Aerothorn on 26/11/2009 at 19:54

---

A graph from an editorial blog does note equal convincing evidence. It also fails to cite whether the numbers come from similar studies using similar methodology, whether they were at all accurate at doing this stuff in 1965, etc. It certainly doesn't carry a fraction of the weight of, say, the (http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/index.html) IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group. From Polar Bears International:

"At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a decision—this is a change from five that were declining in 2005, five that were stable, and two that were increasing. During the meeting, delegates renewed their conclusion from previous meetings that the greatest conservation challenge to the polar bear is ecological change in the Arctic related to climate warming.

On May 14, 2008, the U.S. Department of the Interior reclassified the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act, citing concerns about sea ice loss."

I can pull a lot more of these stats. The key points are that A. The populations (for obvious reasons) have not been studied enough to draw any detailed timelines, but B. The preponderence of evidence is on a declining polar bear population due to the melting ice caps.

As for Fragony, he lost all credibility after he stated that the Earth wasn't warming up.

Muzman on 26/11/2009 at 19:59

---

Well, (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/about_that_arctic_sea_ice.php) negative growth over time is a <i>kind</i> of growth I suppose.

zombe on 26/11/2009 at 20:04

---

Yes! You know, the orbit changes pretty much seasonally. Hell, after every year or two the whole frigging planet flips the poles and all. And btw - in case you did not get the recent memo - every time you flush your toilet the planet takes a fast loop around Mercury too! And no one ever considered any of that! ... god damn ... get your head out of your ass!

None of the sun related forcings [1] are explaining the fact of global warming: total solar irradiance is slightly falling below usual [2], orbit has not changed much since i last watched out of the window, axial tilt has not done anything surprising lately either ... etc. It is the heat trapping what is the problem.


No, it is not [3]. Coverage fluctuates slightly every year (this year being ONLY the third LOWEST) but over the years is steadily declining. AND that is only coverage!! VOLUME keeps making record lows.

[0] (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/) ... for thous that did not know that it is in fact getting warmer.
[1] (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/gw-forcing.html)
[1] (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_05/)
[2] (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/rind_03/)
[3] (http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html)

Aerothorn on 26/11/2009 at 20:19

---

Oh god, there needs to be some sort of Godwin's Law agains the "round earth" analogy. It's TIRED stuff.

I'll agree that Zombe's post is much more constructive in a traditional sense, but I honestly believe it will have no effect on Fragony's opinion (which was my point). There is no possible way he's been having these discussions on the internet without being introduced to graphs showing average global temperature increases, etc. He continues to believe what he does; therefore, he must believe that all the graphs are doctored, and introducing them to him won't help.

Mind you, I'm talking about point 1 (the planet is warming). The rest of zombe's post was throughly educational and quite likely something Fragony hadn't seen before.

jay pettitt on 26/11/2009 at 20:24

---

I think the thing you need to understand is that Fragony is perfectly capable of understanding that, for example, the arctic is seasonally affected: grows in the winter (when it's cold - duh) and recedes in the summer but as far as is relevant is generally getting smaller overall - but chooses to ignore all that because he hangs out with people who inhabit their own little parallel universe where sticking your head in the sand, your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala whenever someone who might know something has something to say and otherwise patting each other on the back for ignoring the real world counts for something.

Explaining won't help, neither will evidence. He's in denial and simply ain't prepared to listen to anything that doesn't support his denialism. In the mean time, he's more than happy to waste your time.