NationStates Jolt Archive

i got an email from my freind who is a scientist

The deal is, It is not melting either north or south. The entire bunch of AGW is running around spouting information based on old data. Global temps have been cooling for 7 years. CO2 is still going up BUT the global temps are going down! The polar bears are thriving. No islands are being evacuated.

and he linke me here

http://************/59fh97

i think global warming is a scam based on this, like i always believed it until today, i think i'm going to burn some extra fossel fuels tomorrow.

i got an email from my freind who is a scientist
Sure he is.
http://************/59fh97
How convenient that the link doesnt work.

Those bastards. And to think I though climate change was actually happening. :rolleyes:

i got an email from my freind who is a scientist



and he linke me here

http://************/59fh97

i think global warming is a scam based on this, like i always believed it until today, i think i'm going to burn some extra fossel fuels tomorrow.

hay guise, dis looks totally legit

i got an email from my freind who is a scientist

and he linke me here

http://************/59fh97

i think global warming is a scam based on this, like i always believed it until today, i think i'm going to burn some extra fossel fuels tomorrow.

Hmmm are we trolling?

Guess what I am a scientist and I think your friend is a simpleton or you made it up.

What's your friends study?

Where did he get his data?

Your link doesn't work.

Sure he is.

How convenient that the link doesnt work.

sorry i tried to do tinyurl for you

here

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

i got an email from my freind who is a scientist



and he linke me here

http://************/59fh97

i think global warming is a scam based on this, like i always believed it until today, i think i'm going to burn some extra fossel fuels tomorrow.

You're quite the man!

Throw some nickel and lead into the local waterway system while you're at it.

It always seems that those most against environmental warnings are those who most value their 'freedom' to destroy it.

im not trolling i want to know if global warming is disproved.

lets see, page load error on your source, one line from a claimed scientist friend, so you've got hearsay evidence at best, vs. the entire scientific community? It don't take a genius to figure out who most people are going to believe.

hay guise, dis looks totally legit

Tru dat!

im not trolling i want to know if global warming is disproved.

No, not at all.

The reverse is actually true.

my link didnt work because th eforum dont like tinyurl

im not trolling i want to know if global warming is disproved.

Ok. Then mod your link so we can have a look.

There are scientists on this board......

ok. Then mod your link so we can have a look.

There are scientists on this board......

i already did scroll up!

my link didnt work because th eforum dont like tinyurl

What's the title of the page?

What's the title of the page?

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

BUT I TRIED TO TINYURL IT BUT THE WORD FILTER THINGY JUST LIKE ASSTERISKED IT

sorry i tried to do tinyurl for you

here

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

i do not think that shows what you think it shows

Why is everyone in this thread serious except for the OP :(

Why is everyone in this thread serious except for the OP :(

Whats sad is the OP is serious.

sorry i tried to do tinyurl for you

here

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

...so in the most recent years ice levels are lowest... how does this disprove global warming? Is there an article or some explanation that goes with this?

i do not think that shows what you think it shows

Agreed.

Actually, opposition to global warming has been disproved.

Also, if you look at your chart, you'll see that the thinnest ice anytime lately was in the past two summers -- thus also supporting global warming.

Do us a favor and enlighten your friend, 'k?

Come on, look at the poll. The person who write that is either not serious or so stupid that they're incapable of any actions a mosquito can't accomplish.

edit: hang on wasn't this guy the one talking about how marriage was a man and a woman only
oh god maybe he is serious
oh god

To be fair to the OP. Dr Roy Spencer, a scientist at UAH said the Earth has been getting cooler. Spent millions of dollars to come up with that conclusion and then share his findings on Rush Limbaugh's radio show. ...........What he didn't say was that he was taking the temperatuers from the upper troposphere instead of surface temperatures.
:mad:

i got an email from my freind who is a scientist



and he linke me here

http://************/59fh97

i think global warming is a scam based on this, like i always believed it until today, i think i'm going to burn some extra fossel fuels tomorrow.

1- Shut up.

2- No you won't.

...so in the most recent years ice levels are lowest... how does this disprove global warming? Is there an article or some explanation that goes with this?

Go to the top level. I am perusing and I too think the chart doesn't mean what he thinks it means.....

hay guise, dis looks totally legit
The number of asterisks in the url proves it

but the ice at 09 is higher than at 05 right?

Go to the top level. I am perusing and I too think the chart doesn't mean what he thinks it means.....
Well, considering that the graph says exactly the opposite of what he's trying to claim, I think I agree with you on that point.

guys maybe i dont know how to read graphs or soething

I don't have a time machine, so I won't be ableto give an accurate answer until the end of the year.

Don't be surprised, however, if the summer ice is even smaller than last year.

General Motors is doing its part! /hatsoff.

Ok people. No need to take pot shots. Especially if he can learn his friend is wrong or he simply misunderstands the graphs.

For fun I am running their chart generator......

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi

Okay. First off I want to say that you need to learn to spell. Second off, global warming is totally a myth. Made up by Al Gore ad his followers so that they could get a lot of sympathy money. Two things prove this. First off- the Earth goes through cycles. We are at the end of (dare I say?) a Hot Age. In a few thousand years, the planet will freeze over. Second off (I use "1st off" and "2nd off", bear with me.), Sol is a variable output star. So, with both of those things combined, you learn that it's a scam. RECORD LOW temperatures here in California. ~Have A Nice Day!~

General Motors is doing its part! /hatsoff.

And so am I.

http://mobileinfantry.free.fr/pics/do-your-part.jpg

Is it a full moon or something tonight?

The most in depth study of polar ice ever:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/

Polar ice has always advanced and receded. But it always took thousands of years to do so. Now it has receded in only 40 years.

Ok people. No need to take pot shots. Especially if he can learn his friend is wrong or he simply misunderstands the graphs.

For fun I am running their chart generator......

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi

so all the ice looks the same to me

is their a bar graph? im real good at those

About the "fact" that global warming has been rebuted, I think this United Nations report just about sums up that global warming is occuring, and that we are in part causing it.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

The most in depth study of polar ice ever:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/

Polar ice has always advanced and receded. But it always took thousands of years to do so. Now it has receded in only 40 years.

Hey thanks! I didn't know they did that!

Come on, look at the poll. The person who write that is either not serious or so stupid that they're incapable of any actions a mosquito can't accomplish.
He can fly and drinks blood?
omg, he's a vampire! run!

i got an email from my freind who is a scientist.
Well, if he says he's a scientist we best believe him then.
So quite what a scientist is doing befriending someone with such appalling grammar and spelling skills is a mystery.

Okay. First off I want to say that you need to learn to spell.
i'm working on it

Second off, global warming is totally a myth. Made up by Al Gore ad his followers so that they could get a lot of sympathy money.
i heard about it in the 90s on earth day show

Two things prove this. First off- the Earth goes through cycles. We are at the end of (dare I say?) a Hot Age.
do u have a graph?

In a few thousand years, the planet will freeze over.
but thats colder!


Second off (I use "1st off" and "2nd off", bear with me.), Sol is a variable output star. So, with both of those things combined, you learn that it's a scam.
i dont know about star kinds whats that mean?

RECORD LOW temperatures here in California. ~Have A Nice Day!~
so does that mean we r freezing now?

Too bad there's no "summon the mods to see if someone has a half-dozen puppets here" button...

All in all, all smart people know about no global warming.

You have a different definition of smart.

Too bad there's no "summon the mods to see if someone has a half-dozen puppets here" button...

i only have 1 other nation and its not posted here. i am fustrated with people posting opinion and no links

i know people dont believe in global warming i want links so i can know if its right or not

so all the ice looks the same to me

is their a bar graph? im real good at those

The graphs as mentioned are a seasonal adjustment. They don't prove that there is no global warming nor areas aren't shrinking.

Here is a nice little faq to explain things about ice extents.....

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#really_declining

i only have 1 other nation and its not posted here. i am fustrated with people posting opinion and no links

i know people dont believe in global warming i want links so i can know if its right or not
Have you tried Google?

The truth behind Global Warming
Al Gore didn't win the presedency, and that was his life plan.
Looking for money, he got an idea and put random facts together.
Now, other people who might have been funded by the Clinton administration say, "Hey, he payed us, let's look into this"
They spent their money, found nothing, and not wanting to piss of Lord Gore, they of cource said they found something.
The Earth, our mother planet, has been warming and cooling at a steady rate, and we are approaching a climax in heat. Another possibility is that the magnetic poles are about to switch, as demonstrated by seafloor spreading. The north pole is moving slowly south, and the south pole north. During this, more radiation from the sun would be able to penetrate the protective magnetic poles. Radiation tends to heat things up.

All in all, all smart people know about no global warming.

Reagan was the one that asked Bob Corell to look into the greenhouse effect. (a theory first concidered in the 1820s by french scientist Joseph Fourier)

More radiaton from the sun would be VERY easy to detect. It aint there.

so all the ice looks the same to me

is their a bar graph? im real good at those



The above statement sounds like it came directly from Flowers for Algernon.

The truth behind Global Warming
Al Gore didn't win the presedency, and that was his life plan.
Looking for money, he got an idea and put random facts together.
Now, other people who might have been funded by the Clinton administration say, "Hey, he payed us, let's look into this"
They spent their money, found nothing, and not wanting to piss of Lord Gore, they of cource said they found something.
The Earth, our mother planet, has been warming and cooling at a steady rate, and we are approaching a climax in heat. Another possibility is that the magnetic poles are about to switch, as demonstrated by seafloor spreading. The north pole is moving slowly south, and the south pole north. During this, more radiation from the sun would be able to penetrate the protective magnetic poles. Radiation tends to heat things up.

All in all, all smart people know about no global warming.
Something's certainly in the air tonight. All the crazees are loose. Just waiting for DK and NM to appear and we'll have the full set.

You might be interested to know* that Al Gore campaigned against GLC for decades before he made his movie, since his time at Harvard in 1967 where he took a course in climate science under Dr Roger Revelle, one of the first scientists to research and predict GW.

*or perhaps not. Facts do have a nasty habit of getting in the way of delusional thinking.

(unless the above post is sarcasm: then I apologise for my remarks about the state of the poster's mind. It's hard to tell sometimes on the interwebs who's being serious and who's taking the piss)

The above statement sounds like it came directly from Flowers for Algernon.

ad hominem.

i guess global warming is supported by current science, what would have to happen to hcange things though?

Knowing nothing about science, I cannot comment either way. Instead, I will defer this to the real scientists.

i only have 1 other nation and its not posted here. i am fustrated with people posting opinion and no links

i know people dont believe in global warming i want links so i can know if its right or not
Here's the easiest one to get into:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Or, if you want to get more in-depth;

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

Hey thanks! I didn't know they did that!

The video is realy worth a look. Incredible scenery and breathtaking, dangerous stunts. Entire lakes that disappear in a few hours.

guys maybe i dont know how to read graphs or soething

The shift key seems to be troubling you too. ;)

The shift key seems to be troubling you too. ;)
The one just to the right of the 'm' key also.

[QUOTE=Zombie PotatoHeads;14728606]"You might be interested to know* that Al Gore campaigned against GLC for decades before he made his movie, since his time at Harvard in 1967 where he took a course in climate science under Dr Roger Revelle, one of the first scientists to research and predict GW."

Revelle changed his mind, though:

kusi. com/ weather/ colemanscorner/ 40867912. html

If you are interested in looking at actual evidence, instead of merely accepting what the U.N. says, you can try:

junkscience. com

or other sites that champion the skeptical view.

Revelle changed his mind, though:

kusi. com/ weather/ colemanscorner/ 40867912. html

If you are interested in looking at actual evidence, instead of merely accepting what the U.N. says, you can try:

junkscience. com

or other sites that champion the skeptical view.
I 'merely' accept what the IPCC says, based on nothing more than they represent the largest body of climate scientists in the world and provide actual evidence to support their findings.
Silly I know - to go on what the most qualified and experienced peoples in the area of climate change say - but it's just my cross to bear.

I envy you being able to branch out further to accepting what's said in junkscience.com. They don't limit themselves to 'mere' experts in climatology. They have all sorts of experts on climate change - economists, people claiming to be scientists, talkshow hosts, people claiming to have PhDs,...my word, all sorts of people.

A little advice about discussing science: Don't.

It annoys me when people who don't understand science spread misunderstanding to other people who don't understand science. Annoying me is unwise; that's how groins get kicked.

Understand science. You don't have to be a scientist to understand science, but you do have to understand science to avoid being misinformed about science. If understanding science is something you can't handle, just smile, nod and concentrate on something you can. I'm sure there's a Call of Duty video game due out soon. There usually is. :tongue:

Win! VS has returned!

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/1992/homersimpsonys0.gif

I 'merely' accept what the IPCC says, based on nothing more than they represent the largest body of climate scientists in the world and provide actual evidence to support their findings.
Silly I know - to go on what the most qualified and experienced peoples in the area of climate change say - but it's just my cross to bear.

I envy you being able to branch out further to accepting what's said in junkscience.com. They don't limit themselves to 'mere' experts in climatology. They have all sorts of experts on climate change - economists, people claiming to be scientists, talkshow hosts, people claiming to have PhDs,...my word, all sorts of people.

You silly silly person you. :p

Why is everyone in this thread serious except for the OP :(

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=1226132

Read a few of his threads, and taste the fruit of pure awesomeness.

What the Warming advocates need first is a correlation, a showing that temperatures are related to co2 concentration, and they lack that. The Mann hockey stick graph of temperatures was demonstrated to be a fraud, but they still act as if it were valid. Temperatures today are warm, but no warmer than during the Middle Ages, or during Roman times, well before mankind started adding lots of co2 to the atmosphere. If natural causes are responsible for those periods of Warming, and intervening Cooling, then isn't it reasonable to believe today's Warming is also natural?

Invalid? The IPCC, Nobel Prize Commitee, The EPA, WMO, NOAA, NASA and the Supreme Court not good enough?
:rolleyes:

It is MUCH warmer now than during the MWP.

What the Warming advocates need first is a correlation, a showing that temperatures are related to co2 concentration, and they lack that. The Mann hockey stick graph of temperatures was demonstrated to be a fraud, but they still act as if it were valid. Temperatures today are warm, but no warmer than during the Middle Ages, or during Roman times, well before mankind started adding lots of co2 to the atmosphere. If natural causes are responsible for those periods of Warming, and intervening Cooling, then isn't it reasonable to believe today's Warming is also natural?

Indeed. The hockey stick was thrown out. It's not valid anymore.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/hockey_stick/hockeystick01.html

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2532

What the Warming advocates need first is a correlation, a showing that temperatures are related to co2 concentration, and they lack that. The Mann hockey stick graph of temperatures was demonstrated to be a fraud, but they still act as if it were valid. Temperatures today are warm, but no warmer than during the Middle Ages, or during Roman times, well before mankind started adding lots of co2 to the atmosphere. If natural causes are responsible for those periods of Warming, and intervening Cooling, then isn't it reasonable to believe today's Warming is also natural?

Indeed, I'd like to see the link between smoking and lung cancer as well.

Thank god we have the big tobacco and oil companies to set those scientists straight.

Honest to god, people, are we this bored?

What's clever about this question is that it answers itself just by existing.

So quite what a scientist is doing befriending someone with such appalling grammar and spelling skills is a mystery.

Maybe the scientist is a friend in the same way that a special ed teacher is "friends" with the down syndrome kids, she'll be happy around them in school, but there won't be any inviting the kid over for finger paint or playing on the XBox 360 anytime soon.

I'm going to Hell I know.

RECORD LOW temperatures here in California. ~Have A Nice Day!~

Yet another who does not know the difference between climate and weather.

...how can you claim to have an informed opinion when you haven't demonstrated even an iota of basic knowledge regarding the subject?

Agreed.

Yeah it looks to me, and please tell me if I'm wrong, but what the graph shows is a steady decline of the amount of ice as the years roll by.

i only have 1 other nation and its not posted here. i am fustrated with people posting opinion and no links

i know people dont believe in global warming i want links so i can know if its right or not

Google it man, really there is sooooo much data around anybody that truely denies global climate change is a fool.

Don't be surprised, however, if the summer ice is even smaller than last year.
Well, I for one would be mildly surprised (due to La Niña).

Well, I for one would be mildly surprised (due to La Niña).

Ah, I don't normally track el nino and la nina. Still, it's entirely possible that yearly variation will make up for a lack of them.

Yeah, there is no correlation between CO2 and the temperature...as long as you don't look at my attachment

Yeah, there is no correlation between CO2 and the temperature...as long as you don't look at my attachment

Interesting.

Okay. First off I want to say that you need to learn to spell. Second off, global warming is totally a myth. Made up by Al Gore ad his followers so that they could get a lot of sympathy money. Two things prove this. First off- the Earth goes through cycles. We are at the end of (dare I say?) a Hot Age. In a few thousand years, the planet will freeze over.

Technically speaking, if I recall my geology correctly, we are currently at the end of an Ice Age. This is slighly problematic for your contention.


Second off (I use "1st off" and "2nd off", bear with me.), Sol is a variable output star. So, with both of those things combined, you learn that it's a scam. RECORD LOW temperatures here in California. ~Have A Nice Day!~

Fortunately, if Sol was dumping out much more thermal energy than usual, this would be insanely easy to observe. Hell, I could do it in my backyard. Unfortunately for your nonsense, this isn't happening.

The truth behind Global Warming
Al Gore didn't win the presedency, and that was his life plan.
Looking for money, he got an idea and put random facts together.
Now, other people who might have been funded by the Clinton administration say, "Hey, he payed us, let's look into this"
They spent their money, found nothing, and not wanting to piss of Lord Gore, they of cource said they found something.
The Earth, our mother planet, has been warming and cooling at a steady rate, and we are approaching a climax in heat. Another possibility is that the magnetic poles are about to switch, as demonstrated by seafloor spreading. The north pole is moving slowly south, and the south pole north. During this, more radiation from the sun would be able to penetrate the protective magnetic poles. Radiation tends to heat things up.

All in all, all smart people know about no global warming.

Completely skipping the ad-hominems, you seem to know nothing whatsoever about what the Earth's magnetic field does. Or, indeed, about what radiation is. It's sunny here at the moment. So if you go stand outside in the sunshine, you will in fact be basking in wonderful solar radiation. Which, I may add, Earth's magnetic field does nothing to block.

For an exceedingly brief primer, radiation comes in two broad categories: particle radiation and wave radiation. The first are things like alpha particles, beta particles, cosmic rays, and so on. These are electrically charged, highly ionising, and generally very dangerous things. If you heard about the murder of Litvinenko the other year, that was done with an alpha emitter. The Sun emits rather large quantities of this type of radiation every second, which would be very detrimental to life on Earth if there was not a magnetic field. However, there is, and it deflects these electrically charged particles (for reasons too complex to explain here). This produces the Van Allen Belts.

The second type is wave radiation, and is basically photons of all wavelengths. From radio waves that are metres long, through microwaves (micrometres), infrared, visible light (nanometers), ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays. These are what carries heat from the Sun to the Earth. The Earth's magnetic field does nothing whatsoever to stop or deflect these.

As a result, your suggestion is shown to be ridiculous - the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field (if indeed this is happening) would have absolutely no effect on the amount of thermal radiation reaching the Earth from the sun.

It seems that smart people know nothing about radiation.

STOP JUST STOP.
That is all.

Yeah, there is no correlation between CO2 and the temperature...as long as you don't look at my attachment

Note that the temperature increases in your graph occur BEFORE the co2 rises. It's difficult to see because the graphs are not overlaid, but it is the case. This is due to warmer oceans releasing co2 more rapidly than cooler oceans, a well-understood phenomenon.

It's also useful to note that the variations in temperature on your graph cannot possibly be due to human intervention, and thus must be natural warming and cooling cycles. One might be tempted to see a similar gap in the warming peaks, including the present-day peak, suggesting a regular cycle.

Fortunately, if Sol was dumping out much more thermal energy than usual, this would be insanely easy to observe. Hell, I could do it in my backyard. Unfortunately for your nonsense, this isn't happening.


Hang on, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the sun is currently producing a lot less activity than normal (though not enough difference to save us from temperature increases). Here it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8008473.stm

So much for the "it's all the sun's fault" theory.

What the Warming advocates need first is a correlation, a showing that temperatures are related to co2 concentration, and they lack that.

no, they don't. moreover, for there not to be a causal relationship we'd need to be wrong about some basic physics.

The Mann hockey stick graph of temperatures was demonstrated to be a fraud

no, it wasn't. see the national academy's review of the subject (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=1), which comes out basically in favor of mann et al. i mean, shit, i don't recall anyone publishing a temp. reconstruction that fell outside of the error bars in the original paper. not bad for a paper that is over 10 years old.

Temperatures today are warm, but no warmer than during the Middle Ages, or during Roman times, well before mankind started adding lots of co2 to the atmosphere.

no, they actually are warmer now than then, on every reasonable reconstruction done. in fact, we've pushed it back far enough now that it is at least reasonable to claim that recent decades are the warmest its been since the last interglacial, if not even earlier, well before the existence of civilization.

If natural causes are responsible for those periods of Warming, and intervening Cooling, then isn't it reasonable to believe today's Warming is also natural?

no. the thing is, we are not totally in the dark about the causes of climate changes. we can look at the possible candidates and see what is actually in effect. the major one now is the gigatons of carbon we have been putting into the atmosphere each year. nothing else accounts for it. in fact, according to the ipcc ar4 (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf) (p. 39),

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling, not warming.

also, note that they are using those bolded 'likelys' in a technical manner:

Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%; extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%; likely >66%; more likely than not > 50%; about as likely as not 33% to 66%; unlikely <33%; very unlikely <10%; extremely unlikely <5%; exceptionally unlikely <1%.

I 'merely' accept what the IPCC says, based on nothing more than they represent the largest body of climate scientists in the world and provide actual evidence to support their findings.
Silly I know - to go on what the most qualified and experienced peoples in the area of climate change say - but it's just my cross to bear.

I envy you being able to branch out further to accepting what's said in junkscience.com. They don't limit themselves to 'mere' experts in climatology. They have all sorts of experts on climate change - economists, people claiming to be scientists, talkshow hosts, people claiming to have PhDs,...my word, all sorts of people.

:D Zing!

my link didnt work because th eforum dont like tinyurl

Me no speako mongo.

Note that the temperature increases in your graph occur BEFORE the co2 rises.

good thing no one proposed that increases in CO2 were the initial drivers of earlier rounds of climate change, eh?

good thing no one proposed that increases in CO2 were the initial drivers of earlier rounds of climate change, eh?

I believe that is what the poster was implying, and it's how Al Gore used the ice core data in his movie.

kusi. com/ weather/ colemanscorner/ 40867912. html

junkscience. com


are you writing these out by hand?


also,
I have learned that in 1991 Roger Revelle made a speech at the high powered, very private Summer enclave of powerful men and politicians at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California, where he apologized that his research sent so many people in the wrong direction on global warming.

i assume this bit of investigation involved a tinfoil hat

I believe that is what the poster was implying, and it's how Al Gore used the ice core data in his movie.

nope, try again

...so in the most recent years ice levels are lowest... how does this disprove global warming? Is there an article or some explanation that goes with this?

Worse, this graph is a year vector (edit: just saw the cut-off point for 2009, it is hard to see it, but compare 2009 to 2002) so the idea that there is slightly more ice in december then there is in June should not be surprising.
Ever read an excellent book by Huff called How to Lie with Statistics?

Worse, this graph is a year vector (edit: just saw the cut-off point for 2009, it is hard to see it, but compare 2009 to 2002) so the idea that there is slightly more ice in december then there is in June should not be surprising.
Ever read an excellent book by Huff called How to Lie with Statistics?

Lieing using statistics is fun - you can prove anything :D

I don't believe that Global Warming is caused by man, and I made a thread about it fairly recently, but I actually post articles and back my shit up. You just fail.

i already did scroll up!

nope, you didn't.

nope, you didn't.

No, he linked it. Read the first page again. Then read the second, he linked it again there.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

Too bad this graph:
1. shows less than ten years of variations: global climate change can be seen in tens of years of variations not on an yearly basis.
2. can't understand the method they used (you know, you can't just go around and weigh all the sea ice)... so how are we supposed to judge?
3. it is about sea ice EXTENT. which doesn't give us hints about the QUANTITY of ice, because that would be volume, not surface! hence, useless.

btw... University of Alaska, Fairbanks? Nothing against but not exactly "impressive"... while we all know what Alaskans are like when it comes to global warming: they WANT it to happen! And I can't blame them too much, to be honest!


BUT I TRIED TO TINYURL IT BUT THE WORD FILTER THINGY JUST LIKE ASSTERISKED IT

Oh, they did, didn't they, my preciouss? Yesss, they did. Ssss! Fisshess! Give usss fisshesss!

No, he linked it. Read the first page again. Then read the second, he linked it again there.

Oh. Indeed.

There are so many studies about Global Climate change. How do you know what to believe?

*snip*
Oh, they did, didn't they, my preciouss? Yesss, they did. Ssss! Fisshess! Give usss fisshesss!

Be patient, good Smeagol, soon fishes will come to you.

Be patient, good Smeagol, soon fishes will come to you.

Usss want Fairbankssss Alassskan Sssalmon now! Give it to usss! Ssss!!!

Too bad this graph:
1. shows less than ten years of variations: global climate change can be seen in tens of years of variations not on an yearly basis.
2. can't understand the method they used (you know, you can't just go around and weigh all the sea ice)... so how are we supposed to judge?
3. it is about sea ice EXTENT. which doesn't give us hints about the QUANTITY of ice, because that would be volume, not surface! hence, useless.


To the north:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/040609.html

Arctic sea ice extent has begun its seasonal decline towards the September minimum. Ice extent through the winter was similar to that of recent years, but lower than the 1979 to 2000 average. More importantly, the melt season has begun with a substantial amount of thin first-year ice, which is vulnerable to summer melt.


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaice_status09.html

WASHINGTON -- The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is continuing. New evidence from satellite observations also shows that the ice cap is thinning as well. Scientists who track Arctic sea ice cover from space announced that this winter had the fifth-lowest maximum ice extent on record. The six lowest maximum events since satellite monitoring began in 1979 have all occurred in the past six years (2004-2009).


To the south:
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20090408_Wilkins.html

An ice bridge connecting the Wilkins Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula to Charcot Island has disintegrated. The event continues a series of breakups that began in March 2008 on the ice shelf, and highlights the effect that climate change is having on the region.




Oh yea! BRRRRRRRRR!!!!!
:rolleyes:

From Rasmussen:

34% of US voters believe Global Warming is caused by man, down from 47% a year ago.
48% blame long-term planetary trends, up from 34% a year ago.

This despite endless alarmism from pundits and politicians...maybe voters aren't as dumb as people think.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04/rasmussen-global-warming-climate-survey-usa.php

From Rasmussen:

34% of US voters believe Global Warming is caused by man, down from 47% a year ago.
48% blame long-term planetary trends, up from 34% a year ago.

This despite endless alarmism from pundits and politicians...maybe voters aren't as dumb as people think.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04/rasmussen-global-warming-climate-survey-usa.php

There are a lot of good, normal people out there that are being made to look like dummies. When a scientists makes a claim, some will believe it to be true. But as far as global warming goes, I wouldn't put too much stock into :rolleyes: "Research" :rolleyes: that is funded by oil companies:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/27/co2-famine-exxon-paid-sci_n_170473.html

From Rasmussen:

34% of US voters believe Global Warming is caused by man, down from 47% a year ago.
48% blame long-term planetary trends, up from 34% a year ago.

This despite endless alarmism from pundits and politicians...maybe voters aren't as dumb as people think.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04/rasmussen-global-warming-climate-survey-usa.php

i'll just leave this here (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf)

This despite endless alarmism from pundits and politicians...maybe voters aren't as dumb as people think.
Did you even read the article?

I quote:
It's strange how in some cases, people accept that experts probably know more than they do on their subject of expertise, if only because they've actually spent years studying it and thinking about it and reading the published literature. If an astronomer tells the public something about exoplanets, or if a mathematician talks about Andrew Wiles' proof to Fermat's last theorem, people tend not to disagree unless they have a really solid counter-argument. But with climate science, it seems that everybody thinks their own convenient theory (notice how people rarely make up theories that are inconvenient to them) is as valid as anything else, and suddenly, who cares about experts? Is it because we can all look outside at the local weather that we think it's easy to understand the global climate?

...

So it seems like the more evidence climate scientists find that global warming is man-made, the less the general public thinks it is.

From Rasmussen:

34% of US voters believe Global Warming is caused by man, down from 47% a year ago.
48% blame long-term planetary trends, up from 34% a year ago.

This despite endless alarmism from pundits and politicians...maybe voters aren't as dumb as people think.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/04/rasmussen-global-warming-climate-survey-usa.php

So, let me get this straight, if we get a majority of Regular Folks to agree that ... oh, I don't know, let's say that a human-sized, long-eared rodent visits homes in the Spring and leaves eggs in them, it's true? Or that a fat man in a red suit flies around the world one night in December leaving presents for children?

Like it says in my signature, since when is reality a popularity contest?

Having fun picking on a 14 year old dude?
Huh?
Intense lover of science, justice, and what's right...

My facts were mostly about the conspiracy (sp) with Al Gore
Oh, and by the way, the biggest proponent (again sp) of global warming, Albert Gore Jr., and his Interplanetary Council of Zenu were willing to take a Nobel Peace Prize from 97-year-old Irena Sendler, a woman who helped SMUGGLED JEWISH CHILDREN OUT FROM OCCUPIED POLAND- SOMETIMES DISGUISING THEM AS PACKAGES TO BE DELIVERED. She risked her life. In Occupied Poland, You don't die for helping the Jews, you and your family get killed! They also kill the Jew you were helping.
She died in May of 2008, by the way.

Also, Al Gore uses waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy too much electricity for a normal person.
Says the Tennessee Center for Policy Research,


http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

Ad hominem much?

As I read your post, global warming is bullshit because Al Gore uses a lot of electricity and because he was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize instead of the nice Polish lady who saved Jewish children from the Nazis. Not getting the NPP probably killed Irena Sendler, I suppose (by the by, Nobel nominees are not normally revealed, certainly not by the Nobel Committee; in Ms. Sendler's case, it was the person who nominated her that revealed the information).

Oh, and by the way, the biggest proponent (again sp) of global warming, Albert Gore Jr., and his Interplanetary Council of Zenu were willing to take a Nobel Peace Prize from 97-year-old Irena Sendler, a woman who helped SMUGGLED JEWISH CHILDREN OUT FROM OCCUPIED POLAND- SOMETIMES DISGUISING THEM AS PACKAGES TO BE DELIVERED. She risked her life. In Occupied Poland, You don't die for helping the Jews, you and your family get killed! They also kill the Jew you were helping.
She died in May of 2008, by the way.
It's time for the dried frog pills, methinks.

Also, you do realise that the environmental movement is much older, and much larger, than Al Gore, don't you? Criticise Mr. Gore all you like, but his mistakes are his alone, not the mistakes of the 250+ year-old, disparate movement.

Gore's home is an office, anyone who compares its electricity usage to a household is either dishonest or ignorant.

Holy. Shit.

Having fun picking on a 14 year old dude?
Huh?

Why do they always claim to be 14? Is that some kind of magic number?

http://www.theallseeingeye.us/images/global-warming.jpg

<pantypicsnip>
I like the 1980s panties the best.


And... uhhh... environment.

Yeah.

I like the 1980s panties the best.


And... uhhh... environment.

Yeah.

I like your taste in panties, I agree, lol...

It could be social environment, ;)

Fuck you all.
polar bears are amazing we need to save them ALL!!!!!
next my plan is simple. we litter as much plastic as we can. as the plastic spreads over this earth like a thin blanket of transparent cancer it will melt to the land it covers. this will create a shinny safe plastic coated future for my children!
fuck yea communism rocks!

http://www.theallseeingeye.us/images/global-warming.jpg
Those 18th century "panties"... um... am I having vision problems or...are they crotchless!! :eek2:

I don't know, man. Crotchless panties, being poor draft stoppers, don't really suggest a colder planet to me.

Fuck you all.
polar bears are amazing we need to save them ALL!!!!!
next my plan is simple. we litter as much plastic as we can. as the plastic spreads over this earth like a thin blanket of transparent cancer it will melt to the land it covers. this will create a shinny safe plastic coated future for my children!
fuck yea communism rocks!
*applauds*

Those 18th century "panties"... um... am I having vision problems or...are they crotchless!! :eek2:

I don't know, man. Crotchless panties, being poor draft stoppers, don't really suggest a colder planet to me.

Those were more practical for a different purpose, ;)

Why do they always claim to be 14? Is that some kind of magic number?

Cause that is when they are taken out of the cloning tube?

Well, sure the Earth is warming, but the Earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling throughout it's entire history. So maybe it's just another part of the cycle, not something humans did.

Well, sure the Earth is warming, but the Earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling throughout it's entire history. So maybe it's just another part of the cycle, not something humans did.

Probably.. yeah fuck it,

*cuts down last tree*

Probably.. yeah fuck it,

*cuts down last tree*

If you really want to hurt the climate, I'd advise spilling oil in the ocean and killing plankton. The surface of the ocean does a lot more to recycle CO2 than the lousy rainforest. Just sayin.

Why does there need to be a man-made crisis for us to do anything different? I mean just cuz I don't give a shit about "global warming" and take incredible joy at trolling the Green Peace people who interrupt me on my way about the city doesn't mean I go out of my way to hurt the world. I turn off my lights when I'm not using them, take public transportation, try to recycle, etc. I just don't get the whole "ZOMG WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!" thing

If you really want to hurt the climate, I'd advise spilling oil in the ocean and killing plankton. The surface of the ocean does a lot more to recycle CO2 than the lousy rainforest. Just sayin.

Fret not, we're way on to it already.

Why does there need to be a man-made crisis for us to do anything different? I mean just cuz I don't give a shit about "global warming" and take incredible joy at trolling the Green Peace people who interrupt me on my way about the city doesn't mean I go out of my way to hurt the world. I turn off my lights when I'm not using them, take public transportation, try to recycle, etc. I just don't get the whole "ZOMG WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!" thing

Well, see, you're special, have some empathy for those not amazing as you are.

Well, sure the Earth is warming, but the Earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling throughout it's entire history. So maybe it's just another part of the cycle, not something humans did.

Every time polar ice expanded and receded, it took thousands of years. Now it has receded is just a few decades. Oops!

Fret not, we're way on to it already.



Well, see, you're special, have some empathy for those not amazing as you are.

I'm not that amazing, so people who can't manage the low low bar of "human decency" that I set should probably just be shot. Which would help with over-population (not that I believe in that myth, either), and would lead to less energy consumption, which would be for the good of the universe.

Every time polar ice expanded and receded, it took thousands of years. Now it has receded is just a few decades. Oops!

Is that so? I've never wrapped my head around how they date this stuff, to be perfectly honest. Still seems to me that climate change coincides much more nicely with Milankovich cycles than it does with CO2 in the atmosphere.

Is that so? I've never wrapped my head around how they date this stuff, to be perfectly honest.

You should give it a look:
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/ice-core.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/

Still seems to me that climate change coincides much more nicely with Milankovich cycles than it does with CO2 in the atmosphere.

Precession is in it's glacial stage and will be so for another 6000 years. And the Milankovich cycles take thousands of years to melt ice. And you are making the claim that there is more incoming heat instead of the truth which is a lack of outgoing heat. If it were incoming heat, the extra radiaion would be VERY easily detected.

the real scam is clean coal and for that matter alternative fuels, or any fuels. the real alternative is generating energy and propelling transportation without burning anything, and we have every bit of the means of doing so, (have had for years for that matter) with absolutely no drop in the utility of either infrastructure.

(global climate shift) sure is one hell of a coincidence (coming as it does in the aftermath of a century or so of the combination of rapid population increase and equally exponential increase in the use of, and reliance upon, combustion, in all its many and diverse forms)

Probably.. yeah fuck it,

*cuts down last tree*

How Polynesian.

Having fun picking on a 14 year old dude?
Huh?
Intense lover of science, justice, and what's right...

I remember being 14. I had a good deal of clue about science when I was 14. Indeed, everything I told you was stuff I knew or could have easily learned when I was 14.


My facts were mostly about the conspiracy (sp) with Al Gore
Oh, and by the way, the biggest proponent (again sp) of global warming, Albert Gore Jr., and his Interplanetary Council of Zenu were willing to take a Nobel Peace Prize from 97-year-old Irena Sendler, a woman who helped SMUGGLED JEWISH CHILDREN OUT FROM OCCUPIED POLAND- SOMETIMES DISGUISING THEM AS PACKAGES TO BE DELIVERED. She risked her life. In Occupied Poland, You don't die for helping the Jews, you and your family get killed! They also kill the Jew you were helping.
She died in May of 2008, by the way.

What. The. Fuck.

Are you sure you're 14?

Discarding all the nonsense and ad hominems, there is literally nothing left in here that is relevant to the debate. What this tells us is that your contributions can be safely ignored, and doing so will raise the signal to noise ratio of the thread.


Also, Al Gore uses waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy too much electricity for a normal person.
Says the Tennessee Center for Policy Research,


http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

Irrelevant. If you insist, of course, it is worth noting that most of Gore's electricity comes from alternative and sustainable sources, not coal or oil.

The problem is not one of quantity, it is one of damage.

the real scam is clean coal and for that matter alternative fuels, or any fuels. the real alternative is generating energy and propelling transportation without burning anything, and we have every bit of the means of doing so, (have had for years for that matter) with absolutely no drop in the utility of either infrastructure.

(global climate shift) sure is one hell of a coincidence (coming as it does in the aftermath of a century or so of the combination of rapid population increase and equally exponential increase in the use of, and reliance upon, combustion, in all its many and diverse forms)

Precisely (to a fairly large extent).

Every time polar ice expanded and receded, it took thousands of years.

Not true. There have been periods where the ice from the Arctic has expanded as far south as Wales in the space of 50 years.

Those 18th century "panties"... um... am I having vision problems or...are they crotchless!! :eek2:

I don't know, man. Crotchless panties, being poor draft stoppers, don't really suggest a colder planet to me.

They're not crotchless, the crotch is a bit higher than where you think it is.