June ice the lowest on record

Do they have $900 million submarines and scores of crew to lose if they're wrong....or lying?

No, but the next round of research funding is coming up soon.

Ask for 10 of them, then when they only gove you 2, they can say, hey look, we saved money.
 
Last edited:
Do they have $900 million submarines and scores of crew to lose if they're wrong....or lying?

No, you are lying.

The Navy's data is months old.

Nice try though.
 
N_stddev_timeseries.png
 
Put on hold, as the forcing of AGW are far greater than the forcing of the Milankovic Cycles.




If that is so why isn't there widespread and incontrovertible evidence of warming? If what you say is true then we should have allready risen to the temperature levels that were last seen in the MWP.

You sir are hoist on your own petard.

What a fucking idiot you prove yourself to be everytime you post. Even the denialists like Limpbaugh finally had to admit that there is widespread proof that it is warming. He just denies that we have anything to do with it.

As for you, you do not know from day to day what you think. Come on, Faux Geologist, have you never heard of glaciers or ice caps?




I see you've never read any of my early posts where I categorically stated that when I was obtaining my geology degree we referred to this time as an interglacial warming trend. The question was allways is man having an effect and after obtaining my gradute degrees and further continuation of my education in other scientific fields (what level of college science classes have you finished exactly?) I have come to the conclusion that man is having little to no effect. The warming that has been experienced is entirely natural.

Please note I also ridicule anybody who attempts to use a day to day or week to week or even year to year (hell lets make it a decade to decade reading shall we?) temperature reading as a basis for supporting AGW as that is simply ridiculous. Just like anyone attempting to use colder temps in like manner to do the same on the sceptical side.

It is all philosophical masturbation and you are a master at that. I just wish you would actually go back to school and actually learn something. Wiki and realclimate are not credible sources. They have been caught far too many times manipulating and massaging data to further a political endeavor. And that my good man is not science that is propaganda.
 




I see it is all taken at the end of the summer. I also noticed that there was a lot of movement of the ice but the detail of the animation is not high enough to actually see anything relevant. The ice could either be melting or it could just be being blown around.
The detail is not good enough to tell either way.
 




I see it is all taken at the end of the summer. I also noticed that there was a lot of movement of the ice but the detail of the animation is not high enough to actually see anything relevant. The ice could either be melting or it could just be being blown around.
The detail is not good enough to tell either way.

You are just a flat out liar.

Are you employed by the American Petroleum Institute?
 




I see it is all taken at the end of the summer. I also noticed that there was a lot of movement of the ice but the detail of the animation is not high enough to actually see anything relevant. The ice could either be melting or it could just be being blown around.
The detail is not good enough to tell either way.

You are just a flat out liar.

Are you employed by the American Petroleum Institute?

Are you confident enough yet in the power of an additional 200PPM of additional CO2 that you can show us in a laboratory setting how it raises temperatures by degrees and melts ice?
 
I see it is all taken at the end of the summer. I also noticed that there was a lot of movement of the ice but the detail of the animation is not high enough to actually see anything relevant. The ice could either be melting or it could just be being blown around.
The detail is not good enough to tell either way.

You are just a flat out liar.

Are you employed by the American Petroleum Institute?

Are you confident enough yet in the power of an additional 200PPM of additional CO2 that you can show us in a laboratory setting how it raises temperatures by degrees and melts ice?

The science was proven in 1859.

You really need to do a little research outside of right wing blogs.
 
MIT: Climate change odds much worse than thought
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago — and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well — such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

MIT: Climate change odds much worse than thought
 
You are just a flat out liar.

Are you employed by the American Petroleum Institute?

Are you confident enough yet in the power of an additional 200PPM of additional CO2 that you can show us in a laboratory setting how it raises temperatures by degrees and melts ice?

The science was proven in 1859.

You really need to do a little research outside of right wing blogs.

As I thought, you refuse to perform an experiment to back up your hypothesis.

It's not: is CO2 a GHG, it's "Will a 200PPM increase in CO2 melt the polar ice caps and fry eggs on the sidewalk as Warmer claim?"
 
MIT: Climate change odds much worse than thought
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago — and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well — such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

MIT: Climate change odds much worse than thought

It's that time again!

Time for everyones favorite game:

WHEEL

OF

CLIMATE

CHANGE!!


prinn-roulette-4.jpg
 
Wow! Climate Change Hold Em!

You're dealt 72 (200PPM CO2) and you're raising it now to a 5 degree temperature increase!
 
You are just a flat out liar.

Are you employed by the American Petroleum Institute?

Are you confident enough yet in the power of an additional 200PPM of additional CO2 that you can show us in a laboratory setting how it raises temperatures by degrees and melts ice?

The science was proven in 1859.

You really need to do a little research outside of right wing blogs.





You know for someone who claims that every sceptic is a luddite you and your fellow cultists are the ones who can't seem to understand that science methodologies have really improved from way back then. Imagine that. Back then some people actually thought that you couldn't travel faster than a galloping horse.
 




I see it is all taken at the end of the summer. I also noticed that there was a lot of movement of the ice but the detail of the animation is not high enough to actually see anything relevant. The ice could either be melting or it could just be being blown around.
The detail is not good enough to tell either way.

You are just a flat out liar.

Are you employed by the American Petroleum Institute?





Please point out where I lied.

And as usual your non sequiter attack has no merit because no I don't work for the API. I infact do environmental cleanups of abandoned mines and other industrial ruins.

What do you do other shoot off a highly ignorant mouth?
 
Are you confident enough yet in the power of an additional 200PPM of additional CO2 that you can show us in a laboratory setting how it raises temperatures by degrees and melts ice?

The science was proven in 1859.

You really need to do a little research outside of right wing blogs.

You know for someone who claims that every sceptic is a luddite you and your fellow cultists are the ones who can't seem to understand that science methodologies have really improved from way back then. Imagine that. Back then some people actually thought that you couldn't travel faster than a galloping horse.
Check out those goofy Wright boys!

Telephone?...Hey a Alex, who are you gonna call?!?

;) :lol:
 
You know for someone who claims that every sceptic is a luddite you and your fellow cultists are the ones who can't seem to understand that science methodologies have really improved from way back then. Imagine that. Back then some people actually thought that you couldn't travel faster than a galloping horse.

Most of the early relevant work on the subject was done in the late 19/early 20th century precisely because the relevant physics (namely, thermodynamics/stat mech and electromagnetism) had been established by that point. This is post-Maxwell and post-Boltzmann.
 

Forum List

Back
Top