Inconvenient historic (climate alarmism) facts

piomas-trnd9.png
Your own graph shows ice gain from 2012...

View attachment 196871

Billy.... it has occurred to me that these people don't even look at the specific measures on the vertical axis. They see a dropping line and their head automatically explodes.

More likely though is it is a matter of perception. We all know people who are prone to the hysterical.... we see things that wouldn't even make us bat an eyelash but other people get highly angst about. See it everyday near me on the Long Island Expressway.... a phenomenon known as "rubbernecking". People who slow down almost to a stop to view a car accident.... even if it is a fender bender for three or four cars. Guys like Old Rocks and Crick would go home and say they saw a "massive car wreck" where you and I would barely notice. These alarmists have a very different perception of their environment compared to most people.
 
Last edited:

Good old crick...ever the dupe. You post that graph like you think it means something important...something big. What exactly do you think it shows that is so important that it must be self evident?

Here is some news for you skidmark...all your graph shows is that even with the bit of of ice loss we have seen, there is still a hell of a lot more ice up there in the cold cold arctic than has been there for most of the past 10,000 years. I keep asking for a single piece of observed, measured evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variaibility and without fail, this is the sort of shit you bring to the table. I bet you think that graph actually supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...Guess what? You couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Here, have a look at some natural variability in the arctic. If you are unable to read the graphs and can't figure out how they relate to that business as usual graph you posted (we know that you have a real hard time with even the simplest graph) just let me know and I will help you out.

Arctic-Sea-Ice-Extent-North-of-Iceland-3000-Years-Moffa-S%C3%A1nchez-and-Hall-2017.jpg

Arctic-Sea-Ice-Holocene-Stein-17.jpg

Holocene-Arctic-Sea-Ice-Changes-Chukchi-Sea-Yamamoto-2017.jpg


 
God, are you fucking stupid.

Alas skidmark, you are the truly stupid one...thinking that graph you posted actually means something important..thinking that it shows anything other than business as usual on planet earth...thinking that it shows anything other than that at present there is a hell of a lot more ice in the arctic than has been there for most of the past 10,000 years...

All you have managed to show is that you are a dupe who simply gobbles up whatever your pseudoscience masters feed you and that you never ever even thought to have a peek at the bigger picture...that sort of behavior and mindset is demonstrative of one who is genuinely stupid crick....congratulations.
 

Graph is ghey....more progressive fakery! Notice the vertical axis is not quantifiable. Ghey.....only sells to the low information reader. Progressives post up these graphs dosplaying these gigantic increases or decreases but with no detail on either the horizontal or vertical axis. Fake

The main problem with his graph is that it only points out an eyeblink of geological time and he proudly presents it as if it were illustrative of what has happened to the arctic since we invented the internal combustion engine...and I don't doubt that he actually believes it. He is very stupid you know. If you look at a graph showing a longer view, you see that the amount of ice present in the arctic today is far larger than the amount that has been present for most of the past 10,000 years.

Here, have a look...see as you move back in time past cricks very short view, you see that the ice extent has been far lower than what we see now for most of the past 10,000 years...Go back about 9000 years and the arctic was probably damned near ice free.

And imagine, the polar bears managed to survive all those thousands of years when the extent of the ice was a hell of a lot less than it is today. They are f'ing idiots...nothing more than bots who do the will of people they perceive as more intelligent than themselves. Morons who don't have the slightest idea that they are being scammed.

Holocene-Arctic-Sea-Ice-Changes-Chukchi-Sea-Yamamoto-2017.jpg
 

Graph is ghey....more progressive fakery! Notice the vertical axis is not quantifiable. Ghey.....only sells to the low information reader. Progressives post up these graphs dosplaying these gigantic increases or decreases but with no detail on either the horizontal or vertical axis. Fake

The main problem with his graph is that it only points out an eyeblink of geological time and he proudly presents it as if it were illustrative of what has happened to the arctic since we invented the internal combustion engine...and I don't doubt that he actually believes it. He is very stupid you know. If you look at a graph showing a longer view, you see that the amount of ice present in the arctic today is far larger than the amount that has been present for most of the past 10,000 years.

Here, have a look...see as you move back in time past cricks very short view, you see that the ice extent has been far lower than what we see now for most of the past 10,000 years...Go back about 9000 years and the arctic was probably damned near ice free.

And imagine, the polar bears managed to survive all those thousands of years when the extent of the ice was a hell of a lot less than it is today. They are f'ing idiots...nothing more than bots who do the will of people they perceive as more intelligent than themselves. Morons who don't have the slightest idea that they are being scammed.

Holocene-Arctic-Sea-Ice-Changes-Chukchi-Sea-Yamamoto-2017.jpg

He is so dumb that he fails to notice that in his shabby chart, the decline stopped after 2007 time frame. Another data set shows a INCREASE in Sea Ice volume from 2008:

FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20080602_shadow-1024x857 2008.png


FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20180602_shadow-1024x857 2018.png
 
That graph shows 39 years of ice mass loss. If you really want to blatantly cherry pick crap, feel free. Just another indicator that you've got nothing with which to actually make an argument.
 

The main problem with his graph is that it only points out an eyeblink of geological time and he proudly presents it as if it were illustrative of what has happened to the arctic since we invented the internal combustion engine...and I don't doubt that he actually believes it. He is very stupid you know. If you look at a graph showing a longer view, you see that the amount of ice present in the arctic today is far larger than the amount that has been present for most of the past 10,000 years.

The problem with your graphs are that they fail to show what human activity has done to the Arctic ice extents in the last 50 years. And the quality of your data, of course, is orders of magnitude worse than what is available from the earliest satellites.

You people are always trying to say everything is ok because the world once got this warm. You fail to mention that this took place when dinosaurs ruled the earth and took 50,000 years to make the increase we've seen in the last 50.
 
That graph shows 39 years of ice mass loss. If you really want to blatantly cherry pick crap, feel free. Just another indicator that you've got nothing with which to actually make an argument.

Again you ignore the part that the decline has STOPPED after 2007, that is from YOUR chart.

I post evidence that Sea Ice Volume is on the INCREASE since 2008, you completely ignore it.

You also completely ignored this COMMENT from SSDD, and this one from billy_bob

You are a no trick ponyboy.
 
Can we say "cherry-picking"?

I didn't think so.

How much recovery has taken place in the last ten years? Zero. What have Arctic temperatures done in that period?

Caryl_22.png

arctic-amplification-1960-2011-hires.gif

Arctic2017.png
 
imho the AGW folks are on the way out. Like, this just came out:

Three Climate Change Questions Answered

1) is the scientific community really united?, 2) can solar and wind take over any time soon to provide the required vital energy for the maintenance of modern civilization in today's world of 7 billion people?, and 3) has CO2 caused any harm yet? The answer to all three questions is no.

A major theme of this essay is that many assertions can easily be checked out by a simple Google search...

The idea being if even GOOGLE is backing off then it must mean AGW's days are truly numbered...
American Thinker? A dipshit 'Conservative' site, hardly a credible source on information concerning any scientific subject.

A typical ad hom. which means you can't answer the article, which is another reason why warmists like you are losing the argument.
What the fuck is there to answer? The comment about Google at the tail end is completely meaningless. Google provides other people's opinions and data. It's not like they're doing climate research.
 
That graph shows 39 years of ice mass loss. If you really want to blatantly cherry pick crap, feel free. Just another indicator that you've got nothing with which to actually make an argument.

So f'ing what skidmark...picking 39 years out of the past 10,000 and crying that the sky is falling is the epitome of cherry picking. Of course I can see why you do it...if you look at the bigger picture, your sky is falling mewling becomes positively laughable.
 
The problem with your graphs are that they fail to show what human activity has done to the Arctic ice extents in the last 50 years. And the quality of your data, of course, is orders of magnitude worse than what is available from the earliest satellites.

And what do you think we have "done" to the arctic ice? There is more of it now than at any time during the past 10,000 years except during the little ice age.

You people are always trying to say everything is ok because the world once got this warm. You fail to mention that this took place when dinosaurs ruled the earth and took 50,000 years to make the increase we've seen in the last 50.

The arctic was, in all likelihood ice free 9000 years ago. You think dinosaurs were around then? The arctic has been warmer for most of the past 10,000 years than it is now...you think dinosaurs were around then? You really are a dolt skidmark...even when you are shown published study after published study stating explicitly that most of the past 10K (K stands for 1,000 by the way) you still cry that we are causing all the ice to vanish...and the funny/sad thing is, you don't have the first piece of actual evidence to support the claim...
 
Can we say "cherry-picking"?

I didn't think so.

How much recovery has taken place in the last ten years? Zero. What have Arctic temperatures done in that period?

Caryl_22.png

arctic-amplification-1960-2011-hires.gif

Arctic2017.png

Laughable skidmark...your graph shows the US warming from 1960 to 2011 when the CRN....a triple redundant climate network so pristinely placed that it requires no adjustment says that the US is, and has been in a cooling trend....the manipulations, infilling, and outright making up temperatures fail in the US and there is no reason to think that they aren't equally wrong in the rest of the world where most of the temperatures are simply made up...
 
It's not like they're doing climate research.

Neither is climate science...they are just making it up as they go...fabricating whatever is necessary to support a fraudulent narrative.
 
That graph shows 39 years of ice mass loss. If you really want to blatantly cherry pick crap, feel free. Just another indicator that you've got nothing with which to actually make an argument.

So f'ing what skidmark...picking 39 years out of the past 10,000 and crying that the sky is falling is the epitome of cherry picking. Of course I can see why you do it...if you look at the bigger picture, your sky is falling mewling becomes positively laughable.

Holecene 2.JPG


Natural variation..... Dwarfs everything happening today!
 
imho the AGW folks are on the way out. Like, this just came out:

Three Climate Change Questions Answered

1) is the scientific community really united?, 2) can solar and wind take over any time soon to provide the required vital energy for the maintenance of modern civilization in today's world of 7 billion people?, and 3) has CO2 caused any harm yet? The answer to all three questions is no.

A major theme of this essay is that many assertions can easily be checked out by a simple Google search...

The idea being if even GOOGLE is backing off then it must mean AGW's days are truly numbered...
American Thinker? A dipshit 'Conservative' site, hardly a credible source on information concerning any scientific subject.

A typical ad hom. which means you can't answer the article, which is another reason why warmists like you are losing the argument.
What the fuck is there to answer? The comment about Google at the tail end is completely meaningless. Google provides other people's opinions and data. It's not like they're doing climate research.

Yawn, your infantile hostility is noted for it's vast emptiness.
 
Can we say "cherry-picking"?

I didn't think so.

How much recovery has taken place in the last ten years? Zero. What have Arctic temperatures done in that period?

Caryl_22.png

arctic-amplification-1960-2011-hires.gif

Arctic2017.png

Ha ha ha,

Crick destroys his entire argument with his first chart showing GLOBAL Temperature (not the arctic region) that the warming rate is WAAAY below the IPCC age based modeling scenario, of .30C/ decade.
 
Last edited:
Two years to navigate the Northwest Passage?

Mission Accomplished: Crystal Serenity Completes 32-Day Northwest Passage Journey

LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--More than three years after the inception of the immensely ambitious plan to transit the Northwest Passage, Crystal Cruises’ luxury cruise ship Crystal Serenity has completed the epic undertaking, arriving in New York City this morning. The successful voyage marks the first of its kind made by a large luxury cruise ship. For 32 days and 7,297 nautical miles, more than 1,000 guests and 600 crew members witnessed the remote Arctic waterways and terrain that was inaccessible just over 100 years ago.

Mission Accomplished .@crystalcruises Crystal Serenity completes 32-day Northwest Passage journey

Tweet this
“We are humbled and thrilled to have completed such a monumental journey,” said Edie Rodriguez, CEO and president at Crystal. “As Crystal is constantly seeking new ways to share the world with our guests, the Northwest Passage represents an especially massive undertaking that was made possible by the extreme dedication of our expert destination team and expedition partners. We now look forward to beginning the planning process in delivering another memorable experience for guests on our 2017 sailing.”

How about 32 leisurely days?


A sailing ship vs today's ship?


Damn the more you post now it appears you're getting senile .
 
His second chart shows massive red at the North Pole region, where there are NO stable temperature stations in most of the region.

It is largely made up.
 
Two years to navigate the Northwest Passage?

Mission Accomplished: Crystal Serenity Completes 32-Day Northwest Passage Journey

LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--More than three years after the inception of the immensely ambitious plan to transit the Northwest Passage, Crystal Cruises’ luxury cruise ship Crystal Serenity has completed the epic undertaking, arriving in New York City this morning. The successful voyage marks the first of its kind made by a large luxury cruise ship. For 32 days and 7,297 nautical miles, more than 1,000 guests and 600 crew members witnessed the remote Arctic waterways and terrain that was inaccessible just over 100 years ago.

Mission Accomplished .@crystalcruises Crystal Serenity completes 32-day Northwest Passage journey

Tweet this
“We are humbled and thrilled to have completed such a monumental journey,” said Edie Rodriguez, CEO and president at Crystal. “As Crystal is constantly seeking new ways to share the world with our guests, the Northwest Passage represents an especially massive undertaking that was made possible by the extreme dedication of our expert destination team and expedition partners. We now look forward to beginning the planning process in delivering another memorable experience for guests on our 2017 sailing.”

How about 32 leisurely days?


A sailing ship vs today's ship?


Damn the more you post now it appears you're getting senile .

Yikes....say it ain't so
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top