Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
SO we've been warming for 120 years? Now I know that's not true. You sure you don't want to rethink that one?
No, you mis-read what I posted.
What I said was that the SCIENCE of global warming was developed in the 1890s.
Here it is for you:
In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature. This "greenhouse effect" was only one of many speculations about climate, and not the most plausible. Scientists found technical reasons to argue that our emissions could not change the climate. Indeed most thought it was obvious that puny humanity could never affect the vast climate cycles, which were governed by a benign "balance of nature." In any case major change seemed impossible except over tens of thousands of years.
In the 1930s, people realized that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century. Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, with unknown causes. Only one lone voice, the amateur G.S. Callendar, insisted that greenhouse warming was on the way. Whatever the cause of warming, everyone thought that if it happened to continue for the next few centuries, so much the better.
Introduction - Summary
The ones in Antarctia are growing as of September 2009. It is not my fault you used an old reference, because it suited your purposes. The Eastern section represents 80% of the ice cap. It more than offsets the losses of the Western side and the Arctic.
SaveLiberty -
I pulled my head out of my arse long enough to note that we were discussing the Arctic - and you posted a story on the Antarctic.
Priceless. Absolutely priceless.
You are aware the Antarctic accounts for 70% of the earth's fresh water? Many times more than the arctic.
It is quite possible the loss of ice being reported at one cap is being more than replaced by the ice accumulations in another cap - that in fact, the net ice accumulations of earth are INCREASING, not decreasing.
Carry on...
SO we've been warming for 120 years? Now I know that's not true. You sure you don't want to rethink that one?
No, you mis-read what I posted.
What I said was that the SCIENCE of global warming was developed in the 1890s.
Here it is for you:
In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature. This "greenhouse effect" was only one of many speculations about climate, and not the most plausible. Scientists found technical reasons to argue that our emissions could not change the climate. Indeed most thought it was obvious that puny humanity could never affect the vast climate cycles, which were governed by a benign "balance of nature." In any case major change seemed impossible except over tens of thousands of years.
In the 1930s, people realized that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century. Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, with unknown causes. Only one lone voice, the amateur G.S. Callendar, insisted that greenhouse warming was on the way. Whatever the cause of warming, everyone thought that if it happened to continue for the next few centuries, so much the better.
Introduction - Summary
The SCIENCE of Astrology came along much, much earlier. Astrology started sometime in the 3rd millenium BC. It has proven to be far more accurate than Global Warming. I'd rely on Astrology before the religion of AGW. You are a AGW Jihadist!
BLULOOOLOOO!!! I WARM YOU UP!!!! BLULOOLOOLOOOO!!! GAIA BE PRAISED!! BLULOOOLOOO!!! THE CO2 is DESTROYING THE PLANET!!!!! BLULOOLOOLOOOO!!! GAIA BE PRAISED!! BLULOOOLOOO!!! THE ICE IS MELTING!!!!!! BLULOOLOOLOOOO!!! GAIA BE PRAISED!! BLULOOLOOLOO!!!!
No, you mis-read what I posted.
What I said was that the SCIENCE of global warming was developed in the 1890s.
Here it is for you:
In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature. This "greenhouse effect" was only one of many speculations about climate, and not the most plausible. Scientists found technical reasons to argue that our emissions could not change the climate. Indeed most thought it was obvious that puny humanity could never affect the vast climate cycles, which were governed by a benign "balance of nature." In any case major change seemed impossible except over tens of thousands of years.
In the 1930s, people realized that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century. Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, with unknown causes. Only one lone voice, the amateur G.S. Callendar, insisted that greenhouse warming was on the way. Whatever the cause of warming, everyone thought that if it happened to continue for the next few centuries, so much the better.
Introduction - Summary
The SCIENCE of Astrology came along much, much earlier. Astrology started sometime in the 3rd millenium BC. It has proven to be far more accurate than Global Warming. I'd rely on Astrology before the religion of AGW. You are a AGW Jihadist!
BLULOOOLOOO!!! I WARM YOU UP!!!! BLULOOLOOLOOOO!!! GAIA BE PRAISED!! BLULOOOLOOO!!! THE CO2 is DESTROYING THE PLANET!!!!! BLULOOLOOLOOOO!!! GAIA BE PRAISED!! BLULOOOLOOO!!! THE ICE IS MELTING!!!!!! BLULOOLOOLOOOO!!! GAIA BE PRAISED!! BLULOOLOOLOO!!!!
A person with no evidence egages in mindless derision of real scientific evidence.
Zander, you are operating on the same level as Elvis.
Works for me, he points out plenty of facts. No scare tactics. Just tells us about the BS.
No, he did no such thing. Where is his data? What evidence did he present that counters the observed melting of the glaciers and ice caps?
Ollie, I am going to call you on this nonsense when the tempertures exceed 1998.
)
No, you mis-read what I posted.
What I said was that the SCIENCE of global warming was developed in the 1890s.
Here it is for you:
In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature. This "greenhouse effect" was only one of many speculations about climate, and not the most plausible. Scientists found technical reasons to argue that our emissions could not change the climate. Indeed most thought it was obvious that puny humanity could never affect the vast climate cycles, which were governed by a benign "balance of nature." In any case major change seemed impossible except over tens of thousands of years.
In the 1930s, people realized that the United States and North Atlantic region had warmed significantly during the previous half-century. Scientists supposed this was just a phase of some mild natural cycle, with unknown causes. Only one lone voice, the amateur G.S. Callendar, insisted that greenhouse warming was on the way. Whatever the cause of warming, everyone thought that if it happened to continue for the next few centuries, so much the better.
Introduction - Summary
The SCIENCE of Astrology came along much, much earlier. Astrology started sometime in the 3rd millenium BC. It has proven to be far more accurate than Global Warming. I'd rely on Astrology before the religion of AGW. You are a AGW Jihadist!
BLULOOOLOOO!!! I WARM YOU UP!!!! BLULOOLOOLOOOO!!! GAIA BE PRAISED!! BLULOOOLOOO!!! THE CO2 is DESTROYING THE PLANET!!!!! BLULOOLOOLOOOO!!! GAIA BE PRAISED!! BLULOOOLOOO!!! THE ICE IS MELTING!!!!!! BLULOOLOOLOOOO!!! GAIA BE PRAISED!! BLULOOLOOLOO!!!!
A person with no evidence egages in mindless derision of real scientific evidence.
Zander, you are operating on the same level as Elvis.
Zander -
Please don't spam the thread with gibberish.
Either address the issues raised here, or leave it for others to discuss.
The ones in Antarctia are growing as of September 2009. It is not my fault you used an old reference, because it suited your purposes. The Eastern section represents 80% of the ice cap. It more than offsets the losses of the Western side and the Arctic.
No, the ones in the Western have grown in short bursts - and have also fallen back in short bursts. The trends in Eastern Antarctica have not been clear at all, which is why the Arctic is more often used as an example - because the trends there are so clear.
There is really no debate at all that Antarctica is experiencing net loss far more often than net gain.
Here is the proof from 3 different sources:
Source One:
Ice loss in Antarctica increased by 75 percent in the last 10 years due to a speed-up in the flow of its glaciers and is now nearly as great as that observed in Greenland, according to a new, comprehensive study by NASA and university scientists.
Antarctic Ice Loss Speeds Up, Nearly Matches Greenland Loss
Source Two:
Antarctica is losing about 36 cubic miles (150 cubic kilometers) of ice every year, scientists reported Thursday.
The study based on satellite measurements made by NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE was detailed Thursday in the online version of the journal Science.
New satellite data show Antarctic ice loss - LiveScience- msnbc.com
Source Three:
Using gravity measurement data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) mission, a team of scientists from the University of Texas at Austin has found that the East Antarctic ice sheet-home to about 90 percent of Earth's solid fresh water and previously considered stable-may have begun to lose ice.
The team used Grace data to estimate Antarctica's ice mass between 2002 and 2009. Their results, published Nov. 22 in the journal Nature Geoscience, found that the East Antarctic ice sheet is losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at an estimated rate of 57 gigatonnes a year. A gigatonne is one billion metric tons, or more than 2.2 trillion pounds. The ice loss there may have begun as early as 2006. The study also confirmed previous results showing that West Antarctica is losing about 132 gigatonnes of ice per year.
Unexpected Ice Loss Detected in East Antarctica : News
Please admit that you were wrong about the net gain of ice before we continue.
Save Liberty -
The reports date from 2006, 2008 and 2009. They are strong, credible scientific studies with academic credentials, and all are very much valid today. If you don't like thec 2006 report, ignore it and focus on the other two.
If you wish to challenge the evidence with equally impressive scientific reports and academic analysis, go right ahead.
If you can not, then maybe start to consider whether you may simply be wrong about this.
Zander -
Given you seem to be completely out of your depth on this topic and are just posting incoherent spam, I've put you on ignore. That way the rest of us may be able to debate sensibly.
The overall ice cap percentages on this planet are growing.
Save Liberty -
You have presented one link, the information of which was not new, and which I have seen no one dispute.
Please either address the science that has been posted, or accept that this comment:
The overall ice cap percentages on this planet are growing.
is patently false, and is not supported by any science at all.
Save Liberty -
If you are wrong, and you can see that you are wrong - why are you still arguing?
I have presented 3 major academic studies - all of which tell you that the amount of ice is diminishing rapidly.
Unless you can fault the methodology or results of this studies based on science, posting numbers you read on ihatealgore.com is not going to convince anyone - least of all yourself, I would have thought.
Save Liberty -
If you are wrong, and you can see that you are wrong - why are you still arguing?
I have presented 3 major academic studies - all of which tell you that the amount of ice is diminishing rapidly.
Unless you can fault the methodology or results of this studies based on science, posting numbers you read on ihatealgore.com is not going to convince anyone - least of all yourself, I would have thought.
Your studies are funded by government sources that want the benefits of power derived from this lie. I have not used the source you mentioned even once. I do general web searches when idiots like you post garbage. Surprise, the answers are right there big as life. You support lairs and politicans. I support real science and problems we need to solve now. The ice caps are growing. I have shown that several times. You choose to ignore it because your little world would fall. Do your own research. You should find that 72% of the worlds ice is stable or growing.
