Arctic Has Gained Hundreds Of Miles Of Ice The Last Three Years

True that, Al Gore is a total sell out. Check it out though... So Earth has "x" amount of ice. "Global warming" is melting that ice at a "rate" of "y" per year. So how many "y" = 1x? I really wanted to make a doomsday clock but no 2 drones, with all there graphs and data, can give me a guess, and explain it. I know, I know.... SHOCKING....

 

the Rostok ice core data and the Milankovitch Cycles.

 

LOL...sure thing....they couldnt be wrong. Afterall we've been here for an eye blink....

 

who says? competent climate scientists say, here's just one of many:


at 3:40 - "For the last 40 or 50 years or so, the sun's energy has been going down while the Earth's temperature has been going up," Hayhoe pointed out. "So it can't be the sun because if it was, we'd be getting cooler, not warmer."

[video=youtube;mQhAm3neMNc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQhAm3neMNc[/video]

the sun's strength is decreasing, while earth's temperatures are increasing

 

prove they are wrong.

they have a (*)(*)(*)(*)load of evidence and research on their side.

what you got?

 

Hehe...sure thing. Competant today, new information tomorrow. Always happens in the infancy of a study...which is exactly where we are on Planetary Climate Science.

- - - Updated - - -

Ive got the knowledge that knows we dont and cant have all the answers here. Simply impossible at our level of understanding. If you wnat to believe in fairy tales, more power to you and these "experts".

 

3 years of growth....with 34 years of shrinking before that.



- - - Updated - - -

^^^^^^ this is the textbook definition of baseless speculation

 

It's realism, and a lack or arrogance. Not surprised you didnt recognize it.


Heres an easy question. If we know so much about Planetary Climate.

How much C02 are we supposed to have in the atmosphere exactly. You know..to be a healthy climate for a Planet such as ours?

How much exactly?

 

you obviously don't understand how science works or that your comment is a logical fallacy

"Scientific knowledge is often transitory: some (but not all) of what we find is made obsolete, or even falsified, by new findings. That is not a weakness but a strength, for our best understanding of phenomena will alter with changes in our way of thinking, our tools for looking at nature, and what we find in nature itself. Any "knowledge" incapable of being revised with advances in data and human thinking does not deserve the name of knowledge."

—Jerry Coyne, Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible (2015)


“When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

—Isaac Asimov



The appeal to “science was wrong before”


The argument is that since science is sometimes wrong, the believer’s claim is as likely to be true as one supported by scientific evidence.

The flaw in the argument

Science is a series of provisional truths, backed by evidence, that are amended when better evidence is available. The key word here is “evidence”. In other words, we have a reason to suppose scientifically supported ideas are true. Contrast this with unscientific ideas, where there is rarely any rational reason to suppose they are true. Additionally, the scientific idea that was shown to be “wrong” was often not completely wrong: it often still had utility.

In reality, science has proved the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works. The appeal to “science was wrong before” is just a smoke screen to disguise the fact that the believer has no evidence for his claim. It does not follow that science should not be applied to evaluate claims, or that unscientific claims are likely to be true.

What they’re missing

As well as being a flawed argument, it also shows ignorance of how science works. Yes, science has been wrong, but the scientific method is self-correcting. And it is always scientists who have unearthed new evidence who do the correcting, never people who ignore the scientific method.

Ironically it also shows up the strength of science and the weakness of believer methods. For example, compare the way scientific errors are discovered and corrected, with what happens in, for example, astrology or alternative medicine. In those fields no errors are ever corrected for the simple reason that no one ever critically tests those beliefs to see if they even contain errors. Errors are a permanent feature of those beliefs. Error recognition and correction is a strength of science.

Examples

There are several versions of this fallacy. For example, believers often cite Newton being proven wrong by Einstein. Of course, Newton’s calculations are close enough for anything other than close-to light speed calculations – that’s why Newton’s formulae are used by NASA.

Alternative medicine proponents will often note that evidence-based doctors are sometimes wrong in their diagnoses, as if this means altie therapies work. Doctors are fallible and our knowledge is incomplete, but the evidence-based approach has led to huge advances and improvements in healthcare, unlike alternative treatments that have achieved virtually nothing.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/11/science_wrong.html

 

The question I posed to Ronstar is open to you as well.

 

Well it just so happens that 1979 was most likely a recent maximum for sea ice extent. We have data from the NIMBUS 5 satalite going all the way back to 1972,



Now NOAA, GISS and the rest of the alarmist crew will argue that the NSIDC data is better, fair enough. But if NOAA, GISS, CRU etc wont use old data to reconstruct sea ice before the NSIDC why do they use decades old uncontrolled weather station data from a heterogeneous of stations primarily at airports that were only installed for pilots to calculate lift in order to reconstruct a global average temperature going all they way back to the 19th century? And why do they still insist on using these reconstructions as opposed to modern satellite data?

It would seem that the alarmists are not very consistent on how hey use old data.

 

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

"The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.

The Earth is wrapped in an invisible blanket

It is the Earth’s atmosphere that makes most life possible. To understand this, we can look at the moon. On the surface, the moon’s temperature during daytime can reach 100°C (212°F). At night, it can plunge to minus 173°C, or -279.4°F. In comparison, the coldest temperature on Earth was recorded in Antarctica: −89.2°C (−128.6°F). According to the WMO, the hottest was 56.7°C (134°F), measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley).

Man could not survive in the temperatures on the moon, even if there was air to breathe. Humans, plants and animals can’t tolerate the extremes of temperature on Earth unless they evolve special ways to deal with the heat or the cold. Nearly all life on Earth lives in areas that are more hospitable, where temperatures are far less extreme.

Yet the Earth and the moon are virtually the same distance from the sun, so why do we experience much less heat and cold than the moon? The answer is because of our atmosphere. The moon doesn’t have one, so it is exposed to the full strength of energy coming from the sun. At night, temperatures plunge because there is no atmosphere to keep the heat in, as there is on Earth.

The laws of physics tell us that without the atmosphere, the Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is.

This would make most of the surface uninhabitable for humans. Agriculture as we know it would be more or less impossible if the average temperature was −18 °C. In other words, it would be freezing cold even at the height of summer.

The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.

If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?

One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.



Total Earth Heat Content from Church et al. (2011)

What can keep the energy in the atmosphere? The answer is greenhouse gases. Science has known about the effect of certain gases for over a century. They ‘capture’ energy, and then emit it in random directions. The primary greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapour, nitrous oxide and ozone – comprise around 1% of the air.

This tiny amount has a very powerful effect, keeping the planet 33°C (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. (The main components of the atmosphere – nitrogen and oxygen – are not greenhouse gases, because they are virtually unaffected by long-wave, or infrared, radiation). This is the second piece of evidence: a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere.

For our next piece of evidence, we must look at the amount of CO2 in the air. We know from bubbles of air trapped in ice cores that before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the air was approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). In June 2013, the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Hawaii announced that, for the first time in thousands of years, the amount of CO2 in the air had gone up to 400ppm. That information gives us the next piece of evidence; CO2 has increased by nearly 43% in the last 150 years.



Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

The Smoking Gun

The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths. In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:



Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

Summing Up

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up."

[video=youtube;5LvaGAEwxYs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LvaGAEwxYs[/video]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

 

totally unrelated question, and a silly diversion.

 

You, nor ANY scientist can answer the question on how much CO2 is normal for our atmosphere.

 

the vostok ice core data shows no time in the last 400,000 years that CO2 ppm has gone up this fast in such a short period of time.

and we do know that significant rises and decreases in CO2 ppm do corrolate with glacial events.

 

I have no confidence in "scientist" anymore. We have been told for years that the earth is running out of oil. According to the "scientist" when I was a kid, we should have been out of oil years ago. But nope, we have 100's of years left and that's just reserves that are currently recoverable. With more technology advances, there is even more available.

Then there is this little gem of an example in todays USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...placing-old-gas-pipes-reduces-leaks/71898584/

That's right folks, those brilliant scientist have done the research and concluded that "Replacing old gas pipes reduces leaks"

Just WOW, now that is cutting edge. Of course, if they would have just ask me(or pretty much anyone else who isn't a "scientist") I would have told them, "Yep, replacing 100+ year old pipes will reduce the leaking"

 

pay attention, it was already answered

what you don't have is an understanding of how science works

see comment number 34 if you really want to understand

 

I understand perfectly. These "scientist" depend on giving results that continue their funding. If they reported, "Everything looks good", then there would be no need for more research. Instead, they continue with the claims of a global disaster of one kind or another.

But continue to believe what you want. I'm in my 50's and don't really give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what condition the planet is in 100 years from now.

 

baseless conspiracy theory

- - - Updated - - -

so now ALL science is bad, and all scientists are liars?

lol!!!

 

just like i thought, you don't really want to understand science

 

Good job just adding in something I didn't say.

But as you like to trot out everytime you are losing an argument here, prove I'm wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not a matter of wanting to or not. I understand it just fine. Where does the money that pays these scientist a salary and for their research come from? Follow the money, it always leads to the truth.

 

i already demonstrated how you're wrong before you even posted your comment

 

So, you make up a total lie that I didn't post and claim it's a truth? Oh yea, you really proved me wrong there. Good job.

 

you can't seem to get anything right

i guess that's what happens when you refuse to read the truth

 

Present some actual truth and let it stand on it's merits. Unlike Al Gore and the rest of the alarmists.

But believe what you want. I'm done with you.