NASA: Polar Ice Hasn’t Receded Since 1979
NASA has updated its data from satellite readings, revealing that the planet’s polar ice caps have not retreated significantly since 1979, when measurements began.
truthandaction.org/nasa-polar-ice-hasnt-receded-since-1979/2/
Comments
-
this might just be the cheesiest bullshit anyome has ever poasted here.
INFOWARS IS YOUR SOURCE'S SOURCE?! -
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2256/
The sea ice cap of the Arctic appeared to reach its annual maximum winter extent on Feb. 25, according to data from the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado, Boulder. At 5.61 million square miles (14.54 million square kilometers), this year’s maximum extent was the smallest on the satellite record and also one of the earliest.
http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/PolarIce/polar_ice2.php
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum
Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.
HTH -
-
I like to argue changes of 0.18% (on a measure accuracy of I'm sure something like +/-5% )constitute a crisis and proof of the world ending in 20 years. Especially with ice expanding in both the Arctic and Antarctic and retreating in the Arctic and Antarctic depending on the location.
To put the data (and including the most recent data) in perspective...
(also note the most recent data has the overall Global Total Sea Ice Coverage 13-month trailing average over the historical 25 year average...so HondoFS GFY).
(I love this picture...effin funny).
-
My cock hasn't receded for 8 hours. Should I call Al Gore?
-
Only if you are into that sort of thingPurpleJ said:My cock hasn't receded for 8 hours. Should I call Al Gore?
-
Fuck you are stupid. Keep listening to your masters. They know more than scientists do. And we all know big business and politicians have our best interests in mind.HoustonHusky said:I like to argue changes of 0.18% (on a measure accuracy of I'm sure something like +/-5% )constitute a crisis and proof of the world ending in 20 years. Especially with ice expanding in both the Arctic and Antarctic and retreating in the Arctic and Antarctic depending on the location.
To put the data (and including the most recent data) in perspective...
(also note the most recent data has the overall Global Total Sea Ice Coverage 13-month trailing average over the historical 25 year average...so HondoFS GFY).
(I love this picture...effin funny). -
Politicians are pushing the scam
HTH -
I don't listen to politicians about science.RaceBannon said:Politicians are pushing the scam
HTH
HTH -
Seems like you do
-
Look, Obama linking global warming to a terrorism crisis is FS.RaceBannon said:Seems like you do
But to deny the earth is warmer and there's a chance humans have contributed is just as FS.
HTH -
Now it's a chance?
-
I'm the only one posting data (and not articles/commentary), and your are still to dumb to figure that out. And having been a scientist its FS to think they are independent of biases, especially when their funding depends on it. Heck, there was an article today that came out saying the last two cool summers caused the large increase in Artic ice (as seen in the data I showed), but instead of leaving it there they start predicting the future on how it won't last. Is FS, and is anything but science. The Scientific Method has been shat on by climate scientists (and by you, although you are too clueless to realize it)...the entire concept of a null hypothesis is foreign to them.2001400ex said:
Fuck you are stupid. Keep listening to your masters. They know more than scientists do. And we all know big business and politicians have our best interests in mind.HoustonHusky said:I like to argue changes of 0.18% (on a measure accuracy of I'm sure something like +/-5% )constitute a crisis and proof of the world ending in 20 years. Especially with ice expanding in both the Arctic and Antarctic and retreating in the Arctic and Antarctic depending on the location.
To put the data (and including the most recent data) in perspective...
(also note the most recent data has the overall Global Total Sea Ice Coverage 13-month trailing average over the historical 25 year average...so HondoFS GFY).
(I love this picture...effin funny).
Look at the actual data and think for yourself. Or...lets be honest...in your case, look at the data, listen to the crickets in your head, get off your kneepads and check the latest talking points, and then come here and demonstrate your (lack of) IQ.
Either one works for me. -
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
Is that not factual?
Death posted about NASA data, then I post the actual data from NASA that shows his news source lied.
Fuck you are dumb. -
If you hate climate change so much, kill yourself and be part of the solution.
-
Then I'll release methane gas which is counterproductive.PurpleJ said:If you hate climate change so much, kill yourself and be part of the solution.
-
-
No, you didn't. You posted an article that talked about a single data point that is meaningless when applied to the overall picture...I posted the entire data series (Global Ice Coverage) which shows you are full of crap.2001400ex said:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
Is that not factual?
Death posted about NASA data, then I post the actual data from NASA that shows his news source lied.
Fuck you are dumb.
And your latest link yet again shows you are a moron. In a feeble attempt to distract from your ice blunders are you now blaming the run-up in temperatures in the first half of the century on CO2? I wouldn't try to match that to data if I were you. Well, lets be honest...reality never does stop you from making a point. Match away...
-
Try reading my posts for comprehension. Maybe you'll have a clue. But here's a hint. I've never said global warming is human caused. You see, I'm not a scientist. The facts I know is the earth is warmer, and the majority of scientists think humans are at least partially responsible.HoustonHusky said:
No, you didn't. You posted an article that talked about a single data point that is meaningless when applied to the overall picture...I posted the entire data series (Global Ice Coverage) which shows you are full of crap.2001400ex said:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record
Is that not factual?
Death posted about NASA data, then I post the actual data from NASA that shows his news source lied.
Fuck you are dumb.
And your latest link yet again shows you are a moron. In a feeble attempt to distract from your ice blunders are you now blaming the run-up in temperatures in the first half of the century on CO2? I wouldn't try to match that to data if I were you. Well, lets be honest...reality never does stop you from making a point. Match away...
But keep gurgling to big business and politicians who are paid by big business. -
Hondo is getting absolutely shredded (no different than every other time though)
-
Watch out. AZFuck will ask for your SSN to prove you used to be a scientist.HoustonHusky said:
I'm the only one posting data (and not articles/commentary), and your are still to dumb to figure that out. And having been a scientist its FS to think they are independent of biases, especially when their funding depends on it. Heck, there was an article today that came out saying the last two cool summers caused the large increase in Artic ice (as seen in the data I showed), but instead of leaving it there they start predicting the future on how it won't last. Is FS, and is anything but science. The Scientific Method has been shat on by climate scientists (and by you, although you are too clueless to realize it)...the entire concept of a null hypothesis is foreign to them.2001400ex said:
Fuck you are stupid. Keep listening to your masters. They know more than scientists do. And we all know big business and politicians have our best interests in mind.HoustonHusky said:I like to argue changes of 0.18% (on a measure accuracy of I'm sure something like +/-5% )constitute a crisis and proof of the world ending in 20 years. Especially with ice expanding in both the Arctic and Antarctic and retreating in the Arctic and Antarctic depending on the location.
To put the data (and including the most recent data) in perspective...
(also note the most recent data has the overall Global Total Sea Ice Coverage 13-month trailing average over the historical 25 year average...so HondoFS GFY).
(I love this picture...effin funny).
Look at the actual data and think for yourself. Or...lets be honest...in your case, look at the data, listen to the crickets in your head, get off your kneepads and check the latest talking points, and then come here and demonstrate your (lack of) IQ.
Either one works for me. -
BATTLEFIELD COMMISSION!
-
Weekend wannabe.AZDuck said:BATTLEFIELD COMMISSION!
