FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
One scientist's point of view about the melting ice caps

One scientist's point of view about the melting ice caps

(6:53) Cryosphere program manager at NASA, Tom Wagner, looks at the loss of Arctic sea ice, changes in Greenland and Antarctica.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1240 days ago)

No one is to blame for it... It is a natural phenominum, not man made!

ReplyVote up (226)down (196)
Original comment

No one is to blame for it... It is a natural phenominum, not man made!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: rossglory (1239 days ago)

can you show us your workings? and then explain why your findings are different to those of climate scientists.

ReplyVote up (210)down (219)
Original comment

can you show us your workings? and then explain why your findings are different to those of climate scientists.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1239 days ago)

have you checked out the no rise in temperatures last 16 or so years. Data rules over hypothesis

ReplyVote up (226)down (224)
Original comment

have you checked out the no rise in temperatures last 16 or so years. Data rules over hypothesis

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1238 days ago)

Which only shows that the 2 highest average temperatures in recorded history haven't both been within the last 16 years. It's a bit like suggesting the FTSE 100 isn't on an upward trend because it peaked 16-odd years ago.

If the last peak had been 5 years ago, you'd be saying that the earth has been cooliing for 5 years. In fact the only way you'd not be able to make these claims is if the average temperature increased inexorably every single year. That's not what the hypothesis says though.

ReplyVote up (221)down (213)
Original comment

Which only shows that the 2 highest average temperatures in recorded history haven't both been within the last 16 years. It's a bit like suggesting the FTSE 100 isn't on an upward trend because it peaked 16-odd years ago.

If the last peak had been 5 years ago, you'd be saying that the earth has been cooliing for 5 years. In fact the only way you'd not be able to make these claims is if the average temperature increased inexorably every single year. That's not what the hypothesis says though.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1238 days ago)

Well it peaked in 1998 in the recent history so its more like 16 years of dropping temperatures, ( ps warmistsas like to think that the pause starts from the top of this peak but it actually starts before the 1998 el nino) and of course they do use a running average either 13 or 37 months to smooth out the variation. but of course during the most recent interglacial there are 4 warm periods that were clearly warmer than today. btw you do expect a variation in the temperatures and occasional pauses, but the models runs do not came close to predicting a pause this long. If you like your 95% validation of data then those models runs should have totally disproved the conjecture

ReplyVote up (194)down (218)
Original comment

Well it peaked in 1998 in the recent history so its more like 16 years of dropping temperatures, ( ps warmistsas like to think that the pause starts from the top of this peak but it actually starts before the 1998 el nino) and of course they do use a running average either 13 or 37 months to smooth out the variation. but of course during the most recent interglacial there are 4 warm periods that were clearly warmer than today. btw you do expect a variation in the temperatures and occasional pauses, but the models runs do not came close to predicting a pause this long. If you like your 95% validation of data then those models runs should have totally disproved the conjecture

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1238 days ago)

It didn't peak in 1998, there was a peak in 1998 - two very different things.

In the last 16 years, global surface temperatures have increased but at a slower rate. It's the oceans that have been taking up the heat trapped by the billions of tons of CO2 we add every year to the atmosphere. LINK

Even if the oceans are not warming, and they are, then you'd have to explain where all that heat is going - because in reality, heat doesn't just vanish.

ReplyVote up (219)down (202)
Original comment

It didn't peak in 1998, there was a peak in 1998 - two very different things.

In the last 16 years, global surface temperatures have increased but at a slower rate. It's the oceans that have been taking up the heat trapped by the billions of tons of CO2 we add every year to the atmosphere. LINK

Even if the oceans are not warming, and they are, then you'd have to explain where all that heat is going - because in reality, heat doesn't just vanish.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1238 days ago)

Oh dear walter. learn how to read graphs, oh about alleged ocean take up. (almost zero data from below 2000m, the argo coverage is in its infancy and effectively zero ), can you give me a rational scientific and physics based reason why co2 should suddenly stop warming the surface and start warming the depths of the oceans hmmmn ? pure sophistry on your part but then again, what do you expect from cultists ?.

ReplyVote up (219)down (195)
Original comment

Oh dear walter. learn how to read graphs, oh about alleged ocean take up. (almost zero data from below 2000m, the argo coverage is in its infancy and effectively zero ), can you give me a rational scientific and physics based reason why co2 should suddenly stop warming the surface and start warming the depths of the oceans hmmmn ? pure sophistry on your part but then again, what do you expect from cultists ?.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1238 days ago)

I'm not a physicist, but I can give you a thought experiment.

Imagine a glass half full of cold water. You heat the glass at a constant rate from the top so the air heats first. At some point, the water will start to warm by taking the heat from the air, slowing down the rate the air is warming. Otherwise, where does the extra heat to warm the water come from? Or do you think if you keep on heating the air, the water will always remain cold?

You never answered me. We add billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Where does all that extra trapped heat go if it's not in the oceans?

ReplyVote up (195)down (195)
Original comment

I'm not a physicist, but I can give you a thought experiment.

Imagine a glass half full of cold water. You heat the glass at a constant rate from the top so the air heats first. At some point, the water will start to warm by taking the heat from the air, slowing down the rate the air is warming. Otherwise, where does the extra heat to warm the water come from? Or do you think if you keep on heating the air, the water will always remain cold?

You never answered me. We add billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Where does all that extra trapped heat go if it's not in the oceans?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1238 days ago)

Walter you assume that all this extra co2 is actually going to cause warming in the real world,which has many other factors to consider.

ReplyVote up (206)down (206)
Original comment

Walter you assume that all this extra co2 is actually going to cause warming in the real world,which has many other factors to consider.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1237 days ago)

Of course, that's what CO2 does - it traps heat. Or do you think CO2 sometimes can't be bothered and lets heat escape into space?

Also, why don't you put your second rate physics degree to use and explain to me why my glass of water example is wrong.

ReplyVote up (209)down (195)
Original comment

Of course, that's what CO2 does - it traps heat. Or do you think CO2 sometimes can't be bothered and lets heat escape into space?

Also, why don't you put your second rate physics degree to use and explain to me why my glass of water example is wrong.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1237 days ago)

well walter, I think you will note the the "pause",ps radiation isn't the only method of heat transfer in a gas. on the subject of heat water, have you ever tried to heat water using a blow dryer ?

ReplyVote up (215)down (214)
Original comment

well walter, I think you will note the the "pause",ps radiation isn't the only method of heat transfer in a gas. on the subject of heat water, have you ever tried to heat water using a blow dryer ?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1237 days ago)

I prefer a kettle to a blow dryer for heating water. It's faster. Why do you ask?

Also, you haven't explained yet where all that trapped extra heat goes if it's not in the oceans. A simple school physics explanation will do.

ReplyVote up (207)down (205)
Original comment

I prefer a kettle to a blow dryer for heating water. It's faster. Why do you ask?

Also, you haven't explained yet where all that trapped extra heat goes if it's not in the oceans. A simple school physics explanation will do.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1237 days ago)

Have you ever considered the idea that there actually may be no trapped heat ?.

ReplyVote up (221)down (214)
Original comment

Have you ever considered the idea that there actually may be no trapped heat ?.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1237 days ago)

you're a bloody twat and all you do is bullshite people for the heck of it.

ReplyVote up (230)down (197)
Original comment

you're a bloody twat and all you do is bullshite people for the heck of it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1237 days ago)

Explain, I'm all ears.

And why did you ask about the blow dryer?

ReplyVote up (186)down (196)
Original comment

Explain, I'm all ears.

And why did you ask about the blow dryer?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1237 days ago)

because the depths of the ocean aren't being warmed by the air above it

ReplyVote up (198)down (196)
Original comment

because the depths of the ocean aren't being warmed by the air above it

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1237 days ago)

Is that your level of physics?

ReplyVote up (198)down (191)
Original comment

Is that your level of physics?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1236 days ago)

No Walter, thats your level of idiocy, heat energy doesn't just disappear from the atmosphere, and appear at the bottom of the ocean. it has to travel through a medium (the ocean). and that process takes time (centuries).

ReplyVote up (218)down (209)
Original comment

No Walter, thats your level of idiocy, heat energy doesn't just disappear from the atmosphere, and appear at the bottom of the ocean. it has to travel through a medium (the ocean). and that process takes time (centuries).

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1236 days ago)

"Global warming caused by human activities that emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide has raised the average global temperature by about 1°F (0.6°C) over the past century. In the oceans, this change has only been about 0.18°F (0.1°C). This warming has occurred from the surface to a depth of about 2,300 feet (700 meters), where most marine life thrives." LINK

Is that slow enough for you?

ReplyVote up (215)down (190)
Original comment

"Global warming caused by human activities that emit heat-trapping carbon dioxide has raised the average global temperature by about 1°F (0.6°C) over the past century. In the oceans, this change has only been about 0.18°F (0.1°C). This warming has occurred from the surface to a depth of about 2,300 feet (700 meters), where most marine life thrives." LINK

Is that slow enough for you?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1236 days ago)

Goodness me Walter, Try thinking for a change instead of just repeating what is fed to you without critical analysis. Hint Transport of heat through still water is surprisingly slow. Submarine tactics are built around using isothermic layers, (confuses sonar)

ReplyVote up (215)down (203)
Original comment

Goodness me Walter, Try thinking for a change instead of just repeating what is fed to you without critical analysis. Hint Transport of heat through still water is surprisingly slow. Submarine tactics are built around using isothermic layers, (confuses sonar)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1236 days ago)

As far as I'm aware, the oceans are surprisingly unstill. The Gulf Stream moves at 4 miles an hour, that's walking pace.

ReplyVote up (184)down (205)
Original comment

As far as I'm aware, the oceans are surprisingly unstill. The Gulf Stream moves at 4 miles an hour, that's walking pace.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1236 days ago)

You get sideways currents but not vertical current transporting heat down.

ReplyVote up (189)down (208)
Original comment

You get sideways currents but not vertical current transporting heat down.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1236 days ago)

Wrong. The Gulf Stream is largely driven by the sinking of cold water in the northern hemisphere. The spinning of the Earth gets it moving from the Gulf of Mexico towards Europe, and when the warm Gulf water reaches Iceland, it cools, sinking down the world's largest underwater waterfall - so large it transports 15x all the rivers in the world!

Water salinity also plays a role - the more salty, the more dense the water, the more dense, the more it sinks. That's why scientists are worried the Gulf Stream could switch off as fresh water ice melts into the sea diluting the seawater - making it less dense so less will fall down the waterfall - the main driver that keeps the Gulf Stream turning. Same principle goes for water temperature. As you know, warm water is less dense than you.

It's actually more complicated than that, but I wouldn't want your head to explode. You should sue your science teacher for teaching you nothing.

ReplyVote up (175)down (179)
Original comment

Wrong. The Gulf Stream is largely driven by the sinking of cold water in the northern hemisphere. The spinning of the Earth gets it moving from the Gulf of Mexico towards Europe, and when the warm Gulf water reaches Iceland, it cools, sinking down the world's largest underwater waterfall - so large it transports 15x all the rivers in the world!

Water salinity also plays a role - the more salty, the more dense the water, the more dense, the more it sinks. That's why scientists are worried the Gulf Stream could switch off as fresh water ice melts into the sea diluting the seawater - making it less dense so less will fall down the waterfall - the main driver that keeps the Gulf Stream turning. Same principle goes for water temperature. As you know, warm water is less dense than you.

It's actually more complicated than that, but I wouldn't want your head to explode. You should sue your science teacher for teaching you nothing.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1236 days ago)

Walter, please learn to read properly, your reading comprehension is very poor , I said transporting HEAT down. ps when you think about it the Gulf stream travels 1000's of miles across the alantic bringing its heat energy with it.Surely you must marvel at how it maintains its integrity, ie how inefficiently it diffuses it heat to the surrounding water ?.Even when your trying to be clever you shoot youself in the foot, thank you for illustrating my point so effectively

ReplyVote up (196)down (197)
Original comment

Walter, please learn to read properly, your reading comprehension is very poor , I said transporting HEAT down. ps when you think about it the Gulf stream travels 1000's of miles across the alantic bringing its heat energy with it.Surely you must marvel at how it maintains its integrity, ie how inefficiently it diffuses it heat to the surrounding water ?.Even when your trying to be clever you shoot youself in the foot, thank you for illustrating my point so effectively

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1236 days ago)

If you need evidence to sue your science teacher for being so useless, just refer to your comments on BoreMe. I'm sure you'll win.

ReplyVote up (204)down (168)
Original comment

If you need evidence to sue your science teacher for being so useless, just refer to your comments on BoreMe. I'm sure you'll win.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1235 days ago)

HA!

ReplyVote up (201)down (202)
Original comment

HA!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1235 days ago)

Ok walter, give me a rational mechanism by which heated water from the surface is supposed to be transported to the depths of the oceans by currents,seeing as you've been at pains to point out that warmer and less dense water doesn't habitually sink. please be relevent and try to not go off into a cul de sac

ReplyVote up (198)down (183)
Original comment

Ok walter, give me a rational mechanism by which heated water from the surface is supposed to be transported to the depths of the oceans by currents,seeing as you've been at pains to point out that warmer and less dense water doesn't habitually sink. please be relevent and try to not go off into a cul de sac

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1235 days ago)

The water is circulating. The cold water that sinks today, is warmer than the cold water that sank yesterday - because the air is warmer.

ReplyVote up (207)down (184)
Original comment

The water is circulating. The cold water that sinks today, is warmer than the cold water that sank yesterday - because the air is warmer.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1234 days ago)

Walter if its warmer at the top, its going to be less dense, so its less likely to sink isnt it., remember it has to have higher density than the surrounding water to sink through it. Try again.

ReplyVote up (214)down (187)
Original comment

Walter if its warmer at the top, its going to be less dense, so its less likely to sink isnt it., remember it has to have higher density than the surrounding water to sink through it. Try again.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: WalterIgloo (1233 days ago)

how's this smarty pants? LINK

ReplyVote up (206)down (181)
Original comment

how's this smarty pants? LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1233 days ago)

walter, we both know cooler water sinks, PLEASE GIVE A MECHANISM HOW HEAING THE SURFACE OF THE OCEAN WILL CAUSE THE DEPTHS TO WARM ONLY WHILST BYPASSING THE REST IF THE OCEAN. (sorry for the capitals but hey, you are an expert at not reading the question properly)

ReplyVote up (218)down (190)
Original comment

walter, we both know cooler water sinks, PLEASE GIVE A MECHANISM HOW HEAING THE SURFACE OF THE OCEAN WILL CAUSE THE DEPTHS TO WARM ONLY WHILST BYPASSING THE REST IF THE OCEAN. (sorry for the capitals but hey, you are an expert at not reading the question properly)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: WalterIgloo (1233 days ago)

huehuehuehe, you're such a poopy head.

Have you watched the last episode of cosmos? your denialist base is starting to erode. oopsy....

huehuehuehuehue

ReplyVote up (206)down (169)
Original comment

huehuehuehe, you're such a poopy head.

Have you watched the last episode of cosmos? your denialist base is starting to erode. oopsy....

huehuehuehuehue

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1233 days ago)

Ah well never mind, walter is a moron anyway, so the socratic method wont work on him, too much sheer faith to question anyting, but I do love the rube goldberg overtones of the cagw propaganda, its so much fun taking the piss out of him.

ReplyVote up (204)down (179)
Original comment

Ah well never mind, walter is a moron anyway, so the socratic method wont work on him, too much sheer faith to question anyting, but I do love the rube goldberg overtones of the cagw propaganda, its so much fun taking the piss out of him.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (1233 days ago)

Ooh, what did I miss? Haven't been following but saw the namecalling in the new comments on the main page and thought 'ooh Originalmad must have lost another argument, better go check it out..'

ReplyVote up (196)down (172)
Original comment

Ooh, what did I miss? Haven't been following but saw the namecalling in the new comments on the main page and thought 'ooh Originalmad must have lost another argument, better go check it out..'

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: WalterIgloo (1233 days ago)

aaa ha ha ha ha ha ha!! you are so right :))) originalmad is a poopy head.

ReplyVote up (206)down (146)
Original comment

aaa ha ha ha ha ha ha!! you are so right :))) originalmad is a poopy head.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1233 days ago)

I was trying to get walter to disuss the missing heat "hiding" in the depths of he ocean ,and how it was supposed to get there wthout being detected on he way down, but unfortunately walter as per usual when faced with a logical challenge to his quasi religeous belief resorts to insults, Ah well never mind

ReplyVote up (195)down (171)
Original comment

I was trying to get walter to disuss the missing heat "hiding" in the depths of he ocean ,and how it was supposed to get there wthout being detected on he way down, but unfortunately walter as per usual when faced with a logical challenge to his quasi religeous belief resorts to insults, Ah well never mind

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: WalterIgloo (1233 days ago)

Oh dear oh dear mister smarty pants, you think you're so smart. Now mister WalterEgo saw a video on boreme that explained what he was trying to tell you, but he can't find it anymore and that's what you're betting on. Oh dear, of course, you allready know what he's taking about because you're so smart mister smarty pants, but your mistake is that you think everyone else is "simple" and this assumption makes you a poopy head, mister smarty pants.

Oh dear oh dear, I've loked in walter's comments and i don't see him saying anything about "heat hiding in the depths of the oceans", oh dear that's just you trying to make him look bad because you lost the argument on climate chage since... 1960.

Oh dear oh dear, have you seen tha last episode of cosmos? do you feel confident standing on your denialist base? but i digress.

Oh dear, here's a video that might make you comprehend the basic physics that walter was talking about LINK . I hope it is not too dificult for you to understand this concept.

Oh dear, you should stop acting like a poopy head, mister smarty pants. it is not a very nice thing to do.

ReplyVote up (187)down (175)
Original comment

Oh dear oh dear mister smarty pants, you think you're so smart. Now mister WalterEgo saw a video on boreme that explained what he was trying to tell you, but he can't find it anymore and that's what you're betting on. Oh dear, of course, you allready know what he's taking about because you're so smart mister smarty pants, but your mistake is that you think everyone else is "simple" and this assumption makes you a poopy head, mister smarty pants.

Oh dear oh dear, I've loked in walter's comments and i don't see him saying anything about "heat hiding in the depths of the oceans", oh dear that's just you trying to make him look bad because you lost the argument on climate chage since... 1960.

Oh dear oh dear, have you seen tha last episode of cosmos? do you feel confident standing on your denialist base? but i digress.

Oh dear, here's a video that might make you comprehend the basic physics that walter was talking about LINK . I hope it is not too dificult for you to understand this concept.

Oh dear, you should stop acting like a poopy head, mister smarty pants. it is not a very nice thing to do.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1233 days ago)

Ahem I know the physics thank you, and if you and walter knew anything about climate scence you will have heard of Kevin Trenberth.whos theory it is that the missing heat (the pause remember) is going into the depths below 2000m (simply because he cant find it anywhere else), but someone who seems to be relying on Bill Nye the science guy to give him his ahem "facts" is someone who definitely needs his head examined. Over and out.

ReplyVote up (214)down (172)
Original comment

Ahem I know the physics thank you, and if you and walter knew anything about climate scence you will have heard of Kevin Trenberth.whos theory it is that the missing heat (the pause remember) is going into the depths below 2000m (simply because he cant find it anywhere else), but someone who seems to be relying on Bill Nye the science guy to give him his ahem "facts" is someone who definitely needs his head examined. Over and out.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: WalterIgloo (1233 days ago)

Oh dear oh dear mister smarty pants. I'm so glad Bill Nye helped you understand how basic physics works. Honestly i couldn't find anyone else who could explain it better to you in such a way that is not beyond your comprehension.

Oh dear oh dear, perhaps we should all start reading all the topics being debated on the climate change blogs, forums and websites (such as realclimate.org) as if it were our JOB to learn everything there is about climate change/climate change denial, and comment on other sites such as boreme with a tone of arogance whilst claiming to be of superior intelect and superior knowledge on the topic, in an attempt to combat the ones who are doing the same thing but for the oposite reason, the goal being to convince people that climate change is a conspiracy set in place by the iluminati at the IPCC.

Oh dear oh dear, it was time for your nappy time anyway mister poopy head. Sweet dreams! don't let the bedbugs bite.

ReplyVote up (192)down (161)
Original comment

Oh dear oh dear mister smarty pants. I'm so glad Bill Nye helped you understand how basic physics works. Honestly i couldn't find anyone else who could explain it better to you in such a way that is not beyond your comprehension.

Oh dear oh dear, perhaps we should all start reading all the topics being debated on the climate change blogs, forums and websites (such as realclimate.org) as if it were our JOB to learn everything there is about climate change/climate change denial, and comment on other sites such as boreme with a tone of arogance whilst claiming to be of superior intelect and superior knowledge on the topic, in an attempt to combat the ones who are doing the same thing but for the oposite reason, the goal being to convince people that climate change is a conspiracy set in place by the iluminati at the IPCC.

Oh dear oh dear, it was time for your nappy time anyway mister poopy head. Sweet dreams! don't let the bedbugs bite.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1232 days ago)
Latest comment:

So you dont know who Dr kevin trenberth is eiither, Hmmmmmn, but you see our walter is someone who likes to repeat stuff he gets off liberal progressive sites (the ones ones that start by saying aren't these (people who know the difference between speculation and theory and have heard of error bars) stupid deniers etc), and he is quite dogmatic in his beliefs and has an almost genius level uy misunderstanding the question . have fun. but i laugh at prople like that and on both sides.

ReplyVote up (152)down (175)
Original comment
Latest comment:

So you dont know who Dr kevin trenberth is eiither, Hmmmmmn, but you see our walter is someone who likes to repeat stuff he gets off liberal progressive sites (the ones ones that start by saying aren't these (people who know the difference between speculation and theory and have heard of error bars) stupid deniers etc), and he is quite dogmatic in his beliefs and has an almost genius level uy misunderstanding the question . have fun. but i laugh at prople like that and on both sides.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1233 days ago)

Try Google.

ReplyVote up (167)down (178)
Original comment

Try Google.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1240 days ago)

The part where the narriator talks about the importance of the ice for its reflectivity, does that really matter? It is in the polar regions and there is less sunlight there and that is why it is cold there to begin with. If all that ice was gone, how much additional solar radiation would remain on the planet instead of being reflected back to space considering the location of where that ice is? I suspect is has very little impact.

If that ice was on the equator, I can understand how the reflectivity of it can make a difference but it's not there, it's in the polar regions as far from the equator as you can go.

ReplyVote up (199)down (189)
Original comment

The part where the narriator talks about the importance of the ice for its reflectivity, does that really matter? It is in the polar regions and there is less sunlight there and that is why it is cold there to begin with. If all that ice was gone, how much additional solar radiation would remain on the planet instead of being reflected back to space considering the location of where that ice is? I suspect is has very little impact.

If that ice was on the equator, I can understand how the reflectivity of it can make a difference but it's not there, it's in the polar regions as far from the equator as you can go.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (1239 days ago)

There are a number of reasons why the polar regions are colder, one being that the ice reflects solar radiation. That shouldn't really need explaining. Google Albedo, if you do want to learn about it.

In the summer there is almost 24 hr daylight there. Do you really think that is an insignificant amount of solar radiation, nothing to worry about?

ReplyVote up (205)down (149)
Original comment

There are a number of reasons why the polar regions are colder, one being that the ice reflects solar radiation. That shouldn't really need explaining. Google Albedo, if you do want to learn about it.

In the summer there is almost 24 hr daylight there. Do you really think that is an insignificant amount of solar radiation, nothing to worry about?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1239 days ago)

Its also coming in at a low incident angle the energy flux per unit area is proportional to the sin of that angle google that also if you want to learn about it . There is also reflection at low angles as I've already pointed out

ReplyVote up (168)down (155)
Original comment

Its also coming in at a low incident angle the energy flux per unit area is proportional to the sin of that angle google that also if you want to learn about it . There is also reflection at low angles as I've already pointed out

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1240 days ago)

additionally water is reflective at low incident angles anyway

ReplyVote up (152)down (182)
Original comment

additionally water is reflective at low incident angles anyway

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1240 days ago)

And David Suzuki is now part of the problem. He stopped the building of a dam which would have created a large lake with even more reflectivity. We are all doomed because of Suzuki.

ReplyVote up (191)down (175)
Original comment

And David Suzuki is now part of the problem. He stopped the building of a dam which would have created a large lake with even more reflectivity. We are all doomed because of Suzuki.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1239 days ago)
ReplyVote up (200)down (184)
Original comment
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1239 days ago)

Another load of crap coming from you. It's a comedian that you linked to, not a scientific paper. He says you cannot use a survey to debate fact but the fact he says came from a survey of 1000 papers. Then during the debate, you only hear the denier and none of the scientists so there was no scientific evidence presented anywhere.

Speaking of fact, it was a fact that the earth was flat, that god exists, and the best cure for things was to apply leeches. Somehow those are no longer facts today. Any scientific fact should be able to stand up to numerous debates but the one about anthropological global warming does not. The media just makes fun of people that ask the hard questions and doesn't attempt to answer those questions.

ReplyVote up (175)down (176)
Original comment

Another load of crap coming from you. It's a comedian that you linked to, not a scientific paper. He says you cannot use a survey to debate fact but the fact he says came from a survey of 1000 papers. Then during the debate, you only hear the denier and none of the scientists so there was no scientific evidence presented anywhere.

Speaking of fact, it was a fact that the earth was flat, that god exists, and the best cure for things was to apply leeches. Somehow those are no longer facts today. Any scientific fact should be able to stand up to numerous debates but the one about anthropological global warming does not. The media just makes fun of people that ask the hard questions and doesn't attempt to answer those questions.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1239 days ago)

science doesn't stand up to numerous religious debates. The religous leaders will always favor their point of view, regardless of the facts. Earth being 14 billion years old doesn't stand up as fact to a bible thumper, because the bible says so.

human caused Climate change is fact, but it doesn't stand up to climate deniers because... they're just plain stupid.

Now Skeptics i can uderstand. They don't think that human caused climate change doesn't exist, they just think that it's not as dangerous as presented and they think that there are better and cheaper solutions than cap and trade.

But you my friend, are a sectant and nobody can convince you of anything regarding climate chage no matter how much evidence they bring forth, because your stupidity is your religion and you will proababbly blow yourself up before admiting defeat, which is why you should be ignored.

You see, the skepitc and the denialist points of view are all sponsored by rich and powerfull people who don't want cap and trade. The skeptic point of view catches on to educatd people, whilst the denialist point of view catches on to people who are plain retared such as yourself. You might as well start yelling Allahu Akbar around the house for no particular reason and your IQ would improve.

ReplyVote up (185)down (171)
Original comment

science doesn't stand up to numerous religious debates. The religous leaders will always favor their point of view, regardless of the facts. Earth being 14 billion years old doesn't stand up as fact to a bible thumper, because the bible says so.

human caused Climate change is fact, but it doesn't stand up to climate deniers because... they're just plain stupid.

Now Skeptics i can uderstand. They don't think that human caused climate change doesn't exist, they just think that it's not as dangerous as presented and they think that there are better and cheaper solutions than cap and trade.

But you my friend, are a sectant and nobody can convince you of anything regarding climate chage no matter how much evidence they bring forth, because your stupidity is your religion and you will proababbly blow yourself up before admiting defeat, which is why you should be ignored.

You see, the skepitc and the denialist points of view are all sponsored by rich and powerfull people who don't want cap and trade. The skeptic point of view catches on to educatd people, whilst the denialist point of view catches on to people who are plain retared such as yourself. You might as well start yelling Allahu Akbar around the house for no particular reason and your IQ would improve.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1238 days ago)

sat, well done. I think you just given a fantastic validation of guest123456789's point.

ReplyVote up (201)down (175)
Original comment

sat, well done. I think you just given a fantastic validation of guest123456789's point.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1238 days ago)

you must have failed to realise that it goes both ways.

I can call him a religious nut the same way he can.

I forget, do you think of yourself as a skeptic or a denialist?

ReplyVote up (192)down (163)
Original comment

you must have failed to realise that it goes both ways.

I can call him a religious nut the same way he can.

I forget, do you think of yourself as a skeptic or a denialist?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1238 days ago)

I think you missed the point. Did guest123456789 say at anytime that he personally was religious? er no. Ps you can think of me as someone who has far education in maths, physics and chemistry than you will ever have . Does that help?

ReplyVote up (180)down (154)
Original comment

I think you missed the point. Did guest123456789 say at anytime that he personally was religious? er no. Ps you can think of me as someone who has far education in maths, physics and chemistry than you will ever have . Does that help?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1238 days ago)

denialist it is then, meaning your opinion is irrelevant.

And i thought you said once that you were a skeptic.

ReplyVote up (198)down (135)
Original comment

denialist it is then, meaning your opinion is irrelevant.

And i thought you said once that you were a skeptic.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1238 days ago)

Ah another ilogical jump by sat, my my your doing well today.

ReplyVote up (172)down (135)
Original comment

Ah another ilogical jump by sat, my my your doing well today.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1238 days ago)

empirical evidence shows i'm right.

there's no point in arguing with your lot.

ReplyVote up (188)down (169)
Original comment

empirical evidence shows i'm right.

there's no point in arguing with your lot.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1240 days ago)

THE ICE is melting!

THANK YOU OBAMA!

ReplyVote up (206)down (200)
Original comment

THE ICE is melting!

THANK YOU OBAMA!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Realist (1240 days ago)

Obama had nothing to do with this. The Republicans are the climate deniers. Remember Dubyah's opponent Al Gore? He was pushing that climate change is a real issue, in fact he won the popular vote, but the Electoral system is flawed so he lost. If you really want to blame anybody, blame Henry Ford.

ReplyVote up (199)down (195)
Original comment

Obama had nothing to do with this. The Republicans are the climate deniers. Remember Dubyah's opponent Al Gore? He was pushing that climate change is a real issue, in fact he won the popular vote, but the Electoral system is flawed so he lost. If you really want to blame anybody, blame Henry Ford.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1240 days ago)

Bah! bollocks!

Everyone knows it's that muslim OBAMA's fault.

climate change wasn't even real before Obama.

Black people can't do anything right.

ReplyVote up (184)down (155)
Original comment

Bah! bollocks!

Everyone knows it's that muslim OBAMA's fault.

climate change wasn't even real before Obama.

Black people can't do anything right.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1240 days ago)

One wonders how old this video is, the arctic has recoverd considerably in the last two years.and the antarctic is breaking satelite records (since 1979) It appears the arctic ice levels are tied very much to the amo and pdo, and they have both been in theire positive phase in the last 30 years

ReplyVote up (175)down (175)
Original comment

One wonders how old this video is, the arctic has recoverd considerably in the last two years.and the antarctic is breaking satelite records (since 1979) It appears the arctic ice levels are tied very much to the amo and pdo, and they have both been in theire positive phase in the last 30 years

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1239 days ago)

You should love this because it has Bjorn Lomborg in it LINK

I found it very interesting.

ReplyVote up (198)down (183)
Original comment

You should love this because it has Bjorn Lomborg in it LINK

I found it very interesting.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1239 days ago)

Adapting to the enviroment is far easier and wise than try to stop it in its tracks,as demonstrated by cnut, . But again even this is a little out of date. the picture has changed.

ReplyVote up (177)down (184)
Original comment

Adapting to the enviroment is far easier and wise than try to stop it in its tracks,as demonstrated by cnut, . But again even this is a little out of date. the picture has changed.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (1239 days ago)

Don't actually know anything about Cnut, do you? A quick search will sort that out..

ReplyVote up (187)down (150)
Original comment

Don't actually know anything about Cnut, do you? A quick search will sort that out..

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1239 days ago)

About the fact he was making a point about NOT being able to command the tides because it was in the realm of god

ReplyVote up (156)down (189)
Original comment

About the fact he was making a point about NOT being able to command the tides because it was in the realm of god

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
It's Okay To Be Smart - Talk with your inner climate conscience
It's Okay To Be Smart - Talk with your inner climate conscience
TYT - One of the worst wildfires in California history
TYT - One of the worst wildfires in California history
Tropical forests now emit more CO2 than all US cars and trucks combined
Tropical forests now emit more CO2 than all US cars and trucks combined
David Pakman - Oceans are acidifying
David Pakman - Oceans are acidifying
Antarctica just lost another huge piece of ice
Antarctica just lost another huge piece of ice