DJL

What pause are you referring to? Do you think that there is going to be a perfectly linear change in temperature from year to year?

Can you point to where BillV said there would be droughts within these 12 months?

That doesn't in any way show that the current steady rise in global temperatures is occurring independently of rising CO2.

To be clear, it's the warm air caused by the elevated presence of CO2 that's causing the ice to melt. So do you disagree that CO2 is causing the air to be warmer? Please show the work you've done to reach this conclusion to include sources, math and science.

Your dramatics, aside: Arctic wildfires: What's caused huge swathes of flames to spread? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49125391

Another order on the books for an electric aircraft. Not a type that benefits us but some help in developing the market and infrastructure. Order for First All-Electric Passenger Airplane Placed by Massachusetts Carrier https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/aerospace/aviation/order-for-first-allelectric-passenger-airplane-placed-by-massachusetts-carrier

They'll never admit to that. I can tell you that during the election I personally spent time tracing items to their source and in several cases found that it was very openly a Russian source. Was that THE thing that got the person to vote this way? Was it THE thing that created just a little more buzz that wasn't already there? How about the timing of events like the fact that the Anthony Weiner laptop emails surfaced just days before the election requiring a hasty review and statement by Comey that they were not relevent and even to this day this is viewed as proof of some sort of deep state FBI support for HRC. Those are the very things that while not a hot issue are just warm enough to get a quantity of people to go to the poles and a quantity of people to not. Or a quantity of people to repost, retweet, etc...

I disagree, many times we make a wrong move and only in retrospect do we harden ourselves against it. That statement could be applied to many things we've done in the past but will never do again. But I'm only right about that if I end up being right about that and the idea that we'll do better next time certainly doesn't alleviate them from your statement.

Kind of like declining the penalty in football, they get better field position. An impeachment proceeding would be extremely risky politically. It's doubtful that it would go through, Trump would not make it easy and resign like Nixon, it's difficult to say that it would even result in Trump's removal, it would divide the country along party lines and possibly do more to send Republican voters to the polls resulting in a substantial loss of seats (as happened to the R's after Clinton's proceedings) and even the next Presidency. It does much more for it to be something that sits out there as an unresolved strike against Trump that weighs on the minds of people trying to decide if they want to use their lunch break to hit the polling station.

Probably not but I'd like to think this is the last Republican President who will run on a denier platform.

I was thinking about the fact that the Senate is R controlled right now and the House can't get any environmental measures through because they're too progressive for R constituents and their support plays out more like 1970's era anti-nuke marches. It would tickle me silly if the R's created their own workable solution, ran it through and were able to take the credit for the US turning the corner on Climate Change issues.

Seriously, the resistance to this concept is astounding, as if we'd rather be tied into a market that fluctuates every time something happens in the most volatile region in the world for oil, or one that requires a tremendous front end in the form of mining and transportation for coal. And God forbid I mention the ACTUAL TRACK RECORD of health and environmental issues associated with both.

Who would've thought that utilizing a power source in which you don't have to pay for the fuel would be profitable.

This is like talking to an antivax mom. The words of her child's doctors fall on deaf ears but some guy on Youtube is definitive proof.

But you've be unable to provide any evidence of that.

Well, initially you were just asking where he went off the rails. I showed it to you very specifically. He used the wrong graph and a very short list of absolutist or incorrectly applied statements to support his statements. As for the statement about sea ice 6000-7000 years ago he's quoting a study about beach ridge formation in a portion of Greenland formed by waves which would require a long period of open water. The researches state in that study: " "Changes that took place 6000-7000 years ago were controlled by other climatic forces than those which seem to dominate today,” Astrid Lyså believes." But nevermind the statements from the people he's quoting because he just wants to say, "So we can say with 100% certainty that Arctic sea ice has no correlation with atmospheric CO2. We can also say with 100% certainty that climate scientists have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to predicting Arctic sea ice and they have no integrity." So which is it? The very people he's saying have no integrity have given him the information he's using for his claim about CO2. Next, "Every single day we see new stories about the arctic dying...." No, he provided 10 stories for a period of 10 years, some repeated in different locations, some by the same people bringing us to about 7 or 8 actual stories. 2 of those were instances in which the scientist being quoted stated that in no way had his data concluded with such a claim, so now we're down to 5 to 6....in a decade. In the meantime the scientific body at large has provided a very detailed record that shows the actual progression of sea ice loss that can be used to trace a possible rate of loss continuing over the next 50 years. Several of those graphs are posted above. Next. I'm not sure what the Reykavik Iceland Temps and Atlantic multidecadal oscillations have to with or prove about atmospheric CO2. I can tell you with certainty that the Atlantic gulfstream plows straight into Iceland and can say with 100% certainty that the temp in iceland is affected by temps in the Atlantic Ocean. Next "...satellite sea ice records began in 1979, but that's simply not true." Again, he's not quoting anyone in particular and I'm not sure what the relevance of the statement because he simply says it and continues in a nonsequitor about the temperature in Iceland that has no bearing on whether or not satellite sea records were being kept. Satellite tracking began in the 60s but couldn't penetrate clouds or record at night because of our tech at the time. It improved until when we were able to gather enough information to put together what we could track as a trend worthy of publishing. Ok, I've again exhausted explaining his pile of nonsense. To provide you with information to work from, the rate of sea ice loss as measured by minimum extents is 13.2% per decade or about 924,000 square kilometers. At that rate the sea ice extend minimum will be zero in about 2055. When it comes to an actual application of that mathematical trend it still doesn't mean that there's going to be a sea with zero ice in it, simply that the continuous expanse we know of now will be replaced with floating patches, slush, some ice bergs floating around all left over from the winter freeze. Picture this being similar to a map showing the possible path of a hurricane.

Nope, you're fine. Fitness will always get you through a hot day. Fittin-this jumpsuit is always an issue after the holidays.

Sure but there's little point in doing that since what you'll want when you're a student will probably be vastly different than what you want when you have about 50-100 jumps and actually know what's out there. Focus on the important things and save your money for jumping.

Your guy is cherry picking from a list of absolutist statements and often misinformed "experts" in order to support his claim that he's right. The guy who Gore quoted almost immediately made it clear that his data was being misrepresented. He lists about 10 claims, some repeated, some by the same people, nothing more than "someone was wrong". However, his point for that portion is that despite all of this there is no change in artic sea ice. This is a lie, entirely untrue and that information is available with the simplest search. His graph, which he attributes to the "multiagency sea ice extent" (Actually Multi-SENSOR ANALYZED sea ice extent) shows a flat line at about 11,000,000 km^2 but the actual graph shows that decreasing and finishing at about 10,000,000 km^2. Furthermore, he's chosen a segment that starts in a record low period of 2007. CONTINUED BELOW. This is a graph showing minimums from 1980. As you can see there isn't much of a change from 2007 to 2018 but there's a profound change from 1980. So now he's not only shown incorrect data from a group he couldn't even pronounce correctly but he's showing the most advantageous period to defend his point. Next, he's not even talking about the most serious point of data, Arctic Sea Ice Volume. Continued below.. Sea Ice Extent (two dimensional plane) has not changed as much as sea ice volume (three dimensional object). Again, something to refute his claim that "Nothing has happened". From this graph below it's quite clear what the trend is. The rest of his gobly gook is about CO2 and I don't have time for that except that it looks like his graph is also showing the incorrect data again.

What part are you trying to talk about? You posted a link to the guy's youtube page, not to a specific video or specific material. So, yes, right now we're talking about the messenger. If you want to talk about the message we can actually use the words and opinions of other deniers and don't even need to quote the "my people" people because the material from the guy you're trying to quote is the most famously debunked information in the entire debate.

Well, maybe I acted too soon assuming that brenthutch posted a link to Heller's you tube page as an agreement with his points. I mean, Heller was even kicked off of being allowed to post his blog to the wattsupwiththat website because even THEY thought he was so far from the mark it was making them look stupid. In fact they've left up an entire section on the wattsup site put together by climate scientists (their rivals) allowing them to explain exactly how far off the mark Heller is from presenting anything resembling fact.

I think Steven Goddard has better material. Edit: About Tony "Steven Goddard" Heller: "Like a shit stain, my blog is ugly, embarrassing and, as much as you hate to, it’s something you have to deal with. One fellow climate denier described my blog as “the crack house of skepticism.” But enough uneducated morons and right-wing ideologues link to my blog to grant me substantial ranking on Google search results. " https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony-heller/

That's equally as rational of a statement as Trump suggesting on the international stage that we would turn Afghanistan into a sheet of glass so I'm not really sure how to respond.

Did the "Trump Gaffs" thread get deleted? Looked but couldn't find it. Anyway, I'm not sure if Trump knows that Afghanistan is our host and ally in the fight against Al Queda/Taliban remnants even factoring in the most contentious issues we have with each other. I'm not sure who he thinks we would fight, against the country of Afghanistan? Did he really just make a suggestion that he's being the good guy by not obliterating the entire country and its inhabitants? Trump: I could win Afghanistan war 'in a week' https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/22/trump-afghanistan-war-1425692

And since you're a smart guy I'm sure you understand the difference between extent and volume. As that 7th lowest extent article describes, the volume is actually seeing a permanent decrease. Here's the closest narrative to raw data available: http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/ And since you're keen on suggesting people eat crow because for some reason the most recent reading has to the the worst in order for a point to be made here's a graph using the actual raw data showing both the trend in volume over the last 40 years AND the fact that 2019 is in fact the worst for ice volume loss. As in the most recent reading of ice volume is the lowest in (recent) history. Want to switch back to talking about snow storms in the North West? That's probably an easier one for you since you can just say, "Look! Snow in April!" as if that means something.