Arctic Sea Ice Has Grown - Women, Minorities and Al Gore Hardest Hit

[1 Patriot-of-many]

I used to think that you actually were smart up until you became a tool. Sorry for you. Good luck with that in your new station.

[LAGC]

A "tool" because I put more stock in what actual scientists have to say on the subject matter rather than the spin of some British tabloid rag?

Oo-kay.

[ltorlo64]

A "tool" because I put more stock in what actual scientists have to say on the subject matter rather than the spin of some British tabloid rag?

Oo-kay.

I am not sure that using Wikepedia as your source trumps a British tabloid. Seems about the same to me. When I was getting my degree I was taught that Wikipedia was about as trustworthy as someone's opinion.

[LAGC]

I am not sure that using Wikepedia as your source trumps a British tabloid. Seems about the same to me. When I was getting my degree I was taught that Wikipedia was about as trustworthy as someone's opinion.

The nice thing about Wikipedia is that you can go to the bottom of each article and examine the sources yourself, to verify accuracy.

There is no such mechanism with tabloids. It's 100% innuendo, nothing but opinion, with nothing but their say-so backing their words up.

[ltorlo64]

The nice thing about Wikipedia is that you can go to the bottom of each article and examine the sources yourself, to verify accuracy.

There is no such mechanism with tabloids. It's 100% innuendo, nothing but opinion, with nothing but their say-so backing their words up.

The bad thing about Wikipedia, and why we were not allowed to use it for research, is that it is unverified, you can find pretty much anything on Wikipedia. It is a lazy way to get information that cannot even be associated with research. There are no controls on it. At least the tabloid can be sued. Wikipedia is just sort of there.

[LAGC]

The bad thing about Wikipedia, and why we were not allowed to use it for research, is that it is unverified, you can find pretty much anything on Wikipedia. It is a lazy way to get information that cannot even be associated with research. There are no controls on it. At least the tabloid can be sued. Wikipedia is just sort of there.

Wikipedia is actually very good when it comes to most scientific topics, just like any other encyclopedia. It's mainly the political topics you have to be careful with, but even then they've been cracking down alot lately with locking down those pages and only allowing controlled edits. Most of the time, any sort of vandalism or questionable content insertion is quickly detected either by their bots or other registered users who can quickly revert a given page back to its last known legit version, before the bad edit. So 99% of the time when you view a given page, it's been vetted.

While it's true that you can't cite Wikipedia directly as a source for most college-level work due to its dynamic nature, it still serves as a great launching point for further research -- just reference the sources listed at the bottom of the article to verify legitimacy, and cite those sources directly. Our Cell Biology professor is a graduate student at one of our local universities and she says all the professors there have no problem using Wikipedia as a starting point for research. Just don't cite Wikipedia directly.

[alismith]

That statement can just as easily be turned on its head: "If people want to keep their heads stuck in the sand and believe climate change isn't happening, that's fine... let them have their fun. But when their ignorance results in more farmland becoming arid, shrinking crops, starving people -- it's time to quit fucking around."

Just sayin'.

Krupski didn't say that the climate wasn't changing. What he said was that the climate change that's happening is NATURAL. It's not man-made. We're between ice ages. We haven't reached the highest point in warming cycle yet. It'll take about another 2,000 years to get there, THEN the earth will be undergoing a period of climate cooling until we reach the next ice age.

Yes, the climate is warming.

No, it's not man-made; it's natural.

If it makes you feel better about "helping" the climate, then send lots of money to Al Gore. It won't stop climate warming, but it will make him feel better....

[LAGC]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ural-cycle.htm

[Krupski]

(1) Control for Mars' different seasons due to its longer orbit, and get back to us.

(2) I thought you were claiming before that the ocean WASN'T becoming more acidic? Now you're admitting that carbon is indeed being sequestered in the oceans?

(1) How do you detect "global warming"? You look at a record of past temperatures and then compare it to the current trend and see if it's staying the same, going up or going down, right?

Well, guess what? That's the same thing being done to determine that Mars (and all of our other planets) are warming. Mars orbit is the same as it's been since the beginning of mankind (and I'm sure well before). It's orbit has nothing to do with it's temperature history.

Mars is experiencing "global warming" just like earth is, and obviously the cause on Mars is not man-made pollutants which proves that earth's current warming trend isn't caused by CO2 either. Not to mention the fact that the slopes of graphs showing industrial carbon output and global temperature change do not match AT ALL.

(2) I never said the oceans were becoming MORE acidic, I simply said that carbon is sequestered in the oceans as carbonates and carbonic acid.

The latter (carbonic acid) really isn't even worth consideration, since it's vapor pressure is quite high (ever open a soda bottle?). The "carbonated" ocean water loses it's CO2 to the atmosphere very rapidly, only to be taken up be land plants or ocean plantlife and converted into oxygen.

I'm amazed how brainwashed you are about "global warming".... sheesh.

[LAGC]

(1) How do you detect "global warming"? You look at a record of past temperatures and then compare it to the current trend and see if it's staying the same, going up or going down, right?

Well, guess what? That's the same thing being done to determine that Mars (and all of our other planets) are warming. Mars orbit is the same as it's been since the beginning of mankind (and I'm sure well before). It's orbit has nothing to do with it's temperature history.

Of course it does. Mars has seasons twice as long as our Earth does, because it has a much wider orbit. You can't just cherry-pick two Earth years and say "Look! Mars is warming too!" without controlling for seasons.

Secondly, Mars isn't warming globally by any measure: http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...ng-on-mars.htm

As you should know, planets don't orbit the sun in perfect circles, sometimes they are slightly closer to the sun, sometimes further away. This is called orbital eccentricity and it contributes far greater changes to Martian climate than to that of the Earth because variations in Mars' orbit are five times greater than the Earth.

Furthermore, the whole planet is subject to massive dust storms, and these have many causal effects on the planet’s climate, very little of which we understand yet.

(2) I never said the oceans were becoming MORE acidic, I simply said that carbon is sequestered in the oceans as carbonates and carbonic acid.

The latter (carbonic acid) really isn't even worth consideration, since it's vapor pressure is quite high (ever open a soda bottle?). The "carbonated" ocean water loses it's CO2 to the atmosphere very rapidly, only to be taken up be land plants or ocean plantlife and converted into oxygen.

The problem is, as I've pointed out to you before, there is far more carbonic acid being constantly formed than is being "vented" out of the ocean naturally.

Seriously, read that National Geographic article in full and explain to me why this is happening if not due to carbon pollution in the atmosphere:

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/...acidification/

The oceans' pH levels are slowly but surely dropping. What is causing this, if not carbonic acid saturation and build-up over time?

[Krupski]

---clueless drivel deleted---

You're hopeless.

[El Jefe]

You're hopeless.

Duh.

[blacksheep]

You're brainless.

FIFY

[sevlex]

Still have your doubts? Come on out here and see Glacier National Park in northern Montana.

What's left of it, that is...

Ahem:

http://iceagenow.info/2014/08/glacie...ming-scotland/

[Oswald Bastable]

How ironic, someone so willfully ignorant of science calling people "stupid."

The stupid has reached critical mass...

[imanaknut]

I am supremely amused at how large some people's egos are to think that they are causing the climate to change. Sorry, the climate is in constant change, has been in constant change since the day the atmosphere was born long before man was, and will be in constant change long after man has wiped his butt from the planet.

Can we pollute, sure, but in the long run this planet has an amazing way of taking care of itself.

[LAGC]

You're hopeless.

So your answer to my simple question is crickets? Wow, that sure is convincing...

Nice to see you cede the argument, at least.

[LAGC]

Ahem:

http://iceagenow.info/2014/08/glacie...ming-scotland/

That has to do with a completely separate geological process called vertical crustal motion that has nothing to do with climate change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-gl...crustal_motion

But even that entry further down acknowledges the greater losses from Greenland and Antarctica: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-gl...global_warming

Far more ice being lost than gained globally, in any case.

[LAGC]

I am supremely amused at how large some people's egos are to think that they are causing the climate to change. Sorry, the climate is in constant change, has been in constant change since the day the atmosphere was born long before man was, and will be in constant change long after man has wiped his butt from the planet.

Can we pollute, sure, but in the long run this planet has an amazing way of taking care of itself.

Indeed it does. But if we want to maximize the time we share on this planet for millennia further, it would be conducive for us to not "shit where we sleep" so to speak.

We could be talking about the difference between Homo sapiens lasting thousands of years or only a few more hundreds.

But of course, we'll all be dead within 100 years, so what does it matter, right?

[Krupski]

So your answer to my simple question is crickets? Wow, that sure is convincing...

Nice to see you cede the argument, at least.

Nice job. You got me to jump back in.

OK, of course Mars has a different orbit than we have, it has a different axis tilt angle than we have. it's further from the sun, it has no magnetic field, it has virtually no atmosphere, it has dust storms, etc, etc...

But so what? The AVERAGE global temperature of Mars as well as the typical minimum and maximum seasonal temperature TREND is well known and recorded.

When you compare PAST averages (of Mars) to CURRENT averages, one can see that Mars is also slowly warming.

Obviously it's foolish and pointless to say "Ah HA Mars is warmer TODAY, therefore it is also experiencing global warming". I never said that and I doubt anyone else has either.

On earth, on Mars, on any planet you study TRENDS that occur over the course of years and decades to determine if the planet is warming or not.

And, Mars IS warming a little, just like Earth is. So are the other planets. The polar region of Uranus (which we can constantly observe because the planet it tilted 97.7 degrees on it's axis and points right at us) is showing a warming trend (NASA infrared data).

The sun itself has been acting strangely lately. There have been a lot of CME's, the sunspot cycle is quieter than it's been in a LONG time.

The sun, lately, has been acting differently than it has in centuries and yet it cannot POSSIBLY be the cause of earth's (and other planet's) global temperature trend changes, right Mr. Scientist?