The nub of the climate change thing problem

[houndawg]

I did. It came up jibberish. Did you mean google "southern sea ice..." Or search NOAA's website?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2014/5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sweet Jesus you libs are lazy.

The May 2014 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was 12.03 million square km (4.64 million square miles), 1.24 million square km (470,000 square miles), or 11.5 percent, above the 1981-2010 average. This ranked as the largest Antarctic sea ice extent on record, surpassing the May 2000 Antarctic sea ice extent by 370,000 square km (140,000 square miles), approximately the size of Japan. This marked the 17th consecutive month with much above average sea ice extent in the Southern Hemisphere and the second consecutive month with record large sea ice In fact, six of the last 12 months have had record large sea ice extent in the Southern Hemisphere. Much of the above-average ice extent occurred in the Weddell Sea off the West Antarctic coast, with above-average sea ice in nearly every region. Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent during May is increasing at an average rate of 2.5 percent per decade with substantial interannual variability.


When combining the Northern and Southern Hemisphere sea ice extents, the globally-averaged sea ice extent during May was 24.81 million square km (9.58 million square miles), 2.6 percent above the 1981-2010 average and the sixth largest May global sea ice extent on record. Global sea ice extent during May is decreasing at an average rate of 0.1 percent per decade.

Maybe the increase in sea ice is being fed by the decrease in land ice.

[AZGrizFan]

Maybe.

And maybe they just don't know what the fuck they're talking about and there are things affecting the ice/water temp/currents etc that we just don't understand...

But it's all "settled science", right?

[houndawg]

Maybe.

And maybe they just don't know what the **** they're talking about and there are things affecting the ice/water temp/currents etc that we just don't understand...

But it's all "settled science", right?

Maybe.

[kalm]

Maybe.

And maybe they just don't know what the **** they're talking about and there are things affecting the ice/water temp/currents etc that we just don't understand...

But it's all "settled science", right?

Maybe.

[travelinman67]

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andr ... r_19_years

NO COVERAGE FROM AMERICAN MEDIA

[Pwns]

Isn't this the year Al Gore said all of the Arctic Ice cap would be gone?

[89Hen]

Isn't this the year Al Gore said all of the Arctic Ice cap would be gone?

That's quite inconvenient.

[D1B]

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andr ... r_19_years

NO COVERAGE FROM AMERICAN MEDIA

Andrew Bolt = Australia's Rush Limpdick

Tbag

[travelinman67]

Antarctic sea ice extent sets new record levels...

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-1 ... ce/5742668

[travelinman67]

Leo Dicaprio...scientist



http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-scie ... te-change/

[Chizzang]

T-man with his last dying breath...

[LeadBolt]

It would seem that for those with faith, global warming persists in the face of persistent observed data to the contrary for 15+ years.

[Chizzang]

It would seem that for those with faith, global warming persists in the face of persistent observed data to the contrary for 15+ years.

The Global Climate is absolutely changing...
And the argument is NOT about "is it changing?"
The argument is "why is it changing?"

Some folks blame human expansion and consumption - causing a massive influx of carbon in the atmosphere
Others call bullsh!t on that and point to a history of planet earth having events such as these

However: At its ugly root its an argument about Ideological belief systems and which one you favor

[CID1990]

It would seem that for those with faith, global warming persists in the face of persistent observed data to the contrary for 15+ years.

However: At its ugly root its an argument about Ideological belief systems and which one you favor

i agree but i blame the left for the politicization of it

when you have a secretary of state referring to some climatologists as "flat earthers" you aren't encouraging people to do anything other than dismiss you

al gore has done the AGW side no favors, either

[Chizzang]

However: At its ugly root its an argument about Ideological belief systems and which one you favor

i agree but i blame the left for the politicization of it

when you have a secretary of state referring to some climatologists as "flat earthers" you aren't encouraging people to do anything other than dismiss you

al gore has done the AGW side no favors, either

Agreed,
If we could "go back" 15 years and start the conversation over - without Al Gore and all the intent on financial gains through political maneuverings - we could probably have a decent global conversation about the situation

but now days its like putting 20 Fundamentalist Later Day Saints in a room full of Scientologists and starting a discussion on which religion is more about Money than the other....

[travelinman67]

It would seem that for those with faith, global warming persists in the face of persistent observed data to the contrary for 15+ years.

The Global Climate is absolutely changing...
And the argument is NOT about "is it changing?"
The argument is "why is it changing?"

Some folks blame human expansion and consumption - causing a massive influx of carbon in the atmosphere
Others call bullsh!t on that and point to a history of planet earth having events such as these

However: At its ugly root its an argument about Ideological belief systems and which one you favor

Climate has ALWAYS been changing.

People are becoming dumber.

Rather than studying Principia Mathematica, they waste time watching reality TV, buying $300 tennis shoes, honing extreme consumerist skills, and surrendering cowardly to apathy...

...and dismissing those who refuse to surrender as loons tilting at windmills.

You disappoint me, Hippie.

[LeadBolt]

It would seem that for those with faith, global warming persists in the face of persistent observed data to the contrary for 15+ years.

The Global Climate is absolutely changing...
And the argument is NOT about "is it changing?"
The argument is "why is it changing?"

Some folks blame human expansion and consumption - causing a massive influx of carbon in the atmosphere
Others call bullsh!t on that and point to a history of planet earth having events such as these

However: At its ugly root its an argument about Ideological belief systems and which one you favor

You will notice that I used the term global warming, rather than climate change.

Agreed, to a point. Climate has always changed (see the geological record for Ice Ages and Periods of Global Warming, such as the golden age of Dinosaurs), and will always change for a myriad of reasons.

It is quite involved and not as simple as sunspots, carbon emissions, meteorites/asteroids striking the earth (although each has its role).

Again you frame the argument quite correctly that the questions is why it is changing, how fast is it changing, and how drastically is it changing.

I'm fed up with those who want to establish that current climate change is all man made (when it was going on for millennia before man was a significant factor and will probably go on for millennia afterwards) and is therefore controllable by man.

To do so, they seem to latch upon the thought that climate change is solely due to mankind's atmospheric emissions and hold on to that thought without acknowledging recent data to the contrary (emissions have continued to pour into the atmosphere, but warming has taken a hiatus since 1998) and still call themselves scientists.

[Chizzang]

The Global Climate is absolutely changing...
And the argument is NOT about "is it changing?"
The argument is "why is it changing?"

Some folks blame human expansion and consumption - causing a massive influx of carbon in the atmosphere
Others call bullsh!t on that and point to a history of planet earth having events such as these

However: At its ugly root its an argument about Ideological belief systems and which one you favor

Climate has ALWAYS been changing.

People are becoming dumber.

Rather than studying Principia Mathematica, they waste time watching reality TV, buying $300 tennis shoes, honing extreme consumerist skills, and surrendering cowardly to apathy...

...and dismissing those who refuse to surrender as loons tilting at windmills.

You disappoint me, Hippie.

Meh...
I'm just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic my friend
I have no grand battle to fight - but I do enjoy a good show

[travelinman67]

U.N.Climate Change propaganda ship sinking...

http://www.cfact.org/2014/09/15/white-h ... apitalism/

[Cap'n Cat]

U.N.Climate Change propaganda ship sinking...

http://www.cfact.org/2014/09/15/white-h ... apitalism/

LMAO @ cfact.org! Conk business shill cocksuckers!

[travelinman67]

U.N.Climate Change propaganda ship sinking...

http://www.cfact.org/2014/09/15/white-h ... apitalism/

LMAO @ cfact.org! Conk business shill cocksuckers:

0% Fact. 100% Troll.

[JohnStOnge]

Dang this had to be the most persistent thread I ever started.

[travelinman67]

L.A. Times: Study confirm warming is cyclical, naturally caused, NOT result of human activity.

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-p ... story.html

...Times editors to be burned at stake for heresy.

[Ibanez]

L.A. Times: Study confirm warming is cyclical, naturally caused, NOT result of human activity.

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-p ... story.html

...Times editors to be burned at stake for heresy.

Quite interesting. Wasn't there several studies conducted/released in the past several years suggesting that we are entering a cyclical "ice age"? I don't recall.

[Ibanez]

L.A. Times: Study confirm warming is cyclical, naturally caused, NOT result of human activity.

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-p ... story.html

...Times editors to be burned at stake for heresy.

The study found that weakening winds accounted for more than 80% of the warming trend along the Pacific Northwest coast between Washington and Northern California. In Southern California, weaker winds were responsible for about 60% of the increased warming.

Very interesting however what accounts for the remaining 20%/40%?

Also,

But, he added, "this does not call into question the concept of global warming."

referring to Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist.


Thanks for the article, T-man.