Global sea ice is now at its lowest level on record

[AUDub 11,158]

9 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Keep spewing that socialist propaganda crap homer !  You're always good at it.  Keep on deceiving.  Goebbels would be proud.

You do know that the Antarctic was covered at one time by palms and other deciduous forests don't you and that the climate was temperate ?  Or don't you ?  What you cite is no "record".  Furthermore, that temperate climate was not "man-caused" as the socialists like you would have us believe about "climate change".

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/29/science/science-watch-forest-at-south-pole.html

"Dr. Edith L. Taylor, a research biologist at the Byrd Polar Research Center of Ohio State University and the main author of the study, said an analysis of growth rings in the tree fossils showed that the Antarctic in the Permian period was not freezing year round as had been thought, but instead had well-defined seasons. Furthermore, the absence of frost rings, the disruption of normal growth rings in the tree trunks caused by early fall or late-spring frosts, suggested that the temperature was rarely below freezing and that there were no unseasonable frosts, the researcher said."  

As Dr. Taylor further explains: " Based on climate simulations using physical rather than biological evidence, climatologists had estimated that temperatures in the Antarctic in the Permian period were 30 to 40 degrees below freezing in the winter and did not rise above freezing in the summer.  Dr. Taylor said that using biological data like the fossil evidence, she estimated that the climatologists' figures were about 30 degrees too low."

Well, we can check off Nazi comparisons.

ET, we've known for quite a while that much an Antarctica had a temperate climate, and some areas had a tropical climate which would imply rainforests. Not shocking at all given the fact that while it was part of the Gondwana supercontinent parts of it approached or were at the equator. And we are also well aware of the fact that the earth was at times warmer during the Permian. No scientist worth his salt would deny it.

9 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

More info for those with the "record low" climate change mentality:  http://www.seeker.com/drilling-discovers-ancient-antarctic-rainforest-1765906877.html

"Record" refers to the temperature record. The temps since we started recording them directly with thermometers. Anything before that relies on proxies.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

9 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

Keep spewing that socialist propaganda crap homer !  You're always good at it.  Keep on deceiving.  Goebbels would be proud.

You do know that the Antarctic was covered at one time by palms and other deciduous forests don't you and that the climate was temperate ?  Or don't you ?  What you cite is no "record".  Furthermore, that temperate climate was not "man-caused" as the socialists like you would have us believe about "climate change".

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/29/science/science-watch-forest-at-south-pole.html

"Dr. Edith L. Taylor, a research biologist at the Byrd Polar Research Center of Ohio State University and the main author of the study, said an analysis of growth rings in the tree fossils showed that the Antarctic in the Permian period was not freezing year round as had been thought, but instead had well-defined seasons. Furthermore, the absence of frost rings, the disruption of normal growth rings in the tree trunks caused by early fall or late-spring frosts, suggested that the temperature was rarely below freezing and that there were no unseasonable frosts, the researcher said."  

As Dr. Taylor further explains: " Based on climate simulations using physical rather than biological evidence, climatologists had estimated that temperatures in the Antarctic in the Permian period were 30 to 40 degrees below freezing in the winter and did not rise above freezing in the summer.  Dr. Taylor said that using biological data like the fossil evidence, she estimated that the climatologists' figures were about 30 degrees too low."

More info for those with the "record low" climate change mentality:  http://www.seeker.com/drilling-discovers-ancient-antarctic-rainforest-1765906877.html

I feel sorry for you ET.  Did you read the article you cited?  Do you understand the implications of 35 million years ago?

[AUDub 11,158]

1 hour ago, SaturdayGT said:

The weather is pretty fascinating with all the variables involved.  I watched a bit on how the moon is leaving us a little bit at a time each year.  Since the moon is sort of tethered to the earth, the earth's rotation slows... Seems to me, that if the earths rotation slows, the more sun exposure a side will see heating the land up a little more. Of course, the other side will have more time to cool, but things heat up faster than they cool, so by that..if the moon leaves us a little each year, the earths overall tempature should heat up a little each year, right? I wonder if any scientists have made that connection?

Climate change associated with the moon is a thing, but operate on timescales so vast that they aren't pertinent to modern debate about climate change. By the time any serious changes to the climate could occur, the Sun will have become a red giant and will have consumed both the Earth and the Moon anyway.

If the moon were to spin out and away from the earth's area of influence. We would have less difference between high and low tides, shorter days and a more extreme climate.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

On 1/17/2017 at 4:21 PM, AURaptor said:

Sorry, but the long saga of global climate and man's influence, if any at all, won't be known for centuries.  Make up your mind already ? Goodie. Now, come to an action plan that doesn't involve punishing the winners only, while placating tyrants, communists and hard core eco-whackos ? 

 

 

The winners?  Economic winners?  Who are these winners?

People who own coal mines?  The Saudi royal family?  Putin?  Rex Tillerman?  The Iranians?  Please tell me who the winners are.

Punishment?  We have to maintain the viability and, status quo of our current economic model or else,,,,someone is being punished?  Once again, your hypocrisy and ideological idiocy are showing.  

 

 

[AURaptor 1,125]

Winners = countries & those who have succeeded in the economy.

There is no hypocrisy. Stop misusing words to try & demean / insult others . 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

52 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Winners = countries & those who have succeeded in the economy.

There is no hypocrisy. Stop misusing words to try & demean / insult others . 

So the biggest polluters are winners?  I see.

So you are a globalist who sees the U.S., China, Brazil, Indonesia, and India as the "winners"?

Let's ramp up the pollution and punish the losers instead.  Is that your plan?

[AURaptor 1,125]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

So the biggest polluters are winners?  I see.

So you are a globalist who sees the U.S., China, Brazil, Indonesia, and India as the "winners"?

Let's ramp up the pollution and punish the losers instead.  Is that your plan?

You said that, not I .

[icanthearyou 4,463]

10 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

You said that, not I .

Well then, what is it that you are attempting to say?

You said this is about punishing the winners.  Are these not the countries who pollute the most, will be the most effected?

Again, who are the winners?  Do they have some inherent right to always win?  

[homersapien 11,393]

On 1/18/2017 at 11:01 PM, AURaptor said:

No.

But it is a fantastic new look into the topic of solar systems, and as one who has studied geology and paleontology over my life, as well as science in general, it's the way the discipline of science often works. We THINK we have it all figured out, and then there's a wrinkle or a new discovery which can change things on their head. 

Says the guy who once cited paleological history to refute a anthropological phenomenon initiated in the  anthropocene.

Real expert allright.  

[AURaptor 1,125]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Says the guy who once cited paleological history to refute a anthropological phenomenon initiated in the  anthropocene.

Real expert allright.  

It's EARTH'S history, genius. If you don't know it, there's no point in trying to declare that now is " the worst time ever ! " or some such nonsense.  Your ignorance is ever on display. 

[autigeremt 6,652]

It has been warmer of late. 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

5 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

It has been warmer of late. 

yep. no complaints here. 74 degrees on the Gulf Coast. family used to be in coal business. is it their fault.

[AUDub 11,158]

2 hours ago, autigeremt said:

It has been warmer of late. 

Yeah, but you can't conclusively tie that to global warming. While it is certainly possible that climate change is making these temperatures slightly more extreme than what might have been 50 years ago, this warm-up is mostly because of normal weather patterns.

[homersapien 11,393]

4 hours ago, AURaptor said:

It's EARTH'S history, genius. If you don't know it, there's no point in trying to declare that now is " the worst time ever ! " or some such nonsense.  Your ignorance is ever on display. 

And it's IRRELEVANT to AGW dumbass.

Geologic history has in no way impacted the act of humans releasing carbon in the Anthropocene.  Well except, of course, the production of the carbon that we are now releasing. 

The earth was once covered by molten rock.  That has no more relevance to AGW than any other geological era prior to the anthropocene excepting the aforementioned production of the very carbon that made AGW possible.  

 

[AURaptor 1,125]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

And it's IRRELEVANT to AGW dumbass.

Geologic history has in no way impacted the act of humans releasing carbon in the Anthropocene.  Well except, of course, the production of the carbon that we are now releasing. 

The earth was once covered by molten rock.  That has no more relevance to AGW than any other geological era prior to the anthropocene excepting the aforementioned production of the very carbon that made AGW possible.  

 

It isn't.  But you're too simple to understand the significance.  The CLIMATE of the planet is what is being discussed. It's never been in a ' perfect ' state. It's ALWAYS in flux, always changing.  

The Earth once WAS molten rock. ( not merely covered in it ) 

Carbon is the 6th most abundant element in the universe. '

THINK about that one for a while.  It occurs in NATURE, genius. And you want to tax it out of our air ?  

[homersapien 11,393]

On 1/19/2017 at 0:02 AM, Elephant Tipper said:

Keep spewing that socialist propaganda crap homer !  You're always good at it.  Keep on deceiving.  Goebbels would be proud.

You do know that the Antarctic was covered at one time by palms and other deciduous forests don't you and that the climate was temperate ?  Or don't you ?  What you cite is no "record".  Furthermore, that temperate climate was not "man-caused" as the socialists like you would have us believe about "climate change".

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/29/science/science-watch-forest-at-south-pole.html

"Dr. Edith L. Taylor, a research biologist at the Byrd Polar Research Center of Ohio State University and the main author of the study, said an analysis of growth rings in the tree fossils showed that the Antarctic in the Permian period was not freezing year round as had been thought, but instead had well-defined seasons. Furthermore, the absence of frost rings, the disruption of normal growth rings in the tree trunks caused by early fall or late-spring frosts, suggested that the temperature was rarely below freezing and that there were no unseasonable frosts, the researcher said."  

As Dr. Taylor further explains: " Based on climate simulations using physical rather than biological evidence, climatologists had estimated that temperatures in the Antarctic in the Permian period were 30 to 40 degrees below freezing in the winter and did not rise above freezing in the summer.  Dr. Taylor said that using biological data like the fossil evidence, she estimated that the climatologists' figures were about 30 degrees too low."

More info for those with the "record low" climate change mentality:  http://www.seeker.com/drilling-discovers-ancient-antarctic-rainforest-1765906877.html

What do any of those apparently random comments have to do with the facts reported in the OP? 

 

I get that you are a denier.  You have no understanding of the science nor are you open to learning it. And I am certainly not interesting in waisting my time trying to "force-educate" you.  It's impossible.

For all I know, you may be the last person on earth to accept the truth of AGW. (You won't have to live too much longer to acheive that.)

Meanwhile, I hope you buy a shoreside condominium in Miami.  Wait a few more years and you'll be able to get one cheap.

[homersapien 11,393]

16 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

It isn't.  But you're too simple to understand the significance.  The CLIMATE of the planet is what is being discussed. It's never been in a ' perfect ' state. It's ALWAYS in flux, always changing.  

The Earth once WAS molten rock. ( not merely covered in it ) 

Carbon is the 6th moth abundant element in the universe. '

THINK about that one for a while.  It occurs in NATURE, genius. And you want to tax it out of our air ?  

Wow!  There's a great argument.  Carbon is the 6th "moth" abundant element in the universe!  

I love how you bring up totally irrelevant facts as if they have some sort of bearing on the scientific reality of AGW.  And you never explain why you think these points are relevant......well... because you can't because they aren't! 

And WTF do you mean by "perfect" climate.  That's a weird thing to say.

And yes, climate is generally in a long term state of change - either warmer or cooler - depending on the natural cyclic influences that drive it.

But AGW is a rapid change in global climate that is being driven by the introduction of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by man.  This change is occuring on top of whatever natural trends the climate has been recently experience.

There is absolutely no scientific logic in your arguments no matter how many little  you append to them.

You are just embarrassing yourself even though you don't understand why.

[AURaptor 1,125]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I love how you bring up totally irrelevant facts as if they have some sort of bearing on the scientific reality of AGW.  And you never explain why you think these points are relevant......well... because you can't because they aren't! 

And WTF do you mean by "perfect" climate.  That's a weird thing to say.

And yes, climate is generally in a long term state of change - either warmer or cooler - depending on the natural cyclic influences that drive it.

But AGW is a rapid change in global climate that is being driven by the introduction of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by man.  This change is occuring on top of whatever natural trends the climate has been recently experience.

There is absolutely no scientific logic in your arguments no matter how many little  you append to them.

You are just embarrassing yourself even though you don't understand why.

Far from irrelevant, homer. I did explain why it was relevant. You're just too dense or too partisan to see it. 

You're in abject denial. To understand the complex thing which IS the climate of a planet, one must be aware of what drives it, what the history of the climate is, how it is influenced, by what, how much... so many questions. which you don't want to bother with because your agenda is blinding you to reason and logic. 

Human = bad.

Carbon = bad. 

That's all your brain can handle. 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

18 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Far from irrelevant, homer. I did explain why it was relevant. You're just too dense or too partisan to see it. 

 

How about cut and pasting your explanation of why geologic history is relevant to AGW? 

I must have missed it.  Seriously I would like to hear it.

[homersapien 11,393]

19 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

You're in abject denial. To understand the complex thing which IS the climate of a planet, one must be aware of what drives it, what the history of the climate is, how it is influenced, by what, how much... so many questions. which you don't want to bother with because your agenda is blinding you to reason and logic. 
 

Do I really need to start trotting out all of statements from the scientific organizations on the subject?

It's been done this many, many times and you have either rejecting or ignored them 

You seem to value "understanding" of the climate. Are you suggesting that our understanding of climate and physics is not embodied by these organizations through the actual scientists who develop the understanding to begin with?

Is rejection of every single scientific organization's position on AGW (there isn't a single one who rejects it) a "logical" position.  Is that a "reasonable" position?

What is this "reason and logic" that I am supposedly "blind" to?

You are just talking straight from your emotional center which is infused with your political beliefs.  You don't know what logic or reason is.   

 

[homersapien 11,393]

34 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Human = bad.

Carbon = bad. 

That's all your brain can handle. 

 

That's a pitiful, lying, weaseling statement.  

Keep it up. 

[AURaptor 1,125]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are just talking straight from your emotional center which is infused with your political beliefs.  You don't know what logic or reason is

Look in the mirror when you say that, homer. 

[homersapien 11,393]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

[AURaptor 1,125]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That's a pitiful, lying, weaseling statement.  

Keep it up. 

I'm describing you, so yeah.... liar, weasel and pitiful. 

Oh, and a terrorist too, apparently. Go threaten the President's life again, why don't you ? 

[homersapien 11,393]

Just now, AURaptor said:

Look in the mirror when you say that, homer. 

Weasel wit.  Pathetic.