A study (wink) dude i dont get involved in things i cant win or have no understanding ofWhere are you getting your numbers from ?
A study (wink) dude i dont get involved in things i cant win or have no understanding ofWhere are you getting your numbers from ?
A made up study by the "experts" in their field no doubtA study (wink) dude i dont get involved in things i cant win or have no understanding of
yes, man has f'd the earth, brilliantYou must be a Chump voter are you? What a moron.
look at little porker! his hands are all balled in tiny fists of rageWow you are nothing but a pathetic attention seeking loser!
You have the hypocrisy to say I contribute nothing! You have contributed not 1 post in relation to this thread.
I can't even be fucked reading the last dribble but I know it'll be some garbage about the outdoors and how superior you are in them.
I get your old and stupid but your deep insecurities about your physical abilities and continued efforts to challenge me is both sad and pathetic!
Maybe just have a read of how stupid your off topic posts are.
The one where you attempted to sound like you had a shread of intelligence with the "appeal to authority" post was particularly funny!
have to be honest with you arsekick, but 'If the chart went back to the 1920s' may not make it with most review committeesIf the chart went back to the 1920s it would show less ice than the 50s, and no doubt a lot less than today
View attachment 19021565
\\
This chart, from Gagné et al, shows the area-averaged annual mean sea ice concentration anomaly between 1950 and 2005. The red line reflects Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) data, which is based on historical sea ice charts from several sources (aircraft, ship, and satellite observations). The blue Walsh & Chapman data includes additional historical sources and uses slightly different techniques for merging various data streams. The black line is a simulated mean sea ice concentration from the CanESM2 large ensemble, a group of models developed at the Canadian Center for Climate Modelling and Analysis. Anomalies are relative to climatological averages between 1975 and 2005. The time series have been lightly smoothed with 5-year running mean. The gray shading shows the 5-95 percent range over the individual simulations of the model ensemble. The dotted lines are the piecewise linear approximated trends.
Not sure I'm wishing for anything.have to be honest with you arsekick, but 'If the chart went back to the 1920s' may not make it with most review committees
frankly your chart doesn't seem to be saying what you wish
find an actual chart that does go back before the 1920s, then you'll have something
no you're cherry picking again, there are actual charts that show arctic ice pack based on ship based observationsNot sure I'm wishing for anything.
Is the chart wrong ?, it seems to fit into what we know about the past weather/climate from the 20th century.
It also shows that the global warming brigade cherry picked the high sea ice cover from the late 70s early 80s as their starting point to prove their point
You call him stupid yet the word you use should be drivel not dribble. Dribble means to let saliva run down from the mouth,unless you are on the basketball court,highly unlikely with those mitts,drivel means pointless speech. Once again,oblivious.Wow you are nothing but a pathetic attention seeking loser!
You have the hypocrisy to say I contribute nothing! You have contributed not 1 post in relation to this thread.
I can't even be fucked reading the last dribble but I know it'll be some garbage about the outdoors and how superior you are in them.
I get your old and stupid but your deep insecurities about your physical abilities and continued efforts to challenge me is both sad and pathetic!
Maybe just have a read of how stupid your off topic posts are.
The one where you attempted to sound like you had a shread of intelligence with the "appeal to authority" post was particularly funny!
trees are a renewable resource and paper is easy to compost or reuse, but i guess plastic is just better for the earthI never understood why they substitute the plastic for paper. Cut the tree down to help the climate.
Yeppers.Can't we just simplify this thread and ask everyone , Do you think the human race has f.cked the earth or not . The answer would be pretty f.cking simple. Get real everyone wants to drive a car , everyone wants power, most people like beef, lots of people love take away food. Oceans are rising . The human race has f.cked the earth it's simple.
Did you follow the covid "experts" advice and jab yourself with an untested vaccine ?Yep, some random idiots opinion (such as yours) clearly carries more weight than those pesky "experts".
"Gridded Monthly Sea Ice Extent and Concentration, 1850 Onwards builds on an earlier data product (Chapman and Walsh 1991)"no you're cherry picking again, there are actual charts that show arctic ice pack based on ship based observations
and they don't jibe with your theories
the university at fairbanks maintains a nice record of ice from the 1850s until today
Historical Sea Ice Atlas
View historical sea ice data from the seas around the circumpolar north and discover how ice extent and concentration have changed over time.snap.uaf.edu
no you're cherry picking again, there are actual charts that show arctic ice pack based on ship based observations
and they don't jibe with your theories
the university at fairbanks maintains a nice record of ice from the 1850s until today
Historical Sea Ice Atlas
View historical sea ice data from the seas around the circumpolar north and discover how ice extent and concentration have changed over time.snap.uaf.edu
Haven't you heard of bamboo mate, they use it for a variety of things these days. I won't put any stupid link up about it because you make stupid look easy.trees are a renewable resource and paper is easy to compost or reuse, but i guess plastic is just better for the earth
....
or is it?!
/help me @Porky82 i need some stupid links
"Gridded Monthly Sea Ice Extent and Concentration, 1850 Onwards builds on an earlier data product (Chapman and Walsh 1991)"
From your link ^
So my chart is wrong but your link is right, and they use the same data from Chapman and Walsh.
View attachment 19022159
I'm sure I've seen you use the same links when your picking your s." Please note that much of the pre-1953 data is either climatology or interpolated data and the user is cautioned to use this data with care. "
Turns out its not all its made up to be, you really should read the links you post, same goes for the rest of you lot.