Remember, folks: the Earth isn't warming... but f it is, it's not us; that'd be impossible. And if it is us, there's nothing that can be done... so don't do anything.
That's how the [Exxon-funded] logic's supposed to go, right??
There is robust evidence for the downward trend in Arctic summer sea ice extent since 1979. It has been established that the region is at its warmest for at least 4,000 years [wikipedia.org] and the Arctic-wide melt season has lengthened at a rate of 5 days per decade (from 1979 to 2013),
Is it temporary or not? Will it reverse itself in he next 1000 years?
Nice red herring, but it won't distract me from your execrable logic about NASA and etc.
The answer back was effectively
If by "poopyhead" you mean known denier of science. The guy's a creationist for fuck's sake. You're not one of those too are you? That would be hilarious! He's also stated his bias: he is against global warming for evangelical reasons. So we all know he's not arguing in good faith.
Here's the bit where you go pseudo-logical and say that it doesn't matter who
That's how the [Exxon-funded] logic's supposed to go, right??
The Earth is warming... but if it isn't, it's not because our model is broken; that'd be impossible
Observing the warming trend does not require a model. It just requires thermometers. Here's a graph:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis... [nasa.gov]
And if you want to argue that there's a global conspiracy to fudge thermometer data, please explain the Arctic ice loss.
Compared to the last 100 years? 1000 years?
There is robust evidence for the downward trend in Arctic summer sea ice extent since 1979. It has been established that the region is at its warmest for at least 4,000 years [wikipedia.org] and the Arctic-wide melt season has lengthened at a rate of 5 days per decade (from 1979 to 2013),
Is it temporary or not? Will it reverse itself in he next 1000 years?
That depends largely on what we do next.
So tell me - how is his data bad?
Nice red herring, but it won't distract me from your execrable logic about NASA and etc.
The answer back was effectively
If by "poopyhead" you mean known denier of science. The guy's a creationist for fuck's sake. You're not one of those too are you? That would be hilarious! He's also stated his bias: he is against global warming for evangelical reasons. So we all know he's not arguing in good faith.
Here's the bit where you go pseudo-logical and say that it doesn't matter who
Looking at long term ice volume is a better indicator than monthly swings in extent.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpres... [uw.edu]
September average has gone from 17 to 5 [1000 km^3] in 4 decades.