CATALYST - Taking Our Temperature

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3633447.htm

I recommend a good look!

In particular, those from Perth & S/West WA will agree that things have changed over the last 40 years or so & those changes will severely impact our Economy & our very way of life, as we run out of water, in the not too distant future!

Whilst the S/West WA Climate is now set to dry, the East Coast will be much more "flexible", swinging between major Floods, Storms & Heat events!

What good does looking at 100 years do when talking about climate?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Nov 17^th, 2012 at 8:12pm:

What good does looking at 100 years do when talking about climate?

An excellent point.

That's one of the major problems with the AGW alarmists' way of thinking.   

They think that just because 100 years is a long time for a human to live, 100 years is a long time - full stop!

It's a joke.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 17^th, 2012 at 9:33pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Nov 17th, 2012 at 8:12pm: What good does looking at 100 years do when talking about climate? An excellent point. That's one of the major problems with the AGW alarmists' way of thinking.    They think that just because 100 years is a long time for a human to live, 100 years is a long time - full stop! It's a joke.

No joke, 100 years is plenty of time, to gauge Climate shifts!

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 17^th, 2012 at 10:38pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 17th, 2012 at 9:33pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Nov 17th, 2012 at 8:12pm: What good does looking at 100 years do when talking about climate? An excellent point. That's one of the major problems with the AGW alarmists' way of thinking.    They think that just because 100 years is a long time for a human to live, 100 years is a long time - full stop! It's a joke. No joke, 100 years is plenty of time, to gauge Climate shifts!

Case in point.

::)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-1iBHAivmw&feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTAZue6ylZ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NrS2L6KcE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJp3_DcN1i4&feature=related

All Actions & Inactions, have Consequences!

http://th296.photobucket.com/albums/mm172/sistermarylisa/th_scared-man.jpg

THE ANTI-CYCLONES OFF OF ANTACTICA ARE NOT REACHING INTO THE COUNTRY LIKE THEY USED TO!

THE ANTI-CYCLONES OFF OF ANTACTICA ARE NOT REACHING INTO THE COUNTRY LIKE THEY USED TO!


THE ANTI-CYCLONES OFF OF ANTACTICA ARE NOT REACHING INTO THE COUNTRY LIKE THEY USED TO!

THE ANTI-CYCLONES OFF OF ANTACTICA ARE NOT REACHING INTO THE COUNTRY LIKE THEY USED TO!


THE ANTI-CYCLONES OFF OF ANTACTICA ARE NOT REACHING INTO THE COUNTRY LIKE THEY USED TO!

THE ANTI-CYCLONES OFF OF ANTACTICA ARE NOT REACHING INTO THE COUNTRY LIKE THEY USED TO!

THE ANTI-CYCLONES OFF OF ANTACTICA ARE NOT REACHING INTO THE COUNTRY LIKE THEY USED TO!


THE ANTI-CYCLONES OFF OF ANTACTICA ARE NOT REACHING INTO THE COUNTRY LIKE THEY USED TO!

THE ANTI-CYCLONES OFF OF ANTACTICA ARE NOT REACHING INTO THE COUNTRY LIKE THEY USED TO!


THE AN
THE ANTI-CYCLONES OFF OF ANTACTICA ARE NOT REACHING INTO THE COUNTRY LIKE THEY USED TO!

[color=#00ff00]THE ANTI-CYCLONES OFF OF ANTACTICA ARE NOT REACHING INTO THE COUNTRY LIKE THEY USED TO!


THE ANTI-CYCLONES OFF OF ANTACTICA ARE NOT REACHING INTO THE COUNTRY LIKE THEY USED TO!

THE ANTI-CYCLONES OFF OF ANTACTICA ARE NOT REACHING INTO THE COUNTRY LIKE THEY USED TO!


THE ANTI-CYCLONES OFF OF ANTACTICA ARE NOT REACHING INTO THE COUNTRY LIKE THEY USED TO!TI-CYCLONES OFF OF ANTACTICA ARE NOT REACHING INTO THE COUNTRY LIKE THEY USED TO![/color]

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 17^th, 2012 at 9:33pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Nov 17th, 2012 at 8:12pm: What good does looking at 100 years do when talking about climate? An excellent point. That's one of the major problems with the AGW alarmists' way of thinking.

No - it is not an excellent point.  He sounds as ignorant as you are.

Why do you keep offering your unwanted and poorly reasoned 'opinion' when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 17^th, 2012 at 9:33pm:

It's a joke.

No - what is a joke is someone who claims to be a "sceptic" and "open minded" - and yet closes his eyes and ears to all scientific evidence because he and everybody else knows he is just a poor, sad old fool who understands very little and thinks that if he ignores things he doesn't understand - they will just go away.

BTW Greggery - Perhaps you might like to explain to us why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining how much atmospheric cO2 is anthropogenic in origin?  You asked for evidence about a particular point - (http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1352071339/75) - you were shown it - and now you just run away when asjked to explain why you think it is not "credible"

WHy Greggery?

tHe antI-cycloneS arE noT reACHIng intO the coUNTry like they usEd to..... tHe antI-cycloneS arE noT reACHIng intO the coUNTry like they usEd to..... tHe antI-cycloneS arE noT reACHIng intO the coUNTry like they usEd to..... tHe antI-cycloneS arE noT reACHIng intO the coUNTry like they usEd to.....

tHe antI-cycloneS arE noT reACHIng intO the coUNTry like they usEd to..... tHe antI-cycloneS arE noT reACHIng intO the coUNTry like they usEd to..... tHe antI-cycloneS arE noT reACHIng intO the coUNTry like they usEd to..... tHe antI-cycloneS arE noT reACHIng intO the coUNTry like they usEd to.....

tHe antI-cycloneS arE noT reACHIng intO the coUNTry like they usEd to..... tHe antI-cycloneS arE noT reACHIng intO the coUNTry like they usEd to..... tHe antI-cycloneS arE noT reACHIng intO the coUNTry like they usEd to..... tHe antI-cycloneS arE noT reACHIng intO the coUNTry like they usEd to.....


:-? :-? :-? :-?  :-[

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 17^th, 2012 at 9:33pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Nov 17th, 2012 at 8:12pm: What good does looking at 100 years do when talking about climate? An excellent point. That's one of the major problems with the AGW alarmists' way of thinking.    They think that just because 100 years is a long time for a human to live, 100 years is a long time - full stop! It's a joke.

What is an AGW alarmist Greggery?
Could you explain?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 17th, 2012 at 9:33pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Nov 17th, 2012 at 8:12pm: What good does looking at 100 years do when talking about climate? An excellent point. That's one of the major problems with the AGW alarmists' way of thinking.    They think that just because 100 years is a long time for a human to live, 100 years is a long time - full stop! It's a joke. What is an AGW alarmist Greggery? Could you explain?

Someone who believes the wind patterns are changing around Antarctica!!  ;) ;)

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 5:17pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 17th, 2012 at 9:33pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Nov 17th, 2012 at 8:12pm: What good does looking at 100 years do when talking about climate? An excellent point. That's one of the major problems with the AGW alarmists' way of thinking.    No - it is not an excellent point.  He sounds as ignorant as you are. Why do you keep offering your unwanted and poorly reasoned 'opinion' when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about? greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 17th, 2012 at 9:33pm: It's a joke. No - what is a joke is someone who claims to be a "sceptic" and "open minded" - and yet closes his eyes and ears to all scientific evidence because he and everybody else knows he is just a poor, sad old fool who understands very little and thinks that if he ignores things he doesn't understand - they will just go away. BTW Greggery - Perhaps you might like to explain to us why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining how much atmospheric cO2 is anthropogenic in origin?  You asked for evidence about a particular point - (http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1352071339/75) - you were shown it - and now you just run away when asjked to explain why you think it is not "credible" WHy Greggery?

I bet if the 100 years didn't support GW then it wouldn't be important.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 5:17pm:

No - it is not an excellent point.

Actually, it is.

Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Most of the AGW alarmists are quite stupid, however, you take it to a whole new level.

"100 years"

"16 years"

LOL     ;D

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

What is an AGW alarmist Greggery?

You, my dear boy.  You.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

What is an AGW alarmist Greggery? Could you explain?

It's not just something I've made up, bunny boy.

"Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

What is an AGW alarmist Greggery? Could you explain?

They're very nasty pieces of work, bunny boy.

"Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes"

http://www.infowars.com/climate-alarmist-calls-for-burning-down-skeptics-homes/

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 7:31pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18th, 2012 at 5:17pm: No - it is not an excellent point.  Actually, it is. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Most of the AGW alarmists are quite stupid, however, you take it to a whole new level. "100 years" "16 years" LOL     ;D

You have no answers - do you Greggery.

WHy not?

What is an "AGW Alarmist"

And what does :

"100 years"

"16 years"

supposed to mean?

I always answered any question you ask of me Greggery.

Why do you always run away like a little girl when asked to answer a question?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 9:14pm:

And what does : "100 years" "16 years" supposed to mean?

Hard to believe, but you're even more stupid than I thought.

When dealing with global climate change, 16 or 100 years is an absolute joke (particularly 16 years).

Do you have any idea how old the Earth is?

Do you know the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'?

The short-sightedness of AGW alarmists is almost beyond belief.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 9:03pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18th, 2012 at 5:32pm: What is an AGW alarmist Greggery? Could you explain? They're very nasty pieces of work, bunny boy. "Climate Alarmist Calls For Burning Down Skeptics’ Homes" http://www.infowars.com/climate-alarmist-calls-for-burning-down-skeptics-homes/

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 9:00pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18th, 2012 at 5:32pm: What is an AGW alarmist Greggery? Could you explain? It's not just something I've made up, bunny boy. "Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling" http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

I see no definitions there Greggery.

Just the  silly blogs you get your silly opinions from.

I asked you Greggery:
What is an AGW alarmist Greggery?

Why can't you answer?

Why are you running away again?

You told us you were a sceptic.
You told us you were "well read"
You told us you were "open minded"

No Greggery.
You are an ignorant liar.

It is obvious.


Stop running away Greggery,
Start answering some questions.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 9:19pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18th, 2012 at 9:14pm: And what does : "100 years" "16 years" supposed to mean? Hard to believe, but you're even more stupid than I thought. When dealing with global climate change, 16 or 100 years is an absolute joke (particularly 16 years). Do you have any idea how old the Earth is? Do you know the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'? The short-sightedness of AGW alarmists is almost beyond belief.

What does :

"100 years"

"16 years"
means Greggery?

Please provide some details.

I do not listen to Jonesy like you do.
I have no idea what you are on about.

Explain please Greggery.

Is it to hard for you?
Is Jonesy soundbites all you can manage?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 9:21pm:

What is an AGW alarmist Greggery?

Everybody in the world knows what an AGW alarmist is, except you.

Absolutely amazing!

Let me explain it to you my uneducated, brainwashed little friend.

An AGW alarmist is someone who subscribes to the AGW hypothesis and makes it their mission in life to spread fear among the community.  i.e. they believe that the AGW hypothesis is "scientific truth" (LOL) and that if humans don't act now we are all doomed.

Considering you know next to nothing about climate and weather, I'm not surprised that you don't know what an AGW alarmist is.

Your ignorance knows no bounds, so it seems.

Back to school for you bunny boy.  Off you hop.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 9:23pm:

[quote author=3C293E3C3C3E29222B3E38383A29225B0 link=1353145768/18#18 date=1353237569][quote author=3221222229342F287077400 link=1353145768/17#17 date=1353237248] And what does : "100 years" "16 years" supposed to mean?

Hey bunny boy, it was very hot this afternoon, but now it's quite cool.

Global cooling!  It must be.  I've got the proof!


LOL   You moron.    ;D


("16 years"  LOL)

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 9:28pm:

Everybody in the world knows what an AGW alarmist is, except you. Absolutely amazing! Let me explain it to you my uneducated, brainwashed little friend.x An AGW alarmist is someone who subscribes to the AGW hypothesis and makes it their mission in life to spread fear among the community.

So an "alarmist" is someone who believes that the AGW hypothesis is "scientific truth"?
That would include virtually everyone on the planet except for you, Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt.
OK - I guess I, and pretty much everyone else except for you is an "alarmist".


greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 9:28pm:

i.e. they believe that the AGW hypothesis is "scientific truth" (LOL) and that if humans don't act now we are all doomed.

Really Greggery?
I think you are telling lies now, aren't you.



greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 9:28pm:

Considering you know next to nothing about climate and weather, I'm not surprised that you don't know what an AGW alarmist is.

Greggery - I think it is pretty clear that I know far more about  climate and weather than you do.
You are not convincing anyone I'm afraid, when you run away like a little girl from every question you are asked.  Why can't you answer questions Greggery?


greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 9:28pm:

Your ignorance knows no bounds, so it seems.

At least I can answer questions that are asked of me Greggery.

Why can't you?

Let me ask for the 8th time:

Perhaps you might like to explain to us why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining how much atmospheric cO2 is anthropogenic in origin?  You asked for evidence about a particular point - (http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1352071339/75) - you were shown it - and now you just run away when asjked to explain why you think it is not "credible"




greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 9:28pm:

Back to school for you bunny boy.  Off you hop.

Answer the question Greggery.

oops....

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 9:35pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18th, 2012 at 9:23pm: [quote author=3C293E3C3C3E29222B3E38383A29225B0 link=1353145768/18#18 date=1353237569][quote author=3221222229342F287077400 link=1353145768/17#17 date=1353237248] And what does : "100 years" "16 years" supposed to mean? Hey bunny boy, it was very hot this afternoon, but now it's quite cool. Global cooling!  It must be.  I've got the proof! LOL   You moron.    ;D ("16 years"  LOL)

What is this "16 years " reference you keep referring to Greggery?

PLease tell us?

I do not listen to Jones or Bolt or read WUWT.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

What is the significance of "16 years"

Please explain Greggery.

Don't run away .

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 7:44pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18th, 2012 at 5:32pm: What is an AGW alarmist Greggery? You, my dear boy.  You.

-->>> What is an AGW alarmist?

Someone who believes the wind patterns are changing around Antarctica!! 

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 2:24pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 18th, 2012 at 7:44pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18th, 2012 at 5:32pm: What is an AGW alarmist Greggery? You, my dear boy.  You. -->>> What is an AGW alarmist? Someone who believes the wind patterns are changing around Antarctica!!

How about a threesome?

Greggery, Prev & DRAH?

Should be an interesting date?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18^th, 2012 at 11:13pm:

What is the significance of "16 years" .

When it comes to climate change, absolutely none, yet YOU are the one who quoted it.

LOL    ;D

Search your posts bunny boy.


*EDIT:

Hey bunny boy, Don't worry about searching - here it is:

"You have been constantly repeating the lie that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years.

"Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years?

"How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years?"

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1352071339/51#51

We're talking about global climate change, and you're obsessed with "16 years".

If you want to talk about the weather, go to a mothers' playgroup meeting.

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 3:20pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 2:24pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 18th, 2012 at 7:44pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18th, 2012 at 5:32pm: What is an AGW alarmist Greggery? You, my dear boy.  You. -->>> What is an AGW alarmist? Someone who believes the wind patterns are changing around Antarctica!!  How about a threesome? Greggery, Prev & DRAH? Should be an interesting date?

voyeurism is bad ok!  ;D ;D

greggery doesn't know what a "standard deviation" is!

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 3:26pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18th, 2012 at 11:13pm: What is the significance of "16 years" . When it comes to climate change, absolutely none, yet YOU are the one who quoted it. LOL    ;D Search your posts bunny boy. *EDIT: Hey bunny boy, Don't worry about searching - here it is: "You have been constantly repeating the lie that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years. "Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? "How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years?" http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1352071339/51#51 We're talking about global climate change, and you're obsessed with "16 years". If you want to talk about the weather, go to a mothers' playgroup meeting.

I think you need to talk to progressivelol about the "16 years".

It is his obsession.

You would get on well with him.  He is like you. 
He also makes silly statements and then runs away when asked to explain them.

Perhaps you might like to explain to us now why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining how much atmospheric cO2 is anthropogenic in origin?  You asked for evidence about a particular point - (http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1352071339/75) - you were shown it - and now you just run away when asjked to explain why you think it is not "credible"

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 6:40pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 3:26pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18th, 2012 at 11:13pm: What is the significance of "16 years" . When it comes to climate change, absolutely none, yet YOU are the one who quoted it. LOL    ;D Search your posts bunny boy. *EDIT: Hey bunny boy, Don't worry about searching - here it is: "You have been constantly repeating the lie that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years. "Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? "How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years?" http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1352071339/51#51 We're talking about global climate change, and you're obsessed with "16 years". If you want to talk about the weather, go to a mothers' playgroup meeting. I think you need to talk to progressivelol about the "16 years". It is his obsession.

You mentioned it four times in one post.  Twice in one sentence.

It's clear who's obsessed with such short periods of time.

Perhaps this would be more suited to your needs:

http://9juniorweatherwatch.com.au/

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 6:50pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 6:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 3:26pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18th, 2012 at 11:13pm: What is the significance of "16 years" . When it comes to climate change, absolutely none, yet YOU are the one who quoted it. LOL    ;D Search your posts bunny boy. *EDIT: Hey bunny boy, Don't worry about searching - here it is: "You have been constantly repeating the lie that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years. "Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? "How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years?" http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1352071339/51#51 We're talking about global climate change, and you're obsessed with "16 years". If you want to talk about the weather, go to a mothers' playgroup meeting. I think you need to talk to progressivelol about the "16 years". It is his obsession. You mentioned it four times in one post.  Twice in one sentence. It's clear who's obsessed with such short periods of time. Perhaps this would be more suited to your needs: http://9juniorweatherwatch.com.au/

Yes - progressiveslol likes to continually post the lie that the earth has not warmed in 16 years.

He has been repeatedly asked the questions:
"Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years?

"How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years?"

But he does not answer.  He just runs away

Just like you do.

Just like you are trying to do now.

ou asked for evidence about a that the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from anthropogenic sources- (http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1352071339/75) - you were shown evidence of this.

You claimed the evidence was not "credible"

Could you please explain why?   Please explain to us now why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining how much atmospheric cO2 is anthropogenic in origin?

You don't want to get the reputation of being a liar do you - like progressiveslol?

Why can't you explain the statements you have made?

Will you just run away again now?  Try to change the subject again?
Why don't you grow up and answer the question.  Explain the statements you have made.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 7:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 6:50pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 6:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 3:26pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18th, 2012 at 11:13pm: What is the significance of "16 years" . When it comes to climate change, absolutely none, yet YOU are the one who quoted it. LOL    ;D Search your posts bunny boy. *EDIT: Hey bunny boy, Don't worry about searching - here it is: "You have been constantly repeating the lie that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years. "Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? "How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years?" http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1352071339/51#51 We're talking about global climate change, and you're obsessed with "16 years". If you want to talk about the weather, go to a mothers' playgroup meeting. I think you need to talk to progressivelol about the "16 years". It is his obsession. You mentioned it four times in one post.  Twice in one sentence. It's clear who's obsessed with such short periods of time. Perhaps this would be more suited to your needs: http://9juniorweatherwatch.com.au/ Yes - progressiveslol likes to continually post the lie that the earth has not warmed in 16 years. He has been repeatedly asked the questions: "Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? "How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years?" But he does not answer.  He just runs away Just like you do. Just like you are trying to do now. ou asked for evidence about a that the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from anthropogenic sources- (http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1352071339/75) - you were shown evidence of this. You claimed the evidence was not "credible" Could you please explain why?   Please explain to us now why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining how much atmospheric cO2 is anthropogenic in origin? You don't want to get the reputation of being a liar do you - like progressiveslol? Why can't you explain the statements you have made? Will you just run away again now?  Try to change the subject again? Why don't you grow up and answer the question.  Explain the statements you have made.

Dont have to think about it, just read it and weap as you have been doing. MET's empirical data shows 0.5 degrees over norm 16 years ago, with the same 0.5 degrees over norm today.

I dont think 16 years is significant.Close though. 17 years maybe because climate scientists have said 17 years is enough for a trend.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 8:09pm:

Dont have to think about it, just read it and weap as you have been doing. MET's empirical data shows 0.5 degrees over norm 16 years ago, with the same 0.5 degrees over norm today. I dont think 16 years is significant.Close though. 17 years maybe because climate scientists have said 17 years is enough for a trend.

Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years?

How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years

Don't run away again Progs.  Answer the question.  After all, you even have poor old fools like Greggery repeating your nonsense now. 

Simple question:
Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 8:36pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:09pm: Dont have to think about it, just read it and weap as you have been doing. MET's empirical data shows 0.5 degrees over norm 16 years ago, with the same 0.5 degrees over norm today. I dont think 16 years is significant.Close though. 17 years maybe because climate scientists have said 17 years is enough for a trend. Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years Don't run away again Progs.  Answer the question.  After all, you even have poor old fools like Greggery repeating your nonsense now.  Simple question: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years?

0.5 equals 0.5

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 8:42pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:36pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:09pm: Dont have to think about it, just read it and weap as you have been doing. MET's empirical data shows 0.5 degrees over norm 16 years ago, with the same 0.5 degrees over norm today. I dont think 16 years is significant.Close though. 17 years maybe because climate scientists have said 17 years is enough for a trend. Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years Don't run away again Progs.  Answer the question.  After all, you even have poor old fools like Greggery repeating your nonsense now.  Simple question: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? 0.5 equals 0.5

Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years?

How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years

Answer the question Progs.

Show us how smart you are.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 8:46pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:42pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:36pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:09pm: Dont have to think about it, just read it and weap as you have been doing. MET's empirical data shows 0.5 degrees over norm 16 years ago, with the same 0.5 degrees over norm today. I dont think 16 years is significant.Close though. 17 years maybe because climate scientists have said 17 years is enough for a trend. Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years Don't run away again Progs.  Answer the question.  After all, you even have poor old fools like Greggery repeating your nonsense now.  Simple question: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? 0.5 equals 0.5 Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years Answer the question Progs. Show us how smart you are.

Well you would have to provide your evidence first. God knows where you get the information. Probably that crap site skepticalscience. I would need to know what you are on about before considering answering. Then I would need to consider if i should be bothered.

BTW can you answer how you cant figure out that 0.5 equals 0.5

Oh no, the MET office does it again.

Now they are saying the global temperature has actually fallen slightly in the last 2 years. Put that in the 16years of no growth in temperature and now it becomes no growth in temps and a small decrease in 16 years.

Bloody ell I hate being the barer of bad news.

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/11/agenda-driven-met-offices-grudging-concessions-to-reality/

Cool spell to chill hearts of climate activists

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/cool-spell-to-chill-hearts-of-climate-activists/story-e6frg8y6-1226519153751

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 7:04pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 6:50pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 6:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 3:26pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18th, 2012 at 11:13pm: What is the significance of "16 years" . When it comes to climate change, absolutely none, yet YOU are the one who quoted it. LOL    ;D Search your posts bunny boy. *EDIT: Hey bunny boy, Don't worry about searching - here it is: "You have been constantly repeating the lie that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years. "Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? "How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years?" http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1352071339/51#51 We're talking about global climate change, and you're obsessed with "16 years". If you want to talk about the weather, go to a mothers' playgroup meeting. I think you need to talk to progressivelol about the "16 years". It is his obsession. You mentioned it four times in one post.  Twice in one sentence. It's clear who's obsessed with such short periods of time. Perhaps this would be more suited to your needs: http://9juniorweatherwatch.com.au/ Yes - progressiveslol likes to continually post the lie that the earth has not warmed in 16 years. He has been repeatedly asked the questions: "Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? "How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years?"

Again with the "16 years".

You have absolutely no idea what the difference is between 'weather' and 'climate', do you?

I don't know why I waste my time discussing this with you.

::)

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 8:56pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:46pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:42pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:36pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:09pm: Dont have to think about it, just read it and weap as you have been doing. MET's empirical data shows 0.5 degrees over norm 16 years ago, with the same 0.5 degrees over norm today. I dont think 16 years is significant.Close though. 17 years maybe because climate scientists have said 17 years is enough for a trend. Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years Don't run away again Progs.  Answer the question.  After all, you even have poor old fools like Greggery repeating your nonsense now.  Simple question: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? 0.5 equals 0.5 Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years Answer the question Progs. Show us how smart you are. Well you would have to provide your evidence first. God knows where you get the information. Probably that crap site skepticalscience. I would need to know what you are on about before considering answering. Then I would need to consider if i should be bothered. BTW can you answer how you cant figure out that 0.5 equals 0.5

Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years?

How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years

Answer the question Progs.

Show us how smart you are.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 9:51pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 7:04pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 6:50pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 6:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 3:26pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 18th, 2012 at 11:13pm: What is the significance of "16 years" . When it comes to climate change, absolutely none, yet YOU are the one who quoted it. LOL    ;D Search your posts bunny boy. *EDIT: Hey bunny boy, Don't worry about searching - here it is: "You have been constantly repeating the lie that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years. "Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? "How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years?" http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1352071339/51#51 We're talking about global climate change, and you're obsessed with "16 years". If you want to talk about the weather, go to a mothers' playgroup meeting. I think you need to talk to progressivelol about the "16 years". It is his obsession. You mentioned it four times in one post.  Twice in one sentence. It's clear who's obsessed with such short periods of time. Perhaps this would be more suited to your needs: http://9juniorweatherwatch.com.au/ Yes - progressiveslol likes to continually post the lie that the earth has not warmed in 16 years. He has been repeatedly asked the questions: "Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? "How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years?" Again with the "16 years". You have absolutely no idea what the difference is between 'weather' and 'climate', do you? I don't know why I waste my time discussing this with you. ::)

You are not discussing anything with anybody.  You are an ignorant old man who tells lies and then runs away like a little girl when asked to explain his lies.

Let's try again shall we?

Perhaps you might like to explain to us now why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining how much atmospheric cO2 is anthropogenic in origin?  You asked for evidence about a particular point - (http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1352071339/75) - you were shown it - and now you just run away when asjked to explain why you think it is not "credible"

Man up Greggery.
Don't keep running away.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 10:48pm:

Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years

Tell us one more time, who has the obsession with "16 years"?   ::)

Come back when you want to talk about climate change.

If you want to discuss the weather, go visit your Gran.

Off you hop.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 10:48pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:56pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:46pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:42pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:36pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:09pm: Dont have to think about it, just read it and weap as you have been doing. MET's empirical data shows 0.5 degrees over norm 16 years ago, with the same 0.5 degrees over norm today. I dont think 16 years is significant.Close though. 17 years maybe because climate scientists have said 17 years is enough for a trend. Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years Don't run away again Progs.  Answer the question.  After all, you even have poor old fools like Greggery repeating your nonsense now.  Simple question: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? 0.5 equals 0.5 Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years Answer the question Progs. Show us how smart you are. Well you would have to provide your evidence first. God knows where you get the information. Probably that crap site skepticalscience. I would need to know what you are on about before considering answering. Then I would need to consider if i should be bothered. BTW can you answer how you cant figure out that 0.5 equals 0.5 Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years Answer the question Progs. Show us how smart you are.

Oh well.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 8:56pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:46pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:42pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:36pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:09pm: Dont have to think about it, just read it and weap as you have been doing. MET's empirical data shows 0.5 degrees over norm 16 years ago, with the same 0.5 degrees over norm today. I dont think 16 years is significant.Close though. 17 years maybe because climate scientists have said 17 years is enough for a trend. Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years Don't run away again Progs.  Answer the question.  After all, you even have poor old fools like Greggery repeating your nonsense now.  Simple question: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? 0.5 equals 0.5 Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years Answer the question Progs. Show us how smart you are. Well you would have to provide your evidence first. God knows where you get the information. Probably that crap site skepticalscience. I would need to know what you are on about before considering answering. Then I would need to consider if i should be bothered. BTW can you answer how you cant figure out that 0.5 equals 0.5

Arctic ice cap shrinking:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/11/Figure2-350x280.png
record minimum ice extent on September 16
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Global glacial mass balance decreasing:
The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.83 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2010. The new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades and brings the cumulative average thickness loss of the reference glaciers since 1980 at about 15 m w.e.
http://www.geo.uzh.ch/microsite/wgms/mbb/sum10.html
http://www.geo.uzh.ch/microsite/wgms/mbb/mbb12/Fig1_2010.jpg

Sea Levels Rising:

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg
High quality measurements of (near)-global sea level have been made since late 1992 by satellite altimeters, in particular, TOPEX/Poseidon (launched August, 1992), Jason-1 (launched December, 2001) and Jason-2 (launched June, 2008). This data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) of around 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period. This is more than 50% larger than the average value over the 20th century.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/index.html

Ocean Temperature Rising:

Global sea surface temperature is approximately 1 degree C higher now than 140 years ago, and is one of the primary physical impacts of climate change.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/coast_sea/sea-surface-temperature



Now, perhaps you would like to answer the question you keep running away from:


Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years?


Don't keep running away.

Answer.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 11:00pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 10:48pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:56pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:46pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:42pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:36pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:09pm: Dont have to think about it, just read it and weap as you have been doing. MET's empirical data shows 0.5 degrees over norm 16 years ago, with the same 0.5 degrees over norm today. I dont think 16 years is significant.Close though. 17 years maybe because climate scientists have said 17 years is enough for a trend. Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years Don't run away again Progs.  Answer the question.  After all, you even have poor old fools like Greggery repeating your nonsense now.  Simple question: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? 0.5 equals 0.5 Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years Answer the question Progs. Show us how smart you are. Well you would have to provide your evidence first. God knows where you get the information. Probably that crap site skepticalscience. I would need to know what you are on about before considering answering. Then I would need to consider if i should be bothered. BTW can you answer how you cant figure out that 0.5 equals 0.5 Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years Answer the question Progs. Show us how smart you are. Oh well.

That is not an answer.

You have been accused of telling lies.

You repeatedly write that the earth has not warmed for 16 years.  I say that is a lie.  And I say that you are a liar.

What do you have to say in your defence?

Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years?

Why can't you answer the question?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 11:07pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:56pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:46pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:42pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:36pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 8:09pm: Dont have to think about it, just read it and weap as you have been doing. MET's empirical data shows 0.5 degrees over norm 16 years ago, with the same 0.5 degrees over norm today. I dont think 16 years is significant.Close though. 17 years maybe because climate scientists have said 17 years is enough for a trend. Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years Don't run away again Progs.  Answer the question.  After all, you even have poor old fools like Greggery repeating your nonsense now.  Simple question: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? 0.5 equals 0.5 Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? How is it you think that the earth has not been warming for the past 16 years when the global temperature anomaly to the long term average has been positive for every one of those 16 years Answer the question Progs. Show us how smart you are. Well you would have to provide your evidence first. God knows where you get the information. Probably that crap site skepticalscience. I would need to know what you are on about before considering answering. Then I would need to consider if i should be bothered. BTW can you answer how you cant figure out that 0.5 equals 0.5 Arctic ice cap shrinking: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2000/11/Figure2-350x280.png record minimum ice extent on September 16 http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ Global glacial mass balance decreasing: The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.83 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2010. The new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades and brings the cumulative average thickness loss of the reference glaciers since 1980 at about 15 m w.e. http://www.geo.uzh.ch/microsite/wgms/mbb/sum10.html http://www.geo.uzh.ch/microsite/wgms/mbb/mbb12/Fig1_2010.jpg Sea Levels Rising: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/images/CSIRO_GMSL_figure.jpg High quality measurements of (near)-global sea level have been made since late 1992 by satellite altimeters, in particular, TOPEX/Poseidon (launched August, 1992), Jason-1 (launched December, 2001) and Jason-2 (launched June, 2008). This data has shown a more-or-less steady increase in Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) of around 3.1 ± 0.4 mm/year over that period. This is more than 50% larger than the average value over the 20th century. http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/index.html Ocean Temperature Rising: Global sea surface temperature is approximately 1 degree C higher now than 140 years ago, and is one of the primary physical impacts of climate change. http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/coast_sea/sea-surface-temperature Now, perhaps you would like to answer the question you keep running away from: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? Don't keep running away. Answer.

Some pretty pictures you've got there.

Nothing to do with humans though.

Do you know what the "A" stands for in AGW?

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 11:09pm:

Some pretty pictures you've got there. Nothing to do with humans though. Do you know what the "A" stands for in AGW?

Yes I do Greggery.  Anthropogenic.

The significant increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 in recent decades is mainly from CO2 from ANTHROPOGENIC sources.

We know this because it can be measured.
You have been shown evidence of this Greggery.

We can measure the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon and determine how much of it has come from fossil fuel sources.

You have been shown this evidence Greggery - -but you say it is "not credible"

Why Greggery?

Why cant you explain this opinion you have?  Perhaps you might like to explain to us now why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining how much atmospheric cO2 is anthropogenic in origin?  You asked for evidence about a particular point - (http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1352071339/75) - you were shown it - and now you just run away when asjked to explain why you think it is not "credible"

Don't run away again Greggery.  Answer the question

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 11:15pm:

Yes I do Greggery.  Anthropogenic.

Good.  We're getting somewhere.

And do you know what 'climate' is?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 11:07pm:

Now, perhaps you would like to answer the question you keep running away from: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? Don't keep running away. Answer.

Partly
Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect.

Do you want to try for a % of responsibility of each.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 19^th, 2012 at 11:20pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:15pm: Yes I do Greggery.  Anthropogenic. Good.  We're getting somewhere. And do you know what 'climate' is?

Yes Greggery.

Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological elemental measurements in a given region over long periods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

See!  Answering questions is fun!  Why don't you try it Greggery?
Don't run away again.


Could you please explain to us why you think that measuring the C12/C13 ratio of atmospheric carbon is not a credible way of determining how much atmospheric cO2 is anthropogenic in origin? 

You asked for evidence that the majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past century in anthropogenic - and you were shown it.  Why do you claim the evidence you were shown is not credible?  Any reason?  Or is it because you are just an ignorant old man who refuses to believe anything unless it comes from Andrew Bolt?

That is what it looks like Greggery.  Especially since you continually cowardly refuse to explain your position.

Stop running away Greggery.  Answer the question.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 4:16am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:07pm: Now, perhaps you would like to answer the question you keep running away from: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? Don't keep running away. Answer. Partly Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect. Do you want to try for a % of responsibility of each.

So you are telling us that "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect". are causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures.  Is that right?

How exactly is this happening if, as you tell us, the planet has not warmed in 16 years?
Could you explain please?

How is Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect"  causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures if the planet's temperature has not risen in 16 years?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 6:39am:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 4:16am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:07pm: Now, perhaps you would like to answer the question you keep running away from: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? Don't keep running away. Answer. Partly Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect. Do you want to try for a % of responsibility of each. So you are telling us that "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect". are causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures.  Is that right? How exactly is this happening if, as you tell us, the planet has not warmed in 16 years? Could you explain please? How is Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect"  causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures if the planet's temperature has not risen in 16 years?

You asked your question and I answered, now you answer mine. Because you are not up with the climate change information, i will let you just estimate the % of responsiblity you think co2 has within the range of your question and the real climate variables, all of them, not just what I mentioned.

Urbanisation would be a good one to add.
Localisation.
Jetstream placement
Ocean currents.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 6:46am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:39am: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 4:16am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:07pm: Now, perhaps you would like to answer the question you keep running away from: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? Don't keep running away. Answer. Partly Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect. Do you want to try for a % of responsibility of each. So you are telling us that "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect". are causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures.  Is that right? How exactly is this happening if, as you tell us, the planet has not warmed in 16 years? Could you explain please? How is Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect"  causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures if the planet's temperature has not risen in 16 years? You asked your question and I answered, now you answer mine. Because you are not up with the climate change information, i will let you just estimate the % of responsiblity you think co2 has within the range of your question and the real climate variables, all of them, not just what I mentioned. Urbanisation would be a good one to add. Localisation. Jetstream placement Ocean currents.

You told us the earth has not warmed in 16 years didn't you?

Are you now admiitting that you lied when you said that?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 6:40pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:46am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:39am: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 4:16am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:07pm: Now, perhaps you would like to answer the question you keep running away from: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? Don't keep running away. Answer. Partly Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect. Do you want to try for a % of responsibility of each. So you are telling us that "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect". are causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures.  Is that right? How exactly is this happening if, as you tell us, the planet has not warmed in 16 years? Could you explain please? How is Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect"  causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures if the planet's temperature has not risen in 16 years? You asked your question and I answered, now you answer mine. Because you are not up with the climate change information, i will let you just estimate the % of responsiblity you think co2 has within the range of your question and the real climate variables, all of them, not just what I mentioned. Urbanisation would be a good one to add. Localisation. Jetstream placement Ocean currents. You told us the earth has not warmed in 16 years didn't you? Are you now admiitting that you lied when you said that?

I guess the only person running away is you

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 6:57pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:40pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:46am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:39am: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 4:16am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:07pm: Now, perhaps you would like to answer the question you keep running away from: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? Don't keep running away. Answer. Partly Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect. Do you want to try for a % of responsibility of each. So you are telling us that "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect". are causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures.  Is that right? How exactly is this happening if, as you tell us, the planet has not warmed in 16 years? Could you explain please? How is Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect"  causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures if the planet's temperature has not risen in 16 years? You asked your question and I answered, now you answer mine. Because you are not up with the climate change information, i will let you just estimate the % of responsiblity you think co2 has within the range of your question and the real climate variables, all of them, not just what I mentioned. Urbanisation would be a good one to add. Localisation. Jetstream placement Ocean currents. You told us the earth has not warmed in 16 years didn't you? Are you now admiitting that you lied when you said that? I guess the only person running away is you

You told us that the earth has not warmed in 16 years.

Then you told us that "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect" are causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing."

How exatyly did "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect" cause arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing without he planet warming?!?!?!

Could you please explain?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 7:24pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:57pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:40pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:46am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:39am: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 4:16am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:07pm: Now, perhaps you would like to answer the question you keep running away from: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? Don't keep running away. Answer. Partly Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect. Do you want to try for a % of responsibility of each. So you are telling us that "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect". are causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures.  Is that right? How exactly is this happening if, as you tell us, the planet has not warmed in 16 years? Could you explain please? How is Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect"  causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures if the planet's temperature has not risen in 16 years? You asked your question and I answered, now you answer mine. Because you are not up with the climate change information, i will let you just estimate the % of responsiblity you think co2 has within the range of your question and the real climate variables, all of them, not just what I mentioned. Urbanisation would be a good one to add. Localisation. Jetstream placement Ocean currents. You told us the earth has not warmed in 16 years didn't you? Are you now admiitting that you lied when you said that? I guess the only person running away is you You told us that the earth has not warmed in 16 years. Then you told us that "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect" are causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing." How exatyly did "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect" cause arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing without he planet warming?!?!?! Could you please explain?

wun wabbit wun.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 7:31pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 7:24pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:57pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:40pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:46am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:39am: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 4:16am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:07pm: Now, perhaps you would like to answer the question you keep running away from: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? Don't keep running away. Answer. Partly Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect. Do you want to try for a % of responsibility of each. So you are telling us that "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect". are causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures.  Is that right? How exactly is this happening if, as you tell us, the planet has not warmed in 16 years? Could you explain please? How is Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect"  causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures if the planet's temperature has not risen in 16 years? You asked your question and I answered, now you answer mine. Because you are not up with the climate change information, i will let you just estimate the % of responsiblity you think co2 has within the range of your question and the real climate variables, all of them, not just what I mentioned. Urbanisation would be a good one to add. Localisation. Jetstream placement Ocean currents. You told us the earth has not warmed in 16 years didn't you? Are you now admiitting that you lied when you said that? I guess the only person running away is you You told us that the earth has not warmed in 16 years. Then you told us that "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect" are causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing." How exatyly did "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect" cause arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing without he planet warming?!?!?! Could you please explain? wun wabbit wun.

Has the earth warmed in the past 16 years of not?

You appear to have just contradicted yourself.  Could you please explain why?

You told us that the earth has not warmed in 16 years.

Then you told us that "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect" are causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing."

Which is it?

Are you telling us that the sun has contributed to arctic ice melt without making the earth warmer?!?!?!  How does that work?

I am very very grateful that you have attempted to answer the question.  But your answer appears contradictory.

Please explain how Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect" could cause arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing without making the planet warmer?!?!?!

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 8:46pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 7:31pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 7:24pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:57pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:40pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:46am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 6:39am: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 4:16am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:07pm: Now, perhaps you would like to answer the question you keep running away from: Why is the arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing if the earth has not been warming for 16 years? Don't keep running away. Answer. Partly Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect. Do you want to try for a % of responsibility of each. So you are telling us that "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect". are causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures.  Is that right? How exactly is this happening if, as you tell us, the planet has not warmed in 16 years? Could you explain please? How is Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect"  causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures if the planet's temperature has not risen in 16 years? You asked your question and I answered, now you answer mine. Because you are not up with the climate change information, i will let you just estimate the % of responsiblity you think co2 has within the range of your question and the real climate variables, all of them, not just what I mentioned. Urbanisation would be a good one to add. Localisation. Jetstream placement Ocean currents. You told us the earth has not warmed in 16 years didn't you? Are you now admiitting that you lied when you said that? I guess the only person running away is you You told us that the earth has not warmed in 16 years. Then you told us that "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect" are causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing." How exatyly did "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect" cause arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing without he planet warming?!?!?! Could you please explain? wun wabbit wun. Has the earth warmed in the past 16 years of not? You appear to have just contradicted yourself.  Could you please explain why? You told us that the earth has not warmed in 16 years. Then you told us that "Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect" are causing arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing." Which is it? Are you telling us that the sun has contributed to arctic ice melt without making the earth warmer?!?!?!  How does that work? I am very very grateful that you have attempted to answer the question.  But your answer appears contradictory. Please explain how Sun, temp lag in the ocean, cloud cover extent, magnetic pole position and of course green house effect" could cause arctic ice cap shrinking, global glacial mass balance decreasing, sea levels rising and ocean temperatures increasing without making the planet warmer?!?!?!

I cant believe you dont know how the sun can melt ice without warming the rest of the earth. But anyway, you have put this BS all over the place and it is in another thread waiting on you.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 9:06pm:

I cant believe you dont know how the sun can melt ice without warming the rest of the earth. But anyway, you have put this BS all over the place and it is in another thread waiting on you.

You're wasting your time talking to the bunny boy and MOTR.

They're both closed-minded AGW alarmists (who don't seem to be able to think for themselves).

They believe that the AGW hypothesis is infallible, and anyone who disagrees is the devil!

They will not entertain the thought that the AGW hypothesis could be wrong, and they refuse to consider any other possibility other than "humans are causing global warming".

I've seen closed-minded people before but never, in all of my life, have I seen people who are so closed-minded than the brainwashed zealots who subscribe to the AGW hypothesis.

Seriously, it's like a disease.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 9:06pm:

I cant believe you dont know how the sun can melt ice without warming the rest of the earth. But anyway, you have put this BS all over the place and it is in another thread waiting on you.

UM?????????

:o :o  :-?

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20^th, 2012 at 9:06pm:

I cant believe you dont know how the sun can melt ice without warming the rest of the earth. But anyway, you have put this BS all over the place and it is in another thread waiting on you.

This has to be one of THE most ignorant statements I've seen from a climate science denier.

;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

Upton Sinclair wrote on Nov 24^th, 2012 at 8:50pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 9:06pm: I cant believe you dont know how the sun can melt ice without warming the rest of the earth. But anyway, you have put this BS all over the place and it is in another thread waiting on you. This has to be one of THE most ignorant statements I've seen from a climate science denier. ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

You were not in the dumb discussion in the first place, so who is ignorant. That would be you.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 24^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:

Upton Sinclair wrote on Nov 24th, 2012 at 8:50pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 9:06pm: I cant believe you dont know how the sun can melt ice without warming the rest of the earth. But anyway, you have put this BS all over the place and it is in another thread waiting on you. This has to be one of THE most ignorant statements I've seen from a climate science denier. ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D You were not in the dumb discussion in the first place, so who is ignorant. That would be you.

wtf ??  ;D ;D

wtf ?? ;D

I have been amused ( note I didn't say 'We'...)  :) :) reading the posts on this topic.

Proglol can't help himself Rabbitoh..  he is mortally offended by any suggestion that humans have any responsibility for what we have done to this earth.

Don't really understand why...  its a kneejerk reaction... which makes ME wonder just what sort of environmental VANDALISM Proglol is responsible for.  Hmmm?  You sound much too  much like you are protesting TOO MUCH.!!
What have you done Proglol??  Hmm ?? I suspect you have seen some nasty stuff done by humans. ... personally,,, and can't accept your own culpability.  WE ARE ALL culpable, but at least some of us are TRYING the right the balance. !! >:(

Any rational being can see the facts.

IN FACT, just today.!!!!  we hear that  the 'Permafrost' is now beginning to melt and degrade,  ..with the likelihood  that MASSIVE infusions of carbon dioxide will now be ADDED to the already dire problem.

SHUCKS.... Permafrost 40,000 yrs old is melting and rotting.!!!!

You are a fool and ignoramus, who can't accept his guilt,  OR the truth.!!!
Shut up and go away...your whining is tiresome.  Unless of course you have something  POSITIVE  to add.  :-?