NASA Arctic Sea Ice Update

Submitted by: Squrlz4Sale 3 years ago Science

There"s been a lot of nonsense in the news lately regarding arctic sea ice. A NASA scientist sets the record straight.
There are 85 comments:
Male 15,832
[quote]Also, I find it funny that you claim `liberal scientists` want to take things away from you - when they aren`t doing that, but are you okay with billion dollar corporations and the top 1% taking away your hard earned money so they can be richer?
[/quote]
Global warming "scientists" are parasites living on government grant money paid by taxes taken from me under threat of violence. (If you don`t believe if, just write "NO, THANK YOU" on your next tax bill, and see how long it takes for someone to show up on your doorstep with a gun.)

Global corporations, on the other hand, provide useful products and services for which I am willing to pay VOLUNTARILY.

Are you truly incapable of making this distinction, or are you just being an ass?
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]Can we just gather all the climate skeptics into gas chambers and remove them from the gene pool? An ethnic cleansing of sorts =p[/quote]

BUT THAT`LL DESTROY THE OZONE AND INCREASE DA WARMINGZZ!!


Now if you`ll excuse me I have to get back to saving the planet by working with a massive corporation to mine high sulfur coal for us to burn UNFILTERED!!
0
Reply
Male 5,919
I see a lot of evidence from Squirl and a lot of data being used incorrectly from Richanddead. Nt a single person refuted the data presented by Squirl. Strictly by the data presented I`m siding more with that AGW is indeed possible and is more likely than it not happening.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Musuko: "So I`m going to force-feed you 6,000 Big Macs in a day. It will be a very good thing for you."

First off, I don`t like Big Macs. Secondly and more seriously, quit being absurd and learn something about the carbon photosynthesis cycle.



The saturation of CO2 in today`s atmosphere is below 400ppm, most plants 100% CO2 saturation rate is around 1000ppm. We are not even at 50% of what most plants could easily absorb, in our atmosphere.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@CrakrJak

"Plants do absorb CO2 and produce O2, and do grow faster with more of it available to them."

Humans eat food, and grow faster when more food is available to them.

So I`m going to force-feed you 6,000 Big Macs in a day. It will be a very good thing for you.

Your way of viewing the world is ridiculously simplistic. Are you so totally unaware that you sound like a toddler?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Davy: Calm down Francis. You`re throwing a fit like a two year old and it shows.

Facts are:

Caprock does indeed trap oil below it, if it didn`t you wouldn`t have a job.

I do indeed know how oil is refined.

Plants do absorb CO2 and produce O2, and do grow faster with more of it available to them.

And mules are sterile because donkeys and horses are different species, whereas dogs of all breeds are still of the same species. What I was arguing was the definition of the word "speciation". Too many biologists believe that simply because a particular breed of finch are isolated on some islands means that they have changed their species, when in actuality they have not. They are still finches and can breed with mainland finches to produce viable offspring.

mesovortex: "By definition, creationists AREN`T objective."

And by definition you are just being a troll now, so go back under your bridge.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Davy: "RATE of change, Crakrjak. Do you understand the basics of calculus? Differentials? Integrals? Acceleration vs Velocity? Anything?"

Yes, and if you look at the actual slope, for the past 15 years, it would take another 300 years to get to +2C. We aren`t even at 10% of that +2C, that was predicted we`d hit by 2020. The Mann hockey stick was a giant lie. When actual temps fall out of the 99.97% probability range of the hundreds of climate models that`ve been done, it`s time to admit the models and the theory were dead wrong.

Squrlz: What you assumed to "took (me) through" was a complete lack of understanding of petroleum chemistry and you don`t know sh|t about refining. If we didn`t remove most of the carbon from our crude oil, our skies would look like China and India where the smog is so damn bad you can`t even breathe.
0
Reply
Male 458
@CrakrJak:
By definition, creationists AREN`T objective.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Well, although he may come up short in some areas, I`m quite certain CrakrJak is an expert in all things mule-related. I have never met a human being so stubborn: He just locks those forelegs in place and will NOT change his mind on anything.

Seriously, CrakrJak: Even after I took you through the math, practically step-by-step, you *still* maintain that "most of the carbon in a barrel of crude oil is refined out of it"? Really? C`mon.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
RATE of change, Crakrjak. Do you understand the basics of calculus? Differentials? Integrals? Acceleration vs Velocity? Anything?

Look, I`m done here. I`m a geologist, I have to go to work tomorrow, and find some oil. Why don`t you go back onto Wikipedia and school me again on "ultramafic caprocks".

While you`re at it, give us a breakdown on how you used to live near an oil refinery and are therefore an expert on carbon emissions.

Oh, then do the one where trees drink CO2, and produce oxygen, therefore the more emissions the better. We`re just feeding the trees!

Oh, oh, I almost forgot. Throw in the one about about how mules are sterile, therefore biological evolution is a lie and doesn`t happen. F*ck Darwin and his ridiculous theories. That`s always a hoot.

Dick.

Davy out.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Davy: "..me and my peers are telling you that the planet`s warming at a geologically unprecedented rate.."

Uprecedented? Really? There are several precedents, The medieval warm period (900-1300), the roman warm period (0-500), the egyptian warm period (1500BC-600BC) and others predating those.

As I said earlier, it`s ridiculous exaggeration that has sank the AGW ship.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]You proclaim science and data as the end all be all. But when the science and data doesn`t fit your liberal agenda, you call it a "a non-event", "illiterate", "op-eds" and "nonsense".[/quote]
-----------------
Crakrjak, what "Liberal Agenda" are you blathering about, you twat?

Here`s my agenda:

1. Understand how the planet works.

Took me 7 years at University to attempt to understand it, a PhD thrown in, and me and my peers are telling you that the planet`s warming at a geologically unprecedented rate, and that we`re having some effect on that warming.

The cleverest/stupidest thing conservatives have ever done is somehow equate science with liberalism. I don`t give a f*ck about politics. I deal in facts and data.

Go read some more blogs. Or, even better, go to your "favourites" and read Answers In Genesis for a while.

Then get back to us about science.
0
Reply
Male 5,919
Can we just gather all the climate skeptics into gas chambers and remove them from the gene pool? An ethnic cleansing of sorts =p
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Quackor:

[quote]He said nothing concrete about Antarctica, moron.[/quote]
And in a video entitled, "Arctic Sea Ice Update," what were you expecting?

*brring brring* Oh, it`s the Clue Phone. Hey, it`s for you. It says to tell you that *Arctic* does not mean *polar*.

Arctic = related to North Pole.
Antarctic = related to South Pole.

You`re welcome, moron.
0
Reply
Male 2,855
he said nothing concrete about Antarctica, moron
0
Reply
Male 17,512
mesovortex: "You are a creationist. That makes you 100% scientifically illiterate."

Wow, and you made the claim that I can`t be objective?

Dude..

0
Reply
Male 6,227
(Cont`d)

1. Eccentricity: ~3%, putting us at the low end of the cycle;
2. Axial tilt: 23.45 deg, putting us at midrange of the cycle;
3. Precession: perihelion is now occurring around the winter solstice, putting us at the low end of the cycle.

Put the three influences together and climatologists tell us that if it weren`t for the influence of greenhouse gases, the Earth`s temperature would be moving in the opposite direction than we observe: we would be cooling.

Bottom line: Not only are temperatures changing too fast for Milankovitch cycles to explain, they`re going in the wrong direction.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Richanddead: What your chart is showing, as I`m sure you`re aware, is the Milankovitch cycles. This natural process does, indeed, change Earth`s climate and initiates either the beginning or the end of a period of glaciation. The MCs are comprised of three cycles, each related to our planet`s orbit or spin: eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession. Each cycle operates on an independent timescale of tens of thousands of years and they all interact with one another, creating a long cycle of (very) roughly 100,000 years.

Note that the temperature changes expressed by the MCs are very gradual--glacial, if you will. If the warming we`ve seen in the past 100 years had occurred over a 1,000 to 3,000 year period--that is, at least 10 times slower than it has--the speed would be consistent with past records of the MCs. But even then there remains an insurmountable problem. To see it, one need only look at where the Earth currently is in relation to the three cycles.

(Cont`d)
0
Reply
Male 458
@richanddead:
Citation needed.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]Have you considered founding your own accredited institution? =^.^=[/quote]

Yes seeking funding! All donation are welcome. You too can become a founding member of BS U!
0
Reply
Male 3,949
@mesovortex:

According to NASA`s Goddard Institute for Space Studies the temperatures on Earth have increased by about 0.8 degrees Celsius or 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880 and the little ice age. Not 3 degrees Celsius as many of the peaks in the graph show. No one is cherry picking, the data from these times is all the same, infact it has a high level of confidence then more recent weather in the last couple of hundred years. Even if you add the 0.8 it still does not compare. And it is not more rapid than any other cycle, Many of the peaks show a far sharper slope, not to mention the period in the 1920`s increased at a higher rate, and on top of it all, todays temperatures have plateaued.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ McGovern: I`m very impressed by your credentials there. LOL... This is only my impression, but it seems to me you must have engaged in quite a bit of post-doc work; you are truly outstanding in the field. (Not unlike a moo-cow.) Have you considered founding your own accredited institution? =^.^=
0
Reply
Male 14,330
BTW Freon is still used in things and there`s huge black market for it.... yet we`re not hearing squat about the impact of that.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Essshhh point out the disappearance of the last environmentalist frenzy and their messiahs stupid ass pay your way to pollute plan and the eco paladins get quite the stick up their ass!

Now what happened to those scientists saying in the 90`s we should all be by dead now and the world a ball fire!! Oh it cause we gave up CFCs and reduced the use of aqua net through the phasing out of the mullet.....

**Signed Dr. McGovern1981 PHD in Bull5h!tology**
0
Reply
Male 458
@richanddead:
You`re cherry picking. You keep using data that is incomplete or missing for the last 30 years, or is on a scale to not show it.

Yes, natural cycles occur, but the current warming that we`re seeing is MUCH MORE rapid than any known natural cycles. That`s why it`s likely not a natural cycle.

I know I must have explained this at least a dozen times to you.
0
Reply
Male 3,949
@mesovortex:

"If the warming is natural, then how come we haven`t found any natural cycle to account for such rapid warming?"

As I said we have, we are right on schedule for it, and the previous warming periods have exceeded todays in not only the the holocene alone but for the last 500,000 years worth of warming periods.



0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ McGovern and Greenbasterd: You two raise a really good question: Why ISN`T the ozone layer such a topic of alarm anymore?

Michael Mann, a climatologist from Penn State University, answers that question in his book *The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars* (2012):

[quote]In the 1980s, scientists recognized that the ozone-depleting properties of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), used at the time in spray cans, were responsible for the growing ozone hole, with its threat of increased skin cancer and other adverse impacts on us and other living things. Disregarding the naysayers, countries around the world signed the Montreal Protocol, eventually banning the production of CFCs. (p. 251)[/quote]
Basically, the reason ozone depletion is no longer such a crisis is because society listened to the scientists. In a footnote, Mann notes that some of those same naysayers that were denying that CFCs posed a threat in the 1980s are now denying the threat of man-caused climate change.
0
Reply
Male 159
McGovern: You`re such an idiot it`s hard to believe you can type. The ozone layer is particularly huge over southern hemisphere, it is the direct provable cause of huge skin cancer rates.

I know you don`t want to believe that simple observable facts like this, and the simple observable fact that the arctic has halved in size in 30 years.

But it`s true regardless of what an internet troll believes
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@greenbasterd

It`s because those titles are earned. Because someone who has spent years and years solely focussed on learning and understanding a subject is likely to have something more worthwhile to say about it than someone who hasn`t.

Regarding the Ozone layer, go read about it on Wikipedia. All the information is out there if you want to look.

Or...you could just stay here instead and say misinformed things like "we should all have skin cancer by now".
0
Reply
Male 2,376
People put to much faith in people with titles infront of their name. This guy didn`t set anything straight. He told us about the SUPER AWESOME FRICKEN laser beams they use.. woeeeeee lasers OMG.
All i leanred from this is NASA has tomany satellites and they don`t really know wtf is going on. cooling and warming being a natural part of the earth makes the most sense to me. But nobody can make money off that theory.

and like McGovern said, what ever happened to the OZONE it must be completely gone by now and we should all have skin cancer.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@McGovern1981

Just because you don`t hear about it, or because it`s not the "topic of the moment", doesn`t mean it has been disproven or gone away.

FFS, throw your face at Wikipedia for a couple of minutes BEFORE you shoot your mouth off here.

Here, I`ll even help you with a direct link.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
Remember in the late 80`s early 90`s when this really kicked off and the whole hole in the ozone layer thing too. WTF happened with the hole in the ozone I don`t hear a thing about it? That and according to the scientists then aren`t we supposed to be dead now or living in a fireball??


Whatever stance you take on this there`s one thing the hold true the global warming messiahs solution for it (Al Gore) sucks balls!!

Signed Dr. McGovern1981 PHD in Bull5h!tology
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@papajon0s1

Our understanding is always changing and developing. If you wait for it to become firm and settled, you`ll wait forever because it never will be: there is always room for uncertainty and new discovery.

All you can do is act based on the best knowledge you have at the moment, and change how you act if that knowledge changes.

Nobody is claiming that man-made climate change is "etched in stone". What is being claimed is that this explanation fits the available facts better than any other explanation offered.

Your "side" is welcome to offer a more accurate explanation. And if it checks out, the scientific community will adopt it.

"No they wont!" you bleat. As if scientists have some motive to perpetuate a lie? What on earth would their motive be? If they did have some motive...they`re not doing very well at it; we`re hardly awash with rich and powerful scientists.
0
Reply
Male 579
I`ll say it again; I care not if he is right or wrong. If one thing is absolutely clear, crystal clear, it`s that the science is still completely not settled. Nothing is etched in stone despite what the libs are trying to force us to believe. So, I say again, stop making policy based on unproven anything that needlessly hurts people! Just stop! Jeez!
0
Reply
Male 2,850
@davymid

"p.s. We professional scientists, including your own NASA, might know a bit more about it than you do."

Which is exactly why I tend to defer to their and your judgement over my own.

I think CrakrJak and their ilk don`t like to do that because it goes against their lone-wolf, empowered, free, individual American ideal; that they are MEN and their own judgement is sole and king.

They like to think that they know better. They like the powerful feeling of that. And they like to exercise it on things that they think don`t really matter to themselves on a personal level: distant, impersonal things like climate change and evolution and gay marriage.

But when it comes to a personal level, they still go to a doctor when they`re sick. They still speak to a lawyer when they`re in trouble. They`re happy to defer to the judgements of experts when it affects them personally.

Surely it`s got to be a personality disorder.
0
Reply
Male 286
Listen to this man. He is much, MUCH smarter than you. Pulling a real scientist away from his work to make a public statement is generally regarded as a last-ditch attempt to stem the rampant tide of misinformation and stupidity.
0
Reply
Male 458
@CrakrJak:
You are a creationist. That makes you 100% scientifically illiterate. That means anything you say is probably going to completely wrong regarding science.

And so far, you`re batting a thousand.
0
Reply
Male 458
@CrakrJak:
The solar cycle averages out such that changes in climate take much longer than those 11 year cycles.

Climate is usually longer than 11 years...

You have no idea how climate works. There are no natural 20 year warming and cooling cycles known. Period.

The cicadas don`t emerge based on climate either, they emerge based on time.

You are so scientifically illiterate it`s not even funny.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
mesovortex: "You`re the same person who is a creationist and doesn`t even understand biological evolution.."

I am a creationist, but that doesn`t preclude me from understanding scientific theories, no matter how much I may agree or disagree with them.

Your, "you`re a christian so you can`t understand science" attitude is not only condescending and bigoted, it displays your prejudice and ignorance.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
mesovortex: "Natural cycles are MUCH longer than 300 years."

Au contraire, The solar sunspot cycle is 11 years(normally). Global warming and cooling seems to be a 30 or 60 year cycle. Cicadas emerge every 13 or 17 years cyclically. Snowshoe hares have a 10 year fertility cycle boom. And there are many other natural multi-year cycles including several lunar cycles under 300 years.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Here I`ll post it again. Smaller, from another site.

0
Reply
Male 458
@CrakrJak:
Natural cycles are MUCH longer than 300 years. What `natural` process has occurred or is known that is less than 300 years to complete?
0
Reply
Male 458
@CrakrJak:
Somehow I can`t take you very seriously. You`re the same person who is a creationist and doesn`t even understand biological evolution, so you`re not an expert on science.

"At this rate" - even if it`s "only" 2C over 300 years, that is catastrophic. The only things that ever changed temps that quickly over that short of a time period usually caused mass extinctions. Why? Because it was too rapid for nature to adapt.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Alright dang it, where did my previous chart go?
It was visible a few minutes ago.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
mesovortex: "The mean is between .2 and .3C. That`s very significant."

LOL, no. No it isn`t significant at all. In fact it`s 10% of the predicted 2C and remaining rather steady. There is no "Hockey stick" like slope, there is no run-away greenhouse warming.

At this rate it would take 300 years to get to +2C and a lot can and has happened, non-anthropogenically, in the last 300 years to effect climate well beyond our poor power to do so for good or bad.
0
Reply
Male 458
@CrakrJak:
In the last 15 years? You`re looking at the warming RIGHT in front of you. The mean is between .2 and .3C. That`s very significant.

Total ice volume (it`s not area) has been trending downwards. It might have recovered slightly this year, but the trend over 15 years is tanking.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
mesovortex: The ice concentrations was variable between 5/10 and 8/10. In layman`s terms that`s floating ice and close ice between 30 and 80cm (1 to 2.5ft) thick. That`s very dangerous for any boat without a 1" thick steel hull, according to articles on www.sail-world.com
0
Reply
Male 17,512
mesovortex, please show me on this NASA chart exactly where in the last 15 years that we`ve had the significant warming that was predicted by the AGW alarmists.

0
Reply
Male 458
@CrakrJak:

Now you say AGAIN that we haven`t warmed in 15 years (which is a lie, but you perpetuate it).

You also have no clue how thick the ice was, or the difference between sea ice and total ice volume including the greenland ice cap, and then you claim you know more science than actual scientists because somehow they have to be full of crap because they might be liberal.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. Wow.
0
Reply
Male 458
@OldOllie:
You sound like my 63 year old dad. When confronted by a paper from the USGS about how much oil was REALLY in Alaska, and instead of realize that the Fox News/GOP myth of how it was a magic oil supply was contradicted by science from the USGS he decided that geologists are all liberal - instead of admitting that he was wrong.

Also, I find it funny that you claim `liberal scientists` want to take things away from you - when they aren`t doing that, but are you okay with billion dollar corporations and the top 1% taking away your hard earned money so they can be richer?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
mesovortex: "Thickness is not area. You fail."

The ice was thick enough to trap boats and required Canadian icebreakers to make a route for them, IN AUGUST! Sorry, but you`re to thick to understand that, then you fail.

davymid: Keeping crying away chicken little. Scaremongering people about crap that isn`t anthropogenic is disingenuous and fraud.

You proclaim science and data as the end all be all. But when the science and data doesn`t fit your liberal agenda, you call it a "a non-event", "illiterate", "op-eds" and "nonsense".

Nearly all the climate models were WRONG. We haven`t warmed significantly in 15 years, The polar bears aren`t dying en masse, There hasn`t been an increase in hurricanes, The north pole isn`t iceless and coastal cities aren`t underwater.

The wild, exaggerated and alarmist predictions have sank the AGW ship. There will be no refloating it like the Costa Concordia.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ OldOllie: That`s quite an example of circular reasoning you`ve got there, Ollie.

1. I don`t believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW); therefore:

2. I have a strong dislike for James Hansen; therefore:

3. NASA, Hansen`s employer for many years, has lost all credibility with me; therefore:

4. I refuse to look at NASA`s data; therefore:

5. I get my information from right-wing blogs only; therefore: LOOP BACK TO STEP 1.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
After keeping James Hanson on the payroll for so many years, NASA has lost all credibility with me. They`re just cherry-picking the data that supports their preconceived conclusion and hiding the data that doesn`t. This is about as close to being real science as biblical creationism.

@Davy, even if we were to accept all the cherry-picked, massaged, and sometimes fraudulent data supporting AGW, there`s still not a damned thing we can do about it. If we were to piss away $100 trillion on trying to stop it, we MIGHT be able to delay it by a year or two.

Sorry, but that`s just not a good enough reason for me to let liberals boss me around and take my stuff, which always seems to be their prescription.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Flame away, doesn`t matter. By the time we decide to do something about it (and yes, this has to be a global effort involving e.g. China and India), it`ll be too late.

I`d love to bury my head in the sand and forget about it, I really would. But I`m a father and a professional Petroleum Geologist. I like to think that I know what I`m talking about.

p.s. But then, I`m a scientist, and therefore a dirty Liberal indoctrinated into blah blah blah. Can`t trust a word I say!
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Typical. Those Scientists AKA LIBERALS are lying to us to grab all our money. Liberal Socialist bastards. There were a few boats stuck in ice this year, therefore the Arctic is fine, THAT`s what we should be focussing on. Who cares about the ice-sheet, right Crakrjak?

NASA? What the f*ck do they know? Pack of liberal losers, and likely scientists, all in cahoots.

/Sarcasm.

Signed: Dr. Davymid, PhD, Geoscience.

p.s. We professional scientists, including your own NASA, might know a bit more about it than you do.

p.p.s. Climategate was a joke. Get the f*ck over it. It was a non-event. You people need more science and less media.
0
Reply
Male 458
@CrakrJak:
Thickness is not area. You fail.

@richanddead:
If the warming is natural, then how come we haven`t found any natural cycle to account for such rapid warming?

How can 7 billion people NOT affect the climate? We are changing the content of the atmosphere. That changes climate. Period.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
"About the thinnest years we`ve had..."

BULLSH|T! Sir.



This was the sea ice extent in August of this year. Several yachts where caught in the northwest passage and had to be rescued by Canadian coast guard ice breakers.

The arctic sea ice grew 60% this year, that`s 920,000 sq. miles.

But according to this guy, in the video, your own eyes are lying to you, pay no attention to this growth.



0
Reply
Male 3,949
Because the majority of Marcott et al samples are underwater the atmospheric temperature variations are not as well defined. This is why the Greenland ice core oxygen isotope record is still relied upon so much, because it is more accurate.

The ice core is based on thousands of isotope measurements that reflect paleotemperatures and the chronology is accurate to within about 1-3 years, Marcott et al. on the other hand is only accurate to within hundreds of years, which is why the data is so sustained.

I`m sure you do not agree with me, but I await your response nonetheless, and again sorry for not replying earlier.
0
Reply
Male 3,949
As far as the second graph you posted that came from the "A Reconstruction ... Past 11,300 Years"
I was struggling to find out how the different warming periods were sort of melded into one long curve, until I researched his sources. 80% of all the records were ocean water temperatures, not atmospheric temperatures. And the remaining 20% came from Mann et al. which as I have stated in earlier posts use biased data like using The Yamal pines which are an outlier data set, instead of the Polar Urals which Esper clearly noted in his reconstruction.

Yamal and Polar Urals are both nearby treeline sites in northwest Siberia. Because the Yamals are an outlier among pines there, when substituted for the Polar Urals the graphs begin to resemble the data in the Greenland ice cores.

This is a graph with the Polar urals in red and the Yamal`s in black

0
Reply
Male 3,949
While I could go on and on about why comparing air temperatures data to ice core data incompatible, let alone outlier data compared to multi year sustained data.
Even when you do take the most extreme outlier days, the temperature still does not out do the sustained temperatures of the Roman and Minoan periods.





And if we look at farther back in time we via Petit, J.R. 2001 we see that it is really not that abnormal, infact it is right on schedule.



0
Reply
Male 3,949
@Squrlz4Sale:
Sorry I did not reply to your previous post, I`ve had tonnes of work this week.

Now in your previous post you mentioned that this graph was incorrect, and that this graph,



Created by Rob Honeycutt was correct. I don`t believe it is and this is why.

Firstly, Rob Honeycutt is not a scientist, mathematician, biologist, geologist, archaeologist, ect. He is a plastic bag maker and bicycle messenger who funds pro-global warming theory sites and activities. I`m merely noting his lack of authority in the subject, yet far be it from me to dismiss his work based on his occupation. Yet when I research how he created his graph he claimed he had created it simply to shut up global warming skeptics. He essentially subs Dr. Humlum`s ice cores for a couple of cherry picked warmest air, not ice core, temperature readings from the summers of the hottest years from Dr. Box`s study.
0
Reply
Male 3,949
There is warming, we are not still in the little ice age, yet as I have said this warming is not unprecedented nor unnatural. Canadian scientists are still finding bowhead whale remains as the ice retreats, the bones have have harpoons in them from sailors in other oceans meaning that at some time early in the 19 century the ice was an ice free route for the wales to migrate across.

link

Also the planet was warmer during the Roman and Minoan warming periods and the earth held less ice during those times, also backed up by marine skeletons.



0
Reply
Male 683
HUZZAH! A LEGITIMATE SOURCE!!
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Andrew155: How can it possibly be that you`re commenting on a NASA video? Why, just last week (see below), you stated that NASA "barely exists anymore" and is conducting almost no research.

Could it be--I hesitate to suggest it--that you have a long track record of spouting nonsense?

(By the way, I`m still waiting for your answer to my question regarding the Air Force: How many rovers has the Air Force put on Mars? You know, compared to the three NASA has successfully put up there in the last decade?)

0
Reply
Male 458
@Cajun247:
"Steve Jobs... Bill Gates"

No but they listened to experts in computer science and learned from them. They didn`t just walk in with their pre-suppositions and say well all the experts have to be wrong or their consensus is just one giant conspiracy.

In fact, there was a recent interview with Bill Gates - and although he was a college dropout he LISTENS to scientific consensus and is willing to learn from experts in their fields, instead of telling them what they are supposed to think.

He`s very Socratic. You`d do well to learn from him.
0
Reply
Male 458
@Cajun247:
Yet, there is a 97% consensus among EXPERTS in climate science.

Those scientific theories seem to be about as well established as gravitational theory and evolutionary theory.

So why go against the experts when there is very little evidence right now to go against them?

Quoting op-eds and opinion pieces and popular press articles doesn`t cut the mustard.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
[quote]People like you pick the 0.01% of time experts make a little mistake (science will make mistakes from time to time, that`s how it works) in order to dismiss the 99.99% of time science gets it right.[/quote]

You`re poisoning the well buddy. Only the theories behind global warming is in question, nothing else.
0
Reply
Male 10,845
@mesovortex

Most of time people became experts after discovering something groundbreaking, before then they were merely students or curious Joes.

[quote]don`t fly (since experts fly and build planes)[/quote]

Many companies rely on new students to create cutting edge stuff. Why? Because they`re unbiased. This is especially true for aerospace engineering.

[quote]don`t use computers (which were designed and programmed by experts)[/quote]

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were NOT experts when they started their businesses.
0
Reply
Male 458
@Andrew155:
"The experts are usually wrong"

Then don`t take medicine, shun vaccines, don`t fly (since experts fly and build planes), don`t use computers (which were designed and programmed by experts), and for heaven`s sake, don`t bother to get an x-ray if you break a bone because you need an expert to not only make one but read the output.

People like you pick the 0.01% of time experts make a little mistake (science will make mistakes from time to time, that`s how it works) in order to dismiss the 99.99% of time science gets it right.
0
Reply
Male 458
@Andrew155:
You have a very bad habit of saying the data is `inconclusive` if it supports a claim you disagree with - no matter how conclusive. Then out of the other side of your mouth will use op-eds and inconclusive data to come to very conclusive arguments - simply because it agrees with your pre-determined conclusion.

0
Reply
Male 1,284
thx for sharing this information with us squrlz
0
Reply
Male 1,678
@Squrlz I don`t doubt that was your personal intention when posting, but you could put your mortgage on at least a handful of people on here trying to use it to back up something that it doesn`t.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
I mean, if you want to believe these guys, then you would quickly realize that there is not enough data to say anything. There is not enough data on which to base such drastic claims.

That link is almost comical. They don`t know much at all, especially before 1979. Yet we`re supposed to pretend like we know everything. Alright.

Reignblazer, resource depletion is a totally separate issue. If you`re talking about cow farts warming the earth, I gotcha.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Paddy: This video wasn`t offered up with the intent of proving the case for anthropogenic global warming. Rather, it was submitted with the intent of disproving the climate skeptics` claims that Arctic sea ice is doing just fine--proof, they say, that AGW is a "hoax."
0
Reply
Male 2,424
That`s it! I say we all go back to an agrarian lifestyle asap!

Who`s with me!?
0
Reply
Male 2,332
Anyone that would even suggest that the presence of 7 billion people (and the livestock kept to feed them) isn`t impacting global climate is a willfully ignorant fool.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
Lol meso, read Freakonomics, the experts are usually wrong, the conventional wisdom is usually wrong. This is consistent in pretty much everything.

Scientists, politicians, and more have already monkeyed with the facts. Remember the Hockey stick graph? That was a lie. Climategate and more, also lies. Only the most truly scientifically illiterate and ignorant think that science is incorruptible. Source: history.

Here`s one thing I can guarantee: most of the models and predictions that this guys wants our 100% blind faith in, lest we be holocaust deniers, will prove to be wrong between 2017-2020.

The models from the 90`s and mid-2000`s have already proven to be wrong, or will prove to be wrong in about a year or two. That makes me already correct in not trusting the junk science models that you guys have given yourselves completely to like overly-sexually available schoolchildren. Without questioning anything.
0
Reply
Male 1,678
I`m staying out of a debate where neither side has baldies whether or not they are right, but I would like to point out that this dude is simply showing us that Arctic ice is melting, he doesn`t at any stage say that the melting is caused by man, anyone who has come to this conclusion based on this video has just completely imagined it in their own mind.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@ Spanz:

"They blew their chance by cooking the data a few years ago and getting caught."

It astonishes me how often this falsehood gets repeated by climate skeptics. Not one, not two, not five, but EIGHT separate committees have investigated the skeptic accusations and found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.
0
Reply
Male 871
nooooooooo it must be lies he must be a socialist liberalist elitist out to make money from claiming the ice is melting.
0
Reply
Male 458
@spanz:
So in other words, I don`t want to listen to the experts, I`d rather not change my mind about anything.

The experts haven`t been monkeying with the facts. The media and the politicians have.

Don`t blame the scientists for what the scientifically illiterate have done.
0
Reply
Male 1,101
there has simply been so much chicanery with the so called facts on global warming by "experts", that all I hear from this guy with his geek shirt is blah blah blah.

The danger is that even IF they scientist are actually telling the truth now...we are not going to believe them. they blew their chance by cooking the data a few years ago and getting caught.
0
Reply
Male 458
Thank you for posting this.

However, I doubt this will prevent the denialists from posting op-eds instead of actual science in order to refute NASA.

Just like the daily fail articles touting no global warming in the last 15 years according to the MET office, when the MET office never said that.
0
Reply
Male 2,390
He`s the kind of person that could tell me I`m dying tomorrow. His voice is sooooo soothing.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Link: NASA Arctic Sea Ice Update [Rate Link] - There`s been a lot of nonsense in the news lately regarding arctic sea ice. A NASA scientist sets the record straight.
0
Reply