Justafan Posted December 24, 2015 Report Share Posted December 24, 2015 On 11/2/2015 8:30:27, Little Earl said: Antarctica is actually gaining ice, says NASA. http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/1101/Antarctica-is-actually-gaining-ice-says-NASA.-Is-global-warming-over?cmpid=FB NASA didn't say that, Christian right wing propaganda says that. NASA says the opposite but you guys are gullible so believe whatever they tell you to believe. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/thick-melt.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justafan Posted December 24, 2015 Report Share Posted December 24, 2015 1 minute ago, Justafan said: NASA didn't say that, Christian right wing propaganda says that. NASA says the opposite but you guys are gullible so believe whatever they tell you to believe. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/thick-melt.html Speaking of which, how is it legal that these guys can completely misquote NASA and so utterly misrepresent what they are actually releasing and not be held accountable for it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
9 Nines Posted December 24, 2015 Report Share Posted December 24, 2015 The Stone Age did not end because of a lack of stones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted December 25, 2015 Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) 13 hours ago, Justafan said: Speaking of which, how is it legal that these guys can completely misquote NASA and so utterly misrepresent what they are actually releasing and not be held accountable for it? Uh, in all fairness, you guys are referencing articles about two different things. LE's article is about Antarctica, and your article is about the Arctic. In the last paragraph of the article you linked there is a reference to the "Antarctic Circumpolar Wave" that indicates a recovery/recession cycle happening there, believed to be occurring every 9 years. NASA also had this to say about the Antarctic: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses Edited December 25, 2015 by TitanDuckFan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justafan Posted December 25, 2015 Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 1 hour ago, TitanDuckFan said: Uh, in all fairness, you guys are referencing articles about two different things. LE's article is about Antarctica, and your article is about the Arctic. In the last paragraph of the article you linked there is a reference to the "Antarctic Circumpolar Wave" that indicates a recovery/recession cycle happening there, believed to be occurring every 9 years. NASA also had this to say about the Antarctic: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses It's still a complete misrepresentation of the data that NASA has actually released. It wouldn't be so dangerous except a lot of people go to these sites expecting to find the truth from a source they trust and instead find a half truth, mostly lie, that has been twisted to fit a particular political agenda and puffed up with the mention of legitimate articles and studies that don't really say what they are trying to say that they say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted December 25, 2015 Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Justafan said: It's still a complete misrepresentation of the data that NASA has actually released. It wouldn't be so dangerous except a lot of people go to these sites expecting to find the truth from a source they trust and instead find a half truth, mostly lie, that has been twisted to fit a particular political agenda and puffed up with the mention of legitimate articles and studies that don't really say what they are trying to say that they say. Actually, the article that CSM references is available, it's just no longer at the link they provided. What CSM reported in NOT a misrepresentation. But a little searching on "Journal of Glaciology" (the CSM reference) shows this, the article based on NASA's conclusion, that Antarctica is indeed rebuilding ice: http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet.html Furthermore, CSM reaches no conclusion based on the article, and passes on NASA's warning that while conditions are encouraging, they are far from conclusive. Quote Climate scientists caution that these findings don’t mean it’s time to start celebrating the end of global warming. More than anything, the paper shows how difficult it is to measure ice height in Antarctica and that better tools are needed. It could take only a few decades for the ice melt in Antarctica to outweigh the ice gains, the paper's authors say. “I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses,” Jay Zwally, NASA glaciologist and lead author of the study, said in a press release. I don't know about you, but that doesn't read like AGW denial to me, and certainly doesn't sound definitive on CSM's part. In reading the actual Journal of Glaciology report from Phys.org, I would say CSM quoted the NASA report both accurately and fairly. But you have to read both reports to get that. And with the link in the CSM article dead, that's hard to do. Edited December 25, 2015 by TitanDuckFan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justafan Posted December 25, 2015 Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 6 minutes ago, TitanDuckFan said: Actually, the article that CSM references is available, it's just no longer at the link they provided. What CSM reported in NOT a misrepresentation. But a little searching on "Journal of Glaciology" (the CSM reference) shows this, the article based on NASA's conclusion, that Antarctica is indeed rebuilding ice: http://phys.org/news/2015-10-mass-gains-antarctic-ice-sheet.html Furthermore, CSM reaches no conclusion based on the article, and passes on NASA's warning that while conditions are encouraging, they are far from conclusive. I don't know about you, but that doesn't read like AGW denial to me, and certainly doesn't sound definitive on CSM's part. In reading the actual Journal of Glaciology report from Phys.org, I would say CSM quoted the NASA report both accurately and fairly. But you have to read both reports to get that. And with the link in the CSM article dead, that's hard to do. NASA has continually said the opposite in literally hundreds of other articles so finding one study that kinda sorta supports your claim and then writing an article linking to the ONE study that sorta supports your claim and representing that as the opinion of NASA is a misrepresentation of facts. The fact that you don't get that, just further demonstrates my point. http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2328/ These are the types of things NASA is actually saying about climate change. It does talk about additional snowfall on one side of the continent. It also says that Antartica only accounts for .02 rise in sea level per year. It makes it very clear that it's still a big threat and that the even bigger threat is in other places. Trying to take that, and write an article that challenges the theories of climate change is ridiculous. Sea Levels have risen 8 inches over the past few years. That's a fact. I love all of these articles not from NASA taking a NASA study and drawing their own conclusions that are completely different than the conclusions NASA themselves came to and then people calling it a fair representation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanDuckFan Posted December 25, 2015 Report Share Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Justafan said: and write an article that challenges the theories of climate change And yet, Maria-José Viñas wrote both of the articles we're referencing. Odd that. I've made no claims about ANY of these articles JAF. Furthermore, I don't see where any of these article challenges NASA's overall theory that the climate is changing, and warming. But NASA does say that there has been some rebuilding of Antarctic ice, and that there has been increased snowfall there, and that there is a net gain in Antarctic ice currently. If you took that as an example of CSM denying AGW so be it. But it doesn't make it fact. Merry Christmas JAF. Edited December 25, 2015 by TitanDuckFan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justafan Posted December 26, 2015 Report Share Posted December 26, 2015 Merry Christmas to you too. TitanDuckFan 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) Today it was above freezing at the North Pole, for only the second time in recorded history. In the middle of winter and 24-hour darkness. 50 degrees above normal. No big deal, right? http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/iceland-storm-melt-north-pole-climate-change/422166/?utm_source=QuartzFB Edited December 31, 2015 by Starkiller Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) Also, Texas... Edited December 31, 2015 by Starkiller Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OILERMAN Posted December 31, 2015 Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 It's been crazy in Texas Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) On January 16, 2015 at 11:57:59 PM, Starkiller said: 2014 was officially the hottest year in recorded human history. And of the 14 hottest years on record, 13 have been since the turn of the century. http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2014-hottest-year-on-record/ But not to worry, it's all a hoax! 2015 is now officially the hottest year on record, beating the previous year's record. That's bound to happen when we get 70 degree Christmas weather. But not to worry, it's all a hoax! Edited January 20, 2016 by Starkiller Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starkiller Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 1 hour ago, Soxcat said: "Using two well accepted data sets, a simple model can be used to show that the rise in CO2 is a result of the temperature anomaly, not the other way around. This is the exact opposite of the IPCC model that claims that rising CO2 causes the temperature anomaly." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/09/a-study-the-temperature-rise-has-caused-the-co2-increase-not-the-other-way-around/ There is also a correlation with water vapor. As temps rise water vapor density increases which also causes warming. What is a total hoax is the primate level intellect that this is all caused by man made CO2. Of course natural rises in temp can cause both CO2 and water vapour increases but primate thinking people insist it is the CO2 doing the damage. After all we couldn't tax water vapor could we? We can't control the world if we blame water. Blame those fossil fuels then. 95% of all greenhouse gases are water vapor. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html Thats fucking stupid. We know scientifically that air temperature directly affects humidity levels. Cold air holds less humidity than hot air. You can't pretend that extra humidity is what is causing temperatures to go up because there is a correlation. There is a correlation, but it works in the opposite way. As the Earth's temperatures increase, so do humidity levels. It's why when air cools, you get condensation. This really is very simplistic science that only deniers and elementary school kids can't seem to grasp. Meanwhile, its fucking stupid to say that warmer temperatures causes more CO2 to be released. Like with humidity, you simply reversed cause and effect and tried to defend it by showing correlation without causation. If you think that warmer temperatures cause an increase in CO2 levels then explain the process that causes that. Or shut the fuck up... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abenjami Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 1 minute ago, Starkiller said: Thats fucking stupid. We know scientifically that air temperature directly affects humidity levels. Cold air holds less humidity than hot air. You can't pretend that extra humidity is what is causing temperatures to go up because there is a correlation. There is a correlation, but it works in the opposite way. As the Earth's temperatures increase, so do humidity levels. It's why when air cools, you get condensation. This really is very simplistic science that only deniers and elementary school kids can't seem to grasp. Meanwhile, its fucking stupid to say that warmer temperatures causes more CO2 to be released. Like with humidity, you simply reversed cause and effect and tried to defend it by showing correlation without causation. If you think that warmer temperatures cause an increase in CO2 levels then explain the process that causes that. Or shut the fuck up... Obviously the Christian God makes it happen. Duh! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.