PDA

View Full Version : APP - shrinking artic ice and pacific islands going underwater



Don Quixote
12-21-2009, 01:58 AM
how do the global warming / climate change deniers explain the shrinking Artic ice cap, shrinking Greenland glaciers and pacific islands becoming underwater (rising sea level)

FUCK THE POLICE
12-21-2009, 03:21 AM
It's not happening and it's due to sunspots.

/MSG/
12-21-2009, 03:23 AM
The same way the previous ice ages ended is the way I'm going with it.

FUCK THE POLICE
12-21-2009, 03:43 AM
The same way the previous ice ages ended is the way I'm going with it.

Except much faster, causing much more catastrophe.

/MSG/
12-21-2009, 04:11 AM
Except much faster, causing much more catastrophe.

Speculation. And for the most part, I couldn't care less.

PostmodernProphet
12-21-2009, 05:47 AM
Except much faster, causing much more catastrophe.

except, if you look at the ice core temperature graphs, it's happening slower.....

Topspin
12-21-2009, 06:11 AM
who gives a flying fuck

Damocles
12-21-2009, 08:50 AM
except, if you look at the ice core temperature graphs, it's happening slower.....
Watermark still believes in the "hockey stick"....

Socrtease
12-21-2009, 09:24 AM
how do the global warming / climate change deniers explain the shrinking Artic ice cap, shrinking Greenland glaciers and pacific islands becoming underwater (rising sea level)I don't think people deny this stuff is happening, I think there are just lots of people who don't think that humans have had more than justa negligible effect if any. How do the AGWers continue their claims with very little VERIFIABLE proof that we have had an impact that matters?

Topspin
12-21-2009, 09:49 AM
How? like this
Gore says polar ice will be gone by 2013. Which will be bullshit like every other alarmist predictions he's made.

tinfoil
12-21-2009, 09:56 AM
how do the global warming / climate change deniers explain the shrinking Artic ice cap, shrinking Greenland glaciers and pacific islands becoming underwater (rising sea level)


what a ******* idiot!!

read a book about climate cycles

tinfoil
12-21-2009, 09:57 AM
Except much faster, causing much more catastrophe.

LOL dumbass, learn about how the case for "unprecedented warming " was built using faulty data.

Damocles
12-21-2009, 09:59 AM
How? like this
Gore says polar ice will be gone by 2013. Which will be bullshit like every other alarmist predictions he's made.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/02/poll-and-polar-ice-trends/

FUCK THE POLICE
12-21-2009, 01:45 PM
Speculation. And for the most part, I couldn't care less.

When your children are murdered by your actions within your lifetime, will it be different?

tinfoil
12-21-2009, 01:46 PM
It's become apparent to me that watermark really doesn't get how tree ring methods for deriving temps don't work past 1960. He doesn't understand that the divergence problem was this fact. It's only natural to ask why tree rings can be used derive temps prior to 1960 when it's well known that the results are not reliable after 1960.

Of course we know we have no choice but to use proxies to derive past temps when we don't have data, but lets use the same methods for all the series in a graph and not mix and mate 100% accurate temps from one point forward, and use proxy derived temps with error margins greater than the (sum of the alarming) warming for 150 years for the temps before that point

FUCK THE POLICE
12-21-2009, 01:46 PM
I don't think people deny this stuff is happening, I think there are just lots of people who don't think that humans have had more than justa negligible effect if any. How do the AGWers continue their claims with very little VERIFIABLE proof that we have had an impact that matters?

The mechanism is understood. We know that CO2 levels are going up. We know this has correlated with a temperature rise. We have correlation and causation.

USFREEDOM911
12-21-2009, 05:05 PM
Watermark still believes in the "hockey stick"....

That's because waterstain is a hockey stick.

Minister of Truth
12-21-2009, 06:30 PM
what a fucking idiot!!

read a book about climate cycles

:lol:

tinfoil
12-21-2009, 07:21 PM
The mechanism is understood. We know that CO2 levels are going up. We know this has correlated with a temperature rise. We have correlation and causation.


wrong. Temps lead CO2 changes. Temps cause CO2 concentration because the oceans, when they warm, sequester less CO2 than when they're colder, so THAT'S what modulates the concentration of CO2

FUCK THE POLICE
12-21-2009, 11:18 PM
You're a fucking idiot. Stop reading conservative mind poison. Open your mind to the truth, get out of the RELIGION OF CLIMATE DENIALISM. Climate deniers need to be locked up for life, they're the most dangerous crazy people alive. They're just lucky we don't blow they're fuckign heads off, these diseased men, they deserve it. They deny all the evidence in the world, they are fucking psychopaths, worthless as human beings.

Don Quixote
12-22-2009, 02:54 AM
wrong. Temps lead CO2 changes. Temps cause CO2 concentration because the oceans, when they warm, sequester less CO2 than when they're colder, so THAT'S what modulates the concentration of CO2

what about the increases in methane in the atmosphere...you know, that other greenhouse gas

tinfoil
12-22-2009, 08:45 AM
what about the increases in methane in the atmosphere...you know, that other greenhouse gas

Did i say anything about methane?
CARBON
CARBON

do I have to repeat myself again?

Minister of Truth
12-22-2009, 04:59 PM
what about the increases in methane in the atmosphere...you know, that other greenhouse gas

Other greenhouse gas? What about Nitrogen, H2O, etc.?

Don Quixote
12-22-2009, 06:35 PM
Did i say anything about methane?
CARBON
CARBON

do I have to repeat myself again?

methane contains carbon...CH4

Don Quixote
12-22-2009, 06:36 PM
Other greenhouse gas? What about Nitrogen, H2O, etc.?

just the ones that are increasing in the atmosphere

cancel2 2022
12-22-2009, 06:42 PM
methane contains carbon...CH4

The clue is in the name, methane is the simplest example of a hydrocarbon.

tinfoil
12-22-2009, 08:00 PM
Methane in the atmosphere is eventually oxidized, producing carbon dioxide and water. As a result, methane in the atmosphere has a half life of seven years.

Minister of Truth
12-22-2009, 08:20 PM
methane contains carbon...CH4

That's why I didn't include compounds such as CO and CO2, because I was trying to avoid repeating carbon all over the place.

Taichiliberal
12-22-2009, 11:44 PM
how do the global warming / climate change deniers explain the shrinking Artic ice cap, shrinking Greenland glaciers and pacific islands becoming underwater (rising sea level)

Bottom line: A lot of folks on both sides of the debate forget this key fact: true environmental scientist point to man made pollution, deforestation and urbanization as ACCELERANTS of the earth's natural climatic changes.....and NOT the sole cause. It's like saying, "well, some of the wood on this house is going to rot within 20 years", and then when someone throws all the wrong oils, liquids and chemicals on it for 8 years and the wood starts noticeably rotting in by 12 years, you have a group of people swearing that the mistreatment had nothing to do with the rot.

Socrtease
12-23-2009, 12:26 AM
Bottom line: A lot of folks on both sides of the debate forget this key fact: true environmental scientist point to man made pollution, deforestation and urbanization as ACCELERANTS of the earth's natural climatic changes.....and NOT the sole cause. It's like saying, "well, some of the wood on this house is going to rot within 20 years", and then when someone throws all the wrong oils, liquids and chemicals on it for 8 years and the wood starts noticeably rotting in by 12 years, you have a group of people swearing that the mistreatment had nothing to do with the rot.How much has it accelerated the process? That is the answer that is still not clear.

tinfoil
12-23-2009, 08:08 AM
How much has it accelerated the process? That is the answer that is still not clear.

THIS
apparently ching chong doesn't understand how the case for unprecedented warming was made.

Here's a clue:
It was fudged

Taichiliberal
12-23-2009, 07:31 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Bottom line: A lot of folks on both sides of the debate forget this key fact: true environmental scientist point to man made pollution, deforestation and urbanization as ACCELERANTS of the earth's natural climatic changes.....and NOT the sole cause. It's like saying, "well, some of the wood on this house is going to rot within 20 years", and then when someone throws all the wrong oils, liquids and chemicals on it for 8 years and the wood starts noticeably rotting in by 12 years, you have a group of people swearing that the mistreatment had nothing to do with the rot.


How much has it accelerated the process? That is the answer that is still not clear.

All one has to do is look at the reduction in the rain forests of the world, the damage done to land locked forests by acid rain, the levels of man-made chemicals found in the snows or mountainous and artic regions, and you get the idea. Bottom line: arguing about exactly who is more responsible for the house fire when it's burning ain't doing the occupants a hell of a lot of good.

Don Quixote
12-24-2009, 02:13 AM
THIS
apparently ching chong doesn't understand how the case for unprecedented warming was made.

Here's a clue:
It was fudged

it is happening...now, regardless of the reason

however, look at the depredations that man has made to the ecosystem - you can not damage a system without consequences

we may be entering a solar upswing, but that does not mean that we are not helping it, but we may also be entering a solar down swing and staving off the next ice age

the problem is that we are not sure, but one thing is for certain - the arctic ice cap is shrinking, the greenland ice is shrinking and the ocean is getting more acidic

the curious thing is that half of the antartic ice is increasing and half is decreasing - that leaves us with a net loss of polar ice

so instead of complaining about who is correct, lets look at all of the data that has not been fudged

satellite images show shrinking ice

non-fudged data show sea levels rising

non-fudged data show rising ocean acidity

i do not have the data on incident solar radiation, but doubt it can account for all of the above

tinfoil
12-24-2009, 01:26 PM
it is happening...now, regardless of the reason

however, look at the depredations that man has made to the ecosystem - you can not damage a system without consequences

we may be entering a solar upswing, but that does not mean that we are not helping it, but we may also be entering a solar down swing and staving off the next ice age

the problem is that we are not sure, but one thing is for certain - the arctic ice cap is shrinking, the greenland ice is shrinking and the ocean is getting more acidic

the curious thing is that half of the antartic ice is increasing and half is decreasing - that leaves us with a net loss of polar ice

so instead of complaining about who is correct, lets look at all of the data that has not been fudged

satellite images show shrinking ice

non-fudged data show sea levels rising

non-fudged data show rising ocean acidity

i do not have the data on incident solar radiation, but doubt it can account for all of the above

but one thing is for certain - the arctic ice cap is shrinking,

check your facts, dumbass. the ice has recovered. been recovered for over a year.

Try to keep up with science, warmer

everything you describe are natural processes

tinfoil
12-24-2009, 01:28 PM
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Don Quixote
12-24-2009, 07:44 PM
but one thing is for certain - the arctic ice cap is shrinking,

check your facts, dumbass. the ice has recovered. been recovered for over a year.

Try to keep up with science, warmer

everything you describe are natural processes

one year does not a recovery make - try at least a decade period for data to look at even a slight trend - a century worth of data would be better and a millennium even better

look for trends not blips

tinfoil
12-24-2009, 10:51 PM
one year does not a recovery make - try at least a decade period for data to look at even a slight trend - a century worth of data would be better and a millennium even better

look for trends not blips

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.antarctic.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png

Looks like the trend is flat and all we have is a BLIP. Antarctic above has been growing

tinfoil
12-24-2009, 11:15 PM
LOL
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Tourists-to-Antarctica-worsening-global-warming--Study/558699/

Taichiliberal
12-30-2009, 10:13 PM
THIS
apparently ching chong doesn't understand how the case for unprecedented warming was made.

Here's a clue:
It was fudged

Poor little willfully ignorant neocon parrot....your myopia is sadly apparent throughout these boards...you ignore what you don't like and repeat the latest talking point that looks good to you.

tinfoil
12-30-2009, 11:15 PM
Poor little willfully ignorant neocon parrot....your myopia is sadly apparent throughout these boards...you ignore what you don't like and repeat the latest talking point that looks good to you.

You keep saying that, but I've provided the evidence of the fraud. You're the one who is willfully ignorant. You should really educate yourself.

And for the last fucking time, I'm not advocating pollution or ignoring land use issues, so shut the fuck up you idiot

Taichiliberal
12-30-2009, 11:34 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Poor little willfully ignorant neocon parrot....your myopia is sadly apparent throughout these boards...you ignore what you don't like and repeat the latest talking point that looks good to you.


You keep saying that, but I've provided the evidence of the fraud. You're the one who is willfully ignorant. You should really educate yourself.

You poor deluded fool. When someone challenges your "evidence" and points out that it's (a) NOT the ONLY piece of the puzzle (b) presumptive (c) incomplete (d) questionable....all you do is just IGNORE any contrary evidence or logical deduction that don't pan out to your beliefs. Case in point, you were wholly fixated on proving Gore a liar, yet you totally ignored that the information he exaggerated was dire enough on it's own, as the author pointed out. YOU couldn't disprove or refute the author, so you ignored the information in favor of the false premise that if you could discredit Gore on this one point, then EVERYTHING he said about global warming is wrong.

And for the last fucking time, if only...but an ignorant man like you is compelled to prove otherwise with the misguided notion of repeating yourself and getting in the last word I'm not advocating pollution no one ever said you were, dimbulb. What you don't realize is that by ardently defending the status quo, you inadvertently condone the very processes that are detrimental to the environment or ignoring land use issues, Ahhh, but you have consistently stated or insinuated or alluded to a notion that they are little significance. You can't have it both ways, so grow a pair and make a declarative statment when I produce information that shows how it's connected to the discussion. so shut the fuck up you idiot

The desperate defense cry of the intellectually bankrupt neocon dupe. Pathetic.

tinfoil
12-31-2009, 08:14 AM
The desperate defense cry of the intellectually bankrupt neocon dupe. Pathetic.


Read my posts china boy. I've never once said that land use issues don't matter.
I've only said that CO2 forcing has been overstated for the purposes of imposing a tax.

Topspin
12-31-2009, 08:27 AM
If you'd all get rid of you pets the ice would stop melting!!!!!!!!!

Damocles
12-31-2009, 03:50 PM
If you'd all get rid of you pets the ice would stop melting!!!!!!!!!
Shuddup, and quit eating meat.

Taichiliberal
12-31-2009, 07:49 PM
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
The desperate defense cry of the intellectually bankrupt neocon dupe. Pathetic.


Read my posts china boy. You seem to have a racial phobia about asians...calling me "ching chong, china boy". I should have known that when your intellectually bankrupt beliefs are properly challenged, your true nature emerges...which is deplorable. I've never once said that land use issues don't matter. :palm: One more time for the cheap seats....you have consistently stated or insinuated or alluded to a notion that they are of little significance regarding the global warming issue....which is pretty dumb on your part as forests and green land in general is a crucial part in the CO2/oxygen exchange. You can't have it both ways, so grow a pair and make a declarative statment when I produce information that shows how it's connected to the discussion.
I've only said that CO2 forcing has been overstated for the purposes of imposing a tax.

Stop lying.....you've stated MUCH more than that...and as I've pointed out above, you just ignore what doesn't fit into your copied talking points. So adjust your tinfoil hat to receive the next wave of talking points from the industrial lobby.