Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

pigseye

Members
  • Content Count

    3463
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About pigseye

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1175 profile views
  1. When they keep reading articles like this one, https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/corbella-krause-questions-why-trudeau-changed-charity-laws-for-activists/ar-AADQCFs?ocid=spartandhp it's easy to see why they believe only the Conservatives are going to fight for their oil and gas industry, what else do they have?
  2. Latest study on sea level rise: 3 inches by 2050 9 inches by 2100 No need to buy a boat or sell you ocean front property folks. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468013319300567
  3. Turns out the reports in France have been debunked by old newspaper articles from the 1930's, it was just as hot or hotter back then and in the 1870's as well. https://notrickszone.com/ You really have to stay on top of the 'fake news' these days. If I were a warmist, I'd be outraged by this as it delegitimizes the actual problem we are facing. Skeptics like me just end up seeing this as more alarmist BS from the main stream media instead of just telling it like it is, just so sad.
  4. It's definitely extremely hot in some areas of the world maybe they will break the current continental records: North America 1913 Africa 1922 Asia 1942 Oceania 1960 Europe 1977 South America 1905 Antarctica 1974 Funny how we haven't set a new continental record in over 42 years, I'm sure there must have been measuring error involved back then. What other explanation can there be? https://www.thoughtco.com/highest-temperature-ever-recorded-1435172
  5. I can appreciate your honesty, thanks. Why bother to respond to me if I contribute nothing, just ignore me, or do enjoy actually enjoy it?
  6. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem and that we shouldn't be doing everything we can to abate it but you are drawing a conclusion that science and the IPCC don't even support. Everyone knows we have been warming up since coming out of the little Ice Age and that's just the way it is. Have we been contributing to the warming in the past 60 years, absolutely, there is scientific evidence to back it up as I posted above, but that contribution isn't the cause of the glaciers melting in the first place, that started long before an AGW signal was detected. I just have a problem with alarmists drawing conclusions that the science doesn't support.
  7. You know FA about the science of it, well here it is right from your own Bible, First NOAA showing when the AGW started, somewhere in the 1950's https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature Then the IPCC's conclusion on the AGW, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/27/global-warming-ipcc-report-humans Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3 °C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C." "It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together." From the statement above, it is just as likely that just over half of the .5C warming since 1950 is AGW. You still want to argue that the glaciers melting 125 years ago is somehow a human induced condition? Not even the IPCC or the staunchest warming alarmists have suggested such nonsense. PS I'd rather be dense than just another sheep in the herd, bah.....
  8. So they've been melting for the past 125 years but you just discovered that now? Good for you.
  9. You guys thought it was the same picture, I just called you out on it, sorry if I hurt your feelings.
  10. Are you suggesting it started melting because of CO2 levels 125 years ago?
  11. It's been melting for over 125 years, what's you're point? https://www.sealevel.info/co2.html It started melting before CO2 levels started to become the scape goat.
  12. Well even NASA isn't sure anymore https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/03/one-part-of-greenland-ice-growing/ NASA's Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG) project has revealed Greenland’s Jakobshavn Glacier, the island’s biggest, is actually growing, at least at its edge. In research published Monday in Nature Geoscience, researchers report that since 2016, Jakobshavn’s ice has thickened slightly, thanks to relatively cool ocean waters at its base—which have caused the glacier to slow down its melt. This reverses the glacier’s 20-year trend of thinning and retreating. “The thinking was once glaciers start retreating, nothing's stopping them,” explains Josh Willis, an oceanographer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and OMG’s lead scientist. “We've found that that's not true.” Other Arctic glaciers may be undergoing similar growth. That suggests the ebb and flow of glaciers in a warming world may be more complicated and harder to predict than previously thought, says Willis. but I'm sure you know more than NASA, or maybe Nat Geo is just a **** site or something?
  13. At a cursory glance- the website is not credible and the graph... I don't even know what t hat graph is suppose to show. I did notice the "charity tip jar" link at the bottom of that chart. Also, what "wild claim" are you demanding data for? If you don't understand the graph why even comment? Like the article says, sea ice follows the AMO, the graph is the AMO cycle and how ice grows and shrinks with it, geez, at least try pretend you're even remotely interested if you're going to reply.
×
×
  • Create New...