Greenland glaciers receding SLOWER then in the 1930s..

[Old Rocks]

And you should please discredit then glacier melt water adds the equal to one cup of water being added to a swimming pool.

Supposedly 385 billion tons of ice equal at 2,000 lbs/ton at 64 oz per gallon a total of
12,031,250,000,000 gallons (12.03 trillion)

But with 343 quintillion gallons of water in all the oceans.
How many gallons of water does the ocean have

that is equal to 0.0000351% or equal to adding a cup of water to a swimming pool!


Professor Julian Dowdeswell of Cambridge University said: “The average glacier is 1,000ft thick so to melt one at 15ft a year would take 60 years. That is faster than anything we are seeing now so the idea of losing it all by 2035 is unrealistic.”

Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Climate change lies are exposed

Lordy, lordy. You really are that stupid. No one is saying that Greenland will lose all it's ice by 2035. What they are talking about is the possibility that by present trends of melting, the Arctic Ocean will be essentially ice free for part of the summer by 2035. Really, you should ramp up your reading comprehension.

And the fact that the Arctic Ice has stopped receding?

This year is currently tied with 2009 and has more ice than either 2010 or 2011.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/06/Figure2.png

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

Now if you look at the yellow line, you can clearly see that it is at the very bottom of the lines from the years since 1979. No, the Arctic Ice has not stopped melting, and the volume is less every year.

 

[skookerasbil]

The OP is part of propaganda, to discredit global warming, when in fact, Greenland has been warming up, and recent temperatures are record-setting:

Unprecedented May Heat In Greenland, Temperature Hits Stunning 76.6°F | ThinkProgress

Thick, perennial Arctic ice is melting at a faster rate, as opposed to the annually formed ice, which melts and re-forms:

NASA - NASA Finds Thickest Parts of Arctic Ice Cap Melting Faster

Moreover, the expected runaway increase in global warming may only have to cause an increase, of 1.6 C, to completely melt Greenland's ice:

Greenland ice sheet may melt completely with 1.6 degrees of global warming

When this happens, we may have to consider prison or mandatory birth-control, for skeptics. At least, skookerasbil should get his off-topic posts over to some zone.

Shoot a PM to Old Rocks s0n.......he's the only one who gets it around here. He fights a noble fight but at least he's grounded and not living in Oz like every other nutty ass environmentalist on this site. Old Rocks knows the score........but dont take my word for it. Old Rocks knows that the state of the science is like beginners Chinese water torture for the public. All the volumes of science in the world are for naught if the public at large isnt impressed. But again,....dont take my word for it. As Old Rocks.


But since Im in the business of having to illustrate analogies for liberals, its like this...............

If we liken "the publc" to a middle class homeower for a minute..........the middle class homeowner tends to his lawn every year. He uses fertilizer in the spring and then again in the beginning of summer. Keeps his lawn a bit long to avoid it getting burned. Uses fungacide. Waters freuently. But then.........sudddenly in late July, the lawn develops some brown patches. They are farily significant. The only recourse is to tear out the multiple spots and replace them with sod ( its too hot to seed ). But that will incur an expense........a fairly significant one. It might mean the late summer vacation has to be cancelled. Is it worth it? Trim down the holdiay plans coming up in a few months?


Most people in his position will just let the brown patches stay. A necessary tradeoff........it becomes a question of economics.


This is the way most people make decisions.........on the margin.


People on the far left dont ever, ever ever consider the margin..........a fact that rears its ugly head on these pages. But most people do think on the margin, a fact realized in the complete failure of Cap and Trade. The tradeoffs were considered. Paying double for electricity not a priority to embrace for most.



Far left people can piss and moan about the "deniers" all they want.........its obviously falling on deaf ears. Why? Because most people think on the margin.



In the bigger picture..........skooks posts are ALWAYS on topic.

 

[RollingThunder]

Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.

OK AlGore and all you chicken littles.. please explain!!!

Sure - you're a confused and very ignorant rightwingnut who doesn't actually understand or follow the science but rather latches onto any misleading spun-up version of a science article he picks up from the denier cult propaganda machine. Here's the actual facts about the glaciers on Greenland.

Greenland's glaciers melting faster, say scientists
Greenland's glaciers are melting 30 faster than they were a decade ago, satellite images reveal.
The Christian Science Monitor
By Jennifer Welsh, LiveScience Staff Writer
May 3, 2012
(excerpts)

Greenland's ice sheet is on the move, with new images showing its glaciers moving 30 percent faster than they were a decade ago. Greenland and Antarctica are home to the two biggest blocks of ice on Earth. As climate changes, these glacier are shrinking and the water contained in them is moving into the oceans, adding to the already rising sea level. A glacier's velocity is a measure of how fast the ice on the surface of the sheet is flowing toward the edges of the sheet. This flow can be faster or slower, depending on how much the glacier is melting. The faster the flow, the more water and ice mass is lost from the glacier. "You can think of the Greenland ice sheet as a really large lake that has hundreds of those little outlet streams that are acting like conveyor belts to move ice from the middle of the ice sheet, where it's getting added by precipitation, to the edges," study researcher Twila Moon, a graduate student at the University of Washington, told LiveScience.

The researchers analyzed satellite images of the Greenland glaciers taken between 2000 and 2010. These annual images were put through a computer program to detect how quickly the ice is moving. In general, the glacial flow has sped up by 30 percent over the 10 years, Moon said. To get a better idea of the glacier's dynamics, the researchers looked at the area's more than 200 glaciers individually. Some of these glaciers end on land, some drop off into the sea, and the rest gradually extend their ice sheets into the water, creating an ice shelf. The researchers saw that the glacier's type has a big impact on how quickly it flows. Land-ending ice sheets can move 30 to 325 feet (9 to 99 meters) per year, while glaciers that terminate in ice shelves move much faster, from 1,000 to more than 5,000 feet (305 to 1,600 m) per year. The glaciers that drop off into the sea are flowing the fastest, Moon said, up to 7 miles (11 kilometers) per year and their speeds are accelerating. "The areas where the ice sheet loses the most ice are also the areas we are seeing the biggest changes," Moon said. There's no reason to think, from the new data, that the glaciers won't continue to gain speed. The result would be an increasing amount of ice and water adding to the sea level.

 

[Old Rocks]

A decade old paper, but still relevant;

Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises

 

[bobgnote]

But again,....dont take my word for it. As Old Rocks.

But since Im in the business of having to illustrate analogies for liberals, its like this...............

Is it worth it? Trim down the holdiay plans coming up in a few months?

Most people in his position will just let the brown patches stay. A necessary tradeoff........it becomes a question of economics.

This is the way most people make decisions.........on the margin.

People on the far left dont ever, ever ever consider the margin..........a fact that rears its ugly head on these pages. But most people do think on the margin, a fact realized in the complete failure of Cap and Trade. The tradeoffs were considered. Paying double for electricity not a priority to embrace for most.

Far left people can piss and moan about the "deniers" all they want.........its obviously falling on deaf ears. Why? Because most people think on the margin.

In the bigger picture..........skooks posts are ALWAYS on topic.

You are a ranting meth-head, who spams USMB, with freaky, off-topic shit. Your stake in all this is you have a lab, which pollutes, or you know polluters, who poison the Earth with the chemicals, which are eating your fucked-up brain. Read your highlights, up there. What a load of shit.

O.R. posts the good shit, yes. So you are over here, somehow not breaking into places and stealing all you can, which suggests you get your speed, no problems, shove it, and it shows in your way, way fucked up rants, which get over because USMB has no direct rule against off-topic posts.

On with it. Greenland ice is melting faster, and the recent trend is all this way:

Extreme melting on greenland ice sheet, team reports; Glacial melt cycle could become self-amplifying

New melt record for Greenland ice sheet: 'Exceptional' season stretched up to 50 days longer than average

Complete Melt of Greenland Ice Sheet Closer Than First Thought | Planetsave

Greenland's glaciers melting faster, say scientists - CSMonitor.com

Greenland's ice has been melting, faster than ever, with no recent deviation. Any claims to the contrary are false. Greenland has weather in the 70s, May 2012. The OP sucks.

 

[bobgnote]

Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers.
1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today ? The Register

OK AlGore and all you chicken littles.. please explain!!!

The glaciers in the photo are land-terminating glaciers, which went under regression 80 years ago. Your article is not new information.

Marine-terminating glaciers, which are glaciers that spill into the ocean, have been regressing quickly in the 2000s. But don't tell wingpunk bitches that, because they don't want to hear it.

Here are the glacial observations that go back to the 1930s. (a) is land-terminating glaciers, and (b) is marine-terminating glaciers. Particularly, look at the 2000s for marine-terminating glacier regression:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/fig_tab/ngeo1481_F5.html

Greenland's melting down, bitches and scientists.

 

[IanC]

Silly ass. In a very short term, we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40%, and the CH4 by over 150%. That adds up to far more change than it took to go from continental glaciation to the glaciers present around 1900.

Perhaps were you to actually research what the climatologists and geologists that study this subject are saying, rather than repeating the nonsense of an obese junkie on the radio, you would understand the urgency of the scientists words.

Arctic Methane Emergency Group - AMEG - Home

Each doubling of CO2 may add 1 degree to the climate. We have another part of the current doubling to accomplish and then can start on the next one.

CO2 serves to increase your hysteria more effectively than it affects the climate.

The source for 1 degree is??? Or is that something you have pulled out of your asshole?

Estimating the impact of CO2 on global mean temperature

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf

your own link says 1.1C per doubling!

If nothing changes other than temperature, the response is straightforward. Emissions in general are proportional to the fourth power of temperature, and on Earth, with surface temperatures of about 288K and emissions to space of about 240 W/m2, we get about 0.3C for each W/m2 forcing. You can nail that down more carefully, but it does correspond closely to what you get with a radiation transfer calculation. It's called the "Planck response" in climate science. Converting forcing units, this corresponds to about 1.1C per 2xCO2.

 

[skookerasbil]

But again,....dont take my word for it. As Old Rocks.

But since Im in the business of having to illustrate analogies for liberals, its like this...............

Is it worth it? Trim down the holdiay plans coming up in a few months?

Most people in his position will just let the brown patches stay. A necessary tradeoff........it becomes a question of economics.

This is the way most people make decisions.........on the margin.

People on the far left dont ever, ever ever consider the margin..........a fact that rears its ugly head on these pages. But most people do think on the margin, a fact realized in the complete failure of Cap and Trade. The tradeoffs were considered. Paying double for electricity not a priority to embrace for most.

Far left people can piss and moan about the "deniers" all they want.........its obviously falling on deaf ears. Why? Because most people think on the margin.

In the bigger picture..........skooks posts are ALWAYS on topic.

You are a ranting meth-head, who spams USMB, with freaky, off-topic shit. Your stake in all this is you have a lab, which pollutes, or you know polluters, who poison the Earth with the chemicals, which are eating your fucked-up brain. Read your highlights, up there. What a load of shit.

O.R. posts the good shit, yes. So you are over here, somehow not breaking into places and stealing all you can, which suggests you get your speed, no problems, shove it, and it shows in your way, way fucked up rants, which get over because USMB has no direct rule against off-topic posts.

On with it. Greenland ice is melting faster, and the recent trend is all this way:

Extreme melting on greenland ice sheet, team reports; Glacial melt cycle could become self-amplifying

New melt record for Greenland ice sheet: 'Exceptional' season stretched up to 50 days longer than average

Complete Melt of Greenland Ice Sheet Closer Than First Thought | Planetsave

Greenland's glaciers melting faster, say scientists - CSMonitor.com

Greenland's ice has been melting, faster than ever, with no recent deviation. Any claims to the contrary are false. Greenland has weather in the 70s, May 2012. The OP sucks.

Hey......what can I say s0n. I have real responsibilities in life. Im a bottom line guy........no time to spend hours looking at the multitude of science papers.

All that matters to me is to highlight the fact that my side is winning and your side? Not so much!! And as Ive astutely pointed out here numerous times..........very few Americans give a rats ass about this stuff, despite years of efforts from the bomb throwers.


s0n...........when you end up getting some real responsiblities in life,trust me, you dont get so angst about this trivial bs.

 

[bobgnote]

Each doubling of CO2 may add 1 degree to the climate. We have another part of the current doubling to accomplish and then can start on the next one.

CO2 serves to increase your hysteria more effectively than it affects the climate.

The source for 1 degree is??? Or is that something you have pulled out of your asshole?

Estimating the impact of CO2 on global mean temperature

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf

your own link says 1.1C per doubling!

If nothing changes other than temperature, the response is straightforward. Emissions in general are proportional to the fourth power of temperature, and on Earth, with surface temperatures of about 288K and emissions to space of about 240 W/m2, we get about 0.3C for each W/m2 forcing. You can nail that down more carefully, but it does correspond closely to what you get with a radiation transfer calculation. It's called the "Planck response" in climate science. Converting forcing units, this corresponds to about 1.1C per 2xCO2.

But IanCrapforbrains and CodePunk, you turned one page and moved over one more thread, and you completely forgot how methane and more CO2 are seeping, from warming lands and waters, particularly, in the Arctic. That means hockey stick graphs, from accelerated warming effects. It means head-up-butt, don't-know-shit, can't-remember-shit, and other syndromes affect you. Seek professional help, if you want meds.

I don't know what attracts meth-freak Suckassbil to rah-rah with smileys and tweakage. He apparently has some kind of life, as a professional retard, somewhere. I am with people for scientific sharing, wingpunks. I post truth on the internet. You guys post shit. Suckassbil posts tweaky shit. What's your motive? Do you like how your assholes feel, when you are in trouble? I don't want other people to be like you shitty geeks.

If only you weren't wingpunk dumbshits, you wouldn't go chasing science, like dogs used to chase cars. What happened to all those car-chasing dogs? I guess puppies are smarter, now.

If wingpunk idiots had to play real hockey, congrats to the LA Kings, wingpunks would realize, hey, players have to wear protective gear, or the PUCK will get slapped, by the STICK, and wingpunk teeth will get knocked, right into wingpunk throat. But wingpunks aren't playing hockey, even though look at all the white people, eh?

 

[wirebender]

But IanCrapforbrains and CodePunk, you turned one page and moved over one more thread, and you completely forgot how methane and more CO2 are seeping, from warming lands and waters, particularly, in the Arctic.

Describe the mechanism by which you believe seeping CO2 and methane make any difference at all without violating a law of physics. Surely you can describe how you believe so called greenhouse gasses cause warming. Would it be too much to expect that you could actually make such a description in your own words? Probably but give it your best shot anyway.

 

[bobgnote]

Describe the mechanism by which you believe seeping CO2 and methane make any difference at all without violating a law of physics. Surely you can describe how you believe so called greenhouse gasses cause warming. Would it be too much to expect that you could actually make such a description in your own words? Probably but give it your best shot anyway.

Wienerbitch, I can't possibly imagine a law of physics to violate.

Do suggest which law of physics might be violated, on some thread, Queen Wee-ner-beeyatch, since it's your stupid idea, on multiple threads, some law of physics might be violated, by warming, from an accelerating onslaught, of pernicious GHGs.

Royal shitloads for Queen Wienerbitch to do, for his/herself:
1. bitching
2. learn to read a graph
3. read a graph before bitching
4. do own calculations
5. ask Dr.Global Change and see if the staff doesn't blow you off

 

[wirebender]

Do suggest which law of physics might be violated, on some thread, Queen Wee-ner-beeyatch, since it's your stupid idea, on multiple threads, some law of physics might be violated, by warming, from an accelerating onslaught, of pernicious GHGs.

Again, no answer and again, no answer was expected because bob, it has become abundantly obvious that you literally don't know jack. You are a cut and paste drone who doesn't understand the first part of what you put here.

As to which laws are violated by the greenhouse effect described by climate science, there is the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, and the Stefan-Boltzman law to name the four I stated that came to me off the top of my head.

Now I don't expect you to know what those laws say or how they apply to climate change and I am afraid that you won't find anything to cut and paste from a "credible" source because climate pseudoscientists stay far away from ANY discussion of physical laws.

And of course, you can't describe the mechanism by which so called greenhouse gasses might cause warming because in all probablity, you don't even know what the word mechanism means and therefore don't even know what I am asking for.

I am going to copntinue asking you questions bob and I am going to continue to revel in, and point out your complete inability to answer even the most basic ones.

So again, by what mechanism do you believe so called greenhouse gasses cause warming.

And since you pretended to be able to do math, here is a very simple one that cuts right to the heart of the agw scam. Here is one of the primary equations upon which manmade climate change is based. Take this away, and the whole hypothesis crumbles. Show me, if you can, where backraditon might be expressed in this equation.

So show me how little you know by calling names, and who knows what other sort of ranting you may spew instead of simply answering the very basic and simple questions put to you.

 

[wirebender]

This 1998 article is fairly complete, to be reproduced, in part:

OK bob, I know that you don't do science and obviously don't know the first thing about science. You are a believer and that is your place in the scheme of things. But geez bob, you should know the defintions of day to day words.

I asked you to describe the mechanism by which you believe so called greenhouse gasses cause warming. You post endless drivel that tells me what climate scientists assume causes warming. Here, let me help you out a bit with a couple of defintions.

cause - a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result

mechanism - the agency or means by which an effect is produced or a purpose is accomplished

You see bob, you are not answering the question I am asking. You are telling me what climate science assumes is causing warming and I am asking you how what you believe is causing warming actually accomplishes the task. The what isn't really science. The how is science and you don't seem to be able to come up with an answer.

I know perfectly how climate science claims so called greenhouse gasses cause warming but like I said, their explanation violates several physical laws so I asked you to describe how it might happen without violating any physical laws and you come back stating that you can't even imagine physical laws. Thanks for playing.

 

[bobgnote]

You have to be a busy queer on meth, to keep harping, when you get all your junk science from punk websites, which you won't reference.

GHGs absorb radiation, which causes the atmosphere to act like a blanket, raising temperature. The different gases have different radiative forcing effects, which leads to the GWP ratings, for the several gases, based on the level 1, for CO2, 24 for CH4, etc.

Handy radiative forcing chart and rleated links:

Figure SPM.2 - AR4 WGI Summary for Policymakers

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radiative Forcing

The IPCCs 4th Report states a “very high confidence [9 out of 10 chance that it will happen] that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to+2.4] W m” (see figure above).
In other words, warming of the climate system is unequivocal and human activity has produced this warming. This finding is couched in much stronger language than the 3rd IPCC Report and is no longer something requiring debate... Earth's temperature is rising due to our activity, and in particular the burning of fossil fuels.

Greenhouse gases put the radiative balance out of order. Methane is fortunately measurable, in ppb, so it is not doing all the damage, which it will do, in the immediate future. Methane is going to greatly increase, which with CO2 and sundry GHGs will trap heat.

Some scientists think GHGs will actually force cooling, some think the forcing effect will turn off, but I think what is happening is a radical change has been caused, by human interaction, and there is a lag, in forcing. What will happen is a really unpleasant climate change, with the ultimate effect of drastic reduction, in the human population.

What we are seeing is denial, of any warming phenomena, by morons, who won't admit long-term changes are happening, now, in the short run, so temperatures and acidification are both due, for a relatively drastic rise.

The ten hottest years in the instrument record occurred, in the last twelve years. What exactly is happening, with GHGs? Crime pays, and it has a carbon footprint.

Wienerbitch, go ahead and prove how trends violate laws of physics, and we'll see what happens. I will gradually research the subject, as the sea level rises, and die-offs show up. You can go look at your queer porn pub sites, paste formulas, and fail to offer figures, and watch death approach. Eat shit! It'll make you big and strong! Organisms which respirated on H2S used to thrive, in hot oceans. Pubs have evolved, to eat shit and run around, ranting.

 

[wirebender]

If we don't re-green, we soon have CO2 concentrations, yielding carbonic acid poisoning, in the oceans and other waters. If we don't re-green AND cool the hell off, the methane comes out and heats us up, faster. I hope you like hockey, since now you're a player.

Describe the "carbonic acid poisoning" of the oceans that occurred just prior to the earth entering the present ice age when atmospheric CO2 levels were in the neighborhood of 1000ppm. Tell me about it and give some hard evidence to support your claims.

While you are at it, tell me about the "carbonic acid poisoning" of the oceans at the time that most modern marine invertabrates evolved with atmospheric CO2 levels above 3000 ppm. Tell me about that carbonic acid poisoning and show me some hard evidence to support the claim.

By the way bob, computer models are only evidence of the incompetence and bias of the idiots who are writing the software.

 

[wirebender]

At that time, the geography of the continents was considerably differant. Which created quite differant ocean currents. Hard to make any judgements for or against that argueing for less or more change from increasing the levels currently. Just another item that is being studied as well as quickly as we can.

Really rocks? Was the geography of the continents "considerably different? Lets take a look.

This is what the modern world looks like:

This is what the world looked like 50 million years ago:

And here is what the world looked like 14 million years ago:

Not much change there at all rocks. The only real difference noticable over the past 30 million years or so is due to sea level change. At the time of the beginning of the last ice age, there was little, if any ice to be found anywhere on earth.

Now knowing that before the beginning of the present ice age there was little, if any ice to be found on earth, and that atmospheric CO2 concentrations were in the neighborhood of 1000ppm, what exactly is it about the current climate that has you wringing your hands.

 

[healthmyths]

Your post is a PERFECT example of the bullshit the corporate apologists use to muddy the waters on scientific fact!

ONE rejected paper (Lars Kame'l) does NOT constitute any type of "scientific" body of evidence contradicting what the vast majority of the world's scientific community are in agreement on.

Either would a DOZEN!

If you REALLY want to learn how data is gathered for atmospheric studies here....this might be useful.

How to Use Remote Sensing As Evidence for Global Warming | eHow.com

So please tell me how ignoring 12.5% of the world's land mass would NOT have an affect of advancing the perception that global warming as presented by increasing temperatures taken at urban setting recording stations?
In other words, why were only 4 temperature stations readings used from 12.5% of the land mass out of more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world.
Richard A. Muller: The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism - WSJ.com

Plus there is a "cool bias"which these pictures illustrate.

A temperature reading station which was there FIRST I'm sure.. but the window air condition does what??? Blows warm air out of the room and into what?? the temperature reading station!

View attachment 19316

How can this "official" temperature sensor POSSIBLY get an accurate reading after being placed so close to the outputs of two very large air conditioner exhausts?
View attachment 19318


The False Global Warming Temperature Readings. Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

Well...let's look at your post.

First of all you cite this....

Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

Hmmm.....sounds like it might just be a LITTLE biased to me. How about you?

Kinda like somebody's mind might have been made beforehand on what the conclusions were going to be.

Next, is there any scientific data for the claims on the air conditioners? Sounds like a real grab at straws?

Also you ask this question...

"In other words, why were only 4 temperature stations readings used from 12.5% of the land mass out of more than 1.6 billion measurements from more than 39,000 temperature stations around the world."

Isn't the answer in your question though?

12.5% of the land mass of one continent is actually a very small percentage of the total surface area of the earth isn't it?

You should also consider this. The earth's atmosphere is not defined by borders. It is constantly in motion. The atmosphere over one continent does not remain "fixed" in one spot for very long. Average readings from other places on earth can do an adequate job of measuring trends.

Put down the Kool-Aid OK? You sound like there still may be hope for you!

Yes 12.5% of the land mass of one continent is actually a very small percentage of the total surface area of the earth isn't it.

It definitely is smaller then 87.5% for sure.
But let's use the analogy of 8 boys.
7 boys are 6 feet tall
1 boy (12.5% of the 8 boys) is 3 feet tall.
Total height 42 fee and average is therefore of 5 ft. 8 inches.
But if we say OH 12.5% of the boys is to short and we can't measure him..
let's drop him out..l!
So now we have 7 boys average height 6 feet. Nice but we left out the 3 foot tall boy because it was inconvenient... otherwise the average would have been 5.8"
Just as leaving out 12.5% of the world's land mass because it was too inconvenient to have equivalent temperature land mass reading stations in Siberia!

Prove to me that adding to the 30,000 reading stations the equivalent of necessary to cover Siberia with the same coverage as the other 87.5% of the world continues to increase the world's average temperature and then you have proven something.
But for 50 years and 1.5+ billion readings 12.5% of the land mass is missing???

 

[bobgnote]

If we don't re-green, we soon have CO2 concentrations, yielding carbonic acid poisoning, in the oceans and other waters. If we don't re-green AND cool the hell off, the methane comes out and heats us up, faster. I hope you like hockey, since now you're a player.

Describe the "carbonic acid poisoning" of the oceans that occurred just prior to the earth entering the present ice age when atmospheric CO2 levels were in the neighborhood of 1000ppm. Tell me about it and give some hard evidence to support your claims.

While you are at it, tell me about the "carbonic acid poisoning" of the oceans at the time that most modern marine invertabrates evolved with atmospheric CO2 levels above 3000 ppm. Tell me about that carbonic acid poisoning and show me some hard evidence to support the claim.

By the way bob, computer models are only evidence of the incompetence and bias of the idiots who are writing the software.

Computer models are sometimes used, to present outcomes, indicated by a lot of statistical data, you hermaphrodite. Maybe by "carbonic acid poisoning" you are referring to this, Wienerbitch:

Permian-Triassic extinction event: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article

Researchers have variously suggested that there were from one to three distinct pulses, or phases, of extinction. There are several proposed mechanisms for the extinctions; the earlier phase was likely due to gradual environmental change, while the latter phase has been argued to be due to a catastrophic event. Suggested mechanisms for the latter include large or multiple bolide impact events, increased volcanism, and sudden release of methane clathrate from the sea floor; gradual changes include sea-level change, anoxia, increasing aridity, and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change.

----------------

Wienerbitch, if you think we are all descended from acid-resistant organisms, and we can all ride out eradication of species, dependent on shells or eggs, get this up.

But you aren't even as smart as the stupid, petroleum-reimbursed "scientists."

 

[westwall]

If we don't re-green, we soon have CO2 concentrations, yielding carbonic acid poisoning, in the oceans and other waters. If we don't re-green AND cool the hell off, the methane comes out and heats us up, faster. I hope you like hockey, since now you're a player.

Describe the "carbonic acid poisoning" of the oceans that occurred just prior to the earth entering the present ice age when atmospheric CO2 levels were in the neighborhood of 1000ppm. Tell me about it and give some hard evidence to support your claims.

While you are at it, tell me about the "carbonic acid poisoning" of the oceans at the time that most modern marine invertabrates evolved with atmospheric CO2 levels above 3000 ppm. Tell me about that carbonic acid poisoning and show me some hard evidence to support the claim.

By the way bob, computer models are only evidence of the incompetence and bias of the idiots who are writing the software.

Computer models are sometimes used, to present outcomes, indicated by a lot of statistical data, you hermaphrodite. Maybe by "carbonic acid poisoning" you are referring to this, Wienerbitch:

Permian-Triassic extinction event: Facts, Discussion Forum, and Encyclopedia Article

Researchers have variously suggested that there were from one to three distinct pulses, or phases, of extinction. There are several proposed mechanisms for the extinctions; the earlier phase was likely due to gradual environmental change, while the latter phase has been argued to be due to a catastrophic event. Suggested mechanisms for the latter include large or multiple bolide impact events, increased volcanism, and sudden release of methane clathrate from the sea floor; gradual changes include sea-level change, anoxia, increasing aridity, and a shift in ocean circulation driven by climate change.

----------------

Wienerbitch, if you think we are all descended from acid-resistant organisms, and we can all ride out eradication of species, dependent on shells or eggs, get this up.

But you aren't even as smart as the stupid, petroleum-reimbursed "scientists."

Yes, these poor people wrap themselves up in all sorts of ridiculous contortions to try and have warmth be the cause but cold is the most likely cause of all of the mass extinctions. The temps at the time of the extinctions has allways been much higher than the current day and the thought that a 1.5 degree increase being catostrophic is simply absurd. Cold on the other hand, especially in a land used to warmth, that is a killer.

But don't let a little thing called logic bother you.

 

[bobgnote]

Yes, these poor people wrap themselves up in all sorts of ridiculous contortions to try and have warmth be the cause but cold is the most likely cause of all of the mass extinctions. The temps at the time of the extinctions has allways been much higher than the current day and the thought that a 1.5 degree increase being catostrophic is simply absurd. Cold on the other hand, especially in a land used to warmth, that is a killer.

But don't let a little thing called logic bother you.

What makes you think, with your head up your ass, how a little thing like logic is going to bother you?