Arctic Sea Ice Reaches Lowest Maximum Extent On Record; Antarctic Melt Now Also On Eastern Shelf

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: johnwick

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: swanne

Untrue for one thing, even if it was true that makes it incorrect how? I mean science isn't correct or incorrect based on taxation or monetary value.

Ah but results are based on that.

Ask any AGW proponent. The evil oil companies get the numbers they want out of science all the time.

Why is it magically beyond reproach when it is paid by anyone else?

The gov has motive to get scewed results just as much if not more than the oil companies.

If ATSers can agree on anything, it is that the gov always strives for more tax money and more control over people.

Which ironically enough, is exactly what the AGW agenda is all in favor of.

Do you not see the hypocracy?

Your argument doesn't work at all.

We have a republican congress and senate and their biggest donors are from the energy industry yet science and the scientists that still get government funding are still telling them and the world AGW is real and impending.

Your logic has failed.

Yes republican politicians don't want mirectax money and more control....right....

Look it up.

99% of all climate research money in the last 20+ years has gone to pro AGW research.

Not to find out if it is true or not.

To study the impact of climate change on etc...

It is agenda driven.

If they can make the public believe it, and believe by taxing and controlling us further, then the public will gleefully ablige them.

Think 911 patriot act.

Americans happily gave away their freedoms for safety.

Now they grope our kids and grandparents at the airport, they spy on us, no warrent no knock raids, police look like soldiers, force people out of their homes with dozens of automatic weapons trained on them, even though that little girl orvthev90 yearvold black lady is obvious not an adolescent white boy.

Come on, you are really going to tell me you don't see that?

a reply to: johnwick



Just make up statistics and claims, then write fact after it. Maybe someone will believe it.

Are you going to actually provide any evidence that supports your belief against human induced climate change?

It just seems you go on rants that are not exactly relevant to the OP. Now you are throwing the word agenda around, as if the vast majority of the climate scientist(most are NOT wealthy) decided to come up with an agenda that says we are responsible for the changing climate. Meanwhile the tiny minority of 'scientists' who oppose the notion of human induced climate change are well funded by 'think-tanks' like the Heartland Institute.

Is there an agenda that is causing Artic Ice caps to melt? If so who is causing it.

a reply to: johnwick

Yes republican politicians don't want mirectax money and more control....right....

So they are willing to give up their energy company monies...right....



No, your logic is completely broken.

It is sad you can't see yourself.

I'm going to stay out of this debate, because those who are actually interested in thinking logically and looking at the science long ago realized what was going on. The illogical points being brought up are so incredibly easy to pick apart, but rest assured, the shills will keep to it and trap you into talking points that take away from the clear angles which lead to the truth.

It's interesting to see the same people in these threads. I'm beginning to change my stance that finding a paid shill would be difficult. While I can see some people merely being incompetent and arrogant, playing into the real shills by spreading their propaganda, it does seem after reading the news of how often sock puppets and such are used, that there could be more than a few lurking this site getting some monies here and there for skills

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
What script?

If there is no lag on one side, but a lag on the other, there is an average lag--you just confirmed what I posted. Whether or not a lag exists on one side and not the other, the claim here is that both sides of the earth are melting (during a continual rebound from a cold period, I might add)--what's the level of CO2 in the southern hemisphere right now versus the northern? According to you, they should be different, yet I only hear one number ever spoutted out, not two. Either that, or the average temperatures per hemisphere should be nominally different right now, but according to your information, the rate of temp rise (or, at least, the average temp at any given moment) could not be equivalent at any given time because of a lag on one side of the earth (assuming the average temps are equivalent, ever).*

Do you have any data from multiple sources to back up your claim that "They have continually narrowed the lag?" (whomever the "they" are) If so, hopefully it contains details about how they've gone about collecting this data and why they're reducing the length of lag. I request this because there are a lot of things that seem to continually be revised without much scientific background that have an uncanny ability to enable the AGW argument...and it's always done by this "they." So, who are "they?"

The 'script' is a reference to a video in another thread, sadly no longer available. The CO2 time lag is part of that script.

I made no claim about the different hemispheres' CO2 levels. What I referred to was the prehistoric 'lag' that you first claimed. However, they are indeed different. The Northern Hemisphere is officially measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, and is both higher and fluctuates more wildly than the Southern Hemisphere, which is officially measured at Cape Grim, Tasmania.

A time lag has been seen in Antarctica, where CO2 appears to lag behind temperature increases. Some put that lag as up to 1000 years in the past. A narrower refinement of this lag was released in 2012; let's look at a skeptic's take on a paper:

...if you look at each hemisphere separately, it appears that the northern hemisphere lags the CO2 by 720±330 years, but the Southern hemisphere temperature leads the CO2 variations by 620±660 years. The same figure also reveals that the global temperature lags the CO2 by 460±340 years, which is the main find of the paper

There are other takeaways from this analysis, but that's discussing the difference between the two hemispheres. You might note the huge uncertainty there in the Southern Hemisphere. This time lag originates from ice core sampling. Ice cores in the Antarctic are compacted snow; this compacting process can happen at variable rates. The oxygen-18 component of the ice (H2O) is trapped vertically, but CO2 remains a gas and is not quite as fixed. Hence, ice cores were once disputed by skeptics as not valid for measuring CO2 because the CO2/time relationship was fuzzy for this reason.

Guess what? It is kind of fuzzy, just like the skeptics said! Now, however... the claim is that the temperature leads CO2 based on those very same ice cores; an effort to undermine the greenhouse effect itself as a driver of our climate. See the problem? Anyhow, further refinement has narrowed the apparent lag, to at most a few hundred years.

Does this answer your questions?

a reply to: pl3bscheese

The Heartland Institute is notorious for doing this.

Do you want to take a wild guess as to what their stance is on AGW?

a reply to: jrod

I'm wild enough, would rather look to the money trail for that answer:

Heartland Institute Funding

The sad part is that once the foundation is laid, the building is self-organized. The folly of the fool.

originally posted by: Kali74
If only we could carve it up and sit the pieces on drought stricken areas.

I wonder if it would be possible or sensible to capture the run off and ship it via tankers..

a reply to: Tucket

Not by any means we have currently.

a reply to: jrod
Do tell in what way was the post illogical and irrational ? I see no facts in your post to counter. The poster actually laid down a couple of facts and you counter with hyperbole . Does it not meet you ideas so therefore it cannot be true , It does not match the charts that were "corrected" due to the numbers did not match the model they needed ?

There is none so blind as those that will just not see

a reply to: here4this

The poster in question has NOT laid down any facts. Writing fact after a claim does not make it so. Also said poster is notorious for pulling a 'hit and run' on this thread. That is make claim after and claim, then when those claim are countered and those claims of fact or shown to be false that poster then disappears from the thread.

I did link the satellite of the melting polar caps. Sadly if information like that not gets one attention, then nothing likely will.

a reply to: Greven

I was always under the understanding that the lag was about 300-400 years...not any more than that. But, considering our climate science has only really had reliable evidence since (maybe) the late 1800s, but more realistically since the 1970s and introduction to satelite measurements, 300-400 years is a very large gap. AGW proponents want me to believe that this can happen within a century, and that it's the most dramatic correlation ever.

Sorry, not buying it.

I will, however, look at all of your links, and I really do appreciate the time and effort into responding to me with requested links--I won't make it a waste of your time.

Best Regards.