Jump to content

Antarctic base records hottest temperature ever


rooster59

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Catoni said:

5.9 inches equals 149.860mm.  Over a 24 year period that comes to approx. 6.2mm per year.

   No ocean on Earth is rising that quickly. So of course it's land subsidence....  much more than sea level rise.

      All the oceans are connected, and as we know water finds it’s own level. You’re not going to get the Atlantic rising more than 6mm per year and the Pacific rising only 1.2mm per year. 
    That would be like my level bathtub having water higher in one end than in the other end.  It ain’t going to happen.

     In the 116 years from 1900 - 2016, sea level rose no more than 6.3 - 8.3 inches. At the very most. And I seriously doubt it rose that much. Photos of the same places more than 100 years apart simply don’t show it. 

(Climate Science Special Report: Earth System Science Data 10 (3): 1551 - 1590) 
          I say that if anything....Florida and much of the south U.S. is sinking....more than sea level is rising.

You know, you could look things up:

The Secret of Sea Level Rise: It Will Vary Greatly By Region

As the world warms, sea levels could easily rise three to six feet this century. But increases will vary widely by region, with prevailing winds, powerful ocean currents, and even the gravitational pull of the polar ice sheets determining whether some coastal areas will be inundated while others stay dry.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/the_secret_of_sea_level_rise_it_will_vary_greatly_by_region

What Accounts for the Varying Rates of Sea Level Rise in Different Locations?

https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/what-accounts-for-varying-rates-of-sea-level-rise

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You know, you could look things up:

The Secret of Sea Level Rise: It Will Vary Greatly By Region

As the world warms, sea levels could easily rise three to six feet this century. But increases will vary widely by region, with prevailing winds, powerful ocean currents, and even the gravitational pull of the polar ice sheets determining whether some coastal areas will be inundated while others stay dry.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/the_secret_of_sea_level_rise_it_will_vary_greatly_by_region

What Accounts for the Varying Rates of Sea Level Rise in Different Locations?

https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/what-accounts-for-varying-rates-of-sea-level-rise

 

 

Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. Take this burial ground found in the Gulf of Mexico, for example.

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=burian+ground+found+in+gulf+of+mexico

 

This discovery by definition means sea levels have been rising thousands of years before evil petroleum hydrocarbons were being used. Why should anyone be concerned or think we can do anything about it now?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2020 at 3:37 PM, Grumpy John said:

In my lifetime living in Australia I have seen a number of droughts and the outcome is  always the  same,  it rains and everything is good Again.....till the next drought! Back in 1937, or there about,  a plan was mooted to build a couple of dams in North Qld that would store ample water to see us through the  worst drought.   Of course nothing was done because the politicians of yesteryear were as inept or corrupt as the useless fools of today. 

Known as the Bradfield scheme. Bit more involved than a couple of dams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Funny post. Let's do some math, shall we? 2,000 years is 0.00004% of Earth's timeline. Much of the hysteria promoted by climate change cultists centers around CO2. So the money question is why would a rational person jump to conclusions about 0.00004% of Earth's timeline, especially when life, including primates and other mammals, has flourished with several times more C02 in the atmosphere?

No, the question is, what other explanations are there for the earth's current rapid rise in temperature? The most popular alternate explanation is solar activity. The greater the solar activity, the greater the warming.  But the fact is, solar activity has been in decline and the current cycle shows the lowest level of sunspot activity in a 100 years. So not that.

And there is one very telltale piece of evidence that shows that greenhouse gases are responsible. If a phenomenon such as solar activity or orbital changes were responsible, then the atmospheric temperature would be increasing in both the troposphere and the stratosphere. But in fact, while the troposphere is warming the stratosphere has actually grown cooler. 

https://skepticalscience.com/Stratospheric_Cooling.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. Take this burial ground found in the Gulf of Mexico, for example.

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=burian+ground+found+in+gulf+of+mexico

 

This discovery by definition means sea levels have been rising thousands of years before evil petroleum hydrocarbons were being used. Why should anyone be concerned or think we can do anything about it now?

Really?

Global sea-level rise at the end of the last Ice Age interrupted by rapid 'jumps'

Global sea level rose by a total of more than 120 metres as the vast ice sheets of the last Ice Age melted back. This melt-back lasted from about 19,000 to about 6,000 years ago, meaning that the average rate of sea-level rise was roughly 1 metre per century.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101201120605.htm

 

Given that this site is estimated to be 7000 years old, I'll leave it to you to do the arithmetic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all you fans of increased CO2 levels, consider this:

 

Samples from famed 19th century voyage reveal ‘shocking’ effects of ocean acidification

 

"Now, the Kingston University micropaleontologist and colleagues have shown that the samples, collected during the pioneering 1872–76 expedition of the HMS Challenger, hold valuable insights about modern-day climate change: Their shells are far thicker than those of today’s foraminifera, which are thinning in our increasingly acidic oceans.

Scientists have known for years that ocean acidification—a drop in pH that occurs when excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dissolves in seawater—brings bad news for most marine life."

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/plankton-shells-have-become-dangerously-thin-acidifying-oceans-are-blame

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Someone else who confuses semantics with science.

It's not just their hairy semantics but also their fuzzy mathematics. While it can be cute to watch them using their little calculators to do some division or multiplication and then they try to apply whatever comes after the equal sign as if they are the embodiment of the Hitchhiker's supercomputer Deep Thought, it does tire. Had only 97% of scientists thought the thoughts of these deniers first and then written such papers...because we all know they're not vying for grants and prestige. So much for opportunity lost.

 

Since it is futile to discuss with some the science of climate change, I think it not just entirely germane to this conversation but mandated so to discuss less the science and more the why a few people deny it.

 

For if the OP's topic is notice of high temperature and a few people deny as disruption the OP's assertion, then just as it would be fair game to question the science, studying the deniers' thought processes which brings them to such conclusions is not just directly relevant but becomes necessary to the topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.psychology.org.au/About-Us/What-we-do/advocacy/Advocacy-social-issues/Environment-climate-change-psychology/Resources-for-Psychologists-and-others-advocating/The-psychology-of-climate-change-denial

 

The psychology of climate change denial

 

...A small but noisy minority actively deny that there even is a problem....

 

...Robust studies of climate change perceptions in Australia, the UK and America show that only very small numbers of people actually deny that climate change is happening. The figures range from between 5 to 8% of the population....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Psychological_Society

The Australian Psychological Society (APS) is ... the largest professional body representing psychologists in Australia ...

 

...All Australian psychologists are bound by the APS Code of Ethics.

 

Website psychology.org.au

Edited by thaicurious
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan_Lewandowsky

Stephan Lewandowsky (born 3 June 1958) is an Australian psychologist. He has worked in both the United States and Australia, and is currently based at the University of Bristol, UK, where he is the chair of cognitive psychology at the School of Experimental Psychology...

 

...In 2012, Lewandowsky put forward what would later become one of his best-known studies regarding public opinion on climate change

 

2:45 to 5:24

"People's opinions about climate change aren't always what they appear to be...what this graph is showing you...for the people who think that climate change is all natural...if you (then) ask them who's responsible, they know exactly who's responsible...big polluting countries...

 

...so they know who's responsible for something that seconds ago they said was all natural...

 

...it tells us that...climate change...has become a political football and a tribal totem...depending on their party affiliation"

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2020 at 1:17 PM, thaicurious said:

Again I refer you back to the youtube posted where is explained not that "different chemical composition ... is that bad" (as either can be bad) but rather that the different composition indicates, like a fingerprint, human cause.

 

As to "rapid", you need to view this from a geographical view. From the beginning of the industrial revolution to now is just as rapid as a volcano explosion with regard to the age of the planet, though from your viewpoint one seems much more rapid than the other. 

 

The video describes your line of reasoning as saying that just because people die of natural causes anyway, then evidence of murder means nothing. Isn't that, coincidentally, what the Thai soldier/mass shooter just ranted, that people die anyway. The harm isn't that people die anyway, that's life; the harm is that he snuffed out the lives of innocent others.

 

It isn't that the globe might warm or cool in its own time anyway as it does; the harm is that we are responsible not just for heating it, but at a rate that evolution might not be able to contend with. That animals might be able to relocate or otherwise adapt with the changing environment, etc. So all the pending deaths and the hardships of humans and animals and environments as a consequence of our actions are our fault and thereby our responsibility to try and fix absolutely or best mitigate.

 

As to why there might be more or less snow at any individual segment of time has not to do with overall temp trend but with that cycles are made extreme by the overall warming trend. This has to do with the oscillation of the jet stream altered as a result of the warming. We know the overall warming trend by temperatures measured over time, not just by segments of time. We know the cause because the trends match the trend of carbon outputs since the industrial revolution. We know also the trends of the temps by the ice melting. We know the ice melting and the seas heating/expanding because we can measure both ice melt directly and because we can measure sea levels over time. If you've lived 20 or 40 years in a waterfront community, you don't even have to measure; you can see it at a glance every day. Seawalls no longer high enough. Docks built long ago now too low. Never mind islands disappearing. More snow every now and then doesn't stop that. But reducing carbon might.


Please review Denial 101 youtubes for your further information. they are easily found. Here is week 1 for your study.

 

 

ooops, that was just the intro. here, i think this is the week 1

 

Denial 101 is a project of https://skepticalscience.com/

 

Here's who they are:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science

Skeptical Science (occasionally abbreviated SkS) is a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by Australian cognitive scientist John Cook.

So how does all this work on Flat earth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Same as for the last 4.5  billions years of cyclical weather and climate.

If anything demonstrates the profound unfamiliarity of some with the basics of climate science it's a comment like this. Most of us understand that the sun has at least something to do with climate. The age of the sun is estimated to be about 4.63 billion years. Have you ever even suspected that its output of radiation might have varied a bit over its lifetime so far? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2020 at 8:43 PM, Crazy Alex said:

So what? Sea levels have risen and fallen for billions of years. I've personally visited many areas that used to be under water. Take Death Valley, for instance. Tons of sea fossils there. It's now a dry desert. How is corporate welfare and government taxation and regulation going to stop Earth from doing what it has always done?

Someone else who doesn't understand the concept of rate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2020 at 6:08 AM, VincentRJ said:

We know how to stop the sea levels rising, but it's too difficult, politically and economically. The clue lies in satellite observations after the massive floods in Australia in 2010-11, which followed the 'millennium' drought.

 

Most of the dams in Australia were very low or empty, the underground water tables were low, and Lake Eyre, which is a huge inland lake about 15 metres below sea level, in the north of South Australia, was also dry.

 

When the massive rainfall in 2010-11 occurred, due to La Nina, huge amounts of water were temporarily stopped from flowing back to the sea, as the dams and Lake Eyre filled up. The satellite observations showed that global sea levels fell slightly and didn't continue to rise for about 18 months.

 

The principle here is very obvious. In a warming climate  the oceans expand slightly due to the heat, and more water is added to the oceans from the melting glaciers. The result is the slight sea level rise of 1-3mm per year, on average, that has been observed so far.

 

However, in a warming climate more evaporation takes place and more water vapor is created in the atmosphere. The water vapor forms into clouds and produces more rain. If all countries in the world that are susceptible to periodic flooding, which usually results in extensive damage to property, infrastructure, and loss of life, were to do whatever is required to contain that flooding, and delay that excessive flow of water back to the sea, then sea levels, globally, would stop rising. Plain logic.

 

In addition to the benefits of stopping sea level rise, communities would be safer from flood damage, lots of money would be saved because of a lack of damage to property and infrastructure when the heavy rains arrive, and the stored water could be transported to drier regions to help agriculture which could flourish as a result of both increased water supply and increased CO2 levels.

 

We should all know that increased CO2 levels cause most plants, which are the C3 type, to grow better. What is sometimes overlooked is that this increased growth, which is around 30% for a doubling of CO2 levels in normal conditions with adequate water supply, can be around 60% in dry or water-stressed conditions.

 

it's such a pity that governments don't have the practical nous to exploit the benefits of a warming climate and the increase in that wonderful gas called CO2, which is essential for all life.

So many problems with what you've posted. For one, your proposed program is going to require a huge amount of concrete, correct?

Why the world is running out of sand
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191108-why-the-world-is-running-out-of-sand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are worried about the Corona- Virus, just wait what hits us, when the ice or permafrost releases some the stuff burried in there!

If you don't "believe" in rising sea- levels or manmade climate- cahnge and the following natural disasters, the prospect of unknown viruses and bacteria, sealed for now, should scare you poopless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As for "denialist" it means someone who either denies global warming is due to human activity or  denies that global warming is even occurring. You got a problem with that?

"You got a problem with that?" quite the keyboard warrior arnt you? is this how you speak to people F2F ????

I have no problem when people like you label me a "whatever" as my POV doesn't fit in with your brainwashed view. I'm sure you will have no issue with me labelling you as a "sheep". 

Have a lovely day Big Man.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, thaicurious said:
19 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

That picture you posted (above) that claims 34 billion tons of ice loss 1992-2001 and then 247 billoin tons recently in Greenland... They used a GRACE (Gravity Recovery&Climate Experiment) satellite to estimate those losses.. something that attempts to measure differences in gravity in different zones of the earth (its not reliable or precise) and those losses are from the calving of ice into the water.

 

If you look at the DMI Greenland has an increasing surface mass - which means the ice sheet is actually getting bigger, not smaller.. its not warm enough way up there most of the year (the melt season is only about a month and only in parts of greenland) for ice to melt, most of the time it is well below 0* up there.

 

 

The info I posted is from NOAA and we know how you feel about them.

there is the NOAA's actual data and then there is the agencys agenda.  The ice losses in Greenland (from your picture) are not from ice melting, it's from ice calving into the sea.  There is more mass gain than there is loss and there is no dramatic recent shift in gains vs losses.  also whats not seen in the below graph is 13-17 .. that's because the line was higher than avg.. so lets skip that one and just show 18-19 vs 11-12 lol

SMB_curves_LA_EN_20190823.png

Edited by pkspeaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, pkspeaker said:

there is the NOAA's actual data and then there is the agencys agenda.  The ice losses in Greenland (from your picture) are not from ice melting, it's from ice calving into the sea.  There is more mass gain than there is loss and there is no dramatic recent shift in gains vs losses.  also whats not seen in the below graph is 13-17 .. that's because the line was higher than avg.. so lets skip that one and just show 18-19 vs 11-12 lol

 

https://skepticalscience.com/melting-ice-global-warming-intermediate.htm

 

Climate Myth...

Ice isn't melting

 

(REALITY)

Global ice melt is accelerating

Ice mass loss is occuring at an accelerated rate in Greenland, Antarctica and globally from inland glaciers. Arctic sea ice is also falling at an accelerated rate. The exception to this ice loss is Antarctic sea ice which has been growing despite the warming Southern Ocean. This is due to local factors unique to the area.

 

 

at 0:00 to 0:48

"When we first started measuring ice back in 1990s no one knew what Greenland was doing, was it getting bigger or getting smaller. That was a total unknown....

 

In 2000 we published our first results...what that showed us was that the ice sheet was not in balance. It was delivering ice to the oceans and raising sea levels, even at that time...

 

And that process has accelerated..."

 

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/climate-change-deniers-misrepresent-data-and-get-called-out/

Climate Change Deniers Hilariously Misrepresent Data

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, bristolboy said:

No, the question is, what other explanations are there for the earth's current rapid rise in temperature? The most popular alternate explanation is solar activity. The greater the solar activity, the greater the warming.  But the fact is, solar activity has been in decline and the current cycle shows the lowest level of sunspot activity in a 100 years. So not that.

And there is one very telltale piece of evidence that shows that greenhouse gases are responsible. If a phenomenon such as solar activity or orbital changes were responsible, then the atmospheric temperature would be increasing in both the troposphere and the stratosphere. But in fact, while the troposphere is warming the stratosphere has actually grown cooler. 

https://skepticalscience.com/Stratospheric_Cooling.html

 

       Warming 0.85 degree between 1880 - 2012 following the L.I.A. (yes, it was world wide. There was no wall blocking Europe off for 550 years like some claim) throws uneducated people, the easily fooled, and Socialists/Marxist-Leninists into a tizzy. 

     Funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

there is the NOAA's actual data and then there is the agencys agenda.  The ice losses in Greenland (from your picture) are not from ice melting, it's from ice calving into the sea.  There is more mass gain than there is loss and there is no dramatic recent shift in gains vs losses.  also whats not seen in the below graph is 13-17 .. that's because the line was higher than avg.. so lets skip that one and just show 18-19 vs 11-12 lol

SMB_curves_LA_EN_20190823.png

A lot of people don’t understand what calving ice is.

    They think it’s something new and never happened before “Global Warming” started about 1979. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

800,000 year old ice core samples show the same. A tremendous spike in heat. 

 

Yet, the bought and paid for politicians and millions of their devotees, insist it has nothing to do with man. The planet is so large! How could we possibly affect the atmosphere? It has nothing to do with me! Don't ask me to take responsibility for the environment! Keeping my head in the sand is so much better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Catoni said:

       Warming 0.85 degree between 1880 - 2012 following the L.I.A. (yes, it was world wide. There was no wall blocking Europe off for 550 years like some claim) throws uneducated people, the easily fooled, and Socialists/Marxist-Leninists into a tizzy. 

     Funny.

There are alot of intellectually lazy people these days, who love using these inane socialist/communist labels, for anyone who is not in lockstep with them, and their political masters. 

 

I remember when dialogue was the preferred means of communication, between decent, respectful people. Now, it appears to be malicious slander and juvenile name calling. Wonder where that influence came from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, bristolboy said:

You know, you could look things up:

The Secret of Sea Level Rise: It Will Vary Greatly By Region

As the world warms, sea levels could easily rise three to six feet this century. But increases will vary widely by region, with prevailing winds, powerful ocean currents, and even the gravitational pull of the polar ice sheets determining whether some coastal areas will be inundated while others stay dry.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/the_secret_of_sea_level_rise_it_will_vary_greatly_by_region

What Accounts for the Varying Rates of Sea Level Rise in Different Locations?

https://blog.ucsusa.org/elliott-negin/what-accounts-for-varying-rates-of-sea-level-rise

 

 

Sea level began rising about 20,000 years ago. Sometimes rising as fast as 45 - 55mm per year or maybe even more during Meltwater Pulse 1A and 1B.

    Then about 8,000 years ago the Sea Level rise slowed dramatically.

   It only rises about 2mm or 3mm per year now. 

    Relax. It’ll take about 26,000 years to reach the Statue of Liberty’s waist level. 

   But long before then, we’ll be into another Glacial Period with sea level dropping about 400 feet....leaving the Continental Shelves dry land and great ice sheets flattening some of our greatest cities.

    You better hope that we can keep the planet a bit warmer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

There are alot of intellectually lazy people these days, who love using these inane socialist/communist labels, for anyone who is not in lockstep with them, and their political masters. 

 

I remember when dialogue was the preferred means of communication, between decent, respectful people. Now, it appears to be malicious slander and juvenile name calling. Wonder where that influence came from?

Communist flags are now starting to show up at Extinction Rebellion and other demonstrations in Europe, and the flags have been seen in Portland, Oregon Extinction Rebellion and ANTIFA demos. 

   I’m sure I can find some of them in videos on YouTube to bring here. 

   I hate the label “Climate Denier” which makes a connection to the memory of Holocaust Denier. I hate the label “Fascist” when I’m as much against Fascism as I am against Communism. 

    They’re beginning to not bother pretending they are something else now. 

    I call a spade a spade. 

     

Edited by Catoni
Addition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Catoni said:

Communist flags are now starting to show up at Extinction Rebellion and other demonstrations in Europe, and the flags have been seen in Portland, Oregon Extinction Rebellion and ANTIFA demos. 

   I’m sure I can find some of them in videos on YouTube to bring here. 

   I hate the label “Climate Denier” which makes a connection to the memory of Holocaust Denier. 

    They’re beginning to not bother pretending they are something else now. 

    I call a spade a spade. 

     

There you go again. Guess your nonsense cannot be stopped. You saw a Russian flag at a rally and now all non Republicans are communists. Tremendous logic. Such a stable genius. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

There you go again. Guess your nonsense cannot be stopped. You saw a Russian flag at a rally and now all non Republicans are communists. Tremendous logic. Such a stable genius. 

Mind quoting me where I said all non Republicans are Communists? 

    I’ll wait right here. Hurry back okay?

   Thanks ????  555

Edited by Catoni
Addition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

There you go again. Guess your nonsense cannot be stopped. You saw a Russian flag at a rally and now all non Republicans are communists. Tremendous logic. Such a stable genius. 

   Very late here. We can chat tomorrow. 

    Take care....comrade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Catoni said:

Mind quoting me where I said all non Republicans are Communists? 

    I’ll wait right here. Hurry back okay?

   Thanks ????  555

Your quote was: uneducated people, the easily fooled, and Socialists/Marxist-Leninists into a tizzy. 

 

Were you not referring to the billions who disagree with you on climate change or Global warming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, thaicurious said:

 

https://skepticalscience.com/melting-ice-global-warming-intermediate.htm

 

Climate Myth...

Ice isn't melting

 

(REALITY)

Your appeals to authority aside.

 

You put up a picture from climate.gov:


GREENLAND ICE LOSS
Billion Tons per Year
1992-2001: 34
2012-2016: 247

 

that sound pretty bad, like there must have been some dramatic shift in the climate, a tipping point, we must only have 11 years like Greta Thunberg tells us; But the surface mass data from the DMI shows nothing unusual, and actually from the previous version of the surface mass chart the years 13-17 showed an increase in the rate of surface mass gain.  The dramatic increase in ice losses was just the ice calving into the sea as the surface mass constantly increases, it's not because of melting, the melt season in Greenland is very short as temps all over it are usually below 0*. Scientists may use imprecise methods like GRACE (Gravity Recovery Climate Experiment) to measure mass losses as well.  If the surface mass gains were accelerating than the calving could be accelerating as well (ice & snow piles up, it falls off the island into the sea), or ice is finally calving from previous times of increase rates of ice accumulation, depending on how the glaciers are flowing.  The picture from climate.gov is misleading and it's 'authority' orgs like that that you appeal to..

 

SMB_curves_LA_EN_20190823.png

Edited by pkspeaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2020 at 8:46 AM, Crazy Alex said:

Specifically, how so? You've made the accusation. Now back it up with some facts.

Where did you study climate science? Or did you just read a couple of articles on the internet and think you know more than the scientists studying the climate. I wonder does your expertise also apply to surgery and other fields. Do you go around hospitals and tell doctors that they are wrong?

Edited by Throatwobbler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, thaicurious said:

 

https://skepticalscience.com/melting-ice-global-warming-intermediate.htm

 

Climate Myth...

Ice isn't melting

 

(REALITY)

Global ice melt is accelerating

Ice mass loss is occuring at an accelerated rate in Greenland, Antarctica and globally from inland glaciers. Arctic sea ice is also falling at an accelerated rate. The exception to this ice loss is Antarctic sea ice which has been growing despite the warming Southern Ocean. This is due to local factors unique to the area.

 

 

at 0:00 to 0:48

"When we first started measuring ice back in 1990s no one knew what Greenland was doing, was it getting bigger or getting smaller. That was a total unknown....

 

In 2000 we published our first results...what that showed us was that the ice sheet was not in balance. It was delivering ice to the oceans and raising sea levels, even at that time...

 

And that process has accelerated..."

 

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/climate-change-deniers-misrepresent-data-and-get-called-out/

Climate Change Deniers Hilariously Misrepresent Data

 

 

 

I hope that the denialists don't have children or if they do they tell them that they think climate change is a hoax. Then in the future their children can remember that they were part of the problem. They were som of the ignorant who watched a couple of TV shows and thought they knew best. Their ignorance can be seen on their posts on here. Just spreading lies with false statistics and misinformation. When presented with facts they just keep their heads in the sand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...