Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008, and continues the trend of decreasing summer sea ice.
Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008, and continues the trend of decreasing summer sea ice.
Your subject line says "third lowest ever." Of course, here it says third lowest in satellite record. Which doesn't go that far back. The earth, with its shifting climate and changes in ice cover, has been around much, much longer than satellite records. You realize that, right?
Well, asshole, other than stupid statements, what the hell do you have to contribute.
The more CO2 we add, the more severe the results will be. At some point, we will create a situation where the natural reseviours of CO2 and Ch4 are released into the atmosphere. No, we do not know where that point is. My bet is that we will find out. Thanks to idiots like you and Westwall.
Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008, and continues the trend of decreasing summer sea ice.
Your subject line says "third lowest ever." Of course, here it says third lowest in satellite record. Which doesn't go that far back. The earth, with its shifting climate and changes in ice cover, has been around much, much longer than satellite records. You realize that, right?
Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008, and continues the trend of decreasing summer sea ice.
Your subject line says "third lowest ever." Of course, here it says third lowest in satellite record. Which doesn't go that far back. The earth, with its shifting climate and changes in ice cover, has been around much, much longer than satellite records. You realize that, right?
No, they don't. They kind of remind me of religius fanatics who claim the world is only 5,600 years old thanks to some calculations by Bishop Usher a couple of hundred years ago(and who rdean just loves to lump in with anybody who is sceptical of the alarmist POV).
Well the alarmists claim that only the last 200 years matters (because of the age of industrialization) so they are even more rigid than the religious fanatics.
I guess that makes them Alarmist Fanatics! Or is that Fanatical Alarmists......
Your subject line says "third lowest ever." Of course, here it says third lowest in satellite record. Which doesn't go that far back. The earth, with its shifting climate and changes in ice cover, has been around much, much longer than satellite records. You realize that, right?
No, they don't. They kind of remind me of religius fanatics who claim the world is only 5,600 years old thanks to some calculations by Bishop Usher a couple of hundred years ago(and who rdean just loves to lump in with anybody who is sceptical of the alarmist POV).
Well the alarmists claim that only the last 200 years matters (because of the age of industrialization) so they are even more rigid than the religious fanatics.
I guess that makes them Alarmist Fanatics! Or is that Fanatical Alarmists......
So, are you denying that CO2 and other gases absorb energy? Are you denying that they've gone up in the last 200 years? What happens if the trend continues? You may delight your cronies with "religion" talk, but that's all it is, talk. It isn't an argument, just distraction from the real issues you're so desperately trying to avoid.
Well, asshole, other than stupid statements, what the hell do you have to contribute.
The more CO2 we add, the more severe the results will be. At some point, we will create a situation where the natural reseviours of CO2 and Ch4 are released into the atmosphere. No, we do not know where that point is. My bet is that we will find out. Thanks to idiots like you and Westwall.
My statements are, as usual, accurate and to the point. It just doesn't fit your global warming faither beliefs. Did you notice it will take several thousand years to reverse the "damage"? Gee, haven't been ading to the CO2 for more than 300 years. Must be another source huh?
No, they don't. They kind of remind me of religius fanatics who claim the world is only 5,600 years old thanks to some calculations by Bishop Usher a couple of hundred years ago(and who rdean just loves to lump in with anybody who is sceptical of the alarmist POV).
Well the alarmists claim that only the last 200 years matters (because of the age of industrialization) so they are even more rigid than the religious fanatics.
I guess that makes them Alarmist Fanatics! Or is that Fanatical Alarmists......
So, are you denying that CO2 and other gases absorb energy? Are you denying that they've gone up in the last 200 years? What happens if the trend continues? You may delight your cronies with "religion" talk, but that's all it is, talk. It isn't an argument, just distraction from the real issues you're so desperately trying to avoid.
Right back at ya konrad, do you deny that the Earth was warmer during the Medieval Warming Period? Do you deny that the Earth was warmer during the Roman Warming Period, Do you deny that the Vostock Ice Cores show an 800 year lag from the time warming begins to the time the CO2 levels rise? Do you deny that the Earth enjoys long climate cycles (lasting THOUSANDS of years)?
Answer those questions first little one. I attempt nothing. I merely point out the extraordinary limitations of your failed religion.
So, are you denying that CO2 and other gases absorb energy? Are you denying that they've gone up in the last 200 years? What happens if the trend continues? You may delight your cronies with "religion" talk, but that's all it is, talk. It isn't an argument, just distraction from the real issues you're so desperately trying to avoid.
Right back at ya konrad, do you deny that the Earth was warmer during the Medieval Warming Period? Do you deny that the Earth was warmer during the Roman Warming Period, Do you deny that the Vostock Ice Cores show an 800 year lag from the time warming begins to the time the CO2 levels rise? Do you deny that the Earth enjoys long climate cycles (lasting THOUSANDS of years)?
Answer those questions first little one. I attempt nothing. I merely point out the extraordinary limitations of your failed religion.
No, I'm saying it's irrelevant. You can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed. Where are the extra gases coming from? Where is the extra energy going that they trap? How about answering those questions? You keep talking about natural cycles, but seem to be unwilling to discuss the possibility of unnatural ones. Doesn't fit into the tenets of YOUR religion?
No, they don't. They kind of remind me of religius fanatics who claim the world is only 5,600 years old thanks to some calculations by Bishop Usher a couple of hundred years ago(and who rdean just loves to lump in with anybody who is sceptical of the alarmist POV).
Well the alarmists claim that only the last 200 years matters (because of the age of industrialization) so they are even more rigid than the religious fanatics.
I guess that makes them Alarmist Fanatics! Or is that Fanatical Alarmists......
So, are you denying that CO2 and other gases absorb energy? Are you denying that they've gone up in the last 200 years? What happens if the trend continues? You may delight your cronies with "religion" talk, but that's all it is, talk. It isn't an argument, just distraction from the real issues you're so desperately trying to avoid.
Right back at ya konrad, do you deny that the Earth was warmer during the Medieval Warming Period? Do you deny that the Earth was warmer during the Roman Warming Period, Do you deny that the Vostock Ice Cores show an 800 year lag from the time warming begins to the time the CO2 levels rise? Do you deny that the Earth enjoys long climate cycles (lasting THOUSANDS of years)?
Answer those questions first little one. I attempt nothing. I merely point out the extraordinary limitations of your failed religion.
So, are you denying that CO2 and other gases absorb energy? Are you denying that they've gone up in the last 200 years? What happens if the trend continues? You may delight your cronies with "religion" talk, but that's all it is, talk. It isn't an argument, just distraction from the real issues you're so desperately trying to avoid.
Right back at ya konrad, do you deny that the Earth was warmer during the Medieval Warming Period? Do you deny that the Earth was warmer during the Roman Warming Period, Do you deny that the Vostock Ice Cores show an 800 year lag from the time warming begins to the time the CO2 levels rise? Do you deny that the Earth enjoys long climate cycles (lasting THOUSANDS of years)?
Answer those questions first little one. I attempt nothing. I merely point out the extraordinary limitations of your failed religion.
Well, these people deny that twaddle. And they are far more respected as scientists than you will ever be.
temperature variations over the past two millennia
Michael E. Mann*,, Zhihua Zhang*, Malcolm K. Hughes, Raymond S. Bradley§, Sonya K. Miller*, Scott Rutherford¶, and Fenbiao Ni
+ Author Affiliations
*Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802;
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721;
§Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-9298; and
¶Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, Bristol, RI 02809
Communicated by Lonnie G. Thompson, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, June 26, 2008 (received for review November 20, 2007)
Abstract
Following the suggestions of a recent National Research Council report [NRC (National Research Council) (2006) Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (Natl Acad Press, Washington, DC).], we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.
As for the Roman Period, the proxy data is simply not accurate enough at present for that period to definitively state the comparison one way or the other.
As for the rest of your silliness, you still deny that the GHGs are having a major effect on the climate, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of scientists state the affirmative on that issue.
MICHAEL MANN! He's the jackas that tried to obliterate the MWP so his little hockey stick would work! 
