Tropical Arctic during the Late Cretaceous. Of course the continents drift...but when someone refers to a Tropical Arctic, that is generally understood as tropical conditions in the Northern polar zone on Earth...and yes it was volcanically active.
This summer may see first ice-free North Pole
- Thread starter sanctus
- Start date
Tropical Arctic during the Late Cretaceous. Of course the continents drift...but when someone refers to a Tropical Arctic, that is generally understood as tropical conditions in the Northern polar zone on Earth...and yes it was volcanically active.
Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online
But wait!! All that heat that did not appear over the land somehow was absorbed in the ocean without being accounted for in temperature readings, right??
And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year | Mail Online
Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday
So much for that.
Global warming is the greatest con job ever.
Full stop.
But wait!! All that heat that did not appear over the land somehow was absorbed in the ocean without being accounted for in temperature readings, right??
And now it's global COOLING! Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29% in a year | Mail Online
Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high Saturday
So much for that.
Global warming is the greatest con job ever.
Full stop.
Given the scale of economics invovled I think there are a lot more people being paid to put the notion of global warming to rest than are getting paid to push the idea.
Newsflash EvilSchmuk: Everyone wants to get paid. Do you have a point besides the one at the top of your head? :lol:
It would appear that all the missing ice from the North pole went to the south pole for the summer.
Clearly so.
How ironic... Climate Scientist head to the Antarctic to prove global warming and get stuck in the ice.
Just pointing out the logical inconsistency in your argument. You assume that only those opposed to your belief want to get paid. Confirmation Bias 101.
Deniers won't pull their heads out of their butts until the water level reaches their testicles.
Put that post of yours in your DUH Column.
Alarmist want to get paid... others see this as it is... a scam... wealth redistribution.
Climate Alarmist wanting to raid nations (Western nations) and businesses bank vaults because they feel "entitled" to steal.
Are you clear now?
You still buying that AGW horsesh*t Cliffy?
.. Aren't you a little old for fairy tales?
I think there is a lot of money being spent on the denier side of things as well. Understandably so, as there is a lot at stake.
I live by the ocean. No difference.
Yet the UN is trying to bring people who live by the oceans in under developed nations to tell us sea levels are rising.
And the gullible like Cliffy believe it.
So are you a little clearer now? Is your temper tantrum over?
There are thieves lurking about and they want to take what isn't theirs. So measures are being taken to ensure the that the thieves don't get it.
Understand the difference between alarmist wanting to get paid and others not wanting to pay them?
No, I understand how carbon dioxide absorbs and emits infrared radiation. I don't have that much time for all the politics of it. In my opinion, if you double the concentration of CO2, the global average temperature will go up about 1 deg. That's based on pretty solid physics. I don't put a lot of stock into the predictions of the general circulation models, because I don't think we have the ability to create sophisticated enough models that would be useful.
In my opinion, the ecosystem generally tries to counteract change through negative feedback until it reaches a tipping point, at which time it changes states rather quickly, and that's when you'd see some of the more drastic effects of global warming. This is how many things behave in the ecosystem, from nutrient levels in lakes to predator-prey animal populations. Where that tipping point is, I don't really know. I don't think anyone does.
The politics of it dosn't interest me that much. It's pretty clear we do not have the ability to anything about it. All that solar and wind business is just scribbling in the margins. Oil is the blood of the world economy.
The Debate is over so we've been told.
It is all about $$$ and politics now.
And this thread is 5 years old and we haven't seen an ice free North Pole yet.
It is all about $$$ and politics now.
And this thread is 5 years old and we haven't seen an ice free North Pole yet.
In the case of AGW/Climate Change (still don't know what 'climate change' is really supposed to mean) - politics is everything... The fact that the UN and East Anglia were in cohoots and caught red-handed on fabricating the data (East Anglia) upon which a global tax (UN) was to be based tells the clearest story of all
I don't think the data were fabricated. I think the statistics were manipulated in a way to bolster their viewpoint. That's what I mean with the GCMs (general circulation models)--tweak a number here or there and you can get what you want. I don't think we really understand the role of water vapor and cloud formation very at all, and that is simply critical to the whole exercise.
That's why I just rely on the physics of the heat transfer. Much more robust, time-tested model. It predicts about 1 deg for each doubling of CO2 (logarithmic relationship). IPCC predicts around 3 deg for each doubling due to positive feedbacks "predicted" by GCMs.
That is true. There is a lot at stake. Like our economy and lifestyle. I expect to provide a better standard of living for my grandchildren than I have and if we went along with the climate change hoax and the truthers plans that simply would not be possible. Except possibly for some government employees.