It has been noted by the likes of Gavin Schmidt. On the other hand, if you look at the satellite records from the University of Alabama Huntsville and Dr. Roy Spencer, you'll find that overall trend this decade has been downward.
Actually, Schmidt is one of the guys who backs NASA and has, and is arguing the exact opposite. Also check Lucia's Blackboard (Lucia by the way is in the middle of the road on the issue -- she believes the Earth is warming but seems to believe that Schmidt, Hansen, Jones, Mann et al have overstated the strength of their evidence, understated and downplayed evidence against their case and (at least with respect to the Climategate emails) perverted the scientific process. Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. is another one like Lucia -- I highly recommend his book, "The Climate Fix." Dr. Robert Carter explains things even you might be able to understand in "
Climate: The Counter-Consensus".
You can say it all you want -- the facts are that you're incorrect. Just look at the overhead photos and you will see that the Antarctica ice cover has grown overall.
I don't know if you listened last time, but I did look at pictures, you know, from those apparent losers at NASA. God, now do morons get jobs like that... You are completely correct, all the information I have seen is completely wrong. The East Antarctica Ice Sheet has grown in mass every year from 1992-2003 (satellite radar measurements) presumably due to increased snowfall. Of course, the detailed situation is more complicated: The areas near the Antarctic Peninsula are warming slightly while the other side of the continent has generally cooled and while one ice shelf has collapsed, other ice shelves have grown. Lots of coverage on this at the Air Vent, Climate Audit, Watt's Up With That, etc.
Oh and changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet appear to be due more to changes in the gulfstream flow. If that last sentence means that you don't know that the oceanic currents are affected by the climate change, you need to stop arguing right now and pick a different subject somewhere else. If I need to explain to you how, this affects it, I mean really? Really? I don't care what major you hold or how long you have worked in any field. Ignorance is ignorance.
Not to point out that you are wrong but you are -- actual scientific data proves this. Again, see the satellite record from UAH.
This is where I would have to say that we would compare pictures, yours from the University of Alabama, and the ones I have seen from NASA. I guess that all on why you would want to believe.
You should take your own advice. I'll see your BS in Biotech from WPI and raise you with a MS in Applied Physics from JHU and 20 years of scientific and engineering analysis. Of course, we're both trumped by Dr. Hal Lewis who is only Emeritus Professor of Physics at UCSB and resigned from the APS over their participation in the AGW fraud.
Don't forget about Setphen Hawking, if you want to talk about Physics guys, you can't leave out the guy on the top of the food chain. Who, by the way just happens to support climate change. Of course again, this just all goes with who you choose to believe. You might get some support from Dr. Gavin Schmidt since he's the one who publishes the ivory tower pronouncements about "warmest year in XXXX" but I'll just have to point out his doctorate is in computer science, not physics.
No but all you can quote are "decarbonization" schemes as if carbon was some evil little element.
Carbon is not, the gas CO2, is bad in large quantities. The more of it there is, the worse the impact will be. If you want to talk about a need for sustainable energy, I'll be with you as that's a genuine national security and economic need, but if you keep talking about decarbonization as some magic remedy like Al Gore then you're lumped in with the anti-science Greens in my book.
Yeah, I guess looking at the geologic records would be ignorant to you.
Nope, but, apparently you didn't read what I said earlier, or understand what the arguement of climate change is. Archaeological evidence from the vineyards in Greenland and Great Britain would also be "ignorant shit". The Medieval Warming Period has been well-documented for centuries -- until Michael Mann tried to rewrite history.
HHmmm what was the arguement again, was it that climate changes have never happened? Was it that nothing has ever been different in the past and a climate change will be something new? Um, nope. It was that we are changing it faster with our influence. Keep to the actual arguement. I'll leave it to you to try to grow grapes in Greenland now since you think things are
SO warm.
By the way, making comments like that show how little you must actually know about all of it. You keep to certain points of the climate change arguement and run with it. "Its really cold so climate change must be a fake!" I don't need to tell you comments like that are completely ignorant do I? Or... do I?
You keep talking about ignorance yet you know NOTHING about the geological or historical records?
You just don't get the point do you. The climate has changed, yes (have I lost you yet?) it has changed slowly over time (still there?). The arguement is that we are changing it much faster than it would change naturally. Just what the heck do they teach "biotechnology" majors these days? You want a good argument but you come into this without having actually looked into the science behind the crap you spout?
With the few things you have spouted out, it is quite the opposite from what I see. Guys like you are why Mike Mann, Phil Jones and Gavin Schmidt have been able to get away with the massive fraud they've been spreading.
You remind me in ways of the people that think the moon landing was a hoax. Your arguements are kinda amusing.
You can find copies of the historical record (before Gavin Schmidt "adjusted" it) documented at Climate Audit and The Air Vent.
As you say, if you're going to argue, try to do it intelligently.
<-- I still keep to that and you still didn't get what I said earlier. So far, all you do is spout "False!" "You're ignorant" and other ad hominems. I've given you sources -- now go use that WPI degree and look some of them up.
Sad, I exptected someone with a physics degree to have a better understanding of something before he argued.
Originally Posted by spyder
Reply With Quote
