What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
234 Comments
- Richandler, on 07/05/2009, -18/+34"Sea ice melting and re-freezing is a complicated process that is influenced by a number of factors such as wind patterns, ocean currents, and how much ice has frozen or melted in recent years. The authors did not point to any causes for the changes in sea ice levels in their study." In other words they don't know.
Lowest in 800 years! Hmm, I wonder if they needed cap and trade back then too! - SEN5241, on 07/06/2009, -3/+16It's a race to the Digg finish line. Digg your belief in order to 'find' the truth!
- greenfyre, on 07/05/2009, -8/+21In other words you can find nothing wrong with their facts or logic, so you're hoping this childish whine will distract us from the fact that you have nothing to offer.
It didn't work. - michaelpinto, on 07/05/2009, -17/+29This is really depressing stuff — my two fears are that it may be too late to do anything at this point (which isn't to say that something shouldn't be tried) and that we may hit a faster "tipping point" than people realize.
- Peekman, on 07/06/2009, -2/+13I didn't know Climate Dynamics was such an unknown 'global warming alarmist' type of scientific journal.
"Climate Dynamics was ranked second by total citations among the 25 most respected journals in the field of climate change.[1] The journal's founding editor, W. Lawrence Gates, is the chair of Joint Scientific Committee for the United Nations World Climate Research Programme. [2]" - thinkb4utype, on 07/06/2009, -12/+23Last Year was highest level in almost 30 years and now it's at its lowest in 100 years. Something screwy about this. Maybe it's a repeat of last year (see below).
University of Illinois, research:
Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close. ...Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.
Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. - greenfyre, on 07/07/2009, -3/+13So you're saying that the reason we have had the hottest decade in 130 yrs
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/stupid-is-a ...
is because the sun is in a cool phase.
Got it.
And that refutes all of the studies showing that the sun has minimal influence ... how?
... try pausing to think before posting ... you certainly couldn't do any worse.
and the comment the link points to merely verifies that I am quoting you accurately.
I always document the accuracy of what I say ... as anyone who has ever read my material knows. - kingnova, on 07/06/2009, -3/+13I am going to ask this question fully expecting a bunch of wargarbhl (it IS another Digg climate thread after all), but weren't there predictions last year that the north pole would be ice free? Then that it would be ice free this year?
Inquiring minds just asking for clarification, not a bunch of throw up... - greenfyre, on 07/06/2009, -3/+13"[citation needed]"
Well, since you did not even glance at the comment you were responding to, you naturally have no clue that the citations were already provided
http://digg.com/environment/Arctic_Sea_Ice_Lowest_ ...
but then the convention to assume that people actually read the thread and think, and hence it is not required to review the entire thread in every comment.
Clearly needed for some people, but still not the norm. - greenfyre, on 07/06/2009, -3/+12RotFL ... of course the adults who check the links find they all source peer reviewed science ... do you know what that is?
and btw "like a spoiled child who immediately resorts to name calling when he can't argue his point. "
lead2thehead
http://digg.com/environment/Arctic_Sea_Ice_Lowes
No *****? - Math, on 07/06/2009, -0/+9Um, that data supports the findings of the article.
Click on your link again, and then re-read the article. - greenfyre, on 07/07/2009, -2/+11It's not a matter of last word, it's such dense nonsense that demands the clear light of facts
So once again you didn't bother to read anything ... just launch into a stupid and irrelevant rant. Can't you at least pretend to have a clue and address the facts?
Have you no other rhetorical tricks than red herrings, ad hominems and non sequitors? It's bloody pathetic
Rather than address the points you try the "1970s cooling Fable"
- Climate Change anatomy of a myth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms
1970s Cooling consensus myth debunked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPcQoTJkIRc
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Th ...
even by USA Today: Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarm ...
but you might enjoy:
July 1959 Carbon Dioxide and Climate in Scientific American
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-dioxide ...
and 1953 Popular Mechanics article about global warming
http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/16/1953-popular ...
'It's only theory based on correlation'
Is there no Denier Fable so stupid that you aren't willing to swallow it whole? a single google search would have revealed that one for the idiocy that it is.
HELLO!!!!!!!!!!! The basic CO2 science is 150 yrs old
"The man who discovered greenhouse gases"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227081.500 ...
Try to drag your understanding of science up to at least 1870
Sense from Deniers on CO2? Don't hold your breath....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c&fea ...
What is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/10/what ...
Does CO2 correlate with temperature?
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/03/do ...
The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
Yet more CO2 http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/yet-more-co ...
A role for atmospheric CO2 in preindustrial climate forcing http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/10/di ...
Calculating the greenhouse effect http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...
never mind the "waste your time and walk me through science step by step to pre-Aristotle times because I can't click a link to get that information" tactic.
Here, trying having a pair
"The Physical Science Basis"
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm
Open Source Climate Science Education
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/open-source/
Global Warming Student Guide
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/contents.ht ...
The Real Climate Collection
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
Introduction to Climatology
http://www.meted.ucar.edu/afwa/climo/intro/print.h ...
The Basic Science
http://www.ghgonline.org/pubarchive.htm
Climate Basics
http://www.climate4you.com/
Do you need someone to come over and read those to you? slowly? using no big words?
Here is my prediction ... as with all of your comments ... you will be unable to say anything that shows you understood any of the evidence you were provided with. - greenfyre, on 07/07/2009, -2/+11Literacy still a problem for you? or is it that you don't know how to open a link.?
Here, maybe this will help
http://ivyjoy.com/rayne/kidssearch.html
The links debunk your gibberish, obviously. Moreover, they do so adequately on their own, they don't require me to expand on them more than I have.
Or are you one of those who insist that the librarian tell you "War and Peace" in their own words because you're too _____ (you choose your excuse) to read the book?
And for the record:
i) actually getting the facts is more work than just running off at the mouth with random nonsense.
ii) RotFL you're trying to switch the focus again! LMAO ... once more I demonstrate that you have said nothing rational, so once again you try and pretend the issue is something else.
HINT Until you take the trouble to actually have a clue there is no safe place to hide ... - greenfyre, on 07/09/2009, -3/+12Aren't you the lucky one? the whole dead parrot of surface stations just took another shotgun blast to the head
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
but don't worry, Watts, McIntyre and all the other idiots will still claim that "it's just resting"
they'll say "oooo look ... we have pretty pictures" - Evilblobs, on 07/06/2009, -2/+11Now i'm no eco-mentalist, and "going green" can go ***** itself (I still try to be somewhat environmentally responsible, man-made global warming or not)
but that volcanic eruption co2 figure is a complete myth. - greenfyre, on 07/06/2009, -7/+15Alternativley, you could learn the facts:
How much of the recent CO2 increase is due to human activities? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005 ...
The Human Hand in Climate Change http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
Myth 'Natural emissions dwarf human emissions http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/233610 ...
Attribution of 20th Century climate change to CO2 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...
Humans cause climate change, US body accepts http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg1992 ... - greenfyre, on 07/09/2009, -3/+11You told me,
but see if you can guess just how much value the unsubstantiated claim of an anonymous digger is. At least a few Zimbabwean dollars ...
fyi ... and since you seem to be clueless about how to find information on the internet (hint: search engines)
The "Heat Island" effect as an explanation for rising temperature was considered a credible hypothesis back in 1991 based on a CA study by Karl et al http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1991/91GL02900.sh ...
but Easterling et al 1997 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;277 ...
demonstrated that it was not valid
This has been verified over and over in numerous different ways since then
So while there is such a thing as "Heat Islands", they are more than accounted for by the science and are not in any way corrupting the data documenting global temperature increases,
Needless to say there is one group of idiots who cling to it, even though it has been repeatedly falsified and the debunking is easily available to anyone who knows how to use a search engine:
"The Urban Heat Island Crock"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/224634 ...
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=My ...
but then you'd know all of that if you'd read my blog
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/blinded- ...
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/the-scop ...
LOL - greenfyre, on 07/08/2009, -3/+11You are attempting to say that speculation by a tiny handful of scientists is somehow equivalent to broad consensus on scientific fact. I merely demonstrated that your point is *****.
Link - forgot to update
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg
there you go (of course you could have used search .. it's what smart people do)
"I'm not a denier, I'm a skeptic. " RoFL
You unquestioningly swallow all of the brainless hoaxes like the urban heat island fable, the sunspots idiocy, the 1970s nonsense, etc ... and you're a skeptic? Do you even know what skeptic means?
Here
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/
instead of making any sort of rational, relevant statement about what is said here, how about you whine that a blog is not a source? LOL
"What's a ca clue? "
It's you screwing up a cut and paste - greenfyre, on 07/07/2009, -3/+11PS Also try reading for comprehension ... that would help too
- greenfyre, on 07/06/2009, -2/+10i) RtFA ... this is Arctic, your link is global
ii) Area and Volume are different things
“Ice Area vs Volume“: Debunking the “Ice is back to 1979 levels” idiocy"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nruCRcbnY0
iii) Floating ice displaces it's mass, so the Arctic ice cap will not raise sea level. Greenland and Antarctica will.
iv) Don't mistake the media touting the PR of a handful of industry shills and crackpots as "other scientists" They make claims, but have no science to back them up. - greenfyre, on 07/09/2009, -3/+11LOL! Are you sure that you ever went to a University or College? in any capacity?
1) You know, if you actually checked the material I provide you might not immediately make statements that are obviously idiotic.
For example, you would have discovered that actually scientists know exactly where the stations are and what is near them, and have made sure that the instruments are calibrated accordingly.
WOW! they must be hyper-intelligent alien beings, right? ... no mere earthling could possibly have thought of that!
Of course you could still choose to make idiotic statements if you like, that would be up to you.
2) Oooo ... a bunch of pictures!!! Golly!
I am sure they must have actual evidence somewhere, something that shows that there actually is an effect ... they just don't want to confuse people with silly numbers and sciency stuff ... so they show pictures.
Well, no doubt the pictures distract the more simple minded from the fact that they can't refute the scientific evidence; bright, colourful objects will do that. - j0en, on 07/06/2009, -2/+10DavidNiven also believes the earth is 6000 years old.
- greenfyre, on 07/06/2009, -6/+14The only way you could "notice that" is if you are such a gullible fool that you believe the phony graph from "The Swindle" and completely ignore the actual science.
"It's not the Sun"
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/06/08/memo-to-fiel ...
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/07/05/el-nino-and- ...
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=It ...
http://debunking.pbworks.com/Sunspots-and-Solar-My ...
"The Swindle" is such an appalling piece of ***** it took 176 pages to document all of the distortions, errors, and lies in it
http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint ...
The Big Swindle Movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
The fauxumentary consists of nothing but industry shills or people taken out of context that was immediately torn to shreds by real scientists
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/george-w ... - TheMoniker, on 07/09/2009, -1/+9Thanks for that NOAA surface station document. Good find!
- Donotsurf, on 07/06/2009, -1/+8Sometimes, digg can be a scary place to be.
- Anzat, on 07/06/2009, -1/+8Hey moron, why are you such a moron?
- greenfyre, on 07/08/2009, -3/+10"That was my point."
1) No it wasn't, you were hoping to equate the two, but you pretend whatever you like
2) Scientists are fallible? Who cares? Only the facts matter. It is correct or not. If it's not, show how.
3) Glad you agree that the 1970s media scare is not relevant and the climate change science is clearly robust and rigourous
"I wasn't going to engage in any kind of scientific debate"
That was a given ... to do that you'd have to know some science.
"So now heat islands and sunspots don't exist either? ... Here is the challenge... "
1) They are not relevant,.as the links I provided clearly explain. If the sources are to hard for you, see if you can have a child explain them.
2) Because the science (which I linked for you) is absolutely clear ...
3) OK, sure .. but I'm a little unclear on what you mean by "in your own words"
Please explain for me:
- the evolution of language
- the history of languages and which one you mean and why
- the history of philosophy, particularly giving detailed discussions of the concepts of identity, self, the other, possession, communication, relationship, epistemology, phenomenology, and science
Now I would have thought such a request is the transparent attempt of a feeble mind to waste someones time, but you assure me that it is legitimate, ... so go for it. Ready? Go! - vikingcoder, on 07/06/2009, -0/+7Volcanoes emit 100 - 250 million tons CO2 / year globally; that includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. The most actively degassing volcano in the world, Mt. Etna in Italy, emits ~14 million tons CO2/year. Humanity emitted 28 billion tons of CO2 in 2005 from the burning of fossil fuels. That is more than all volcanic emissions during the entire 20th century. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992GeCoA..56.1765W http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man ... http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991EOSTr..72..249. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6325/ab ... http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15. ... http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html - table H.1co2 => http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tab ... http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Ideological gullibility does not cause the accumulated scientific knowledge to align to your beliefs. - greenfyre, on 07/08/2009, -3/+10"I never said that. ..."
Fine, you brought up a ridiculous fable that was completely irrelevant and had absolutely nothing to do with the point you were pretending to make ... there, happy now?
"misspelled at least 3 times"
i) sceptic is an accepted and proper spelling
http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=sceptic& ...
ii) in science circles the crowd who run around talking about sunspots and 1970s cooling are known as "septics" because they are so full of *****
- a term coined by climatologist and Antarctic researcher Bill Connolley http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/bro ...
... and septic is spelled correctly.
misspellings = 0
"I can read your poorly written" except those links are overwhelmingly to other sources ...
you do such a ***** job of trying to fake it ... really pathetic.
"instead of making any sort of rational, relevant statement about what is said here, how about you whine "
bingo! but how hard was that to predict?
"all they're doing is poking holes in your argument?"
Show me one, provide the link.
All I seem to encounter is septics who have brainlessly believe hoaxes like sunspots and heat islands like gullible hayseeds.
So, clearly you are unable to say anything remotely rationale to address the arguments that the gullible hysterics who refuse to even look at the scientific evidence are clearly 'Deniers'?
Thank you, I have always thought so. - greenfyre, on 07/06/2009, -5/+12Too bad for you, prior to the 1970s your statement would have been correct, but as my sources show, the last 50 yrs is the period for which you are dead wrong.
- vikingcoder, on 07/09/2009, -3/+9Thanks for that reference. I hadn't seen it yet.
lead2thehead,
Here is the summary for you: Comparing the 70 stations listed by surfacestations.org as good or best to the total network of 1218 stations shows no indication that poor station exposure has imparted a bias in the U.S. temperature trends. - Donotsurf, on 07/06/2009, -1/+7It's called radiometric dating using ice cores.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core - greenfyre, on 07/06/2009, -2/+8In other words you can't find any errors in fact or logic, so you're hoping a childish ad hominem will disguise your ignorance,
it didn't work. - dikky, on 07/06/2009, -3/+9have the deniers gotten so lazy they don't even bother posting websites with blaringly obvious logical and factual errors?
- vikingcoder, on 07/06/2009, -0/+6That would be incorrect too. In an average year, volcanoes release only 13% of the sulfur added to the atmosphere compared to anthropogenic sources. http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man ...
The difference between anthropogenic and volcanic SO2 emissions is that volcanoes shoot the SO2 into the upper atmosphere. Volcanoes also put significant amounts of particulates into the atmosphere. - vikingcoder, on 07/06/2009, -0/+5The melting of floating sea ice *will* raise the sea level. Water with lower salinity has a lower density, hence larger volume.
http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html - greenfyre, on 07/10/2009, -3/+8Here is an experiment you can try
.... read the f&^^%$ paper
Yes, you will discover just how idiotic you are being ... but then who's fault is that?
Some of us are actually trying to spare you from humiliating yourself even further, but it seems you are bound and determined to present yourself as a total moron.
That is your right of course, but a strange choice. - funkeepickle, on 07/06/2009, -1/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_common ...
- greenfyre, on 07/06/2009, -8/+14Maybe you should choose data sets that are not coarse grained and overlain with a decades worth of data
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im ...
and what do you know? tracking much closer to the 2007 record low than to the 30 yr avg ... duh - Math, on 07/06/2009, -1/+6What most scientists are saying is that climate and temperature around the world, particularly at the poles, doesn't match what should be happening under the current cycle.
It was up to 4C/7F warmer around the poles last year on average. - greenfyre, on 07/12/2009, -3/+8You read Hawkings? WOW! Well that blows away people who actually do research and degrees ... no wonder you're so impressive.
I am well aware gravity is not known definitively. If you try reading (literacy ... it can change your life) I was drawing attention to just how meaningless your comments are; totally trivial and irrelevant.
"runs a political activist website"
1) you clearly have no idea what political activism is
2) ad hominem again ...
And more of your *****
1) copy/paste/link where I claim anything is "proven"
2) Science abandoned the fiction of proofs over 50 yrs ago
All of your ad hominems, bad logic and juvenile insults don't substitute for actual reasoning
You have no date ... none Are you so f*%&ing lame someone has to spell this out?
IF the placements made any difference it could be shown with data ... the data show that it doesn't
and btw ... your inability to even check something as simple as someone's scientific credential sure explains why you screw everything else up ... ever heard of this place? 'google.com' - greenfyre, on 07/12/2009, -3/+8Nothing in science is proven (except in pure mathematics). only the totally clueless talk about "proofs", which is why I never mention them
Your source of credibility is a science fiction character?
Sigh ... http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-homine ...
Literacy, try it
Funny thing. I once failed the Dean's daughter for her illiteracy. She complained, but the review agreed that for a 4th yr student her comprehension was abysmal.
Of course her comprehension was way better than what one sees here on digg, but in her case the issue was being able to understand science when reading it.
Now that you have wasted your time writing all of that drivel, how about you go back and read what I actually said?
Then see if you can think of anything relevant to say - greenfyre, on 07/06/2009, -1/+6Welcome to the Denialosphere ...
- Math, on 07/06/2009, -0/+5Your link is to an article that shows sea levels rising at ~3.2mm per year. What's your point?
Sea levels are rising due to melting ice on Greenland and Antarctica, not due to sea ice around the North pole.
You are showing that global warming is happening. - vikingcoder, on 07/10/2009, -3/+8I read the paper. You should try it. Learning is paramount.
Start by reading what I wrote. Surfacestations.org claims only 70 are 1218 stations are good - meaning 1148 have poor exposure. There is no imparted bias from poor exposure when the 70 good are compared to the 1148 poor.
Your uninformed opinions do not refute the observational record. - greenfyre, on 07/06/2009, -2/+7Word the the wise ... Rtard wingnut websites are a really bad place to get information ... you always wind up looking stupid if you quote them:
Fable: CO2 in the air comes mostly from volcanoes
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/223957 ...
Are Volcanoes or Humans Harder on the Atmosphere?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=earthtalks-vol ...
Volcanoes and Climate Change, Part 1 http://helicity.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/volcanoes ... - greenfyre, on 07/06/2009, -2/+7No, you stopped pretending to know anything about climate science when all of your points were shown to be idiotic nonsense and you apparently could not find anything to substantiate your absurd claims ... that is perfectly obvious from the thread.
"like a spoiled child who immediately resorts to name calling when he can't argue his point. "
lead2thehead
http://digg.com/environment/Arctic_Sea_Ice_Lowest_ ...
No *****? - greenfyre, on 07/06/2009, -2/+8@ BA ... your usual ad hominem ... stills counts as nothing. Produce evidence or stop wasting everyone's time.
@ peekman - yes, and volume has been dropping like a stone
“Ice Area vs Volume“
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nruCRcbnY0
@kingnova - I am refuting BA's point which is about this years melt, nothing more. Try to pay attention please. - Math, on 07/06/2009, -2/+7Would be a good point if there was any truth to it.
Antarctic glaciers are shrinking:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200504/s13512 ...
Norwegian glaciers are shrinking:
http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext/index_e.aspx?id= ...
Norway is one of the countries being really badly affected by climate changes, with average yearly temperatures rising more than 3C/6F.
I was in Sweden a couple of years ago and it was about 15C above the normal for that winter, and spring was a month early! - Math, on 07/06/2009, -1/+6When sea ice that is floating on the water melts, it doesn't raise the sea level.
As an experiment, try putting a few ice cubes in a glass of water, and mark the water level. When they melt, you will notice that the water level doesn't rise!
Also your graph supports the claims of the article. It shows the sea ice retreating. -
Show 51 - 100 of 236 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 