Slashdot Mirror
Study Links Human Actions To Specific Arctic Ice Melt (sciencemag.org)
sciencehabit writes from a report via Science Magazine: Since at least the 1960s, the shrinkage of the ice cap over the Arctic Ocean has advanced in lockstep with the amount of greenhouse gases humans have sent into the atmosphere, according to a study published this week in Science. Every additional metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) puffed into the atmosphere appears to cost the Arctic another 3 square meters of summer sea ice -- a simple and direct observational link that has been sitting under scientists' noses. If current emission trends hold, the study suggests the Arctic will be ice free by 2045 -- far sooner than some climate models predict. The study suggests that those models are underestimating how warm the Arctic has already become and how fast that melting will proceed. And it gives the public and policymakers a concrete illustration of the consequences of burning fossil fuels. For instance, a U.S. family of four would claim nearly 200 square meters of sea ice, based on U.S. emissions in 2013. Over 3 decades, that family would be responsible for destroying more than an American football field's worth of ice.
yeah, it's porn
If greenhouse gases are truly a concern it is time to take nuclear seriously. As plenty of people on /. already know, our current reactors are based on nuclear submarine technology so there is cross pollination of ideas and techniques. However, there are plenty of alternative reactor designs such as pebble bed and molten salt reactors which are self modulating and are physically impossible to have a "melt down" or get into runaway situation. Similarly, there are plenty of ways to deal with waste that are safe and won't be disturbed for 100,000 years if we are willing to actually move forward and not get stuck in the same ruts we've been running in for the last 50 years. Nuclear is one of the few (if only) alternatives to oil that has the energy density to power a modern civilization like it or not. It's that or we continue to spew greenhouse gasses and in that case we should stop whining about it as we made our choice.
Think globally, act locally. Or individually.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
This.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Spoken like a true troll.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Um. Any one else see a problem with using surface area to describe a volumetric substance?
A) Gore isn't a scientist, and B) his statement was that "some models" predict it in summer months. For what it's worth the summer arctic sea ice extent did fall to half of the 1981 to 2010 average in 2012. (Middle of the road models may have been spot on...)
We're killing this planet and I don't know what to do about it.
Well, how hard are we killing the planet? Global warming is pretty mild stuff as such things go.
We're the only organisms on the planet that can't live in harmony with it (with the exception of maybe beavers).
Except for all the many, many other plants and animals that don't live in harmony with Earth either. Unlike the vast majority of plants and animals, we've actually figured out how to control our population (in the developed world, of course).
I know I'm not going to have kids for this reason.
There you go.
Artic ice melted and delivered at home via hurricane... Take that Amazon's drone.
Misquoting Al Gore is "funny" not "informative".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It's not that Koch pays so well, it's that Soros is overextended with the election.
I think that a better mark against this (TFS at any rate) is that they mention this:
For instance, a U.S. family of four would claim nearly 200 square meters of sea ice, based on U.S. emissions in 2013. Over 3 decades, that family would be responsible for destroying more than an American football field's worth of ice.
So we have a length and width, but no height. So say we assume a height of 1um...doesn't seem like much ice.
So which model is the accurate one?
Your pet moderators are here in force. Let the lying begin!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
If only your parents felt the same way.
The one that makes us the most money.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
A softer or broken ice pack across Northern Canada would open a great shipping channel from Atlantic to Pacific avoiding the Panama Canal.
And in related news, US spending on science, space, and technology correlates with suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation. http://tylervigen.com/spurious...
No no no. Its Botanogenic Global Warming. The plants are farming humans for food - waiting for them to die and decompose, using fungi and microbes to render them into digestible food. And they have selected for the strains of humans that produce the most CO2, since plants thrive on that stuff.
I, for one, am turning vegan right now.
Humans are a virus
Humans are mammals. Would have thought the tits were a dead giveaway.
Many of us think that human activity causes some **small** global warming (without warmunists' proposed multifold amplification claims) and some think that this small amount might be good in several circumstances, along with CO2 fertilization. Some expect global cooling to become evident by 2020 for a few decades or perhaps, centuries.
The things that coal needs to cleanup are aerosolized particulates, SOx, NOx along with heavy metals.
Arctic ice is floating and hence, unlike glacial and continental ice it has a limited range of total thickness - you can look it up. It probably varies less than the carbon footprint range of US families of four. This average family was chosen as a crude comparator, and you should take it as such.
...there is no intrinsic necessity that the arctic be iced over.
You are absolutely correct. Just like there is no intrinsic necessity that New Orleans, New York, and Miami are above water.
You forgot to mention the different arrangement of continents and lower solar flux levels. And the fact that higher oxygen concentrations would mean a lot more fires and more unhappy firemen. Oh, but you only pick the things you like, right?
Ezekiel 23:20
What's so difficult to understand about the process of learning?
This is what is happening to the arctic sea ice:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen...
the line is noisy so predicting the next year is always a crapshoot, but the one thing that isn't going to happen is that the trend will change.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Old joke:
Two planets meet:
"Hey, you look bad, what's the trouble?"
"Homo sapiens"
"Oh, don't worry, it will pass"
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So the Arctic ice will be gone, but this time we are prepared: This is precisely the reason we have a backup Gentlemen, we have the AntArctic.
What?
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
Arctic ice is floating and hence, unlike glacial and continental ice it has a limited range of total thickness - you can look it up.
Sorry, why didn't the writer of the article (or at least the summary here) look it up and quote it to us? The GP's point was that an area seems to be meaningless without a thickness being given (which his mention of 1um was surely meant only to highlight, not as a serious suggestion *). The same point brought me up short too when I read TFA.
* Technically, it is a Reductio ad absurdum, a valid debating tool.
What's selfish is those asshats who have more than two [children] (on purpose).
Bin Laden's father had 56. Bin Laden only had about 25 himself; such restraint.
Surely you are not suggesting that billionaire arabs should alter their lifestyle?
It increases the population relative to adopting two from an overpopulated region.
Flamebait is flamebait, no matter which side of the argument it is on.
(I won't call it "math"). This is exactly analogous to saying "five million penguin farts are unleashed every year. there are 300 million people in the USA. Therefore, over a 30 year period, a family of four is directly responsible for two penguin farts."
Whether life in general lives in harmony or not
My point is most life will consume as much resources and space as it can, they just don't have parking lots. They don't live in harmony any more than we do, they just don't have the same power to alter environments or transport themselves as we do.
I think it is clear, if we look ahead to a far future - say in 500 to 1000 years - we will either have found a way to live sustainably on this planet, or we will be in rapid, possibly catastropihic, decline.
I believe the developed world already figured that out. It's just a matter of spreading that knowledge to the rest of the world.
The Jurassic period. [...]
Yawn.
Stephan
They all are. Same basic physical laws underlying them, and the uncertainty has been on what humans will do with regards to emissions. The most optimistic scenarios would be that humans somehow drastically limit emissions, the next set of predictions is usually projections of current emissions levels, and the worst case tends to be "business as usual" where people completely ignore the issue.
But hey, thanks for being the problem.
What's that in square light years?
What's so difficult to understand about the process of learning?
The part where you call it "learning". Words have meaning.
You don't understand how modelling works.
Since it is usually impossible to predict the future of complex systems with perfect accuracy, instead you come up with a number of models based on different parameters, weighted by likelihood.
With climate change we have the added requirement of wanting to know what will happen if we make different amounts of effort to tackle it. Do nothing, do a little, do as much as we can without reducing quality of life etc. So there are multiple models based on those different assumptions of what we can agree to do.
We then look at all these models, weighted by likelihood and similarly to observed performance, and can see that they all say things will be bad, it's only a question of how bad.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So we have a length and width, but no height. So say we assume a height of 1um...doesn't seem like much ice.
Arctic ice floats, at any given point in the arctic there's either ice or water.
"One football field" less ice means "one football field" more water.
It's not difficult to understand.
No sig today...
Many would agree that the world would be better off if one of those cities was under water.
You don't understand how modelling works.
As a professional statistician, I say: "Right back at you".
Models make assumptions. They contain errors, which is to say, variance (Some climate scientists deny their models have 'errors' - ignore these). Thus, the models have what is frequently called a confidence interval, or margin of error.
As long as you made the correct assumptions, and those assumptions hold true for the entire predictive interval, then the predicted confidence interval is likely to contain the true value (dependent on the alpha chosen).
But the assumptions made by most predictive climate scientists aren't justified. They aren't verified, and frequently are proved incorrect in just a few years. Take the ever-changing value over the CO2 forcing value. Is it 1.1 W/m^2? Is it 8.5 W/m^2?
Many times, scientists manipulate data to make it easier to work with - rounding, eliminating outliers, ignoring measurement or proxy model errors, smoothing or averaging the data, even applying data from one location to other places hundreds or thousands of miles away. This violates your assumptions, and reduces the accuracy of your models.
In addition, some of the most famous predictions are based on pure bunk 'science' - such as producing a data set with mean and variance from just one observation.
Each model needs to have the methodology clearly explained, the data made available for everyone to access, and any supposed conclusions need to include accurate error bounds. If a released report doesn't include these, it isn't science - its PR.
The whole AGC platform is based on the premise that CO2 is the driver of global temperatures to a degree that makes all other sources infinitesimal in comparison, and its doctrine does not allow dissent from the premise.
The way science works in the real world is by comparing models to observations,and excluding the models that don't match the observations. The null hypothesis-- that the average temperature isn't warming-- is strongly excluded. So, if you want to propose that the effect is due to other variables: do the numbers. Make a model and show that it fits the data.
Right now, anthropogenic global warming is a model that fits the data. If you think it's wrong, find another model.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
It's easy to make up shit that supposedly Al Gore said that he didn't ever actually say, and post it as anonymous coward.
Citation needed.
And not a citation to "well, here's something he said that was kinda vaguely on the same subject, I just posted that completely made up quote as clickbait to get you to engage." You put it in quotations marks. Give me a cite to that quotation.
I'm also puzzled as to why deniers are so fascinated with Al Gore. He's not a scientist. The people discussing anthropogenic global warming don't cite him at all, only the deniers. In the question of the science, it really doesn't matter what he said.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The developed world has by far done and continues to do the most damage.
And by "damage" you mean? When I say damage, I mean actual harm now and in the future, not fantasy projections of the future based on exaggerated models.
For what it's worth the summer arctic sea ice extent did fall to half of the 1981 to 2010 average in 2012.
Good point. Here's a graph of Arctic summer ice extent: Fairly stable until 1995 and then it seems to have fallen off a cliff. 2016 isn't shown here but it was the second lowest value on record after 2012. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/n...
(Middle of the road models may have been spot on...)
In fact the IPCC report projected much less arctic ice loss than has occurred.
So.... there's been a relatively minor decrease in arctic sea ice over about 40 years since the late 1970's, a time when the exact same people screaming about Global Warming were claiming we were all going to die due to a new ice age?
Yes, I did see that the scale on that graph was intentionally changed to make the decrease look "scarier" than it actually is. I also noted that it started at a time of unusually high ice concentration to provide a false benchmark of what supposedly "normal" or not.
I'm not sufficiently terrified. Please go doctor up some more numbers.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
a time when the exact same people screaming about Global Warming were claiming we were all going to die due to a new ice age
Oh I see. You are what is technically known as "fucking knobhead".
SJW n. One who posts facts.
you can copy pasta this ignorant garbage all you want, on every GW thread.
but its still ignorant garbage.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
warmer polar regions = less ocean circulation.
less ocean circulation = more extreme climates. ie, if you live someplace cold, it's gonna get colder. live some place hot, its gonna get hotter. dry? drier. wet? wetter. ocean circulation is a gigantic moderator of planetary climate and weather.
and no, the NW Passage never existed with human memory, until now.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
"Another ice age?" - published in Time magazine 1974, with lots of quotes from scientists.
"the area of ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since"
"Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in the summer; now they're covered all year round."
One thing that has me perplexed reading these threads is that the "warmistas" don't really seem to base their opinion on actual science, or published facts. It seems they (you) have a belief that they're so sure is correct that any indication to the contrary must be a lie.
Now, it is true that the majority of published science predicted warming even in the 1970s, but it's also correct that there were some studies that predicted cooling. Luckily we're warmer now than then - or to quote the scientists in the Time article again:
"I don't believe the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."
source: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
it's in my head
"Another ice age?" - published in Time magazine 1974, with lots of quotes from scientists.
Out of interest are you one of the people that laughs at the popular press' poor reporting of tech related issues?
Global cooling was never more than a very much minority opinion among scientists. You'd know this if you were interested in actually what's going on rather than taking cheap shots based on two very old, thoroughly debunked popular press articles.
It seems they (you) have a belief that they're so sure is correct that any indication to the contrary must be a lie.
Says the guy quoting a "Time Magazine" article from 1974. Do you even listen to yourself?
Now, it is true that the majority of published science predicted warming even in the 1970s,
Yes.
but it's also correct that there were some studies that predicted cooling.
It was a minority opinion then and it rapidly became not even that. Science moves on. I love how you're pretending to be all sciency while cherry-picking minority opinions which have long since fallen out of the small favour they ever had.
"I don't believe the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row." source:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
That quote isn't in that article.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"Every additional metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) puffed into the atmosphere appears to cost the Arctic another 3 square meters of summer sea ice"
That's an absurd statement. They're trying to correlate volume to area. Doesn't work. What is the thickness of the 3 sq-meters that is melting? 1 molecule? 1 meter? 1 kilometer? 4 kilometers?
Sorry, but this is a nonsensical comparison. It is disinformation and propaganda. They need to stick with science.
That quote is in the Time article as linked from the page I gave you. As to why you felt you needed to repeat the information in the page I linked to back to me I don't know. Obviously I knew it quite well.
it's in my head
I'm not sure that one data point is a great way to understand the trend over time. This animation shows sea ice evolution since the 1980s. It's quite dramatic: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4510
Yeah, I got depressed as a teenager in the 1980s because the Russians and Americans were gonna blow the world up with nukes...
and then I grew up.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
What kind of damage has the developed world done and continues to do?
Well, looking at greenhouse gas emissions:
http://www.wri.org/sites/defau...
http://www.wri.org/sites/defau...
And looking at issues like deforestation, species extinction, and fresh-water pollution, it is overwhelmingly the transnational corporations originating in the developed countries and supplying the developed countries which have had the largest destructive effects cumulatively, and are continuing to do so.
I don't have time to source all of that for you, but you can look it up for yourself.
You need to understand that just because, say, we've cleaned up the litter on our city streets better, and that we TALK about environmental issues more than the rest of the world, does not mean we are doing better than them on the serious global environmental destruction factors. We are still doing way worse, especially if you rate it on a per person basis. Way way worse. Orders of magnitude worse.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
As to why you felt you needed to repeat the information in the page I linked to back to me I don't know. Obviously I knew it quite well.
Yet you don't seem to understand it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You're obviously living like an ostrich with its head in the sand, not like a pheasant.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
That's you confirming that you don't seem to be able to separate actual facts from your viewpoint of what you think they should be. I'm a regular reader of Skeptical Science, the IPCC reports, various journals etc. I even linked the very page that documents what scientific support there was for cooling vs warming in the 1970s.
With that said, the grandparent _was_ correct in that scientists claimed we might be heading back into glacial conditions ("ice age"), and that it would be catastrophic for human survival.
Your comment to the grandparent was to call him "fucking knobhead". I posted the relevant supporting facts.
Maybe you should try the latter instead?
it's in my head
Spoken like someone who has no damn clue how close he came to not growing up.
Unlike the vast majority of plants and animals, we've actually figured out how to control our population (in the developed world, of course).
It isn't even working in the developed world. The people who actually want the Earth to become like the city of Coruscant, or like in Soylent Green, only use the relatively stable numbers of the indigenous people of the West as an excuse to import immigrants. Unfortunately the people who want this tend to be the more influential - business magnates who want the short term cheap labour, and politicians who love bigger crowds listening to them.
With that said, the grandparent _was_ correct in that scientists claimed we might be heading back into glacial conditions ("ice age"), and that it would be catastrophic for human survival.
Hardly. The OP actually said this:
a time when the exact same people screaming about Global Warming were claiming we were all going to die due to a new ice age
Furthermore, saying "scientists" implies some sort of support, not strictly greater than one scientist. It was never more than a small minority opinion and never had anything like the scientific consensus behind it. Bringing it up continually is the deepest form of fuckwittery.
Your comment to the grandparent was to call him "fucking knobhead".
Yep. Bringing up what amounted to a tiny minority opinion and a couple of popular press articles as some sort of evidence against science makes him a fucking knobhead. I stand by that.
Maybe you should try the latter instead?
I've lost track of what you're trying to say. The GP was being a right dickhed. You've jumped in with facts supporting not what the GP actually said but some rather peculiar interpretation of what he said. Oh you also ignored the supporting facts I did in fact bring up in the previous post to the GP which he summarily ignored during his act of dickheaddery. I really no longer have any idea what point you're trying to make.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Take the ever-changing value over the CO2 forcing value. Is it 1.1 W/m^2? Is it 8.5 W/m^2?
The first order forcing of CO2 is 5.35*ln(C/C0)Wm^-2 . Not a lot of controversy there. You've given it as a constant without regard to relative C. Are you sure you understood what you were looking at?
Some of us grew up on tree farms and have always lived low impact lifestyles with renewables that made them carbon negative.
It's not hard.
There are simple things you can do. The easiest is make a run to Costco and buy up LED lights on sale, which literally saves you tons of dollars on your utility bill. The second easiest is replace your old fridge, washer, dishwasher, and dryer with modern Energy Star appliances (use your tax refund), which literally saves you tons of dollars on your utility bill. The third easiest is replace one of your cars or trucks with a modern plug-in electric car (which would still work when gasoline spikes to $10 a gallon and even today tends to cost about 1/10th the cost of buying gas (and has half the maintenance costs).
Did you notice that every single one of those things saves you money. So, why aren't you saving money? Seriously.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"Consensus" is not part of the scientific method.
In all your posts here you've managed to validate exactly what I described from the start. Those who scream most loudly (and use foul language to describe others) are the ones who know the least science.
it's in my head
Cherry picking long debunked results from at best a very tiny minority of scientists is even worse than using consensus. Remember, I'm only guilty of using foul language, you're using foul thinking which is infinitely worse.
And besides, consensus in practice is part of the scientific method. It's not the super simplified schoolboy version that non scientists like to spout, but in real science it's there. The consensus is that Newton's laws hold far from c, relativity works and that the standard model works. If you want to overturn the consensus, you need significant evidence because the consensus is itself supported by significant evidence. Consensus works surprisingly well and means scientists don't need to waste time on every crackpot theory that comes along.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Which each new post you continue to prove my original point. I suggest you call it a day.
consensus in practice is part of the scientific method. It's not the super simplified schoolboy version that non scientists like to spout, but in real science it's there.
vs
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." ... and no one "cherry picked" anything (let me guess - you spout random words in debates hoping that eventually you'll get something right?). The grandparent talked about the 70s. I quoted from one of the well known articles about it. Nothing in it has been "debunked" (again, random spouting of words) - the statements by the scientists in that article are as correct today as when they were written. Nothing was wrong with their observations.
Galileo Galilei
I don't think you've ever read a scientific article actually.
http://www.goodreads.com/quote...
it's in my head
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.",
Sure, but that requires a *reasoning* individual. The people here going against the consensus have political, financial or borderline religious reasons for doing so.
In practice, glib quotes aside, consensus does not exist in a vacuum. It exists because the edivence does not make it obviously wrong, and in fact supports it. That doesn't mean the consensus is right, but to overturn it, you have to have more or better evidence.
the statements by the scientists in that article are as correct today as when they were written. Nothing was wrong with their observations.
You know except their observations disagreed with the majority and then it turned out shortly that hey the majority were right and cooling wasn't happening. Apart from being wrong nothing was wrong.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Sure, but that requires a *reasoning* individual. The people here going against the consensus have political, financial or borderline religious reasons for doing so.
No, we were talking about the respected scientists having published peer reviewed papers with regards to global cooling in the 70s, as referenced and counted by Skeptical Science.
it's in my head
No, we were talking about the respected scientists
No, *you* are. You seemed to bring it up not in relation to the actual conversation which was going on..
Cooling was happening.
No it wasn't. Some people thought it was. But not many because as it turned out the data didn't support it. You are taking a not disregarded very much minority opinion and presenting it as fact all the while claiming you're being scientific. That is, frankly, laughable.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
But not many because as it turned out the data didn't support it.
Again, I'd urge you to read some actual climate science before spouting off your beliefs.
The following is a quote from IPCC TAR, Working Group 1:
Twentieth century temperature trends show a broad pattern of tropical warming, while extra-tropical trends have been more variable. Warming from 1910 to 1945 was initially concentrated in the North Atlantic and nearby regions. The Northern Hemisphere shows cooling during the period 1946 to 1975 while the Southern Hemisphere shows warming. The recent 1976 to 2000 warming was largely globally synchronous, but emphasised in the Northern Hemisphere continents during winter and spring, with year-round cooling in parts of the Southern Hemisphere oceans and Antarctica. North Atlantic cooling between about 1960 and 1985 has recently reversed. Overall, warming over the Southern Hemisphere has been more uniform during the instrumental record than that over the Northern Hemisphere. ... but I'm quite sure I could quote IPCC reports all day long and you'd still spout of random words about "debunking", "minority opinions" and other things you pick up at strange places (none of them even coming close to reporting actual science)
it's in my head
Well, looking at greenhouse gas emissions:
Exactly. The only thing that the developed world emits more of per capita.
And looking at issues like deforestation, species extinction, and fresh-water pollution, it is overwhelmingly the transnational corporations originating in the developed countries and supplying the developed countries which have had the largest destructive effects cumulatively, and are continuing to do so.
Exactly, these are issues of the developing world, caused by themselves. Just because it is the fad to find some way, no matter how contrived, to blame developed world countries, it remains that the developed world has in reality solved these problems.
You need to understand that just because, say, we've cleaned up the litter on our city streets better, and that we TALK about environmental issues more than the rest of the world, does not mean we are doing better than them on the serious global environmental destruction factors. We are still doing way worse, especially if you rate it on a per person basis. Way way worse. Orders of magnitude worse.
And you need to look at who's actually solving problems rather than spin tales.
The people who actually want the Earth to become like the city of Coruscant, or like in Soylent Green, only use the relatively stable numbers of the indigenous people of the West as an excuse to import immigrants.
You do realize that third generation immigrants have dropped to that developed world low fertility? Immigration from the developing world helps reduce overall population growth.
WTF.
Does that say anywhere that we're slipping into a new ice age, or even that the globe (i.e. aggregate air + ocean stored energy) was cooling?
Please read the post you're trying to defend before rabidly jumping to its defence.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Here you go again, spouting off words in the hope that you'll eventually get something right.
The topic was the scientists as quoted in the article in Time. They were not incorrect, they were not fringe, the findings they reported have not been "debunked".
(Why don't you read more of the actual science instead of just shouting off random things?)
it's in my head
Here you go again, spouting off words in the hope that you'll eventually get something right.
Are you claiming the ggggp didn't say that?
The topic was the scientists as quoted in the article in Time. They were not incorrect, they were not fringe, the findings they reported have not been "debunked".
Except you know the world wasn't cooling. Apart from that saying it was cooling was correct.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Except you know the world wasn't cooling. Apart from that saying it was cooling was correct.
I'm quite sure you believe your viewpoint to be true. I'd say your conviction borders on the religious kind, where no matter how much facts you're presented with you keep shouting your conviction louder and louder in the hope that it will drown out everything contrary to it.
I'll just repeat the previous post. They were not incorrect, they were not fringe, the findings they reported have not been "debunked".
Now please go read some climate science. Less posts, more study.
it's in my head
You are pretending that the ggggp didn't say that it was claimed we were slipping into an ice age, yet accuse me of being delusional.
You want me to read science, I want you to read the post you're actually defending.
SJW n. One who posts facts.