Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013

[ginjawarrior]

Woops your Freudian slip is showing. Liar liar, fire pants. La la la la LA LA.

At least you've reverted to a level more befitting your ability

There's the honesty your posts desperately needed

 

[Sunbiz1]

So the earth is in a natural warming cycle, thereby creating more sea ice from glaciers melting and such...got it.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Yeah your knowledge on this is so poor I'd need cites from you showing exactly where the money is being spent

What's that you don't have the foggiest idea? Why on earth would you say it here are you lying?

yeah thats why theres so many studies on the projections of future glaciations and attempts to predict their cycles...
there have never been many studies, but no any attempt to search for them is bombarded with tons of crap about "global warming" carbon dioxide and al gore's latest adventure

That's going to happen really? Let's see the data from that

precession, axial tilt, plate tectonics, sollar riadience cycles, and the milankovitch cycles on our planet's orbit made ice ages and then caused their retreat many times in the past, these processes continue, and we Will have another ice age, and given the time of previous interglacials, that time is coming, and right soon.
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/paleoclimate/
[h=3]3. Summary[/h]

• The Earth's climate has changed dramatically in the past, apparently in response to natural changes in orbital characteristics and topography (plate tectonics).
• We are able to deduce past climates through multiple techniques but much of the progress in resolving Cenozoic climate change has resulted from oxygen and carbon isotope records.
• A paleoclimate record has been developed using different techniques, stretching back over 2 billion years. The Earth was warmer than at present for most of this time, punctuated by infrequent Ice Ages.
• The Great Ice Ages may have been caused by processes associated with continental drift and greenhouse warming.
• The interglacial periods are related to orbital changes described by the Milankovitch cycles, among other factors.
  

They quote a sudden drop not sudden increase

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v364/n6434/pdf/364218a0.pdf

the temps went DOWN and then after a few decades, RIGHT BACK UP. stop pretending that a reduction in temps, followed by a rise in temps back to previous norms is anything but up AND down.

also, there were several such variations observed, the one cited being the most violent, and most rapid, both on the downslope and the climb back up.

And all this info has been available for 20 years now of you think climatologists are ignoring you should mail them

so substantive.

It would have to be a massive volcanic eruptions or a meteor strike throwing up enough debris to block out substantial amounts of sunlight
Pretty calamitous don't you think

no evidence for such catastophes in the last interglacial's wild variations.

"RECENT results[SUP]1,2[/SUP] from two ice cores drilled in central Greenland have revealed large, abrupt climate changes of at least regional extent during the late stages of the last glaciation, suggesting that climate in the North Atlantic region is able to reorganize itself rapidly, perhaps even within a few decades."
"We find that climate instability was not confined to the last glaciation, but appears also to have been marked during the last interglacial (as explored more fully in a companion paper[SUP]3[/SUP]) and during the previous Saale–Holstein glacial cycle. This is in contrast with the extreme stability of the Holocene, suggesting that recent climate stability may be the exception rather than the rule."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v364/n6434/pdf/364218a0.pdf

in light of this evidence it seems quite plausible (since it has happened before) that the +>2 degrees F over the last century is a result of factors other than "co2", and could well be reversed (possibly quite dangerously) by even more factors which remain unexplained, and completely beyond our power to control


why is this so perplexing? or is the age of the study proof that it is therefore obsolete due to the tremendous changes in the nature of geology over the last 2 decades?

I'm implying that your putting way too much importance on a cherry picked study from 20 years ago

nope. you smirked, made a derisive snort, and provided NO criticism of the data presented.

Are you that technologically challenged that you missed the multiple links to studies on ever fucking piece I posted?
Go back and read them again it's all there in fucking text go back and count them

i see a shitload of links from SkepticalScience, an ad homiem packed Name and Shame blog full of half assed assumptions, faked referecnces, fraudulently altered graphs and smug condescension, i see why you like it so much.

plus i see a shitload of fucked up board tags...

almost as if you are unable to grasp the concepts of Open tags, followed by Close tags resuting in a readable quotation or a link which is both visible and functional.

They graphic is a pictorial representation of the fucking numbers

NOOO REALLY!! is that what graphs are?

when you slap an attribution on a graph, implying it came from a study (not even a study, just basically a web search and tally count with no particular analysis or original research) you give the impression that the graph came from "science" which is, for most of SkepticalScience's audience, Voodoo. skeptical science wants their OPINIONS to be taken as fact, their research is shabby, their citations are haphazard at best and their amateurishly altered graphs (with no citation for the source of the added data) do not engender confidence in me.
why you hold that BLOG in such high regard remains a mystery.

It is attributed and its written on the graph itself (Peterson 2008 )

implying it is found in said study, it is NOT from that survey. that citation is a LIE.

Are you that unable to make a case thAt you decided to lie about everything now?

gibberish, no suggestions on meaning.

It to show idiots like yourself that your idiots

U no make type with boxing gloves i no make fun of u silly talk.

Seems your reading comprehension lets you down again I clearly said you were mixing media with science

no, the press ran with a story, at a time when most people had NO ACCESS to scientific literature, and science was very slow to correct the misaprehensions, further, the idea of a coming glaciation was NOT controversial, it is comeing, and even the most Greenhouse Obsessed geologists and climatologists are suggesting the glacial cycle might be altered or delayed by human action.

also your mixing tabloid coverage with actual science

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

previous interglacial turnover there was less co2 in the air than there is now

If you bothered to get information instead of asserting without fact you would have known that
not only is the name and date "attribution" I just got this from their page http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

i guess those are more of theos Peer reviewed links" you have been bragging about.
you really are a hypocrite

Lying again?

shhshh shhh, no tears now, only dreams.

what exactly is being implied as compared to the shit you made out of whole clothe?


Still a sniviling liar?

and back to the ad hominems.

i really tried , but you just refuse to behave civilly.

 

[Doer]

At least you've reverted to a level more befitting your ability

There's the honesty your posts desperately needed

You know when you say "you" like that, you are sticking a socio up your anal path.

And actually I thought I was doing a pretty good imitation of.....Humphrey Bogard.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Keynes quotes aren't working properly so for now I'll just leave you this single post

Pall et al. (2011):

​

Min et al. (2011):

​

Dai et al. (2011):

​

Zwiers et al. (2011):

​

Coumou & Rahmstorf (2012):

​

Hansen et al. (2012)


Donat and Alexander (2012)

Otto et al. (2012)

(SREX),


Dai (2010),



Emanuel (2012),

Grinsted et al. (2013),

Holland and Bruyère (2013)

. As Grinsted et al. noted,

​

http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-intermediate.htm

Tell me again how I haven't posted any studies.....

 

[Dr Kynes]

upon reflection (doobies make me contemplative and hungry... oooo! cheetos!) i suspect Ginjas problem, and the real trigger for his vehement and outspoken refusal to accept the concept that glaciations have happened before and will happen again, is his Ineferences.

he has inferred (and wrongly so) that i am somehow implying that the greenhouse effect is a myth, or even more ridiculously, that i am espousing a position which suggests we INCREASE emissions, to kick the Greenhouse Effect into high gear to hold back the coming glacial cycle.

both those assumptions are directly contrary to my stated beliefs, the evidence of science, and all motherfucking logic.

the last century's much hyped +>2 degrees F average temperature increase is, in my opinion Exaggerated, by the current, non-controversial, and well established long term warming trend, ongoing since the beginning of the holocene era.

greenhouse emissions may be causing some warming, but the real question remains, HOW MUCH, an answer the climate believers are unable to provide, instead they sneer, craft doomsday scenarios, scream "Think Of The Children!", engage in ad hominem, twist data to suit their agenda, pander to the press and the most shrill alarmists, engage in FRAUD and try to bury good science under a landslide of repetition of their orthodoxy.

i suppose, the question "How Much" is just too hot for him to handle.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Keynes quotes aren't working properly so for now I'll just leave you this single post




Tell me again how I haven't posted any studies.....

thats the first anybody has seen of that.

but still, thats NOT you citing journal articles, studies, reports, or research, thats you REPEATING the claims of Skeptical Science.

have YOU read those cited works?
or are you just taking Skeptical Science's word for it, and using those citations in an attempt at academic intimidation, and a blatant appeal to authority.

i doubt you have read any of them, shit i doubt you have even read the abstract for all of them.

Edit: heres the Tally from your repetition of Skeptical Science's "citations"

5 articles from journals which are in disagreement about what global warming will do, how much is man made, and what should be done to reverse the trends. apparently we can expect north america to recieve torrential downpouurs and unprecidented precipitation, and at the same time long term droughts and desertification...
1 IPCC report
1 Broken Link
1 interesting study which i am currently reading (but thus far, it does not seem to say what Skeptical Science implies)
4 instances of Skeptical Science citing Skeptical Science to prove the assertions of Skeptical Science as cited in Skeptical Science. lulz. the links simply take you to another page of the blog and more unsourced assertions. only fool would cite a blog which cites itself to prove it's own claims
4 duplicate links, appaernlty in Skeptical Scioence Land, Dai (2010), and Dai (2011) are TWO citations, making that TWICE as truthy, but unfortunately both link to the same article.
Likewise, Donat and Alexander (2012) and Otto et al (2012) both link to the same source, too bad the source is Skeptical Science once again citing itself as evidence of it's scientific credibility.


that shit is nothing but shabby research and Citation Inflation.

 

[ginjawarrior]

thats the first anybody has seen of that.

The thing about the internet it keeps the posts there as proof

Go back and see for yourself.

Then apologise for above lie

but still, thats NOT you citing journal articles, studies, reports, or research, thats you REPEATING the claims of Skeptical Science.

sceptical science has backed up their claims.... those links to the studies are evidence their claims are inline with the available science

Debunk them (even just a single one)

Or carry on with ad hominem

have YOU read those cited works?
or are you just taking Skeptical Science's word for it, and using those citations in an attempt at academic intimidation, and a blatant appeal to authority.

Some I have read

The fact they cite their work moves the authority onto the author

Your free to falsify any of sceptical sciences view on the studies or find authors objections

i doubt you have read any of them, shit i doubt you have even read the abstract for all of them.

Yawn

 

[UncleBuck]

no, they were not.

they were indeed exonerated for crawling through the window in the dark.

as i have already conceded that i misremembered the event to which you repeatedly refer, you are encouraged to eat a sack of dicks.

no, you just plain made stuff up. you tried to black up the story, too. because you are a racist little dick.

then, in ALL CAPS, you proclaimed your lies to be facts.

bullshit. argue against the position, not the person, or STFU when grownups are talking.

don't call yourself a grown up and then cite creationists, idiot.

big giant particoloured pictures dont prove shit, nor does the length of sea ice shelfs mean anything

sorry that you can't handle mundane facts, but the ice is melting faster than projected.

go cry now, crybaby.

yeah, youre really making your case here.

good job dingus. youre making your own case look weaker by being a mindless dolt who doesnt even read the material presented, yet still pretends to know whats going on.

maybe you should spend less effort crafting these trenchant barbs, and more time reading the material cited.

Protip: my links dont lead to malware sites or Lastmeansure. you might want to try having some integrity, then maybe people could take you seriously.

the guy who cites creationists is talking about being taken seriously.

this is fucking grand.

you are an idiot, kynes. there is a reason why you make minimum wage.

 

[ginjawarrior]

upon reflection (doobies make me contemplative and hungry... oooo! cheetos!) i suspect Ginjas problem, and the real trigger for his vehement and outspoken refusal to accept the concept that glaciations have happened before and will happen again, is his Ineferences.

Cool story bro

I have repeatedly said no on is denying natural variation

Keep lying tho

he has inferred (and wrongly so) that i am somehow implying that the greenhouse effect is a myth, or even more ridiculously, that i am espousing a position which suggests we INCREASE emissions, to kick the Greenhouse Effect into high gear to hold back the coming glacial cycle.

I have asked repeatedly for evidence or even timescale of "the coming glacial cycle"

Please provide quotes where I have inferred both the above

both those assumptions are directly contrary to my stated beliefs, the evidence of science, and all motherfucking logic.

What evidence of science bar the 20year-old study have you provided?

the last century's much hyped +>2 degrees F average temperature increase is, in my opinion Exaggerated, by the current, non-controversial, and well established long term warming trend, ongoing since the beginning of the holocene era.

CITE

greenhouse emissions may be causing some warming, but the real question remains, HOW MUCH, an answer the climate believers are unable to provide, instead they sneer, craft doomsday scenarios, scream "Think Of The Children!", engage in ad hominem, twist data to suit their agenda, pander to the press and the most shrill alarmists, engage in FRAUD and try to bury good science under a landslide of repetition of their orthodoxy.

Please post some good science it's not like I asked you for it pages ago

i suppose, the question "How Much" is just too hot for him to handle.

Check the latest ippc for information

Google is your friend, deliberate ignorance is no excuse


EDIT: GRANDIOSE soapboxing like your above post with zero evidence has all the hallmarks off woo peddlers Inc: anti gmo, psychics, the worst of the environmentalists, homeopaths

 

[UncleBuck]

...a blatant appeal to authority.

at least he's not appealing to creationists in a scientific debate, like some people i know.

 

[UncleBuck]

greenhouse emissions may be causing some warming, but the real question remains, HOW MUCH, an answer the climate believers are unable to provide, instead they sneer, craft doomsday scenarios, scream "Think Of The Children!", engage in ad hominem, twist data to suit their agenda, pander to the press and the most shrill alarmists, engage in FRAUD and try to bury good science under a landslide of repetition of their orthodoxy.*

...you just refuse to behave civilly.

he's using CAPS again folks, so you know there are plenty of lies and kynes butthurt in there.

 

[ginjawarrior]

My post (originally 194) why was it deleted?

Looking for confirmation from mod (am reporting this post)

 

[potroastV2]

Offensive posts are deleted with the reason 'Inappropriate.'

 

[ginjawarrior]

Offensive posts are deleted with the reason 'Inappropriate.'

drifting standard of "offensive" it seems..

The post I replied to still stands

Which one of your mods is exercising their bias?

 

[potroastV2]

What don't you understand about "offensive posts?"


Your post that was deleted included "go fuck yourself."

I consider that to be offensive.

 

[FreedomWorks]

I keep explaining to these libs rolly. They don't want to listen. Us conservatives want to debate politics and argue our point of view in a civilized manner. What are we going to do?

 

[UncleBuck]

Us conservatives want to debate politics and argue our point of view in a civilized manner. What are we going to do?

civilized manner, eh?

WTF? Not me, you're the confused communist with the red shirt on. Been passed around with so much dick in your ass that you can't tell the difference between a burp and a fart anymore. Had your tonsils jammed so hard; now you're a retard.

Everything about Uncle Buck screams Anti-American. I'm starting to wonder what country he comes from.

Congratulations on once again taking the crown as the stupidest person on RIU.

Learn how to read you stupid Communist.

Who said that retard? *

 

[UncleBuck]

IUs conservatives want to debate politics and argue our point of view in a civilized manner.

Walk the line, don't cross it retard. You need to learn politics.

presented without comment.

 

[FreedomWorks]

You call people stupid, idiot, and retard all the time. Problem is, you take it to the next level. Totally inappropriate. You need to read your terms of service agreement before dropping F bombs all over the forum. Keep it up you're getting another strike. So I suggest you and ginja warrior cut it out.