky denier cult nonsense you'll come up with this time in your endless and entirely futile attempts to deny reality.

 

[Oddball]

The present amount of ice in the Arctic Ocean is 3.155 square kilometers. The lowest, in 2007 was at about day 251, it is now day 231. In 2007, the lowest figure for the ice was 2.91 square kilometers. So we have only about 100,000 square kilometers to go before eclipsing that record. And by the looks of the curve here, we will blow right by it.

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

 

[tjvh]

Because of manmade global warming?

That's right, CrazyF*ck, the ice in the Arctic is indeed melting because of manmake global warming.

I'm curious to see just what wacky denier cult nonsense you'll come up with this time in your endless and entirely futile attempts to deny reality.

You got any real proof of this manmake global warming thing?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Because of manmade global warming?

That's right, CrazyF*ck, the ice in the Arctic is indeed melting because of manmake global warming.

I'm curious to see just what wacky denier cult nonsense you'll come up with this time in your endless and entirely futile attempts to deny reality.

You got any real proof of this manmake global warming thing?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...-the-sea-ice-melt-in-the-arctic-2012-a-8.html

Keeps going down. I'm not sure if it is natural or man made, but to be safe, maybe we should start arguing for nuclear power to cut our emissions? They can argue for renewables and we both meet in the middle with a workable energy infrastructure.

This way we can have a grid that can work with our economy. This melting in the arctic is getting scary. This might not be bull shit, but we better damn well demand a set up that's economical.

 

[RollingThunder]

Because of manmade global warming?

That's right, CrazyF*ck, the ice in the Arctic is indeed melting because of manmake global warming.

I'm curious to see just what wacky denier cult nonsense you'll come up with this time in your endless and entirely futile attempts to deny reality.

You got any real proof of this manmake global warming thing?

Maybe you should tell me just what an anti-science, dead-ignorant denier cult retard like you would consider to be "real proof" of anything?

BTW, there are no such things as "real proofs" in science.

In real science, about the best they can do is demonstrated that a preponderance of evidence supports a theory; that there is no evidence that would falsify the theory; and that there are no viable alternative theories that can explain the evidence.

All of that has happened with the theory of anthropogenic global warming/climate change which is why it is accepted by the vast majority of scientists worldwide. The laws of physics and vast amounts of hard evidence and data support the theory. There are no alternative theories that hold water that can explain the current abrupt warming trend.

 

[Old Rocks]

Because of manmade global warming?

That's right, CrazyF*ck, the ice in the Arctic is indeed melting because of manmake global warming.

I'm curious to see just what wacky denier cult nonsense you'll come up with this time in your endless and entirely futile attempts to deny reality.

You got any real proof of this manmake global warming thing?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Because of manmade global warming?

That's right, CrazyF*ck, the ice in the Arctic is indeed melting because of manmake global warming.

I'm curious to see just what wacky denier cult nonsense you'll come up with this time in your endless and entirely futile attempts to deny reality.

Can you show us in a lab how you eliminate all variables except for a wisp of CO2 or do we have to trust your flawed models, tree rings and altered data?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That's right, CrazyF*ck, the ice in the Arctic is indeed melting because of manmake global warming.

I'm curious to see just what wacky denier cult nonsense you'll come up with this time in your endless and entirely futile attempts to deny reality.

You got any real proof of this manmake global warming thing?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

It wasn't proof the first time you posted it and it's still not proof

 

[California Girl]

This is what happens when you politicize that which should not be political. Watermelons are responsible for the clusterfuck that the environment has become.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why sure, Frankie Boy. Proof of something is when someone that believes in a hollow moon accepts it, right?

That site is the history of the investigation by scientists into the properties and affects of GHGs. It is the site of the American Institute of Physics, the largest scientific society in the world, a society composed of ten member societies.

About the American Institute of Physics

 

[Dr Grump]

You got any real proof of this manmake global warming thing?

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

It wasn't proof the first time you posted it and it's still not proof

Honestly test. How much of that did you read...honestly...

 

[Old Rocks]

This is what happens when you politicize that which should not be political. Watermelons are responsible for the clusterfuck that the environment has become.

You 'Conservatives' are entirely responsible for the politicizing of this subject. The American Institute of Physics and American Geophysical Union just present the facts concerning the GHGs and their affects. That the amelioration of the severe consequences of the increase in GHGs demands that we must cease digging the hole deeper, stop emitting GHGs as quickly a possible, threatons some very wealthy people, and they seek to stop and discredit the science. And you support those efforts.

 

[daveman]

This is what happens when you politicize that which should not be political. Watermelons are responsible for the clusterfuck that the environment has become.

You 'Conservatives' are entirely responsible for the politicizing of this subject. The American Institute of Physics and American Geophysical Union just present the facts concerning the GHGs and their affects. That the amelioration of the severe consequences of the increase in GHGs demands that we must cease digging the hole deeper, stop emitting GHGs as quickly a possible, threatons some very wealthy people, and they seek to stop and discredit the science. And you support those efforts.

Are you a pathological liar, or a Troo Beleever? Not much difference, really.

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy' | NewsBusters.org

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.​

Original interview here, in German: «Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu» - NZZ.ch, 14.11.2010

 

[flacaltenn]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

It wasn't proof the first time you posted it and it's still not proof

Honestly test. How much of that did you read...honestly...

I've read it.. Actually I skimmed over 200 years of non-relevant history which makes up 1/2 the article..

The other half is platitudes based on "old information" and speculation about the fraction of MAN-MADE CO2 causation of the warming. An example of that is ----

Meanwhile the level of CO2 in the air kept rising, indeed faster than anyone had expected. In this essay we have seen how, ever since the late 1950s, an increasing number of experts predicted that effects on climate would become clearly visible around the year 2000. They were right. As the 21st century began, not only was the global temperature soaring in a way never seen before, but field evidence showed that the expected feedbacks were kicking in. The world's plants were taking up more CO2, but their capacity to absorb was waning. Warmer oceans were absorbing less CO2, and gas was seen bubbling from melting Arctic tundra.(61) In sum, global warming was leading to more greenhouse emissions, which would lead to more warming... and so forth. Around 2008 some scientists began to warn that these changes were coming on faster than the international panels had predicted.

This whole statement is contraindicated by NEWER studies showing that CO2 absorption (of the man-caused fraction) has approximately doubled in the last 60 years and is NOT currently slowing. Seems like everytime a projection is made -- and the press goes wild -- it is later refuted when no one is listening and the media NEVER retracts the hyped story... (See my thread on Poisoning Oysters with CO2 for an example -- still no media coverage or retraction)

So the old proclamations and speculations continue to survive -- like this one. Living mostly in the past 200 years of science is what Ole Rocks does better than analyzing and absorbing NEW information.

What you're arguing about in this thread is a good example of hype and why I don't give a 1/2 shit about Sea Ice Extent. They are measuring the extent of extremely thin and extremely seasonal ice. Their acceptance figures are (something like) if it has 24% ice coverage it is considered COMPLETELY iced. And if that melts --- the whole square that the berg was in included in melt area. This is a Las Vegas sports bar bet. What matters is ICE VOLUME and no one seems to care about that because it's far less dramatic.

I prefer to concentrate on the fact that I never believed ONE STUPID NUMBER -- like Mean Annual Surface Temp was able to describe a complex climate change issue. In FACT -- the hyperventilating warmers are now saying the effect is NOT GLOBAL because the heating at the Arctic is proceeding faster. That's NOT because of a uniform blanket of CO2 which undeniably is roughly the same worldwide FORCING the same amount of change. Rather it's because the "climate sensitivity" of the Arctic is much different -- can't be described with a single number either -- and is NOT STATIC. In fact -- these folks who were convincing the public with that single mangled Hockey Stick graph of temp are NOW saying that Climate Change is NOT global but highly REGIONALIZED.

If that's the case -- a constant uniform forcing function from CO2 acting globally and a SYNTHESIZED single temp anomality number are kids play. And you have to consider that if the Arctic currently has a climate sensitivity of TWICE the moderate lattitudes (E.G.) -- that other DISMISSED forcing functions like solar irradiation have TWICE the effect they were presumed to have in those regions..

This is TOO complex to rely on the SAME LINK for years at a time. OR A SINGLE STUPID NUMBER derived from 12000 sensors. (especially dumb if you now have SATELLITE data to replace those problematic 12,000 sensors and their distribution and calibration)

And if you're relying on what you've heard from CNN or NPR --- you're not getting a good picture of how much we DON'T know about why and how the Earth is warming..

THAT'S why I just laugh and carry on when this link gets trotted out for the 1920th time....