Climate Change Deniers are Almost Extinct

[mamooth]

"As an alternative to Arctic Sea Ice news, Antarctic Sea Ice for Aug 29th 2012 is the highest it has been on this date (from 2006 to 2012 which is the only daily data available at the National Ice Center).

Um, you understand the difference between antarctic sea ice and the antarctic ice sheet, no? One melts almost totally each summer, one doesn't.

Not only is there 670,000 sq. km more highest than the next highest amount on Aug 29 , 2010, there is 3.7 million sq km more than 2011."

Babbling nonsense. Antarctic sea ice is not breaking a record now, and "3.7 million sq km more" is an insane claim, not even remotely close to any reality.

Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

See the yellow 2012 line? It's right in the middle of all the other lines.

Antarctic sea ice extent has been creeping up, exactly as AGW science predicted ahead of time. But it's a small increase as compared to the massive plunge in arctic sea ice extent. And the long range prediction for antarctic sea ice is back down again. Currently the stronger antarctic circumpolar wind is blocking warm air from the antarctic, but eventually the warming will overwhelm that.

 

[whitehall]

The gigantic Smokey Bear army of greenie Park Rangers and government administration ecological experts couldn't figure out that a double wall in a Yellowstone Park cabin invites rodents. Thousands of Yellowstone tourists may have been infected with a potentially fatal disease carried by mice. Anybody think we can trust federal bureaucrats who tell us that the Arctic ice is melting? The Bigfoot science is better than the global warming tripe.

 

[westwall]

"As an alternative to Arctic Sea Ice news, Antarctic Sea Ice for Aug 29th 2012 is the highest it has been on this date (from 2006 to 2012 which is the only daily data available at the National Ice Center).

Um, you understand the difference between antarctic sea ice and the antarctic ice sheet, no? One melts almost totally each summer, one doesn't.

Not only is there 670,000 sq. km more highest than the next highest amount on Aug 29 , 2010, there is 3.7 million sq km more than 2011."

Babbling nonsense. Antarctic sea ice is not breaking a record now, and "3.7 million sq km more" is an insane claim, not even remotely close to any reality.

Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

See the yellow 2012 line? It's right in the middle of all the other lines.

Antarctic sea ice extent has been creeping up, exactly as AGW science predicted ahead of time. But it's a small increase as compared to the massive plunge in arctic sea ice extent. And the long range prediction for antarctic sea ice is back down again. Currently the stronger antarctic circumpolar wind is blocking warm air from the antarctic, but eventually the warming will overwhelm that.

Interesting how sailors were able to sail almost 300 miles further south in the 1820's than they can today. How was that possible if what you claim is true?

 

[flacaltenn]

"As an alternative to Arctic Sea Ice news, Antarctic Sea Ice for Aug 29th 2012 is the highest it has been on this date (from 2006 to 2012 which is the only daily data available at the National Ice Center).

Um, you understand the difference between antarctic sea ice and the antarctic ice sheet, no? One melts almost totally each summer, one doesn't.

Not only is there 670,000 sq. km more highest than the next highest amount on Aug 29 , 2010, there is 3.7 million sq km more than 2011."

Babbling nonsense. Antarctic sea ice is not breaking a record now, and "3.7 million sq km more" is an insane claim, not even remotely close to any reality.

Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

See the yellow 2012 line? It's right in the middle of all the other lines.

Antarctic sea ice extent has been creeping up, exactly as AGW science predicted ahead of time. But it's a small increase as compared to the massive plunge in arctic sea ice extent. And the long range prediction for antarctic sea ice is back down again. Currently the stronger antarctic circumpolar wind is blocking warm air from the antarctic, but eventually the warming will overwhelm that.

Look I don't do ice... Don't care.. The earth heats -- it melts..

But I am interested in your assertion that "Antarctic SIE has been creeping up, exactly as AGW science predicted ahead of time"

That's seems to be a step too far over the ledge eh?

And I'm interested in comments from the hysterical "melters" about what the historical record for Arctic SIE might have looked like if we had satellites in the 1920s -- 40s based on temperature records like...

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Pretty convienient to be ACCURATELY tracking Arctic SIE from about 1979 and making brash conclusions on that short time span.

 

[RollingThunder]

"As an alternative to Arctic Sea Ice news, Antarctic Sea Ice for Aug 29th 2012 is the highest it has been on this date (from 2006 to 2012 which is the only daily data available at the National Ice Center).

Um, you understand the difference between antarctic sea ice and the antarctic ice sheet, no? One melts almost totally each summer, one doesn't.

Not only is there 670,000 sq. km more highest than the next highest amount on Aug 29 , 2010, there is 3.7 million sq km more than 2011."

Babbling nonsense. Antarctic sea ice is not breaking a record now, and "3.7 million sq km more" is an insane claim, not even remotely close to any reality.

Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

See the yellow 2012 line? It's right in the middle of all the other lines.

Antarctic sea ice extent has been creeping up, exactly as AGW science predicted ahead of time. But it's a small increase as compared to the massive plunge in arctic sea ice extent. And the long range prediction for antarctic sea ice is back down again. Currently the stronger antarctic circumpolar wind is blocking warm air from the antarctic, but eventually the warming will overwhelm that.

Interesting how sailors were able to sail almost 300 miles further south in the 1820's than they can today. How was that possible if what you claim is true?

It might be "interesting" if it was true but it seems to be another one of your denier cult fantasies with no connection to reality. You say the sailors were able to sail 300 miles further south in the 1820's but you provide no references or context. LOL. As usual. So what are you claiming, walleyed? That the sea ice extends 300 miles further out into the ocean now than it did back then? Good lord but you're stupid.

The Antarctic sea ice grows enormously in the southern hemisphere winter and shrinks to almost nothing in the summer every year, so sailing ships two centuries ago would find that their ability to sail closer depended entirely on the time of year. Go to this NASA site for a year-to-year comparison of sea ice extents. Here's an example.

Antarctic Sea Ice Concentrations
NASA

 

[whitehall]

I often wonder how those stupid Neanderthals managed to create two Ice Ages. How the hell did they create gigantic glaciers that actually cut grooves in bedrock that we can still see today in NY Central Park? Bigfoot, Loch Ness monsters and ancient alien science makes more sense than most of the junk science anti-American lefties spout these days. Let it go for ten years until the US gets on it's economic feet once again. Is that too much to ask?.

 

[RollingThunder]

I often wonder how those stupid Neanderthals managed to create two Ice Ages. How the hell did they create gigantic glaciers that actually cut grooves in bedrock that we can still see today in NY Central Park? Bigfoot, Loch Ness monsters and ancient alien science makes more sense than most of the junk science anti-American lefties spout these days. Let it go for ten years until the US gets on it's economic feet once again. Is that too much to ask?.

Your comments reveal that you're incredibly retarded and massively ignorant about this whole subject. If you actually "often wonder how those stupid Neanderthals managed to create two Ice Ages then you're a clueless moron. The Earth has been in its current "Ice Age", the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, for about 2.58 million years. There weren't any humans or 'Neanderthals' around when it started. Scientists have some clues as to what created the five major ice ages in Earth's history and they have an even better idea what natural forces trigger the transitions between periods of heavy glaciation and the inter-glacial periods that have occurred many times during the current ice age. Causes of ice ages. What is happening now is different from the previous natural changes in Earth's climate. Mankind has raised atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas by 40% (and still climbing fast) and this factor is the one causing the current abrupt warming trend.

And yes, you blind cretin, "letting it go for ten years" is way too much to ask but you are far too confused, misinformed, bamboozled and utterly retarded to understand why.

 

[Katzndogz]

I often wonder how those stupid Neanderthals managed to create two Ice Ages. How the hell did they create gigantic glaciers that actually cut grooves in bedrock that we can still see today in NY Central Park? Bigfoot, Loch Ness monsters and ancient alien science makes more sense than most of the junk science anti-American lefties spout these days. Let it go for ten years until the US gets on it's economic feet once again. Is that too much to ask?.

How bad would global warming have to be to submerge the land between England and Europr making England an island?

Worse than it is now.

 

[RollingThunder]

I often wonder how those stupid Neanderthals managed to create two Ice Ages. How the hell did they create gigantic glaciers that actually cut grooves in bedrock that we can still see today in NY Central Park? Bigfoot, Loch Ness monsters and ancient alien science makes more sense than most of the junk science anti-American lefties spout these days. Let it go for ten years until the US gets on it's economic feet once again. Is that too much to ask?.

How bad would global warming have to be to submerge the land between England and Europr making England an island?

Worse than it is now.

So what, you silly retard?

The Earth has warmed and cooled due to natural factors in the past. Forest fires have started due to natural factors in the past. Now human caused factors (primarily deforestation and the burning of fossil carbon into the atmosphere) are causing an increase in global average temperatures. Humans now cause some of the forest fires due to carelessness with cigarette butts, improper campfires, and mismanaged so-called 'controlled burns', as well as deliberate arson. Just because something happened naturally in the past does not mean that it is impossible for humans to have an influence now, moron.

 

[Katzndogz]

I often wonder how those stupid Neanderthals managed to create two Ice Ages. How the hell did they create gigantic glaciers that actually cut grooves in bedrock that we can still see today in NY Central Park? Bigfoot, Loch Ness monsters and ancient alien science makes more sense than most of the junk science anti-American lefties spout these days. Let it go for ten years until the US gets on it's economic feet once again. Is that too much to ask?.

How bad would global warming have to be to submerge the land between England and Europr making England an island?

Worse than it is now.

So what, you silly retard?

The Earth has warmed and cooled due to natural factors in the past. Forest fires have started due to natural factors in the past. Now human caused factors (primarily deforestation and the burning of fossil carbon into the atmosphere) are causing an increase in global average temperatures. Humans now cause some of the forest fires due to carelessness with cigarette butts, improper campfires, and mismanaged so-called 'controlled burns', as well as deliberate arson. Just because something happened naturally in the past does not mean that it is impossible for humans to have an influence now, moron.

You know that what you just said was exactly what was said in the 70s to prove that the world was cooling and we would be in a massive human caused ice age. More than that, human activity caused a hole in the ozone layer and we were all going to get cancer and die.

Today none of that is true.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

December 2010

August 2010

 

[Katzndogz]

These crises and emergencies are resurrected and milked for as much money as they can be milked for, they they are abandoned for the new crisis. How much money was wasted on the hole in the ozone layer? We all stopped using hairspray because the emissions damaged the ozone layer and we might have another hole. It was getting bigger, disaster. It got smaller, worse disaster. We spent millions studying that hole and plans to close it.

Then the result, after 20 years. The ozone layer has a naturally occurring hole that may serve a purpose. It gets bigger and smaller as some sort of natural occurrence and there's nothing we can do to stop it or change it. Likely it has always been there.

 

[RollingThunder]

How bad would global warming have to be to submerge the land between England and Europr making England an island?

Worse than it is now.

So what, you silly retard?

The Earth has warmed and cooled due to natural factors in the past. Forest fires have started due to natural factors in the past. Now human caused factors (primarily deforestation and the burning of fossil carbon into the atmosphere) are causing an increase in global average temperatures. Humans now cause some of the forest fires due to carelessness with cigarette butts, improper campfires, and mismanaged so-called 'controlled burns', as well as deliberate arson. Just because something happened naturally in the past does not mean that it is impossible for humans to have an influence now, moron.

You know that what you just said was exactly what was said in the 70s to prove that the world was cooling and we would be in a massive human caused ice age.

Jeez, Katzhitbrainz, you have got to be one of the most misinformed, confused and generally brain damaged retards on this forum. Your post makes no sense. You claim that "what (I) said is exactly what was said in the 70s to prove the world is cooling and we would be in a massive human caused ice age" but that is an insane statement on so many levels, you little wacko you. What I just said is that "human caused factors (primarily deforestation and the burning of fossil carbon into the atmosphere) are causing an increase in global average temperatures", so what do you imagine that has to do with your global cooling fantasies, retard?

"What was said in the 70s to prove the world is cooling"......LOLOLOLOLOLOL...."what was said" by who exactly, you clueless moron? Where exactly did anyone try to "prove the world is cooling"? You're so gullible and so full of bogus denier cult bullshit. "And we would be in a massive human caused ice age"....that is very wacko indeed, little cretin....in the 70's, there was some speculation (a minority opinion, BTW) that natural orbital cycles might be bringing the Earth back towards another period of glaciation, which might really get going in a few thousand years, and there was some investigation into the possibility that mankind's industrial atmospheric pollution might be causing some measure of short term cooling, but nobody at all was "proving" or even suggesting that humans were going to cause a "massive ice age". That's just some kind of crazy delusion you've been infected with. There was far more speculation among scientist in the 1970's that human caused warming would dominate the natural cycles and possibly prevent any new period of glaciation for as long as CO2 levels remained elevated.

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s
USA TODAY
By Doyle Rice
2/22/2008
(excerpts)

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era. The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age. But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends. The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

...Robert Henson, a writer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and author of The Rough Guide to Climate Change, says: "This is an important part of science history, and Peterson and his co-authors have done a great job of excavating it. People have long claimed that scientists in the 1970s were convinced a new ice age was imminent. But in fact, many researchers at the time were already more concerned about the long-term risks of global warming." Along with Peterson, the study was also authored written by William Connolly of the British Antarctic Survey and John Fleck of The Albuquerque Journal. The research will be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Copyright 2011 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)

More than that, human activity caused a hole in the ozone layer and we were all going to get cancer and die.

And here's further evidence (as if any was needed) that you are a brainwashed retard. Are you really idiotic enough to deny the reality of the scientifically measured damage that humans were doing to the ozone layer that protects us and the rest of the biosphere from the full effects of the sun's ultraviolet radiation output? LOLOLOL......you know, the Flat Earth Society has a spot open for you.....go ahead, you'd fit right in.....LOLOLOL.

Here's the facts:

Ozone Science: The Facts Behind the Phaseout
United States Environmental Protection Agency
(government publication - not under copyright - free to reproduce)
(excerpts)
The Earth's ozone layer protects all life from the sun's harmful radiation, but human activities have damaged this shield. Less protection from ultraviolet light will, over time, lead to higher skin cancer and cataract rates and crop damage. The U.S., in cooperation with 190 other countries, is phasing out the production of ozone-depleting substances in an effort to safeguard the ozone layer.

In the early 1970s, researchers began to investigate the effects of various chemicals on the ozone layer, particularly CFCs, which contain chlorine. They also examined the potential impacts of other chlorine sources. Chlorine from swimming pools, industrial plants, sea salt, and volcanoes does not reach the stratosphere. Chlorine compounds from these sources readily combine with water and repeated measurements show that they rain out of the troposphere very quickly. In contrast, CFCs are very stable and do not dissolve in rain. Thus, there are no natural processes that remove the CFCs from the lower atmosphere. Over time, winds drive the CFCs into the stratosphere. The CFCs are so stable that only exposure to strong UV radiation breaks them down. When that happens, the CFC molecule releases atomic chlorine. One chlorine atom can destroy over 100,000 ozone molecules. The net effect is to destroy ozone faster than it is naturally created. To return to the analogy comparing ozone levels to a stream's depth, CFCs act as a siphon, removing water faster than normal and reducing the depth of the stream.

One example of ozone depletion is the annual ozone "hole" over Antarcticathat has occurred during the Antarctic Spring since the early 1980s. Rather than being a literal hole through the layer, the ozone hole is a large area of the stratosphere with extremely low amounts of ozone. Ozone levels fall by over 60% during the worst years. In addition, research has shown that ozone depletion occurs over the latitudes that include North America, Europe, Asia, and much of Africa, Australia, and South America. Over the U.S., ozone levels have fallen 5-10%, depending on the season. Thus, ozone depletion is a global issue and not just a problem at the South Pole. Reductions in ozone levels will lead to higher levels of UVB reaching the Earth's surface. The sun's output of UVB does not change; rather, less ozone means less protection, and hence more UVB reaches the Earth. Studies have shown that in the Antarctic, the amount of UVB measured at the surface can double during the annual ozone hole. Another study confirmed the relationship between reduced ozone and increased UVB levels in Canada during the past several years. Laboratory and epidemiological studies demonstrate that UVB causes nonmelanoma skin cancer and plays a major role in malignant melanoma development. In addition, UVB has been linked to cataracts. All sunlight contains some UVB, even with normal ozone levels. It is always important to limit exposure to the sun. However, ozone depletion will increase the amount of UVB, which will then increase the risk of health effects. Furthermore, UVB harms some crops, plastics and other materials, and certain types of marine life.

Today none of that is true.

Actually today both are still true but you are so fucked up that you can't tell up from down.

 

[flacaltenn]

I often wonder how those stupid Neanderthals managed to create two Ice Ages. How the hell did they create gigantic glaciers that actually cut grooves in bedrock that we can still see today in NY Central Park? Bigfoot, Loch Ness monsters and ancient alien science makes more sense than most of the junk science anti-American lefties spout these days. Let it go for ten years until the US gets on it's economic feet once again. Is that too much to ask?.

How bad would global warming have to be to submerge the land between England and Europr making England an island?

Worse than it is now.

So what, you silly retard?

The Earth has warmed and cooled due to natural factors in the past. Forest fires have started due to natural factors in the past. Now human caused factors (primarily deforestation and the burning of fossil carbon into the atmosphere) are causing an increase in global average temperatures. Humans now cause some of the forest fires due to carelessness with cigarette butts, improper campfires, and mismanaged so-called 'controlled burns', as well as deliberate arson. Just because something happened naturally in the past does not mean that it is impossible for humans to have an influence now, moron.

And NOW that we understand many of those NATURAL cycles, we have scientists that are so dumb and blind that when they PREDICT the recurrence of one of those Natural cycles, they don't bother to note what happened in the past -- they create a model. And when that model tells them the effect on temp. will be 1/10 of what we know has happened before --- they buy it wholesale and YOU APPLAUD !!! Good Job MET!! Great catch NASA !!

How stupid is that?

Man is getting "charged" for CO2 emissions for raising cattle, and engaging in forest harvesting. How fair is that considering the NATURAL historical record of plains FILLED with buffalo and forests DEVASTED by wildfire without suppression?

And your claim that we've raised the CO2 level by 40% also charges us with effects we didn't create. When temps go up --- there are NATURAL increases in CO2. Part of the same AGW theory you adore. That CO2 amplification is charged to man as well. But when it comes to temps increasing from Solar effects, no such amplification is applied -- the models and the hype still charge it to MAN.. That's ludicrous. But you buy it without hesitation don'tcha?

Ever occur to you that all these models are OVERestimating the effects from man-made CO2 and UNDERestimating the effects from natural cycles?

Forget a 40% rise in CO2 -- why don't you give us the weather when CO2 was 4000ppm (1400% HIGHER) and dinosaurs farted up the place? Did they all drown from the Sea Level rise and killer hurricanes? Or from massive 3meter mesquito borne diseases? Or haven't you figured that out yet?

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually DundrHead -- not surprising but EPA makes the claim that --

The sun's output of UVB does not change; rather, less ozone means less protection, and hence more UVB reaches the Earth.

Most recently we are finding out that the Suns' spectrum DOES shift balance between the IR side and UV side of emissions. We've only had 20 years (less than a full sunspot cycle) of satellite data and only 10 or so years of CONTINUOUS solar studies to understand the most important DRIVER of the climate.

And evidently -- the EPA is NOT keeping up with current advances in understanding.

Previous attempts to understand interaction between solar irradiance, spectrum and atmos "windowing" and heating were stymied by observing thru the very medium you're trying to isolate. Satellite measurements are the ONLY way to do accurate CONTINUOUS long term studies.. And you are already jumping right the hell over all that science and understanding when you proclaim that you KNOW IT ALL..

This short history of REAL measurements in the atmos and of the sun is a major reason why we don't know Jack about solar spectral shifts on GreenHouse Window effect or shifts in Long Wave IR radiation to be captured by the "blanket". A couple of more solar cycles of observation might straighten out our understanding of all this... In fact -- until then -- tree rings are more accurate than most Climate Models.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yessirreee....... We should all pretend to be as ignorant as Flatulance. Just hide our head in the sand and claim that nothing is happening. Natural cycles? Total bullshit from lying assholes.

The first mapping of the absorption spectra was done in 1858 by Tyndall. Arrhenius made the first good estimate of what a doubling of CO2 would bring in terms of temperature increase in 1896.
Since then many scientists have examined the data, and found the estimate of around 3 C to be pretty accurate.

Now Flatulance, you and Walleyes can flapyap all you wish, won't change the fact that the real scientists predicted exactly what we are seeing in a changing climate right now as early as the 1980's.

 

[daveman]

I want the government to focus more on the environment

I'm sure that's a great comfort to the unemployed.

 

[daveman]

Yessirreee....... We should all pretend to be as ignorant as Flatulance. Just hide our head in the sand and claim that nothing is happening. Natural cycles? Total bullshit from lying assholes.

The first mapping of the absorption spectra was done in 1858 by Tyndall. Arrhenius made the first good estimate of what a doubling of CO2 would bring in terms of temperature increase in 1896.
Since then many scientists have examined the data, and found the estimate of around 3 C to be pretty accurate.

Now Flatulance, you and Walleyes can flapyap all you wish, won't change the fact that the real scientists predicted exactly what we are seeing in a changing climate right now as early as the 1980's.

That's right, because the climate NEVER changed before America was established.

 

[RollingThunder]

Yessirreee....... We should all pretend to be as ignorant as Flatulance. Just hide our head in the sand and claim that nothing is happening. Natural cycles? Total bullshit from lying assholes.

The first mapping of the absorption spectra was done in 1858 by Tyndall. Arrhenius made the first good estimate of what a doubling of CO2 would bring in terms of temperature increase in 1896.
Since then many scientists have examined the data, and found the estimate of around 3 C to be pretty accurate.

Now Flatulance, you and Walleyes can flapyap all you wish, won't change the fact that the real scientists predicted exactly what we are seeing in a changing climate right now as early as the 1980's.

That's right, because the climate NEVER changed before America was established.

I know that you're a hopeless retard, DaveDumb, but maybe if this was explained to you in very small words.......

The Earth's climate patterns have changed many times in the past due to natural factors. Everyone knows this, including all of the climate scientists. Usually those climate changes occur very slowly, on human time scales. Now, in our time, rapid warming and climate changes are being scientifically observed and studied and there are no natural factors that can account for these changes. What does explain it very well scientifically is the very large increase in the atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, up 40% to date and still rising. This excess CO2, like an extra blanket on your bed, is causing the Earth's atmosphere to retain more of the heat energy that the Earth originally got from the sun, and that extra heat energy is measurably warming the lower atmosphere, the ground and the oceans.

BTW, your attempts at sarcasm are undermined by the fact that you're a halfwit who has no understanding of this subject at all. Save yourself some embarrassment and avoid trying to mock things that you are completely incapable of comprehending.

 

[skookerasbil]

I love the k00ks knocking themselves out with all the CO2 this and ice melting that.

Nobody cares about this shit in 2012. Its as if these people live under a rock..........the whole real world is imploding with job losses, soaring debt, increased prices for everything and the nuts on here think people are worried about forest fires!!!


I love this forum!!!!