Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[IanC]

The issue is not whether or not the temperatures are sub-freezing. It is Antarctica. Of course they are. The issue is why the moisture has risen there so dramatically, and from where it is originating.

Try to cpmprehend what this means:

I only have my phone so I don't know where that graph is from. But it shows conditions that would probably lead to more ice in Antarctica but less sea ice. We know that sea ice there is expanding, what does that say about our ability to accurately measure ocean temps or model sea ice formation?

What graph, where? Sea ice is not expanding in the way that you think. There is more "sea ice" only because the coastal glaciers and ice shelves are accelerating towards the sea, and calving right into it, even as they begin to melt.

Map/graph/both/neither.

You are being dishonest by saying the Antarctic sees ice is made up of calved ice shelves.

 

[gslack]

The decrease in salinity due to the melting land ice as well as increased precipitation causes the water to freeze at higher temperatures and prevents warmer deep ocean currents from flowing to the top.

New Theory for Why Antarctic Sea Ice Is Growing

LOL, we are talking parts per million variance in salinity here silly...

No we aren't. Did you read the article or are you just pulling bullshit out of your ignorant ass? The water flowing into the ocean from melting land ice is ******* FRESHWATER you dildo. Its less dense and pools at the top.

You're just making numbers up. You're completely full of bullshit.

How many more theories is it going totake before you guys have a big enough convoluted mess, that no one even wants to follow itany longer?

Ice is melting but it's not, oceans is warming but the ice isn't melting, but it is.. It's warming but it isn't, but it really is anyway, check out my new convolute theory that proves it.. Ice isn't melting? No problem I got a theory for that too...

Now you're just babbling like a ******* idiot. Go tell your mommy to put you in the special school.

BTW, I notice cut out the parts of my post that showed the truth about the page and your claims.. Sad...

If it depresses you that much, you can follow the link in the quote back to the original post.

Who are you calling idiot schmuck? The OCEAN compared to some fresh water run off? You freaking loon..

Drama queen,if your pety theory keeps failing,than only amoron tries to pull new theories out of their butt tocover for the other theories shortcomings..

Stomping your foot and calling it all lies, won't help you Blunder...

 

[westwall]

I cannot believe, Mr Westwall, that you think a photograph such as that is evidence of ANYTHING.

Snowfall in Antarctica is up because precipitation is up and temperatures are still below freezing. Precipitation is up because temperatures are up. Ice loss to the sea has accelerated dramatically by the loss of the coastal ice shelves. And the biggest threat to the remaining ice shelves is warmer water, which is what you've got.

But that was a really cute photograph.

It is EVIDENCE of what is actually happening in the Antarctic. Far superior to your computer FICTIONS which for some reason you guys will fall all over even though they aren't actual data.

You are funny, you truly are...

So, according to you, we should rely on two photographs, as opposed to all the climate data all those scientists who freeze their ya-yas off collecting to determine what is going on with that continent? What have you been smoking?

The photographs are evidence that your precious scientists are WRONG. I don't care who they are if they are WRONG they are WRONG...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY]The Scientific Method-Richard Feynman - YouTube[/ame]

 

[orogenicman]

Omg! Epic fail!

 

[westwall]

Omg! Epic fail!

Yes, yes you are. I am glad you can finally admit your shortcomings. Now you can finally seek help for your delusions.

 

[gslack]

Omg! Epic fail!

Yes, yes you are. I am glad you can finally admit your shortcomings. Now you can finally seek help for your delusions.

Be careful, if you get too insensitive with the latest fake climate science expert, you will get a talking to...

Hate to be the guy who says I told ya so, but... So far not a bit of all that education the latest clone claimed is showing.. As I said before, another BS artist trying to win a debate by spouting off credentials they neither have nor can even pretend to have..

 

[westwall]

Omg! Epic fail!

Yes, yes you are. I am glad you can finally admit your shortcomings. Now you can finally seek help for your delusions.

Be careful, if you get too insensitive with the latest fake climate science expert, you will get a talking to...

Hate to be the guy who says I told ya so, but... So far not a bit of all that education the latest clone claimed is showing.. As I said before, another BS artist trying to win a debate by spouting off credentials they neither have nor can even pretend to have..

Oh, I'm not worried about the attack of the clones..... I can take care of myself!

 

[Abraham3]

The content of these conversations do not support your confidence. Your errors have been fundamental. Perhaps that has something to do with attempting to justify opposing reality.

 

[IanC]

The content of these conversations do not support your confidence. Your errors have been fundamental. Perhaps that has something to do with attempting to justify opposing reality.

One third of all the CO2 that mankind has released into the atmosphere has happened during a time frame of no warming. Reality seems to be putting a kibosh on CO2 theory as it is presently explained.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

LOL, we are talking parts per million variance in salinity here silly...

No we aren't. Did you read the article or are you just pulling bullshit out of your ignorant ass? The water flowing into the ocean from melting land ice is ******* FRESHWATER you dildo. Its less dense and pools at the top.

You're just making numbers up. You're completely full of bullshit.


Now you're just babbling like a ******* idiot. Go tell your mommy to put you in the special school.

BTW, I notice cut out the parts of my post that showed the truth about the page and your claims.. Sad...

If it depresses you that much, you can follow the link in the quote back to the original post.

Who are you calling idiot schmuck? The OCEAN compared to some fresh water run off? You freaking loon..

Does size of the ocean changes the density of freshwater? I'm having troubling figuring what you are trying to say. You should speak in complete thoughts instead of sentence fragments. "The OCEAN compared to some fresh water run off" is a subordinate clause, it's not a sentence by itself.

Drama queen,if your pety theory keeps failing,than only amoron tries to pull new theories out of their butt tocover for the other theories shortcomings..

Stomping your foot and calling it all lies, won't help you Blunder...

Did you read the article? What does any of this have to do with people's butts? Why are you calling me a "drama queen" when you're the one babbling a bunch of incoherent nonsense?

 

[orogenicman]

The content of these conversations do not support your confidence. Your errors have been fundamental. Perhaps that has something to do with attempting to justify opposing reality.

One third of all the CO2 that mankind has released into the atmosphere has happened during a time frame of no warming. Reality seems to be putting a kibosh on CO2 theory as it is presently explained.

Repeating nonsense doesn't make it reality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The content of these conversations do not support your confidence. Your errors have been fundamental. Perhaps that has something to do with attempting to justify opposing reality.

One third of all the CO2 that mankind has released into the atmosphere has happened during a time frame of no warming. Reality seems to be putting a kibosh on CO2 theory as it is presently explained.

Repeating nonsense doesn't make it reality.

You're a warmist, so you'll do it anyway.

 

[gslack]

No we aren't. Did you read the article or are you just pulling bullshit out of your ignorant ass? The water flowing into the ocean from melting land ice is ******* FRESHWATER you dildo. Its less dense and pools at the top.

You're just making numbers up. You're completely full of bullshit.


Now you're just babbling like a ******* idiot. Go tell your mommy to put you in the special school.



If it depresses you that much, you can follow the link in the quote back to the original post.

Who are you calling idiot schmuck? The OCEAN compared to some fresh water run off? You freaking loon..

Does size of the ocean changes the density of freshwater? I'm having troubling figuring what you are trying to say. You should speak in complete thoughts instead of sentence fragments. "The OCEAN compared to some fresh water run off" is a subordinate clause, it's not a sentence by itself.

Drama queen,if your pety theory keeps failing,than only amoron tries to pull new theories out of their butt tocover for the other theories shortcomings..

Stomping your foot and calling it all lies, won't help you Blunder...

Did you read the article? What does any of this have to do with people's butts? Why are you calling me a "drama queen" when you're the one babbling a bunch of incoherent nonsense?

Oh stop with the BS song and dance, the diffrence in salinity caused by freshwater run off into the ocean is miniscule.. you understood it fine, you just don't have a case against it..

You want to do the "Ian" and play dumb? be my guest, it's a cowardly way out so it should serve you well...

 

[westwall]

The content of these conversations do not support your confidence. Your errors have been fundamental. Perhaps that has something to do with attempting to justify opposing reality.

One third of all the CO2 that mankind has released into the atmosphere has happened during a time frame of no warming. Reality seems to be putting a kibosh on CO2 theory as it is presently explained.

Repeating nonsense doesn't make it reality.

I agree. When are you going to stop?

 

[orogenicman]

I find it ironic that deniers claim that global warming can be accounted for by long-term variability in the Earth's climate (on the order of tens of thousands to millions of years), and at the same time will claim that it is not warming (or that it has stopped) based on short-term climatic variability.

 

[westwall]

I find it ironic that deniers claim that global warming can be accounted for by long-term variability in the Earth's climate (on the order of tens of thousands to millions of years), and at the same time will claim that it is not warming (or that it has stopped) based on short-term climatic variability.

We don't make that claim. We have merely pointed out that every "event" that you all point to as evidence of global warming has happened in the past and that in almost all cases the event in the past was much worse which supports our contention that it is all natural.

You have all claimed that CO2 is THE control knob, that so long as CO2 was injected into the atmosphere, the global temps would rise....no matter what.

You were, and are wrong.... That's what we have been pointing out with these observations. That you "theory" is crap and here's why it is crap. That's why you guys have had to revise your theory, your name of said theory etc.

 

[orogenicman]

I find it ironic that deniers claim that global warming can be accounted for by long-term variability in the Earth's climate (on the order of tens of thousands to millions of years), and at the same time will claim that it is not warming (or that it has stopped) based on short-term climatic variability.

We don't make that claim. We have merely pointed out that every "event" that you all point to as evidence of global warming has happened in the past and that in almost all cases the event in the past was much worse which supports our contention that it is all natural.

You have all claimed that CO2 is THE control knob, that so long as CO2 was injected into the atmosphere, the global temps would rise....no matter what.

You were, and are wrong.... That's what we have been pointing out with these observations. That you "theory" is crap and here's why it is crap. That's why you guys have had to revise your theory, your name of said theory etc.

Really? You can point out where in the past human beings have pumped billions of tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere? Really? You can do that? You can cite a single case where that much human-made CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere in the relatively short time period of 150 years? You can cite a single instance of this happening naturally? A single instance where it resulted in the melting of the Arctic ice pack and initiated the melting of the permafrost? Wow, I'd love to see this. (this should be good).

By the way, Do you suggest that human-emitted CO2 is having no effect on the atmosphere, no effect on the oceans? No effect on human and other populations? If this is your suggestion, then how can you, with a straight face, suggest that it happens naturally with the same results? And where is your evidence that it is happening NOW naturally? If human -emitted CO2 is not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 and resultant rise in temperatures, when were is the CO2 coming from? Where is the heat coming from? And more importantly, where is our CO2 going, if not into the atmosphere and the oceans?

 

[flacaltenn]

I find it ironic that deniers claim that global warming can be accounted for by long-term variability in the Earth's climate (on the order of tens of thousands to millions of years), and at the same time will claim that it is not warming (or that it has stopped) based on short-term climatic variability.

We don't make that claim. We have merely pointed out that every "event" that you all point to as evidence of global warming has happened in the past and that in almost all cases the event in the past was much worse which supports our contention that it is all natural.

You have all claimed that CO2 is THE control knob, that so long as CO2 was injected into the atmosphere, the global temps would rise....no matter what.

You were, and are wrong.... That's what we have been pointing out with these observations. That you "theory" is crap and here's why it is crap. That's why you guys have had to revise your theory, your name of said theory etc.

Really? You can point out where in the past human beings have pumped billions of tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere? Really? You can do that? You can cite a single case where that much human-made CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere in the relatively short time period of 150 years? You can cite a single instance of this happening naturally? A single instance where it resulted in the melting of the Arctic ice pack and initiated the melting of the permafrost? Wow, I'd love to see this. (this should be good).

By the way, Do you suggest that human-emitted CO2 is having no effect on the atmosphere, no effect on the oceans? No effect on human and other populations? If this is your suggestion, then how can you, with a straight face, suggest that it happens naturally with the same results? And where is your evidence that it is happening NOW naturally? If human -emitted CO2 is not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 and resultant rise in temperatures, when were is the CO2 coming from? Where is the heat coming from? And more importantly, where is our CO2 going, if not into the atmosphere and the oceans?

That little screed makes a mockery of climate science.. This fixation of yours on CO2 is counter-productive to understanding the planet we're stuck on...

AS THO -- ONE SIMPLE ASS NUMBER such as Annual Mean Surface Temp. explains anything.. Good thing the answer to all our issues is so simple --- aint it? Because otherwise -- the campaign couldn't be managed by political scientists...

 

[gslack]

I find it ironic that deniers claim that global warming can be accounted for by long-term variability in the Earth's climate (on the order of tens of thousands to millions of years), and at the same time will claim that it is not warming (or that it has stopped) based on short-term climatic variability.

We don't make that claim. We have merely pointed out that every "event" that you all point to as evidence of global warming has happened in the past and that in almost all cases the event in the past was much worse which supports our contention that it is all natural.

You have all claimed that CO2 is THE control knob, that so long as CO2 was injected into the atmosphere, the global temps would rise....no matter what.

You were, and are wrong.... That's what we have been pointing out with these observations. That you "theory" is crap and here's why it is crap. That's why you guys have had to revise your theory, your name of said theory etc.

Really? You can point out where in the past human beings have pumped billions of tons per year of CO2 into the atmosphere? Really? You can do that? You can cite a single case where that much human-made CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere in the relatively short time period of 150 years? You can cite a single instance of this happening naturally? A single instance where it resulted in the melting of the Arctic ice pack and initiated the melting of the permafrost? Wow, I'd love to see this. (this should be good).

By the way, Do you suggest that human-emitted CO2 is having no effect on the atmosphere, no effect on the oceans? No effect on human and other populations? If this is your suggestion, then how can you, with a straight face, suggest that it happens naturally with the same results? And where is your evidence that it is happening NOW naturally? If human -emitted CO2 is not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 and resultant rise in temperatures, when were is the CO2 coming from? Where is the heat coming from? And more importantly, where is our CO2 going, if not into the atmosphere and the oceans?

So in your "expert" opinion based on all of your claimed credentials and climate science educational clout. You have assumed that because he mentioned we had similar situations in the past regarding climate, that he is stating it was CO2 induced??????

Complete and utter BS from you fraud.. Such credentials and you resort to childish behavior like this???

Up yours you fraud...

Anybody who claimed I was too hard on you, or that I was being prematurely judgemental, or that I was just a big meaney seeing socks everywhere, can now take one look and see not only was I correct in my assumptions regarding your claimed credentials and your new clone, but about how you were going to be in the near future.. It didn't take long for this one..

Have a nice day sock number whatever you are up to now..

 

[orogenicman]

Atmosphere

Surface pressure
92 bar (9.2 MPa)

Composition

~96.5% carbon dioxide
~3.5% nitrogen
0.015% sulfur dioxide
0.007% argon
0.002% water vapour
0.0017% carbon monoxide
0.0012% helium
0.0007% neon
trace carbonyl sulfide
trace hydrogen chloride
trace hydrogen fluoride

Mean surface temp. Kelvin = 735 K = Celsius 462 °C

Any questions?

By the way, they aren't political scientists, and even if they were, they'd still be wrong. One's a friggin massage therapist, and another is a drop out, and nearly all have been paid by or are otherwise associated with the Petroleum and mining industries, and all have vested interests in promoting disinformation about global warming, whereas climate scientists get paid whether or not global warming is a problem.