Arctic sea ice melting toward record

[Chris]

By your logic only man changes climate.

No, that's your logic.

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[ScienceRocks]

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.

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.

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]

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]

By your logic only man changes climate.

No, that's your logic.

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.

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

 

[mudwhistle]

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

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]

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]

No, that's your logic.

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.

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

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]

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.

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

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?

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]

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

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?

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.

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]

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?

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.

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

The oceans are only absorbing half to the extra CO2.

 

[Big Fitz]

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

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?

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.

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

 

[syrenn]

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.

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?

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%.

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]

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

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]

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.

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....

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

No one is saying that.

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[Activist Too]

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]

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

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?

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.

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.