Global Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979

Onceler said:
I agree with that, but what kind of trend can a one-quarter rebound represent?
Click to expand...

Another answer for you to totally ignore and sscoff at.

LATE SOLOR CYCLE 24!!!

look it up. Sweet jesus knows I've tried to link the info for your stuborn religious ass.

Guess what lorax. This is the first time the sun has been spotless this long in 300 years

Look it up. I linked the sciencedaily article before.



AND ANOTHER THING


THIS IS NOT FIUCKING PEER REVIEWED STUFF. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RAW FUCKING DATA!!!!!

WE DON'T NEED PEER REVIEW TO LOOK AT THE TEMP AND PLOT A GRAPH.

well, we should be able to see how Hansen cooks up GISS numbers, but guess what? He refuses to divulge his secret recipe! MUUUWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

LOOK IT UP!!!!
 
tinfoil said:
Another answer for you to totally ignore and sscoff at.

LATE SOLOR CYCLE 24!!!

look it up. Sweet jesus knows I've tried to link the info for your stuborn religious ass.

Guess what lorax. This is the first time the sun has been spotless this long in 300 years

Look it up. I linked the sciencedaily article before.



AND ANOTHER THING


THIS IS NOT FIUCKING PEER REVIEWED STUFF. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RAW FUCKING DATA!!!!!

WE DON'T NEED PEER REVIEW TO LOOK AT THE TEMP AND PLOT A GRAPH.

well, we should be able to see how Hansen cooks up GISS numbers, but guess what? He refuses to divulge his secret recipe! MUUUWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

LOOK IT UP!!!!
Click to expand...

You do need peer review to establish causation and to draw conclusions from trends with any credibility.
 
ib1yysguy said:
You do need peer review to establish causation and to draw conclusions from trends with any credibility.
Click to expand...

says who and why? you don't believe in raw data? oh lets get together a bunch of guys who believe in global warming and then get their slant on it..:rolleyes:
 
You do need peer review to establish causation and to draw conclusions from trends with any credibility.

wait, what?
I'm going to assume you're mocking me.

However, if the methods are repeatable and others derive the same results in a consistant and transparent manner, then it is possible to prove something without initial peer review
 
ib1

have you seriously watched the tim patterson video? seriously?
it's like SCIENCE from your own backyard. Northwest region.
You owe to yourself to know this stuff anyway. It's incredibly interesting. the mud cores are the most complete and precisice mud record in history thus far. millions of Canadian dollars were spent on this. It's the real deal. It would help you understand my position. Is that something you're afraid of? Like a christian avoiding anything but the bible for answers.
 
Yurt said:
says who and why? you don't believe in raw data? oh lets get together a bunch of guys who believe in global warming and then get their slant on it..:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

that's the GISS hansen method

He freezes the past and warms the present as much as possible.

A statistician named Steve McIntyre tested all the revisions and found some clearly skewed patterns of revisions to make the past cooler and the present warmer. we would expect a random distribution of errors, but it was like 6 to 1 or somthing all in favor of the trends described before.

Easy to find with Google


Also look up
Watts up with that.

great site for CURRENT developments in climate

The posters to these threads are real scientists, in some cases, and reagular run of the mill deniers like me as well mixed in. There are some real debates with real references for the lorax/ibDumb crowd to ignore.
 
Drinking again, stirfry?

What's your contention now...that there is no warming after all? Because a few days ago, it was of course there is warming, but man has nothing to do with it.

Careful here, stirfry...don't get lost...
 
Onceler said:
Drinking again, stirfry?

What's your contention now...that there is no warming after all? Because a few days ago, it was of course there is warming, but man has nothing to do with it.

Careful here, stirfry...don't get lost...
Click to expand...

kis that a feeble attempt to try to look like you can make a case for /co2 driving climate?
 
tinfoil said:
kis that a feeble attempt to try to look like you can make a case for /co2 driving climate?
Click to expand...

No. I'm trying to separate you from your psychosis, if only temporarily, to see if you realize what the topic and purpose of THIS thread is. It has nothing to do with AGW.
 
Hey Dano - looks like George Will fell for the same lie that you did:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/l...l-liberated-from-the-burden-of-fact-checking/

"In an opinion piece by George Will published on February 15, 2009 in the Washington Post, George Will states “According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.”

We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts. "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top