The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 14    Average: 2.6/5]
132 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 6288
Rating: 2.6
Category: Science
Date: 08/04/13 11:14 AM

132 Responses to Lake At The North Pole? Not Really. 300 Miles Away

  1. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 11:14 am
    Link: Lake At The North Pole? Not Really. 300 Miles Away - And it`s happened before too. Amazing how FACTS always debunk AGW, eh?
  2. Profile photo of botfly
    botfly Male 50-59
    616 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 12:10 pm
    Don`t confuse them with facts
  3. Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 12:38 pm
    The most difficult thing about climate change is that it is a gradual thing, not a dramatic one like this "lake" would have been had it been directly related. So, people who need to be hit over the head with catastrophe (e.g, Republicans) will never take AGW seriously. People like this only act when it is too late to really do anything. They don`t believe in "a stitch in time saves nine". They believe in "the earth is dying!!!! We need to do something!! What? It`s too late? Crap." That`s why they shouldn`t be in charge. They are short-sighted and can`t see the big picture and how actions today affect the future. If preparing for the future interferes with making money in the present, they will screw the future every time. I`m talking the current GOP, btw, not the reasonable GOP of the past that started things like the EPA.
  4. Profile photo of Cartunze
    Cartunze Male 60-69
    841 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 2:17 pm
    Is it possible to give the four stars to lauriloo?
  5. Profile photo of Simbosan
    Simbosan Male 40-49
    159 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 2:21 pm
    AGW debunked? Did you forget to fire up those little brain cells before typing? Dream on son
  6. Profile photo of patchouly
    patchouly Male 40-49
    4746 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 2:35 pm
    Gee...another 5Cats political post where right wing rhetoric is spouted. No thanks...not that bored.
  7. Profile photo of mykunter
    mykunter Male 40-49
    2424 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 2:56 pm
    Is it possible to give the four stars to lauriloo?

    Seriously? lauriloo is annoying. And I`m not just talking about this post either. She`s very full of herself.
  8. Profile photo of Cartunze
    Cartunze Male 60-69
    841 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 3:00 pm
    Since we are getting all personal, I was wondering if you use the same avatar on Huffington Post, mykunter?
  9. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 3:00 pm
    lauriloo: The evidence shows no significant warming in the past 15 years. Actual recorded temperatures are well below all the AGW theory models. CERN even discovered, by accident, that clouds and sunlight have more influence on our climate than man made CO2.

    Sorry, but scaremongering people into doing things that adversely impact their economy and wasting billions of government dollars on "Green" boondoggles doesn`t inspire confidence. It`s about as insane as buying fresh salmon on a canned tuna budget.
  10. Profile photo of Howler81
    Howler81 Male 30-39
    324 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 3:27 pm
    Oh, it`s all fun and games, isn`t it? Except three of Santa`s workshop elves have drowned in the past year alone after falling through the thin ice. You keep making jokes, but we`ll see how silly this all is once there are no more toys at Christmas.
  11. Profile photo of drawman61
    drawman61 Male 50-59
    7740 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 4:02 pm

  12. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 5:33 pm
    "not the reasonable GOP of the past that started things like the EPA."

    oh, Nixon is @lauriloo`s idea of a reasonable GOP of the past, didn`t see that coming.


    But on the point of global warming, the earth`s normal average temperature is 22 degrees Celsius or 71.6 degrees Fahrenheit. During which, CO2 levels have fluctuated wildly and have not correlate to temperature, even for several time spans lasting 100`s of millions of years. Nasa states the average temperature in 2012 was about 58.3 degrees Fahrenheit or 14.6 degrees Celsius, still far colder than the normal AET. It has been warmer than the present times during 7 different periods in the last 10,000 years alone, most recently the Minoan and Roman warming periods. All of it was perfectly natural and actually fueled both civilization and propagation of life and ecosystems.

    You can`t stagnate the earth, stop trying and wasting all of our resources and monies on it.
  13. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 5:41 pm






    Sources:
    link
    link
  14. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 5:50 pm
    Not to mention that 70.6% of todays temperature measuring stations are still considered in poor or worst condition for accumulating accurate temperature data. But go on forecast the weather for the next 10,000 years when you can predict it accurately for a week from now.




  15. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 5:57 pm
    richanddead:
    Thankfully we don`t use land based measurements in the US (2% of the earth`s surface) to determine global temperature trends. We use multiple satellite measurements.

    Also, your graph of past temps is somewhat old and inaccurate, and it doesn`t mean that man cannot change the climate.

    Nature can change things.
    Man can too.

    All you have to do to change a climate is change the content of the atmosphere. We`re changing the content of the atmosphere, ergo we are changing climate.

    (Climate scientists are well aware of past phenomenon and past trends that happened without humans.)
  16. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 6:00 pm
    richanddead:
    Correlation is not causation. The fact that CO2 and temps don`t always correlate (even though some times they do if you look at trends in the past 800,000 years) doesn`t mean CO2 can`t (and does) cause warming.

    Over those time spans, there were MANY factors that effected climate. CO2, if all other things are equal, warms climate. Over those time spans, things weren`t all equal.

    Right now, the only thing that`s really wildly changing is CO2 levels. Volcanic activity and the Sun are pretty much stable. So, change the atmosphere, change the climate.

    To think that people who accept AGW ignore facts are silly. I`d say those that deny it are those that ignore the facts.
  17. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 6:01 pm
    Wrong:
    You cannot start from an anomalous year, 1998, to determine a trend. If you take the overall trend, we`re STILL warming.

    Also, the CERN/cosmic ray argument is dead wrong. There is no correlation of data, and no way for cosmic rays to change climate to the degree we`re seeing today.
  18. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 6:02 pm
    5cats:
    Did you bother to do any research before posting this?
  19. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 7:23 pm
    The ACTUAL North Pole was "open water" in both 1959 AND 1987. I`m sure AGW was responsible for that too, eh?
    @mesovortex: You`d listen to facts? You haven`t so far...
    "Man can too" = LOLZ!
    You`re comparing 6,000 years of human activity to 600,000,000 years of nature? Equally? Go ON!

    @Simbosan: A Pro-AGW thread about the North Pole Melting was put up on IAB. It failed to notice that the "event" is: #1 some 300 miles away from the pole. #2 Not uncommon at all! #3 The water is a foot or two deep, not "open".
    Although that CAN happen, open Artic water, it`s not because of AGW since it`s been happening for EONS.
    Ok?

    Gee...another 5Cats political post where THE TRUTH is spouted.
    Fixed it for you @patchy! Say, why is the truth "right wing rhetoric" in YOUR books? Do you dispute the facts in this article? No?
  20. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 7:28 pm
    mesovortex: "Thankfully we don`t use land based measurements in the US"

    Wrong, NOAA establishes many of these stations and incorporates them into their statistics. We use satellites as well, though they didn`t come into taking temperatures until 1979 and are notorious for providing bad data as well, because of things like orbital decay, diurnal correction, and how Mid Troposphere decadal trends are interpreted by RSS vs. UAH. Consequently, the entire dataset gathered has to be reconfigured every 4-5 years with the last one being in 2010.

    "your graph of past temps is somewhat old and inaccurate"

    12 years old yes, inaccurate no, it is still the accepted stance of the scientific community in general and was cited and confirmed in 9 out of 9 of the most recent studies in 2013 alone.
  21. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 7:28 pm
    (cont)
    "All you have to do to change a climate is change the content of the atmosphere. We`re changing the content of the atmosphere, ergo we are changing climate."

    First off, it`s not that simple to change the the chemical balance of a planet`s atmosphere.
    Secondly, by that logic, a fart is changing the planet`s climate. Stop passing gas.

    "The fact that CO2 and temps don`t always correlate (even though some times they do if you look at trends in the past 800,000 years) doesn`t mean CO2 can`t (and does) cause warming. "

    First of that was 600,000,000 years of no correlation, not 800,000. Secondly, It really doesn`t support that it changes the climate. Especially since there has been multible times more of it before with no reaction, it is heavier than Oxygen and their for remains closer to the surface and is absorbed in titanic quantities by organisms.
  22. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 7:31 pm
    @mesovortex: Climate Change = 1 part Human + 99,999 parts Nature.

    Any further questions?

    Even if humans WERE "causing AGW"? Mother Nature has seen it ALL before! There are checks and balances built into the system for MILLIONS of years! Life goes on.

    You cannot start from an anomalous year, 1998, to determine a trend.
    FUNNY! Oh wait, you are aware that`s EXACTLY what the AGW Alarmists did? Picked a date which made their data look best. If they took data starting 20 years earlier? Their numbers fail to show overall warming... just a little FYI...

    Did you bother to do any research before posting this?
    I bet I`ve done more than you... real research: Not "read things I agree with" eh?
  23. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 7:33 pm
    (cont)
    "Over those time spans, things weren`t all equal."

    They still aren`t and never will be. Just another reason you can`t change the climate to whatever you want it to be.

    "Right now, the only thing that`s really wildly changing is CO2 levels."

    Really, so Methane, Sulfuryl Fluoride, Sulfur Hexafluoride, Hexafluoroethane, Nitrous Oxide, and hydrogen sulfide isn`t increasing? Many of which are produced by green tech. like in constructing lithium batteries and building the Prius, and are 1000`s of times worse, literally.

    "Volcanic activity and the Sun are pretty much stable."
    Guess you haven`t heard about the lasting effects of the Mount Pinatubo eruption or the constant volcanic eruptions in Iceland and the Congo. Or that the solar maximum was in autumn of 2011 and is very rare twin cycle because another peak is predicted next year in 2014 and another possibly in 2015 according to Nasa.
  24. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 7:37 pm
    It`s ok guys just have faith, follow in tune and play your part. Do this and this time we`ll really have the power to change the weather to what ever we want it to be.


  25. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 7:43 pm
    We use multiple satellite measurements.

    To determine the Global Temperature going back 3,000 years! ONLY satellite data! Yup! Yuppers! Nothing but the best! Wait, what? Sputnik? 1957? NAW!

    ...the Sun (is) pretty much stable.

    LOLZ! You are SO FUNNY! LMAO!

    NEXT!
  26. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 7:48 pm
    Amazing how FACTS always debunk AGW, eh?
    5Cats post before I click? Yeah, still got it baby!
  27. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 7:50 pm
    Of course the South Pole Ice is doing GREAT! In fact: when the South Pole Ice was thinning? The North Pole was fine...
    Now the NP is thinning, and the SP is fine...
    Completely UN-related I`m sure!

    Lots Of Proof Here!

    Also pictures of the submarines at the North Pole in both 1959 and 1987... open water. ACTUAL open water at the North Pole!

    NOT 300 miles away.

    NOT melted water on top of thick Artic ice.

    K?
  28. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 8:13 pm
    @davymid: I sometimes put a cat face: >^..^<
    On my non-political posts, just for you! :heart:
    ;-)
  29. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 8:30 pm
    5cats:

    Do you know the difference between sea ice and the antarctic ice cap? Apparently, you don`t.

    Man has caused entire species to disappear. We`ve rerouted entire rivers. Yes, we can cause climate to change. We are changing the content of the atmosphere. We are causing climate to change.

    You also quote mined me. I said that the US data isn`t used to determine a global trend. It`s incorporated into SOME data, but not all, and it is too small to actually determine a trend one way or the other globally.

    The graph posted of past temps and CO2 levels is still inaccurate. It isn`t the scientific consensus anymore. I`m sure it`s a lot older than 12 years, and from all accounts probably came from a high school textbook - which is hardly up to date science.
  30. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 8:33 pm
    5Cats:
    Sea ice around antarctica is a long way away from the south pole.

    *facepalm*

    "First off, it`s not that simple to change the the chemical balance of a planet`s atmosphere. "

    It is. Life has done it all the time on earth. If it weren`t for anerobic bacteria, we wouldn`t have an oxygenated atmosphere. It`s not about causing complex chemical reactions in the sky, it`s just emitting gases that weren`t there before but are now. It took millions of years to take carbon from the air and form oil and natural gas. We`re burning all of that and re-releasing it in the course of 150 years.

    If you don`t think that`s enough to cause massive changes, then you`re ignorant.
  31. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 8:38 pm
    5cats:
    "NOT melted water on top of thick Artic ice. "

    You are getting major fundamentals wrong. The arctic ice is between 1 and 2 meters thick right now. That`s it. Most of the ice in the northern hemisphere is not in the arctic ocean. It`s Greenland.

    Greenland is melting.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=164
  32. Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 8:45 pm
    5Cats:
    The sun is actually very stable in long term trends.

    The data is now divergent:



    And of CO2 and temp, try a more accurate and recent set of data:
    http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/files/cc/figures/icecore_records.jpg

    You can see that CO2 and global temps closely follow each other. There is a mechanism for CO2 to effect temperature and it`s measurable. Whereas the CO2 may have been released later, and the initial warming may have been something else, it always follows that more CO2 equals a warmer overall temperature trend.

    Also for the paleoclimate graph, google image search is a wonderful thing. I found many places it was debunked, including:
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 8:47 pm
    5cats:
    Here`s the link where the paleoclimate chart was debunked:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=66#11178

    Look at where the land was in the Ordovician. Also, look at the development of gymnosperms and angiosperms in the carboniferous and cretaceous, respectively.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 8:49 pm
    "Really, so Methane, Sulfuryl Fluoride, Sulfur Hexafluoride, Hexafluoroethane, Nitrous Oxide, and hydrogen sulfide isn`t increasing? Many of which are produced by green tech. like in constructing lithium batteries and building the Prius, and are 1000`s of times worse, literally. "

    Not to the level of CO2. Besides, those aren`t greenhouse gases.

    More greenhouse gases = a warmer climate.

    Look at Venus. It`s hotter than Mercury, is at a nearly stable temperature at night and during the day, and consists of a very thick atmosphere of mostly CO2.

    That`s proof of the greenhouse effect.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 8:52 pm
    "Guess you haven`t heard about the lasting effects of the Mount Pinatubo eruption or the constant volcanic eruptions in Iceland and the Congo."

    It doesn`t compare to our CO2 output:
    http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

    CO2 from volcanoes is less than 1% of human activity. The drop in global temps from Pinatubo was not from the gasses, but from particulate matter which decreased the amount of solar radiation that was making it to the surface. If a small thing like that can change global temps, then outputting 100x or more the CO2 level of Pinatubo will make a huge impact.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 8:53 pm
    richard:
    "12 years old yes, inaccurate no, it is still the accepted stance of the scientific community in general and was cited and confirmed in 9 out of 9 of the most recent studies in 2013 alone. "

    No. It wasn`t. You can`t lie when reverse google image search is so easy to do. It`s only used on denialist websites. It isn`t used at all in any peer reviewed literature. Ever.

  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 8:55 pm
    5cats:
    "FUNNY! Oh wait, you are aware that`s EXACTLY what the AGW Alarmists did? Picked a date which made their data look best. If they took data starting 20 years earlier? Their numbers fail to show overall warming... just a little FYI... "

    They went back 100 to 150 years for most global temp graphs - or further. At that point, any anomalies will wash out as the average becomes stronger.

    One anomalous year in 15 can easily buck a trend.
    One in 100 will not.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 8:56 pm
    5cats:
    "I bet I`ve done more than you... real research: Not "read things I agree with" eh?"

    It took anywhere between 2 to 5 minutes each to research all of your claims on google and to discredit each of them. It doesn`t seem like you`re doing your homework. It seems to me you`re just accepting whatever it is you want to hear.
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 9:24 pm
    Do you know the difference between sea ice and the antarctic ice cap? Apparently, you don`t.
    @mesovortex: The Antarctic ALSO has sea ice. Land ice AND sea ice. Both. You`ve failed in your first sentence...



    I`m sure it`s a lot older than 12 years
    Funny, YOUR graph is 10 years old too, ending in 2002 and NOT showing the stable temps of the past 15 years. @richanddead says his graph was upheld by recent data, you can dispute this?

    You are getting major fundamentals wrong.
    ME? That other IAB post shows Melt Water. I call it that. I am correct.
    Greenland`s ice melted rapidly in the early 70`s too, then returned to normal. Nothing new.
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 9:34 pm
    They went back 100 to 150 years for most global temp graphs - or further.
    Not true. They went to a specific date (1836? I forget exactly) for Al Gore`s movie AND the AGW Theory.
    IF you got 20 years further back? LITERALLY all the AGW "warming" vanishes. Why? Because they started at the beginning of a Cold Period! It deliberately SKEWS their numbers!

    Also: The hockey stick is FAKE. You are aware of that? Even their own numbers look nothing like it...

    and to discredit each of them.
    Um? Try NONE of them! You count Antarctic Sea Ice "disproven"? Boy-o-boy! Have I got news for you...

    How about YOUR claim of using "only" satellite data for AGW? LOLZ!

    It`s a fact: Since the "Little Ice Age"? The Earth has been getting warmer...



    DUH!
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 9:39 pm
    "IF you got 20 years further back? LITERALLY all the AGW "warming" vanishes. Why? Because they started at the beginning of a Cold Period! It deliberately SKEWS their numbers! "

    No.

    You obviously haven`t looked at satellite records over the past 20 years. I`m tired of doing your homework for you.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 9:40 pm
    "The Antarctic ALSO has sea ice. Land ice AND sea ice. Both. You`ve failed in your first sentence... "

    You claimed that the south pole was somehow getting thicker. You pointed to antarctic sea ice.

    It is you who failed.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 9:41 pm
    "It`s a fact: Since the "Little Ice Age"? The Earth has been getting warmer... "

    The recent increase is far more rapid than anything natural in the graph. That is a big clue.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 9:42 pm
    "Also: The hockey stick is FAKE. You are aware of that? Even their own numbers look nothing like it... "

    Yet you used a graph with a `hockey stick` in it. It`s not fake. It`s been corroborated by a lot of data and has been shown to be very accurate and correct.

    The recent increase in global temps is now much more rapid than it has ever been in at least the past 1000 years.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 9:43 pm
    5cats:
    Here is 2007 peer reviewed paper which shows that the hockey stick graph is indeed accurate:
    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 9:47 pm
    As far as the old saw of `15 years of global cooling`...




    Notice that ocean changes can account for more than land changes. 1998 had an abnormally strong El Nino, so it bucked the trend. It was an anomalous year.

    With the anomalies removed (ENSO removed), we get this:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_All.gif

    Which shows that the earth is still warming.

    An average of all five data sets (GISS, NCDC, HadCRU, UAH, and RSS) with the effects of ENSO, solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions removed:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_Figure8.jpg

  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 9:51 pm
    "That`s proof of the greenhouse effect."

    Immanuel Velikovsky HE is the one who predicted Venus was hotter than current theories... and was VILIFIED by the "vast majority" of scientists... but he was 100% right!

    So if the "vast majority" of AGW scientists say it`s true, they must be right! Just like then, eh?
    Oops, no, wait a second...

    "Most of the ice in the northern hemisphere is not in the arctic ocean. It`s Greenland."
    This is 100% FALSE!
    NOT EVEN CLOSE!
    Greenland Ice Sheet: 1.7 million miles ^2
    North Pole Ice Pack: 6.0 Million Miles ^2
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 10:01 pm
    You obviously haven`t looked at satellite records over the past 20 years.
    The satellite records from 1816 > 1836 you mean?
    Have you been drinking?

    You claimed that the south pole was somehow getting thicker.
    Quote me, include the "time stamp" eh?
    I never, NOT ONCE claimed that. I did link a site which MAY have made that claim, but how does that make me "wrong"? If it shows something I never claimed in the first place?

    You are aware that "skepticalscience" is not a "science" site? It is neither neutral NOR accurate.


  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 10:06 pm
    Flattening The Mann Hockey Stick (2010)

    Apparently the Mann-Stick starts at 1850 for it`s data and "extrapolates" back to 1000AD.

    So please link ALL the satellite data from 1830 > 1850 to disprove what I`ve said.

    Thx.
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 10:13 pm
    About Greenland`s Ice:
    YES: There`s lots of ice there. It`s quite thick too!
    Yes: If it ALL melted it would raise ocean levels.
    Why? Because the Artic Ice is already floating in the water! If it ALL melts? Levels stay essentially the same.

    If you`re trying to argue that the North Hemisphere of the Earth and the South Hemisphere are UNCONNECTED?

    How is it "Global" warming then?

    The ice pack in the South has indeed gotten bigger AND thicker. It`s a fact. Deal with it.
    Over and out.
  • Profile photo of Gauddith
    Gauddith Female 18-29
    231 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 10:51 pm
    I have an idea, who actually CARES about debunking this "liberal hoo haw" and how about we JUST take care of our planet.

    Instead of fighting for your right to use a fairly useless goop why don`t you just forget about it and understand that there ARE alternatives and they are better. Why do people care so much about this, when they could just do some good with it.

    For people who are so concerned about being distracted, they seem to get pretty riled up about these distractions.

    No, nope, I can`t even find the will to care about either side when there is just so much damned stupid festering. It`s fine, I get it, the liberals are evil, and the conservatives are uneducated. Both sides want to kill you and eat your flesh. MERGERD, MELTING ICE! LETS ARGUE OVER IT.

    All I`m saying here is you don`t have to think the world is going to end to want to take care of it. Just do that way because it`s the right way to do.

    Take bloody care of it.
  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 11:03 pm
    Let`s see what NASA satellites have observed on the subject.



    .17 C is a rather tame global temperature for July of any year. But as you can clearly see the 1998 temporary spike has had no ill long term effects.
  • Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7564 posts
    August 4, 2013 at 11:43 pm
    I`m with Gaudith on this. As it happens I reckon the climate scientists know what they are saying- but if they are wrong we lose nothing. Why take such a gamble when the stakes are so bloody high?
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 2:11 am
    @OldOllie: TSK! One month doesn`t mean ANYTHING! Unless it supports AGW... then it`s an iron-clad fact! ;-)

    Nifty graph @CrakrJak! But it`s so outdated! I mean, July is like a MONTH AGO! ;-)

    @Gauddith & @Madduck: The cost of "false AGW" is:
    - trillions wasted on nothing
    - electric bills tripled
    - millions lose their jobs
    - hundreds of millions starve to death

    The 4th one is just a matter of time. As food prices skyrocket? WHO will pay for the poorest of the poor? Not North America OR Europe! We`ll all be out of work and BROKE. More so than we already are!

    THAT is why AGW Scaremongering is a bad thing.
    The rich get richer, the poor starve.
  • Profile photo of ferdyfred
    ferdyfred Male 40-49
    13631 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 2:18 am
    Whatever - Earth will be Earth,
    sooner the Human parasites leave the better
    we worry about this n that, but we made the crap
    best off for the animals n flora etc..
    just to die gracefully
  • Profile photo of ferdyfred
    ferdyfred Male 40-49
    13631 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 2:26 am
    `just to die gracefully`
    Humans that is, we all think we are clever sorts,
    but nope in the big scale of stuff, we are all 2 bit no marks, forget your fancy assed graphs and scientific solutions, there is too many of us
    time for a culling and as the middle East is going it kinda due
  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 6:51 am
    ferdyfred: Back to the old population bomb myth again. I can recall the scaremongers screaming for population control when I was a child, when there were a mere 4 billion people on earth. They were saying at the time we wouldn`t be able to survive past 6 billion people. Well we`ve blown past that and near 7 billion now and climbing.

    So why have we thrived despite the warnings?

    Innovation, better ways to clean water, better crop yields and farming techniques, better healthcare and better efficiencies in nearly everything else we do.
  • Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 7:39 am
    Stanford research in ways to reduce atmospheric CO2
  • Profile photo of papajon0s1
    papajon0s1 Male 40-49
    579 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 7:56 am
    Amen, 5Cats, I am so tired of the AlGores of this world making millions off questionable and arguable science. Stop making policy based ont his crap, lefties! You are getting people needlessly hurt or worse.
  • Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 8:05 am
    Gosh, my university is also spending so much time on this:

    Understanding Climate Change: A Data-Driven Approach
  • Profile photo of lauriloo
    lauriloo Female 40-49
    1803 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 8:08 am
    More information links
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 9:49 am
    5cats:
    "The ice pack in the South has indeed gotten bigger AND thicker. It`s a fact."

    You are confusing the sea ice with the ice over the south pole. The sea ice is not 3 miles thick. The ice over the south pole is. Sea ice is not land ice.

    ""Most of the ice in the northern hemisphere is not in the arctic ocean. It`s Greenland."
    This is 100% FALSE!
    NOT EVEN CLOSE!
    Greenland Ice Sheet: 1.7 million miles ^2
    North Pole Ice Pack: 6.0 Million Miles ^2"

    You don`t know what volume is do you? You used AREA. The ice over greenland is up to 2 miles thick. The ice over the north pole is not.

    How can you make such a basic blunder?
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 9:50 am
    ".17 C is a rather tame global temperature for July of any year. But as you can clearly see the 1998 temporary spike has had no ill long term effects."

    That is a decent warming globally. 3-4C is the difference between normal climate and an ice age. 5C would be mass extinction levels.

    1998 was an EL NINO. That`s why it`s anomalous.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 9:52 am
    5cats:

    You posted a graph of GLOBAL temperatures (the hockey stick) and compared them to EUROPE. Europe is about 2-3% of the surface of the Earth.

    Why are you being that dishonest?
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 9:59 am
    5cats:
    "@Gauddith & @Madduck: The cost of "false AGW" is:
    - trillions wasted on nothing
    - electric bills tripled
    - millions lose their jobs
    - hundreds of millions starve to death "

    Not true at all. I thought you were claiming that WE were scaremongering? That`s scaremongering. You`re spreading complete lies about AGW that aren`t even remotely true.

    If we switched to renewable energy, had better efficiency, greener energy, and were aware of coastal flooding decades before it became the norm so we could adapt and survive, we would SAVE trillions of dollars and SAVE millions of lives.

    Also, if the climate does get out of control, then it would be a mass extinction. That`s far worse than trying to make the earth more efficient or greener. We`re at the top of the food chain. We should be greatly concerned what happens to the global climate and how we are changing it.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 10:02 am
    Gauddith:
    "I have an idea, who actually CARES about debunking this "liberal hoo haw" and how about we JUST take care of our planet. "

    What makes me really upset is that people like 5cats and Crakr think that science is somehow liberal or conservative based on whether or not it tells them what they want to hear. Science is neither. It just is. It`s reality.

    You can`t just dismiss science because you don`t like the politics around it. It`s like dismissing gravity because you don`t like the fact that some people use it to kill themselves.

    Further, it`s like every single argument against AGW here is easily traceable on google to a right wing think tank - and it gets spread around on the internet so easly because people like 5cats will STOP doing any research the second it tells them what they want to hear, and will post it ad infinitum.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 10:05 am
    OldOllie:
    You post a link that is from `iceagenow.info` - that`s SUCH a reliable source.

    What`s with you guys posting blog links that link to other sites, that link to other sites, and the real sources that they EVENTUALLY link to don`t even remotely say what they are trying to spin?

    I see it all the time. Why not just link to the actual science or peer-reviewed source?

    Oh wait, if you did that, you guys wouldn`t have a leg to stand on.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 10:08 am
    5cats:
    "Immanuel Velikovsky HE is the one who predicted Venus was hotter than current theories... and was VILIFIED by the "vast majority" of scientists... but he was 100% right! "

    WHAT????

    Did you even read his predictions? So you actually think Earth was once a moon of Saturn, Mercury was involved in the Tower of Babel, and that Noah`s Flood was real. No wonder your understanding of science is so bad.

    The only thing he was right about was that catastrophes have happened in earth`s past, but we were going to find that out anyway, and even a blind squirrel finds a nut.

    What we found out about Venus, we found out by observing it and even sending probes there. It`s 100% greenhouse effect. That`s why Venus is so much hotter than Mercury.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 10:10 am
    @lauriloo
    Thanks for posting those. They are very informative.

    Somehow I think it`ll fall on deaf ears, though. Some of these people here aren`t interested in reality. I mean, if people like 5cats cannot figure out the difference between volume and area, or think that Earth was once a moon of Saturn, then I don`t know what to tell you.
  • Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 10:22 am
    mesovortex: As the chart I posted shows, we haven`t even got to +.8 C over normal in the past 30+ years. So +.17 C is nothing to be concerned about.

    And as I`ve said before, eventually the climatology crowd that`s making bank on AGW is going to slowly step away from it and declare a new scare. Perhaps the ice age scare again, under a new name.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 10:33 am
    CrakrJak:
    I found the source of your graph. Google reverse image search is interesting. It`s from Roy Spencer, which is not exactly a reputable source. It`s also sourced on other right wing climate denial websites, too.

    I went to NASA instead, and honestly I wasn`t sure what the anomaly would be. I found this:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/

    Which shows a .4 to .6C anomaly. Interesting.

    HADCRUT is above .4, too.

    Other sources of UAH data show it has eclipsed .4C as well. Even your chart shows this, but you`re only pulling out one month instead of an overall trend. Roy Spencer, and yourself, are cherry picking data.

    Don`t post something that`s so easy to debunk next time. It`ll show you as being intellectually lazy.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:18 am
    mesovortex: "Not to the level of CO2. Besides, those aren`t greenhouse gases."

    You don`t seem to know what your saying. Each of those are the top greenhouse gasses on planet earth currently. The only one that I didn`t mention that also accounts for 70% of greenhouse warming is water vapor.

    "Look at Venus. It`s hotter than Mercury, is at a nearly stable temperature at night and during the day, and consists of a very thick atmosphere of mostly CO2. That`s proof of the greenhouse effect."

    Firstly, Venus is highly volcanic, has a different composition, closer to the sun, and has multiple different greenhouse gasses not simply CO2. And no one is arguing that a greenhouse effect is not a real thing, no one is claiming otherwise, it keeps us from returning to a "snowball Earth" climate. I am arguing that its is well within normal limits and perfectly natural for the earth.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:19 am
    @lauriloo
    Thanks for posting those. They are very informative.

    Somehow I think it`ll fall on deaf ears, though. Some of these people here aren`t interested in reality. I mean, if people like 5cats cannot figure out the difference between volume and area, or think that Earth was once a moon of Saturn, then I don`t know what to tell you.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:20 am
    mesovortex: "Not to the level of CO2. Besides, those aren`t greenhouse gases."

    You don`t seem to know what your saying. Each of those are the top greenhouse gasses on planet earth currently. The only one that I didn`t mention that also accounts for 70% of greenhouse warming is water vapor.

    "Look at Venus. It`s hotter than Mercury, is at a nearly stable temperature at night and during the day, and consists of a very thick atmosphere of mostly CO2. That`s proof of the greenhouse effect."

    Firstly, Venus is highly volcanic, has a different composition, closer to the sun, and has multiple different greenhouse gasses not simply CO2. And no one is arguing that a greenhouse effect is not a real thing, no one is claiming otherwise, it keeps us from returning to a "snowball Earth" climate. I am arguing that its is well within normal limits and perfectly natural for the earth.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:20 am
    (cont)
    "CO2 from volcanoes is less than 1% of human activity."

    Yea I agree with that, but C02 is far less a greenhouse gas than the majority of gasses a volcano produces or what some of the non greenhouse gases do. Explosive volcanic eruptions inject gasses like water vapor, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride,chlorine monoxide, hydrogen fluoride suddenly. And yes they cool Earth`s lower atmosphere or troposphere; however, they also absorb heat radiated up from the Earth, thereby warming the stratosphere. The sulfate aerosols also accelerated chemical reactions that, together with increased stratospheric chlorine levels destroyed ozone. When I said " the lasting effects of the Mount Pinatubo" I was talking about how it led to the lowest ozone levels ever recorded to date in the stratosphere, not high CO2.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:21 am
    (cont)
    "richard: "

    My name is not ricard, everyone seems to think my name is Richard on this for some reason, if you must know it is Diedrich.

    "No. It wasn`t. You can`t lie when reverse google image search is so easy to do. It`s only used on denialist websites. It isn`t used at all in any peer reviewed literature. Ever. "

    Oh really, even when the link I sent you was from the American Journal of Science a peer reviewed journal.

    Here is where the data for that graph is from again as it is also cited in the graph itself.

    link
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:21 am
    (cont)
    And here is the 9 article it was cited in, in 2013 alone. (keep in mind over the 12 years it was cited in dozens and dozens of studies, but if you need those cited as well just ask.)
    link

    link

    link

    link

    link
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:21 am
    (cont)
    link

    link

    link

    link

    ...not a denialist websites among them and all peer reviewed. You know just looking at the citation on the graph or the sources I provided you would have revealed this. Maybe you should refine you reverse google search or maybe you should look at the validity of data rather than simply who wants to show it and if it supports your case.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:23 am
    richanddead:
    We aren`t emitting more water vapor, plus it condenses.

    CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time before it is reabsorbed.

    It also seems like you`re agreeing with me about Venus. So, I`m not sure why you`re attempting to argue.

    CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas because we are emitting more CO2 than anything else.

    If you want to know more about the science behind climate change, watch all of the videos from this guy:
    https://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/videos

    He`s a science consultant and knows a thing or two about what is and isn`t science.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:26 am
    richanddead:
    I`m not a member of the website so I can`t look at the data you are attempting to source. My guess is it`s not saying what you`re thinking it`s saying.

    When multiple sources show that the chart you posted is not accurate and is misleading, then I`m going to go with those sources.

    The link you provided doesn`t show anything to back up your claim at least as far as I can tell.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:27 am
    richanddead:
    Absolutely NONE of those links verify that orange graph you posted. None.

    In fact, they argue against it.

    Did you even read the links you posted? I don`t think you did.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:29 am
    richanddead:
    You`re saying a chart made in the late 1990s was using 2013 sources?

    What???

    That orange chart wasn`t cited in ANY of those articles that I could read. It simply wasn`t there.

    Show me just one where it exists, or show a screenshot. I think you`re lying or bluffing.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:36 am
    richanddead:
    Here is the ORIGINAL source of your graphic:
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    The pdf sourced does not match the data in the orange chart. At all. If you read it, you would have seen it. You should have been very suspicious when temperatures in the chart were somehow EXACTLY stable for a very long time and then suddenly changed. As if there`s no variation for millions of years? The PDF sourced also has data that is quite different than what is charted.

    Plus, the creator of the chart has an obvious denialist agenda, so he spun data and cherry picked it so he could get his point across.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:36 am
    richanddead:
    Cont...

    richanddead:
    Here is the ORIGINAL source of your graphic:
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    The pdf sourced does not match the data in the orange chart. At all. If you read it, you would have seen it. You should have been very suspicious when temperatures in the chart were somehow EXACTLY stable for a very long time and then suddenly changed. As if there`s no variation for millions of years? The PDF sourced also has data that is quite different than what is charted.

    Plus, the creator of the chart has an obvious denialist agenda, so he spun data and cherry picked it so he could get his point across.

    The fact of the matter is that CO2 levels and temperature levels over the past 600 million years are not very well known and should not be used to get your
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:40 am
    richanddead:
    To sum up...

    A geologist with no credentials whatsoever in climate used an old peer reviewed paper to try to figure out past temperature/CO2 data. His graph does not even match the data. His graph and his data is now old and outdated.

    Yet, people have posted it throughout the internet as if it`s 100% accurate without even bothering to check the source. It`s appeared in 100s of blogs, and 100s of denialist websites. Yet, if you actually dig down deep enough, check the source, check the sources of this graph (er... source since there`s only one, and that should be a red flag), you find that the data does not match the chart, that the chart looks suspiciously off, and to top it all off we have recent data over the past 600,000 years which suggests that CO2 does cause warming.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 11:42 am
    richanddead:

    All of this should clue you in to the following:
    * Data over the past 600 million years is not going to be that accurate or convergent, so it`s best to use a shorter time frame. 600,000 years is enough, though. And we have tree ring and ice core data which can verify the conclusions we have about past climate
    * A cartoonish graph with periods that are suspiciously flat and jerky, and that only has one source (that he somehow construed data from and he doesn`t even tell us how he did it), and from a source that looks like a geocities page, is not exactly a valid source.

    Did you just post it because it agreed with your foregone conclusion? Did you not bother to research it?

    Did you actually read the peer reviewed links you posted? None of them agree with your idea that man isn`t changing climate today.

    Not. A. Single. One.
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 12:36 pm



    Congratulations @mesovortex on your successful trolling of this topic!

    It`s no longer about:
    - inaccurate previous AGW post
    - how this post is 100% accurate

    It is NOW about:
    - the planet Venus
    - counting "peer reviews"
    - the meaning of the word "it"

    You are in the "Big Troll Club" now, good for you!
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 1:13 pm
    @mesovortex: "We aren`t emitting more water vapor, plus it condenses."

    As volcanism occurs and as ice melts more water vapor is produced. And it condenses into clouds that hold in heat.

    "CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time before it is reabsorbed."

    CO2 is heavier that oxygen and stays closer to the surface and stays in the atmosphere until it is used in an organisms respiration.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 1:14 pm
    (cont)
    "I`m not sure why you`re attempting to argue."
    Because you were saying that I simply do not believe in greenhouse gasses. When I was saying that i believe it the greenhouse gasses are at normal levels. See the difference between those two arguments.

    "CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas because we are emitting more CO2 than anything else."

    But it is less of a warming greenhouse gas than many of the other greenhouse gases like methane. So a higher amount does not necessitate a bigger threat. Its like saying that Betelgeuse is a brighter star than our sun because it is so big. Size does not necessitate potency.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 1:16 pm
    (cont)
    "I`m not a member of the website so I can`t look at the data you are attempting to source. My guess is it`s not saying what you`re thinking it`s saying."




    Look at the citation in the lower left hand corner. It says "CO2 based on R.A Berner, 2001"

    This is R.A Berner, 2001...
    link

    "You`re saying a chart made in the late 1990s was using 2013 sources?"

    No, I`m not, please reread what i said. I said "it is still the accepted stance of the scientific community in general and was cited and confirmed in 9 out of 9 of the most recent studies in 2013 alone." To be cited means it was made before the paper that cited it. And it wa
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 1:17 pm
    (cont)
    "That orange chart wasn`t cited in ANY of those articles that I could read. It simply wasn`t there."

    Oh Jesus Christ dude, look at what is being said, "R.A Berner, 2001" is the paper that is cited and confirmed. The graph is just graphing his data on CO2 so its easy to see.

    "Show me just one where it exists, or show a screenshot. I think you`re lying or bluffing."

    Look at the link for R.A Berner, 2001, I don`t want to keep relinking it, scroll down to "Articles citing this article." (facepalm)

    "The pdf sourced does not match the data in the orange chart... temperatures in the chart..."

    Let me clear this up for you, R.A Berner, 2001 is dealing with CO2 and C.R. Scotese (creator of the the Paleomap Project and the Pangaea Ultima theory) is credited with the temperature model. Please, please, please, look at the citation given in the graph.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 1:18 pm
    (cont)
    "the creator of the chart has an obvious denialist agenda, so he spun data and cherry picked it so he could get his point across."

    Yea, because writing an article about the geological findings of the Carboniferous Period and how they produced todays coal beds, he was obviously out to put the global warming theory down.

    "The fact of the matter is that CO2 levels and temperature levels over the past 600 million years are not very well known and should not be used to get your"

    Yea, because fossils, coal beds, ice cores, rock layers, biodiversity levels, salt deposits, desert deposits, glacial deposits, tectonic movements, ancient migration paths, as well as the distribution of plants and animals that are sensitive to climate, over 600 million years worth of data, are so misunderstood they hardly reveal anything. We should just base all our theories on highly politicized data from the last 30 years, good idea,...not.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 1:18 pm
    (Cont)
    "A geologist with no credentials whatsoever in climate used an old peer reviewed paper to try to figure out past temperature/CO2 data."

    You don`t seem to know very much about what the science of Geology is or what realms it shows and takes into account. Let alone you don`t seem to even know how the data is even constructed in the graph in the first place or who is responsible for which parts.

    "you find that the data does not match the chart"

    WTF are you saying? He creates the same CO2 graph for multiple pages using different formulas and they all match the final graph being on page 201 and the data points on page 186.

    "we have recent data over the past 600,000 years which suggests that CO2 does cause warming"

    Please link that.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 1:20 pm
    (cont)
    "Data over the past 600 million years is not going to be that accurate or convergent, so it`s best to use a shorter time frame."

    How did you even come to this conclusion? Longer time frames are always better than shorter ones for determining long term trends.

    " A cartoonish graph with periods that are suspiciously flat and jerky, and that only has one source (that he somehow construed data from and he doesn`t even tell us how he did it), and from a source that looks like a geocities page, is not exactly a valid source."

    It has two sources, that are both peer reviewed, that they clearly cited in the graph it self and below it on the web page (that you can`t seem to read), that is put together from Articles from the American Journal of Science one of the most reviewed, accredited, and prestigious journals of science.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 1:27 pm
    (cont)
    " And we have tree ring and ice core data which can verify the conclusions we have about past climate "

    Yes ice cores that show temperature was way higher in the past with no aid from man and totally natural.

    And tree-ring data that doesn`t support global warming theories (except the Yamals Urals in Siberia which are an outlier because they were effected a high amount of nitrogen in the soil and were subsequently replaced with the data from the Polar Urals)


  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 1:28 pm
    (cont)
    "Did you just post it because it agreed with your foregone conclusion? Did you not bother to research it? "

    Did you? Everything you said has turned out to be false. And yes I researched it, many times infact and debated in in several different posts, with different global warming zealots like you.

    "Did you actually read the peer reviewed links you posted? None of them agree with your idea that man isn`t changing climate today."

    I guess so since they look at deep-time before man had even evolved. But they do all agree with R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III), which is accurately reflected in the graph. Which i think was the point of your entire nonfactual rant, right. But I`m glad to see you finally admit they are peer-reviewed, at least thats a little progress and thats also sign of character, kudos in that respect.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 3:04 pm
    richanddead:
    "Yes ice cores that show temperature was way higher in the past with no aid from man and totally natural. "

    You fall back on the same WRONG argument.

    Natural things can happen. Manmade things can happen, too. Nature can change the course of the Mississippi river. Man has as well.

    Just because things happen in nature does not mean that it cannot happen due to man.

    Also, past climate of 600,000 years DOES show that while CO2 may not have been the INITIAL push of a warmer climate, more CO2 DID equal a warmer climate as it was released into the atmosphere after an initial warming trend.

    More CO2 = warmer climate.

    You keep going around in circles, full of sound and fury, and you signify nothing.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 3:07 pm
    richanddead:
    The point I just quoted is the only one I need to address. First the orange graph is only using one source. The source isn`t correctly used. Even if it was, and the orange chart was right, it IN NO WAY shows that man cannot and does not change climate, and IN NO WAY shows CO2 does not change climate.

    The link is VERY simple. CO2 causes a net warming effect due to the greenhouse effect WHICH YOU ADMIT EXISTS. More CO2 with everything else being the same (which right now it is) means warming.

    Man is increasing levels of CO2, we`re changing the climate. Again, we`re changing the content of the atmosphere. There`s no fancy chemical reactions needed or involved to do this. It`s just like dumping bleach into a bathtub. It just makes a different mix of fluid, just like more CO2 in the atmosphere makes a different mix of fluids, which CHANGES climate.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 3:08 pm
    5cats:
    The only troll was yourself and whoever posted this initial link. You haven`t once addressed the many points you were wrong about, including confusing VOLUME for AREA.

    I guess if you can`t talk about the facts, and get even basic science wrong, you have no room to talk.

    I backed up everything I said with science and research. You did not.

    End of story.

    Science will march on without you.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 3:11 pm
    richanddead:
    I also see you tried to tart out the `hide the decline` saw. Guess what...

    Every one of them were cleared of dishonesty:
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-review-clears-scientists-dishonesty

    The tree ring data that was `hidden`, was really just shelved because it was NO LONGER ACCURATE and SHOULDNT HAVE BEEN USED IN THE FIRST PLACE. Even if it showed the opposite of a decline (which wasn`t referring to temps, but actually a decline of available data), if the data was unreliable, it would have been hidden away anyway.

    Unreliable data does not pass scrutiny.

    Did you bother to research ANYTHING you posted? You`re better than this.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 3:12 pm
    The argument is simple:

    * Change the content of the atmosphere
    * This changes climate

    Man is changing the content of the atmosphere, therefore he is changing climate.

    Anyone who argues against this might as well argue that gravity doesn`t exist.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 3:13 pm
    richanddead:
    "WTF are you saying? He creates the same CO2 graph for multiple pages using different formulas and they all match the final graph being on page 201 and the data points on page 186. "

    You`re making this up. His only source only has 23 pages. Provide the source with a link or shut up.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    richanddead:
    "He creates the same CO2 graph for multiple pages using different formulas and they all match the final graph being on page 201 and the data points on page 186. "

    Even if his source did have this (which you`ve yet to provide a single link referring said source) it is only ONE, which again doesn`t negate the fact that CO2 does cause a rise in temps if all other things are equal (this is basic physics), and doesn`t negate the fact that man can and does change climate.

    As an extreme example, if the earth`s atmosphere turned into 97% CO2 like it is on Venus, then yes it would get substantially warmer. If the sun was dying out at the same time, then it would get colder, but CO2 would still have a net warming effect on whatever solar radiation was left that hit Earth.

    Man is causing entire species to be wiped out. We`re changing the coastline. We are changing climate.
  • Profile photo of mesovortex
    mesovortex Male 30-39
    458 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    richanddead:
    "He creates the same CO2 graph for multiple pages using different formulas and they all match the final graph being on page 201 and the data points on page 186. "

    The page where the orange graph came from, which has only ONE source, only has 23 pages, and does NOT have what you claim.

    Game.
    Set.
    Match.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 6:36 pm
    @mesovortex:
    "Just because things happen in nature does not mean that it cannot happen due to man."
    Yes but you have yet to prove that global warming is manmade and not the result of the little ice age ending. Let alone it shows that the past warming has been far warmer and did not effect eliminate any of the species still around today.

    "More CO2 = warmer climate"
    As I said before, given that line of logic a fart warms the climate too. The question is if it is warming at unprecedented levels that jeopardize the planet. Which it is not.

    "The point I just quoted is the only one I need to address."
    No, you mentioned several points, all of which were torn to sheds, this is you last remaining point because you can`t adequately understand why it is incorrect.

    " First the orange graph is only using one source"

    1. Temperature after C.R. Scotese

    2. CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001

    Count em`
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 6:37 pm
    (cont)
    "The source isn`t correctly used. Even if it was..."

    The graph is a comparison of temperature and CO2. It cites its sources, used the data provided, and overlays two graphs to show a the relationship between the two, with no distinctions from the original sources. I honestly have no idea how you think "The source isn`t correctly used," please explain.

    "it IN NO WAY shows that man cannot and does not change climate, and IN NO WAY shows CO2 does not change climate."

    It isn`t meant to show that man does not effect CO2, mainly because man hadn`t even evolved during the vast majority of these times. It is meant to show the high levels CO2 and temperatures that aided in the formation of coal deposits. But it also shows that there is not a direct correlation between temperature and CO2. Especially, with points showing rising CO2 levels and falling temperatures, thats why it is important.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 6:38 pm
    (cont)
    "CO2 causes a net warming effect due to the greenhouse effect WHICH YOU ADMIT EXISTS."

    Lol thanks for informing me what I believe, unfortunately you missed the point of why I said it. CO2 does create warming but it is NOT INCREASING AT UNNATURAL LEVELS. And everything else is not the same, the earth is not static, I already mentioned the current unusual solar cycle, the increase in methane, and the end of the little ice age. All of which INCREASE TEMPERATURES NATURALLY. Do understand this concept, natural warming. Just because people exist does not mean that the warming is unprecedented, your body heat warms the earth, your fart warms the earth, when you exhale you warm the earth. Yes we have industry too ,but that doesn`t mean that CO2 is at unnatural levels, in fact all data shows it has been much higher in the past.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 6:39 pm
    (cont)
    "It`s just like dumping bleach into a bathtub. It just makes a different mix of fluid"

    Firstly, its not like the earth was devoid of CO2 before us. To use your example it`s like dumping bleach into bleach water thats already had some of the bleach in it degenerate, it`s not a different mix of fluids, nor is it unnatural for the water to be at that state. The Co2 in the atmosphere isn`t at unprecedented or unnatural levels, nature can exceed these levels quite handily.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 6:40 pm
    (cont)
    "I also see you tried to tart out the `hide the decline` saw."

    Actually, I never mentioned it, you did. I never said anything about the E-mails or climategate. I was replying to your comment about tree ring data and more specifically the information I used derives from the inaccuracies Esper`s 2002 model found with the Briffa`s, and Mann`s 1995, and Jones`s 1998 climate reconstructions methods. It has nothing to do with climategate. Thats why it says (Esper) and (Briffa) next to the types of trees. It had nothing to do with climategate, all of this predated it, please don`t assume to put words in my mouth.




    "Did you bother to research ANYTHING you posted?"

    Did you? You don`t even read where the information is coming from.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 6:41 pm
    (cont)

    "The argument is simple:
    * Change the content of the atmosphere
    * This changes climate "

    No, the argument is if the ratio of different gases in earth`s atmosphere is changed at unprecedented levels by human intervention to cause an unnatural amount of warming that would pose a risk to people and ecosystems.

    "Man is changing the content of the atmosphere, therefore he is changing climate."

    By that logic, all organisms change the content of the atmosphere at some level, therefore they all are changing climate and have done so for 4 billion years. Yet that doesn`t mean that the change in the atmosphere is unnatural or that current warming is unprecedented.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 6:41 pm
    (cont)
    "You`re making this up. His only source only has 23 pages. Provide the source with a link or shut up."

    Dude I gave a link to it, you didn`t want to get the subscription, so I sent you the germaine part where the data for the graph was collected and graphed, then you complain it wasn`t the whole thing. I`m not going to buy you a subscription, do it yourself.

    LOOK AT IT! Your telling me you don`t see, any correlation between the two CO2 models?! It`s the same graph, with a temperature model and a era reference added into it. How do you not see it?




  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 6:42 pm
    (cont)
    "Even if his source did have this (which you`ve yet to provide a single link referring said source) it is only ONE, which again doesn`t negate the fact that CO2 does cause a rise in temps if all other things are equal (this is basic physics), and doesn`t negate the fact that man can and does change climate."

    Firstly I`ve given you several links to it, I can lead a horse to water, but I can not make him drink. Read it. For the umpteenth time no one says greenhouse gasses aren`t real, I am saying that things are not equal, the earth is not static, there are multiple other forces at work, the warming is at natural levels, not unprecedented, and not lethal to the environment or civilization, and that you can not change the weather to whatever you want it to be.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 6:42 pm
    (cont)
    "As an extreme example, if the earth`s atmosphere turned into 97% CO2 like it is on Venus, then yes it would get substantially warmer. If the sun was dying out at the same time, then it would get colder, but CO2 would still have a net warming effect on whatever solar radiation was left that hit Earth."

    Here we go again, NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT CO2 IS NOT A GREEN HOUSE GAS!!! I AM SAYING IT ISN`T IN ENOUGH CONCENTRATIONS TO DRAMATICALLY CHANGE EARTH`S CLIMATE, HOW MANY WAYS MUST I SAY IT!?!?!

    Also CO2 can never reach those levels on Earth BECAUSE titanic amounts of CO2 are absorbed by organism on earth unlike Venus.

    And just to point out if the sun was dying, it would fuse Hydrogen into Helium, expand, and incinerate the earth, not cool it off.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 6:44 pm
    "Man is causing entire species to be wiped out. We`re changing the coastline. We are changing climate."

    The same could be said about the rats, nutria, and birds. Entire species are wiped out anyway, its part of evolution and again not unnatural. We are an apex species and the top one to ever exist. But we cause extinction by other means other than global warming.
    All, 100%, everyone of them, of todays species have come through multiple warming episodes that have surpassed todays temperatures for 100`s of years on end. Even the cold period between the Minoan and Roman warming periods was warmer than todays temperatures and all the species lived through it just fine. We kill ecosystems through localized pollution of rivers and habitats, hunting, invasive species, and by sprawling, not by warming the climate.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 7:01 pm
    (cont)
    "The page where the orange graph came from, which has only ONE source, only has 23 pages, and does NOT have what you claim.
    Game.
    Set.
    Match."

    Look at again, there is no denying your lying eyes. That is the whole study, the other parts are his experiments, pictures of sediments, and other general information that he built his study with.

    Regardless the data points match at every level. And if you think they don`t you should link where they don`t, because I would be just as interested to see it. I`m not your Mommy, search for it yourself or buy your own subscription, I`ve already linked it several times now.

    Game.
    Set.
    Match.





  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 7:10 pm
    (cont)

    "which has only ONE source"

    Look at the lower left corner of the graph next to 0 and 600. It says

    "Temp after C.R. Scotese
    CO2 after R.A Berner, 2001"

    1. C.R. Scotese

    2. R.A Berner, 2001

    2 sources copied and overlaid on a geological period reference map, to make one graph.

    1+1=2
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 7:48 pm



    @richanddead: Unless that`s how you "get your jollies" eh? :-)

    Whatever floats your boat!

    You`ve utterly destroyed ALL his so-called arguments, but he won`t shut up! He won`t stop changing the subject! He won`t ANSWER a single question honestly!

    I give up on him. He joins the ranks of UBER-TROLLS at IAB...

    They know who they are.

    You haven`t once addressed the many points you were wrong about, including confusing VOLUME for AREA.
    Oh really Mr.Troll? Do the Greenland GLACIERS (NOT sea ice) fluctuate yearly? Do they go in cycles of thickness & size? = NO.
    ARE the southern hemisphere ice floes GROWING at the same time the northern ones are shrinking? = YES

    Not only have I answered YOUR retorts, you`ve utterly IGNORED my FACTS.

    Troll-boy!
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 7:58 pm
    Hint: MOST Greenland Glacier ice is THOUSANDS of years old!
    NOT SO for any "sea ice" anywhere.

    Get it? Comparing the "melt rates" of glaciers and sea ice is STUPID. There`s no other word for it.

    And if you claim: BOTH Northern Sea Ice AND the polar ice is shrinking? Ok.

    I point out that the South Pole`s Ice is growing.

    GLOBAL warming? Or cyclical patterns?

    If the North warms while the South cools, the OVERALL temperature stays... THE SAME!

    JUST LIKE IT HAS for the past 15 years...

    JUST LIKE IT HAS slowly been warming since the "Little Ice Age" some 500 years ago! BEFORE the CO2 started to rise a mere 100 years ago!!! BEFORE humans had anything to DO WITH IT.

    FACTS!
  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 8:04 pm
    @richanddead: LOLZ! Nice!

    Let them eat... billygoats!



    @mesovortex`s self image:



    Bitter Reality:



    True, but sad, eh?
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 8:09 pm
    @5Cats: Lol, I know and agree he`s trolling at this point. But debating helps give one`s arguments irrefutability in the long run, even if you just debate with trolls.

    Remember trolls are living creatures and a part of the environment, they need food too, sometimes.

    (sry rewrote it)


  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 8:10 pm
    Lolz! Nice of you to find a smaller picture @richanddead :-)

    Oh LOOK! @mesovortex accused ME of trolling for posting the facts!




  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 8:20 pm
    5Cats: "Oh LOOK! @mesovortex accused ME of trolling for posting the facts!"

    That seems to be the special sauce of his arguments.
  • Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 8:20 pm
    Someone should`ve warned mankind about the science flamewar that would rage between vortex and r&d

  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 8:32 pm
    @Cajun247: Lol, admittedly yeah, I agree.

  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 8:48 pm
    @Cajun247: And what am I? Chopped liver? :-/
  • Profile photo of Cajun247
    Cajun247 Male 18-29
    10732 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 9:10 pm
    @5Cats

    I think you made some important points, but overall richanddead did most of the talking.
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 5, 2013 at 10:09 pm
    @5Cats: It`s cool dude, you definitely were a big part of the debate and you made a post with 5220 hits so far and 129 comments. Thats at least hundreds if not thousands of people who were definitely not bored. Kudos, on the great post.


  • Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    32822 posts
    August 6, 2013 at 1:44 am
    Thanks guys! Now I are a happy cat too!



    This is "Happy Cat" the original "I can haz cheeseburger" kitty...
  • Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3489 posts
    August 6, 2013 at 1:17 pm
    Congratulations gentlemen, we have done the internet a great service, we have slayed a troll.


  • Profile photo of Xprez
    Xprez Male 30-39
    676 posts
    August 10, 2013 at 7:45 pm
    That`s what the media does best, make something out of nothing new. Al Gore says it`s bad, so it must be.... People will believe anything if the right amount of celebrities tell them it`s true. Same backing got our current president voted in.
  • Leave a Reply