Tiny Tim Was Right! The Ice Caps Are Melting!

[petros]

Suit up Spidey, I'll supply the banjo music.

 

[EagleSmack]

Donations are not what bothers me......Believers can donate to their hearts content..

I used to ask over and over if they have bought their yearly carbon credits. I never ever got an answer in the affirmative.

It's the extra that we will all have to pay in taxes, and what we're already paying as consumers for goods that are up in prices just because kneejerk regulations to placate the gullible greenies.....

Just after the US Govt. released their climate change report recently the high priests came out swinging and very enthusiastic. They said outright that it is folly to think that US corporations and industry will bear the whole brunt of fees and taxes. All Americans will be affected and expected to make changes in their life styles and not to be naïve and think their lives will go on as usual. There will be sacrifices made by all.

What "holes" are those?

I don't want to know, I just want to see the dancing baby Spiderman again.

Then you'll have to wait. I put a lot of thought and research into my gif postings and very rarely do I take requests.


Ask MF though, he just throws his limited arsenal of gifs haphazardly.

 

[petros]

Why do polar climates have different climate drivers that operate seperate from the rest of the planet and what are those regional driving systems?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Then you'll have to wait. I put a lot of thought and research into my gif postings and very rarely do I take requests.

Well, hell, I'll just do it my ownself, then. Knave. Varlet. Jackanapes. Oaf. Jerk.

 

[EagleSmack]

Well, hell, I'll just do it my ownself, then. Knave. Varlet. Jackanapes. Oaf. Jerk.

There you go!

 

[petros]

Spiderman looks like a gay alien.

 

[Tonington]

One survey? Is this what scientists do, use only one small sample?

489 randomly selected scientists is not a small survey. The population of climate scientists isn't that large. In case you missed it by not reading the entire page, there were lots of other evaluations of the current science. Another method is to look at abstracts like I already mentioned, minus the binomial test. Lo and behold, if you continued to read that 97% figure comes up, again, and again, and again. Probably coincidence, but the fact that multiple evaluations with different methodologies end up with high percentages and so close to each different evaluation indicates that the true population value is probably not much different than 97%. That, is science.

Scientists use smaller samples all the time. A sample size of thirty is fairly routine. Do you know why?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Scientists use smaller samples all the time. A sample size of thirty is fairly routine. Do you know why?

Because that's the number of seats in your average campus bar?

 

[petros]

Because that's the number of seats in your average campus bar?

Campus bars with subsidized nachos.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Campus bars with subsidized nachos.

Couldn't get a teaching position? Now I know why you're such a bitter old cuss.

 

[petros]

I'm old?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I'm old?

Yep. Real old. However many years you may have, you have the bitter inflexibility of an old, old man.

 

[petros]

And I'm in the 47% of earth scientists with disagree with AGW.

How come Climatologists agree at around 87% but "climate scientists" a fictional creation agree at 97%?

 

[Zipperfish]

Why doesn't Nye debate any of theses scientists all of whom disagree with the IPCC??

• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [16]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[17][18][19]

• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[20]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[21]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[22]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[23]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [24]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry

I know most of these people (their work, anyways) and while they certainly disagree with the IPCC, I wouldn't call any of them deniers. They all readily admit that it's getting warmer and that humans play a measurable role.

They disagree with IPCC future projections for temperature and sea level rise. As do I actually. You should add me to your list. :lol:

 

[petros]

The IPCC admits to not having a clue what is behind the instable climate of an interglacial period and yet.....

 

[Zipperfish]

The IPCC admits to not having a clue what is behind the instable climate of an interglacial period and yet.....

That's OK, we have other clues:

• The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is rising by 1 or 2 ppm/year
• CO2 levels are currently higher than they have been in the last few hundred thousand years
• Due to its spectral properties, doubling the concentration of CO2 results in an increased radiative forcing of about 3.7 W/m2, or about 1 deg C.

And when you come up with a good theory as to why the planet doesn't cool down to more or less the same temerpature the moon does at night, I'll give your ideas more credence.

 

[Walter]

That's OK, we have other clues:

• The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is rising by 1 or 2 ppm/year
• CO2 levels are currently higher than they have been in the last few hundred thousand years
• Due to its spectral properties, doubling the concentration of CO2 results in an increased radiative forcing of about 3.7 W/m2, or about 1 deg C.

And when you come up with a good theory as to why the planet doesn't cool down to more or less the same temerpature the moon does at night, I'll give your ideas more credence.

Why hasn't the globe warmed in the last 17 years?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

And when you come up with a good theory as to why the planet doesn't cool down to more or less the same temerpature the moon does at night, I'll give your ideas more credence.

Because Jeezus wubs us?

 

[Zipperfish]

Why hasn't the globe warmed in the last 17 years?

I don't know. My guess is that the extra heat has gone to the ocean. The temperature hasn't dropped either.

 

[mentalfloss]

Why hasn't the globe warmed in the last 17 years?

It has.