Giant icebergs are slowing climate change, research reveals

a reply to: LSU0408

Right. I'm just telling you that the hotter it gets elsewhere (apparently all over the world) the cooler it gets here in the South. I think it's ironic.

Do you have an actual source, or is that just your perception?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

So why does your opinion magically hold more weight and credibility than actual data and studies that say you are wrong? That's called confirmation bias and closed mindedness.

Because none of those climate scientists ever take into account, anything outside of major cities. Instead of making everyone combat global warming, perhaps they should start making laws in the obvious places.

You literally just made this reasoning up on the spot.

Uh, yeah? Did you think I copy & pasted it off of some website? Perhaps people that work or live in densely populated big cities can have a global warming tax taken out of their check so they can start funding this government BS.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LSU0408

So why does your opinion magically hold more weight and credibility than actual data and studies that say you are wrong? That's called confirmation bias and closed mindedness.

Because none of those climate scientists ever take into account, anything outside of major cities. Instead of making everyone combat global warming, perhaps they should start making laws in the obvious places.

You literally just made this reasoning up on the spot.

Uh, yeah? Did you think I copy & pasted it off of some website? Perhaps people that work or live in densely populated big cities can have a global warming tax taken out of their check so they can start funding this government BS.

You do realize that gases expand quicker than any other form of matter to the point that they are evenly distributed throughout the container they are in (which in this case would be the atmosphere of the planet)? So your reasoning here is rather ridiculous.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I think the point being made is that, in comparison to cities, rural areas produce less carbon. Which may be true, unless looked at on a per capita basis.

a reply to: LSU0408

Um... no they are not.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Are you aware that many of the significant hotspots around the world occur over the oceans and not land?

Are there cities out there in the middle of those oceans or could it just be normal changes like the ones that have been going on for millions/billions of years? That # has nothing to do with humans.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
In light of the post above, I stand corrected. This person thinks that CO2 stays in one place.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I think the point being made is that, in comparison to cities, rural areas produce less carbon. Which may be true, unless looked at on a per capita basis.

edit: I see your followup post.

Now you know why I said his reasoning is ridiculous.

a reply to: Phage

LOL. no the source of both graphs are from NOAA . He was only one of many that took images from the NOAA site before they changed from one tampered warming scheme to another. I was in the AGW camp probably before you phage, I am fully aware both sides of the argument. The warming trend finished 18 years ago but not the rhetoric

The banks want carbon trading scheme to profit from derivatives;
Big oil wants to sell their methane to replace coal which they didn't own;
UN wants carbon tax to bring in a third tier of world government.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: glend

Likewise the tampering of US temperature records borders on insanity. People cannot be stupid enough to swallow that recent temperatures are hotter than the 1930's dust bowl.

Your source (Anthony Watts) is not reliable.

And yes, the average annual temperature in the US has exceeded that of the dust bowl on several occasions in the past decade. But you know what an average temperature is, right? It means the average temperature, for the whole year. It is not necessarily a matter of particularly high temperatures. Though there are more all time high temperature records being set than all time low temperature records.

Yeah, if people that buy into the AGW hoax have proven anything, it's that nothing that proves their agenda wrong is considered reliable. No other climate scientists, no other articles. Nothing. If it doesn't say AGW is real, it's not a reliable source.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Are you aware that many of the significant hotspots around the world occur over the oceans and not land?

Are there cities out there in the middle of those oceans or could it just be normal changes like the ones that have been going on for millions/billions of years? That # has nothing to do with humans.

How do you look at two molecules of carbon and determine which was released by human production and which was released by natural production exactly? Because I'm pretty sure even scientists can't tell the difference, so it's rather amazing and remarkable that you are able to do that.

a reply to: LSU0408

No other climate scientists, no other articles.

Watts is not a scientist.

If it doesn't say AGW is real, it's not a reliable source.

Actually, sources that say warming is not occuring (never mind the anthropogenic part) are really not reliable.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because I'm pretty sure even scientists can't tell the difference, so it's amazing that you are able to do that.

Not so much when it comes to two molecules. But on the whole...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

WOW tons eh, who told you Antarctica wasn't gaining ice?

During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gtlyr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change.

NASA

a reply to: LSU0408

As I stated, it matters not if it is one man, all men, 10 men, or if its one country, one town, every town, that is pumping the 40 billion tons of CO2, it is still 40 billion tons. What part of that do you not understand?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I thought scientists were able to look at the isotopic ratio of the carbon present in the CO2 to determine whether it was sourced naturally, or through the combustion of fossil fuels. And those analyses indicate that more CO2 is being produced due to anthropogenic influences than natural influences.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because I'm pretty sure even scientists can't tell the difference, so it's amazing that you are able to do that.

Not so much when it comes to two molecules. But on the whole...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wow. That's cool. I stand corrected. Now THAT is some quality science there. I didn't think you could do a comparison like that, but after reading your remarks on it, it certainly makes sense and I could see how it would work out.

a reply to: glend

He was only one of many that took images from the NOAA site before they changed from one tampered warming scheme to another.

Of course, the dog ate his homework. But I didn't say the data was not reliable. I said that Watts' "interpretation" is unreliable. And so are you, in making the claim that average temperatures necessarily indicate extremely high temperatures.

I was in the AGW camp probably before you phage, I am fully aware both sides of the argument.

It's not a camp. It's people who rationally look at the physics and data.

The warming trend finished 18 years ago but not the rhetoric

No, it didn't. Unless you can provide data which says otherwise?

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Krazysh0t

WOW tons eh, who told you Antarctica wasn't gaining ice?

During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gtlyr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change.

NASA

Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: VoidHawk
There has been much data showing that the temperature has not been rising, hence the pro warming crowd need a reason for it!

The planet is still warming at an unprecedented rate of change from year to year. The only difference here is that the rate of change of the rise in temperatures will drop a bit.

and there it is.

Really?
2015 Was the Second-hottest Year on Record in the U.S.
NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record
NOAA: 2013 Was Tied For The Fourth-Hottest Year On Record
NOAA: 2012 Hottest & 2nd-Most Extreme Year On Record
2011 Was Ninth Warmest Year in Decades, NASA Finds
NOAA: 2010 Tied For Warmest Year on Record
2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade
NOAA: 2008 Global Temperature Ties as Eighth Warmest on Record
2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year
2006 Was Earth's Fifth Warmest Year
2005 was the warmest year on record

When was this and what data are you talking about?

The issue is the source data that is used to come to those conclusions. It has been shown to have been manipulated.

I can't use cold temperatures to prove the temps aren't rising, but you're allowed use use manipulated warm temperatures to show it is rising.