The best argument against global warming

[Sodafin]

btw, re: rising sea levels -

You also seem to ave misunderstood this quite dramatically. Of course a rise of 0.14mm per year is not, in itself, significant, but this is only the rise attributed to melt from Alaska!

Add in the rise attributable to the SAME EFFECTS taking place in the arctic and Antarctic, in South America and Europe, and you start to see the real impact, which is already having a dramatic and measurable impact in Holland, Mozambique, Australia and Bangladesh.

I'll post proof of this once we have worked through the glacial melt issue.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have posted this before and not received any intelligent response before but I will try again,

The major problem I have with climate change is the way supporters push the theory with a few facts and absolutely no real evidence. Mostly I hear "your an idiot if you deny global warming" - "global warming is a fact" - "everyone agrees that global warming is happening" - "all scientists (or intelligent people) agree that global warming is occurring and is a major problem" or some other iteration of the preceding. The fact is that none of that is true in the slightest and here we are on this thread arguing about a few emails that do not matter in the least when applied to the grater question. The fact that some scientists were cooking data really does not matter (or surprise me). It just reminds us that skepticism is GOOD. What matters is whether or not global warming is actually occurring and how we fit in to that equation.

The GW scare tactics remind me of the ozone scare tactics that were used some 15 years ago. The above statements were used in the exact same way and 'everyone' agreed that the damage to the ozone layer was a product of humans. I remember being told we were all going to die of skin cancer by the age of 30 if steps were not taken immediately because there would be NO ozone layer and it would take hundreds of years for the damage to be repaired by nature. As it turns out, 'everyone' was wrong and we are still here. GW stinks of the same bullshit and corruption. Don't get me wrong, I am open to the idea but have yet to hear anything that pushes me into the 'we made this mess' boat. I just watched a national geographic that was claiming that 'the world plus 3' was essentially a barren wasteland of death. That is just insane and not helping the GW community on getting those of us that remain skeptical. This crap is always the same. Fear sells and pushes policy whilst reason and debate mean nothing. Points have been raised in this very thread and supporters are not addressing them.

Point I would like some answers to:

The temperature has been cooling for a decade. That point was ridiculed without the slightest attempt to address it. I am genuinely interested in this point as carbon emissions around the world have been increasing at an unprecedented rate. Given the feedback loop that GW theorists claim why is the earth cooling? the opposite should be true if the model is to be believed, temperatures should not only increase but be increasing faster.


Climate has changes before and will change again. Why are we stuck on the manmade carbon thing. Where is the evidence. I continually hear the faster than ever approach but we have no real data in this aria. In geological terms, we cannot see major temperature changes in the timescales that humans have even been able to measuring temperatures. How do we reconcile that with the dead set notion that it must be human CO2 emissions.


Warmer temperatures are good for life in general. We know this is true. We are talking decimals of degrees here, not massive changes. Why would a few degrees higher destroy the planet? CO2 even directly helps plants and more plants help control CO2. Now, if this were put back as a deforestation issue as was brought up many years ago then I may be a little more inclined to agree but it is not.


There have been several geological time periods where CO2 was HIGHER than it is now, by very large margins as a matter of fact (also brought up earlier but blown off). Why was the world okay at that point but is going to end now? It seems to me there was no problem then and there may not be much of a problem now.


Where is the science that quantifies the total impact. There have been several models put up and most of them were constructed to induce fear but none really show a story that is believable. This is the most important. If we establish the temperature IS rising AND it IS manmade AND it IS due to CO2 emissions (and that is a hefty charge) then we need to know what the impact is before doing anything. I have yet to see any impact that is not mere fear mongering and end of the world type rhetoric. Do you have real impact with facts to back them up?


As I understand it, nature releases far more carbon than man does. Magnitudes more in fact. Why is mans impact so radical then? If nature has been releasing and absorbing such large amounts of CO2 in the past what is it that makes the extra that man is releasing such a burden on the system that it cannot handle it?

 

[Sodafin]

Point I would like some answers to:

The temperature has been cooling for a decade. ?

Actually, no, it isn't - so I can understand why people laughed at that earlier. Here's something a little more realistic:

2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

Except for a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s, Earth's surface temperatures have increased since 1880. The last decade has brought the temperatures to the highest levels ever recorded. The graph shows global annual surface temperatures relative to 1951-1980 mean temperatures. As shown by the red line, long-term trends are more apparent when temperatures are averaged over a five year period.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began.

NASA GISS: Research News: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

You did ask for the data, but you don't seem to have looked at it very throroughly - or else you would have seen where and how it has been established that 99% of Alaska's glaciers are in retreat. Please look at the material you asked for, and then get back to us.

btw. You seem to have misunderstood the math aspect - the 52 number is not a grand total loss - it is an average loss.

Here is a Wikipedia overview, which puts it in simpler terms.

There are thousands of glaciers in Alaska, though only a relative few of them have been named. The Columbia Glacier near Valdez in Prince William Sound has retreated 15 km (9.3 mi) in the last 25 years. Icebergs calved off this glacier were a partial cause of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, as the oil tanker had changed course to avoid the icebergs. The Valdez Glacier is in the same area, and though it does not calve, it has also retreated significantly. "A 2005 aerial survey of Alaskan coastal glaciers identified more than a dozen glaciers, many former tidewater and calving glaciers, including Grand Plateau, Alsek, Bear, and Excelsior Glaciers that are rapidly retreating. Of 2,000 glaciers observed, 99% are retreating." (Molnia2) Icy Bay in Alaska is fed by three large glaciers—Guyot, Yahtse, and Tyndall Glaciers—all of which have experienced a loss in length and thickness and, consequently, a loss in area. Tyndall Glacier became separated from the retreating Guyot Glacier in the 1960s and has retreated 24 km (15 mi) since, averaging more than 500 m (1,600 ft) per year.(Molnia)

The Juneau Icefield Research Program has monitored the outlet glaciers of the Juneau Icefield since 1946. On the west side of the ice field, the terminus of the Mendenhall Glacier, which flows into suburban Juneau, Alaska, has retreated 580 m (1,900 ft). Of the nineteen glaciers of the Juneau Icefield, eighteen are retreating, and one, the Taku Glacier, is advancing. Eleven of the glaciers have retreated more than 1 km (0.62 mi) since 1948 — Antler Glacier, 5.4 km (3.4 mi); Gilkey Glacier, 3.5 km (2.2 mi); Norris Glacier, 1.1 km (0.68 mi) and Lemon Creek Glacier, 1.5 km (0.93 mi).(Pelto6) Taku Glacier has been advancing since at least 1890, when naturalist John Muir observed a large iceberg calving front. By 1948 the adjacent fjord had filled in, and the glacier no longer calved and was able to continue its advance. By 2005 the glacier was only 1.5 km (0.93 mi) from reaching Taku Point and blocking Taku Inlet. The advance of Taku Glacier averaged 17 m (56 ft) per year between 1988 and 2005. The mass balance was very positive for the 1946–88 period fueling the advance; however, since 1988 the mass balance has been slightly negative, which should in the future slow the advance of this mighty glacier.(Pelto and Miller)

Long-term mass balance records from Lemon Creek Glacier in Alaska show slightly declining mass balance with time.(Miller and Pelto) The mean annual balance for this glacier was −0.23 m (0.75 ft) each year during the period of 1957 to 1976. Mean annual balance has been increasingly negatively averaging −1.04 m (3.4 ft) per year from 1990 to 2005. Repeat glacier altimetry, or altitude measuring, for 67 Alaska glaciers find rates of thinning have increased by more than a factor of two when comparing the periods from 1950 to 1995 (0.7 m (2.3 ft) per year) and 1995 to 2001 (1.8 m (5.9 ft) per year).(Arendt, et alia) This is a systemic trend with loss in mass equating to loss in thickness, which leads to increasing retreat—the glaciers are not only retreating, but they are also becoming much thinner. In Denali National Park, all glaciers monitored are retreating, with an average retreat of 20 m (66 ft) per year. The terminus of the Toklat Glacier has been retreating 26 m (85 ft) per year and the Muldrow Glacier has thinned 20 m (66 ft) since 1979.(Adema) Well documented in Alaska are surging glaciers that have been known to rapidly advance, even as much as 100 m (330 ft) per day. Variegated, Black Rapids, Muldrow, Susitna and Yanert are examples of surging glaciers in Alaska that have made rapid advances in the past. These glaciers are all retreating overall, punctuated by short periods of advance.

Retreat of glaciers since 1850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why don't you do yourself and everyone else a favor and try to remain with one line of debate before jumping to another. this looks like you are reaching to expand a point rather than defend a position....

And obviously I DID read it and DID understand it far better than you did. If not you wouldn't be jumping to another excuse or exp0anding the argument like this.

You want to over load the discussion with ever increasing amounts of data so you don't have to defend a claim you make. Well buddy it won't work its lame and its been done too many times.

Your claim the article said 99% of alaskan glaciers is a lie. Now want to tell me where in that synapse you linked to where it claims that? No of course not because it doesn't say that at all.. That is a lie you are trying to make appear true with BS and deception..

BTW, your link points to a brief on a paper published in the science journal. The actual article requires a paid subscription. Not exactly freely accessible now is it.... Thats two lies from you now...

The reality is you try and act like alaska is one small part of a bigger whole all melting like mad and thats too is a lie. You have claimed 95% of the worlds glaciers are melting, and when asked have produced nothing that says that. Now you post more crap on top of it to make it seem like its saying something it isn't. Defend your first claim then go for more...

Once more show me where it says 95% of the worlds glaciers are melting, or since you had to make another wild claim, where it says 99% of alskan glaciers are melting.... If you can't do it than you lose plain and simple..

 

[gslack]

btw, re: rising sea levels -

You also seem to ave misunderstood this quite dramatically. Of course a rise of 0.14mm per year is not, in itself, significant, but this is only the rise attributed to melt from Alaska!

Add in the rise attributable to the SAME EFFECTS taking place in the arctic and Antarctic, in South America and Europe, and you start to see the real impact, which is already having a dramatic and measurable impact in Holland, Mozambique, Australia and Bangladesh.

I'll post proof of this once we have worked through the glacial melt issue.

And I am glad you mentioned that. Because it also doesn't represent the loss of sea level rise by glaciers expansion in some areas either.... If you don't like the data don't post it. It was from your article so if its an inaccurate account we have you to thank....

 

[Sodafin]

Gslack -

If you read through the report produced by Arendt's team (linked as a pdf file on the site with his CV and details) you will not only find that that 99% of Alaska's glaciers are retreating (as are 95% of glaciers in the rest of the world) you will find that all of your other questions are answered.

If you can't be bothered to read the material, don't.

btw - If you had read the report you would have seen this sentence - "Although more than 99 percent of Alaska's large glaciers are retreating..." which is mentioned in this overview:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081006130550.htm

 

[Sodafin]

And I am glad you mentioned that. Because it also doesn't represent the loss of sea level rise by glaciers expansion in some areas either.... If you don't like the data don't post it. It was from your article so if its an inaccurate account we have you to thank....

Firstly, expanding glaciers do not mean ocean levels fall.

Secondly, less than 5% of the worlds glaciers are expanding, meaning that even if expanding glaciers DID cause ocean levels to fall, the rise in sea levels caused by retreating glaciers would counteract the fall in sea levels by a ration of 95:5.

 

[gslack]

Gslack -

If you read through the report produced by Arendt's team (linked as a pdf file on the site with his CV and details) you will not only find that that 99% of Alaska's glaciers are retreating (as are 95% of glaciers in the rest of the world) you will find that all of your other questions are answered.

If you can't be bothered to read the material, don't.

btw - If you had read the report you would have seen this sentence - "Although more than 99 percent of Alaska's large glaciers are retreating..." which is mentioned in this overview:

Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, Or Stagnating

in your first link to the synapse. We cannot see the report so we have no way to put it in context or see the reasoning behind it. But it doesn't give any percentage of total glaciers melting in alaska at all. That was a lie....

in your next wiki article link, 99% of OBSERVED glaciers is what the report says. Of 2000 OBSERVED 99% thats not all and thats not what you claimed either. Now again that was a lie...

In this latest piece we see it gives a very brief account of what is in another science journal paper. Again not the paper but someone's interpretation of a paper. This one says a few things that are a bit conflictive if you read it carefully.

ScienceDaily (Oct. 6, 2008) — Most glaciers in every mountain range and island group in Alaska are experiencing significant retreat, thinning or stagnation, especially glaciers at lower elevations, according to a new book published by the U.S. Geological Survey. In places, these changes began as early as the middle of the 18th century.

That is the top of the story right there. read it carefully without your Al Gore AGW Goggles... Notice the first part and the last particularly... It says...

"Most glaciers in every mountain range and island group in Alaska are experiencing significant retreat, thinning or stagnation, especially glaciers at lower elevations, according to a new book published by the U.S. Geological Survey."

now what does that mean? Well it means most glaciers are either retreating, or stagnant. Whats stagnant mean? Well it means they are neither expanding or retreating but just staying the same. So not exactly the same as what you claimed it meant now is it.....

"In places, these changes began as early as the middle of the 18th century."

Now look at that last sentence carefully... it basically says in some places the changes (or lack of them) began as early as the 1850's.... Wait isn't that the time we started to record temperatures? Why yes it is and it is also the time to this point that they claim as proof of AGW.... But if thats the case how can they be sure its not part of a natural cycle given the fact 160 years is a small amount of time to actually record temps and make any assumptions about its status of being within the norm or not? Well they can't its a speculation...

And in the end despite all this you and they are still making the biggest assumption. What does this prove in reality to overall climate and its natural or unnatural changes? Nothing not a damn thing. You nor they do not know if this isnt due to solar variance due to astronomical cycles and our tracking through the galaxy and solar system, or any other number of just as viable theories.

We don't know and until we do its a guess. You want to assume its due to CO2... Well the fact is CO2 follows warming not the other way around and that is a documented fact. Even the infamous hockey stick graph when shown in proper scale and timeline shows the CO2 rise is 300-800 years after the warming trend.

So the entire argument over if glaciers are melting or growing is irrelevant as to whether or not its caused by AGW. We don't know if its unnatural or not so to try and claim its evidence of AGW is ridiculous...

Now stop playing the "overload with information" ploy and actually stick to one point or claim...

 

[gslack]

And I am glad you mentioned that. Because it also doesn't represent the loss of sea level rise by glaciers expansion in some areas either.... If you don't like the data don't post it. It was from your article so if its an inaccurate account we have you to thank....

Firstly, expanding glaciers do not mean ocean levels fall.

Secondly, less than 5% of the worlds glaciers are expanding, meaning that even if expanding glaciers DID cause ocean levels to fall, the rise in sea levels caused by retreating glaciers would counteract the fall in sea levels by a ration of 95:5.

Glad to hear you say that "...expanding glaciers do not mean ocean levels fall." well then if expanding glaciers do not mean oceans fall, then we can say the same about melting glaciers not making them rise now couldn't we.....

Mind telling me why you tried to make that claim then? Dude you are resorting to countering your own claims now..... this is a ridiculous thing to try and defend anymore you have to see this now... I mean come on man, they keep making claim after claim and within weeks its an indefensible claim....

 

[skookerasbil]

I am amussed how the perpetually duped by the "science" keep posting up temperature #'s like its some kind of absolute truth..........

The bottom line is, in the court of public opinion..........the only place the "science" matters.......the whole global warming concept has been blown to shit. Now, its the green people who are viewed as out of step with conventional wisdom. People dont like looking like a dope at the water cooler. A few years ago, people looked at most like they had 10 heads if they were a skeptic. Now? Now.........if you go blabbering about "global warming", you're looked upon as a naive half-wit stuck in 2002. Its not even debatable.............all the polls show it too. For years, you only saw stories of polar bears floating on little sheets of ice. All thats changed now........people see on an almost weekly basis stories like from last week, "ARCTIC ICE BACK TO NORMAL". The k00ks on some stupid forum will post up an alternative take on the ice like it matters. It doesnt.........tens of millions of people see these stories and realize that the global warming special interests are getting pwned. Its all about public opinion........and for the last 2-3 years, the greens look like fcukking k00ks.

Still..........on this board, the religious about the environment maintain this passion as if somebody cared. Nobody cares anymore...........and moreover, absoultely nobody wants to be getting robbed by the government based upon the hail mary uncertainty of science at best or the fabricated hoax at worst.

As Crap and Tax approaches, wait'll folks find out that there electric bills will double if they sign on. THEN we'll see how irrelevant the "science" is s0ns!!!!


IN the meantime............this debate for and against by use of documented "science" is nothing more than an exercise in navel contemplation.

 

[Sodafin]

Glad to hear you say that "...expanding glaciers do not mean ocean levels fall." well then if expanding glaciers do not mean oceans fall, then we can say the same about melting glaciers not making them rise now couldn't we.....

No, we couldn't.

Really - is this difficult to understand?

Because in all honesty I would not have thought so.

Glaciers form from snow and rain fall. Glaciers melt into the ocean, or into rivers which feed the ocean. Hence ocean levels rise.

Of course, some of that ocean water evaporates returns to the glacier as rainfall, some does not. Much of the rain and snow fall fallin on mountain tops and thus feeding into glaciers does not come ocean evaporation, but from moisture released by mountain lakes, vegetation etc.

Also keep in mind that literally millions of tonnes of ice held in glaciers has sat there for centuries - so, yes, if it melts then ocean levels will rise.

I really think you can get your head around this if you try, man, but when people present examples like this I do wonder if they are being genuine.

 

[Sodafin]

Galsck -

As for your other points, please read the material BEFORE commenting. I think your points will make more sense that way.

Yes, 99% of Alaskan glaciers are in retreat. Yes, 95% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat.

You can see the report here: Anthony Arendt

I've posted overviews so that you could get an idea of the key points without having to read the entire reports, but perhaps it's just better if you read the whole thing and then perhaps we can avoid some of the silliness and bizarre assumptions.

And no - our knowledge of glacial melt did not begin in 1850!!!

 

[Sodafin]

I am amussed how the perpetually duped by the "science" keep posting up temperature #'s like its some kind of absolute truth..........

The bottom line is, in the court of public opinion..........the only place the "science" matters.......the whole global warming concept has been blown to shit.

Right...so if people don't believe smoking causes cancer, they won't catch cancer?

It doesn't make much sense, does it?

I am aware a huge number of Americans do not understand climate change, but that has no effect at all on what is actually happening to glaciers, to ocean ph, or to ocean levels. they ARE changing, and in many parts of the world you can go and see for yourself.

Do you know that 95% of people in island nations accept climate change science?

Why?

Because they can see ocean levels rising year by year, decade by decade.

What you think at the water cooler doesn't count for shit.

 

[skookerasbil]

Galsck -

As for your other points, please read the material BEFORE commenting. I think your points will make more sense that way.

Yes, 99% of Alaskan glaciers are in retreat. Yes, 95% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat.

You can see the report here: Anthony Arendt

I've posted overviews so that you could get an idea of the key points without having to read the entire reports, but perhaps it's just better if you read the whole thing and then perhaps we can avoid some of the silliness and bizarre assumptions.

And no - our knowledge of glacial melt did not begin in 1850!!!

You're not getting it s0n!!! Even France just announced its 86ing its idea on carbon taxes!!! Fcukking France of all places!!! At a time when people are done with new taxes, gigantic taxes due to scientific speculation has become radioactive for any politician unless they hail from an uber k00k lefty district.

 

[Old Rocks]

Deniers don't like the idea of climate change, they don't believe it is possible for humans to change the climate, they don't like the implications of climate change, they don't like the things we might have to do to address it, or they just don't like government or science. But they have no alternative scientific explanation that works.

Read more: City Brights: Peter Gleick : The best argument against global warming

The arrogance and ignorance of mankind--to actually believe that after they have been on this planet--only "the blink of an eye" in earth terms can somehow control the climate of this planet is absolutely astounding to me.---

And to let you know--SCIENCE has never been PERFECT--and so often stead-fast conclusions--based on a lot of CONJECTURE--is often PROVEN wrong several years later. Especially when we have been finding that scientists and others have buried other scientific evidence contrary to their theories--LOL.

View attachment 9906

Oh the arrogance and ignorance of a little single celled organism like bluegreen algea to actually believe that it can change the very composition of the atmosphere and totally redirect the direction of life on earth.

Hmmmm........ And it did, about 2 billion years ago.

And we have increased the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere to the point that we are seeing changes already. Your bleating ignorance and denial of reality changes that not one whit.

 

[skookerasbil]

Read more: City Brights: Peter Gleick : The best argument against global warming

The arrogance and ignorance of mankind--to actually believe that after they have been on this planet--only "the blink of an eye" in earth terms can somehow control the climate of this planet is absolutely astounding to me.---

And to let you know--SCIENCE has never been PERFECT--and so often stead-fast conclusions--based on a lot of CONJECTURE--is often PROVEN wrong several years later. Especially when we have been finding that scientists and others have buried other scientific evidence contrary to their theories--LOL.

View attachment 9906

Oh the arrogance and ignorance of a little single celled organism like bluegreen algea to actually believe that it can change the very composition of the atmosphere and totally redirect the direction of life on earth.

Hmmmm........ And it did, about 2 billion years ago.

And we have increased the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere to the point that we are seeing changes already. Your bleating ignorance and denial of reality changes that not one whit.

What a bozo.............hits dumbass still thinks its about "science".


I am amussed how the perpetually duped by the "science" keep posting up temperature #'s like its some kind of absolute truth..........

The bottom line is, in the court of public opinion..........the only place the "science" matters.......the whole global warming concept has been blown to shit. Now, its the green people who are viewed as out of step with conventional wisdom. People dont like looking like a dope at the water cooler. A few years ago, people looked at most like they had 10 heads if they were a skeptic. Now? Now.........if you go blabbering about "global warming", you're looked upon as a naive half-wit stuck in 2002. Its not even debatable.............all the polls show it too. For years, you only saw stories of polar bears floating on little sheets of ice. All thats changed now........people see on an almost weekly basis stories like from last week, "ARCTIC ICE BACK TO NORMAL". The k00ks on some stupid forum will post up an alternative take on the ice like it matters. It doesnt.........tens of millions of people see these stories and realize that the global warming special interests are getting pwned. Its all about public opinion........and for the last 2-3 years, the greens look like fcukking k00ks.

Still..........on this board, the religious about the environment maintain this passion as if somebody cared. Nobody cares anymore...........and moreover, absoultely nobody wants to be getting robbed by the government based upon the hail mary uncertainty of science at best or the fabricated hoax at worst.

As Crap and Tax approaches, wait'll folks find out that there electric bills will double if they sign on. THEN we'll see how irrelevant the "science" is s0ns!!!!


IN the meantime............this debate for and against by use of documented "science" is nothing more than an exercise in navel contemplation.

 

[gslack]

Point I would like some answers to:

The temperature has been cooling for a decade. ?

Actually, no, it isn't - so I can understand why people laughed at that earlier. Here's something a little more realistic:

2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

Except for a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s, Earth's surface temperatures have increased since 1880. The last decade has brought the temperatures to the highest levels ever recorded. The graph shows global annual surface temperatures relative to 1951-1980 mean temperatures. As shown by the red line, long-term trends are more apparent when temperatures are averaged over a five year period.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began.

NASA GISS: Research News: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

I know this wasn't addressed to me but I had to respond to it. The sheer subtlety of its bullshit is astounding.... let me show you....

its starts off saying... "2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record"

Sounds scary and given its from NASA or one of their centers even believable. but then it goes and tells on itself.... follow me...

"...in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880."

Okay so the southern hemisphere is the warmest since modern records began... got it... Wait 1880? We were just told 1850's was when modern records began before... So which is it? I mean thats a 30 year gap man we need to be accurate after all this is science right.... Right?

And it gets better... I love this next bit LOL....

"Except for a leveling off between the 1940s and 1970s, Earth's surface temperatures have increased since 1880."

Hold on... From 1880 to 2010 is 130 years. Of that 130 years about 30 of them you claim leveled off..... Well thats funny because according to historical records the 1930's was the one of the hottest decades since recorded temps.... SO thats not exactly a leveling off anymore now is it....

Don't leave it gets even better....

"Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean,..."

Really 2008 was the coolest year of the decade? So where does it stand over all? Wow we can't find that in your post now can we... Well it was the coldest in 7 years. but wait thats not exactly in line with the out of control warming scenario is it.. Nope its not... And incidentally, the flow of the oceans or the Thermohaline circulation, shows the colder water coming down from the arctic into the pacific. And the warmer Atlantic flowing up into the arctic. So the cooling of the pacific is a natural thing and not a freak occurence to give a colder winter...

Even more....

"The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began. "

So second warmest decade... And what was the first? LOL well we are pretty sure it was the 1930's.... Seems odd they are so far apart given the claims of out of control warming... Also, the word play here is amazing lol...

"The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005..."

Okay only a bit cooler than 2005, so whats that mean? well it means it was colder than 2005 by a small amount.... Wait colder? Yep... Okay....

"2005, the warmest year on record,..."

Uh ok but what record, before 1934 was the warmest on record so which is it? Well as you will find the warmest can refer to almost any obscure reason these days. ok so 2005 was warmest and the past year was colder than that by a fraction. got it, so we did cool down since 2005....

"...2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began."

Wait a minute.... if 2005 was warmest on record and its tied with 98,02, 03, 06, 07, and whatever else as the second warmest since record keeping began.... WTH?????? How can some thing be tied with so many years like that and still be called evidence of AGW?

Dude you are full of shit, and whats worse you are so full of it you get started and before you know it your BS overshadows your other BS...... UN- Fing - BELIEVABLE man.... YOu just rambled off nonsensical crap like a BS fountain.... You should really be ashamed of that...

 

[Sodafin]

Skooker -

Either perhaps address some of the science on this thread, or allow others to discuss it.

Just posting idiotic spam does not further your case.

I've posted the university of Alaska Fairbanks study wich shows 99% of Alaska's glaciers are in decline.

Read the report. Comment on it.

 

[Sodafin]

Gslack -

Perhaps if you do some research on mean temperatures yourself, you'll find the information easier to understand.

Again, I don't think it is fantastically difficult stuff, and there are a dozen respectable scientific resources which can eplain it for you better than I can, but at the moment you seem to be flailing away at anything and everything without making a bit of sense.

The British Met Office has an excellent site - perhaps try that first.

 

[gslack]

Glad to hear you say that "...expanding glaciers do not mean ocean levels fall." well then if expanding glaciers do not mean oceans fall, then we can say the same about melting glaciers not making them rise now couldn't we.....

No, we couldn't.

Really - is this difficult to understand?

Because in all honesty I would not have thought so.

Glaciers form from snow and rain fall. Glaciers melt into the ocean, or into rivers which feed the ocean. Hence ocean levels rise.

Of course, some of that ocean water evaporates returns to the glacier as rainfall, some does not. Much of the rain and snow fall fallin on mountain tops and thus feeding into glaciers does not come ocean evaporation, but from moisture released by mountain lakes, vegetation etc.

Also keep in mind that literally millions of tonnes of ice held in glaciers has sat there for centuries - so, yes, if it melts then ocean levels will rise.

I really think you can get your head around this if you try, man, but when people present examples like this I do wonder if they are being genuine.

No response to the point huh? LOL dude you are ridiculous.... If you can try and claim that glacier melt raises ocean when you yourself explain it runs off int orivers and is evaporated as well, then the idea of expanding glaciers causing oceans to shrink is just as valid an argument....

You use half logic and twisted reasoning to sell this and then try and claim the same reasoning and logic used by the other side is wrong.... Well it is wrong and wrong on both sides so stop trying to use it like an idiot....