New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Antarctica is GAINING ice! Damn... now what, global warming hysterics?

Barbella

Senator
Antarctica is gaining more ice than what it loses from its glaciers, new research by Nasa claims.

It says Antarctica's ice sheet is currently thickening enough to outweigh increased losses caused by melting glaciers, which is attributed to global warming.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is losing land ice overall.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3300063/Antarctica-GAINING-ice-s-losing-10-000-year-old-trend-reverse-Nasa-warns.html
 

Barbella

Senator
Antarctica is gaining more ice than what it loses from its glaciers, new research by Nasa claims.

It says Antarctica's ice sheet is currently thickening enough to outweigh increased losses caused by melting glaciers, which is attributed to global warming.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is losing land ice overall.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3300063/Antarctica-GAINING-ice-s-losing-10-000-year-old-trend-reverse-Nasa-warns.html
What's the matter, lefties? Tongue-tied? LOL
 

EatTheRich

President
Perhaps you didn't read the link, which pointed out that the growth of Antarctic ice is a trend that began 10,000 years ago and that is not guaranteed to continue indefinitely. At best, it gives us a little more breathing space to address the climate change crisis before it becomes a worse nightmare.
 

Barbella

Senator
Perhaps you didn't read the link, which pointed out that the growth of Antarctic ice is a trend that began 10,000 years ago and that is not guaranteed to continue indefinitely. At best, it gives us a little more breathing space to address the climate change crisis before it becomes a worse nightmare.
What IS "guaranteed"??? Not a damn thing, besides death. Oh yeah, and the corruption of politicians.
 
Antarctica is gaining more ice than what it loses from its glaciers, new research by Nasa claims.

It says Antarctica's ice sheet is currently thickening enough to outweigh increased losses caused by melting glaciers, which is attributed to global warming.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is losing land ice overall.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3300063/Antarctica-GAINING-ice-s-losing-10-000-year-old-trend-reverse-Nasa-warns.html
It is seasonal Barbella --- Those 'scientists' who insist it is melting are $'con' men. They chose a time of year when the ice is high to begin their one year long study, they then start squealing 'its melting its melting, run for the hills' at the time of year that it always melts. Meanwhile who asks those scientists who have been studying the Ice for 30 years and say nothing unusual has or is happening, who asks them? No one does.
 
Perhaps you didn't read the link, which pointed out that the growth of Antarctic ice is a trend that began 10,000 years ago and that is not guaranteed to continue indefinitely. At best, it gives us a little more breathing space to address the climate change crisis before it becomes a worse nightmare.
If there was no ice at the poles we would never have Ice Ages --- we would be better off if there was no ice. The warmer the planet the better the times.
 
I'll take that as a no.
Refusing to watch it again?

I have left lists before --- not going over all my old stuff again but the lists and names are not hard to find on line --- there are thousands of 'em.
A taster ----

''Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”

— UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”

— Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data”

— Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.

“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.”

— Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.”

— Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

“I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” — Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.”

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.”

— Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Update December 9, 2010]

“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”

— Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]

“Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.”

— Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004″ by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.”

— Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.”

— Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

End of Selected Excerpts

http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284
 

Sparky2

Council Member
Say, guys and girls, I would like to offer you some food for thought.

And please bear in mind, I am a political independent, and a man of science.
I work in a field of hard science (flight test) where the data, the methodology, and the evidence must be solid, repeatable, peer-reviewed, and solidly-defendable.

Here's a challenge and some associated thoughts that I want to throw out to you, and please just ponder them for a bit before responding.

I am not looking for a 'left versus right' partisan bickering session.
I'm not into that sort of nonsense.
The truth is what matters to me. The truth and good science.

Every single time I encounter a 'manmade global climate change' true-believer, they tend to spout certain partisan slogans:
* all the experts and scientists agree......
* man-made global climate change is real, and it's the #1 threat to mankind.....
* you (insert expletive here, conservatives, Republicans, whatever) just don't understand SCIENCE!!

But, perplexingly it would seem, whenever I challenge them to name the top two scientific studies that convinced them that manmade climate change was real, they come up dry.

Okay, can you name even one?
No?

Alright, just name for me the scientist or scientists who conducted scientific, peer-reviewed studies that convinced you it was real. Just give me name of one or two of those scientists who convinced you, after your having read their study.
Again, no response.

Here's the bottom line;
Most believers in manmade global climate change have never investigated the science.
They have never dug deep into the scientific journals or online research archives and read any studies. Never once.

Rather, they have fallen into spouting Party rhetoric, quoting absurd internet statistics, and (most important to note) engaging in this tired, bitter, partisan-political culture of animosity.

The most commonly quoted 'scientific' body of work turns out to be not a scientific study at all. It's an opinion paper provided by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from a few years ago.

Climate change believers, I ask you to take a moment now for introspection.

If you can honestly admit that you can't name a single scientific, peer reviewed study, or name even one of the scientists who conducted that study, then you haven't studied the science of global climate change.

And trust me, the television celebrity science guy Bill Nye doesn't count.
The admittedly brilliant Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't count.
Neither of those man have lead, conducted, or participated in a scientific study of climate change.

Just think on it, okay?
I'm not looking for a knee jerk response or an angry refutal.

I just want you to honestly ponder the notions I have offered up to you.

Thanks.
 

EatTheRich

President
Say, guys and girls, I would like to offer you some food for thought.

And please bear in mind, I am a political independent, and a man of science.
I work in a field of hard science (flight test) where the data, the methodology, and the evidence must be solid, repeatable, peer-reviewed, and solidly-defendable.

Here's a challenge and some associated thoughts that I want to throw out to you, and please just ponder them for a bit before responding.

I am not looking for a 'left versus right' partisan bickering session.
I'm not into that sort of nonsense.
The truth is what matters to me. The truth and good science.

Every single time I encounter a 'manmade global climate change' true-believer, they tend to spout certain partisan slogans:
* all the experts and scientists agree......
* man-made global climate change is real, and it's the #1 threat to mankind.....
* you (insert expletive here, conservatives, Republicans, whatever) just don't understand SCIENCE!!

But, perplexingly it would seem, whenever I challenge them to name the top two scientific studies that convinced them that manmade climate change was real, they come up dry.

Okay, can you name even one?
No?

Alright, just name for me the scientist or scientists who conducted scientific, peer-reviewed studies that convinced you it was real. Just give me name of one or two of those scientists who convinced you, after your having read their study.
Again, no response.

Here's the bottom line;
Most believers in manmade global climate change have never investigated the science.
They have never dug deep into the scientific journals or online research archives and read any studies. Never once.

Rather, they have fallen into spouting Party rhetoric, quoting absurd internet statistics, and (most important to note) engaging in this tired, bitter, partisan-political culture of animosity.

The most commonly quoted 'scientific' body of work turns out to be not a scientific study at all. It's an opinion paper provided by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from a few years ago.

Climate change believers, I ask you to take a moment now for introspection.

If you can honestly admit that you can't name a single scientific, peer reviewed study, or name even one of the scientists who conducted that study, then you haven't studied the science of global climate change.

And trust me, the television celebrity science guy Bill Nye doesn't count.
The admittedly brilliant Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson doesn't count.
Neither of those man have lead, conducted, or participated in a scientific study of climate change.

Just think on it, okay?
I'm not looking for a knee jerk response or an angry refutal.

I just want you to honestly ponder the notions I have offered up to you.

Thanks.
The IPCC report summarizes all the scientific papers published in the field and therefore is a good introduction to the scientific consensus.

Some of the most important studies leading to this consensus are:
Fourier (1824)
Arrhenius (1896)
Callendar (1938)
Suess (1955)
Manabe & Wetherald (1967)
Sawyer (1972)
Manabe & Wetherald (1975)
Hansen (1988)

By this point it was already well-established scientific fact, and your question is a bit like asking what studies are the basis for the conclusion that the earth orbits the sun. But the consensus has been confirmed, and the details filled out, by many subsequent studies, e.g.:

Lindzen (1997)
Connolley (2003)
Barnett (2005)
Schmidt (2005)
Barnett et al. (2005)
Lockwood & Frohlich (2007)
Schmidt (2007)
Lean & Rind (2008)
US National Research Council (2008)
Flanner (2009)
Johanson & Fu (2009)
Hansen et al. (2012)
 

Sparky2

Council Member
NO, darling.

The question was, "which study or studies (credible, peer-reviewed), or which scientist or scientists who LED those studies, convinced YOU that manmade global climate chance was real?'.

And be honest;
Could you have named even one?

I didn't ask for a cut-n-paste of a Party-friendly bit of nonsense that was borrowed from some Party-friendly website or some Party-friendly Facebook posting.

The question was for YOU to honestly ask yourself if you could name even one.
And you did NOT.

And no, dear.
The science is NOT settled.
As much as you want to tell yourself that.

Allow me to back up for a moment.

I am an independent free-thinker, not a left winger or right winger.
I am a man of science.

My very profession relies upon good, hard science. Every single working day.

I drive a fuel-efficient Subaru, and I walk and/or bicycle when I can, to avoid excess pollution in the air.

I mow most of my lawn with a non-gasoline-powered Fiskars reel mower, to avoid dumping excess exhaust gasses into the air.

I am a good steward of the land. (I own some acreage here, on a spring-fed creek.)

I don't use gasoline powered tools when I trim the walking trails here, because I don't want to frighten the wildlife here.

I respect their peace and their environment.

Why do I take such environmental care, you might ask?

BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

And as many of you have heard me say, more than a few times probably, man should pollute less.

Man should dump less exhaust gasses into the air.
Man should take care not to dump trash, oil, and industrial waste into the waters.

Man should do all these things, BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

NOT because he is forced to by an over-reaching government, and not because of a bunch of trumped-up, hysterical, nonsensical reports (founded in junk science) generated by politicians who only want to use them to levy higher taxes on the citizenry.

This President and his left-leaning cronies have got it in their heads that by taxing and choking the living shit out of each and every corporation and tax-payer, they will somehow make billions of years of wax & wane of the climate all of a sudden reverse course.

They are WRONG. Their suppositions are politically-motivated, and founded in useless junk science.

Here is the reality;

In the end, if man stopped driving automobiles completely, and all airliners were grounded permanently, and the President stopped jetting off on vacations hither and yon non-stop, it would change the global climate and associated temperature just about a third of a degree over the next 100 years.


With that in mind, does it make any sense for these hysterical [Unwelcome language removed] in Washington to shove reams of regulations down our throats, knowing that it won’t help the climate one iota??
 

EatTheRich

President
NO, darling.

The question was, "which study or studies (credible, peer-reviewed), or which scientist or scientists who LED those studies, convinced YOU that manmade global climate chance was real?'.
I was not convinced by one study. I was convinced by the overwhelming weight of decades of research and by the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.

Here is the reality;

In the end, if man stopped driving automobiles completely, and all airliners were grounded permanently, and the President stopped jetting off on vacations hither and yon non-stop, it would change the global climate and associated temperature just about a third of a degree over the next 100 years.
I'll let you and the scientific mainstream quibble about the numbers. The important thing here is that you, too, acknowledge that carbon emissions affect temperature levels.

With that in mind, does it make any sense for these hysterical [Unwelcome language removed] in Washington to shove reams of regulations down our throats, knowing that it won’t help the climate one iota??
1/3 of a degree, a number which you proffer without evidence, is far from insignificant. And remember, only about 20% of greenhouse gas emissions come from cars and airplanes. If emissions from other sources were cut as well, it would make a more significant difference.
 
Top