Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

[Red1966]

See? There is adequate science for me now. Sat data on Ice shows we are losing Ice big time.

Exponential? You know what exponential loss of Antarctic Ice means, right? That is direct measurement from very precise satellite imaging.

The graph illustrates how exponential growth (green) surpasses both linear (red) and cubic (blue) growth.

GREEN = Exponential growth
RED = Linear growth
BLUE = Cubic growth
----------------------------------------------
So a little mind map of the Green line and where I see the "tell us what to do" problem.

So, check the GREEN between:
2 - 3 Almost nothing (Sagan observes Venus and says Greenhouse)
3 - 4 More research.....What? What is this, no cooling?
4 - 5 IPCC established to make reports about "what to do?" (Ice is melting faster now)
5 - 6 Where we are now, and even Doer can see it because satellites can measure it

7 - 8 PLANETARY WAR

Your graph doesn't record anything, fool.

 

[Red1966]

There's a good chance that we can live through the next ice age, or asteroid.

We can see asteroids coming for years, and could easily crash something into it from far enough away to put it off course from earth. We have the technology to live permanently at the North and South poles, it's not a stretch that we could live in permanent snow.

Yes, we can easily survive 600,000 years of absolutely no agriculture.

 

[UncleBuck]

Now you are just being an ass...

When did we start receiving global temperature data so we can talk about global warming??? Why does a liberal feel the need to jump on anyone that says the winter was colder or the summer was colder for only focusing on local data yet you can point to the first time a friggin thermometer was used and comprehensively decide that we have been recording global temperature for centuries.

This is the problem with the global warming people and their religion. Facts dont really matter if they contradict the belief that we are all going to die unless we subvert and pay tribute to people who proclaim themselves smarter than everyone else while flying around in personal jets...

tell us more about how forest fires cause global warming.

 

[Red1966]

What are you taking about? You don't understand exponential loss of ice.

You don't understand what your graph shows

 

[Red1966]

Interesting....

It's hard to say if it's even possible for those same variables to occur on earth. The continents are in much different places, and human activity has changed much of the landscape and atmosphere.

The landscape is meaningless when its under a mile of ice.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why doesnt anyone ever talk about the fluctuations of the sun and their effects on global warming?

good catch, i'll make sure to tell scientists about the existence of this thing called "the sun" at our next secret closed door meeting where we scheme on how to control the population via tax credits for solar panels.

 

[Red1966]

Our current problem isn't going to take ~850,000,000 years to cause us serious grief. We can worry about the next 'ice ball*' (*which is theoretical anyways) when we're a few hundred million years closer to it.

If history repeats itself, the next ice age is only 1500 years away.

 

[UncleBuck]

This graph (and all graphs presented by the Eco-Loons) looks similar to every graph I've seen for the last 15-20 years that didn't materialize

you mean the ones that you refuse to cite because they don't exist in the same way that your imagined 14 point romney lead never existed?

 

[Red1966]

I don't think there's enough evidence to say one way or the other. What we DO know now, is that greenhouse gasses are causing some whacky effects in the immediate future.

No, you don't know that anymore than any other article of faith.

 

[Doer]

Pay attention! You too Har-ish. That is a mathematical plot of the difference in gain math.

Straight growth, cubed growth, expo growth.

Learn how to read a graph, Har-ish says.

The ice is melting, Nothing you can do about that sad fact, It is melting at an exponential rate per direct observation. This is not a survey of opinion or the intersection of poor data set with poor technique. This is not the constant beating of the Politics.

Direct Observation.

 

[UncleBuck]

No, you don't know that anymore than any other article of faith.

faith has no predictive value, whereas climate science certainly does. so much for that whole "religion" thing you morons keep trying to prop up as if it had any basis in reality.

i mean, i know right wing denialists like yourself are too dumb to understand science, but i thought faith and religion were your thing. guess we can count on you guys to be stupid in all areas.

had a good idea you were capable of that.

 

[Red1966]

I am talking about micrometer measurement from Space that we are in exponential Ice Loss.

I don't link this to greenhouse or Carbon, but it is happening at a time, by the orbit math we should be gaining Ice gradually.

You clearly do not know what a micrometer is.

 

[Doer]

Yeah, what he said.

 

[Red1966]

Say what? It is not a 2D plane. It is 3D and extent has depth,

Less extent, less depth. The extent includes the depth, And it doesn't matter, since you already know. That is the most red herring consideration I have seen so far.

We are not talking about the thin seasonal sea ice, you know. What is at risk is the Ice Dams that hold back most of ice in the world from the Sea.

It is the desalination of the Bays that hold the Ice shelves and that increases the melt.

And the Ross is only 1000 feet thick. On-land the ice cap is 2 miles deep. The Ross alone holds back 8 glaciers from the sea.

The Ross is made up of those 8 glaciers. It is not holding them back. Any aerial photograph clearly shows them flowing into the sea. "Ice Dams".......just making shit up.

 

[Pinworm]

Learn to multiquote red. For fucks sake. My phone goes off every time your creepy ass presses -post reply-

 

[Red1966]

Pay attention! You too Har-ish. That is a mathematical plot of the difference in gain math.

Straight growth, cubed growth, expo growth.

Learn how to read a graph, Har-ish says.

The ice is melting, Nothing you can do about that sad fact, It is melting at an exponential rate per direct observation. This is not a survey of opinion or the intersection of poor data set with poor technique. This is not the constant beating of the Politics.

Direct Observation.

Your graph doesn't record temperatures, melting ice, or any other phenomena. "This is not the constant beating of the Politics." Politics or just plain quackery.

 

[Red1966]

Learn to multiquote red. For fucks sake. My phone goes off every your creepy ass presses -post reply-

Mission accomplished.

 

[Red1966]

Mission accomplished.

Learn to multiquote red. For fucks sake. My phone goes off every your creepy ass presses -post reply-

 

[sheskunk]

Pay attention! You too Har-ish. That is a mathematical plot of the difference in gain math.

Straight growth, cubed growth, expo growth.

Learn how to read a graph, Har-ish says.

The ice is melting, Nothing you can do about that sad fact, It is melting at an exponential rate per direct observation. This is not a survey of opinion or the intersection of poor data set with poor technique. This is not the constant beating of the Politics.

Direct Observation.

So just like the dinosaurs, Bye-Bye humans.

Funny how everyone just laughed off the point I was making. As half of you agree with it.

 

[sheskunk]

Learn to multiquote red. For fucks sake. My phone goes off every time your creepy ass presses -post reply-

How pathetic.

"Hold on life, there's a new post at RIU."

What a fucking loser.