Arctic sea ice: yet another record falls

By Tom Yulsman | July 8, 2016 7:31 pm

June’s extent of sea ice was the lowest on record for the month

record

An animation of images from NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites shows the shrinkage of floating sea ice in Baffin Bay during June of 2016. (Images: NASA EOSDIS. Animation: Tom Yulsman)

With the exception of March, every month so far this year has set a record low for the extent of Arctic sea ice.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center reports that in June, the extent of floating ice in the region was 525,000 square miles below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average. That’s an area equivalent to California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Idaho combined.

And it means June saw the lowest amount of sea ice for the month in the satellite monitoring record, which began in 1979.

record

Click to enlarge

The animation of satellite images above shows the shrinkage of sea ice in Baffin Bay between Greenland on the right, and Baffin Island on the left. The first image was acquired on June 10, and the second on July 4th. When watching the animation, keep in mind that open water appears almost black. (Click on the thumbnail at right for a labeled image of the Arctic region that can help you get your geographic bearings.)

Right now, sea ice extent in this area is running considerably below average.

In the animation, note how generally white ice gives way to bluer ice. That’s an indication of melting on the surface of floating sea ice. 

record

Broken sea ice in Baffin Bay with melt ponds on the surface, as seen from a commercial airliner on July 4, 2016. (Photo: ©Tom Yulsman)

I just happened to be flying over Baffin Bay on July 4th while returning from an overseas trip, and I took the photo above. The ice is fragmented, and the bluish color is indicative of melting at the surface.

Thanks to record warmth, more of the Arctic’s sea surface remained unfrozen this past winter than ever before in the era of satellite monitoring. Marc Serreze, director of the NSIDC said back in March that he had “never seen such a warm, crazy winter in the Arctic.”

SEE ALSO: A ‘warm, crazy winter’ leaves the Arctic with a record-breaking low extent of sea ice

The warmth and dearth of ice in the winter raised questions about whether Arctic sea ice would set a new record this coming September for the smallest extent ever observed since the start of satellite monitoring. September is the end of the warm season in the Arctic.

record

Source: NSIDC

As the graph at left shows, so far in 2016, sea ice has mostly tracked lower than in 2012, which holds the record for lowest extent on record. Even so, the latest outlook report from the Sea Ice Prediction Network does not favor a record low this year. Thirty forecasts using statistical models, dynamical models, and other approaches, went into the report. Just one points toward a new record low this year.

One contributing factor is a change in weather patterns: Low pressure has set up over the central Arctic Ocean, leading to cloudiness and holding down temperatures. This has caused a slowdown in the shrinkage of ice. And this pattern is forecast to continue into mid-July.

I asked Ted Scambos, lead scientist for the NSIDC science team, about this. Here was his reply:

Earlier in May, we noticed that most of the Arctic Ocean area began to show surface melting about two weeks early. This was impressive, and could have meant much faster rates of loss in June, because wet snow is much darker than dry snow. The flip to strong low pressure dominating Arctic circulation in June meant that this key part of the solar energy season was muted in its impact. 

Still — the Arctic remains slightly warmer than average; and the low pulls warm air northward in a few areas. Most importantly, the ice is thin. A change in July could still pull this to a record.

In September, I’ll be on the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard with some of our Center for Environmental Journalism graduate students reporting on Arctic climate change issues. Whether Arctic sea ice sets a record then or not, we should have something to share — video, photography and written stories. So I hope you’ll check back.

 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • nosmokewithout

    It seems to me that the most important data we could have regarding the state of the sea ice is the sea ice volume. Is it possible to gain accurate data on this measure, if it is, then why is it not used as a primary measure of the state of the Arctic sea ice?

    • OWilson

      Because one of the tenets of man made global warming rests on a PFL (positive feedback loop) from the extent of SURFACE ICE COVER.

      This “Albedo Effect”, the reflection of the Sun’s energy back into space from the ice, is not as responsive to sea ice thickness. or VOLUME.

      • CB

        “one of the tenets of man made global warming models rests on a PFL (positive feedback loop) from the extent of SURFACE ICE COVER.”

        …well no, Mr. Wilson!

        No, that’s not the fact on which anthropogenic global warming rests.

        That fact is the infrared absorption bands of greenhouse gasses, which were first discovered over a century ago.

        Mr. Wilson, if you don’t know the first thing about a subject, why would you have such a strong opinion on it?

        “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

        climate.nasa.gov/evidence

        • Gallilao

          CB, you don’t know anything and can’t answer a single question honestly. You are a lying hillbilly and far too stupid to be taken seriously.

          You admit you don’t understand the science and yet you persist in acting as though you are some kind of authority.

          Go back to your prayer meeting you ignorant hillbilly!

          • OWilson

            This troll comes crawling out of the woodwork on occasion.

            He has nothing to add to any adult conversation.:)

          • Gallilao

            She is quite simply a fear monger. She seems to want everyone to be miserable and afraid of the future. But it doesn’t really matter, there is no way to stop whatever is coming, but I do detest these people who are so proud of their ignorance and wear it on their sleeve, like a badge of honour, so I have to take her to task at every opportunity.

          • CB

            “She is quite simply a fear monger.”

            lol!

            Do you think the word “fear” means “fact”?

            Do greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation, Mr. Lao?

            “Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere.”

            missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html

          • Mike Richardson

            Provide good and relevant information, and not misdirection, and perhaps we’ll have such a debate. Or you can just refer to all folks who accept the proven science behind human-influenced climate change as Kool Aid drinkers, trolls, or bots. Not exactly conducive to a civil or informed debate, is it? :)

          • OWilson

            “Nature Geoscience, July 2016 – Antarctic sea-ice extent has been slowly increasing in the satellite record that began in 1979..Since the late 1990s, the increase has accelerated”!

            “Nov 16, 2015 – A new study released by NASA reveals that Antarctica is currently gaining more ice than it’s losing”

            Facts! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            The Antarctic sea ice issue is acknowledged, and as I pointed out, a diversion from the discussion of the Arctic sea ice extent, the topic of this blog post. Also, I’ve already pointed out that the November 2015 “study released by NASA” has not been endorsed by NASA, and has not been fully peer reviewed — it’s still by no means certain that there has been an increase in the Antarctic continental ice mass, as the study to which you refer was not comprehensive and is in conflict with data provided by the GRACE satellite study. You do still value satellite data, right? :)

            Back to the Northern Hemisphere, we have hard data showing continued decrease not only in sea ice, but also in the Greenland ice sheet, and virtually all continental alpine glacier masses. But you’ve got enough information to refute the well-established fact of warming climate, and our contribution to it? I’m not the one trolling here, Wilson. :)

          • OWilson

            I trust NASA. more than true believers and trolls!

            I know that’s an odd concept for you Doomsday folks.

            NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

            NASA – Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

            National Geographic – What Antarctica’s Incredible “Growing” Icepack Really Means

            LiveScience – Antarctica Is Gaining Ice, So Why Is the Earth Still Warming?

            Harvard – Why is Antarctica’s Ice Sheet Growing in a Warming World?

            Now you’re done here too !

          • Mike Richardson

            Who the hell do I think I am? Someone with enough sense to know when you are beating a dead horse (the already agreed upon sea ice increase) and repeating the same information from one contested study as reported in multiple publications. And aren’t you the one who’s downplayed argument from authority in the past, when it didn’t favor your point? NASA released the study, but hasn’t stated that these findings are conclusive, or that they have refuted the prior GRACE satellite findings. Should that happen, I’ll agree with you that there has been a definite, measurable, and prolonged increase in Antarctic ice mass, as I’ve already said multiple times. But again, it isn’t yet conclusive, doesn’t refute the findings of a very significant decrease in Northern Hemisphere sea AND land ice, and does not disprove the increasing average global temperatures, according to virtually all climate researchers as reported here and elsewhere. Take your argument up with them. :)

          • OWilson

            No misdirection, unless you can’t click a mouse Mikey. LOL

            NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

            NASA – Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

            NATional Geographic – What Antarctica’s Incredible “Growing” Icepack Really Means

            LiveScience – Antarctica Is Gaining Ice, So Why Is the Earth Still Warming?

            Harvard – Why is Antarctica’s Ice Sheet Growing in a Warming World?

            Now you’re done here too !

          • Dano2

            Poor Wilson can’t grasp when the data stopped being collected. Therefore, derp.

            Best,

            D

          • OWilson

            Ok, ok, enough! :)

            I’ll buy your “Ten signs of the End Of Times”.

            I’ll take a couple of bibles too.

            Oh, and some of that Holy Water!

            Send them to me c/o the White House, COD

            LOL

          • Dano2

            You were refuted. Thanks for teh transparent capitulation.

            Best,

            D

          • OWilson

            Luv u 2!

          • Mike Richardson

            Now see, Ol’ Wilson here’s forgotten the topic is the Northern Hemisphere, and Arctic sea ice, he’s got his jollies up so much about one as-yet unverified study (repeated over and over in the articles you reference). You know, considering that there’s conflicting data on the Antarctic ice pack, you’re setting yourself up for another “mini-Ice Age” debacle if this thing doesn’t pan out. The sea ice is one thing, but as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, one study does not overturn numerous others showing the opposite. If it’s verified by follow-up surveys and peer review, then maybe you can crow in victory and I’ll be happy to admit it. Still won’t be much to refute the fact that temperatures globally are rising and that the Northern Hemisphere (including the Greenland icepack) is melting down, but I know you’ve got to look for increasingly small victories to shield your version of reality from what’s going on in the rest of the world. It’s okay, Ol’ Wilson’s gotta keep tilting at windmills. 😉

          • Dale Anderson

            OWilson,,, speaking of trolls……You contribute absolutely nothing at all of any use. You are useless.

          • OWilson

            Troll this!

            NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

            NASA – Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

            NATional Geographic – What Antarctica’s Incredible “Growing” Icepack Really Means

            LiveScience – Antarctica Is Gaining Ice, So Why Is the Earth Still Warming?

            Harvard – Why is Antarctica’s Ice Sheet Growing in a Warming World?

          • Dano2

            Poor Wilson can’t grasp when the data stopped being collected. Therefore, derptastic.

            Best,

            D

          • Dale Anderson

            Sea ice is not land ice dunce.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Can we please move beyond “useless troll” and the like? The science itself is clear, whether or not Mr. Wilson wants to acknowledge it. Sticking to the science is far more convincing than name calling.

          • Dale Anderson

            Yes of course you are correct.

            We should never reply to their insults, or lies about the AGW issue.

            We should just allow them to post whatever they like and not post anything to the contrary.

            I apologize for offending you. It won’t happen again,

            I will deleted all of my posted comments here and urge CB and others who agree with the facts of AGW to do the same and alow you to discuss the issue with the hired GW Deniers.

          • BBQman

            Now if we can just get you guys to focus on the true climate drivers so we will be better prepared to predict accurate Weather patterns.

          • BBQman

            I agree wholeheartedly with you, we should rely on facts and not information pulled together from a few of the millions of microclimates around the earth and attempt to present the results as Global. It is time to alert earths population about the next small Ice Age we are on the threshold of as a result of magnetic forcing’s and once and for all time put away the silly notions that the boogieman MM-CO2 is somehow a climate driver, round up the Al Gore types and charge them with massive fraud and embezzlement.
            Just a short review of history will show the quantity of sea ice has always varied from year to year, see “Roger Vercel’s” writings, massive sea ice found floating in 1816 & 1817 as far south as the 40th parallel, for those same years “William Scoresby” found zero ice along the coast of Greenland between 74 & 75 degrees N, and let’s never forget that in 2010, 50 ships had to be freed by icebreakers off the coast of Stockholm in the Baltic.

            Just over the course of a few hundred years, many regional climate variations take place, grapes grown in Stockholm around 35 CE, Vikings found Greenland “green” around 1,000 CE, needless to say, a few degrees of warming in Antarctic means less then nothing where the temperature is below -75 Fahrenheit, see “Garnier” for more details.

            Most of my information comes from the very extensive climate science library at “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Sovereigns Harbor” primary data banks, it is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization established to bring forth the truth related to our true climate drivers and show the many data collection flaws in the mostly laughable unproven theory of man made CO2, if you wish to donate to the organization, please make your check payable to “C A S H” for short and mail to PO Box……

            Soon, we will swear in President Trump and the AGW grants will dry up, there is light at the end of the tunnel after all!

          • Dale Anderson

            Master Tom,,,, I do not ever reply to the professional hired by the fossil fuel industry with any hope of changing their minds on the AGW issue…
            They know the science as well as you do, they are hired to deny it and to try to discredit bloggers like CB, Dano and others.
            I reply only to show them up for what they actually are so that any who are reading the article and the comments but never comment may know the flip side of their corrupt lying coin.
            Many do not know the science and after they read the comments of the deniers insulting CB, they may very well tend to agree that CB is the trolling dunce and go on their merry uneducated way believing that atmospheric CO2 has nothing at all to do with Global Warming, because the pro Deniers sound good to those who don’t know the true science.
            So lighten up and let the deniers insult and allow us to reply to them I was not overly rude or vulgar to the obnoxious liar, but he and the BB Man had posted several derogatory remarks about CB who is a fine person and know the science as well as you do.

          • BBQman

            I have never made any derogatory remarks towards CB, she and I have been friends for several years, we just have a difference of opinion sometimes and she just needs a little more time to catch up….sometimes!

          • Dale Anderson

            You finally wrote something I can agree with, I fixed it.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Mr. Wilson, you know the drill. Please save stuff like “bots” and “trolls” etc for another site.

          • OWilson

            Yes, I know the “drill”

            I guess “bots”, “trolls” and “low info voters” trumps, as the poster who agrees with you below states, “ignorant, dishonest, corrupt, hired liars of the Fossil Fuel Industry”

            I’ll try and keep up, in the meantime, it is your blog and you make the rules, so I’ll abide by them.

            Thank you!

          • Mike Richardson

            Wilson, what was that comment about not apologizing to the Kool Aid drinkers, again? I mean, I appreciate the sentiment, sincere or not, but it does seem out of step with what you posted on that other Discover Blog. Oh well, here’s to civility and continuing an honest discussion of climate change. :)

          • OWilson

            You are projecting again.

            Accusing Tom of being a “cool-ade drinker?

          • Mike Richardson

            Actually, your overgeneralizing (again) of everyone who accepts the science on the matter would include those who report on it — i.e., our moderator. So that would be you making the accusation. Nice attempt at a dodge, but fail. Besides, you didn’t have any problem upvoting Galileo’s parting jab at him, did you? As you’re fond of pointing out, these things leave a record. :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Actually, you have gone back to calling folks trolls, so you really aren’t abiding by those rules very well, are you? And didn’t you say that name-calling was what people resorted to when they had nothing else? Just throwing it out there, but do as you will. Cheers. :)

          • Dano2

            You can’t refute a single byte of what she wrote.

            Best,

            D

          • CB

            “You can’t refute a single byte of what she wrote.”

            If he can, he certainly didn’t bother trying.

            Mr. Lao gets credit for bringing me a bit of little-known science history! …though, of course, he probably still has no idea of the significance of his find…

            “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

            http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf

          • Tom Yulsman

            Gallilao: If you want to comment here at ImaGeo, please show some respect and stick to the science being discussed. No ad hominem attacks, no calling someone a “lying hillbilly,” no epithets. If I see you make comments like this one more time here you will be banned permanently from commenting at ImaGeo. Please take your insulting sanctimony somewhere else. It is not welcome here.

          • Gallilao

            I said up yours, did you get that?

        • S Graves

          “No, that’s not the fact on which anthropogenic global warming rests.”
          But that’s not what he said, now is it CB? Your blatant misdirection is pathetic. But I do understand that you need to spew your nonsense in a sad attempt to appear relevant.

          • OWilson

            They are simply trolls.

          • S Graves

            You are correct OWilson. Trolls and often liars. CB is a classic example of the two characteristics.

          • Dano2

            …and little fibbin Graves has been caught in soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many mendacities that you can trust that it knows about trolling and lying.

            Best,

            D

    • Tom Yulsman

      Here is a graph showing the trend in Arctic sea ice volume between 1979 and the present: http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png It shows the anomaly relative to the 1975-2015 average. Keep in mind that this is an estimate generated by modeling based on observational factors such as sea ice concentration and sea surface temperatures. Modeling is necessary because direct measurement of sea ice volume across a region as huge as the Arctic Ocean is impossible. I hope this is helpful!

  • OWilson

    Now a word from Mother Nature:

    Nature Geoscience, July 2016

    “Antarctic sea-ice extent has been slowly increasing in the satellite record that began in 1979..

    Since the late 1990s, the increase has accelerated”!

    They say it is just natural variation.

    • Tom Yulsman

      The Arctic and Antarctic are both literally and figuratively at opposite poles. The Arctic consists of a large ocean surrounded by continents. The Antarctic is a continent surrounded by oceans. So it should not be surprising that the two regions respond differently to the increased energy building up in the Earth system as a result of rising levels of greenhouse gases.

      • OWilson

        You are correct that the different areas of the planet react in different ways to the specific variables affecting the location.

        However, according to Nature Geoscience, while “Antarctic sea-ice extent has been slowly increasing in the satellite record that began in 1979, and sctually has accelerated since the 1990s, the AVERAGE OF ALL MODELS, however, SHOW (predict) A DECLINE.

        So there is obviously a little more going on here than the usual Global Warming consensus.

        • Dale Anderson

          I do not believe models of any sea ice extent is of concern… It is the freshwater land ice loss that is of concern and the loss of the perennial sea ice in the Arctic Ocean

          Models on ice loss is not required. Observed science is what counts.

          • OWilson

            We frankly don’t care what believers, “believe”.:)

            Your NASA, NSIDC and Nature Geoscience are the current experts.

          • Dale Anderson

            Yeah; that is why I quote the scientists of NOAA, NASA, CDIAC, NSIDC, ISSS, Arctic News,
            Who is “We”? __ Is it yourself, Sparafucile, S. Graves. BBQMan, Zlop, One other person is typing and the rest of the ignorant, dishonest, corrupt, hired liars of the Fossil Fuel Industry.

          • OWilson

            No, “we” are:

            NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

            NASA – Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

            National Geographic – What Antarctica’s Incredible “Growing” Icepack Really Means

            LiveScience – Antarctica Is Gaining Ice, So Why Is the Earth Still Warming?

            Harvard – Why is Antarctica’s Ice Sheet Growing in a Warming World?

            Don’t rely on trolls for information, go to the source :)

            I’m done with you :)

          • Dano2

            Poor Wilson can’t grasp when the data stopped being collected. Therefore, derp.

            Best,

            D

          • OWilson

            Luv u 2!

            Don’t be a stranger, y’hear?

          • Dano2

            Antarctic be gainin’ ice now. Educate yourself.

            Best,

            D

          • OWilson

            Agreed!

            Say hi to the ‘er, Missus!

          • OWilson

            Chicken!. LOL

            Some guys will uptick anything!

          • OWilson

            Chicken!

            LOL

      • CB

        “The Arctic and Antarctic are both literally and figuratively at opposite poles.”

        …also, Antarctica is melting down too, a fact Mr. Wilson has had pointed out to him on numerous occasions!

        To my mind, that makes it much less likely that Mr. Wilson was making an honest mistake.

        “multiple data sources have confirmed that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate”

        http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X15000564

        • Gallilao

          Your dishonesty is no mistake however!

          • Dale Anderson

            Show where CB was dishonest…. Your ignorance about polar ice is no mistake however.

    • Gallilao

      The Arctic ice is receding but the Antarctic sea ice is increasing:
      http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/07/recent-antarctic-sea-ice-growth-boosted-by-la-ninas/

      Sea ice has been fluctuating since the beginning of time!

      Why would anyone care?

      • CB

        “Antarctic sea ice is increasing”

        Mr. Lao, is most of the ice on the south pole on the land or in the sea?

        “Most of Antarctica’s ice lies in the ice sheets that cover the continent”

        http://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/antarctic-winter-sea-ice-extent-sets-new-record-2014

        “The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.”

        http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

      • Dale Anderson

        Sea ice increases every winter in the Southern Ocean around the Continent of Antarctica. This is the wniter season for Antarctica ya should know.

      • Dale Anderson

        What we care about is the now near total loss of the perennial (old ice) in the Arctic Ocean. That is dangerous for the climate all around the entire world.

      • istvan

        Stupidity has been fluctuating too, but it seems to have peaked with you. You are a true disgrace to the name

    • Dano2

      …and yet, Arctic ice is falling off a cliff and Antarctic ice sheets losing mass.

      So your deflection didn’t work.

      Best,

      D

      • OWilson

        The trolls are out in force today! Who died? :)

        “Nature Geoscience, July 2016 – Antarctic sea-ice extent has been slowly increasing in the satellite record that began in 1979..Since the late 1990s, the increase has accelerated”!

        “Nov 16, 2015 – A new study released by NASA reveals that Antarctica is currently gaining more ice than it’s losing”

        • Dale Anderson

          As the annual freshwater ice on the continent of Antarctica melts and the liquid freshwater flows into the Southern Ocean, it causes the winter sea ice around the continent of Antarctic to increase a bit more than the previous year. Freshwater is not salty either and freezes faster than salty ocean water.
          You should not be concerned about that annual slight increase of winter sea ice around the continent of Antarctica.
          You should be concerned about the loss of freshwater ice off of the land which is a result of a continual increase of atmospheric CO2, CH4 and N2O in the atmospheric greenhouse gases warming the planet.

        • Dano2
          • OWilson

            Yesterday’s news! Combined with smoke and mirrors.

            LOL!

            Here’s some updated news for ya!

            NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

            NASA – Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum

            National Geographic – What Antarctica’s Incredible “Growing” Icepack Really Means

            LiveScience – Antarctica Is Gaining Ice, So Why Is the Earth Still Warming?

            Harvard – Why is Antarctica’s Ice Sheet Growing in a Warming World?

            Go troll them!

          • Dano2

            I already pre-bunked this finding.

            Why do you derp so hard? You’re going to hurt yourself.

            Best,

            D

          • OWilson

            Are you hiring?

            LOL

          • Dano2

            Thanks for that capitulation.

            Best,

            D

          • Tom Yulsman

            Thanks for this Dano2.

          • OWilson

            OMG!

            Tom?

  • Mike Richardson

    Looks like it’s a neck-and-neck race between the record year of 2012 and our current year. However, with lowered albedo and warming temperatures, we’re poised to overtake it. Regardless, still below the average of the past 35 years, and beyond the standard deviation. Debates over whether or not Antarctic ice mass has increased aside, it’s pretty clear the trend is not towards any increase in the northern hemisphere, and that’s not counting the meltdown in Greenland, which will have the greatest impact on coastal communities.

  • BBQman

    Just a short review of history will show the quantity of sea ice has always varied from year to year, see “Roger Vercel’s” writings, massive sea ice found floating in 1816 & 1817 as far south as the 40th parallel, for those same years “William Scoresby” found zero ice along the coast of Greenland between 74 & 75 degrees N, and let’s never forget that in 2010, 50 ships had to be freed by icebreakers off the coast of Stockholm in the Baltic.
    Just over the course of a few hundred years, many regional climate variations take place, grapes grown in Stockholm around 35 CE, Vikings found Greenland “green” around 1,000 CE, needless to say, a few degrees of warming in Antarctic means less then nothing where the temperature is below -75 f, see “Garnier” for more details.
    Man Made CO2 is not a climate driver, never was, never will be, and sea ice is within it normal boundaries.

    • Dale Anderson

      Sea ice growth and loss is not the concern BBMan….. It is the freshwater ice loss on land we are concerned about.

      So you long winded yak is not in any way relevant.

      • BBQman

        We are on the threshold of another Ice Age, it’s time to put away your CO2 boogieman and help get the word out, even your hero soros has been buying up stock in coal industry infrastructure for the last few years at an alarming rate.

        • Dale Anderson

          With an atmospheric CO2 level of 404ppm and rising at over 4ppm a year, with billions of toms of CH4 escaping from melting Arctic permafrost, there will be no ice age unless there is long lasting massive volcanic activity that blocks out sunbeams for a few years and blocks out incoming sunbeams.

          Any who would say there is a pending ice age is either crazy or a paid liar to deny AGW.

          • BBQman

            I will save your comment and show it to you again in a few months.

          • OWilson

            Good luck!

            Try to find a proponent of the “Population Bomb” circa 1975, a proponent of “Himalayan Glaciers” gone by 2035, “Fossil Fuels depleted by 1985”

            Or a proponent of Hansen’e “Tipping Point” by 2006, or Al Gore’s “Tipping Point” by 2016.

            Or even a hockey stick!

            You’ll have silence.

            Even now they are saying , Who the hell is Al Gore, and why would you believe HIM?”

            Fun stuff, forever!

          • BBQman

            I sure hope the climate study grants dry up when Trump is elected, the EPA wastes a whole lot of taxpayer funds on those right now, the frigin kick backs are rampant.

          • OWilson

            Hillary has to win this election!

            Otherwise there’s a lot of this current criminal enterprise going to jail!

            NASA, DSIDC and NOAA are exempt. They can make a great case that they have been (A) mistaken, and (B) misquoted.

            The individual scientists are even smarter.

            “Who actually said we are going to have “catastrophic man-made global warming”, or that it would even be “catastrophic” :)

          • BBQman

            I believe Trump will win in a Reagan style landslide, probably around 85 million votes if my unofficial Walmart polls are correct. Trump will enforce existing law and do common sense governing, it’s going to be a bad time for all the free riders no matter which branch of the unaccountable bureaucracy they are in.

            Most people can’t blow smoke up his tailpipes like they do to your average politicians.

          • Over50andwhite

            Newt Gingrich as V.P. No Smoke, NO WAY..

          • BBQman

            Time will tell.

          • Over50andwhite

            I’m an atheist,However let us PRAY

          • BBQman

            I have a few atheist friends, I think the only difference is I believe life is eternal and and the atheist believes that when you die on this earth, it’s just lights out, that’s it, the end. Otherwise we live by the same moral standards.:)

          • Over50andwhite

            I should have said Agnostic, Yes we live by the same moral standards, So lets bend a knee and hope and pray that Trump picks Newt..for V.P. Gingrich could and would “Show him the way” So to speak.. This is not a religious statement, Donald Trump in the Lead, With a well seasoned politician advising. Rather than a narcissistic HEAD of State, Trump the Deal maker , Newt the politician, level headed and aware of the ways of Washington, Ahh Sounds to good to be true. (or Work)..
            Compared to all other V.P’s in my lifetime … NEWT be the man…

          • BBQman

            I like Newt, or Cruz but I think Cruz would be better on the Supreme Court.

          • OWilson

            Hey, they elected VPs Al Gore and Joe Biden.

            Anything is possible! :)

          • OWilson

            I believe in democracy.

            The folks ALWAYS get the government they deserve, no more, no less!

          • BBQman

            I believe in a republic, and yes, folks always get the government they deserve!

          • Mike Richardson

            Unofficial Walmart polls?! Lol… big surprise there. Folks supporting plutocrats who can’t pay their employees a living wage supporting a quasi-fascist professional conman? I’m shocked, shocked, I tell you. Are you going to order the spiffy new brown uniforms and jack boots to show your support and give the appropriate raised arm salute at the convention in August? I’d love to see it!

          • BBQman

            You misunderstand, I conduct the Walmart polls, and after making adjustments due to demographics and then extrapolating out the results, discounting for the people who just want to talk about their dogs or chickens, I end up with a landslide for Trump with around 330 Electoral votes and around 85 million popular votes.

            And to tell you the truth, it’s George Soros who is sponsoring the Brown Shirts that keep on trying to stop our free speech at the Trump rallies, say, why do you suppose Soros is buying up all the coal infrastructure he can get his hands on?

          • Mike Richardson

            LOL… amazing. It’s like one of those upside-down mirrors. A guy who appeals openly to racists and anti-Semites is for freedom, but anyone trying to point out that he’s taking our country down a very dangerous path is interfering with free speech. Nope, exercising our own free speech to point out the truth isn’t denying that freedom to anyone else — it’s just bursting the bubble of propaganda. Well, at least the opposite view of reality is consistent across a variety of subjects.

          • BBQman

            Bedtime for me.

            Here are your people!
            http://youtu.be/oEMZSn8iLr4

          • OWilson

            Animals can’t comprehend free speech, or democracy.

            The mob will never accept the concept of one vote per citizen.

          • Mike Richardson

            So it’s “animals,” now, is it? You’re really not keeping that promise to avoid name calling, are you? :) And as I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, showing the logical fallacies in your statements is not interfering with your own right to continue with posting said fallacies. On the topic of climate, which is what this thread is ostensibly about, exactly what are your thoughts on The Barbeque Man’s theory of “magnetic forcings” as an alternative to greenhouse gas warming of the climate? I’d love to hear this one. :)

          • Robert
          • BBQman

            Again, many thanks for helping me get the message out Robert!

          • Mike Richardson

            Yes, and not surprisingly, he’s a Trump supporter. Maybe I should ask him what books are on the list to collect for burning, or when to enroll my child in the Trump Youth League if all sanity leaves this nation and his candidate wins in November. Just in case I want to go along with the “good ‘Murikans” rather than flee to New Zealand. Of course, I’m hoping his election predictions are as substantive as his declarations on climate science, the coming astro-apocalypse in October, and that Ice Age due in the next 30 years..

          • OWilson

            Now the monnbeams are with the sunbeams. LOL

          • Dano2

            LOLO flails to keep the cognitive dissonance at bay?

            Best,

            D

      • BBQman

        Rabid?

        • Dale Anderson

          Okay; well at least you don’t deny being a global warming denier.

          • BBQman

            We have always had variations of global warming and cooling, what fool would deny that?
            The problem is that to many people think it is caused by CO2 when in fact it is caused by magnetism and its control over our orbital eccentricities, and the sun of course.

    • Dale Anderson

      Great post BBQman, and you got 9 upper votes… Well done. And you are such a swell guy too.

      • jmac

        LOL. And his posts are always so well documented with peer reviewed studies and the source works that underpin particular concepts, positions, propositions and arguments with citations. /sarc

        • CB

          “his posts are always so well documented with peer reviewed studies… /sarc”

          Ermagerd, seriously!

          Vote-botting sea yarn, begone!

          “Since 1978, satellites have monitored sea ice growth and retreat, and they have detected an overall decline in Arctic sea ice. The rate of decline has steepened in the 21st century.”

          earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php

          • BBQman

            I have no peers, my theories are new, but my foundation of facts are undisputed and very measureable, you will have to forget about all the lies you have swallowed about MM-CO2 being a climate driver before you can see the pure science of climate drivers though.

          • CB

            “you will have to forget about all the lies you have swallowed about MM-CO2 being a climate driver before you can see the pure science of climate drivers though.”

            …disturbingly religious language!

            Is it likely the world’s scientists are all lying and you are telling the truth, Barbie?

            “Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities… The main human activity that emits CO₂ is the combustion of fossil fuels”

            www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

          • Mensch59

            …disturbingly religious language

            Barbie’s “climate science” beliefs VERY MUCH are akin to beliefs about purple unicorns on Uranus.

          • CB

            “Barbie’s “climate science” beliefs VERY MUCH are akin to beliefs about purple unicorns on Uranus.”

            He’s babbling about “pure science”… like, really?

            Why not just join sendero luminoso and get it over with…

            “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

            climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

          • OWilson

            Old, debunked, news.

            You won’t get any converts who can click with THAT one! LOL

            For the those interested click on “97% Consensus – Cook et al. LOL

          • CB

            “Old, debunked, news.”

            Very old!

            “In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a “greenhouse effect” which affects the planet’s temperature.”

            http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

            …to debunk it, though, you’d have to provide your evidence that greenhouse gasses are transparent to infrared radiation.

            Can you do that, Mr. Wilson?

            Did you think debunking was as simple as shouting, “DEBUNKED!!!”?

            “Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere.”

            missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html

          • Dano2

            Cook totem! drink!

            Best,

            d

          • BBQman

            Run along now and let the grownups talk….

          • Mensch59

            That would exclude you, barbie, and your sycophantic upvoters hanger-ons.
            Your bs “pure science” is like “arguing” evolution from the Bible.
            Bugger off.

          • BBQman

            Why do you have to always be so butt hurt, did someone hurt your feelings once?

            Please show me your facts that rebutt my scientific findings, tell me what our average global temperature and CO2 levels should be for a lush healthy earth?

          • CB

            “Please show me your facts that rebutt my scientific findings”

            That would involve you locating the scroll button on your mouse… maybe even the click button if you wanted to be skeptical.

            Can you do that, Barbie?

            “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

            http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf

          • Dano2

            tell me what our average global temperature and CO2 levels should be for a lush healthy earth?

            Can’t grasp the answer it received, searches for another. Precious.

            Best,

            D

          • OWilson

            Another well reasoned argument from our true believers, and his followers.

            Isn’t that a slight on a gay activity?

            Where’s our moderator?

          • OWilson

            Why hide it?

            U.N. IPCC Chair Perchouri (before his, what else?, sexual harassement firing)

            “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”

            Actor Harrison Ford’s Green Religion: ‘I needed something outside of myself to believe in and I found in nature a kind of God’

            Suckers!

          • Dano2

            The real suckers are the ones who are identified as marks and then fed quote-mined passages for them to gullibly copy-paste.

            Best,

            D

          • Mensch59

            You and your ilk will have as much success “arguing” the Ptolemaic solar system or young earth creationism.
            Bugger off.

          • S Graves

            But what do YOU know, Gary? You believe CB’s ice caps and the history of the Earth BS in the face of virtually all the peer reviewed work. She couldn’t provide a SINGLE piece of work to support her nonsense but YOU believed her. What does that say about YOUR “ilk”?

          • Mensch59

            You can bugger off as well.

          • S Graves

            So you like to do drive by posts on science but not really discuss the issues…right? Typical CAGW fanatic.

          • OWilson

            Peddling religious beliefs is frustrating.

            It always ends with name calling.

            That’s the proof, they have nothing to offer :)

          • Mike Richardson

            And some folks worship the “invisible hand.” Laissez-faire capitalism as religion, or at least an unyielding ideology. Perhaps you might look at such individuals as subjects for criticism, though I suspect it may fall a little too close to home. :)

          • S Graves

            So he believes what you believe?

          • Mike Richardson

            Actually, he believes Uranus is magnetically influencing our climate, which is just about as bad.

          • BBQman

            What’s wrong, did another climate computer model fail…again..what are the models batting average now, around 0.0000, pity.

          • Mike Richardson

            More reliable than the semi-astrological fairy tale you’ve been peddling (with dismaying success) around here. Well, P.T. Barnum did call this one, at least.

          • BBQman

            I only speak on matters that are well researched and those AGW computer models have never been correct. Cold weather is on the way, prepare.

          • Mike Richardson

            The matter that has been well-researched is in direct contradiction to your contentions, and our planet continues to warm. You can say the sky is red, and that up is down, and perhaps even believe it, but that doesn’t make it so.

          • BBQman

            Time will tell, I don’t understand why you can’t see magnetism as our primary climate driver. CO2 plays a very small part and is actually a third tier climate driver, probably contributes about 0.000001% as one of the overall climate drivers.

          • Mike Richardson

            No, just plain wrong. Magnetism might play a role if our poles were reversing, which they aren’t. Given fairly stable output from the sun, orbital periods of the planets, and all other factors which are accounted for, atmospheric composition becomes the main climate change driver. Thus when you increase the amount of gases transparent to visible and higher wavelength light, but more opaque to warming infrared (which radiates from the surface of the earth after shorter wavelength light is bounce back) you get warming. Which is what we’re seeing, and which you even seem to admit when you dangerously suggest we raise CO2 levels for a “warm, lush, healthy earth.” Of course, more of it will be underwater, including much of the human occupied real estate on the coasts — so you can see why a significant portion of the population might have a problem with your idea of making the earth “lusher.”

          • BBQman

            No, actually as we cool off over the next 30 years the oceans will recede a bit. Good night,

          • BBQman

            You need to check the world crop yields and projections!

          • OWilson

            You managed to get the entire Al gore/Obama/ Leonardo di Caprio/ Lady Ga Ga team on your case.

            LOL

          • BBQman

            They do seem to have their panties in a wad!

          • OWilson

            When you hit a nerve (make sense) they send for help!

            LOL

            Usually it’s 100 true believers to one skeptic.

            Nobody said it was going to be easy being a skeptic., Ask Galileo :)

          • Mike Richardson

            So you’re on the BBQ Bandwagon of “magnetic forcings” now? Even better than the “Little Ice Age” myth you keep banking on. If this is the caliber of “skepticism” you embrace, you’ve given up on science altogether. LOL… Seems like you two have plenty of supporters to not worry about what anyone else thinks, but the problem is, critical thinking doesn’t really support your views in the first place, does it? 😉

          • BBQman

            If you would adjust the results of the icecores as I suggested, those computer models might do a better job of predicting future climate.

            Just multiple all CO2 results X 2.1734 and you will have better representations of what the atmospheric CO2 levels were for the last 800 thousand years.

          • Mike Richardson

            And please provide your rationale for why I should multiply these figures by 2.1734. Is there a scientific significance here, or is it some hidden astrological figure you get from dividing up the ratio of the orbits of the outer planets? So far, you’ve given no reason for your line of thinking, but that doesn’t seem to be a requirement for the anti-global warming club around here.

          • BBQman

            Ice cores taken within 30 degrees of the poles contain less then 40% of the equatorial infused atmospheric CO2 available as a result of the jet stream mechanics that turn away around 60% of the equatorial atmospheric CO2 at the 30+ degree marks, also there is a fair amount of atmospheric CO2 degradation due to the extreme temperatures encountered in the atmospheric at levels of 6,000 meters and above that decreases the true atmospheric levels before the CO2 is caught in the water vapor and ends up in the ice.

          • Mike Richardson

            Still not providing where you came up with that figure. I get it — don’t look behind the curtain, don’t question the preacher, just believe.

          • BBQman

            I asked you to study the jet stream, not my fault.

          • Robert

            “…magnetism as our primary climate driver. CO2 plays a very small part and is actually a third tier climate driver, ”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2780091010
            2

          • Robert

            “…magnetism as our primary climate driver. CO2 plays a very small part and is actually a third tier climate driver, ”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2780091010

          • Mike Richardson

            Please, wrap your arms around this one real tight! LOL… If you had any credibility left at all, you’re tossing it out the window now. Would you care to help him with his “magnetic forcings” theory, or discuss the best way to deal with the coming Ice Age? LOL… oh, good stuff. Now, what does the article say about the Arctic sea ice, again? Wouldn’t we be getting a little more coverage in the Northern Hemisphere if we were headed into an ice age? 😉

          • Robert

            Though, just like all the pronouncements made previously, wo a shred of evidence.
            “..my foundation of facts are undisputed and very measureable..”

          • BBQman

            I’m still waiting on the evidence for how a trace gas, MM-CO2 can magically drive the climate when water vapor which is 100s of millions times more abundant is ignored, and don’t even think about trying to tell me how CO2 which is less then one/onemillionth of 1% of the atmospheric gases can effect water vapor, nobody is stupid enough to believe that….well almost everyone, but I try not to belittle others so let’s leave it at that.

          • Robert

            We do have to thank the gift thaF keeps on.. posting inane, factless, unsupported assertions.
            Especially when it takes so little effort to find sources that discuss the science.
            Start here:
            Climate.nasa.gov/evidence

            climate.nasa.gov/causes/

            https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

            https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/

            http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/outreach/tertiary.jsp?entity=INSTRC&action=GetEntity&title=Materials%20for%20Educators

          • Robert

            More expertise…..
            He knows an ice age is going to happen in 86 days…
            “…. magnetic forcing’s of our gaseous outer planets effect the magnetic soup which earth swims through, then you will see how our orbital tilt and other multiple magnetic convolutions to earth take place, it’s just a matter of simply understanding the forces and how they effect us in our frictionless vacuum.”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2782922341

          • BBQman

            Have you studied the jet stream like I suggested…..NO….that’s what I thought.

          • Robert

            Sources?

          • BBQman

            Find yourself a website that shows global wind currents at multiple elevations up to 13.5 km, do I look like your secretary? If I suggested a site, you would probably claim it belonged to the fossil fuel industry and I don’t want to hear it, good night it’s my bedtime.

          • Robert

            So you can’t replicate your searches to find your sources.
            Or you don’t want to show us what you’ve read to inform your thinking.
            And you think you can refuse to show what sources you used by applying a logical fallacy.

            Thanks for the continuing demonstration of what a denialist thinks is enough conclusive research and analysis to defend a position. A week of your ipse dixit shows us the width and breadth of your work

            Magic numbers. Magnets. Jet stream. False data. Coming ice age in 80some days. And store bought rub…….

          • BBQman

            No, my purpose is to create an environment that helps you think for yourself and stop relying on the work of others…drop and give me fifty….now.

            I want you you type 100 times “CO2 is only a byproduct of a healthy earth and a third tier minor climate driver”

          • Robert

            Please continue showing us your foolishness.

            We especially like your 80some day prediction of an ice age coming because of gaseous planets and magnatism.

            And your confusion about forcings and feedbacks shows the laziness of the rigor of your basic understanding of the science.

            Though, your use of store bought rub is pretty good also.

            And your magic number to convert icecore data borders on being a Prof Irwin Corey impression.

            And that no one but you knows that no one knows how to measure the world co2 level is also a knee slapper.

          • BBQman

            You have changed since we first met, this is a positive sign.

          • Robert

            So you can’t replicate your searches to find your sources.
            Or you don’t want to show us what you’ve read to inform your thinking.
            And you think you can refuse to show what sources you used by applying a logical fallacy.

            Thanks for the continuing demonstration of what a denialist thinks is enough conclusive research and analysis to defend a position. A week of your ipse dixit shows us the width and breadth of your work

            Magic numbers. Magnets. Jet stream. False data. Coming ice age in 80some days. And store bought rub…….

          • Robert

            I would like to introduce you to StephenWV; like you, he poopoos ACC. Unlike you, he has a different reason.
            Like you, he really has no science, and like you, he isn’t afraid to showit.
            Perhaps you can persuade him that your gaseous planet magnatism bringing an ice age in 80some days is more right than his graph.

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/ecowatch/historic_victory_4_teenagers_win_in_massachusetts_climate_change_lawsuit/#comment-2783669196

          • BBQman

            Once again, you attempt to set up an illogical false premise to lead us down a dead end rabbit trail, Robert..you disappoint me…again!

            CO2 is primarily a byproduct of a healthy normally functioning planet, the atmospheric quantities of CO2 are negligible and do not create a Greenhouse effect.

          • Robert

            Says the person who can’t cite a single resource or supporting evidence.

            Tell us again how you ‘know’ that gaseous planet magnatism is going to tilt us and cause an ice age in 80some days.

            Tell us again how why you disagree with the global co2 measurement.

          • Robert
          • Robert
          • Robert

            So, you can’t tell S..WV what is wrong about his theory….
            Maybe you should explain to Bob Armstrong of cosy.com ( https://disqus.com/by/BobArmstrong/) why you think he’s wrong and you are right.

          • BBQman

            Your premise is false and you are projecting again, I talk to people as I see fit, not as directed by you dear Robert, all in due time, only 83 more days.

          • Robert

            Your premise. And you should be able to defend it. You can’t cite anything in support of your premise/hypothesis . However, since your claims run counter to not only actual science, I was merely suggesting you’d have a better time arguing w someone who is also as wrong as you.

          • BBQman

            Your false premise continues, You might want to smoke a brisket like I showed you and enjoy the weekend, have a beer and relax, the world is not going to end, it’s just going to get much colder after October 7th, and remember, CO2 is only a third tier insignificant climate driver at 0.000001% of the total.

          • Robert

            Said wo a shred of evidence.

            Gaseous planet magnatism
            Coming ice age in 80some days
            “CO2 is only a third tier insignificant climate driver”

          • BBQman

            I still have not seen any evidence of how a trace gas (CO2) which makes up less then one/onemillionth of 1% of all atmospheric gases can be a climate driver, the climate science data collection methods are corrupt and regional only, the ice-cores taken within 30 degrees of the poles are missing over half of the atmospheric CO2 for every time period up to the last 800 thousand years, and not one single climate model has ever been correct because of the rampant GIGO SOPs used. But you can bet that the next 30 plus years will be colder than a well diggers rear in Montana, magnetism is a very powerful climate driver.

          • Robert

            Ah, the difference between your claims and the actual science is that over the last several days you have steadfastly refused to to show us any sort of evidence and here is a list of sources that show your claims to be just that; empty, unsupported assertions devoid of any science.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
            http://www.universetoday.com/77842/mann-a-changing-climate-doesnt-have-a-political-agenda/
            http://www.nationalacademies.org/OCGA/111Session2/testimonies/OCGA_147143
            https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/
            https://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm
            http://www.iop.org/activity/groups/subject/env/prize/file_40768.pdf
            https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm
            http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/11/10/the-physics-of-global-warming/
            https://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/energy/climate.cfm
            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-behind-climate-change/
            https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
            Climatechange2013.org

            At this point ,you – and the rest of the denialist camp – are behaving as a two yr old with crumbs on their faces and knuckles, the lid to the cookie jar in shards on the floor, the kitchen stepstool pushed up to the counter, and while standing on the top rung, saying “no”.

            “…magnetism is a very powerful climate driver.” is a quote you can’t find in any published science.

            “…data collection methods are corrupt ..” is a quote only found on rw denialist blogs

            “.. not one single climate model has ever been correct..” is a quote found on rw denialist blogs. And not supported here or there by evidence.

            “..next 30 plus years will be colder..” is seen in comment thread, but again, not in actual science.

            If there was the smallest amount of truth in any of your statements, there would be supporting evidence. Neither you, nor your up voters have brought forward any.

            .

          • BBQman

            Robert, I have already reviewed most of these insufficient links you keep repeatedly putting forth that read like Cruise ship travel brochures with nothing more than flowery impact words, they do not contain any measurable Sumarys that show how such a minor source gas (CO2) has the ability to control the climate after atmospheric levels of 345ppm. Why don’t you tell me in your words, in a quantifiable why, how this minor trace gas is holding in heat that should be dissipating in the colder air levels of 3,500 meters and above.

            Maybe you should worry about controlling water vapor if you really want to control some regional climate, just a thought.

          • Robert

            Water vapor? I thought you were claiming it is magnets….

          • BBQman

            It is magnetism, but you Robert, are fixated on gas, so why don’t you focus the one that is most abundant, water vapor.

          • Robert

            Science supporting ” It is magnetism”?

          • BBQman

            I have explained to you in numerous posts how magnetism functions as related to our planets orbital eccentricities and relationship to the sun, you just refuse to absorb the information because of your CO2 bias.

          • Robert

            Link?
            Nope.
            Like any to any science in any post.

            You do realize my “co2 bias” is backed up by nearly two hundred years of science rsearch, right?
            And your magnet assertion?
            Anyone? Anywhere?

          • BBQman

            Your 200 years of science came to the wrong conclusions.

          • Robert

            Show us the science that came to what is, in your opinion, the right conclusions.

          • Robert

            Said wo a single link to anywhere…..

            BBQman 2 days ago
            “I have explained to you in numerous posts…”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2787056783

          • BBQman

            Still waiting on your sumary……looking ar watch, foot tapping on floor rapidly……

          • Robert

            What an odd argument you are attempting.
            There are scores of books, articles, blog posts – all written by those with a solid grasp of the science and a demonstrated expertise in writing walking through the science.
            We have everything from the original data to the papers with technical analysis, to meta analysis of those papers.
            We have a nearly two hundred year record of that science and we have histories written about that history.
            We also have in that nearly two hundred years of recorded science a series of alternative hypotheses. All brought forward, best case presented, and found to be inaccurate.
            Yet, you think I should write my own precis. Somehow my not doing so will negate that whole body of research and writing. And this ‘requirement’ is from someone -forwarding their own hypothesis – who refuses to walk through his own data and support for his claims.
            Got it.

          • Robert
          • Robert

            “flowery impact words, ”

            What we don’t see in your posts is any link to any science. Nor even an accurate paraphrase.

          • BBQman

            There is absolutely nothing that proves CO2 to be a primary climate driver in your links, don’t lecture me on facts my good man.

          • Robert

            W
            O
            W
            .
            .
            .

          • BBQman

            In your words Robert, stop deflecting.

          • Robert

            Science supporting ” It is magnetism”?

          • Robert
          • BBQman

            Why not in your words, do you not know the solution?

          • Robert

            Says the person who hasn’t been able to string together 3 sentences explaining his magnets on gaseous planets planets causing an ice age in 80some days…..

          • BBQman

            I have , you just will not comprehend!

          • Robert

            Where, exactly?
            “I have…”

          • BBQman

            Your words, no links.

          • Robert

            Nope. The quotemarks designate those were your words.
            That you have been unable to supply any links is indicative of the quality of your assertions.

          • BBQman

            Your links do not prove that CO2 is a primary climate driver.

          • Robert

            Your lack of links shows the quality of your assertions.
            Go write that detailed, referenced piece you claim will convince us about gaseousplanets, magnets, water vapor driving the ACC being observed.

          • BBQman

            I am still waiting on your proof that CO2 is a climate driver…..waiting…..

          • Robert

            Smoke your store bought rubbed brisket. Then type up your discussion on gaseous planet magnets tilting us into an ice age on Oct 7.

          • BBQman

            Don’t get your panties in a wad, or you might have to wait till October 7. And where is your summary?

          • Robert

            “…October 7. ”

          • BBQman

            Where is your CO2 sumary?

          • Robert

            What an odd argument you are attempting.

            There are scores of books, articles, blog posts – all written by those with a solid grasp of the science and a demonstrated expertise in writing walking through the science.
            We have everything from the original data to the papers with technical analysis, to meta analysis of those papers.

            We have a nearly two hundred year record of that science and we have histories written about that history.

            We also have in that nearly two hundred years of recorded science a series of alternative hypotheses. All brought forward, best case presented, and found to be inaccurate.

            Yet, you think I should write my own precis. Somehow my not doing so will negate that whole body of research and writing. And this ‘requirement’ is from someone -forwarding their own hypothesis – who refuses to walk through his own data and support for his claims.

            Got it.

          • Dale Anderson

            Well Robert; in Earth’s past history some very important events occurred on October 7th, so maybe BB has a point.

            Oct 7, 1492 Columbus misses Florida when he changed course.

            Oct 7, 1714 People rioted due to a beer tax in Alkmaar, Netherlands.

            Oct 7, 1916 222 points are scored in a football game between Georgia Tech and Cumberland University of Lebanon, Tennessee,… Georgia Tech won the game.

            Oct 7, 1942 U.S. and British government announce establishment of United Nations

            2011 In Game 5 of the American League Division Series, the Detroit Tigers beat the New York Yankees, moving on to play the Texas Rangers.

            Oct 7, 2013 The Chinese province of Fujian suffered heavy rains and flooding from Typhoon Fitow.

          • Robert

            That is great!

          • Robert

            I think the Cumberland U team had the football skills comparable to the denialist ‘science.
            Thanks for the list! Maybe the National Enquire or townhall or blaze or climdep or rush will add bbq’s prediction…..

          • Dale Anderson

            What is amazing is, you got 10 upper votes on that crazy posted comment… Unbelievable, but we have to believe it because they are there.

            Most intelligent, sane people are aware there are a lot of brain damaged nut cases running loose, but to see 11 of them on one posted comment which is pure garbage is incredible, unless you have 10 sock puppets.

            The truth and fact that atmospheric CO2 is the driving force for the surface temperature of our planet was scientifically well proven over a 115 years ago by the scientist Doctor John Tyndall.

            Since that time with more advanced scientific tools and studies, DR. Tyndall’s scientific theory on the atmospheric greenhouse effect has been well verified.

            It is a scientific theory that is accepted by the vast majority of scientists connected to at least 197 separate scientific groups from all around the world, by thousands of scientists.

            If you disagree and claim there is not any proof that atmospheric CO2 is the driving force for the planet’s surface temperature, it is up to you to prove the theory is flawed. That is how science works…

            Your voo-doo science is just that, a very bad joke, but you are far from being funny. You are a damaging disruption to a very serious global issu that effects all life on Earth.

            You are a sad sack, a wortless freak to be polite. Any who agree with you are in that same despicable boat.

          • BBQman

            The truth is that none of your ilk have the ability to post in their own words, a sumary which proves higher levels of CO2 over 345 ppm are warming the planet, CO2 is not a climate driver, it is a byproduct of a warm planet. I would hope that our atmospheric CO2 levels rise to at least 800 ppm before we enter this next 30 plus years of colder weather that magnetism is causing.

          • Dale Anderson

            Just cite your references for all of that incredible nonsense BBMan…..Some other than wattsupwiththat.

          • BBQman

            Cites will not be acceptable, tell me in your words how a trace gas, CO2, which is only one/ onemillionth of one percent of all atmospheric gases can be a climate driver, your summary must be quantifiable.

          • Dale Anderson

            In my words?? I am not a scientists BBMan… No; you have been given many articles to study offered by many others here with the words of scientists who have earned Doctorates in their specific fields of study and you ignore or scoff at them.

            You display again what a fool you are and any who support you are also fools.

          • BBQman

            That’s harsh.

          • Dale Anderson

            One more…. If the truth bothers you then you are guilty as charged.

          • Dale Anderson

            Hey BB, I’m back… The reason being is I think I may owe you an apology…
            You see I missed where you gave the name or maybe the names of a scientist or scientists who fully agree with your magnetic hypothesis about how the planet is going to be entering an ice age by October, 7, 2016.
            Would you please post the name or names of the scientists once again for me so whenever you might reply to me again with your BS story I will not argue with you about it and say you are a luna-tick.
            Thank you in advance for your time BB.

          • BBQman

            I don’t know of any scientists who agree with my observations, I just see what I see. If others can’t see what I see, so be it.:)

          • Dale Anderson

            What!!!! No scientists support your science… That is alright, but you sure are foolish then to deny what many thousands of scientists do say about the AGW issue. You are also foolish to say what is published in every science text book in the world which has information of how our atmospheric gases function are all wrong, unless you can PROVE the thousands upon thousands of scientists and professors of science and all of the text boks are flawed.
            Can you prove theyare wrong? Can you porve with physics and scientific experiments that you are correct? Have you done so?
            If not then what on Earth are you doing by posting your personal opinions on a very important subject and issue for all life on Earth? What is your motive? If you cannot prove your hypothesis then you have NOTHING. You may as well be saying the planet is not a globe it is flat and our moos is an illusion an does not really exist. Youdo not realize that you have a very serious issue of a sick brain. Seek professional help.

          • BBQman

            You refuse to see, oh well.

          • Dale Anderson

            Where have I ever twisted any of YOUR words?
            You have pointed out the flaws of the atmospheric CO2 or greenhouse effect science which is accepted science by thousands of scientists of 197 separated scientific bodies from all around the globe,,,, but your science has not been proven or accepted by even one scientist.
            Yes indeed BBMan; it is far worse than you thought,,, or imagined… You are crazy.

          • BBQman

            It’s glaring how you guys refuse to acknowledge all the obvious data collection mistakes that I have pointed out, you should put up your keyboard and try crossword puzzles instead.

          • Dale Anderson

            All the obvious data YOU say is mistaken, but thousands of people who have earned Doctorates in fields of science say they are not mistaken.

            Whom would any sane, sensible, honest person believe, you or the thousands of Doctors of science?

          • BBQman

            Believe the one who’s data reviews and conclusions do not depend on tax payer dollars to keep their jobs, yes you should believe me.

          • Dale Anderson

            Yes BBQMan; I refuse to see or accept your science…
            When you have proven your science with physics, have it peer reviewed and published in science journals and it is then an accepted scientific theory by the majority of scientists, I will believe it.

          • BBQman

            The whole peer reviewed thing as related to CO2 as a climate driver has been a massive failure, you got any other options?

          • Dale Anderson

            Who says it is a massive failure? Thousands of Doctors and professors of science say it is correct, a proven scientific theory. Who is right, you or them?

          • BBQman

            I was only referring to climate science, and in this case, I am right about the corruption of the CO2 data collection methods and results.

          • SoundMind

            I find peer review a poor measure of scientific findings. If a peer approves another’s work without repeating the experiment to see if he comes up with the same conclusions, then it’s nothing more than a pat on the back. Pats on the back do not science make.

          • BBQman

            Very good point, it’s like a bunch of politicians just going along to get along, and or not wanting their government funding to dry up by not going along, we must get tax payer dollars out of climate science, no doubt Mr. Trump has a plan to do just that.

          • Dale Anderson

            I will repea tthi following as it is clearly obvious you missed it r cannot comprehend what it means.

            Quote > (“If you disagree and claim there is not any proof that atmospheric CO2 is the driving force for the planet’s surface temperature, it is up to you to prove the theory is flawed. That is how science works.”) < Unquote.
            BTW BBMan; I am very well satisfied to be one of the "ILK" of thousands of scientists from all around the globe who fully agree with the proven scientific theory that atmospheric CO2 is the driving force for the planet's surface temperature.

          • BBQman

            Sorry, your link was not quantifiable and filled only with opinions, rejected. Now tell me in measureable words how CO2 after 345ppm can be a climate driver. You know it is not but continue attempting to dazzle with BS in massive quantities to hide the false theory of CO2 as a primary climate driver.

            You don’t even know what the average global temperature and CO2 levels are today, much less what they were in 1880. Please start directing your energy towards the study of actual climate drivers (magnetism) if you want to improve your ability to forecast future climate events, thank you.

          • Dale Anderson

            Indeed you are sorry BBMan..

            You replied within less than 4 minutes, so it is impossible for you to have read all of the many scientific related articles supplied in that linked article..

            There are at least 100 more articles within that article that show atmospheric greenhouse gases such as CO2 and Ch4 regulate the surface temperature of the planet.

            There are six at the bottom of the page and within each of those articles are dozens more on the issue of global warming and atmospheric greenhouse gases and how they function. .

            Your obtuse ignorant arguments are for fools.

            Then here is one quote from the article’s first page on the global warming issue and the greenhouse gases role in our surface temperature. > Quote > (“Using as a source the Vostok ice core, which provides information about glacial-interglacial cycles over hundreds of thousands of years, the researchers were able to estimate the amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, two of the principal greenhouse gases, that were released into the atmosphere in response to past global warming trends. Combining their estimates with standard climate model assumptions, they calculated how much these rising concentration levels caused global temperatures to climb, further increasing carbon dioxide and methane emissions, and so on. < Unquote…
            What science od you have to argue that their research is flawed? Name it BBMan.. Just your personal assumptions is all we ever see.

            Who do you cite or quote for your opinions Mr. BBMan? Answer = Nobody!! Yu re a fool and fool no one who is honest, sensible and intelligent.

          • BBQman

            Unfortunately the Vostok icecores only contain around 40 to 45% of the available atmospheric CO2 of the last 800 thousand years due to the mechanics of the jet stream that turn away around 60% of all middle earth atmospheric CO2 at around the 30 degree marks before the poles, combine that with the fact that almost zero CO2 is produced in that region where the cores were taken to begin with, now, take all CO2 results from those icecores, multiple X 2.1734 to come up with what the historical CO2 levels actually were. That multiplier also accounts for the CO2 degradation that resulted from the extreme upper atmospheric low temperatures the CO2 encountered before being trapped in the ice as well.

            CO2 is a third tier low impact climate driver of around 0.000001% of the total, study magnetism if you want to advance climate science.

            I did read much of your link, but as usual, it was just more unmeasurable minutia and contained not much more than flowery impact words designed to mislead the masses, I saw no useable science, thank you.

          • Dlanor

            Our magnetic poles are shifting. This will affect the magnetosphere, which will affect our dose exposure to cosmic rays, which will affect cloud formation. The Sun’s magnetic field is also about to flip. See generally http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2015/10/16/magnetism-neuroscience-to-climate-change/#.V4zmRBLBS0A.

          • BBQman

            That is very interesting information, there should be more focus on all magnetic forcings within our galaxy that have influence over our own molten core and magnetic field, it has proven to be extremely difficult to get people around here to look at climate drivers that man can not be blamed and taxed for.

          • Dale Anderson

            I have given you my last reply for today Mr. BBMan… You may have your soapbox now, rave on.

          • Robert

            Science supporting “CO2 is only a third tier insignificant climate driver”?

          • BBQman

            In your words Robert, this is a discussion board after all.

          • Robert

            So, science need not be used to discuss science….
            Or, at least, not denialist science…..

          • BBQman

            In your words Robert, tell me how a trace gas CO2 can overpower water vapor and take the lead in climate control as a third tier driver, and while you are at it, explain why we had climate anomalies for many thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution?

          • Robert

            “…third tier driver, ”

            In your opinion, what is first?
            Why do you believe that?
            What informed your thinking?

            In your opinion, what is second?
            Why do you believe that?
            What informed your thinking?

            “…third tier driver, ”
            Why do you believe that?
            What informed your thinking?

          • BBQman

            I have already given you this information, but will write it out again, be back after dinner.

          • Robert

            Must have forgotten to do your homework after dinner

            “BBQman 2 days ago
            I have already given you this information, but will write it out again, be back after dinner.”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2787084253

          • BBQman

            Please post the CO2 sumary I asked you for in your own words.

          • Robert

            What an odd argument you are attempting.
            There are scores of books, articles, blog posts – all written by those with a solid grasp of the science and a demonstrated expertise in writing walking through the science.
            We have everything from the original data to the papers with technical analysis, to meta analysis of those papers.
            We have a nearly two hundred year record of that science and we have histories written about that history.
            We also have in that nearly two hundred years of recorded science a series of alternative hypotheses. All brought forward, best case presented, and found to be inaccurate.
            Yet, you think I should write my own precis. Somehow my not doing so will negate that whole body of research and writing. And this ‘requirement’ is from someone -forwarding their own hypothesis – who refuses to walk through his own data and support for his claims.

          • jmac

            #facepalm fuckwits unable to read peer reviewed studies.

          • Robert
          • Robert

            And you promised to write up your theory 3 days ago.
            Must have forgotten to do your homework after dinner

            “BBQman 3 days ago
            I have already given you this information, but will write it out again, be back after dinner.”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2787084253

            So, not only no evidence in support for your gaseous planet magnets tilting Earth, but also, not honest enough to follow up and just say so.

          • BBQman

            Where in my promise to write it all out again does it say that I will actually post it?

            Robert, you have got to stop twisting my words to mean something different then what the actually say, I will post it after you post an acceptable sum auto me, after all, I did ask first!

            Now, where is your CO2 summary in your words, no links allowed.

          • Robert

            Thank you for your continued demonstration.

          • BBQman

            Got that summary ready yet?

          • Pumpkin Pie

            Your project isn’t going well bro. 😉

          • BBQman

            I am about done with these guys, this crap become repetitive over a week ago, time to move on to greener pastures!

          • Dale Anderson

            Be patient Robert…. He is still having his dinner

          • Robert

            Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

            C. Hitchens
            Mommie Dearest: Pope Francis will make Mother Teresa—a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud—a saint. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html

          • BBQman

            Robert, This is the last time I will ask you for your quantifiable summary on how CO2 is a climate driver, if you fail me, only 80 days to go.

          • Robert

            Pretty sure my not meeting your demands is not going to change the science.
            That science that the majority of the world knows about and understands well enough to be concerned.

            Go fiddle while your brisket burns.

            wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/wicked-healthy-plant-based-bbq-takeover

          • Mike Richardson

            I think BBQman has amply demonstrated for us that “denialist science” is an oxymoron in the truest sense of the word.

          • BBQman

            200 years now, and you guys still can’t write a simple summary that proves CO2 is a primary climate driver…WOW.

          • Mike Richardson

            Actually, it has been done, many, many, many times, beginning in the 19th century, and understood and demonstrated by numerous middle school students. Was 7th grade science that hard for most of you, because I really didn’t have a problem with it, or the years of high school and college science courses that followed. Didn’t have to resort to magical magnetic forces to cover what I couldn’t understand about the climate, to start with.

          • BBQman

            For taking my time to point out all the CO2 data collection flaws to you guys, this is the sum total of your gratitude, unbelievable…..well I tried, on October 7th, maybe you guys will have a change of heart.:)

          • Mike Richardson

            LOL, well, if you’re right, and your non-scientific prophecy comes to pass, and we see the beginnings of a mini-Ice Age (and not just typical fall cool fronts) I’ll be sure to sing your praises for predicting something with no logical basis — finally some proof of psychic precognition. Otherwise, I’ll be looking forward to some tasty BBQ recipes for that crow you’ll be eating. I suspect you’ll become scarce around that time, but I’d really like the recipes.

          • BBQman

            You guys really need to stop worrying about the trace gas CO2 which is not a climate driver and focus on magnetism, but if you need a bbq recipe, let me know.

          • TempusProTem

            You knew!… I’d upvote this one.

          • BBQman

            I do love to smoke meats, My techniques are from how meats were smoked in the 1700s south, but with modern equipment!

          • TempusProTem

            I’m building my first smoker from a heavy metal cabinet, that I been lugging around in search of a new place to live and among my possessions in the interim. I learned Southern Cooking ala Justin Wilson(TV) as a young man and have always wondered how close his style was to old style of the era you describe. Over the months, Have I got it correct you are Texan? I hailed from AZ, and have lived all over the West. From My pack-horse days, became pretty adept at trail cooking on a grill. I wish, I had used smoked meats more on long trips, but was usually catering/wrangling dudes. They dug my double crusted cobblers ~ Navajo Style. Cheers to you as always. When I finish my smoker, maybe I’ll post a pic in a comment to you. I ‘ve seen a lot of ’em homemade and commercial but think I may have success with this home unit… just gotta’ find new digs to set down new roots. Kinda’ leanin’ towards going back to Colorado if I lose my last parent ~ holdin back the tides on that event as best I can. Very sorry, I have not kept up on the CAGW groupies but more concerned(not worried) about Magnetosphere myself and it’s effect on surface mean temperature and off-setting effects.
            Recently one of those off-setting effects is starting a rumble… old volcanic activity resurging, specifically the region near Rome, Italy. The Pacific Rim is on fire. Recent Southern Hemisphere activity, Mexico and virtually the Equatorial regions seem posed for corrections that are incalculable abstracts. Again, not worried but it minimalizes interest of the Millennial CAGW wonks such a ‘CB’ and some others I read. I am sure, sure they are all good people. It is focus and pragmatism I seek, and you are a cousin and kin in that realm.

          • BBQman

            CB lives in a completely different world then most of the rest of us.
            I have read many of your comments and feel the same, it’s always good to talk to those who are just up front and without an agenda like these CAGW tree huggers. Thank you.

          • TempusProTem

            Hope, it is a very ‘safe zone’ full of professors and her friends in a well protected echo-chamber of her liking.

          • TempusProTem

            Critical thinking appears to be a wall, rather than the hurdle they trip-over regularly here.

          • Robert

            So, funny how, though you both think it isn’t co2, you won’t engage in showing why each of your alternative – and possibly contradictory – hypotheses are right.

            Easier to just use the anti co2 rhetoric rather than sort out your own contradictions.

          • toomuchgas

            Robert, it’s spelled magnetism. I thought it was a typo but you used it in 2 posts.

      • BBQman

        Can you really change the spots on a Leopard?

        • CB

          “Can you really change the spots on a Leopard?”

          Your metaphor is not recognised.

          This is your claim:

          “Man Made CO2 is not a climate driver”

          It has been known for over a century that CO₂ drives the climate, Barbie.

          Is it likely that you’ve overturned that science?

          “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

          climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • BBQman

            I said “Man Made” CO2, not CO2, CO2 helps keep our planet warm, any atmosphere quantities below 1,000 ppm are find, after that humans will become a bit sluggish. You do realize that as the heat is absorbed into the CO2 and it rises into the atmosphere, then starting around 3,500 meters to 24,000 meters much of the absorbed heat dissipates and the colder temperatures cause the degradation of the CO2. There is no such thing as global man made green house effects, of course there can be a few microclimates in places like Mexico City and Boise Idaho, but those are regional and most of the problems are due to their geographical location and surrounding mountains.

          • Dale Anderson

            You actually wrote > (“Man Made” CO2, not CO2″). And you already got 3 upper votes….. Know what BB? That is very disturbing.
            What is man made CO2 BB ?

          • BBQman

            Man made CO2 comes from your breath, tail pipe, coal fired power plants, burning of rainforests, and anything else as a result of man spent energy.

            I know the truth is hard to absorb after you have swallowed the Al Gore lie, but we all make mistakes.

            My purpose is to gently bring people like you out of the fog of lies created by evil men like Gore /podesta and soros, and get you back to pure science which is not corrupted by money.

          • CB

            “Man made CO2 comes from your breath, tail pipe, coal fired power plants, burning of rainforests, and anything else as a result of man spent energy.”

            …an opportunity to educate! You are giving voice to common confusion, Barbie.

            CO₂ from your breath is 100% carbon-neutral. It doesn’t change the amount of carbon in the air from year to year, because 100% of the carbon in your breath was recently sequestered by the plants that provide you with nutrition.

            Forests are also part of the short carbon cycle, though they take much longer to regrow than a food crop.

            What is causing the imbalance of carbon in the air is digging up carbon from deep underground and releasing it; the petrol and coal you mention.

            Any questions?

            “The primary cause of global warming is human activity, most significantly the burning of fossil fuels to drive cars, generate electricity, and operate our homes and businesses.”

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/global_warming_101

          • BBQman

            Digging up fossil fuels only helps make for a healthy planet, if we did not dig up those fossil fuels and burn them, we would be cheating the atmosphere of the much needed CO2 needed for a lush healthy earth, we should only become concerned if our global atmospheric CO2 levels exceed 1,000 ppm, that would create an environment of sluggishness in the human race.

            Also if those underground basins of oils, coals and gases were left untouched, eventually some of them would become fuel for volcanic activity with devastating results of global proportions, mankind must remove and use fossil fuels as a relief valve of sorts to save us from a catastrophic venting of volcanic eruptions.

          • Dano2

            Whoa. Quite the amusing Gish gallop.

            Do I call Poe’s Law on this one, folks?

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            I have a possible alternative, why don’t you just debate the facts and attempt to prove the “unproven theory” of Man Made CO2 or fossil fuels as a climate driver, you ain’t scared are ya?

            Best,

            B

          • Dano2

            Unproven theory! I LOLzed!

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            Well it is, we do not know what the global average temperature or Atmospheric CO2 levels are, much less what they were in 1880. We only have regional data for regional results, nothing on a global scale.

          • Dano2

            Hilarious. And you claim you want to just debate the facts and you bust out this comedy, and also unproven theory?

            Me loves me some Internet Performance Art!

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            Please stop deflecting away from the topic! Tell you what, why don’t you just tell ol BBQ what the optimum average global temperature and CO2 levels should be for a lush healthy earth? That would establish a foundation for us to work from.

          • Dano2

            Thanks, you continue to make me LOLz.

            Nevertheless, this comment seems cogent enough: tell ol BBQ what the optimum average global temperature and CO2 levels should be for a lush healthy earth

            The resultant temperature when CO2 is at equilibrium.

            HTH

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            Your reply reminds me of most of the links that your side provides, nothing measurable or quantifiable, just more condensed bloviating, we are done now, you are dismissed.

          • OWilson

            Jeez!

            What took you so long?

            LOL

          • BBQman

            I’m just a little slow sometimes.:)

          • OWilson

            Don’t feed the true believers.

            Gently close the door in their face, and tell them to try next door! LOL

          • Dano2

            Another one incapable of grasping the answer. Typical denialist.

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2

            Sounds like you can’t grasp my answer. Not surprised.

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            No, I understand what you said, but can you be as precise and direct about what the levels should be as you are about what they should not be?

          • Dano2

            The levels should be exactly what they are in the trend toward decarbonization of the planet without man’s input from the Industrial Revolution – ~280 ppmv give or take a few.

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            And global temperatures?

          • Dano2

            Somewhere ~1C less than today is roughly equilibrium T for that CO2 level, ceteris paribus

            Best,

            D

          • CB

            I like the idea that fossil fuels are healthy!

            If that’s really what Barbie thinks, I would suggest he prove it by eating them.

            If he doesn’t, I would say that makes him a big old bag of BS, wouldn’t you?

            “Coal plants are the nation’s top source of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, the primary cause of global warming… Burning coal is also a leading cause of smog, acid rain, and toxic air pollution.”

            http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html

          • Dano2

            …coal also costs more than it delivers benefits, due to how many people it kills per year: http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-terawatt-hour-by.html

            Best,

            D

          • OWilson

            D is incapable of more than a one liner.

            And he is their best debater! :)

          • The1TruthSpeaker

            I’ve seen some wacked out excuses but this has to be the craziest.

            Thank you for demonstrating how nutty deniers are

          • BBQman

            I’m not the one denying that the next 30 years will be much colder, that is your side friend, the climate is changing and it has nothing to do with CO2.

            You better pick up more flannel shirts and extra blankets.

          • Robert

            It actually gets ‘better’…. Ask about the upcoming – 80 some days – tilting we are going to be subjected to due to magnets on gaseous planets getting in allignment.

          • BBQman

            86 days, and I never used the word alignment.

          • Robert
          • BBQman

            Thank you for helping me enlighten others, you are a true friend Robert!

          • Pumpkin Pie

            We all need true friends for sure.

          • BBQman

            I have taken an interest in Dear Robert, he is a special needs….I mean project of mine.

          • Robert

            “…magnetism as our primary climate driver. CO2 plays a very small part and is actually a third tier climate driver, ”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2780091010
            1

          • BBQman

            Good morning Robert, must be a slow day for you?

          • Robert

            Just letting your verbal diarrhea flow…

            “…absorption that not only show that CO2 as a global climate driver is not true, but that within our universal soup of magnetic pushing’s and pulls how our orbital eccentricities are controlled along with our own magnetic fields within the soup of forcings that also impact out Equatorial tilt …”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2782922341

          • BBQman

            Are you preparing for our average global temperature to drop around 2 degrees Celsius over the next 30 plus years? Cold weather is coming and CO2 will have nothing to do with that either, please stop pushing the Fictional fossil fuels generating CO2 boogieman as a primary climate driver, it is third tier at best and only impacts our climate by around 0.000001%.

          • Robert

            In the first para at https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2782922341 I count 5 unsupported claims.
            No science.

            In https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2783150308 I read 6 unsupported claims.

            No science.

            The average 11 yr old knows they need to support their claims in a school report: yet here – in public and ostensibly an adult – you are incapable of doing so.

          • BBQman

            Prove my claims wrong if you feel the need, but get ready for cold weather as well.

          • Robert

            Anyone can make any claim.
            On the other hand, wo supporting evidence, there is no reason to believe your claims have any basis in reality.

          • BBQman

            Robert, you should take advantage of the very extensive climate science library at “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Sovereigns Harbor” primary data banks, it is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization established to bring forth the truth related to our true climate drivers, magnetism, and show the many data collection flaws in the mostly laughable unproven theory of man made CO2 as a climate driver, if you wish to donate to the organization, please make your check payable to “C A S H” for short and mail to PO Box……

          • Robert

            Too clever by half attempt to segue…

          • BBQman

            You are just being kind!

          • Dale Anderson

            Actually it is star dust… Every few million years our solar system enters an area of heavy star dust and that blocks some sunlight. Which is good. Right now we are leaving such an area and so global warming is in effect.

          • CB

            “I said “Man Made” CO2, not CO2″

            Uh huh, and what is the difference between the CO₂ that humans produce and any other CO₂ one might find in the universe?

            “Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm. Greenhouse gas highest since the Pliocene, when sea levels were higher and the Earth was warmer.”

            news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm

          • BBQman

            CO2 loses its warming impact as the levels increase above 345 ppm, The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas diminishes logarithmically with increasing concentrations after 345 ppm, Accordingly only 5% of the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas remains beyond that evel. We should hope for CO2 levels to rise to around 600 to 800 ppm for a lush healthy earth.

          • Bart_R

            It appears you and your cheering squad don’t grasp what a logarthm is.

            For the last 1.2 million years, the average baseline CO2 level on Earth has been 230 ppmv, though generally the level plateaus around 180 ppmv or around 280 ppmv at the peaks and troughs of Milankovitch Cycles. Of the 100,000 year length of a Milankovitch Cycle, some half of the time CO2 is at one or the other plateau. Only very rarely — less than 0.001% of the time for 1.2 million years did CO2 edge above or below those extremes, and never by very much.

            At 172.5 ppmv, the very lowest extreme of natural CO2 level for over a million years, we would expect the <30 degrees of 'Planet Snowball' level warming at this point in our star's Faint Young Sun Paradox evolution to be one Charney ECS increment cooler than the planet under (doubled) 345 ppmv CO2, and if the planet gets to 690 ppmv (another doubling), we expect another Charney ECS increment.

            How much temperature difference is there between the bottom and the top of the Milankovitch Cycle? It's five degrees.

            Your 600-800 ppmv Earth would be around 5 degrees warmer than today, with about 25% higher precipitation, 200' higher sea levels, mammals tending to be 20% smaller, reptiles tending to be 100% larger, crops tending to be 40%-80% less nutrient rich in key proteins and minerals, soils less fertile, sea life rebuilding atop the wreckage of what our seas are now like in acidified waters hostile to corals and shellfish. It might be lush and healthy, but getting there at the present rate, some 200 times faster than natural rates of climate change, and fifteen times faster than the fastest natural climate change will be a rough ride, comparable to the rate of a predator drone over a school zone. The equator would be mostly uninhabitably hot, seas much more intensely stormy, maps of current coastlines erased by miles.

            If you hope for that, by all means pay for it up front.

          • BBQman

            Interesting word salad you just posted, but the truth of the matter is that the only time earth has had CO2 levels of 280 ppm and lower were during major ice ages when most plant growth was stunted.

            And on top of that, Polar ice core data analysis project a false premise that CO2 is a primary climate driver, as ice cores taken within 30 degrees of the poles contain less then 50% of the atmospheric CO2 available as a result of the mechanics of the jet stream that turn away around 60% of that CO2 infused atmosphere at around the 30 degree makes before the poles, then the models ignore the reality that within the 30 degree marks to the poles, very low amounts of CO2 are exuded from the polar regions.

            CO2 has zero effect on our climate above 345 ppm, but at 800 ppm our crops will do much better.

            If you continue to post unproven material and what you only wish to be true, please tag it as an “unproven theory”, thank you.

          • CB

            “the truth of the matter is that the only time earth has had CO2 levels of 280 ppm and lower were during major ice ages”

            Right!

            If you understand polar ice sheets have never before in Earth’s history been able to withstand CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it, how likely is it they will today?

            “The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.”

            climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice

          • Bart_R

            You’re simply wrong on fact.

            Up until 250 years ago, CO2 baseline levels were 280 ppmv, and for 99.999% of the last 1.2 million years, those baseline levels were between 180 ppmv and 280 ppmv, never below 170 ppmv nor above 310 ppmv.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/39284b827fa537dd8d5388520026719f616a5301a5ee68f5e95451aeb89205ce.png

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c8cfe3b74e3842cb433c588f461df1be2bf819fae8e07303328b1124f6bd1534.jpg

            Further, we know from spectroscopy that CO2 is the primary driver of the Greenhouse Effect (GHE), when taken with the fact of water vapor condensation and the short bleed-out rates and low saturation points of other GHGs.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f21e2ac81e5d861018a3e7109598c75c6f564570711252ed347f9c608c0f3be1.gif

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d2f4c9bcb88a3f6700be3f850b14d9321b7990380f6768aa1f990768c85ad523.png

            I don’t care why you lie, though it appears to be to dodge paying your fossil debts.

            Pay what you owe.

          • BBQman

            I hope you realize that the next thirty years will be much colder then we who are alive today have seen. Actually, the next 400 years will be much like the Little Ice Age, check this years crop yields.

            Try to peddle your CO2 as a climate driver to the idiots, I’m not buying.

          • Bart_R

            Your reply was entirely nonresponsive to the clear demonstration of your lies.

            Which is predictable, as you aren’t really about honest discourse, are you?

            You’re just trying to defer the day you pay what you owe.

            The day is coming. You’re on notice.

            Pay what you owe.

          • BBQman

            Do you deny that we are entering a new ice age, do you realize how many people will suffer because of your lies?

          • Bart_R

            How can we be entering a new ice age?

            We’re presently in an ice age, and have been for the entire existence of the human species.

            But due human fossil waste dumping, we’re about to enter climate conditions no human has ever encountered.

            Get everything backwards if you wish. Just do it on your own time and stop being a leech on mine.

            Pay what you owe.

          • BBQman

            People will suffer because of the AGW lie perpetrated by Al Gore and his minions like you, explain that to your family some day.

            CO2 is not making the planet warmer, never has never will, CO2 is primarily a byproduct of a warm planet. Your side can’t even produce a working computer model, pity.

          • Bart_R

            Keep pretending it’s Opposites Day all you want, on your own time.

            Pay what you owe.

          • BBQman

            You got change for a quarter?

          • Bart_R

            $360,000 Market rent is due to each American citizen from fossil waste dumpers for the last 60 years.

            It doesn’t look like the quarters from your couch fishing will cut it.

            Pay what you owe.

          • BBQman

            I paid my debt to Solyndra.

          • Bart_R

            Liar.

            The loan guarantee program that backed Solyndra is making steady profit for the US government.

            Pay what you owe.

          • OWilson

            SOLYNDRA, ABENGOA and SUN EDISON, the 3 largest Solar Energy Companies in the world, took some $20,000,000,000.00 of U.S. Taxpayer money with them when they WENT BROKE!

            Probably some of that $2,000,000,000.00 Hillary made for her family slush fund (Washington Post) while Secretary of State, belongs to the Taxpayers too.

            But, the duped sheep can’t wait to put her back in the White House, for some more shearing

            Enough of this scam!

          • BBQman

            We have two major objections, 1. Get out the vote. 2. Stop the democrats from committing too much voter fraud.

            The targets should be the same precincts that had from 92% to 135% voter turnouts for obama in the last two elections, if Trump does not make an issue of these things before the election and come up with a plan, the hillderbeast may pull it off (notice I did not say win).

          • OWilson

            Her voters either don’t read the papers, go online, or they are getting a regular living from the public trough.

            Makes it tough, especially when more than half the population has been made dependent on the government for their living!

          • Dano2

            CO2 is not making the planet warmer, never has never will

            Outstanding Internet Performance Art comedy.

            8 of 10.

            Best,

            D

          • Mike Richardson

            Wow, just, wow. A new Ice Age? Every reliable means of measurement on this planet (not to mention satellite data) shows average temperatures climbing, even as we continue to pump more CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, accelerating this process. Most deniers at this point are only in denial about the rate of increase, or the methods of addressing it, but you flat out deny the reality of any current warming at all! That’s a complete rejection of reality, common sense, and any sense of responsibility to your fellow human beings. It’s the worst level of climate change denial I’ve seen on display in quite some time, and around here, that’s saying a lot.

          • BBQman

            You will thank me one day, if you don’t freeze first.

          • Mike Richardson

            I live in Louisiana — not too likely, even if pigs flew formation over my house, science was replaced by magic, and you became right. But my child and any future grandchildren may be looking for higher ground to settle, thanks to the continued efforts at prevarication and delay from climate change deniers.

          • BBQman

            I live in Texas, should be all right here as well. Why do you say climate change deniers? Every one knows that the climate is always changing, you should say climate driver deniers instead.

          • Dano2

            the next thirty years will be much colder then we who are alive today have ever seen.

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

            Me loves me some Internet Performance Art!

            Best,

            D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7730953da8f42a0129a0c6c4704d04136fd03c2a39ddf0b7f13a95b20d036611.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f97878fb3cbef0ac6143426ee716263ccbde6ec5bcff88109beb4f15db79ad71.gif

          • CB

            “CO2 loses its warming impact as the levels increase above 345 ppm”

            That’s not an answer, Barbie.

            I asked you what’s the difference between CO₂ produced by humans and CO₂ from anywhere else, and the answer is there is none.

            Your apology is accepted.

            Now if CO₂’s warming ability stops after 345PPM, why is the surface of Venus hot enough to melt lead?

            “Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps infrared radiation beneath Venus’s thick cloud cover. A runaway greenhouse effect is what makes Venus even hotter than Mercury!”

            science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast20feb_1

          • BBQman

            Tell me CB, how is this CO2, that makes up one/onemillionth of the total atmospheric gases going to warm up the planet, and where is it trapped, at 12 kilometers up where the average temperatures are around -90 degrees Fahrenheit, like a few degrees will ever make an impact, please, when you have some solid facts that add up, come talk to me.

            OK sweetie. I hope that’s not to much for you to absorb all at once.

          • Dano2

            CO2 loses its warming impact as the levels increase above 345 ppm,

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH

            Good comedy! I LOLzed!

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            Coming from the guy (Dano2) who thinks our average global temperature and CO2 levels should be the same as they were during the Little Ice Age, 1 degree Celsius less then today’s average and 280 ppm.

            What’s with you anyway, you want people to starve and freeze to death?

          • Dano2

            Deep thoughty-thought. Impressive derp level.

            9 of 10 on the Derp Scale.

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            Dano2, you should take advantage of the very extensive climate science library at “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Sovereigns Harbor” primary data banks, it is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization established to bring forth the truth related to our true climate drivers, magnetism, and show the many data collection flaws in the mostly laughable unproven theory of man made CO2 as a climate driver, if you wish to donate to the organization, please make your check payable to “C A S H” for short and mail to PO Box……

            CO2 is not a climate driver, never was, never will be.

          • The1TruthSpeaker

            Where does BBQman get all this nonsense he posts?
            MAD magazine is more scientifically accurate than he is.

          • BBQman

            The next 30 plus years will bring much colder weather, prepare yourself.

            CO2 is not a climate driver, never was , never will be.

          • The1TruthSpeaker

            Where do you get this garbage?

          • BBQman

            Why are you so rude, did someone hurt you?

          • The1TruthSpeaker

            Don’t mean to be rude but what you post is so ….
            Just want to know where it comes from.

          • BBQman

            Debate me if you like, but the insults are not moving the conversation along.

          • The1TruthSpeaker

            Not intending to insult. But, where do these ideas come from?

          • Mike Richardson

            Not from peer-reviewed research, well-established scientific principle, or the practice of logic and reason. But it seems fairly original — then again, I don’t visit the right-wing blogosphere if I can help it, so it might well be accepted as the gospel over there.

          • BBQman

            Which ideas, I have many posts on this thread?

          • The1TruthSpeaker

            All of them

          • BBQman

            It would be very difficult for me to link together all the years of observations, reading, dot connecting, planetary precessions and their relationship to past climate anomalies, solar influences and other forms of information absorption that not only show that CO2 as a global climate driver is not true, but that within our universal soup of magnetic pushing’s and pulls how our orbital eccentricities are controlled along with our own magnetic fields within the soup of forcings that also impact out Equatorial tilt which dictates how much direct solar radiance we receive in the northern hemisphere from the sun during our winter months.

            Tell you what, write down every significant climate event for the last 800 thousand years after making adjustments to all icecore records that were taken within 30 degrees of the poles depicting CO2 levels by multiplying those results by 2.1734 to reflect what the true atmospheric CO2 levels were in the past, Ice cores taken within 30 degrees of the poles contain less then 40% of the equatorial infused atmospheric CO2 available as a result of the jet stream mechanics that turn away around 60% of the equatorial atmospheric CO2 at the 30+ degree marks, also there is a fair amount of atmospheric CO2 degradation due to the extreme temperatures encountered in the atmospheric at levels of 6,000 meters and above, then just look at the planetary arrangements and processions in a real time model for about 30 years before each climate anomaly and understand how the magnetic forcing’s of our gaseous outer planets effect the magnetic soup which earth swims through, then you will see how our orbital tilt and other multiple magnetic convolutions to earth take place, it’s just a matter of simply understanding the forces and how they effect us in our frictionless vacuum.

          • The1TruthSpeaker

            AHHHHHH
            Now I get it
            You made it up

          • BBQman

            It’s really hard to get folks like you to come out of your little happy CO2 Carbon tax cocoons and see the big picture, but you are lucky, I have endless patience….for a while!

            Which part of my explanation are you having problems comprehending?

          • OWilson

            You just got trolled.

            Classic case. LOL

            They nothing, nada!

          • Robert

            If you really read it while watching a Prof Irwin Corey vid ……..
            It is almost entertaining.

            Ask bbq about the gaseous planets and their magnets and their role in tilting us in 86 days…..

          • Dano2

            Enjoy the free amusement.

            Best,

            D

        • Dale Anderson

          Of course … You skin it.

      • Robert

        Given his inability to support his claims -like the gaseous planets going to cause something to Earth to change our tilt, or his magic number that changes what he thinks ìs not the accurate co2 concentration in the ice cores – most any comment to him is unnecessary…..

        He thinks whatever is going to tilt us is happening in 86 days…….

        • BBQman

          An object in motion tends to remain in motion along a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force.
          Isaac Newton

          • Robert

            And?
            Tell us again about the magnets, the gaseous planets, the coming cold, and 86 days from now.

          • BBQman

            It would be very difficult for me to link together all the years of observations, reading, dot connecting, planetary precessions and their relationship to past climate anomalies, solar influences and other forms of information absorption that not only show that CO2 as a global climate driver is not true, but that within our universal soup of magnetic pushing’s and pulls how our orbital eccentricities are controlled along with our own magnetic fields within the soup of forcings that also impact out Equatorial tilt which dictates how much direct solar radiance we receive in the northern hemisphere from the sun during our winter months.

            Tell you what, write down every significant climate event for the last 800 thousand years after making adjustments to all icecore records that were taken within 30 degrees of the poles depicting CO2 levels by multiplying those results by 2.1734 to reflect what the true atmospheric CO2 levels were in the past, Ice cores taken within 30 degrees of the poles contain less then 40% of the equatorial infused atmospheric CO2 available as a result of the jet stream mechanics that turn away around 60% of the equatorial atmospheric CO2 at the 30+ degree marks, also there is a fair amount of atmospheric CO2 degradation due to the extreme temperatures encountered in the atmospheric at levels of 6,000 meters and above, then just look at the planetary arrangements and processions in a real time model for about 30 years before each climate anomaly and understand how the magnetic forcing’s of our gaseous outer planets effect the magnetic soup which earth swims through, then you will see how our orbital tilt and other multiple magnetic convolutions to earth take place, it’s just a matter of simply understanding the forces and how they effect us in our frictionless vacuum.

          • Pumpkin Pie

            You’re good at this stuff BBQ I must say.

          • jmac

            #facepalm BAwaaaaa

          • BBQman

            Thank you, I also found a meeting from their last camp out including Dale Anderson, The1Truthspeaker, Robert, jmac, Dano2 and CB.
            http://youtu.be/ElJFYwRtrH4

          • SoundMind

            I can’t be the only one who, when viewing a familiar canopy of trees, notices one is missing and feels loss. At the same time, trees do have life spans, and when they start dropping limbs on houses, it’s time for their demise.

            The primal nature stuff in your video is going overboard, but it’s still okay to talk to your houseplants.

          • BBQman

            I talk to my fruit trees!

          • SoundMind

            Good fer you. When I thank God for making red raspberries as I pick them, they seem to appreciate it.

          • BBQman

            Peaches have feelings, they feel so good going down my throat.

          • SoundMind

            Can’t disagree with that! I’ve thanked God for them before, too. Can’t wait to see his Tree (in heaven) bearing a different fruit every month, a boon to piemakers everywhere.

          • Yeah, Obama’s a Communist

            When you talk to your fruits, do you affect a lisp?

          • SoundMind

            That could happen if his mouth happens to be full of it at the time.

          • BBQman

            LOL, You betcha!

          • logansteele1

            OH I just love this!

          • BBQman

            They are very passionate!

          • logansteele1

            And you are very diplomatic!

          • BBQman

            {{{{{{{{🙄}}}}}}}}, I did not want to interfere with their grieving period!

          • logansteele1

            Diplomatic AND empathetic. What a guy!

          • jmac

            You are one of the really dumb ones. :)
            Your posts give me LOL’s.

          • Robert

            So.
            Not a shred of anything written by a real scientist that you can quote as support.
            You can’t reciew your own history here on disqus?
            You can’t search your own browser history?
            You can’t even try to recreate your search terms?

            Just some armwaving.

            Prof Irwin Corey does it better.

          • BBQman

            What is it going to take to open your eyes and see the actual climate drivers, CO2 is a trace gas and only impacts the climate by 0.000001%.

          • Robert

            Try supporting your assertion with a source. Show us a real published scientist who says what you are saying.

          • BBQman

            My theories are a result of my own research, from many years of reading and connecting the dots from various observations. I only see what I see.

          • Robert

            “research”you can’t reveal……

          • BBQman

            I have revealed, you just refuse to comprehend.

          • Robert

            “It would be very difficult for me to link together all the years of observations, reading, dot connecting, …”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2782922341

            “I have revealed…”

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2783237875

          • jmac

            BBQman doesn’t know about sources, you will have to wait til he finishes 3rd grade.

          • Robert

            Btw, SPM WGI AR5 has a comprehensive list of drivers and their strengths.

            “…magnetism as our primary climate driver. CO2 plays a very small part and is actually a third tier climate driver, ”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2780091010

            “CO2 as a global climate driver is not true, but that within our universal soup of magnetic pushing’s and pulls how our orbital eccentricities are controlled along with our own magnetic fields within the soup of forcings that also impact out Equatorial tilt which dictates how much direct solar radiance we receive in the northern hemisphere from the sun during our winter months.”

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2782922341

            You, on the otherhand, can’t bring forward anyone supporting your claims.

          • BBQman

            No one else sees what I see, not my fault that they don’t see the things they should if they truly want to see the climate drivers.

          • cunudiun

            LOL

          • BBQman

            I have been reading your profile for a few minutes, now that was some interesting reading, won’t you be glad when President Trump takes over and shuts down the corrupt EPA and all those climate study grants, most likely he will have his new Justice department investigate a lot of your heroes as well, the AGW fraud will finally be uncovered and many settled science liars will loss funding, LOL, now that’s something to laugh about, what say you?

          • cunudiun

            LOL again! Great comedy!

          • BBQman

            Your rely just spoke volumes.:)

          • cunudiun

            I hope so!

          • BBQman

            If later on, you need a real job, I’m looking for some day Laborers to pick up trash, $8.45 an hour and all the water you can drink!

          • cunudiun

            What effect is that message supposed to have? Are you ridiculing your own stupidity now?

          • BBQman

            Just trying to be helpful, but if you’re not looking nevermind.

          • Robert

            “…magnetism as our primary climate driver. CO2 plays a very small part and is actually a third tier climate driver, ”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2780091010
            3

    • Dano2

      Plenty of laugh lines, timing a bit off, delivery clunky.

      7 of 10.

      Best,

      D

      • CB

        “Plenty of laugh lines, timing a bit off, delivery clunky.”

        Isn’t “Garnier” a shampoo?

        “March 28, 2016… Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual maximum extent on March 24, and is now the lowest maximum in the satellite record, replacing last year’s record low.”

        nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/03/another-record-low-for-arctic-sea-ice-maximum-winter-extent

        • BBQman

          Garnier as in Emmanuel.

          • CB

            “Garnier as in Emmanuel.”

            …and we’re supposed to believe 10 people know what that means?

            It has been known for over a century that CO₂ is a driver of the Earth’s climate.

            Is it likely you’ve overturned that science, Barbie?

            “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

            climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • BBQman

            I can slow down if that helps you CB.

            The volume of atmospheric CO2 is only 1/1,000,000,000,000th of all gases compared to water vapor, would your time not be better spent focusing on how to control water vapor?

          • CB

            “would your time not be better spent focusing on how to control water vapor?”

            No.

            The amount of water vapour in the governed entirely by temperature, and the temperature is governed primarily by CO₂.

            Water vapour is a multiplier of the warming effect of CO₂.

            Barbie, if you don’t know the first thing about a subject, why would you have such a strong opinion on it?

          • BBQman

            80% of all solar radiance is absorbed by water vapor in the first 30′ feet above the surface, the effects of CO2 are one/onemillionth that of water vapor.

            CB, Somebody has been feeding you crap science, or is that settled science…it’s so hard to tell the difference these days…

          • CB

            “80% of all solar radiance is absorbed by water vapor in the first 30′ feet above the surface”

            Barbie, is the sun in the ground?

            o_O

            “During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth’s surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth’s surface cools, releasing the heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That’s what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average.”

            climatekids.nasa.gov/review/greenhouse-effect

          • BBQman

            The heat that you believe to be trapped, in fact, quickly dissipate starting at 3,000 meters and above.

            CB sweetie, you do realize that the higher the heat capturing CO2 goes up, the faster degradation due to colder (-95 degrees Fahrenheit) temperatures takes place, there is no green house effect caused by CO2, but there does exist dissipation.

            Are we going to have to start all over with with education?

          • CB

            “The heat that you believe to be trapped”

            The heat I believe to be trapped!?

            Sweetheart, are you saying warmth doesn’t exist? It is summer where you live, right?

            Why don’t you try going outside and seeing what the weather’s like?

            “Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation… This ability to absorb and re-emit infrared energy is what makes CO₂ an effective heat-trapping greenhouse gas.”

            scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

          • BBQman

            I see you don’t dispute my facts….again!

          • CB

            “I see you don’t dispute my facts”

            Sweetheart, you don’t seem to have any facts.

            You’re talking about gasses in the atmosphere absorbing sunlight from below, mountains “failing”, expressing “skepticism” about the existence of heat.

            Barbie, have you been diagnosed with a mental illness in a clinical setting?

            “The primary cause of global warming is human activity, most significantly the burning of fossil fuels to drive cars, generate electricity, and operate our homes and businesses.”

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/global_warming_101

          • BBQman

            Tell me CB, at what elevation is this alleged heat trapping ceiling in the atmosphere and what is it made of beside very cold air that dissipates the heat in the CO2?

          • CB

            “at what elevation is this alleged heat trapping ceiling”

            Nobody said anything about a ceiling, sweetheart.

            You do realise the “greenhouse” in the greenhouse effect is just a metaphor… right?

            “Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect” “

            climate.nasa.gov/causes

          • BBQman

            Sorry sweetie, but the earths 65 mile thick atmosphere at just 4,000 meters is -27 f over Texas right now, and at 13.5km it is -95 f, that mean old CO2 don’t stand a chance…buuuurrrr, now that’s cold.

          • Robert

            More expertise…..
            He knows an ice age is going to happen in 86 days…
            “…. magnetic forcing’s of our gaseous outer planets effect the magnetic soup which earth swims through, then you will see how our orbital tilt and other multiple magnetic convolutions to earth take place, it’s just a matter of simply understanding the forces and how they effect us in our frictionless vacuum.”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2782922341

          • BBQman

            Robert, I have given you enough information so that you can plan for the future, that’s all I can do, the rest is up to you, good luck.

          • Robert
          • BBQman

            Did you see the video down in the thread that I found of you settled science guys at a tree funeral, it made me sad for y’all.

          • Robert

            +1 !

          • Robert

            Using bbq’s statements brings up these:

            ACS Climate Science Toolkit | Narratives
            https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

            How we measure background CO2 levels on Mauna Loa.
            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

            Neither of which corroborate bbq…. though the same search also points to
            Free republic
            Geocraft
            Watts
            ….

          • BBQman

            Mauna Loa is a massive failure which only samples 13 hours during the night when convection from cooler temperatures bring up regional CO2, and the sensors should be raised up to 4,850 meters above sea level so as to not be polluted with that regional CO2.

          • CB

            “Mauna Loa is a massive failure”

            Like the mountain itself failed?

            What does that word salad mean?

            “Atmospheric CO₂ Record from Continuous Measurements at Jubany Station, Antarctica”

            cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/jubany.html

          • BBQman

            You can’t defend the sloppy data collection methods and false results at Mauna Loa, so instead you talk about mixed greens?

          • CB

            “You can’t defend the sloppy data collection methods”

            …from the claims of an anonymous, reference-free, logic-challenged internet clown?

            I rather think letting you ramble torpedoes your own credibility better than any statement I could ever make…

            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full

          • BBQman

            Now comes the insults……. Check & Mate….next!

            You really can’t defend the sloppy data collection methods at Mauna Loa, pity.

          • CB

            “Now comes the insults”

            lol! Don’t take my word for it!

            Read back over your comments and tell me you aren’t making yourself look like a clown!

            You can’t focus, you’re making wild claims that seem to be pulled directly from your bum, you’re acting as if you actually believe you’re smarter than the people who have dedicated their lives to studying this stuff.

            It’s textbook Dunning-Kruger.

            Now if you think scientists are wrong about average global CO₂ being around 400PPM, how high is average global CO₂ and how do you know?

            “Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm. Greenhouse gas highest since the Pliocene, when sea levels were higher and the Earth was warmer.”

            news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm

          • jmac

            X2

          • BBQman

            You are free to believe as you wish. But get ready for colder winters.

          • CB

            “You are free to believe as you wish.”

            …as are you!

            You have the right to believe and say precisely what you want.

            You do not have the right to be taken seriously, though. That’s something you have to earn, and you are very far away from earning it right now.

            When you run away from claims you make, it’s a very good indication that you already know what you said was incorrect.

            You said the measurements at Mauna Loa are faulty, did you not?

            What are the real numbers for global average CO₂ and how do you know? 2nd request.

            “February is one of the first months since before months had names to boast carbon dioxide concentrations at 400 parts per million.”

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-for-february-eclipsed-prehistoric-highs

          • BBQman

            Average global CO2 at what levels *ASL and which latitudes, there is no such thing as an average Global CO2 level that has ever been established that I know of, so at what level ASL do you need the Average CO2 levels for and what latitude?

            *Above Sea Level

          • Robert

            “The graph shows recent monthly mean carbon dioxide globally averaged over marine surface sites. The Global Monitoring Division of NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory has measured carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for several decades at a globally distributed network of air sampling sites [Conway, 1994]. A global average is constructed by first fitting a smoothed curve as a function of time to each site, and then the smoothed value for each site is plotted as a function of latitude for 48 equal time steps per year. A global average is calculated from the latitude plot at each time step [Masarie, 1995]. Go here for more details on how global means are calculated.”

            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

            “… there is no such thing as an average Global CO2 level that has ever been established that I know of,”

            “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” W.S.

          • BBQman

            Rubbish!

          • Robert

            I don’t think we’ll ever get a full accounting for how gaseous planets’ magnetism is going to shift our tilt and thus cause an ice age to start in 80some days….

            Or any evidence of anything else, possibly including his bbq skilz.

          • Dale Anderson

            With trillions of tons of weight removed from the North Polar/ Arctic area the Earth’s may indeed tilt from 15 to 90 degrees and do it very fast when it happens.

            The result will be globally castastrophic with tsunami waves thousands of feet high, massive global earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Every nuclear power plant on the planet metling down, etc, etc.

            It won’t be due to magnetism however. It will be due to a massive amount of weight removed from the top of a spinning globe.

          • Constant Gardener

            What the what? Not a fun thought. Share a link please, Arizona-brother.

          • Dale Anderson

            Hi CG… No links, personal opinion only, so don’t fret yet. I will try to explain, if I can, why I wrote that.
            A spinning globe which is not in perfect balance will have a wobble. Earth does have a little wobble as it spins, that scientists believe is due to several things, the heavy weight force of ocean tidal action, gravitational pull of the moon and possibly the sun, a heavier weight of ice on one end than the other and Earth is not a perfectly round globe.
            Earth’s massive core of molten metal, rock and minerals however would tend to balance the globe as it spins.
            Liken a washing machine on spin the weight of the spinning water tends to balance out the load, unless the load is way off balance in the first place.
            Now for millions of years the Earth has been in pretty good balance, the wobble is slight.
            Then in a rather brief period of time, about 11 years, the Arctic’s ice has been in a rapid rate of melt.
            Trillions of tons of weight loss from the upper polar area when it has almost all melted away in a few more years.
            The molten lava core will try to compensate for that loss of weight but that molten core is not water, it is thick heavy lava and it would move very slowly to the lighter area. That is especially so as the poles are North and South and the spin is East to West.
            The result could be the globe tips over on it’s side or part way on it’s side and do so like a spinning top slowing down and falling over.
            The Earth spins at near 1,000 mph but for a globe that large a 1,000 mph is not a fast spin. It gets wayout of balance and,,,,, flop.
            The result would be horrific and indeed tetonic plates would would all quickly shift, tsunami waves would be thousands of feet high and so on. Boom.
            That could have happened previously, more than once.. It wold surely cause mass extinctions…… How could scientists, geologists now tell if it did happen 260 or 55 million years ago?

          • BBQman

            Yes, but in the past when it happened, CO2 levels had nothing to do with melting the ice, it was changes in the molten core driven by magnetism, just as it is today, and it is not like the magnets on your Refrigerator, as CB jokes about. Earth is floating in a vacuum, there is no up or down, there is only magnetic forcings and centrifugal movement, the molten core is the engine while magnetic forcings are the fuel. The outer planets only manipulate the forces that already exist, like stirring a soup, IMHO.

          • Dale Anderson

            You’d better check into a good mental health facility before it’s too late.

          • BBQman

            I’m to old for that, might as well just drop me off in the woods near a grizzly with knife.
            http://youtu.be/75O_JBfpX7I

          • Dale Anderson

            Just give our computer away and go fishing.

          • BBQman

            Then who would y’all have to kick around?

          • Dale Anderson

            You, in absentee. Then of course there are the three combined second stupidest AGW denying nutcases Sparafucile, Tom Harris and Miss. S. Graves.

            Don’t worry about that, we will all stay busy, just go fishing and listen to some Yanni music or buy a humazoo.

          • BBQman

            Your humanity is inspirational!

          • Dale Anderson

            Your stupidity is frightening and the fact you get upper votes is very disturbing.

          • BBQman

            I know where your problems are, go look in a mirror, you exude a conflicted conscience because of all the lies you’re trying to keep up with.

            I remember everything because I see no reason to lie, CO2 is not primary climate driver, it is a third tier result of the major climate driver, magnetism, and of course our Sun.

            Don’t worry, President Trump will fix all those climate study grants and fire all those communist at the EPA.😘

          • Dale Anderson

            BB; are you by any chance related to Peter K. “Hartlod” Anderson, the self educated Australian climate scientist who once nearly froze to death when a field of popcorn in the Outback started popping due to the high summer heat?
            He thought it was snowing and he wasn’t clothed for a winter blizzard.

          • Robert
          • BBQman

            I can’t open your link.

          • Robert

            Copy paste and sesrch. Though it works fine…..

          • Robert

            Somebody’s magnets got loose, I guess….

          • BBQman

            Good morning Robert!
            I hope you did not have CO2 boogieman nightmares last night.

          • Robert

            I was really hoping that you’d have spent some time developing your gaseous planet magnetism theory.
            Or flesh out your claim we don’t have a world average co2 level.

            Or prepare a co2 isn’t a cause of ACC precis.

            Or maybe read a science book.

          • BBQman

            No, but I got a Hugh pile of old tires I’m fixing to burn, the CO2 levels around here are to low and that black smoke is just full of CO2.

          • Robert

            That’ll fix your ‘store bought rub’ brisket recipe
            “…Hugh pile . . . . are to low …”

          • BBQman

            Your gratitude is humbling!

          • Pumpkin Pie

            Lol…going fishing with the boy for the rest of the evening. Keep up the good work. See all of you later.

          • BBQman

            I hope y’all catch some good one’s, have fun!

          • Robert

            Source?
            “…it was changes in the molten core driven by magnetism…”

          • Constant Gardener

            I take some solace in knowing Rush Limbaugh would go before we do.

          • Dale Anderson

            http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/tip.html

            http://www.universetoday.com/558/did-the-earth-flip-over-in-the-past/

            Did a google and found a couple of interesting articles.
            They talk about a slow shift of the poles but a rapid loss of ice coud cause a very fast shift.

          • Constant Gardener

            Of those two, I like the Universe Today article better because it says: “If a true polar wander event has occurred in our planet’s history, it’s likely been when the continents formed a single mass on one side of the Earth,” he said. “We don’t expect there to be another event in the foreseeable future, though. The Earth’s surface is pretty well balanced today.”

            I realize you’re talking about a great big wobble versus a “wander event” but I’m in need of some good news today.

          • Dale Anderson

            They’re probably right.

          • Dale Anderson
          • Constant Gardener

            Hahaha! That’s awesome! That made me laugh till I was happy!

          • Constant Gardener

            You know, I assumed that you sent that to me as a beautiful thing to make me feel better during these unhappy days, but I must say, it really is lovely all on its own. Thanks, AZ!

          • Dale Anderson
          • Constant Gardener

            I remember that well. PBS, right? Well played, sir!

            May I reciprocate with something that I truly love? https://vimeo.com/22439234

          • Dale Anderson

            Beautiful,, thank you.

          • jmac

            Nice!

          • OWilson

            Nah, just a cheap Hollywood movie plot to keep you zombies entertained!

          • Dale Anderson

            We’ll see.

          • Robert

            There are many smelt in the sea of ignorance:
            “NO ONE has been able to prove the 100,000 year glacial cycle is NOT in control. Because it is. Man caused is NOT in control as has been proven by all the failed predictions that would not have failed if man caused was in control.”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/ecowatch/historic_victory_4_teenagers_win_in_massachusetts_climate_change_lawsuit/#comment-2783646505

          • BBQman

            That’s the point CB, it does not matter what the atmospheric CO2 levels are, CO2 is not going to effect our climate between the levels of 345ppm up to 4,000 ppm, now you will have smog unhealthy air and people getting sluggish after 1,000 ppm, but zero climate change as a result of higher CO2 levels.

            CO2 is primarily a byproduct of warm climate, not a climate driver, magnetism is our primary climate driver.

            If I’m going to fast for you, we can go back to baby steps, OK sweetie?

          • Robert

            Says our resident bbq expert…
            And nobody else….
            “…magnetism is our primary climate driver.”

          • Robert

            Any documentation?

          • Robert

            And our resident bbq ‘expert’ now pontificates on yet another bit of science ….
            And we’re still waiting for the sources -guotes and cites – for how gaseous planet magnetism will shift Earth causing a new ice age in eighty some days.

          • BBQman

            I just call balls and strikes Robert, I have no dog in the hunt.

          • CB

            “I have no dog in the hunt.”

            …so why bother posting anything at all?

            If the measurements at Mauna Loa are incorrect, what is the level of average global CO₂ and how do you know?

            “Average global CO₂ concentrations are currently around 400 ppm.”

            drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/16725/Kulka_umd_0117N_16259.pdf

          • BBQman

            You need to be more specific, there is no such thing as an average global CO2 level, please refer to an elevation above sea level and a longitude and latitude and I will do my best to answer your question.

          • Robert

            “The graph shows recent monthly mean carbon dioxide globally averaged over marine surface sites. The Global Monitoring Division of NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory has measured carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for several decades at a globally distributed network of air sampling sites [Conway, 1994]. A global average is constructed by first fitting a smoothed curve as a function of time to each site, and then the smoothed value for each site is plotted as a function of latitude for 48 equal time steps per year. A global average is calculated from the latitude plot at each time step [Masarie, 1995]. Go here for more details on how global means are calculated.”

            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html

            “… there is no such thing as an average Global CO2 level that has ever been established that I know of,”

            “…there is no such thing as an average global CO2 level…”

            “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” W.S.

          • BBQman

            Do you realize that 80% of the worlds climate sensors are in the northern hemisphere, now how we to establish a global average with that kind of lopsidedness? We do not have the infrastructure to determine average global CO2 levels today and for sure we did not have the infrastructure in 1880 either.

          • CB

            “Do you realize that 80% of the worlds climate sensors are in the northern hemisphere”

            I realise you have a bad habit of making bats#it crazy claims without even a shred of evidence.

            Do you think anyone else might realise that too, Barbie?

            “Antarctic CO₂ Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4 Million Years”

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-co2-hit-400-ppm-for-first-time-in-4-million-years

          • BBQman

            Our atmospheric CO2 levels have been above 400 ppm many times in the last 4 million years, you would see that if you made the necessary adjustments to the icecore results as I have advised. I wish atmospheric CO2 would get up to around 600 to 800 ppm before this next Small Ice Age starts this coming Fall, be sure and get some extra flannel shirts.

          • CB

            “Our atmospheric CO2 levels have been above 400 ppm many times in the last 4 million years”

            Oh!

            How do you know?

            Remember literally a post ago when I mentioned you never post even a shred of evidence?

            Yeah, that…

            “Welcome to the Pliocene. That was the Earth about three to five million years ago, very different to the Earth we inhabit now. But in at least one respect it was rather similar. This is the last time that carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels were as high as they are today.”

            climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/7

          • Robert

            Let’s see:
            Thinks he is an expert on co2 measurement. Shown cite showing that he is ignorant on a global measurement, just says “Rubbish!”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2785170562

            Thinks he has a theory about gaseous planet magnetism causing an upcoming tilt. Can’t provide resources.

            Thinks he’s a expert on icecores. No research cited.

            Thinks there is a magic number that will correct the co2 /Ice core data.. No supporting data. Plus the issue of if we don’t have a world wide number, then why do you know how to correct it?

            Something about jetstreams. No research.

            Blathering? In abundance. .

          • Robert

            Ask him about what he says is going to happen in 86 days…
            “…. magnetic forcing’s of our gaseous outer planets effect the magnetic soup which earth swims through, then you will see how our orbital tilt and other multiple magnetic convolutions to earth take place, it’s just a matter of simply understanding the forces and how they effect us in our frictionless vacuum.”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/arctic_sea_ice_yet_another_record_falls/#comment-2782922341

          • CB

            Magical magnets… yes, I know.

            I’m still waiting for Barbie to examine his fridge magnets to see whether or not they’re hot… or make any point at all, really.

          • Robert

            Well if he looked at the files that are on the floppy disk he was using the frig magnet for, maybe he’d find his bibliography….

          • CB

            “Well if he looked at the files that are on the floppy disk he was using the frig magnet for, maybe he’d find his bibliography”

            lol! I can only assume it was the heat that scrambled those files… or maybe a small gnome… /s

            I believe we actually have checkmate here. He’s saying this:

            “there is no such thing as an average global CO2 level”

            …then he’s saying this:

            “Our atmospheric CO2 levels have been above 400 ppm many times in the last 4 million years”

            I feel like those two things cannot be simultaneously true…

            “Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO₂.
            June 2016: 406.81 ppm
            June 2015: 402.80 ppm”

            http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends

  • OWilson

    All I want to know is when my book comes out, “Global Warming, Holes in the Ozone, Killer Bees and other Assorted Doomsday Scenarios” do I have you permission to replicate this entire thread?

    Note: It won’t be published until long after the global “Tipping Points” of Erlich, Hansen, and Gore, so it is either valid or we are all dead!

    LOL

    • BBQman

      Please send me a notice of printing!

      • OWilson

        You’ll all be there!

        And you, Toto, you’ll be there:)

  • M​a​r​k S​h​o​r​e

    The correlation between right wing or far right wing political views and climate change denial has been known for many years.

    BBQman, here posting nonsense or falsehoods ranging from how CO2 is measured at the Mauna Loa meteorological observatory to silly comments about the Earth’s magnetic field, elsewhere posted this fine comment on a rightwing website:

    “That mental nutjob obama needs to be removed from office now, this ain’t
    funny, he is attempting to destroy us, flucking traitor.”

    So, a climate change denying racist RWNJ advocating treason? Just another day in the deniosphere.

    • BBQman

      Is that all you got, name calling? Run along now and let the adults talk….go on.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

ImaGeo

ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+