OT Antarctica gained more ice than lost

theyolksonyou

HeavyG said:

nolaegghead said:

hey, didchyaknow witches float?

So do very small rocks.

So don't try to weigh down witches with small rocks  

bgebrent

Lest they sink.

nolaegghead

...as will, inevitably, this thread.

JohnInCarolina

TATONKIN

Braggart

bgebrent

But through truth and life we must uphold the truth...  I'm really hoping to save on lump given climate change.

nolaegghead

@Braggart love that graphic.  SWMBO suggested I post it when I mentioned this clown show, I just forgot.  Thank you.

nolaegghead

theyolksonyou

bgebrent said:

But through truth and life we must uphold the truth...  I'm really hoping to save on lump given climate change.

This whole climate change thing is effing with my cold smoking plans.  Guess I'll have to plan on using an ice tray to lower from ambient. 

Fred19Flintstone

HeavyG said:

nolaegghead said:

hey, didchyaknow witches float?

So do very small rocks.

A witch once turned me into a newt!!!


I got better.

onedbguru

tbst said:

onedbguru said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Fred19Flintstone said:

There hasn't been one shred of proof other than computer models that man made global warming is occurring.  

Science doesn't deal with proof, but rather data.  As to what the data says regarding  measurements of mean global temperature.... yeah.

Except everyone knows they have been manipulating "the data" for decades.  The Earth has been known to go through warming and cooling cycles and we are using "data" for 130 years to say we are going to burn up. According to the "science" community, the Earth is millions of years old, so we take "data" the width of a pinhead on a line thousands of miles long to say the sky is falling.   Sheeessh!!! 

And now we are importing "greenhouse" gasses from India and China and forcing more restrictions on already overburdened businesses and industry out west. 

Since all the government data sets have been molested, can we at least see your data sets with substantiation for your claims? It is very easy to scoff off things people have spent millions of man hours working off with a swipe of the keyboard. 

I am astounded at the level of shrillness over the FACT (according to the chart) that the 130 year chart above has a variance of  < 1.5 degrees - cool and warm.  Maybe the warbling of the Earth around the Sun may have something to do with it.  The trajectory The problem with science is that it is hypothesis based on observation and we all don't know what we don't know.  

Getting back to OnTopic - food: Like the other "scientific fact" that eggs are bad for you, wait, no, eggs are good for you,  no ...

 Again.... SHEEESH!!!

Braggart

Global warming?

Someone forgot to tell Canada...

GATraveller

DMW said:

theyolksonyou said:

DMW said:

I think I'm gonna go post food pics on a political/science forum.

Wait! You people cook? 

No, I just search Google images.

You and Steven Raichlen

theyolksonyou

Whheeeeee sinking like a witch with a BIG rock in her pocket!

nolaegghead

onedbguru said:

I am astounded at the level of shrillness over the FACT (according to the chart) that the 130 year chart above has a variance of  < 1.5 degrees - cool and warm.  Maybe the warbling of the Earth around the Sun may have something to do with it.  The trajectory The problem with science is that it is hypothesis based on observation and we all don't know what we don't know.  

Getting back to OnTopic - food: Like the other "scientific fact" that eggs are bad for you, wait, no, eggs are good for you,  no ...

 Again.... SHEEESH!!!

If I may postulate from a perspective of assumption and ignorance that the scientific community specializing in using the scientific method for meteorological study, which I provide a description link for your convenience below, would collectively fail to notice and interpret and adjust their theory to "naw, nevermind" unless they had a consensus, and a very strong one at that.  In fact, there is a consensus, of which the physicists studying some of the more esoteric sub-atomic particle and quantum physics fields would be envious of.  They (physics and cosmologists) have much farther to go, obviously.

But from your lazyboy or whatever perch gravity holds you below, I do appreciate noticing that variance.  I'm sure volcanic ash and other natural phenomena would fail to explain it, and I would recommend for the sake of the planet you call them and let them know if you think they missed something.

edit: adding link of methodology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

SGH

Whats all of this nonsense? Global warming, moon landings, college basketball, butter milk in potatoes, more ice in the South Pole? Next y'all are going to try and tell me that someone makes a better cooler than Yeti for half the price.  Get real people

nolaegghead

I'll trust a consensus from a huge global community of scientists before I trust a politician with special interests.    But that's me trying to not be delusional.   Sorry if that offends anyone.  Boy scouts taught me to always be prepared.  If you prepare for something and you're lucky it doesn't happen, that's the best outcome.

Fred19Flintstone

Braggart said:

Global warming?

Someone forgot to tell Canada...

Your missing the point.  Colder and snowier weather than usual is a sure sign of global warming.  Wait for the liberal big thinkers.  They will confirm.

SGH

This thread has went the

Braggart

Fred19Flintstone said:

Braggart said:

Global warming?

Someone forgot to tell Canada...

Your missing the point.  Colder and snowier weather than usual is a sure sign of global warming.  Wait for the liberal big thinkers.  They will confirm.

nolaegghead

The point is Fred, and his ilk, like to see the world through the anecdotal viewpoint of what they can see, either in a picture, or in their immediate material world.  Like Inhofe holding the snowball as proof in a logical fallacy (fantasy really) that a snapshot of aberrant climate disproves an argument of global scientific study.  And there are people that fall for that.  Sadly.  Because they believe what they want to believe, what they are told to believe by others with an agenda moving at a much higher level.

However, the way the fallacy works with the visible material world, works the same with the supernatural where all the evidence is also anecdotal, yet not material or visible.

I'm just being reasonable.  Aberrant weather exists.  It does not disprove, as much as wishful thinking may go, much larger trends. 

Fred19Flintstone

nolaegghead said:

The point is Fred, and his ilk, like to see the world through the anecdotal viewpoint of what they can see, either in a picture, or in their immediate material world.  Like Inhofe holding the snowball as proof in a logical fallacy (fantasy really) that a snapshot of aberrant climate disproves an argument of global scientific study.  And there are people that fall for that.  Sadly.  Because they believe what they want to believe, what they are told to believe by others with an agenda moving at a much higher level.

However, the way the fallacy works with the visible material world, works the same with the supernatural where all the evidence is also anecdotal, yet not material or visible.

I'm just being reasonable.  Aberrant weather exists.  It does not disprove, as much as wishful thinking may go, much larger trends. 

I know what you mean, buddy.

Braggart

nolaegghead said:

The point is Fred, and his ilk, like to see the world through the anecdotal viewpoint of what they can see, either in a picture, or in their immediate material world.  Like Inhofe holding the snowball as proof in a logical fallacy (fantasy really) that a snapshot of aberrant climate disproves an argument of global scientific study.  And there are people that fall for that.  Sadly.  Because they believe what they want to believe, what they are told to believe by others with an agenda moving at a much higher level.

However, the way the fallacy works with the visible material world, works the same with the supernatural where all the evidence is also anecdotal, yet not material or visible.

I'm just being reasonable.  Aberrant weather exists.  It does not disprove, as much as wishful thinking may go, much larger trends. 

Begger

SciAggie said:

JohnInCarolina said:

Can we get back to the moon landing hoax?  There's no way we legit pulled that off, just based on this thread alone.

I'll learn not to read this thread while I'm taking a drink. 'Bout spewed it everywhere. By the way, I saw  a smart sounding YouTube that supports your statement.

ONE moon landing question.   Why have the plans for the BACKPACKS not been released or published?  You'd think in the 45 years or so SINCE, they'd have been improved enough to not 'risk' anything thru release of the drawing.

nolaegghead

nolaegghead

SGH

fishlessman

JohnInCarolina said:

Fred19Flintstone said:

There hasn't been one shred of proof other than computer models that man made global warming is occurring.  

Science doesn't deal with proof, but rather data.  As to what the data says regarding  measurements of mean global temperature.... yeah.

thank god we put an end to that global cooling trend in 1910 the earth would be 3 degrees colder, not 1 degree warmer

JohnInCarolina

onedbguru said:

I am astounded at the level of shrillness over the FACT (according to the chart) that the 130 year chart above has a variance of  < 1.5 degrees - cool and warm.  

We're not talking about heating up someone's living room here.   A mean temperature increase of a few degrees C for the entire planet requires a massive amount of energy.   Moreover, as is actually the scientific point behind this entire thread, the heating isn't evenly distributed.  

Braggart

JohnInCarolina said:

onedbguru said:

I am astounded at the level of shrillness over the FACT (according to the chart) that the 130 year chart above has a variance of  < 1.5 degrees - cool and warm.  

We're not talking about heating up someone's living room here.   A mean temperature increase of a few degrees C for the entire planet requires a massive amount of energy.   Moreover, as is actually the scientific point behind this entire thread, the heating isn't evenly distributed.