When the Earth refuses to warm

[Dakine10 5,452]

As I said before thank God for the internet so we can disprove stupid #######.

An Inconvenient Truth: The Ice Cap Is Growing

A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. But didn't we hear from the same Center that the North Pole was set to disappear by now? We all deserve apologies from the global warming fanatics who wanted to reshape the world in their image and called those who objected to their wild theories ignorant deniers. They were so convinced the world was ending and only they could save it, yet now they have been exposed as at best wildly idealistic and at worst frauds. They should have to do public penance for their hubris. I suggest they sit on blocks of melting ice and ponder their limitations. Either that or let the polar bears deal with them.

Perhaps you should start looking at actual studies instead of interpretations made by full of ####### nutjob websites run by folks that struggle to count higher than the number of fingers they have.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2009/10/06/arctic-sea-ice-recovers-slightly-2009-remains-downward-trend-says-cu-study

Sea ice totals for the month of Sept 2009 were 409000 square miles higher than the record low set in Sept 2007, but still the 3rd lowest total on record. It also was one of the thinnest ice covers on record. And still receeding at a rate of 11% per decade.

It's just silly - trying to support your position with a study that actually proved you wrong. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously? Hello!!!

[luckytxn 2,264]

Perhaps you should start looking at actual studies instead of interpretations made by full of ####### nutjob websites run by folks that struggle to count higher than the number of fingers they have.

http://www.colorado....d-says-cu-study

Sea ice totals for the month of Sept 2009 were 409000 square miles higher than the record low set in Sept 2007, but still the 3rd lowest total on record. It also was one of the thinnest ice covers on record. And still receeding at a rate of 11% per decade.

It's just silly - trying to support your position with a study that actually proved you wrong. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously? Hello!!!

They wouldn't be nutjobs if the study agreed with you. Too bad they found the totals to be against what you wanted. Maybe next year.

[Dakine10 5,452]

They wouldn't be nutjobs if the study agreed with you. Too bad they found the totals to be against what you wanted. Maybe next year.

Actually I don't want anything. I say nutjobs because they twisted the data around to say what they wanted it to say. I Live a mile above sea level. I don't worry much about how rising sea levels will affect me personally.

The problem I have is you misrepresented the actual study - or more correctly you posted from a website that did. It's not the first time you did it, I'm sure it won't be the last time, and worst of all you don't really seem to care. But what it does end up doing is make it hard to believe anything you post on the subject.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Actually I don't want anything. I say nutjobs because they twisted the data around to say what they wanted it to say. I Live a mile above sea level. I don't worry much about how rising sea levels will affect me personally.

The problem I have is you misrepresented the actual study - or more correctly you posted from a website that did. It's not the first time you did it, I'm sure it won't be the last time, and worst of all you don't really seem to care. But what it does end up doing is make it hard to believe anything you post on the subject.

I have done no such thing. They took the data as always and it showed to be more and not less. I live near sea level and always have in my 52 years. I think I have a grasp of sea level. Now when the data is going against you (Again) then it is a time honored tradition to sat the has to be wrong as a came from a nutjob. Good try kid. Maybe next year they will post data to make you seem right but I doubt that. It is a false science. If they would be honest then we can say an emerging science and do actual research and tests and then come together in peer review. Each study or data then can be seen by others and either criticized or refuted or agreed with. Each disagreement will have to be answered and so on. This didn't happen. They put in publications but only on conditions that any disagreeable comment or study that can or does refute it not be published. Then they start a smear campaign on any scientists that disagree. They only put studies or models that agree and such had omitted info that would have changed the results. They falsified data to make their papers agree to what they wanted. Then refused other scientists to have their research so they can try and replicate but was refused as being proprietory. They allow no debate and that means it is false. No science has survived in history by doing this and this one has started to fall years ago. Keep going kiddies but us men has seen this and are laughing. House of cards.

[Dakine10 5,452]

I have done no such thing. They took the data as always and it showed to be more and not less. I live near sea level and always have in my 52 years. I think I have a grasp of sea level. Now when the data is going against you (Again) then it is a time honored tradition to sat the has to be wrong as a came from a nutjob. Good try kid. Maybe next year they will post data to make you seem right but I doubt that. It is a false science. If they would be honest then we can say an emerging science and do actual research and tests and then come together in peer review. Each study or data then can be seen by others and either criticized or refuted or agreed with. Each disagreement will have to be answered and so on. This didn't happen. They put in publications but only on conditions that any disagreeable comment or study that can or does refute it not be published. Then they start a smear campaign on any scientists that disagree. They only put studies or models that agree and such had omitted info that would have changed the results. They falsified data to make their papers agree to what they wanted. Then refused other scientists to have their research so they can try and replicate but was refused as being proprietory. They allow no debate and that means it is false. No science has survived in history by doing this and this one has started to fall years ago. Keep going kiddies but us men has seen this and are laughing. House of cards.

Seems like you are saying you don't believe the findings of the researchers at CU, but you believe the author of the article that turned their research around to say something different. I hope all your research that refutes GW wasn't gleaned this way.

Let me simplify it for you. If I have 10 dollars, and I lose six, and then I find 2 of them, I don't go around making the claim that I'm 2 dollars richer. That would be fallacious. And that's basically what has been done here with the facts presented in the CU study.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Well, damn. No measuring needed, I'd say. This ain't some optical trick, it's a rapidly melting glacier.

Show us a photo taken in 2007 or later. I cannot even identify that as a glacier, can you? How?

For this we are supposed to subject ourselves to taxes, reductions in lifestyle. Go ahead...you first.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

That's the picture across most of the world. I know that the denialists can't absorb a lot of information at once so I tried to keep it simple. Now the denialists are focusing on the Himalayan glaciers which have not been receeding at an alarming pace over the last decade. But they forget that the same study of satellite images that brought this little gem to light also confirmed that glaciers are receeding at an alarming pace globally contributing to the rise of the sea levels within the same range as other studies showed. The simpletons only consumed the beginning of the headline of the article "Himalayan glaciers melting more slowly than thought" couldn't be bothered with the whole presentation and then want to sit there, focus on this one region of the world and use that as "proof" that the entire global warming science has been debunked when no such thing actually happened. That's laughable.

It is not even a photo of a glacier.

Can you explain why there have not been increased and more powerful hurricanes sicne 2005 when AlGore said there would be?

Seems like you are saying you don't believe the findings of the researchers at CU, but you believe the author of the article that turned their research around to say something different. I hope all your research that refutes GW wasn't gleaned this way.

Let me simplify it for you. If I have 10 dollars, and I lose six, and then I find 2 of them, I don't go around making the claim that I'm 2 dollars richer. That would be fallacious. And that's basically what has been done here with the facts presented in the CU study.

Perhaps you can explain why AlGore was worng about hurricanes.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

That's the picture across most of the world. I know that the denialists can't absorb a lot of information at once so I tried to keep it simple. Now the denialists are focusing on the Himalayan glaciers which have not been receeding at an alarming pace over the last decade. But they forget that the same study of satellite images that brought this little gem to light also confirmed that glaciers are receeding at an alarming pace globally contributing to the rise of the sea levels within the same range as other studies showed. The simpletons only consumed the beginning of the headline of the article "Himalayan glaciers melting more slowly than thought" couldn't be bothered with the whole presentation and then want to sit there, focus on this one region of the world and use that as "proof" that the entire global warming science has been debunked when no such thing actually happened. That's laughable.

Himalayan glaciers melting more slowly than projected. Hurricanes not increasing in power and number. What else did they get wrong? How many times do they have to be wrong to prove they are wrong?

One of the key points of this so called man-made climate change is that it is "happening faster than earlier climate changes" But now it isn't, so how is it man made? How is it different than many other climate changes we know tohave occured before any influence by man?

What's more probable?

Scientists are specialists within a given field. There's no scientist on the planet in the field of climate change because climate change is a ficticious science.

Therefore.... and this is scientific... there are no "experts" on climate change.

....or it's a volcano.

More probable than government redistributing wealth?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Seems like you are saying you don't believe the findings of the researchers at CU, but you believe the author of the article that turned their research around to say something different. I hope all your research that refutes GW wasn't gleaned this way.

Let me simplify it for you. If I have 10 dollars, and I lose six, and then I find 2 of them, I don't go around making the claim that I'm 2 dollars richer. That would be fallacious. And that's basically what has been done here with the facts presented in the CU study.

So using your analogy. They originally said 10 years ago that we would lose 50,000,000,000 (fifty billion) tons in the next 10 years. How much have we lost?

[Dakine10 5,452]

So using your analogy. They originally said 10 years ago that we would lose 50,000,000,000 (fifty billion) tons in the next 10 years. How much have we lost?

Well assuming you're talking about ice, glaciers and ice caps have lost 150 billion tons of ice annually over the last 10 years. The Himalayan glaciers have lost 4 billion tons annually, so that would be 40 billion. So, I guess that means they've gained 10 billion tons of ice if you're using Lucky's quacko-lator.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Well assuming you're talking about ice, glaciers and ice caps have lost 150 billion tons of ice annually over the last 10 years. The Himalayan glaciers have lost 4 billion tons annually, so that would be 40 billion. So, I guess that means they've gained 10 billion tons of ice if you're using Lucky's quacko-lator.

All that cold water from the melted ice probably cut down on the number of hurricanes,

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It is not even a photo of a glacier.

On the second there isn't much of that glacier left which sort of is the point. It is, however, a photo of a glacier. Maybe you can have your physicist son figure out which one?

Edited February 17, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[slim 1,525]

On the second there isn't much of that glacier left which sort of is the point. It is, however, a photo of a glacier. Maybe you can have your physicist son figure out which one?

A glacier on top of a volcano.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A glacier on top of a volcano.

A dormant volcano that has been covered by an ice cap for thousands of years. No worries, though, the ice cap is set to be gone within the next 10-20 years.

[slim 1,525]

A dormant volcano that has been covered by an ice cap for thousands of years. No worries, though, the ice cap is set to be gone within the next 10-20 years.

Is that why the current government there (and here) declares it to be gaining ice?