Jump to content

Bad news for global warming zOmbies


Guest 2smart4u
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest 2smart4u

Latest studies from NASA indicate the polar ice cap is growing, it's now larger than it's been in 5 years. Also the number of polar bears are as numerous as ever. Hmmm. I'll have to check with Al Gore, I'm sure he knows better than NASA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest studies from NASA indicate the polar ice cap is growing, it's now larger than it's been in 5 years. Also the number of polar bears are as numerous as ever. Hmmm. I'll have to check with Al Gore, I'm sure he knows better than NASA.

Wrong again. You don't take the record low year and use it as the mean. That only reflects an ignorance about science and statistics. Here are the facts. The Arctic ice cap is continuing to decline.

You're also wrong about the polar bears. Their numbers are in decline, which is inevitable given the fact that polar sea ice is retreating.

If it was true that we can continue to burn fossil fuels to our heart's content without damaging the natural environment, that would be wonderful news. You are a rigid ideologue, so you cannot understand anyone thinking in a way that is different from your way, but most of us are not rigid ideologues like you. Most people have the ability to receive new information, and change our minds based on new evidence.

How many times do you have to be wrong before you realize that right wing propaganda is not reliable? And why is it that you never cite your sources?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest studies from NASA indicate the polar ice cap is growing, it's now larger than it's been in 5 years. Also the number of polar bears are as numerous as ever. Hmmm. I'll have to check with Al Gore, I'm sure he knows better than NASA.

You're either stupid or dishonest, most likely both. This has been explained to you before. One year's worth of data does not change the long-term trend. Climate change is a long-term trend. Ice accumulates in winter and melts in summer. Even if there is more residual ice at the end of one summer than there was at the end of the previous summer, that does not mean that global warming has been reversed. It only means that the weather that year was cold enough, and there was enough precipitation, for more ice to accumulate. You still have to look at what is happening to the ice caps long-term. Those data show that they are shrinking.

Your argument, as you've been told time after time, is like saying that if the Yankees score two runs in the 6th inning, they've won the game. You have to look at the whole game, over the whole 9 innings.

Just because you want something to be true doesn't mean that it is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 2008 presidential election, John McCain received 59,948,328 votes. Those are 59,948,328 tiny data points in favor of McCain's election. But he did not win. (Obama received 69,498,516 votes.)

McCain also won in 2241 counties across the country. Those are 2241 somewhat larger data points favoring McCain's election. He still didn't win, even though Obama won in only 873 counties.

McCain won 173 electoral votes. Those are the data points that matter, because presidential elections are not decided based on the popular vote or on how many counties the candidate carries. Presidential elections are decided by electoral votes. In 2008, Obama won 365 of them, far more than he needed to win the election.

What has this to do with climate change? The point is about statistics. Every time there's a cold snap, some knucklehead will say "so much for climate change." It's an ignorant statement but people say it anyway. There are going to be millions of data points that would suggest to an uninformed person that climate change isn't real. But when you understand the science and the data, there's no question about the reality of climate change and in particular, global warming.

The polar ice cap is not larger than it has been in five years. It's just not true. The Arctic summer ice cap shrank every year from 2007-2012, hitting a record low in 2012. In 2013, it was a little larger than in the record lowest year. That is one data point. It does not mean that global warming has been reversed, any more than McCain's win in Wyoming meant that he was elected president. The 2014 melt isn't complete yet, so it's too early to say what the data are this year. But even if the Arctic summer ice cap is a little larger than it was last year, that's only two years worth of data, and it doesn't account for a wealth of other factors, which clearly show that global warming is continuing to occur. The size of the polar ice cap is an effect of temperature and precipitation in one region of the world. You can't just ignore the world-wide temperature data, which constitute the primary and defining component of global warming. Well, you can ignore it - but not intelligently.

Scientists track global warming by collecting temperature data from all over the world. Records go back to 1880. In the early years, data collection was not as comprehensive as it is now. Even so, the data clearly show that the Earth has warmed since 1880, and that the largest and most significant increases have occurred in the past 20 years, which account for nearly all of the top average world yearly temperatures.

So come on. You can't just cherry pick one piece of information and conclude that global warming isn't happening, when all the data put together show very clearly that it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also saw the report from NASA saying the polar ice is bigger now than it's been in 5 years. While it didn't mention McCain's

electoral votes, I think it's safe to believe what NASA reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 2008 presidential election, John McCain received 59,948,328 votes. Those are 59,948,328 tiny data points in favor of McCain's election. But he did not win. (Obama received 69,498,516 votes.)

McCain also won in 2241 counties across the country. Those are 2241 somewhat larger data points favoring McCain's election. He still didn't win, even though Obama won in only 873 counties.

McCain won 173 electoral votes. Those are the data points that matter, because presidential elections are not decided based on the popular vote or on how many counties the candidate carries. Presidential elections are decided by electoral votes. In 2008, Obama won 365 of them, far more than he needed to win the election.

What has this to do with climate change? The point is about statistics. Every time there's a cold snap, some knucklehead will say "so much for climate change." It's an ignorant statement but people say it anyway. There are going to be millions of data points that would suggest to an uninformed person that climate change isn't real. But when you understand the science and the data, there's no question about the reality of climate change and in particular, global warming.

The polar ice cap is not larger than it has been in five years. It's just not true. The Arctic summer ice cap shrank every year from 2007-2012, hitting a record low in 2012. In 2013, it was a little larger than in the record lowest year. That is one data point. It does not mean that global warming has been reversed, any more than McCain's win in Wyoming meant that he was elected president. The 2014 melt isn't complete yet, so it's too early to say what the data are this year. But even if the Arctic summer ice cap is a little larger than it was last year, that's only two years worth of data, and it doesn't account for a wealth of other factors, which clearly show that global warming is continuing to occur. The size of the polar ice cap is an effect of temperature and precipitation in one region of the world. You can't just ignore the world-wide temperature data, which constitute the primary and defining component of global warming. Well, you can ignore it - but not intelligently.

Scientists track global warming by collecting temperature data from all over the world. Records go back to 1880. In the early years, data collection was not as comprehensive as it is now. Even so, the data clearly show that the Earth has warmed since 1880, and that the largest and most significant increases have occurred in the past 20 years, which account for nearly all of the top average world yearly temperatures.

So come on. You can't just cherry pick one piece of information and conclude that global warming isn't happening, when all the data put together show very clearly that it is.

Excellent explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also saw the report from NASA saying the polar ice is bigger now than it's been in 5 years. While it didn't mention McCain's

electoral votes, I think it's safe to believe what NASA reports.

If you had the brains to provide a link to this report you supposedly saw, I wouldn't have had to search it myself. However, it wasn't difficult. The latest news from NASA is that the Arctic ice isn't done melting yet but "we will likely see one of the lowest extents as the ice melt quickens."

Being hell-bent on displaying your ignorance, you sneer at statistical methods. However, they are what scientists use to calculate long-term trends, including those of climate change. Did you even try to understand the difference between a data point and a trend? Of course you didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also saw the report from NASA saying the polar ice is bigger now than it's been in 5 years. While it didn't mention McCain's

electoral votes, I think it's safe to believe what NASA reports.

Well, at least you admit that NASA is a credible source. Unfortunately, you don't understand what they're telling you.

The shrinking Arctic ice cap is not like leaving an ice cube out on your kitchen counter. It doesn't melt steadily. Despite global warming, the Arctic region still has temperatures throughout the winter, and much of autumn and spring, that are far below the freezing point. It also has precipitation. Those two factors are what determine the amount of ice that forms, and that melts, in any given year. The mere fact that each year doesn't set a new record for the lowest amount of ice or the thinnest cap or the least area covered by ice at any given time of year doesn't mean that the Earth isn't warming. It is warming. The statistics are undeniable. It also doesn't mean that the Arctic ice cap isn't melting over time. Clearly it is. Again, the data are undeniable. Read what NASA is saying about the long-term climate trends, and the long-term trend for the Arctic cap. Don't just take spin from a "news" organization with a political agenda. Read and understand the actual studies, interpreted by the scientists who put them together.

It's so easy to call names on an anonymous site like this. But when people absolutely refuse to consider the scientific information and its implications, it's hard not to call that willful ignorance, or even stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know your background, training and education that makes you an authority in global climate. NASA says the ice cap is larger now than it's been in 5 years. That clearly means that the ice cap is growing, not disappearing the way the loonies would have you believe. So until NASA says otherwise, I'll continue to believe that global warming and cooling are natural events that have occurred for millions of years, unaffected by human populations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Idiot "Guest" from 7:17 p.m. on Wednesday. You don't have to be an expert to be able to read NASA's reports, which say exactly the opposite of what you claim they say. If you Google "NASA global warming," you'll see "Climate change and global warming . . ." pop up as the first link, and under it links to "consensus" and "evidence." If you open those links, which are both NASA links, you'll see them describe, respectively, how 97% of climate scientists agree that the Earth is warming due to human activities, and that while there have been fluctuations in global temperatures throughout geological history, the current warming trend is different, and human-caused. So either you're lying about having any knowledge about what NASA has reported, or you're so profoundly stupid that you can't understand that "climate warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities" means exactly what it says. Those two pages also supply graphs that show the trends, with the data scientists use to draw their conclusions. If you look at the chart on the "consensus" link, you'll see annual temperatures going up and down, with a very clear trend toward global warming. As was pointed out earlier, the ups and downs are data points. To understand the trend, you have to look at the direction of the line connecting the dots. In this case, the line trends up. You don't have to be an expert to understand this either. You just have to get your information from the scientists instead of from unnamed sources - which you never cite - with an obvious political and/or economic agenda. The difference between you and me is not that either of us is an expert on climatology. It's that I actually read what NASA is saying. You can't have read these reports and come to the conclusion you posted. A third grader could understand them. So the only explanation is that you are willfully ignorant on this subject, and will not change your mind no matter what. So don't pretend that you're supplying NASA data and conclusions. NASA is saying exactly the opposite from what you are saying, and all you have to do to know that, is to read the links you've been provided, in this post and others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#10, cont. I read in today's Star Ledger the ozone hole over the south pole is shrinking, it's smaller now than it's been in years.

So let's see...... the polar ice cap is growing and the ozone hole is shrinking. Hmmm.....what does that say about the Loonies

"green" agenda. I would have to say it's more left wing nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NASA says the ice cap is larger now than it's been in 5 years. That clearly means that the ice cap is growing, not disappearing the way the loonies would have you believe. So until NASA says otherwise, I'll continue to believe that global warming and cooling are natural events that have occurred for millions of years, unaffected by human populations.

When you say that the first time, it's possible that you read something and didn't understand it. But now that you've been provided half a dozen links that show very clearly that NASA is not saying that at all --- there's no nice way to say it --- you're just lying.

Here is a link to a NASA article published on its site on September 22, 2014, just three days ago. It says in part:

"Arctic sea ice coverage continued its below-average trend this year as the ice declined to its annual minimum on Sept. 17, according to the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado, Boulder."

"'The summer started off relatively cool, and lacked the big storms or persistent winds that can break up ice and increase melting,' said Meier. Nevertheless, the season ended with below-average sea ice. 'Even with a relatively cool year, the ice is so much thinner than it used to be. It is more susceptible to melting,' he explained."

"While summer sea ice has covered more of the Arctic in the last two years than in 2012’s record low summer, this is not an indication that the Arctic is returning to average conditions, Meier said. This year’s minimum extent remains in line with a downward trend; the Arctic Ocean is losing about 13 percent of its sea ice per decade."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know your background, training and education that makes you an authority in global climate. NASA says the ice cap is larger now than it's been in 5 years. That clearly means that the ice cap is growing, not disappearing the way the loonies would have you believe. So until NASA says otherwise, I'll continue to believe that global warming and cooling are natural events that have occurred for millions of years, unaffected by human populations.

That is not what NASA is saying. The Arctic ice cap is at its sixth lowest extent since satellite records were kept. In tracking the trend, NASA and other scientists compare the year's ice cap extent with a long-term average over a thirty year period. In this chart, NASA uses the period from 1981-2010 as its base. NASA's conclusion, as you can see by opening the link and reading the article, is that this year's ice extent "reinforces the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent."

It's interesting that you perceive someone who comments on this subject as though he was speaking as an authority. All you have to be able to do to understand what NASA is saying is to read what NASA is writing. Where you're getting your "information" is anyone's guess, since you refuse to tell us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to know your background, training and education that makes you an authority in global climate.

Let's take it one baby step at a time.

1. Water freezes in winter, forming ice.

2. Ice melts in summer.

3. If there's a lot of snow in winter, when temperatures are below freezing, a lot of ice will accumulate.

4. The amount of ice that accumulates in any given winter depends on how much snow falls.

5. How much ice remains from a winter's accumulation depends on how much accumulated in the first place, and how much melted over the summer.

Do you really think someone has to be a climatology expert to know that? No wonder you can't understand this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not what NASA is saying. The Arctic ice cap is at its sixth lowest extent since satellite records were kept. In tracking the trend, NASA and other scientists compare the year's ice cap extent with a long-term average over a thirty year period. In this chart, NASA uses the period from 1981-2010 as its base. NASA's conclusion, as you can see by opening the link and reading the article, is that this year's ice extent "reinforces the long-term downward trend in Arctic ice extent."

It's interesting that you perceive someone who comments on this subject as though he was speaking as an authority. All you have to be able to do to understand what NASA is saying is to read what NASA is writing. Where you're getting your "information" is anyone's guess, since you refuse to tell us.

As always, you cite only data points, ignore 99% of the data and all the important trends, and don't understand what you are reading. According to NASA, the "ozone depletion does not contribute to global warming"; in fact, its main effect is that it allows heat to escape from the atmosphere, tending toward cooling instead of warming. Here is a statement from UCAR explaining that the ozone hole and global warming are mainly separate issues.

The most important thing, which of course you ignore, is that the Earth is continuing to warm. That is a fact. Here is a brief statement from the NOAA on the subject.

Look, I know you're a troll, and aren't the least bit interested in the truth. Having gotten your behind kicked on the other issues you raised, you ignore it and move on to make another claim that isn't true. But keep posting. It gives me an opportunity to correct you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#10, cont. I read in today's Star Ledger the ozone hole over the south pole is shrinking, it's smaller now than it's been in years.

So let's see...... the polar ice cap is growing and the ozone hole is shrinking. Hmmm.....what does that say about the Loonies

"green" agenda. I would have to say it's more left wing nonsense.

If the ozone hole is shrinking, then more greenhouse gases are being trapped in the atmosphere, accelerating global warming. Your point doesn't point against global warming, on the contrary, it's another reason for it to happen. You're so hell-bent on denying global warming, you're not even thinking about what you're saying. Or maybe you just don't understand any of it. Seem that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it with right wingers? No matter how many times you show them that what they're saying isn't true, they just keep on saying it anyway.

Dummy, the polar ice cap is not growing. It's shrinking. There are several links on this topic that show that, clearly, including links from NASA. Doesn't it ever bother you that you keep on saying things that are proved not to be true? A reasonable person would have the sense to be embarrassed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#10, cont. I read in today's Star Ledger the ozone hole over the south pole is shrinking, it's smaller now than it's been in years.

So let's see...... the polar ice cap is growing and the ozone hole is shrinking. Hmmm.....what does that say about the Loonies

"green" agenda. I would have to say it's more left wing nonsense.

You're just throwing stuff against the wall, without having any idea what it means. The ozone hole resulted from chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions into the atmosphere. CFCs are gases that contain carbon, fluorine and chlorine. They react in the upper atmosphere, which is where the ozone layer is, and scientists believe that they created the ozone hole, mainly over Antarctica, several decades ago. CFCs were banned in the United States in 1996, so the shrinking of the ozone hole means that this public policy was effective. But what are its implications for gas and oil? Surely you're not arguing to ban them too.

CFCs contain carbon (it's one of three elements in a CFC) but are not the main source of carbon in our atmosphere. The main sources of atmospheric carbon are fossil fuels, which we burn to run our cars, heat our homes and offices, etc., not the carbon in deodorant spray cans and refrigerators. So the shrinking of the ozone hole does not mean there is less carbon in the atmosphere; it only means that atmospheric CFCs have been reduced. This has only a minimal effect, or perhaps no net effect at all, on global warming. In fact, one of the effects of a growing ozone hole would be that heat would more readily escape from the atmosphere, causing the planet to be slightly cooler - slightly because the ozone hole has only a minor effect on temperature. So if the ozone hole is shrinking, more heat will be trapped, thereby causing temperatures to rise.

Because you have no idea what you're talking about, you argued against your own point without having a clue you were doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#10, cont. I read in today's Star Ledger the ozone hole over the south pole is shrinking, it's smaller now than it's been in years.

So let's see...... the polar ice cap is growing and the ozone hole is shrinking. Hmmm.....what does that say about the Loonies

"green" agenda. I would have to say it's more left wing nonsense.

Ummm . . . yes, it makes sense that the ozone hole is shrinking since THE GOVERNMENT BANNED THE CFCs THAT WERE CAUSING IT. In other words, government took action, and it worked. This is an argument for a green agenda, nitwit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, the Loonies lie and hope no one understands the issue. CFC's are thought to be a small portion of what's responsible for the ozone layer hole. Carbon monoxide from cars and factories are also thought to be at fault. And since China is the world's biggest polluter

(they open a new coal burning plant every week) and they haven't banned CFC's. So don't be so quick to give zero credit for saving the ozone layer. And what about the growing ice cap, are you going to credit the US banning CFC's for that too?

You need to face the fact that this global climate "crisis" is simply left wing manufactured nonsense designed to promote a green agenda. Global warming and cooling is a naturally occurring process that's been going on for millions of years and will continue, no matter what you Loonies think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Stupid:

You opened this topic with claims about the Arctic ice cap, which you can't back up. That's because they're not true. And the fact remains that the Earth is warming. That's what all the data say, and virtually all of the climate scientists too.

Then, when that line of attack didn't work, you pretended that discussion never happened, and made idiotic remarks about the ozone hole in the Antarctic region. Not only do you fail to provide a link to the Star Ledger article, which I cannot find online, you make it obvious that you don't understand that ozone and CFCs is a completely different issue from CO2 and global warming. The ozone hole is shrinking because government banned CFCs. So, if you want to use that as a model for global warming, your argument would be to ban fossil fuels.

You have the intellectual depth of a puddle on a lobby floor. How many times do you have to be shown to be not just wrong, but also profoundly ignorant, before you realize that you don't know what you're talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, the Loonies lie and hope no one understands the issue. CFC's are thought to be a small portion of what's responsible for the ozone layer hole. Carbon monoxide from cars and factories are also thought to be at fault. And since China is the world's biggest polluter

(they open a new coal burning plant every week) and they haven't banned CFC's. So don't be so quick to give zero credit for saving the ozone layer. And what about the growing ice cap, are you going to credit the US banning CFC's for that too?

You need to face the fact that this global climate "crisis" is simply left wing manufactured nonsense designed to promote a green agenda. Global warming and cooling is a naturally occurring process that's been going on for millions of years and will continue, no matter what you Loonies think.

You're an idiot. And a troll. But OK, let's go through the exercise. It won't be hard.

1. We've been over all of this. You just keep making the same claims that have already been disproved.

2. If you're going to make claims, you should provide sources to support them. Links have already been provided on CFCs and the ozone layer. Where are your links on carbon monoxide?

3. If CFCs aren't the main source of ozone depletion, then why is the ozone hole shrinking now that CFCs have been banned?

4. You keep writing about a growing ice cap as though it was true but NASA and other climate experts say it isn't true.

5. You seem to be quite fixated on President Obama. CFCs were banned internationally in the 1980s (not by all countries but by many) and by the US in the 1990s, before Obama held any public office.

6. You claim concerns about climate change are just left wing political theatre. The world's climate scientists disagree with you. They say this is a very real problem.

7. How can providing a link to a scientific paper be a lie? The lie is when you make a claim but refuse to provide any support for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, the Loonies lie and hope no one understands the issue. CFC's are thought to be a small portion of what's responsible for the ozone layer hole. Carbon monoxide from cars and factories are also thought to be at fault. And since China is the world's biggest polluter

(they open a new coal burning plant every week) and they haven't banned CFC's. So don't be so quick to give zero credit for saving the ozone layer. And what about the growing ice cap, are you going to credit the US banning CFC's for that too?

You need to face the fact that this global climate "crisis" is simply left wing manufactured nonsense designed to promote a green agenda. Global warming and cooling is a naturally occurring process that's been going on for millions of years and will continue, no matter what you Loonies think.

You've got to be kidding me . . . well, no, tragically, you're not kidding.

You don't seem to understand that in a discussion of real things, like climate, words are supposed to stand for real things. Statements about things like climate should be based on data, in other words, on facts. If you make a statement, and it's challenged, then you should support your statement with citations.

You don't do any of that. All you do is state your conclusion, without reference to any supporting facts, and even after you've been given citations to reliable authorities that clearly disprove your claims, you persist in making them anyway.

For example, you claimed that the Arctic ice cap is growing, according to NASA. You were linked to this article from NASA's site, which clearly shows that NASA is not saying anything of the kind. You don't discuss the information contained in the link, you don't provide any contrary evidence of your own, you just ignore the facts.

In other words, you lie about it. You were called a liar because you persist in making false statement even after the truth is put right in front of your face. The appropriate response to that is not to accuse the other party(ies) of lying but to change your position in light of the newly acquired information, or provide an intelligent and thoughtful reason why your position is solid despite the data. You don't do that either. You just lie again, and accuse your adversaries of lying.

And while it's true that China has not banned CFCs, it has reduced its use of them tremendously, which helps to account for the recovering ozone layer in the Antarctic. You see, when someone makes a statement to me, I check it out to see whether it's true. If it is true, I acknowledge it, and consider it in making later comments. If it's not true, I usually provide a link so that you can see for yourself that your statement is not true. Apparently, though, you think that whatever you believe is to be defended at all costs. So you end up lying about things because there is no other way to defend your beliefs.

Meanwhile, you comment on public issues as though you care about the future of the country, if not the world. Closing your mind to the facts is no way to stand up for your country or anything else you care about.

It bears repeating that global warming is a threat to people all over the world. Read these articles about IPCC's position, NASA's position and the Nature Conservancy. In NASA's link, pay particular attention to Dr. Podest's statement about how CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere haven't been this high in millions of years. So while it's true that these things fluctuate, the last time CO2 concentrations were this high, there were catastrophic losses of species all over the world. Nature produces many changes that harm people; that doesn't mean that we can just set off a tsunami without worrying about the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...