It's all just crap...

[Zander]

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!!!!

 

[Sodafin]

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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...

OK

Climate Feedback: Is east Antarctic ice melting?

Is east Antarctic ice melting?
Daniel Cressey; cross-posted from The Great Beyond

The ice sheet covering east Antarctica may have been melting since 2006, according to new research, contradicting previous suggestions that it has remained stable or even grown in mass.

Using measurements for 2002 to 2009 from a twin pair of satellites, researchers at the University of Texas at Austin in Austin, Texas, say east Antarctica is losing mass at about 58 gigatonnes a year. Most of the loss appears to be from coastal regions and to stem from increased ice loss post 2006.

Previous studies have generally used satellites to measure elevation or movement of ice. The new study - published in Nature Geoscience - instead looks at the Earth’s gravity field and uses that to work out how much ice is there. It also suggests that 132 Gt of the total annual ice loss of 190 Gt per year is coming from the west.

Although there are uncertainties in the data, the new estimates of ice loss are on average consistent with previous calculations, “but, in contrast to previous estimates, they indicate that as a whole, Antarctica may soon be contributing significantly more to global sea-level rise”, the researchers write in their paper.


The finding is significant because the east of the continent has traditionally been seen as the more stable half. It is also the bigger half so if it is melting it could contribute more to sea level rise.

“We felt surprised to see this change in east Antarctica,” says study author Jianli Chen (BBC, Guardian). “If the current trend continues or gets worse, Antarctica could become the largest contributor to sea level rises in the world. It could start to lose more ice than Greenland within a few years

Perhaps one should investigate before flapping yap.

 

[Old Rocks]

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!!!!

A person with no evidence egages in mindless derision of real scientific evidence.

Zander, you are operating on the same level as Elvis.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

When real scientific evidence of man influencing the planet, as far as temperature is concerned, we'll be all over it. Until then, keep your mind open to the possibility these hacks are just collecting a paycheck and scaming you.

 

[Sodafin]

Zander -

Please don't spam the thread with gibberish.

Either address the issues raised here, or leave it for others to discuss.

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

perhaps you missed the memo s0n..............the data has been fudged to meet the political objectives, though a vast majority of the media has failed to report it ( What a suprise!!!)
Only those with the political IQ of a small soap dish dont realize.............

 

[skookerasbil]

I just want to go on record as being anti-global warming 10 years before it became cool ..................

 

[Douger]

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.

THANK YOU

 

[Zander]

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.

Elvis was far more credible than any AGW jihadist. He had 'real' talent!! THANK YOU!!

Gotta go, my SUV has been warming up in the garage burning precious fossil fuels for the last 15 minutes, all just to get me nice an cozy when I get in. A total waste of fuel!!!

Speaking of wasting fuel, I plan on flying later today in my little plane. I will burn about 20 gallons of 100LL fuel - just because I can!! The best part is the view, and the fact that AGW Jihadists like you can't do a damn thing about it!!! I'll post some photos of my flight later..... meanwhile, while AGW fools like you do everything you can to lower your carbon emissions (including not bathing!! eww!!) , REALISTS like me will continue to bathe and live our lives.

 

[Zander]

Zander -

Please don't spam the thread with gibberish.

Either address the issues raised here, or leave it for others to discuss.

The issues raised here? You mean like the faked data? Or was it the terrifying predictions that failed to materialize? The fact that worldwide polar bear populations are increasing? Or that the worldwide Ice pack has increased too??

You AGW Jihadi's gotta stop smoking the dope!! You have been duped. Game over. You were played for dummies. Even the UN is now admitting that the climate is cooling.....

 

[saveliberty]

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.

You are a complete liar sodafin. Did you even bother to check your sources? They are outdated. At least one is from 2006. I have recent data. You have crap. You want to debate? Step up and get current. Until then you can just back off Zander, who was merely making an equally valid point to your old gibberish.

 

[Sodafin]

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.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

I have posted the evidence here more than once. It is more current than your sources. The overall ice cap percentages on this planet are growing. You are wrong because the data had been manipulated by scientists with an agenda and financial needs that you believe. Do you believe in magic shows too?

 

[Sodafin]

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.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

I am not limited by your contrived system. The ice caps overall, are growing. In 28% of them, it is not. That is fact. It was gathered using scientific methods. Interesting how you use the shield of science to protect your system, while those same people falsely manipulated data, have attempted to silence opposition (much like you) and in general have not upheld true science standards. I see you have no interest in understanding why ice might be growing in the Antarctic. Understanding that might lead to a clearer picture of how the earth works.

 

[Old Rocks]

Liberty, you are quoting liars. Here are the real facts in this chart;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

 

[Sodafin]

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.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Once again, posting yap-yap without any support at all.

#1. You are a liar.

#2. You are a fool.

#3. All of the above.