The increase in Arctic sea ice volume during November was the largest on record.

I am not obligated to accept your obscure rightwing denier blog as a legitimate scientific source.

Because, it is not legitimate.

Post something from a legitimate scientific source - NASA, NOAA, NAS, peer reviewed scientific research, peer reviewed scientific journals.

Legitimate scientific websites are not hard to find.

Posting from obscure blogs just shows how weak and tepid The Denier premise is.

They don't even realize these things are often funded by those with the most to gain, or lose, by things being a certain way. What dimwit is going to trust fossil fuel companies on this issue? Apparently we've found out way too often.
 
"Havana" whatever already ran with this last week, except then it was the same study, same people, but some newspaper in Iceland

It was equally questionable then and still is today, might as well use the "Onion" as your source

I'd actually enjoy someone running with an Onion source, as opposed to this crap.
 
Ahem. Rutgers University climate lab. That was a source that was used. Can you refute their data? Lol. Didn't think so.
LMAO. One chart is a perfect illustration of the typical shape of the jet stream in winter. Still, it shows that the vast majority of the nation was either at, or above normal temperature.

Got any charts that show December? We've got 60 degrees today in the N.E.
 
Every sentient person, every higher life form, every reasonable person realizes that spewing billions of tons of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere very year is probably not a good idea, and constitutes a significant long term risk to the global environment and human health.

With that backdrop, The Deniers are either among the most dishonest persons of modern times, or they are dim witted and barely educated nincompoops.

There you go again with that moronic "deniers" strawman.
 
Rather then study Earth, maybe you should study a little bit about Venus, and go backwards from there. :palm:

I have been interested in astronomy since the age of eight or so, and I knew way back then that the atmosphere of Venus is around 96% CO2, as opposed to Earth which is currently around 0.00041%. So put the chocolate profiterole down and crack a book open, ignoramus!!
 

"Arctic sea ice extent for November averaged 9.80 million square kilometers (3.78 million square miles). This was the ninth lowest November in the 1979 to 2018 satellite record, falling 900,000 square kilometers (347,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average, yet 1.14 million square kilometers (440,000 square miles) above the record November low in 2016."

Source (actual scientist ppl): http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
 
"Arctic sea ice extent for November averaged 9.80 million square kilometers (3.78 million square miles). This was the ninth lowest November in the 1979 to 2018 satellite record, falling 900,000 square kilometers (347,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average, yet 1.14 million square kilometers (440,000 square miles) above the record November low in 2016."

Source (actual scientist ppl): http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

So the Danish Meteorological Institute are not scientists, ignorant twat!!

NovemberIncreaseInArcticSeaIceVolume_shadow-1.jpg
 
I have been interested in astronomy since the age of eight or so, and I knew way back then that the atmosphere of Venus is around 96% CO2, as opposed to Earth which is currently around 0.00041%. So put the chocolate profiterole down and crack a book open, ignoramus!!

I've been into space since I was just reading, around 4, or 5. Venus is completely uninhabitable, but you seem to underestimate effects. Even a percentage of a change can alter quite a bit in temp, greenhouse effects, etc. Ozone depletion, deforestation, you name it, they all make it worse. Go on, and argue semantics though. It's obviously how professionals handle it.:palm:
 
I've been into space since I was just reading, around 4, or 5. Venus is completely uninhabitable, but you seem to underestimate effects. Even a percentage of a change can alter quite a bit in temp, greenhouse effects, etc. Ozone depletion, deforestation, you name it, they all make it worse. Go on, and argue semantics though. It's obviously how professionals handle it.:palm:

Stick to writing about junk food, atmospheric physics is not for you!! Yes, there will be a runaway greenhouse effect but in about 3 billion years so you're safe you can come out of the fridge now!
 
Last edited:
I've been into space since I was just reading, around 4, or 5. Venus is completely uninhabitable, but you seem to underestimate effects. Even a percentage of a change can alter quite a bit in temp, greenhouse effects, etc. Ozone depletion, deforestation, you name it, they all make it worse. Go on, and argue semantics though. It's obviously how professionals handle it.:palm:

Certainly seems like you live on another planet most of the time anyway.
 
"Arctic sea ice extent for November averaged 9.80 million square kilometers (3.78 million square miles). This was the ninth lowest November in the 1979 to 2018 satellite record, falling 900,000 square kilometers (347,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average, yet 1.14 million square kilometers (440,000 square miles) above the record November low in 2016."

Source (actual scientist ppl): http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
See what happens when you leave? You don't get your posts groaned by the Limey.

I love those who reference the extent of arctic sea ice coverage, as if that means more than actual thickness of the ice.
 
So the Danish Meteorological Institute are not scientists, ignorant twat!!

View attachment 8304
Meteorologist's aren't scientists? Since when?

The basic requirement for becoming a meteorologist or a climatologist is a 4-year Bachelor of Science degree in Meteorology or Atmospheric Sciences. Some teaching, research or management positions require a Masters of Science degree or a Ph.D.
 
Back
Top