The Arctic, as you’ve never seen it: beautiful and in distress

By Tom Yulsman | November 5, 2016 7:51 pm

NASA has published a spectacular image mosaic of the Arctic — just as sea ice extent in the region was reaching yet another record low. How much sea-ice shrinkage are you responsible for? Keep reading…

A composite of images captured by the Suomi NPP satellite shows the Arctic on September 2, 2012. The composite was compiled using multiple imaging channels during 14 orbits of the satellite. The imagery was stitched together to blend the edges of each satellite pass. (Source: NASA Earth Observatory)

A composite of images captured by the Suomi NPP satellite shows the Arctic on September 2, 2012.  (Source: NASA Earth Observatory)

Satellites have been providing a synoptic view of the Arctic since 1979, helping scientists chart declines in sea ice driven largely by emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

Now, NASA scientists have created one of the most beautiful satellite views yet — a mosaic of images from the Suomi NPP satellite. And shortly after the space agency published it, a new record was set: the lowest Arctic sea ice extent for October in the era of satellite observations.

Arctic sea ice extent

Time series of Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent anomalies in March (the month of maximum ice extent) and September (the month of minimum ice extent). The anomaly value for each year is the difference (in percent) in ice extent relative to the mean values for the period 1981-2010. The slopes of the black and red dashed lines indicate ice losses of -2.6% and -13.4% per decade in March and September, respectively. (Source: NOAA Arctic Report Card 2015)

The spectacular image mosaic above shows the area as it looked to the satellite in early September. At this time, Arctic sea ice was headed for its seasonal minimum extent. Sea ice began expanding in October, but at an extremely sluggish rate.

The images in the mosaic were acquired by the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite aboard Suomi NPP during 14 orbits of the spacecraft on September 2nd. Multiple imaging channels were used, allowing nighttime portions of the Earth to be seen. The imagery was then stitched together, producing the beautiful, seamless mosaic.

Make sure to click on the image to open it in a new window, and then click on it again for an extreme closeup. Also look to the bottom of the globe to see city lights at night in the United States and Canada.

As beautiful as the image might be, the low extent of sea ice it reveals is an unsettling reminder of the role played by the Arctic region: as the proverbial canary in the coal mine for global warming. The Arctic is warming twice as rapidly as any other region on Earth.

As NASA puts it, “Since the mid-2000s, low minimum extents in the Arctic have become the ‘new normal.'”

During October, the average sea ice extent was 980,000 square miles below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average for the month. That’s an area more than three and a half times the size of Texas.

SEE ALSO: Arctic sea ice is trending at record low levels 

Here’s the main proximate culprit, according to the NSIDC:

Arctic sea surface temperatures

Sea surface temperatures in October were unusually high in large parts of the Arctic. (Source: Climate Change Institute/University of Maine)

As suggested in the graphic above, sea surface temperatures in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, the Barents and Kara Seas along the Eurasian coast, as well as the East Siberian Sea, were well above average during October. This retarded sea ice growth.

The unusual warmth had its origins months earlier. With the return of sunlight at the end of winter, Arctic sea ice normally starts a natural, seasonal retreat in March. This year, the retreat began much earlier than normal. This meant that larger amounts of water were exposed to the Sun for a longer period of time than normal. And that dark water absorbed a considerable amount of solar energy.

“Finally toward the end of October, the surface ocean heat began to dissipate, triggering ice formation,” the NSIDC notes. But even by October 25, sea surface temperatures were considerably warmer than normal in large portions of the Arctic, as the graphic above illustrates.

Declines in Arctic sea ice have ultimately been tied to global warming from increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And now, researchers, have been able to show just how much of an impact each of us makes through our greenhouse gas emissions.

For every metric ton of CO2 that a person directly or indirectly produces, 3 square meters of summer sea ice disappear in the Arctic, according to a paper published online in the journal Science. It was authored by Dirk Notz of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, and Julienne Stroeve of the NSIDC.

Given U.S. per capita emissions of 16.4 metric tons of CO2, this means each American is responsible for about 530 square feet of Arctic sea ice loss during the summer. That’s 40 times more than the average Bangladeshi.

“So far, climate change has often felt like a rather abstract notion,” Julienne Stroeve says, quoted in an NSIDC press release. “Our results allow us to overcome this perception.”

ADVERTISEMENT
  • OWilson

    Hard to believe that the North West passage has so quickly frozen up again! :)

    • BBQman

      Careful Wilson, facts given that do not fit the premise of the article might get you sent to room 101.
      97.% of all Atmospheric CO2 is natural & organic, and ppm changes always lag temperature changes up to 400 years in some cases, what our friends don’t understand about that fact, I will never understand.

      CO2 is not a climate driver between 345 to 1,000 ppm and is needed between those levels for a lush healthy earth, as you no doubt already know.

      • OWilson

        What I know about Co2, doesn’t come from Obama, Al Gore, or Michael Moore, or drug fueled, narcissistic Hollywood clowns, jesters or mannequins: :)

        There are some reputable “deniers” out there, after all:

        Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds | NASA
        http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

        Rise in CO2 has ‘greened Planet Earth’ – BBC News
        http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

        phys.org › Earth › Environment
        Apr 25, 2016 – More sugars are produced when there is more CO2 in the air, and this is called CO2 fertilization. … From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide

        Carbon dioxide fertilization greening Earth, study finds — ScienceDaily
        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160426162610.htm

        Apr 26, 2016 – From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of …
        Rising CO2 has ‘greened’ world’s plants and trees | Carbon Brief
        https://www.carbonbrief.org/rising-co2-has-greened-worlds-plants-and-trees

        Greening of the Earth and its drivers : Nature Climate Change : Nature …
        http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html

        Rising Atmospheric CO2 Has Lead To A Global “Greening” Effect …
        http://www.iflscience.com/environment/rising-atmospheric-co2-has-lead-greening-effect/

        Even our old pals at Slate recognize reality:

        Extra CO2 is causing the Earth to become greener. – Slate
        http://www.slate.com/blogs/…/extra_co2_is_causing_the_earth_to_become_greener.html
        May 2, 2016 – The Earth is getting greener thanks to the 40 billion tons of CO2 … assuming that the extra green is coming from leaves on plants and trees.

        Now if you DON’T prefer greening and those beautiful glacially retreated U.N. World Heritage Site valleys, teeming with wonderful flora and fauna, to dirty ice, that’s YOUR choice, but you’ll never legislate it!

        • CB

          “What I know about Co2, doesn’t come from Obama”

          Good!

          Obama is not a scientist.

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

          climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • OWilson

            Here’s one now :)

            Can “Me Too” Mikey and One liner Dano be far behind?

          • BBQman

            Don’t forget our little @evenminded . I don’t think any of them know how to answer questions!

          • CB

            “I don’t think any of them know how to answer questions!”

            lol!

            I hope you have your mirror handy…

            Do greenhouse gasses warm the planet, Barbie?

            “Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen -18 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit).”

            earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

          • BBQman

            ” Do greenhouse gases warm the earth?”

            Short answer is NO, The Sun warms the earth and CO2 between the atmospheric levels of 345 to 1,000 ppm will not absorb any more solar energy, and our extremely cold upper atmosphere wicks off all the excess solar energy.

            There are many factors more prevalent then CO2 driving the climate, if all the atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel was removed, the earth would still produce 1.72 ppm of CO2 more then the previous year through natural causes.

            With the addition of CO2 from fossil fuel, the added CO2 to the atmosphere each year is 0.08 ppm. After you add all the CO2 to all the other atmospheric gases, including water vapor, CO2 now only makes up 0.04% of the total. CO2 is the result of a warming planet, not the cause.

            97% of all atmospheric CO2 changes always lag temperature changes by up to 400 years.

          • CB

            “Short answer is NO… CO2 between the atmospheric levels of 345 to 1,000 ppm will not absorb any more solar energy”

            If you believe CO₂ concentrations above 1,000PPM do warm the planet, then you’re contradicting yourself.

            Why are you doing that?

            “Our planet’s surface is now kept at a comfortable temperature because the atmosphere traps some of the radiant heat from the Sun and keeps it near the surface, warming the planet and sustaining living creatures.”

            ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_chapter.asp?id=21&

          • BBQman

            No, I’m just saying that CO2 levels between 345 to 1,000ppm will not hold anymore heat, I did not go past 1,000 because the earth’s natural cooling system will help regulate the levels as need be, Mother Nature set it up that way for a reason.

            The upper atmosphere gets down to around -110*F, CO2 turns into a solid at around -108.4*F, Mother Nature designed things this way for a reason, so that excess gases would be held in check.

            And besides, humans will become sluggish after 1,000 ppm.

          • Dano2

            I’m just saying that CO2 levels between 345 to 1,000ppm will not hold anymore heat,

            You can’t show it is true. You were duped.

            Best,

            D

          • CB

            “You can’t show it is true.”

            More importantly, Barbie knows it’s not true!

            He’s lying.

            There’s no limit to how much warming CO₂ can cause, and he’s been informed of this fact many many times before.

            Why he continues his pathetic attempts to deceive, knowing that he’ll be caught, is an open question…

            “100% opacity of the atmosphere to IR in the CO₂ absorption bands — even IF it existed — would not prevent a lower atmospheric warming tendency (and upper atmospheric cooling tendency) in response to further increases in CO₂. This is why the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead…the atmosphere is so strongly radiatively insulated against loss of IR to space that the temperatures climb until radiative energy balance is achieved. Models have quite adequately explained the temperature profile on Venus with the known atmospheric composition, just as they explain the temperature profile here on Earth.”

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/american-thinker-publishes-a-stinker

          • TheDudeofVoo

            “… it only takes one component (e.g. a cloud parameterization) to change a model’s response to increasing CO2 from catastrophic warming to benign … The real question for global warming is, what are the feedback responses of the climate system to the resulting warming tendency? I believe it is relatively strong negative feedback, and little net warming.
            Not all of global warming theory has to be wrong…just one weak link in the chain can cause the whole house of cards to fall. Oops…I think I just mixed my metaphors again. Oh well, that’s the way the cookie bounces.”

            – from that same posting that you quoted, CB … http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/american-thinker-publishes-a-stinker/

          • CB

            “from that same posting that you quoted”

            Sure!

            If these “skeptics” had a good reason to be “skeptical”, why are they all over the map with what they believe? …or pretend to believe?

            “Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.”

            http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

          • TheDudeofVoo

            So, if water vapour does this ‘amplifying’ thing, where is the evidence?
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bba6629bac389780981d84aa5a885c5108ee61e1f8c25dd33e1c01e177d22060.jpg

          • CB

            “if water vapour does this ‘amplifying’ thing, where is the evidence?”

            lol! In the primary absorption bands of H₂O between 1500 and 2000 waves per cm, and around 300 waves per cm.

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/curve_s.gif

          • TheDudeofVoo

            The question, CB, is not about the wavenumber or wavelength, but the effect of that absorption. The computer model fantasies tell us that the ‘amplifying’ thing is supposed to be strong: ”The water vapor feedback is the process whereby an initial warming of the planet, … leads to an increase in the humidity … this increase in humidity causes additional warming. … observational evidence [of water vapor feedback] has been harder to come by, and the effect has been controversial.”

            Andrew E. Dessler and Steven C. Sherwood 2009 A Matter of Humidity ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE

            The confusion brought forth by the fantasy computer models, regarding the water vapour feedback, fails to take into account the compensation in the lapse-rate feedback. A warmer atmosphere radiates more power to space, which affects net surface warming. The sum of the two ‘feedbacks’ apparently reduces relative humidity, as shown by the data…

            ”Evapotranspiration, defined as the total flux of water from the land surface to the atmosphere, … evapotranspiration is expected to intensify with increasing temperatures … daily evapotranspiration from historical meteorological data collected at 236 weather stations across the U.S. Our results suggest a statistically significant (α = 0.05) decrease in evapotranspiration of approximately 6% from 1961 to 2014, with a significant (α = 0.05) sharp decline of 13% from 1998 to 2014.”

            Rigden, Angela J., and Guido D. Salvucci 2016. “Stomatal response to humidity and CO2 implicated in recent decline in US evaporation.” Global Change Biology

            BTW, increasing CO2 changes plants, in such a way as their water-use efficiency goes up … which means, less evapotranspiration from plants …

            ”… the need for an accurate characterization of the long-term changes in upper tropospheric and lower stratospheric (UTLS) water vapour has not yet resulted in sufficiently extensive long-term international measurement programs …”

            Müller, Rolf, et al. 2016 “The need for accurate long‐term measurements of water vapor in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere with global coverage.” Earth’s Future

          • TheDudeofVoo
          • Dano2

            It’s clearly not well and illness is a time-waster. Also not controllable for amusement, so I blocked it.

            Best,

            D

          • CB

            “not controllable for amusement”

            Indeed!

            I agree completely, VooDude is a very serious case, and an out-of-control spammer, as is Barbie.

            The thread is rather swimming in insanity, I’d say!

            I would still be happy to talk about negative feedbacks… if Dude can actually come up with any actual references that support his deranged claims…

            “We’ve used observations to show that clouds amplify the warming we get from carbon dioxide”

            http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/amplified-warming.html

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Humans function quite well above 1000 ppm CO2. US Nuclear Submarines have a limit of around 5000 ppm

          • BBQman

            Interesting, the sub guys could probably go a another few thousand if they had to, I guess they become acclimated to the higher levels because they can’t step outside and breathe natural air as often. I keep office environments at around 1,000 plus or minus by manipulating the make up air dampers on the roof top HVAC Units, usually about 15% open is the factory setting.

          • OWilson

            They can’t think for themselves.

            Like their air head Hollywood idols, they share one brain.

            My computer bot could write a years worth of their posts in 5 minutes! :)

            Name calling is about it. :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Can your proctologist extract your head? Sad that you have to deflect your inability to refute facts by blaming it on my presence. You’re far too easily distracted, if that’s the case.

          • OWilson

            I don’t “refute” your facts Mikey, you have nothing worth “refuting”.

            I try and school you! :)

            When I feel like it!

        • BBQman

          Good information, thanks.

        • Truth first

          Crop yields HAVE been going up under the effect of increased CO2 levels. Glass houses have been using increased levels to well above present levels for decades to stimulate growth.

          • BBQman

            Correct, commercial greenhouses use up to 1,500 ppm CO2 generators that help them maintain the right levels.

          • OWilson

            Correct.

            World food production at setting records.

          • Dano2

            Hilaries!

            Best,

            D

          • jmac

            In a controlled greenhouse!

            What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general, outside of a controlled greenhouse?

            Once you increase one substance that plants need, you automatically increase their requirements for other substances N, P, K, water etc… It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will have an increase in deserts and other arid lands which would reduce the area available for crops.

            Liebig’s law of the minimum
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_law_of_the_minimum

          • Truth first

            True. And not all of the extra vegetative growth through extra CO2 translates directly in equitable increases in yields.

            Yet CO2 fertilisation is a fact and parts of deserts have greened up through CO2 fertilisation.

            http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News…/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2

            Also, the cause and effect link between CO2 levels and alleged warming is not as straightforward as the warmists may want us to believe.

          • Dano2

            under the effect of increased CO2

            Horse pucky. You can’t show that’s true.

            Best,

            D

          • Truth first

            CO2 fertilisation is a fact.

          • Dano2

            Weak deflection.

            You cannot show any study that shows all or even some of that productivity is cuz see-oh-too is awesome and we should have more of it so plants ain’t starvin, yo.

            Best,

            D

          • Truth first

            Something tells me that if I present you with some proof you will not accept it…

          • Dano2

            That’s not showing. You can’t show, can you?

            Before you type another weak deflection, one of my undergrads is in horticulture, so regale me with your knowy-knowin of stuff or run away.

            Best,

            D

      • Dano2

        Hilarious credulous cut-paste. I LOLzed!

        Best,

        D

  • BBQman

    The Antarctic ice is within it known historical boundaries if ships logs have anything to say about it, and why on earth would you use a data chart that only goes back to 1978? That is just too short of a time span to achieve any useful information about climate patterns or drivers.

    Right now as we speak, it is 16*F on the surface, and -45*F at 7,000 meters, the icecaps are within normal ranges.

    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.

    • OWilson

      I use Environment Canada as my source for daily ice extent. It uses satellites, but it is consistent, does not have an arbitrarily red crayon line drawn around what some anonymous bureaucrat says is the “median extent” :)

      Also their satellites don’t suddenly “break down” for the months before the election, when the data shows relative ice cover stability :)

      Not to mention the real discrepancy between daily ice cover recorded by NOAA/NASA, which begs the question, “What happened to the missing – ice, or emails, hard drives, laptops, ……..?” (fill in the gap).

      • jmac

        Through 2016, the linear rate of decline for October is 66,400 square kilometers or (25,600 square miles) per year, or 7.4 percent per decade.
        http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

      • Dano2

        their satellites don’t suddenly “break down” for the months before the election, when the data shows relative ice cover stability :)

        HITS A KINSPEERCY

        best,

        D

        • OWilson

          Everything above can easily be checked.

          Not as easy as a stupid one liner though! :)

          Drones and clones like you elect folks like Ma and Pa Clanton.

          You deserve each other!

          I used to wonder what kind of folks would elect these kinds people. Now I know!

          Cheers!

          • Dano2

            You found them KINSPEERCY that took out the satellite prior to our election?

            How come you didn’t proudly and prancingly share the information? Shy? Scared? Building anticipation for your blockbuster tell-all?

            Best,

            D

          • OWilson

            Yep!

            You’ll be there, and Mikey, and you too, Toto! :)

          • Dano2

            Where is your blockbuster information about your KINPEERCY?

            No prancing or deflecting. Where is it.

            Best,

            D

          • OWilson

            I’m working on the final chapter.

            The moment when reality sinks in to the folks that they have been duped by liberals/socialists/communists and assorted radical activists and their lying Media organs.

            When it all comes crashing down like a house of cards!

            My book has a happy ending!

          • OWilson

            Update!

            The house of cards came down, as predicted. The dupes are wandering the streets looking dazed and confused, and seeking mental therapy, from street corner psychiatrists!

            The lying Media are now lying faster than ever. Liberals can NEVER be wrong!

            And so they set up a new generation for failure!

          • BBQman

            Critical thinking skills are not required for Obama/Clinton supporters, as our friends like Dano2 have shown.

            He and his little friends prefer unquantifiable links, short uninformative time scale charts and insults over facts and reality.

    • CB

      “The Antarctic ice is within it known historical boundaries”

      Do you know the difference between the Arctic and the Antarctic, Barbie?

      psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png

      • BBQman

        Yes I do, see edit above, what about the rest of my post CB?

        Would you care to discuss the facts and details as I have detailed them?

        • CB

          “what about the rest of my post CB?”

          What about it?

          Is the Arctic sea losing ice, Barbie?

          “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

            Since 1978….WOW CB, guess what??

            Ship Captain logs have been recording Arctic ice boundaries shrink and grow for over 50 Xs that length of time for almost 2,000 years, check it out if you need some solid climate data.

            Really, are you trying to make a point with just 38 years worth of satellite data, in the timescale of known history, that is only a small blip on the scale, nothing useful can be found in that.
            As you well know CB, CO2 is 97.37% organic in nature (per NASA) and when those CO2 levels change, it is a byproduct (CO2 lags temperature changes)of Global temperature changes which are as normal as they have ever been with the current in sync sequential climate drivers, meaning our Sun, its energy and the electromagnetic forces that it expels which impacts our molten cores centrifugal flows direction, which impacts our oceans conveyance and volcanic activity, and our orbital eccentricities and equatorial tilt, which has a direct influence on our Jet Stream which is effected as well by the gravitational forces of our moon that is all part of the actual climate drivers as it has always been.
            Of course, right now our outer gaseous planets are to far away to intercede and draw off some of the Suns electromagnetic forces and without those convolutions of forces, earth will have to absorb the full impact of any new electromagnetic forces from the Sun with Uranus sitting on the opposite side and equally useless.

          • CB

            “Ship Captain logs have been recording Arctic ice boundaries”

            How do you know?

            Where are you getting your information?

            Is the Arctic sea losing ice or not?

            “On October 20, 2016, Arctic sea ice extent began to set new daily record lows for this time of year.”

            nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/11/sluggish-ice-growth-in-the-arctic

          • BBQman

            CB, I know, because I read, you should try it sometime!

            Right now, the surface temperature of the Arctic is 16*F, at 3,000 meters 1*F and at 7,000 meters -45*F, the ice is growing at the present moment.

            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.

          • CB

            “I know, because I read”

            Uh huh.

            What are you reading and where are you reading it, Barbie?

            Is the Arctic sea losing ice?

            Yes or no?

            “The warming atmosphere along with new weather pattern extremes is causing Arctic sea ice to melt at an alarming rate—12% per decade—that suggests the Arctic will be ice-free by 2030.”

            http://www.wunderground.com/climate/SeaIce.asp

          • BBQman

            No, the Arctic is now gaining Ice.

            By 2030 the Arctic ice cap will be outside the limits of historical boundaries as a result of planetary precessions coming up in March of 2022 ( very cold winter starts that following fall) which have the 4 gas giants, Saturn, Neptune, Jupiter and Uranus, all being on the opposite side of the Sun from earth at that time, this will leave earth unprotected from large solar generated CMEs, which will impact out orbital eccentricities and Equatorial tilt, by disrupting and redirecting the directional flow and rate and of our molten core, which will drives those eccentricities.

          • jmac

            lol

          • CB

            Is he talking about astrology? I seriously can’t tell.

            Anyone who wants to make the case that Climate Denialism isn’t a mental illness is always free to do so… :/

            psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

          • jmac

            Who knows what kind of kook site BBQ’s been visiting for those pearls. But he does relish in showing the world what an ignorant a$$ he is.

          • BBQman

            What makes you think I read kook sites jmac?
            So far you and your Romper room buddies have not come up with a single logical rebuttal against any of my observations, instead you insult me and run away from my facts which prove CO2 changes always lag temperature changes.

          • jmac

            Yeah, like I’m the only one that thinks you are bat shyt crazy.

          • BBQman

            What you think and reality are two different things, now if you would stop insulting for lack of an argument, and debate the issues, we might be able to introduce you to some reality.

            In 1816 the Arctic and Antarctic ice was at the lower limits of the known boundaries, and there was no way that CO2 from fossil fuels caused that.

            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.

            Here are some other dates when Global temperatures were higher than today, 1125ad, 75bc,1350bc, 1675bc, 2250bc, 3010bc, 3230bc, 3682bc, 4012bc, 4836bc, 5722bc, 6823bc, and 7268bc. Per the 2004 Greenland GISP ice core data.

            The funny thing about these times frames is that man was not spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, must have been because of our orbital eccentricities and Equatorial tilt which is influenced by magnetism, solar cycles, volcanic activity and our very own moon….amazing!

          • jmac

            I don’t debate bat shyt crazy people, I mock them. You are one of the bat shyt crazies.

          • BBQman

            I don’t know about that jmac, most people reading our words can see that you are deflecting away from hard facts, like ship logs and history.

          • jmac

            Let me be clear then, BBQ is bat shyt crazy!

            You are really stupid to think that some right wing blogger can show man made climate change is untrue, when even Exxon with all it’s resources couldn’t.

            You have got be even more stupid to think you have some kind of credible study from some right wing denier blog that will show man made climate change is untrue, and yet you/he can’t get funding from Exxon or the Koch bros to publish in some credible scientific journal.

          • BBQman

            Like I said, you ignore my points, won’t debat and spew insults like a child….pity. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2ca6fe579fd34638b6ff565240f069a4d7d4ec73a4a700ebba8a25a9dd6ddf10.jpg

          • jmac

            Hell, I don’t even read your freakin points crazy boy. Unless I just want some cheap entertainment on occasion. You know, like to stop for a minute and listen to a part of Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman speech.

            Yes, you are as bat shyt crazy as they are. Can I be any more specific!

          • BBQman

            Well let’s debate the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere, it’s hardly enough to be any kind of climate driver, you should focus on the sequential order of the actual climate drivers instead of a harmless trace gas.

            There are many factors more prevalent then CO2 driving the climate, if all the atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel was removed, the earth would still produce 1.72 ppm of CO2 more then the previous year. With the addition of CO2 from fossil fuel, the added CO2 to the atmosphere each year is 0.08 ppm. After you add all the CO2 to all the other atmospheric gases, including water vapor, CO2 now only makes up 0.04% of the total. CO2 is the result of a warming planet, not the cause. There can be no life on earth without CO2. I did find this one climate chart attached that almost brought me over to your way of thinking until I found out it was only reflective of regional results…pity.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3bea885aa5b5d060c4e8bf67c2dc5f47acd65d57cddf9cf67dd31a079d093118.jpg

          • jmac

            ^ What bat shyt crazy looks like.

          • BBQman

            I understand, you can’t think of any coherent argument to rebutt my facts with, so you spew nonproductive insults like a child instead, look me up someday after you find your big girl panties.

          • jmac

            Keep posting, it’s great for people to see the kind of lunatics who still think NASA can’t read a thermometer.

          • applestalks

            oh they can read the thermometer alright …. it’s what happens next …..

            https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/data-tampering-at-ushcngiss/

          • jmac

            Sensible people ignore Steve Goddard.

            There is also the fact that Tony Heller (Steve Goddard is his internet name) routinely presents US temperature data as if it is a stand-in for global temperature data. This is not only dishonest; it is dumb .

            ALL raw data collected “in the wild” must be adjusted for known biases. Even the satellite data provided by the UAB satellite (monitored by climate change skeptics Roy Spencer and John Christy), which is treated as the inviolate gold standard by global warming deniers (even though the NASA scientist in charge of the UAB satellite says the surface temps are more accurate) involves data adjustments, in most cases more dramatic adjustments.

            Bottom line; raw temperatures are adjusted, because raw temperatures can’t be compared in an apples-to-apples way to otehr data. This is true in any field in the physical sciences where measurements are taken. However, they are not adjusted to result in increasing temperatures. Just as often they lower the temperatures. It’s all about controlling for biases that distort the meaningful data.

            The NOAA has spent quite a bit of effort explaining the various adjustments over the years. You can click here for one very comprehensive overview of the changes, together with links to relevant papers and data. There’s a shorter FAQ paper on the US temperature record here as a pdf file. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

            Or you can continue to believe in conspiracy stories. Your choice.

          • ROO2

            it’s what happens next …

            You tell me…

            https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9cBLSACcAAyZ4_.png

            Assuming you can read a graph, that is.

          • diaspora

            BBQman, as far as the Leftist Dems are concerned, It ain’t so unless the Globalists say so!

          • BBQman

            It’s true, the leftist AGW settled science minions have never developed any critical thinking skills, we only get insults from them and zero acknowledgement of facts.

          • diaspora

            Agree.

          • Robert

            +1 for “relish” !

          • BBQman
          • Robert

            Says the ‘gaseous planets’magnets will cause an earthquake on Oct 7 and that will tilt the earth and that will start an ice age’ claimant.

          • BBQman
          • Robert

            Your poster seems rather off topic. thanks for demonstrating your politics and science and logic acumen

          • BBQman
          • Robert

            Abovetopsecret . com

            Any science site cites?

          • BBQman

            You don’t need a science cite to read history Robert, but I forgot that you are one of those who need others to tell you what to think!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bb35f016620116a17a460a5ba098938005f28cdcae0c7d4dc1c834bd201f7ef3.jpg
            Here are some other dates when Global temperatures were higher than today, 1125ad, 75bc,1350bc, 1675bc, 2250bc, 3010bc, 3230bc, 3682bc, 4012bc, 4836bc, 5722bc, 6823bc, and 7268bc. Per the 2004 Greenland GISP ice core data.

          • Robert

            “You don’t need a science cite to read history ….”

          • BBQman

            You must have missed the facts, run…Robert…..run….run away from facts!
            The 2004 Greenland GISP ice core data pretty much shoots holes in your theory that 2015 is the hottest time in history. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/15824cb850757ec30ac2d02d36136be39fbe5e570f2a7fd60677a33f5f1394b0.jpg

          • Robert

            Missing, of course, is an actual cite….

          • BBQman

            I gave you enough information to verify my findings on your own, unless you have some comprehension disabilities that I’m not aware of. Stop making excuses and check it out Robert.

          • Robert
          • BBQman

            So, why are you going off topic and posting old conversations? Are you on drugs?

          • Robert

            Your old comments….

          • BBQman

            My profile is always open, read all you want, You might (doubtful) learn something about climate drivers, of course I do worry about your comprehension skills at times…Robert?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f2e27d421f3081c3da419dca5202279ef0a8630df3d80ac11f24b4638ccffe96.jpg

          • Robert

            Thanks for the insults. Shows how substantive your support is.

          • BBQman

            Projecting!

          • Robert

            Example?

          • BBQman

            “Shows how substantive your support is”

            Projection with zero factual basis, its meaningless word salad garbage, there is nothing tangible about anything you say, nothing quantifiable…now run along and go study the jet stream, then report back to me for your test.

          • Robert

            “….March of 2022 (a very cold winter starts that following fall) which have the 4 gas giants, Saturn, Neptune, Jupiter and Uranus, all being on the opposite side of the Sun from earth at that time, this will leave earth unprotected from large solar generated CMEs, which will impact our orbital eccentricities and Equatorial tilt, by disrupting and redirecting the directional flow and rate and of our molten core, which drives those eccentricities.”

            “Projection with zero factual basis, its meaningless word salad garbage, there is nothing tangible about anything you say, nothing quantifiable….”

          • BBQman

            No, I have given you a glimpse of what the actual climate drivers are, unfortunately you are brainwashed by the CO2 boogerman and can’t see past that…pity.

          • Robert

            Magnets; who knows how they work….

          • cunudiun

            Tides come in. Tides go out. Is that it?

          • Mike Richardson

            Yeah, Stephen Hawking really doesn’t agree with your viewpoints — on anything.

          • BBQman

            Can you say President Trump Mike? And Hawkings only wished he could see things the way I do.

          • Mike Richardson

            Congratulations. You and your cohorts have brought Western Civilization this much closer to its end. The one prediction you’ve gotten right means there is now a lot less chance any of us will be alive in 2030 to see if anything else you’ve predicted will come to pass. Stephen Hawking predicted only a 50/50 chance of human civilization surviving this century. He apparently was being too optimistic.

          • BBQman

            Come on Mike, do you remember us conservatives rioting after obama won twice, running a Republic can be a little messy at times, no need to be all doom and gloom about it, do like me and give Trump some time in office before judging him so harshly, that is what we did for obama, we gave him at least 3 months before we figured out he was a Muslim traitor, on soros payroll to achieve Globalization and fulfill satans plan.:)

          • Mike Richardson

            Oh, I can assure you Trump will get just as much respect and cooperation from us as you lot gave President Obama. Remember what they say about karma? :)

          • BBQman

            What’s with all those hillary flying monkeys attacking innocent bystanders, is it because Hillary supporters don’t believe in our constitution and election laws?

          • Mike Richardson

            Wow! Monkeys, you say?! Well, I guess we know your motivation for voting for Herr Trump, eh? Make sure you get those white sheets starched well for inauguration day. Just try not to catch fire during the ceremonial cross lighting afterwards.

          • BBQman

            Please stop projecting your PC nonsense Mike, it does not work on me, and if anyone in the country is acting like the KKK, just look at the law breaking Hillary supporters destroying small businesses like the Nazis brown shirts did in 1930s Germany, get a grip on reality Mike. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/97ef5fbffd59a5a1a9abc0c0ef325cf925648e268d742dd2464674264c1c47b1.jpg

          • Mike Richardson

            Acting like the KKK?! LOL… Exactly who is it the KKK and the neo-Nazis are celebrating and rallying behind right now? No projection, Barbie, just the facts. And look up the statistics on hate crimes since the election of Herr Trump — the far right has hardly been behaving itself since they’ve got their man in office. And why shouldn’t they celebrate? He just named the Breitbart chief Bannon as his new Minister of Propaganda. Nah, no reason to be concerned about right-wing extremism now, is there?

          • BBQman

            I guess it’s really not an issue anymore, in about 70 days, Trump will drive a stake through the heart of the EPA (soros/podesta ran criminal enterprise) and put an end to this al gore con game about a trace (CO2) gas somehow magically being a climate driver after 345 ppm…. Utter nonsense and good riddance to the EPA and all those climate study grants. Please see crime map below. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2941ce0a93920557406994af701dbaa4c8c817eae851d53dc2aa53f20fabb56e.jpg

          • Mike Richardson

            Not a big fan of clean air or water, either, eh? Well, why wait? Go dip a nice cup of fresh water out of the septic tank, and take a deep breath from the exhaust of your vehicle’s tailpipe. It’s not like we actually need air or water to live — increasing profits and tax breaks for the already wealthy should be a higher priority than basic requirements for life, right?

          • OWilson

            You don’t need a physics degree to come up with a 50/50 proposition.

            A dartboard can do it.

            A coin is cheaper! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            I think he’s got a lot more evidence to support his estimate than you’ve ever produced to support your own propositions. So I’ll give a little more weight to the proven genius, rather than the proven irrational political hyperpartisan, thank you very much.

          • jmac

            LOL = abovetopsecret.com
            Typical for BBQ. :)

          • jmac

            I think we can safely call that another one of BBQ’s kook sites. :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Yeah, that one’s a real gem! And he still insists it happened — that’s what makes it such a great example of supreme denialism.

          • jmac

            Maybe it’s just a cry for attention, but the guy does seem to relish being shown how stupid he is. Most folks would try to learn from there, but not BBQ. Even Exxon laughs at his crazy a$$. :)

          • Dano2

            Cry for attention, aye.

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            Anyone who thinks they can learn any useful climate science from short time scale charts is in denial.

            In the future please only show me charts that go back 10,000 to 100,000 years if you want to be taken seriously, thank you in advance for your cooperation.

          • CB

            “In the future please only show me charts that go back 10,000 to 100,000 years if you want to be taken seriously”

            lol! We can do that too. Barbie, how do you think it makes you look when you look at a graph going down and say it’s going up? Do you think that makes you look like a sane human being?

            http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/cryosphere/data/vos-e4-2.gif

          • BBQman

            Seems like your computer etch a sketch is working this morning, Those lines are proof of nothing, there is no way to authenticate for any accuracy, a child could have made it during play time on the Computer, go find something real. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aaf8dd54c00c1701cb0689b620fbcd1a38bfb920a0dd49bba943586c5f4dd03f.gif

          • CB

            “a child could have made it”

            Perhaps! …but you can tell the Exploratorium made it by clicking it.

            Where does this one come from, Barbie?

            ice.nasa.gov/images/ice-arctic.gif

          • BBQman

            Even if the Exploratorium made it, the time scale from 1978 to 2010 is to short, that’s like asking me to judge a horse and only showing me one of its tail hairs, get real CB. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7c1edeba6110a72aae8898bca5357544c80691536d2925d99e249a9ef6f98248.jpg

          • CB

            “Even if the Exploratorium made it”

            Nope! The answer is NASA, Barbie. The image comes from NASA.

            What does NASA say about Arctic sea ice? Do they say it’s increasing or decreasing?

            “The new summer lows, combined with poor wintertime recoveries, have fueled a persistent decline in Arctic sea ice.”

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

          • BBQman

            It’s the short time scale that makes it worthless.

          • CB

            “time scale”

            Yes, Barbie. Over the time scale in question, is Arctic sea ice increasing or decreasing? Answer the question, please, or say you do not know.

            http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/featured-image/public/Arctic_sea_ice_minimum_620.png

          • BBQman

            Your time scale is a repeat of the same anomaly from 1093 to 1125 CE. Now as to the next 30 years, the Arctic ice will expand to the outside of its normal boundaries per the 2004 Greenland GISP ice core data.

          • Dano2

            Dunning-Kruger.

            Best,

            D

          • Robert

            True that…
            “….March of 2022 (a very cold winter starts that following fall) which have the 4 gas giants, Saturn, Neptune, Jupiter and Uranus, all being on the opposite side of the Sun from earth at that time, this will leave earth unprotected from large solar generated CMEs, which will impact our orbital eccentricities and Equatorial tilt, by disrupting and redirecting the directional flow and rate and of our molten core, which drives those eccentricities.”

          • Dano2
          • BBQman

            I see you still have that computer etch-a-sketch, those short term records don’t say anything of value Dana2, go find something that goes back around 10,000 years and then come back…run along now.

            Best

            B

          • jmac

            Through 2016, the linear rate of decline for October is 66,400 square kilometers or (25,600 square miles) per year, or 7.4 percent per decade.
            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

          • BBQman

            All Arctic ice is still within known boundaries, there are no climate anomalies or detrimental global warming at this time, https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b0a5d4bb627e060db76115da93932922e5930a831d4b8aaeebde37d2813a548a.jpg

          • jmac

            Is that a new denier meme? “We aren’t dead yet, keep digging men.”
            :)

          • Dano2

            You are refuted. Run along, little one.

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            Tell you what Dano2, read my post at the very top of thread and learn a thing or two!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3ad22a6280edfd3e375d30c7598344d033b53aa7955d71fcb57de0943d8a1a8b.gif

          • Dano2

            You were refuted. You can’t hide it.

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            No I was not, none of my points have been refuted, there is zero evidence that you or any of your friends have even addressed my points, you guys ignore and put up short time period charts that prove nothing.

            You can not refute any of my points, ship logs for the last 2,000 years give a better climate history then 38 years worth of satellites, of course satellites are nice and provide great information, they cannot erase the information from ship Captain log books.

            Another epic fail from your side trying to prove the (false) theory of fossil fuel generated CO2 as a climate driver, Co2 changes always lag temperature changes, you just can’t get around that one……I hate having to blow up y’alls AGW theories with facts, but someone has to do it, and I just don’t trust anyone else to do the job!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9cb61dde506b83c57d2cccae938e6c58a83398be83e915b2f628ea37408e9e40.gif

          • Dano2

            Charts. Refute. You.

            Run along, little one.

            best,

            D

          • BBQman

            Sorry, the time scale on your charts are to short to prove anything.

          • Dano2

            the time scale on your charts are to short to prove anything.

            Hogwash. You made that up. Arctic is not gaining ice, you derped and are derptastic.

            You can’t show it is true. All you can do is flounce and derp.

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            I don’t have to prove the existence of ship logs, they do in fact exist, read some of them.

            Here are some dates when Global temperatures were higher than today, 1816ad, 1125ad, 75bc,1350bc, 1675bc, 2250bc, 3010bc, 3230bc, 3682bc, 4012bc, 4836bc, 5722bc, 6823bc, and 7268bc. Per the 2004 Greenland GISP ice core data.

            The funny thing about these times frames is that man was not spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, must have been because of our orbital eccentricities and Equatorial tilt which is influenced by electromagnetic forces, solar cycles, our molten cores directional flow, volcanic activity and our very own moon….amazing!

          • Dano2

            Goddard/Heller duped another credulous rube. Awh!

            Sad!

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            Incoherent response.

          • Dano2

            You were duped.

            Sad!

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            You are afraid to look at facts, pity.

          • Dano2

            You have no facts on your side, only prancing and flouncing.

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            Ship logs are facts!

          • neal of the jarhead clan

            Hay BBQMan: Argueing with the warmest again huh; losing battle I’m afraid; my thought is, they put their heads in the microwave for 5 min. just to see what would happen, it’ the only thing that explains the lack of thought process!
            Any way I came over to your profile looking for a gal named sue she seems to be following both of us, she has not made any comments yet is following 100 people, left me a link (that I won’t touch with MY keyboard) I thought I would look around, but can’t seem to find much, any ideas?

          • BBQman

            Sue, Is she in my profile? I deleted 4 people this morning that had a zero comment history, I don’t remember a Sue.

            Yes you are correct, these AGW guys become repetitive very quickly, no game what so ever.

          • neal of the jarhead clan

            Yeah she was there, come on over and check out my profile, you’ll see why I won’t touch that link! I don’t mess with much over there but that one I’m gonna delete soon.

          • BBQman

            Ok, I remember deleting that one now. Seemed like someones sock Troll.

          • neal of the jarhead clan

            Yeah a sock troll(good name) guess I’ll go get rid of that before bed!

          • Dano2

            the (false) theory

            False theory!

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

            Aren’t you precious? You are! You are precious!

            *pinches cheek*

            Awh!

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman
          • Dano2

            Your weak deflection from your lack of science education is noted.

            Let everyone know when you enroll in your very first science class.

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            Still avoiding a challenge or argument against my points and now engaged in childish insults as your last defense…..sad. You seem a bit slow today Dano!
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/84bcfa6fb6af09750f9bd7dc41bcf402299f798217319040fb0fab4bb8cd8947.jpg

          • Dano2

            Your weak deflections are weak.

            You are dismissed.

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2
          • BBQman

            Sorry, your bogus links prove nothing, win the debate with your own words if you think you can, I have my doubts! https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/58c29bf7a690e0b0b8779fcd7ab50dab8474e7d88c633587bd8a0e664105ce70.gif

          • Dano2

            More time-wasting lies fibs and weak deflections from this FUD purveyor.

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            I see no comments about my facts above.
            You scared?

          • Dano2

            You were refuted, everyone can see it.

            Your limp deflections and prancing can’t hide that fact.

            Best,

            D

          • BBQman

            I was not refuted, your links do not prove the climate to be anything other then normal, move along now…start reading and learning new things, your old links have stagnated your mental evolution.

          • Dano2

            Your were refuted, as everyone can see.

            You are dismissed.

            Best,

            D

          • Mike Richardson

            That magnetic forcings thing has certainly been refuted, hasn’t it? 😉

          • BBQman

            Not at all, it’s part of our everyday life!

          • OWilson

            Yes, they’d rather blame my SUV

            (Which I seldom take out of the garage) :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Because your friend BBQman’s theories are a much better explanation for climate change than fossil fuels? Nah, I think I’ll stick with verifiable science.

          • OWilson

            Without fossil fuels you would be back in the stone age, rather quickly I might add.

            You are your own worst enemy, and yet you preach!

            The very definition of today’s liberal!

          • Truth first

            Blow,’em, B, blow’em all!
            They HAVE to hear the truth!
            We’ve had 500ppm+ levels eons ago, with hardly anyone roaming the face of the earth. And as you said: CO2 levels FOLLOW warming, are not the cause of it. There is so much wrong with Al Gore and the politicians running with this myth.

          • Dano2

            Clownically irrelevant: We’ve had 500ppm+ levels eons ago, with hardly anyone roaming the face of the earth.

            Clownically wrong: CO2 levels FOLLOW warming, are not the cause of it.

            Congratulations.

            Best,

            D

          • Truth first

            As hinted from the peanut gallery…;)
            Do you go beyond two sentences to argue your case or are you just shooting from the hip till your ammunition runs out?

          • Dano2

            An intro biology class awaits your enrollment and attendance. Let us know when you complete it, so we can look forward to fewer embarrassing comments from you.

            Best,

            D

          • Truth first

            Ah, TWO sentences!
            Biology? Isn’t that Geography? Or Climatology?
            Problem is, I DID do some research, and was convinced by real scientists presenting real outcomes. Against the IPCC fairy tales.

          • Dano2

            Let us know when we can look forward to fewer embarrassing comments from you. Enroll now.

            Best,

            D

          • Truth first

            Which part of biology should I be particularly aware of?

          • OWilson

            And here comes da Dean.

            AGW Al Gore.

            Shaddap and listen!

            Argue with Al, and “we’ll bring ya’ll to justice”.

            Think you know more than a Nobel Prizewinner?

          • Dano2

            this myth.

            MITH EVERBUDDEH!!!!!

            Clearly there is still a market among the Faux/Breitbartian faithful for claiming that:

            o Thousands of scientists;

            o across a century and a half;

            o in a wide range of specialties;

            o in dozens of countries;

            o on six continents;

            o speaking scores of languages;

            o having over ten thousand peer-reviewed papers;

            o are involved in a complex plot to ‘fake’ AGW.

            And, to hide their scam, scientists have recruited the natural world into going along with their plot, namely:

            o Scientists have tricked animals and plants to move up and poleward;

            o scientists have tricked plants to bloom earlier;

            o scientists have tricked seasons to begin earlier;

            o scientists have tricked the ocean into acidifying;

            o scientists have tricked carbon to change its isotopic signature from natural carbon to fossil carbon in the atmosphere, corals, and plants to further the scam;

            o scientists have tricked the tropopause to rise;

            o scientists have tricked the oceans to warm rapidly and sea levels to increase their rate of rise;

            o scientists have tricked the outgoing spectra of the earth into emitting less EM waves in the GHG wavelengths;

            o and all have been exposed by a few intrepid bloggers and fossil fuel billionaires.

            Has there ever been – ever – a less likely conspiracy theory ever than this one? In the history of the world?

            Best,

            D

          • Truth first

            That was actually quite funny, D. You have a way with words, you know that?
            They are not many, and not all your own, but still.

            You cannot deny though that there is a multi billion dollar research industry that only blossoms, and researchwrs who only get funded, if the outcome of their research confirms the predetermined outcome on which globally environmental measures and policies have been based.

            And that banks and clever individuals get stinking rich in a carbon credit industry that only accepts AWG as the be all and end all of all research efforts.

            And that scientific journals are refusing papers going against the AWG presupposition because they are worried about their funding and/or they do not have the truth in mind but are worried about their image and prestige which will be affected if they do not sing with the IPCC choir but start their own band?!

          • Dano2

            Joke’s on you for calling ~2 centuries of science a myth.

            Best,

            D

          • Truth first

            You’re still one-lining…

          • Dano2

            That’s all it takes to point out your derpitude.

            best,

            D

          • Truth first

            Must admit though that I am learning something from you: new words. “derpitude”. Had to look that one up.

          • Truth first

            Global Warming the IPCC way started with Maggie Thatcher who wanted Neil Kinnock of her back who was the Union leader making her life difficult with strikes and riots. To make coal mining, and Kinnock’s position, economically less important she started to pour big money into research that should discredit coal as an energy source. Helped by, would you believe it, leftist activists without a cause after the fall of communism (Talking of strange bedfellows…), CO2 and sulfur, and with it (remember?) acid rain, became the new culprits of the end of the 20th century.

            And oh yes, there was this Swedish climatologist who first mentioned global warming as an added ingredient in the mix. The recipe of this hallucinogenic carbon space cake has never lost its appeal for those who prefer easy outcomes within the politically correct paradigm, rather than a genuine searching for the truth.

            We’ve been constipated ever since. Now you’re saying the ones with the normal bowel movements are the odd ones out. Or in Clinton parlour: the “deplorables”?

          • Dano2

            Transparent Gish gallop to hide error.

            Best,

            D

          • Truth first

            But you did not know that, did you?

          • Robert

            Interesting comparing your graphs and sources to the talking point posters from bbq.

          • Mike Richardson

            Now, now, you were telling us just a couple months ago that these “magnetic forcings” and orbital eccentricities would be causing some changes in October this year. Now the doomsday stuff’s being pushed back to 2030? Well, it’s always a good thing to make impossible projections years ahead of time, instead of months. Apparently, you’ve learned from past failed predictions.

          • BBQman

            I never said anything about doomsday, stop projecting nonsense.

          • Mike Richardson

            Oh, you were predicting some dire calamity, at the very least. Again, what was it, that didn’t happen?

          • BBQman

            No I was not, I was talking about climate drivers, feel free to look back into my profile and show me what you are babbling about.

          • Mike Richardson

            You said there was going to be a major change, something that would prove you right about your bizarre theories. Nothing’s materialized so far.

          • BBQman

            Like I said, please find anything I said that matches what you are projecting. I did say that there would be seismic activity between Mexico and California on October 7th and there was, I said that the earth would start tilting another 0.7 degrees over the next 30 years, only 29 years and 11 months left to see how close I get.

            Please come up with some specifics, otherwise I will have to ignore your babbling.

          • Mike Richardson

            There’s been nothing of significance seismically, and pointing that out isn’t babbling, it’s stating a fact. No major earthquakes, no beginning of any tilting of the earth, etc. You are trying to argue against scientific fact with pseudoscientic word salad, and projecting on anyone who disputes it.

          • BBQman

            Sorry, my theory on electromagnetic forces are more real then the false theory that CO2 is a climate driver between 345 to 1,000 ppm.

          • evenminded

            Theory? You don’t even know how to compute the magnitude of a magnetic force.

          • BBQman

            You don’t know how to prove that CO2 is a climate driver.

          • evenminded

            The more you use the word “prove” in the context of science, the more you look like an idiot.

          • BBQman

            No, that is you deflect position when someone asks you to prove that CO2 from fossil fuels is a climate driver, you need to work on your debate skills for a while.

          • evenminded

            No, I’m not the one deflecting, you are.

            You claimed to have a theory of magnetic convolutions, but you don’t even know how to calculate the magnitude of a magnetic force.

          • Mike Richardson

            No, it isn’t, at least not outside of the bubble of alternate reality in which you appear to reside. CO2 increases warming at a rate consistent with, and proven by, the current levels of warming being documented in numerous scientific journals by experts in the field of climate science. Objective, verifiable evidence in support of a scientific theory — something you have yet to provide.

          • BBQman

            Word salad, you have never proven CO2 from fossil fuels to be a climate driver, you better bone up, good night?

          • Mike Richardson

            Temperatures rising as CO2 levels rise, rising sea levels, retreating glaciers — there’s your cause and effect. Controlled experiments with increasing CO2 and steady input from other possible influences proves the effect carbon dioxide has on atmospheric temperature. Infinitesimally small influences by “magnetic forcings” and shifts in earth’s axial tilt are not climate drivers which would counteract this. You’d better get used to being proven wrong if you continue to embrace such easily disproven views, whether scientific, socialogical, economical, or political.

          • BBQman

            Your word salad proves nothing, good night.

          • Mike Richardson

            Confusing the purveyor of word salads you are. 😉

          • BBQman

            Please wrap your mind around the fact that organic CO2 changes always lag temperature changes for 97.57% of the CO2 generated by earth by up to 400 years.

            CO2 can not be a climate driver because it is 97.57% a byproduct of temperature change.

          • evenminded

            Do you honestly not understand how utterly ludicrous it is to claim that the tilt of the earth’s axis is going to change course and increase by 0.7 degrees in 30 years when it is currently decreasing smoothly and the last time it was 0.7 degrees larger was 6000 years ago?

          • BBQman

            I suppose we won’t know for the next 30 years then, be patient.

          • evenminded

            You might not know. But I do. You’re an idiot.

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            Are you? Is this the time of the month where bu11sh1t flows from all of your orifices?

          • BBQman

            Either act like an adult or I will have to ground you some young lady.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6794c8ececf4f16fb727b0906e6a999f889e8b5415f7858924142abab6652a1d.jpg

          • evenminded

            When you stop spewing bu11sh1t from all of your orifices then I will stop calling you a bu11sh1tter.

            Deal?

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            You’re the one whining about trolls and insults. If you can’t take the heat then get out of the kitchen.

            Get right with god son, you need to stop lying.

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            We’ve never believed your bu11sh1t BBQ. You’re just getting that now?

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            Are you saying your prayers?

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            Are you nervous?

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            Nighty night son. Make sure you say your prayers. Ask for forgiveness for all of your lies you told today. If you don’t your punishment awaits.

          • 😈 FIREBRED ✓ᴰᵉᵖˡᵒʳᵃᵇˡᵉ

            STOLEN, BBQman!

          • Mike Richardson

            Hmmm, sexist comments from a Trump supporter. Surprised, I am not.

          • BBQman

            You are projecting PC nonsense now, that doesn’t work on me.

          • evenminded

            Don’t lie now BBQ. You said that there would be unusual seismic activity. There is seismic activity in the US and Mexico every day. Nothing unusual occurred on October 7.

          • BBQman

            I gave you the magnitude and location for the earthquake that happened on the 7th, I suppose facts are not good enough for you Ms prissy.

          • evenminded

            No you did not. Why are you lying?

            I asked specifically for this information and you refused.

            You’re a liar. You need to get right with God.

          • BBQman

            Sorry evenminded, I was correct on the date, and general location.

          • evenminded

            You’re a liar. You did not predict a specific location or magnitude.

          • BBQman

            Stop with your childish insults, I gave you the date and location, I was correct.

          • evenminded

            Stop with your lies. God is watching you.

            You did not give a specific location or a magnitude. There was no unusual seismic activity on October 7.

            Stop lying.

          • BBQman

            CO2 is a climate driver like the FBI was able to read 650 thousand Clinton emails in 4 days, more lies on top of other lies, when are you one world government minions going to give up your pursuit of utopia?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/15d01ec7f938a429f5672a9541fc7a3378f7ab0f433ed1534caa1881ffb1265c.gif

          • evenminded

            LOL

            Have you been praying for your man? Do you think god is listening?

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            So that’s a no then. You really need to get right with god. I’m afraid that he is going to punish you for all of your recent lying.

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            Reality. You should visit it sometime.

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            Nice selfie. Get right with god son, his punishment will be upon you.

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            She must have learned that from you.

            Get right with god son, his wrath is coming.

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            Don’t you think you should be spending this time praying?

          • BBQman
          • evenminded

            God is frowning upon you.

          • RubyMontana

            LOL!!!!

          • Marianne-in-NJ ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ

            LMAO — one of your best, BBQ!! Hagatha’s soooo dirty that there’s glimmer of hope for Jersey going Red tomorrow. Feeling less confident now than several weeks ago as highest circulating Jersey newspapers (all left-wing rags) endorsed the she-devil — shilling for IT with non-stop anti-Trump drum beat. On top of that, Jersey has one if highest levels of corruption in country. In any event, I’m still keeping the faith for Trump’s YUGE win tomorrow!

          • BBQman

            Same here, keep our fingers crossed. Trump in a landslide!

          • OWilson

            He did an expensive google “term” search. We all know how Google can suddenly remove Hillary from the Top Ten List of Corrupt Politicians :)

            Let’s say there’s a pay for play Sheik that wants a Trade Deal, or even a job for his son.

            “Dear Huma.

            Does the gentleman we discussed give to charity?

            I would appreciate that!”

            Parse that you pathetic excuse for an FBI Director! :)

            Nobody expects the criminal Clintons to leave a paper trail of written out, detailed admissions.

            It takes time to follow up if the Sheik got his deal, his son got the job, and if a rather large deposit was made to the “Family” Foundation.

          • OWilson

            No, no no!

            That’s YOUR side :)

            We are discussing:

            “The Greatest Threat To Humankind”, remember?

            You’re confused again!

            LOL

          • Mike Richardson

            I’d have some ways to go to catch up with you in the confusion game, from what you’ve demonstrated. Certainly with regards to interjecting politics into any scientific discussion, and the fine art of trolling. But you did promise to educate us, didn’t you? 😉

          • OWilson

            I’ve been trying to help you understand how the real world (outside of government and the left wing Washington echo chamber) works.

            Looks like you have to find out the hard way! :)

          • OWilson

            You’ve described your Dear Leaders perfectly.

            But why the double standard?

            BBQman gives you his predictions for free, without the implied criminality against humanity charges? :)

          • Mike Richardson

            They make about as much sense as anything you say, right? 😉

          • Truth first

            Why does that alarm you? We can now send ships up north cutting trips by hundreds of miles, if not more. Shortly we’ll be growing forests at Green land. What’s wrong with that?

          • TreeParty

            Hey BBQDimwit,
            There is no land within the Arctic circle above 3000 meters, and certainly no “surface” above 7000 meters. What are you even talking about?! Try some reading..

          • BBQman

            I never implied that there was any land at those elevations, I was referring to atmospheric temperatures. I only referenced the surface temperature at 16*F, are you maybe struggling with your reading comprehension TreeParty? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/558ab5c8988f0ce43c1f512fcd33b01afafe2f5bad791ce265583e216e0e1063.jpg

          • TreeParty

            Yes, I admit to being faked out by references to irrelevant temperatures in the atmosphere, and by the less than fully relevant fact that Arctic sea ice is growing in extent in November, which it always does because, hey; it’s in the Northern Hemisphere! It should be added that “on October 20, 2016, Arctic sea ice extent began to set new daily record lows for this time of year.” Did you conveniently forget to consider that?
            Your prediction that the Arctic ice cap will be “outside the limits of it’s [sic] historical boundaries” in 2030 is duly noted, duly laughed at, and I honestly hope you’re right, even while your reasoning that explains your prediction is bizarre and completely scientifically indefensible. Good luck with that prediction…

          • BBQman

            Ha ha, I guess because you say so, you have not challenged any of my points, you also fail to reason out the sequential order of climate drivers (CO2 not being one of them) that govern Global climate changes, you probably have zero knowledge about the Hadley cell portion of our convection and jet stream.

            There is nothing measurable or quantifiable in your statemeant, only warmed over silly platitudes.

            Please…..challenge my points in some coherent way, I dare you.

          • Mike Richardson

            Yeah, he’s been making some really strange predictions, all of which fail on scientific principle and objectively observed fact. But his complete rejection of reality is at least consistent on many other topics.

          • Dano2

            Replying to that one is like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer: it feels so good when you stop!

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2
      • Truth first

        You win some, you lose some. The Antarctic ice volume has grown to record extent. Anyway, global climate is a slow rollercoaster and has been changing independently from us. There is a political imperative to tell the IPCC story that is not scientifically backed. Climategates that tell us that the REAL story is less important than the hidden agenda of political ulterior motives.

        • CB

          “The Antarctic ice volume has grown to record extent.”

          How do you know?

          Where are you getting your information?

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

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

          • Truth first

            Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km) . On Sept. 19 this year[2014], for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
            From:
            http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum.
            Your quote seems to be in contradiction to the one issued by NASA, not the least of reasearch organisations. Don’t trust the “seems” part in your article. It does, or it doesn’t. You’ve got the facts or you are guessing.

          • TreeParty

            Antarctic sea ice is increasing BECAUSE of global warming melting the land ice in volumes that cannot be replenished. AND, the Antarctic sea ice increase is dwarfed by the Arctic sea ice decrease (as your own data show), so the oceans continue to rise. Why do you ignore the important bits? Confirmation bias? Sheer gullible stupidity? Overuse of hallucinogens?

          • OWilson

            Why don’t you Antarctic ice growers and Antarctic ice melters get your sh*t together?

            Hard to keep up with y’all prevarications. :)

          • TreeParty

            Yes, well it’s easy to see why it is so hard for you to “keep up”.
            As you may be aware, a number of AGW deniers have pointed to the fact that the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been growing year over year recently as some kind of prima facie proof that AGW isn’t happening. But it is important to keep these two things in mind:
            1) The ice ON LAND in Antarctica is melting due to the warming of the planet. The ice ON LAND is different from the sea ice, IN THE SEA, surrounding the land. While the extent of the sea ice is increasing around Antarctica lately, the volume of ice ON LAND is decreasing, and THAT is what is leading to the observable increase in sea level. (The sea ice is floating on the water, so does not cause the sea level to rise.)
            2) And the recent increase in sea ice around Antarctica is smaller than the loss of sea ice in the Arctic, so that the globe is undergoing a NET LOSS of sea ice year over year, as predicted by GLOBAL warming.
            Do the capital letters help your understanding?

          • OWilson

            None of the above language even resembles science, precious. :)

          • TreeParty

            These are all merely facts. Ignore the facts at your peril.

          • OWilson

            Here’s a fact, precious!

            Sea level is primarily is a function of long term warming, naturally occurring during the many and regular natural interglacial epochs, such as the one the earth is experiencing now.

            Look up Occam’s Razor :)

            You won’t have to learn all those complicated dance steps! :)

          • TreeParty

            The “fact” you have stated is a historical fact. Yes, historically the sea level rose and fell with the amount of water stored in ice masses around the world, and those changes occurred very slowly over long periods of time. The difference now is that the planet is warming rapidly in geological terms, because the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has shot up very quickly due to humans flaring hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon in just over a century, even while cutting down millions of acres of forest that would otherwise capture the CO2. This understanding is EXACTLY an application of Occam’s Razor: no complicated interplay of countless factors to try to explain; human-emitted GHG’s are the principal and sufficient explanation for the current rapid warming.

          • OWilson

            World deforestation is declining rapidly.

            America has more trees today than 100 years ago.

            Trump can win the Presidency.

            Reality vs liberal mythology! :)

          • TreeParty

            Yes, deforestation is slowing down gradually, now that over 60% of the original forest cover is gone. (And no, America does not have appreciably more trees today than 100 years ago, and global deforestation is continuing, albeit at a slower rate.) Of course, the rate of greenhouse gas emission continues to increase, so CO2 continues to pile up, measurably, in the atmosphere and in the oceans. Again, simply the facts. And so every decade is hotter than the decade before. Global warming, caused by human agency. Reality.

          • OWilson

            Increasing Co2 levels.

            But the ‘global” warming is barely negligible, 0.11 per decade over the satellite record (37 years) and diverging greatly from the 1990 IPCC predictions.

            Look it up!

          • Truth first

            Don’t you find it remarkable that every time there is an exceptional cold winter here or a blizzard there, when it snows on places where it has never snowed, that always the mantra remains that this is because of global warming? I could live with “climate change”, which we cannot deny (although that observation is always at hindsight as trends over 30 years are required according to the definition of “climate”), but there is no proof that we are to blame for it to the extent that ALL changes we observe are our fault. There are much bigger players, and you know who they are.

          • TreeParty

            There you go, making stuff up again. Obviously, global warming (and it is clear to anyone with half a brain that the planet IS warming, rapidly in geological terms) explains a lot, but cold winters and snow are not caused by global warming, and I don’t find it remarkable because I don’t find any “mantra” that those things are caused by global warming.
            There are not “much bigger players” in terms of the recent rapid warming, than human-emitted greenhouse gases. All the “bigger players” act much more slowly. Such is the consensus of climate scientists. Like NASA, that you just cited above.
            And by the way, here are some of the parts you left out from the NASA article you cited above:
            “Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.” and
            “The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.” and
            “The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent..”
            The most important omission is that while the volume of Antarctic SEA ICE has grown, the volume of land ice continues to shrink. So it is a fallacy to say, as you did, that “the Antarctic ice volume has grown to record extent.”
            Looks like it isn’t really “Truth first” after all..

          • Truth first

            YOU say global warming causes the ice to melt. Because the climate of the arctic is changing, ice melts.

            Since when was concensus the driver of the truth? It takes one dissenter to prove them all wrong. And there is not just one, there are many.

            Many who put question marks behind the influence we would have on the climate. It takes one big volcanic eruption to bring global warming to a stand still. Cosmic rays, solar activity, are much bigger influences

            And why do these alarmists need fraud and neverending “massaging” to the raw database to prove their point? So that locations that have seen a net negative temperature trend after IPCC tweaking show a rising trend?

            Only to conveniently loose the database that produced the Hockey stick? Don’t these things worry you? That there are respected ex-members of the IPCC climate panel who are leaving the IPCC ship because they are sick and tired of the tweaking and half truths their colleagues produce? Why do we let a politician run with a science that should be run by independent scientist, not by politicians or those stuffing their pockets through the production of political outcomes rather than purely scientific ones?

            I am not saying there is no net global warming, although it is probably less than the IPCC maintains. I believe there are over a hundred climate models the IPCC uses and not one of them assumes another main cause of global warming than us. Should there for the sake of independence be at least some be based on the assumption of other causes?

            As they say, climate is the net outcome of multiple as yet poorly understood atmospheric, cosmic and other external processes. To state with so much certainty that AWG is a fact does not do justice to the intricacy of that mix, does not do justice to the truth.

          • TreeParty

            “I am not saying there is not net global warming.” That’s good because there is a measureable, observable RAPID warming of the planet that pretty much all the science can only explain as being chiefly due to GHG emissions. It isn’t that “consensus is the driver of the truth”; it is that there is a scientific consensus that the observable, measurable rapid warming of the planet has been shown, repeatedly, to not be explained by any other cause. By all the scientists!
            It does not “take just one dissenter to prove them all wrong”; it takes a body of scientific evidence that DOES NOT EXIST.
            For example; what volcano eruption can you point to that “can bring global warming to a standstill”?
            You are just making stuff up, and presuming that your fabricated drivel countermands actual climate scientist. What a knucklehead!

          • Truth first

            As I said, we may be warming, but what is causing it? Not us. The mechanisms are not well known. And we are not investigating other possibilities. We are fooling ourselves that mopping up the floor will help while the taps keep running.

          • http://www.the-only-way.net five.to.midnight

            Or carrying coals to New Castle.

          • OWilson

            Well said.

            The sheer number of studies they are dumping every day, to back up their theories is very telling.

            Did CNN Really need panels of 8 Trump bashers, in prime time, every night for for two years, to keep repeating how evil Trump was?

            How many studies do you need to dump every day to prove to the public that garvity exists?

            LOL

          • Truth first

            They did picture him as doctor Evil, didn’t they? Had to laugh when that CNN interviewer was baiting a black demonstrator for Trump. He (reporter) asked him the question if he knew that white surpremacists supported Trump. The black guy made him look down very humbly and extremely uncomfotable down when the black guy gave him a serious piece of his mind and angrily told the reporter that it was about time that the media stopped baiting Trump supporters and make them look racist and stupid. Interesting times we’re in! Are you a US citizen? I am in South Africa.

          • Mike Richardson

            No, panelists were not needed to prove how terrible Trump was. Unfortunately, in this country, there are many people who like yourself prefer that to sanity and decency. I was hoping you were an example of the fringe, but more likely, you’re just a harbinger of humanity’s selfish and ultimately self-destructive nature. It would be better to be ignorant and in bliss, than to be so aware of where civilization is headed. Like Europe in the 1930s, only this time there are nukes. Climate change likely won’t have time to to destroy us, because apparently we aren’t that patient.

          • OWilson

            The big players in this scam are, not necessarily in order:

            The radical left, and their fellow travellers, the U.N. and their Third World corrupt financial opportunists., Al Gore, Obama and his Agencies (NOAA/NASA), the Media, and assorted domestic and foreign America haters.

            That’s a formidable bunch.

            But sheer numbers and power alone do not make them believable!

            And as long as they keep curious little boys from touching the Emperors Fine New Clothes, they will prevail!

          • Truth first

            That’s a very colourful and lively last sentence right there, O.
            As you say, there is NO safety in numbers. As there hardly ever is. There is a bigger picture to all of this. The actual people pulling the strings who decide on the next President. And it is not you and I (if I were a US citizen) doing his/her duty at the boot. But that’s a story for another day.

          • Mike Richardson

            That’s a formidable conspiracy theorist’s list, I’ll agree. Seems like it’s more effort to try to make that into some coherent argument than accepting the reality of climate change as shown by scientific research, but some folks like to work harder, not smarter. Each to their own, I guess.

          • OWilson

            Oh darn it!

            While nobody was looking, the kid got on stage, and tried to touch the Emperor’s beautiful robes.

            But there was nothing there, she was buck nekkid!

          • Mike Richardson

            LOL… the only thing touched is you in the head. Only someone stupid or insane (or both) would be taking joy in this election. Your comments make it a toss up as to which category you fall under. 😉

          • BBQman

            Good morning Mike, it’s a wonderful day to be a sovereign!

          • Truth first

            Must admit I do like my magic mushrooms, but find that even if I haven’t used them for a while I still find myself with the same opinion….;)

            I am not worried about rising sea levels because there is nothing we can do about it. In geological terms we have just had an ice age, so temperatures were bound to get up.

            We are absolutely fooling ourselves if we think our fidgeting in the margins of our CO2 production will offset the negative effects of climate change by more than a hand full percents, if at that. It’s like being in a tropical downpour and hoping you could keep your body dry by keeping two pages of a tabloid newspaper over your head. The links between CO2 and warming are NOT straightforward. And other factors are much, much more important. Solar activity, volcanic eruptions, cosmic rays are the real players, warming and cooling the atmosphere.

            What really upsets me is that the world economy will be destroyed by the measures that are thought up to “combat global warming”. Those will cripple poor countries and bring the world economy to its knees. Now THAT is something we SHOULD be worried about!!

          • Dano2

            other factors are much, much more important. Solar activity, volcanic eruptions, cosmic rays are the real players, warming and cooling the atmosphere.

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

            Good one! I LOLzed!

            Best,

            D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/576bbe427ef126eb77010017311f320c1d6ca7dd75dab101bd3b3b83c9f0172f.jpg
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0374e4f0121749c2bf72bab4595951dc3390874aa7d66969b7e847013041fe3c.png

          • TreeParty

            Everything you have written here is counter-factual. I’ll blame the mushrooms. It’s like having a strong belief in astrology – sounds plausible, but is completely worthless.
            Solar activity is down – should be causing cooling. Volcanic eruptions tend to cause cooling. All of the “bigger players” should be cooling the planet; but the dramatic increase in greenhouse gases is counteracting that trend and causing rapid heating of the planet. And then there is the fact that we are pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere that it is leaking into the oceans causing the pH of the oceans to drop rapidly. THAT ain’t caused by “solar activity, volcanic eruptions, and cosmic rays”.
            Meanwhile, we are burning through hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon like there’s no tomorrow. And there may not be if we don’t quickly transition to a renewable energy regime. THAT is what you should be worried about, Truth last.

          • Truth first

            For all we know we may be heading for a Maunder minimum and may find ourselves scrambling for all the CO2 we could muster…
            https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/

          • TreeParty

            You are clutching at straws, a desperate denier with an aluminum foil hat and no actual evidence to base an argument on. Good luck with those mushrooms..

          • Truth first

            My supplier is on holiday. I am battling!

          • OWilson

            Right on!

            But it takes a certain humility and perspective to accept.

            It is almost impossible to rehabilitate a true believer.

          • Truth first

            Too true. As you say: it is a matter of belief for them. Not an acceptance of the outcome of science which has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. And there is more than enough reasonable doubt!

          • Mike Richardson

            “It is almost impossible to rehabilitate a true believer.” Truer words were never spoken, though I do appreciate the irony of that statement coming from you. :)

          • Dano2

            This is the year 2016, not 2014.

            /captain obvious

            Best,

            d

          • Truth first

            I used to love Top Gear. Now I am into high speed top gear IPCC skepticism. Hardly ever use the sixth gear though as the IPCC gear box makes you spin out of control in first gear already…;)

          • Dano2

            Obvious prancing to hide your blatant error.

            Best,

            D

        • OWilson

          Don’t believe what you read in those hacked emails of Hillary.

          Don’t believe what you read in those hacked emails from Climategate.

          Believe only what your Dear Leader tells you to believe. :)

          • Dano2

            Climategate! Drink!

            Best,

            D

          • Truth first

            You’re too cryptic for me, O. Pray give me the identity of that Dear Leader.
            And put your cross in the right spot tomorrow (if you’re from that nick of the woods and are actually able to make a choice between two such poor US specimens vying for high office).

          • OWilson

            Al Gore, Lady Ga Ga, Leonardo di Caprio?

            Whoever is “cool” at the moment.

            Hard to keep up! :)

          • Truth first

            Or Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton…How did the voting go?

          • OWilson

            Your “Dear Leaders” were kicked out, on their assets! :)

            The rest say they will leave the country.

            But of course, they lie, as usual!

          • Truth first

            Please help me out here, O. Your/my Dear leaders are a mystery to me.
            Are you guys recovering from/celebrating DT’s victory? What’s the mood like where you are? An analyst said this will be the first time in US history that close to 50% of the voters will truly hate the new president. He said that before the voting started. Think he had a point. Was there a bit of an outstretched hand in DT’s victory speech this morning, or was I mistaken?

          • OWilson

            Hey!

            My mistake. We are actually on the same side of this debate.

            Your handle “truth first” looked like a troll I knew.

            Apologies, but that’s what happens when a thread devolves into one liners.

          • Truth first

            At this stage I like the result of the elections.
            Trump, for all his numerous vices just seems to have his -i-s dotted (and at least one -t- crossed) so much better than most of the folks who hate him.

            His views on:

            > Islam
            > IPCC
            > Immigrants
            > Israel
            > Iran
            > ITBLG (Intersex, Transgender, etc)
            > Transgender issues

            are not as outrageous in themselves as the anti-Trumps make them out to be. In fact they could do the US and the rest of the world a world of good. He will just have to word them a bit more carefully.
            As I said before, Hillary has as closest aides an alleged satanist and a lady with possibly strong links to Islamic militants.
            As a Christian I am abhorred by both. The woman herself (aunty H) seems to be anti-Christian, along the lines of Obama.

            However, Trump’s virtues aside, the plot maybe thickening even further.
            Aunty Hill and Uncle Don were spotted shouldering an American Cardinal of sorts at an annual Jesuit banquet of sorts shortly after their first debate as both were raised at Jesuit schools.
            the looks of things they had a heck of a time. I suspect they may just be batting for the same secret team…But that’s just conspiracy me.

          • OWilson

            All I know is she went from Dead Broke to amassing a Global Family Empire worth $3,000,000,000.00 while Secretary of State.

            She lied about, and admittedly destroyed evidence, and the Media said zilch about it.

        • Dano2

          The Antarctic ice volume has grown to record extent.

          Your talking point is old, stale, and false.

          Best,

          D

          • Truth first

            It’s just that I don’t fall for the IPCC scaremongering. Just 35 years ago, partly based on the same raw datasets now conveniently lost, we were told we would be heading for a new ice age. Don’t you see a pattern emerging here?

          • Dano2

            partly based on the same raw datasets now conveniently lost, we were told we would be heading for a new ice age.

            Precious. I’ll take those points on offer, thanks:

            o Cooling scare in the 1970s [10 points]

            https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

            Best,

            D

          • Truth first

            Can’t find the cooling scare stuff. Enlighten me!
            Give me a day or so and I can give you an alarmist talking point game.

            I am not a climate denialist, as I confirm, admit, proclaim and shout from the rooftops that that climate DOES exist…;)

            These deflections are not helpful. Not all the talking points presented are untrue.
            Ridiculing a viewpoint does NOT make your opinion more valid than the one you loath. It provides satisfaction to those who do not really want to consider a second, scientific, opinion, as they are entrenched with their own, politically correct one.

          • Dano2

            Not deflections at all. Making a point about your utter dependence on long-refuted talking points.

            The joke is on you.

            Also, too, you were duped into typing this as well: raw datasets now conveniently lost

            Why so easily duped?

            Best,

            D

          • Dano2
        • Dano2

          Climategate! Drink!

          Best,

          D

    • Dano2

      why on earth would you use a data chart that only goes back to 1978?

      There are other non-satellite records. Why do you speak to this issue if you don’t know about them?

      Best,

      D

    • Mike Richardson

      Hey, it’s BBQman again! I was wondering if you’d be back after October. Wasn’t that when that “magnetic forcings” thing was supposed to cause a drastic shift in the earth’s climate, towards dramatic cooling? I forget the details, you’ll have to refresh my memory on what it was supposed to be, since it obviously didn’t happen. But you were making some bold predictions on that, so I actually didn’t think you’d show back up here after they didn’t come to fruition.

      • BBQman

        Over the next 30 years, you might want to buy a few more blankets?

        • Mike Richardson

          LOL, sure. You’ve never gotten predictions wrong before, right? Refresh my memory on the October climate shift, and please check in again after the election, since I recall you’ve made a prediction on that one, too. I’m thinking I probably won’t need those blankets, any more than I did in October. But it is entertaining to have you back, at least.

          • BBQman

            Good to see you as well, maybe we can be more civil to each other after President Trump is elected in a couple of days!

          • Mike Richardson

            LOL… Oh, keep those predictions going, Nostrodamus!

          • BBQman

            And you keep on reacting to your own shadow in the cave!

          • OWilson

            Say hello to President Ma Clanton, for us all, ya hear?

          • Mike Richardson

            Say hello to those polyps, while you conduct a colonoscopy with your head, m’kay? 😀

          • OWilson

            Say hello to the shell shocked “useful idiots” down at the corner.

            Give them a group hug for us! :)

            Assure them they will have another Dear Leader to follow off the cliff, in due course!

            Tell them Bernie and Hillary are doing very well, thank you very much! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            There’s a Dear Leader all right, and he’s just taken advantage of the electoral college to drive us all off the cliff. Why worry about temperament in a Commander-in-Chief? I mean, put a guy who goes on 3 am Twitter wars with ex-beauty pageant queens in charge of our nuclear arsenal — what’s the worst that could happen? You really don’t have any concern about the survival of humanity, or your own selfish life, do you? Pathetic.

          • OWilson

            I see you have got it all figured out what he will do in the White House!

            Shall we believe your predictions this time too? LOL

            Don’t you ever learn?

            All the rioting, arson and looting is the we’ve seen in the last few years, is the direct responsibility of this Administration. That’s Obama!

            Trump doesn’t take office Until next year!

          • Mike Richardson

            Sad would be an immature yet elderly gentleman living in complete denial of science and engaging in pathological lies every time he communicates. I’m talking about Trump, of course — or am I?

          • OWilson

            We’ve been down that road before, remember, chump?

            Pathological lies?

      • OWilson

        BBQman gives his predictions for free, and he doesn’t want to force you to pay taxes, for them, or bring you AGW true believers and alarmists “to justice”, like your Dear Leaders. :)

        We don’t know yet if BBQman’s predictions willl come true, but they can’t be more wrong than Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bernie Sanders, and their corrupt pals at the U.N. with their IPCC FAR 1990 report. (“The greatest (and most expensive) collaboration in the History of Science”)

        All, non scientists, I recall :)

        The U.N. IPCC is a science aggregator, and is to science what Drudge is to journalism. :)

        • Mike Richardson

          “We don’t know yet if BBQman’s predictions will come true, but they can’t be more wrong than Obama, Al Gore, Bernie Sanders [etc., yada, yada]…” — LMAO! Oh, that says all we need to know about your reasoning right there: He’s already been proven wrong on his October prediction, and there’s no chance in hell of his being right with that wacked out magnetic forcings theory — something even you should know. But please, continue to show the level of your rejection of reality by embracing the most anti-scientific lunacy, so long as it comes from a fellow far right conservative. Politics above science, now and always, courtesy of Ol’Wilson. But at least there’s humor in absurdity.

          • OWilson

            Continue to be surprised!

            While reality continues to ignore leftist “talking points”.

            Can you say President Trump?

          • Mike Richardson

            Can you say civil unrest? Rise of fascism? Nuclear war? You might not be American, but fallout patterns don’t pay much attention to borders or bodies of water.

          • OWilson

            If your commie pals reject democracy, and continue rioting, looting and burning your own cities, there’s no telling what may happen.

            But don’t delude yourself (yet again) that rioting, looting and burning has anything to do with the latest election.

            It has been going there for a long time!

            The hate that festers in people like you, has to eventually erupt.

            That’s just science!

          • Mike Richardson

            You recall wrongly, and project a bit much, my closet fascist friend. I deplore unprovoked violence from any quarter, but have no problem with people exercising their constitutional rights to free expression. It is, after all, only an expression of the will of the majority. You talk about democracy — Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote in this country, by well over one million votes. The orange clown won due to gerrymandering and the electoral college leveraging more political power from less populated red states. But you wouldn’t care about that would you? As long as the far right wins, why worry if it’s truly democratic? It’s only a bad thing if the “leftists” use undemocratic means to win, eh? I’ve no hate for my fellow Americans, or for you. Just sorry and pity, just as I must express condolences and deepest sympathies for your family members, who must live with the personality you display here on a much more frequent basis (unless, of course, you have multiple personalities, which is a distinct possibility). Such a shame.

          • OWilson

            Your a liar!

            I can find it if you continue to deny it.

            You said the looting, rioting and arson only affected “property”, which was not worth “risking lives” over.

            I come from a family whose fathers and sons definitely believed “property” was worth fighting over.

            They fought both Hitler, Stalin and Mao over “property”.

            (Europe, Far East, Korea)

            You owe such people your cushy government safe job!

            By the way, chump, the way to express ‘constitutional rights’ is to vote.

            You don’t get to vote, then riot if you lose! :)

            I’m looking forward to a very successful President Trump, just as I was looking forward to a successful President Obama, the FIRST time around!

            Trump has shown class, so far.

            Unlike his Leftie predecessor Obama, who said:

            “We won!”

            “Elections have consequences”

            “They (the GOP) can come along for the ride, but they gonna have to sit in back of the bus”

            So, welcome to the consequences of an election where you lost, BIG TIME!, and never saw it coming at you, because y’all believed your own lies!

          • Mike Richardson

            Reality does bite, and it may well bite you in the rear. You talk about lying, yet ignore the fact that Trump is a pathological liar based on objectively reviewed statements he’s made repeatedly during his campaign. Hypocrite.

          • OWilson

            Here’s a real hypocrite:

            Heeeere’s Bernie!:

            “Are you (Hillary) qualified to be President of the United States when you’re raising millions of dollars from Wall Street whose greed, recklessness and illegal behavior helped to destroy our economy?”

            “Do I have a problem, when a sitting Secretary of State and a Foundation ran by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign governments, governments which are dictatorship… um yeah, do I have a problem with that? Yeah I do.”

            “She must become our next president,” Sanders declared – a direct contradiction with what he has spent the past six months saying.

    • TheDudeofVoo

      “…why on earth would you use a data chart that only goes back to 1978? That is just too short of a time span …”
      Absolutely right, and it seems that a new ‘consensus’ is forming around ‘climate science’ … even from the ranks of scientists who ‘believe’ in AGW: The scientists flatly state, that the observational record is too short.

      ”But observational estimates of global ocean heat content are short, and loaded with uncertainty, particularly before the 2000s.”

      Knutti, Reto, et al. 2016 “A scientific critique of the two-degree climate change target.” Nature Geoscience

      ”Global trends in [Net Primary Productivity] have been difficult to characterize with observations and models, and remain an unresolved area of scientific research—hampered by the limited availability of long-term, large-scale data and an incomplete understanding of the variety of interacting feedbacks that regulate [Net Primary Productivity].”

      Smith, W. Kolby, et al. 2016 “Large divergence of satellite and Earth system model estimates of global terrestrial CO2 fertilization.” Nature Climate Change

      ”… the approach can work, with a sufficiently long record, but the available observing record is too short to constrain cloud feedback to a range any narrower than that in current models.”

      Gettelman, A., and S. C. Sherwood 2016. “Processes Responsible for Cloud Feedback.” Current Climate Change Reports””

      ”… the limited duration of the observational record prohibits robust estimates of extreme values (even for seasonal means).”

      Lehner, Deser, & Sanderson 2016. “Future risk of record-breaking summer temperatures and its mitigation.” Climatic Change

      ”… simulations suggest a significant probability of observing a positive correlation between AIR and NINO3, although this value is not observed in the relatively short observational record.”

      Cash, Benjamin A., et al. 2016 “Sampling variability and the changing ENSO–monsoon relationship.” Climate Dynamics

      • Dano2

        VooDude spam bot returns.

        Best,

        D

      • OWilson

        That’s far too much reading for the true believers.

        Much easier to let Obama, Al Gore, and their favorite Hollywood actors tell them what is happening. :)

    • Umbra

      NICE ARGUMENT ?UNBELIEVABLY NAIVE
      SADLY TO SAY EXTREMELY ONE SIDED
      YOU OVERLOOK FOR STARTERS
      THE OCEAN AND IT HAS MORE SAY AND IMPACT THAN YOU !
      BUT BELIEVE WHAT YOU WILL
      I CANT STOP YOU

      • BBQman

        No I did not forget about the oceans conveyance or its CO2 source and sink factors, or its impact on the Hadley cell convection and influence over our jet stream that ultimately gives us our climate patterns, we just had not got to that part yet.

        The actual climate drivers are our Sun and the electromagnetic forces it expels at times and the other planets ability to draw off those forces before they impact earth and the directional oscillations and centrifugal forces of our molten core, which in turn impacts our oceans conveyance and volcanic activity, above and under sea, which has an influence on our Jet Stream which is the last tier climate driver out of the sequential events that make up the mechanics of our climate drivers. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8efd5665c0e7bb9ddace1d7395768ef9a6910918883727d3516f2547efc80917.gif

        Did you know your CAP key is stuck?

        • http://pislamonauseacentral.tumblr.com/ *✿*Deplorable*‿*Blueburb*✿*

          I love this one….!

    • Dickybow

      To be a little more convincing, scientific theories generally use degrees Celcius…

  • jmac

    Cruising Canada’s Northwest Passage

    For centuries, the search for this fabled route through the Canadian Arctic captivated explorers—and led many to their deaths. Today, warming seas have made it possible to traverse the Northwest Passage on a passenger ship, making it a new frontier for the cruise industry.
    http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/traveling-northwest-passage-canada-greenland-arctic-cruising

  • OWilson

    Double Talk Actually Catches Up With NASA?

    I’m often accused of exaggerating the intentional confusion generated by NASA and NOAA’s deliberately confusing jargon on their web sites. Not to mention this blog.

    I gave an example below, “Last month was the third most lowest record of the past 3 years of this decade”

    Today they continue:

    “”ON THIN ICE

    Global warming threatens us with potentially irreparable damage to the Earth’s sea levels and climate. That’s why it’s key we extensively monitor the world’s climate indicators, including how much polar ice is melting.

    New satellite data from NASA reveals the record decline of the Arctic’s ice in recent decades has lowered both the coverage and thickness of the Arctic ice cap even more. The data found the seasonal maximum ice coverage of the Arctic is the lowest on record since 1979.

    On March 24, the ice coverage peaked at just 14.52 million square kilometers (5.607 million square miles). That’s a decrease of 8.05 square kilometers (0.05 million square miles) from last year’s figures. And, as NASA points out, the continent has lost nearly one million square kilometers (620,000 square miles) — more than double the size of Texas — of winter sea ice cover since 1979″”

    Look at the last paragraph. The figures don’t add up.

    Are these the conclusions of a billion dollar, state of the art, Scientific Government Agency, or the doodlings of some “low level” anonymous operative, moved over from IRS, or Obamacare?

    Either way it’s a joke!

    • Dano2

      Joke’s on you and your gibberish that you think is a KINSPEERCY. And no link for us to check if you are unhinged or simply inept.

      Precious.

      Best,

      D

      • OWilson

        A clue for the brain dead.

        Sounds like, “NASA”

        Then, “Today”

        Then, “they said”.

        Cheers!

        • Dano2

          I don’t believe you. Nor does anyone else.

          You made it up.

          Shame!

          Best,

          D

          • OWilson

            What you “believe” is no mi problemo :)

            And who’s “we”, paleface? :)

            Salud!

          • Dano2

            You transparently made that up. You can’t defend it.

            Best,

            D

  • Umbra

    JUST SPENT A WEEK WITH A GEOLOGIST STUDYING THE DECLINE OF PERMAFROST HIS WHOLE LIFE
    HIS OUTLOOK ?
    YOU DON’T WANT TO KNOW

    • Dano2

      Yup.

      Best,

      D

    • OWilson

      Anybody who spends his whole life studying “the decline of permafrost”, should get a life!

      We don’t need to know his “outlook”, we can guess! :)

      “We” would like to know who pays him?

      • Dano2

        Weak perambulation and weaker deflection. More of a derpflection.

        Best,

        D

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
+