Scientists studying "disappearing" Antarctic ice, rescued from ice

[AntiChrist]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/stuck-on-a-ship-of-cold-fools/story-e6frg71x-1226793309195

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

I'll bet they came with a different view of the ice than what they started with...

[boutons_deux]

a single event signifies nothing, to serious people

[Spurminator]

It's funny cause they thought there would be no ice, but there was still ice, so they's stupid.

[Wild Cobra]

It's funny cause they thought there would be no ice, but there was still ice, so they's stupid.

I wonder how many of them left the IPCC bible on the frozen ship.

[AntiChrist]

lol




ICE-STRANDED EXPLORERS' MESSAGE:

A statement from the Australasian Antarctic
Expedition:

We're stuck in our own experiment. We came to Antarctica to
study how one of the biggest icebergs in the world has altered the system by
trapping ice. We followed Sir Douglas Mawson's footsteps into Commonwealth Bay,
and are now ourselves trapped by ice surrounding our ship.

Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice
is building up. We have found this has changed the system on many levels. The
increase in sea ice has freshened the seawater below, so much so that you can
almost drink it. This change will have impacts on the deep ocean circulation.


Underwater, forests of algae are dying as sea-ice blocks
the light. Who can say what effects the regional circulation changes may have on
the ice sheet of the Antarctic plateau, or whether the low number of seals
suggests changes to their population.

[SnakeBoy]

a single event signifies nothing, to serious people

Yeah, I'm glad the global warming crowd doesn't try to use single events to make their argument.


http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2005/1101051003_400.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Yeah, I'm glad the global warming crowd doesn't try to use single events to make their argument.


http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2005/1101051003_400.jpg

note the article says hurricaneS, not single hurricane.

you AGW deniers are shilling, duped by or complicit with, Kock Bros, BigCarbon.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Reading into the cover of a magazine, that is designed to sell their product.

LOL...

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah, I'm glad the global warming crowd doesn't try to use single events to make their argument.


http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2005/1101051003_400.jpg

Asking if HurricaneS are getting worse is pretty much the opposite of using a single event. But really, Time isn't science.

P.S. The answer to the question is a very very easy yes. Unless anyone disputes that sea level rise is not caused by warming the earth. Higher sea level equals higher storm surge relative to our structures - for EVERY storm.

[MannyIsGod]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/editorials/stuck-on-a-ship-of-cold-fools/story-e6frg71x-1226793309195

:lmao

So since you always immediately back pedal when you do this, let me just ask you for your position. Since you put disappearing in quotes, are you of the opinion that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet isn't losing mass?

[Spurminator]

"It's 20 degrees outside! Global warming my ass!"

[FromWayDowntown]

"Dodo birds aren't going extinct; I saw one just the other day."

-some guy on Mauritius in the mid 17th Century.

[boutons_deux]

A trailside sign notes that since 1901, Sperry Glacier has shrunk from more than 800 acres (320 hectares) to 300 acres (120 hectares). "That's out of date," Fagre says, stopping to catch his breath. "It's now less than 250 acres (100 hectares)."

Everywhere on Earth ice is changing. The famed snows of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80 percent since 1912. Glaciers in the Garhwal Himalaya in India are retreating so fast that researchers believe that most central and eastern Himalayan glaciers could virtually disappear by 2035. Arctic sea ice has thinned significantly over the past half century, and its extent has declined by about 10 percent in the past 30 years. NASA's repeated laser altimeter readings show the edges of Greenland's ice sheet shrinking.

Spring freshwater ice breakup in the Northern Hemisphere now occurs nine days earlier than it did 150 years ago, and autumn freeze-up ten days later. Thawing permafrost has caused the ground to subside more than 15 feet (4.6 meters) in parts of Alaska. From the Arctic to Peru, from Switzerland to the equatorial glaciers of Man Jaya in Indonesia, massive ice fields, monstrous glaciers, and sea ice are disappearing, fast.

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/

etc, etc, etc, etc,

Miami, Chesapeake Bay areas, Corpus, Galveston, much of the Gulf Coast will be fucked over by rising seas.

[MannyIsGod]

The increase in sea ice isn't an isolated event around Antarctica. It has not been declining the way sea ice in the arctic has. So then the question obviously becomes why are they behaving differently? For starters, it is important to recognize the differences in the system. There are vastly different salinity levels in the Arctic and Southern Oceans and both areas of sea ice occur at different latitudes (the south pole isn't open ocean).

First of all, we know that Antarctic Ice Sheets are losing volume. So its not like Antarctica isn't showing signs of reacting to a warmer climate. Despite quotes around the word in the title of this thread, the ice on Antarctica is indeed disappearing. This water then runs off into the oceans around the continent, where the ocean remains somewhat stratified due to the higher densities found in slightly warmer more saline water when compared to fresh water. The result is a colder less dense layer of water (water density starts to decrease below 4 degrees C - basically this is why ice floats) at the surface which freezes easier and actually acts to insulate the warmer water below.

There are several papers out within the decade that demonstrate how this and a couple of other factors (ozone and circulation related) have provided the conditions to where sea ice in around Antarctica has actually increased in extent. The volume of ice increase here is not even close to the volume of ice melted on the land surface, though.

[boutons_deux]

it's useless to bombard these AGW deniers with facts, they deny them all already, but anyway

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/images/greenland_melt_area_plot_tmb.png

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, this is the state of climate change denialism. Focus on individual circumstances where something is acting as you wouldn't generally expect it to. The problem is that no climate change denier can ever explain the rising air temperatures, loss of snow and ice mass, increase in sea level, increase in oceanic heat content, increase in global evaporation and rain fall rates etc etc. You can point to individual small individual situations or arbitrary short term periods of temperatures in order to try to make a point but the next time a climate change denier puts forth an explanation that would explain how the radiative properties of GH gasses are not responsible for observed increases in energy within the earth systems will be the first time.

[AntiChrist]

So since you always immediately back pedal when you do this, let me just ask you for your position. Since you put disappearing in quotes, are you of the opinion that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet isn't losing mass?


Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495

[AntiChrist]

BTW, this is the state of climate change denialism. Focus on individual circumstances where something is acting as you wouldn't generally expect it to. The problem is that no climate change denier can ever explain the rising air temperatures, loss of snow and ice mass, increase in sea level, increase in oceanic heat content, increase in global evaporation and rain fall rates etc etc. You can point to individual small individual situations or arbitrary short term periods of temperatures in order to try to make a point but the next time a climate change denier puts forth an explanation that would explain how the radiative properties of GH gasses are not responsible for observed increases in energy within the earth systems will be the first time.


I just thought it was funny that these guys were cursed by the Al Gore effect. And I just knew that a few of you hard-core greentards would be easily trolled.

The only people that are in denial of climate change are you warmers. Those of us skeptical of the coming AGW enviro-apocalypse believe climate change is quite normal.

[SnakeBoy]

Asking if HurricaneS are getting worse is pretty much the opposite of using a single event. But really, Time isn't science.


lol This is following Katrina and they aren't asking a question anymore than fox is just asking question when they put out a headline like Is Obama really an American citizen?

The global warming crowd has constantly tried to natural weather events to make their point, no different than the other side. In fact you've done it yourself.



P.S. The answer to the question is a very very easy yes. Unless anyone disputes that sea level rise is not caused by warming the earth. Higher sea level equals higher storm surge relative to our structures - for EVERY storm.

The answer to the question is no because the warming we've seen has been natural...I got that info from you lol.

[MannyIsGod]

lol This is following Katrina and they aren't asking a question anymore than fox is just asking question when they put out a headline like Is Obama really an American citizen?

The global warming crowd has constantly tried to natural weather events to make their point, no different than the other side. In fact you've done it yourself.




The answer to the question is no because the warming we've seen has been natural...I got that info from you lol.

You certainly didn't get that info from me. But if you'd like to point a link to where I said that then feel free.

As for the question being asked, judging by the journal articles on the subject the question is still being asked and studied quite a bit. Like I said, Time isn't science. Its obvious the general public is going to have their interests piqued when big events like Katrina happen. There were probably more articles of that sort after Sandy, FYI. I don't care about either set, as science isn't conducted within the pages of time or any other magazine. Trying to act as if scientific opinion is reflected by a weekly magazine is something you should know better than to do.

[Wild Cobra]

Asking if HurricaneS are getting worse is pretty much the opposite of using a single event. But really, Time isn't science.

P.S. The answer to the question is a very very easy yes. Unless anyone disputes that sea level rise is not caused by warming the earth. Higher sea level equals higher storm surge relative to our structures - for EVERY storm.
LOLL...

millimeter by millimeter...

Do you really buy your own BS?

[MannyIsGod]

Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495

LOL were you at that conference so much in that you feel comfortable linking the abstract or did you simply do a google search to find something that you think fits your story?


During 2003 to 2008

What did I say above about arbitrary short term periods?

[MannyIsGod]

I just thought it was funny that these guys were cursed by the Al Gore effect. And I just knew that a few of you hard-core greentards would be easily trolled.

The only people that are in denial of climate change are you warmers. Those of us skeptical of the coming AGW enviro-apocalypse believe climate change is quite normal.

You think posting incorrect items and making yourself like a fool is trolling me? Well, that explains years of you being an idiot. Much like climate change, I don't think you understand how trolling works. Carry on.

[Wild Cobra]

Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495

I don't know if I should laugh at Manny, or pity him. He believes the dogma of the AGW priests, but man of man... How much money is he wasting in an education that will later all be proved wrong?

[boutons_deux]

I don't know if I should laugh at Manny, or pity him. He believes the dogma of the AGW priests, but man of man... How much money is he wasting in an education that will later all be proved wrong?

worldwide data from 1000s of scientists going back decades or way more show AGW. Where's your proof from non-BigCarbon whore scientists of the contrary?

[AntiChrist]

LOL were you at that conference so much in that you feel comfortable linking the abstract or did you simply do a google search to find something that you think fits your story?



What did I say above about arbitrary short term periods?



Well, the ICEsat wasn't launched until 2003, so it isn't really an arbitrarily short period.

[SnakeBoy]

You certainly didn't get that info from me. But if you'd like to point a link to where I said that then feel free.

I'm not going to search for it. If you want to say there's been no natural warming now then ok you're the expert. I don't enjoy debating the weather.


Trying to act as if scientific opinion is reflected by a weekly magazine is something you should know better than to do.

lol Who's acting if Time is a scientific opinion? The point was both sides use single events to try and further their argument. You can disagree if you want but this summer we'll see plenty of "It's hot" global warming threads and you'll chime in with a link to a study showing that it never used to get hot in summer.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not going to search for it. If you want to say there's been no natural warming now then ok you're the expert. I don't enjoy debating the weather.



lol Who's acting if Time is a scientific opinion? The point was both sides use single events to try and further their argument. You can disagree if you want but this summer we'll see plenty of "It's hot" global warming threads and you'll chime in with a link to a study showing that it never used to get hot in summer.

I didn't say there had been no natural warming. I didn't say all the warming had been natural either. Its not either or. A small portion has been natural, the large majority has not. Consult the IPCC reports for the breakdown if you want. I certainly have never even given the allusion most of the warming has been natural.

YOU are acting like Time is a scientific opinion when you post a cover from it to make your point about the science. I've never made a post conflating any weather event with global warming at all, so the next time I bring up heat in the summer as an indicator of global warming will be the first time. If I have a point to make on climate change I use actual studies of long term trends to back up my assertions. You certainly won't catch me posting covers of magazines to try to make any points. I don't know what you mean by side, but I'm on the side of science and aside from isolated cases we certainly aren't making the case for global warming in Time or using isolated events to prove points.

[SnakeBoy]

YOU are acting like Time is a scientific opinion when you post a cover from it to make your point about the science.

:lol You're cracking me up Manny.

This is what I posted


Yeah, I'm glad the global warming crowd doesn't try to use single events to make their argument.


Where is the attempt to make a scientific claim? Is it the lack of blue font that's got you confused?

Nobody mentioned science until you jumped in. It was just a thread making fun of dumbass climate scientists...oh maybe that's what has your panties wadded up.

[MannyIsGod]

Who else is making the argument for climate change if not climate scientists? Time magazine? I guess if your point was that portions of the media use single events to make a case OK but frankly who gives a flying fuck about what magazines like Time do? I'm frankly not even convinced that was what Time was doing there but apparetly you have ascertained that from looking at a stupid cover image. Not that anyone skeptical of climate change would ever be guilty of superficial analysis. I figured that you were actually a bit more open minded than posters like Darrin but your repeated fall back to the same position and inability to correctly categorize the arguments I've made in the past (this isn't the first time - you've accused me of all kinds of shit in the past that I've never said) pretty much points to that not being the case.

But anyway, I'm far from upset. If you think that me correcting the idiocy of this thread with actual facts is me being upset, then I guess I'm upset and the planet isn't actually warming due to CO2 in the atmosphere.


Nobody mentioned science until you jumped in.

Well, that's pretty much the problem with climate change "discussions" in this forum.

[SnakeBoy]

Well, that's pretty much the problem with climate change "discussions" in this forum.


It wasn't a climate change discussion. It was making fun of some stupid scientists.

I'm actually surprised you disagree with the articles point...


In that lies a hard lesson for those who persistently exaggerate the impact of global warming. We believe in man-made climate change and are no less concerned than others about it. But the cause of sensible policy is ill-served by exaggeration; there is a need for recognition of the science, which shows there are variations in how climate is changing and what the impact is, or will be.


Since you want to be scientific and informative...can you look at the recorded average annual temps for San Antonio and Boerne and tell me why I should be so concerned? Also, from a scientific perspective of course, is their any significant difference in the warming trend seen in San Antonio over the past couple of decades versus just outside the city limits in Boerne?

http://oi42.tinypic.com/sct0dw.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

You want to look at 2 arbitrary points and say you're being scientific? Ha, that's funny. From looking at those two points, what I can tell you is that the Boerne instrument is likely not very good. You'll notice the distribution is much wider for the Boerne instrumentation. There's also many gaps in the record. Following the latest gap the range in the data is smaller so there's likely better instrumentation in place then. You should also post your source for the data, btw. On the other hand, the San Antonio record has a much smaller distribution of values and is a consistent data record. Your graph also sucks, btw. Thats a pretty shitty Y axis.

But honestly, who provides a graph then asks about significance? Why didn't you use excel to give you the appropriate values to look at the data sets instead of making a shitty graph? Would have taken the same amount of time.

Your question is telling, though. Here, let me give you these two data points (LOL two fucking data points - are you shitting me? I mean REALLY?) and you tell me why I should be concerned. That's such a bullshit question to begin with. And I suspect your follow up was in an effort to discuss the urban heat island effect. If that was the case, lets just establish that urban heat islands definitely exist. However, urban heat islands are a really small part of the data set (hint - there are far more Boernes than San Antonios). In fact, familiarizing yourself with the BEST study which has been discussed here ad naseum would probably address any points you have with that graph.

As for agreeing or disagreeing with the opinion piece, I would agree with that statement had it been linked to someone who had legitimately been over the top. A scientific expedition to study ice loss in the Antarctic - here we know ice mass is being lost - is sensationalist how? The articles implication that those scientists are somehow stupid because of this is some of the dumbest shit I've read in awhile.

Correct me if I'm wrong, aren't you a scientist?

[SnakeBoy]

You want to look at 2 arbitrary points and say you're being scientific? Ha, that's funny. From looking at those two points, what I can tell you is that the Boerne instrument is likely not very good. You'll notice the distribution is much wider for the Boerne instrumentation. There's also many gaps in the record. Following the latest gap the range in the data is smaller so there's likely better instrumentation in place then. You should also post your source for the data, btw. On the other hand, the San Antonio record has a much smaller distribution of values and is a consistent data record. Your graph also sucks, btw. Thats a pretty shitty Y axis.

But honestly, who provides a graph then asks about significance? Why didn't you use excel to give you the appropriate values to look at the data sets instead of making a shitty graph? Would have taken the same amount of time.

Your question is telling, though. Here, let me give you these two data points (LOL two fucking data points - are you shitting me? I mean REALLY?) and you tell me why I should be concerned. That's such a bullshit question to begin with. And I suspect your follow up was in an effort to discuss the urban heat island effect. If that was the case, lets just establish that urban heat islands definitely exist. However, urban heat islands are a really small part of the data set (hint - there are far more Boernes than San Antonios). In fact, familiarizing yourself with the BEST study which has been discussed here ad naseum would probably address any points you have with that graph.

As for agreeing or disagreeing with the opinion piece, I would agree with that statement had it been linked to someone who had legitimately been over the top. A scientific expedition to study ice loss in the Antarctic - here we know ice mass is being lost - is sensationalist how? The articles implication that those scientists are somehow stupid because of this is some of the dumbest shit I've read in awhile.

Correct me if I'm wrong, aren't you a scientist?

Well that is the type of response I expected, which leads me to my real question for you.

Why do professional climate scientists like yourself suck so badly at discussing climate change with non scientists like myself? Is placing a chip on your shoulder part of your climate scientist training?

It's always seemed odd to me since more than other sciences you really need the general public to believe in what you are doing. Do climate scientists like yourself think that acting like an angry pompous ass is the best way to get people on your side?

[Wild Cobra]

Funny how the alarmists like Manny will pick two points and say "see, there it is," then belittle those who use the same tactics.

[SnakeBoy]

Arctic ice cap increases 60% in one year; so, is an ice age now coming?

Ever since 2007 when Al Gore received a Nobel Prize for a suspect global warming alert, there have been ongoing doomsday sayings concerning rising oceans from a disappearing ice cap. Even the BBC, a prestigious news agency, shrilly declared in 2007 that the Arctic ice cap would disappear in 2013.

Here we are in 2013 and not only do we still have an Arctic ice cap, but it has increased in size by 60% in one year according to measurements done by satellite images according to another British news agency, The Daily Mail....
http://www.examiner.com/article/arctic-ice-cap-increases-60-one-year-so-is-an-ice-age-now-coming

It's not a scientific article, and because they put a question mark at the end they are just asking a legitimate question just like Time magazine was. So is an ice age coming?

[Wild Cobra]

It's not a scientific article, and because they put a question mark at the end they are just asking a legitimate question just like Time magazine was. So is an ice age coming?

Ice age? I would say it's possible. It would take a pretty long time, but that trend may have started with this current solar cycle.

[MannyIsGod]

Well that is the type of response I expected, which leads me to my real question for you.

Why do professional climate scientists like yourself suck so badly at discussing climate change with non scientists like myself? Is placing a chip on your shoulder part of your climate scientist training?

It's always seemed odd to me since more than other sciences you really need the general public to believe in what you are doing. Do climate scientists like yourself think that acting like an angry pompous ass is the best way to get people on your side?

Don't act like you're the general public. Why would I be short with you? It would not have to do with your history if miscategorizing what I say and attributing bullshit to me in the past, would it? It wouldn't be because of you making fun of "stupid climate scientists" would it? It wouldn't be because you're repeated failed attempts to grasp fundamental scientific principles on the matter and repeat ad naseum bullshit that has been refuted. No, its obviously because I - and other climate scientists - have a chip on my shoulder and I just fail at being reasonable with you.

I actually don't think there's much of a problem in the way climate scientists communicate their findings. For one, denial is not a world wide phenomenon. Secondly, the biggest indicator of whether or not you believe climate change in the United States is your political party affiliation. Is there anyone in this thread spouting denial bullshit who isn't a self identified conservative? Similarly, the same pattern is seen with another scientific theory: evolution. So, are biologists in the united states simply failing at communication too?

I actually love discussing the subject with people face to face. I had a recent discussion with a stock broker and petroleum engineer on a flight who were both skeptics. They bought up a few myths - such as volcanoes emitting more CO2 each year than humans - and I explained to them where they were incorrect and showed them data. They seemed very open to it and by the end of the flight were much farther along to understanding the concepts. The engineer especially so. Now, I'm hesitant to say that I changed their minds as you never really know and people are very much hardwired against changing their viewpoints such as this quickly, but it was a good conversation none the less. This is not the only experience I've had recently. So perhaps its not a chip on my shoulder but you. Just maybe.

[MannyIsGod]

It's not a scientific article, and because they put a question mark at the end they are just asking a legitimate question just like Time magazine was. So is an ice age coming?

Lets say you start out with 10,000 dollars on a trip to Vegas. After 10 hours, you've lost most of it and you're down to just 10 bucks. After another hour, you've increased that 10 dollars to 6 - a magnificent increase of 60%. Are you on your way to being rich?

[MannyIsGod]

Snakeboy, can you honestly say you're open to agreeing with the IPCC's assessment on climate change? I don't think you can.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, if you want to compare something to Time, its probably best if the article in question doesn't cite the bible. :lol


The Bible does not discuss global warming specifically, however one of the plagues of the tribulation period which the sun will become abnormally hot and Earth inhabitants will curse God as a reaction is talked about in Revelation. The final global warming event will be the introduction of the lake of fire, a not too gentle conclusion of the final Judgment.The Bible is loaded with facts and much validation of what the Bible stated thousands of year ago has already taken place. Even many scientific principles established centuries later were declared by the 66 authors of the Bible under the anointing of the Holy Spirit\.

Definitely just a chip on my shoulder.

[Drachen]

Yeah, I know Darrin, it's just like all of those 1% guys who complain about taxes making them poor, then stumbling into their bank statements.

[pgardn]

These were SCIENTISTS studying what?


This was an incredibly weak attempt to give doubt to warming, embarrassingly weak. You guys gotta do better than some guys retracing an old explorers steps. Pathetic.

Shit, it's cold in my room tonight... Jesus... Case closed.

Seriously?

[SnakeBoy]

Lets say you start out with 10,000 dollars on a trip to Vegas. After 10 hours, you've lost most of it and you're down to just 10 bucks. After another hour, you've increased that 10 dollars to 6 - a magnificent increase of 60%. Are you on your way to being rich?

Maybe. Did the arctic ice decrease a 1000% before the 60% increase?


BTW, if you want to compare something to Time, its probably best if the article in question doesn't cite the bible. :lol


I never read the article but why does it matter. Like Time magazine they were just asking a legitimate question right? They did use a question mark after all.


Snakeboy, can you honestly say you're open to agreeing with the IPCC's assessment on climate change? I don't think you can.

I don't know what the IPCC's assessment is but I'd say probably not.

My position is...

That we are rapidly increasing CO2 levels and the real impact of that increase has yet to be determined; but common sense says it's not going to be a good thing.

That the side which pretends to be most concerned with the increasing CO2 levels is also fully opposed to the only energy source we have that could significantly change the current trajectory and is more interested in using the issue to advance an ideological agenda.

That climate scientists foolishly try to connect their field to current weather events and in doing so reduce themselves to nothing more than weathermen and guarantee that they will lose their argument with the general public.

That increasing CO2 levels will have little affect on my life because I'm 47 and don't have any kids so if people want to be stupid and spend decades arguing over the weather then I should just enjoy the show as ridiculous as it is.


Do you think me reading the IPCC assessment will change any of those facts?

[Jacob1983]

Doesn't a lot of the pro climate change evidence rely heavily on "recorded" temperatures? I mean how can a scientist 100 percent tell us what the temps were during the Crusades or during the Roman Empire or before that? What about all of the temperatures that were never recorded?

[monosylab1k]

lol conservatives

"Fuck science! Why?...............Cause fuck it, that's why! Support Phil!"

[MannyIsGod]

I never read the article but why does it matter.



I don't know what the IPCC's assessment is but I'd say probably not.



:lol

Yeah I'm going to chalk it up to me giving you a bit too much credit. "I don't know what the position is but I'm against it. Oh, why haven't they explained it to me? Its their fault! The article I linked is the equivalent of time and it doesn't matter they were referring to the bible as an actual source!"

Chip on my shoulder, obviously.

[AntiChrist]

Doesn't a lot of the pro climate change evidence rely heavily on "recorded" temperatures? I mean how can a scientist 100 percent tell us what the temps were during the Crusades or during the Roman Empire or before that? What about all of the temperatures that were never recorded?

They use proxy measurements, like tree rings.

[pgardn]

Amazing how many insurance salesmen can become climatologists on the internet.
Ahhhh, but they are salesmen. Carry on.

[SnakeBoy]

:lol

Yeah I'm going to chalk it up to me giving you a bit too much credit. "I don't know what the position is but I'm against it. Oh, why haven't they explained it to me? Its their fault! The article I linked is the equivalent of time and it doesn't matter they were referring to the bible as an actual source!"

Chip on my shoulder, obviously.

:lol OK...see you this summer when you're discussing how hot it is.

[Wild Cobra]

Arguing about the trend of the norther ice seems rather meaningless if you consider a few things. For example. I would say it is likely the greater ice was an anomaly considering the cooling in the 70's before we put up satellites that do such surveying. It sure would be nice if we had satellite imagery that went back to the 30's. A longer dataset is what we really need.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol OK...see you this summer when you're discussing how hot it is.

Nice strawman.

Spectrum analysis and weather records across the globe is what paints the scientific community's discourse.

Your side is the one with Bibles and anecdotes.

It's the difference between looking to total storm activity for the Atlantic from 2008-2013 versus looking to a blizzzard in charleston discussed at church.

[AntiChrist]

lol

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-reese-halter/earths-new-normal-wild-we_b_4543416.html

[Winehole23]

what made you laugh?

[AntiChrist]

what made you laugh?

"Scientists" don't use singular weather events to buttress the AGW cause.


EDIT> My bad. The author of that article isn't a climate scientist.

[Winehole23]

journalism ain't science? how profound.

[boutons_deux]

weather isn't climate

[AntiChrist]

journalism ain't science? how profound.


weather isn't climate


No shit

[SnakeBoy]

weather isn't climate unless it's summer

fify

[MannyIsGod]

"Scientists" don't use singular weather events to buttress the AGW cause.


EDIT> My bad. The author of that article isn't a climate scientist.

:lmao

[scott]

It wasn't a climate change discussion. It was making fun of some stupid scientists.

I'm actually surprised you disagree with the articles point...




Since you want to be scientific and informative...can you look at the recorded average annual temps for San Antonio and Boerne and tell me why I should be so concerned? Also, from a scientific perspective of course, is their any significant difference in the warming trend seen in San Antonio over the past couple of decades versus just outside the city limits in Boerne?

http://oi42.tinypic.com/sct0dw.jpg

If you spent more than 4 seconds searching for or putting together this graph... you need new hobbies.

[SnakeBoy]

If you spent more than 4 seconds searching for or putting together this graph... you need new hobbies.

Or I already had the data because of one of my hobbies.

[SnakeBoy]

Actually I'm studying temperature records. If my career as a professional Solitaire player doesn't work out I want to be able to pretend I'm a professional climate scientist on message boards.

[MannyIsGod]

Nevermind. Its actually better this way.

[SnakeBoy]

Nevermind. Its actually better this way.

:wow Not responding to bullshit...hmmm maybe you are becoming a professional after all.

[Wild Cobra]

:wow Not responding to bullshit...hmmm maybe you are becoming a professional after all.

But he's still too much of a coward to debate me on any climate topics any more.

[Jacob1983]

How do we even know if this science is legit? We don't even know if we are human or dancer.