I don't doubt the earth is temp is rising and there should be concern. It has been rising since the ice age. What I doubt is the solution. it is all about putting money in Democrats pockets. While crying about our polluting, they still fly around the world , buy gas hog rvs. while wanting to tax the poor who have no choice but drive the old gas and oil guzzling heaps of junk. if one of you democrats want to replace my old truck plz do.

Who are they saving it for? We have more pressing things to worry about than ice melting.

_______________________________

Much of the ice sheet is sea ice, which will lower sea level, if it melts. Continental ice melt would cause sea level rise -- which, so far is still rising at the same rate as the last six thousand years,  Note, interior of south pole is dry desert.

Say is not Florida already supposed to be under water??

Well it would dilute my scotch.

There are volcanoes under the antarctic glaciers yet even NASA admits that the antarctic ice sheets are growing:

http://www.livescience.com/461...arctic-glaciers.html

http://www.nasa.gov/content/go...-new-record-maximum/

At least the warmists have the arctic ice sheet decrease; but then again, maybe not proof of global warming rather than normal variance:

https://stevengoddard.wordpres...-sheet-to-melt-down/

https://stevengoddard.wordpres...in-ice-free-water-2/

https://stevengoddard.wordpres...the-arctic-meltdown/

https://stevengoddard.wordpres...est-place-in-europe/

This bogus global warming tripe is defiantly scarier than a nuclear Iran. 

http://freebeacon.com/national...deal-comes-together/

Or ISIS, and other illegals and enemies of our country being allowed to come into the country unfettered/unchallenged.

Just in the time that it took you to read this 1 billion people died from global warming.  Florida is underwater.  I hope all of you are happy.

_____________________________________________________

If we can work in California sliding into the Pacific, we'll have a winner.

Stanky, don't tease.

Who will pick the cukes..?

More info for the duped scoffers to address with their immense scientific knowledge.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/s...-feet-in-the-future/

Who are you saving it for?

Take notice of the word "could".

Conversely, stating sea levels "could" drop would be just as accurate. 

When someone says "could", that means they have no idea if it will really happen.

Contendah believes solar and wind are cheaper than nuke, coal, and gas.  Enough said about his ignorance on that subject.  Why believe anything else he posts?

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...6/?intcmp=latestnews

And yet another dimycritter prognostication that "could" occur.  If it were not costing me money, alarmists antics would be a great source of comedy for me,

Dem resolution warns global warming could force women into prostitution

I've shown this before, but once more.  The level changes over time:

Note that the last six thousand years was a slow rise at a constant rate.

ost-Glacial_Sea_Level.png">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...lacial_Sea_Level.png

However, warmists  use this graph (both from Wiki) to show a rapid rise over the last 120 years.  The warmists changed the axis data to make the rise seem rapid.

___

Apples and oranges.  One graph goes back 24,000 years; the other only to 1870. And the matter is far more complex than you might think:

http://www.eco-business.com/ne...-level-rise-steeper/

Truth of the matter is, they don't know for sure; at best it's a 50/50 chance that sea levels will rise to dangerous levels.  These type predictions have been made before and they have not come true, they just simply keep pushing out their predictions by a couple of decades. 

Proof that Condie doesn't know how to read graphs and compare points on them to determine what's being exaggerated with a change in axis ratios.  Lefties aren't known for technical proficiency.  One on this forum can't make an internet search.

Yep, scale change from meters to inches will definitely increase the slope.  I've commented on scale manipulation in the past, but it always fell on deaf ears.  I'm actually surprised the scale is not in millimeters, the slope would be near vertical.

_______________________________________________

My experience with graphs over the last few decades were mainly economic in nature.  I've learned to spot a fraud or exaggeration.  Appears the same for natural science, as well.

It's easy to spot a lying warmist, his/her lips are moving.

Global warming conspiracy theory

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...ng_conspiracy_theory

The Great Global Warming Conspiracy Theory refers to the questionable ideas bandied about by global warming denialists that global warming either isn't happening or is being over-hyped by a group of people who feel that they have some advantage to gain by promoting the evidence for global warming.

Besides the general nonsensical nature of many of these theories, they generally fail to answer how the conspiracy reaches back to John Tyndall's discovery of the greenhouse effect in 1859 (perhaps Al Gore invented a time machine after he was done with the Internet).^[3]

The scientists who don't agree with the "prevailing science" are also tired of being portrayed as being bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industries:

Climate Science Doubts: Not Because of Payment, but Because the Science Is Bad

by Dr. Christopher Essex   25 Mar 2015

Members of the Scientific Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) recently criticized the Royal Society’s positions on climate.

Their clear, authoritative scientific objections to the Royal Society’s positions reveal the weak scientific foundation on which the great climate fervor has been based. The public must either become conversant enough to grasp this or step back and get out of the way of those who have. Scientists don’t need to be paid to oppose the ideas of climate orthodoxy, because those ideas are just so **** bad.

http://www.breitbart.com/londo...ence-is-so-****-bad/

________________________________________________________

Al Gore also wants those who disagree with his consensus to be pilloried. The "consensus science" looks more like an authoritative religion like Islam than science where truth is sought.

Al Gore at SXSW: We Need to ‘Punish Climate-Change Deniers’ and ‘Put a Price on Carbon’

For the third time in the last few years, Al Gore, founder and chairman of the Climate Reality Project, spoke at the festival on Friday. Naturally, his interactive discussion focused on addressing the climate crisis. The former vice president focused on the need to “punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting ‘accepted science,'” said the Chicago Tribune.

http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/16...ish-climate-deniers/

What caused climate change before the industrial revolution and internal combustion engines?

There is an axis of access concerning the warmists.  There are a number of scientists whose livelihood are built around the existence of global warming/climate change.  If climate change is proven wrong, they lose millions in grants and other funds -- its their iron rice bowl,  Enviros use the supposed existence of global warming to stop anything they consider evil -- supposedly hurt the earth,  From them, we hear stupid claims like settled science (no such thing).  Even now, physicists are concerned the Big Bang theory may be wrong.  Of, that 97 (or 98 or 99) percent of scientists agree.  I've shown that claim to be extremely false,  There are instances of temperatures changed and, as shown in this thread, false data interpolation to show a dramatic sea level rise.

The Earth is getting GREENER: Researchers reveal huge expansion in world's trees

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...s.html#ixzz3VuhP6wIO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

"The world's vegetation has expanded, adding nearly 4 billion tonnes of carbon to plants above ground in the decade since 2003, thanks to tree-planting in China, forest regrowth in former Soviet states and more lush savannas due to higher rainfall."

Natural feedback mechanism to sequester excess carbon in the atmosphere?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/fea...51/carry-on-warming/

There's more trees because plastic has replaced the need for wood, just

like the reason the deserts are getting bigger because plastic is replacing

the need for glass.

The US experienced about a one percent increase in forests in the last part of the 20th century, despite increasing development. Some, but not all was attributed to abandoned marginal farms in New England and Maine. 

South Korea has a massive reforestation program because when a Japanese colony the forests were stripped. Stripped for charcoal to fuel their factories for the imperial war machine.  China is reforesting.  However, a major effort is replacing the grasslands of the Gobi and Outer Mongolia.  They plowed and planted wheat -- got one good crop.  That destroyed the thin soil and converted the area to desert. Since then, eastern China, Korea and the US receive the yellow wind of sand from there. 

IAW, much is just replacing what was destroyed.

I know I've been mostly advocating on one side of this topic, but I've been trying to continue the discussion in order to come to my own conclusion on climate change.  Still not there yet, but just found this which I think is really stupid:

US offer for climate treaty: Up to 28 percent emissions cut

WASHINGTON –  In a highly anticipated announcement, the United States will offer a roughly 28 percent emissions cut as its contribution to a major global climate treaty nearing the final stages of negotiation, according to people briefed on the White House's plans.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...t/?intcmp=latestnews

A major cut that could affect the economy negatively.  As treaties require two-thirds of the Senate's approval to pass, don't hold your breath.

________________________________________________________

Even the amount of warming one gets from CO₂ is an issue:

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states.  Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

NASA refused to release the results.  Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple.  "Money", he tells DailyTech.  Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research.  Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

- See more at: http://www.dailytech.com/Resea...sthash.AhJf7SBR.dpuf

Funny how that atmosphere gets thinner higher up. 

How does NASA avoid FOIA?  The report can't be classified.

_________________________

If NASA refused to release the results, that did not stop them from being published in a Hungarian journal, as reported in the article cited by direstraits.

A related report, analyzing the Miskolczi  research, is described here.   

"The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth's response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated.  It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured. "

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

BUT, Schwartz himself cautioned that the conclusions of the Miskolczi research are narrowly based, relying on a single "simple model," and subject to revision: 

"Finally, as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model. In response to that question it might have to be said that it remains to be seen. In this context it is hoped that the present study might stimulate further work along these lines with more complex models. It might also prove valuable to apply the present analysis approach to the output of global climate models to ascertain the fidelity with which 18 these models reproduce "whole Earth" properties of the climate system such as are empirically determined here. Ultimately of course the climate models are essential to provide much more refined projections of climate change than would be available from the global mean quantities that result from an analysis of the present sort. Still it would seem that empirical examination of these global mean quantities – effective heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity – can usefully constrain climate models and thereby help to identify means for improving the confidence in these models."