Arctic Global Warming Expedition Canceled Because of too Much Ice

[Grapesoda]

A research expedition to study the effects of global warming aboard the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Amundsen is on hold as the icebreaker is needed to do it?s primary job ? break up ice.

According to a Coast Guard officer, the icy conditions are the ?worst he?s seen in 20 years?:

A carefully planned, 115-day scientific expedition on board the floating research vessel, the CCGS Amundsen, has been derailed as the icebreaker was called to help resupply ships navigate heavy ice in Hudson Bay.

?Obviously it has a large impact on us,? says Martin Fortier, executive director of ArcticNet, which coordinates research on the vessel. ?It?s a frustrating situation.?

During the summer, the Amundsen operates as a floating research centre with experiments running 24 hours a day. This year it was scheduled to reach North Baffin Bay.

But the icebreaker has been rerouted to escort commercial ships en route to resupply communities in Northern Quebec on the eastern side of Hudson Bay.

Johnny Leclair, assistant commissioner for the Coast Guard, said Tuesday conditions in the area are the worst he?s seen in 20 years


Arctic expedition to study global warming put on hold because of too much ice

[bronco67]

You cracked the case. There's ice in the arctic, so there's no global warming. Please crawl back into your manure pit.

[SuckOnThis]

It stays a constant 74 degrees in Grapesoda's basement, therefore global warming is a myth.

[woj]

when I clicked this thread I was expecting some onion article...

[Mutt]

and then there's this



Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013

Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013 - BBC News

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Mutt

and then there's this



Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013

Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013 - BBC News

this is some whack shit

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

It stays a constant 74 degrees in Grapesoda's basement, therefore global warming is a myth.

if you had my life you would think you were in heaven, no shit... just keep on being a sour person of low quality, we love you like you are...

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by bronco67

You cracked the case. There's ice in the arctic, so there's no global warming.

uhhmmmmmm

[pornmasta]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

uhhmmmmmm

[2MuchMark]

Phew! Now I can finally buy that Hummer.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by **********

Phew! Now I can finally buy that Hummer.

mark prince of old has returned

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by bronco67

There's ice in the arctic,

The icebreaker was called in to break up ice in Hudson Bay - well south of the Arctic.



.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

The icebreaker was called in to break up ice in Hudson Bay - well south of the Arctic.



.

Hudson River freezes as Manhattan is encased in worst ice for a decade | Daily Mail Online

[Freedom6995]

It hasn't been above 10C to many days where I'm at (St. Anthony, NL, Canada). Currently it is 6C and with the windchill it is 1C. Global wtf is more like it!

[Robbie]

I'm wondering...

Could it actually be colder in the North and South Poles. But perhaps warmer in some desert areas (like where I live) and other warm places than it usually is...thus giving Global Warming Alarmists the ability to say the WORLD is getting "warmer"?

In other words, while the ice at the poles keeps getting bigger...the people trying to cash in on "Global Warming" can keep on beating the drum by the average temperature of the entire globe instead of the ice packs in the North and South poles...which was what the original gloom and doom attempt to scare everyone was about in the first place.

[2MuchMark]

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by **********

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

So the graph shows that we are a temperature anomaly of less than 1/2 of one degree Celsius

And it also shows that the temps have dropped the last few years from the "high" of almost 7/10 of one degree down closer to 1/2 of one degree.

Is that your big "proof" that the world is ending?

Here's another animated gif from NASA...it looks real scary, until you look at the actual numbers on it. A less than ONE degree change from a low in 1880 until now.
Climate Change: Climate Resource Center - Top 10 coldest and warmest years

Oooohhhh...we better create "carbon credits" and let some people get filthy rich while the poor people suffer needlessly from high energy prices over this!

And keep in mind...that's the average of the entire Earth's temps. Not the North Pole and South Pole. We were fed a line of shit that claimed the ice was all going to melt and we were DOOMED.
Now it's not melting. It's growing.

But somehow...that money MUST keep flowing. So we are still DOOMED!

[EddyTheDog]

You can't get your head around global weather change?..

What an idiot.....

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

You can't get your head around global weather change?..

What an idiot.....

Are you talking to me? Do I know you? Or did you just decide to call me an idiot out of the clear blue sky?

[EddyTheDog]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Are you talking to me? Do I know you? Or did you just decide to call me an idiot out of the clear blue sky?

Anyone who cant get their hear around weather change - Not aimed at you at all...

[Robbie]

The graph shows a ONE HALF DEGREE "anomaly" over the past 135 years. Is that what you are asking me to "wrap my head around"?

Anyway, just trying to point out that if you think that one half of one degree "anomaly" (and there is no "normal" temperature for the Earth to begin with...but let's forget that for a moment) over 135 years is a big deal... then so be it.

I've tried to tell people to just use their own grade school education and you would know that the Earth is coming out of a small cool down and is warming back up...regardless of man. But hey, if you want to ignore history then be my guest.

[Paul&John]

Originally Posted by mutt

and then there's this



arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013

arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013 - bbc news

"the long-term trend of the ice volume is downwards and the long-term trend of the temperatures in the arctic is upwards and this finding doesn't give us any reason to disbelieve that - as far as we can tell it's just one anomalous year."

...
.
.

.

[arock10]

But but but it was hot yesterday so clearly there is global warning

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

Anyone who cant get their hear around weather change - Not aimed at you at all...

dear eddythedog,

the earth's weather is not static, the weather constantly modulates and has since the ''let there be light" activity... while it's true that the weather change does have impact on human behavior, the French revolution for instance, there is very little evidence that 'humans' are changing global weather other than the constant whining by Ben Aflac, Al Gore and Pres Obama, which by it's very nature hardly constitutes proof.

warm regards, GS

[takethebluepill]

To those of you who question global warming... going out on a limb here, but I assume most of you have nothing in the way of higher education. And no, driving by a university everyday on your way to the casino doesn't count.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by takethebluepill

To those of you who question global warming... going out on a limb here, but I assume most of you have nothing in the way of higher education. And no, driving by a university everyday on your way to the casino doesn't count.

are you refereeing to our lack of indoctrination into liberal causes? this is your gift selected just for you..

Intellectuals & Society

The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech: Kirsten Powers, Kristin Watson Heintz: 9781491591727: Amazon.com: Books

and FYI the mainstream media refuses to print anything against global warming.... i.e. we will not print anything we disagree with... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

in a world of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and public manipulation, dictated by a political system euphemistically named English Socialism (or Ingsoc in the government's invented language, Newspeak) under the control of a privileged Inner Party elite, that persecutes individualism and independent thinking as "thoughtcrime".[3]

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Robbie

So the graph shows that we are a temperature anomaly of less than 1/2 of one degree Celsius

And it also shows that the temps have dropped the last few years from the "high" of almost 7/10 of one degree down closer to 1/2 of one degree.

Is that your big "proof" that the world is ending?

Here's another animated gif from NASA...it looks real scary, until you look at the actual numbers on it. A less than ONE degree change from a low in 1880 until now.
Climate Change: Climate Resource Center - Top 10 coldest and warmest years

Oooohhhh...we better create "carbon credits" and let some people get filthy rich while the poor people suffer needlessly from high energy prices over this!

And keep in mind...that's the average of the entire Earth's temps. Not the North Pole and South Pole. We were fed a line of shit that claimed the ice was all going to melt and we were DOOMED.
Now it's not melting. It's growing.

But somehow...that money MUST keep flowing. So we are still DOOMED!

Nasa says there's a problem. You say there's none. Are you saying Nasa is wrong and you are right?

[dyna mo]

it's actually called climate change these days, not global warming.

are you questioning if the climate is changing or if man is the main cause of the climate changing?

[woj]

Originally Posted by takethebluepill

To those of you who question global warming... going out on a limb here, but I assume most of you have nothing in the way of higher education. And no, driving by a university everyday on your way to the casino doesn't count.

one could argue that the reverse is true, that uneducated fall easier for politically driven bullshit... just look at this graph:


source: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Like Robbie pointed out, all the drama is over 0.5 degrees... and if you average out past 150 years, the average will come out to pretty much 0...

...and even 150 years worth of data when looking at earth's climate is like looking at stock prices for the past hour and trying to predict what will happen next week...



source:Global Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

can anyone here explain why the temperature trend was flat from 1940 to 1980? Clearly industry/co2 emissions/etc grew rapidly during that time frame (4-fold increase between 1940 and 1980)... and yet, temperature trend was flat... why?

[Best-In-BC]

lol, you are clearly one of these people who just finds a artical that fits and calls it fact.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Best-In-BC

lol, you are clearly one of these people who just finds a artical that fits and calls it fact.

lol, you are clearly one of those people that thinks they have superior knowledge because they parrot what some academic with no life experience, or knowledge outside a narrow range told them.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by woj

one could argue that the reverse is true, that uneducated fall easier for politically driven bullshit... just look at this graph:


source: http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Like Robbie pointed out, all the drama is over 0.5 degrees... and if you average out past 150 years, the average will come out to pretty much 0...

...and even 150 years worth of data when looking at earth's climate is like looking at stock prices for the past hour and trying to predict what will happen next week...



source:Global Emissions | Climate Change | US EPA

can anyone here explain why the temperature trend was flat from 1940 to 1980? Clearly industry/co2 emissions/etc grew rapidly during that time frame (4-fold increase between 1940 and 1980)... and yet, temperature trend was flat... why?

0.5 degree change is significant.

[woj]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

0.5 degree change is significant.

that's debatable... how did you reach the conclusion that it's "significant"?

what about the detail that the average over the past 150 years is 0? or that the temp trend from 1940 to 1980 was flat, while co2 emissions increased 4-fold in the same time frame?

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by woj

that's debatable... how did you reach the conclusion that it's "significant"?

what about the detail that the average over the past 150 years is 0? or that the temp trend from 1940 to 1980 was flat, while co2 emissions increased 4-fold in the same time frame?

i'm going by what i've read and think i understand. the goal is 2 degrees reduction.

that detail doesn't pertain to my comment. it doesn't matter about that particular trend, my comment was only regarding the point that .5 degrees is a noticeable impact, according to what i've read about the entire goal of reducing temp change 2 degrees.

not picking sides here, because the argument is moot when it comes to the environment. nevertheless, apparently it doesn't take that much of a change to throw the system out of whack. also from what i've read, the impact is more on events rather than day to day temps, the weather events are more extreme, not daily temps more extreme.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by woj

that's debatable... how did you reach the conclusion that it's "significant"?

what about the detail that the average over the past 150 years is 0? or that the temp trend from 1940 to 1980 was flat, while co2 emissions increased 4-fold in the same time frame?

well without wasting much time on the matter.. i believe everything we know and love was covered in gigantic man eating lizards with a difference of about 15 degrees on average

so a rise of .5 degrees in a 60 odd year period is, disturbing lol

[Robbie]

dynamo, what makes a half degree of the entire average temp of the Earth so significant?

I mean, I understand if a new Ice Age happens and we drop 100 degrees.

But warming up a half degree...hasn't that already happened and then went back down and then went back up over the last 1,000 years and pretty much in cycles ever since mankind has been on the Earth?

I don't get it. Except for the part where a lot of people are making a lot of money. Other than that I still haven't seen any govt. doing anything at all to stop this impending "disaster".

Matter of fact, right now while I'm typing this...the United States Federal Govt. led by a man who is 100% promoting Global Warming as a threat...has our war jets, tanks, humvees, and aircraft carriers putting out more of a "carbon footprint" than every car in the United States combined.

And that doesn't count the bombs they are dropping.

The only "urgency" I see our govt. feeling is the urgent need to enrich their cronies via the billions made in the "Carbon Trading" market.

And that does NOTHING to stop this "catastrophe" that ********** is agonizing over.

EDIT: Another question...if all of this "man made" climate change has led to a one half degree change and that's a HUGE deal supposedly...then wouldn't mankind somehow REDUCING the world's temperature by TWO degrees be catastrophic?

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by **********

Nasa says there's a problem. You say there's none. Are you saying Nasa is wrong and you are right?

No NASA didn't say there is a "problem".

They said quite clearly in the very graph that you linked to...that temps have went up 1/2 of ONE DEGREE over the last 145 years from some sort of predetermined "normal" temperature.
So they don't even try to call it going "up". They call it an "anomaly".

But no **********, they NEVER said that 1/2 of one degree was any kind of "problem"
You did.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Robbie

No NASA didn't say there is a "problem".

They said quite clearly in the very graph that you linked to...that temps have went up 1/2 of ONE DEGREE over the last 145 years from some sort of predetermined "normal" temperature.
So they don't even try to call it going "up". They call it an "anomaly".

But no **********, they NEVER said that 1/2 of one degree was any kind of "problem"
You did.

but POTUS said there is a problems so there is a problem

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Robbie

dynamo, what makes a half degree of the entire average temp of the Earth so significant?

I mean, I understand if a new Ice Age happens and we drop 100 degrees.

But warming up a half degree...hasn't that already happened and then went back down and then went back up over the last 1,000 years and pretty much in cycles ever since mankind has been on the Earth?

I don't get it. Except for the part where a lot of people are making a lot of money. Other than that I still haven't seen any govt. doing anything at all to stop this impending "disaster".

Matter of fact, right now while I'm typing this...the United States Federal Govt. led by a man who is 100% promoting Global Warming as a threat...has our war jets, tanks, humvees, and aircraft carriers putting out more of a "carbon footprint" than every car in the United States combined.

And that doesn't count the bombs they are dropping.

The only "urgency" I see our govt. feeling is the urgent need to enrich their cronies via the billions made in the "Carbon Trading" market.

And that does NOTHING to stop this "catastrophe" that ********** is agonizing over.

EDIT: Another question...if all of this "man made" climate change has led to a one half degree change and that's a HUGE deal supposedly...then wouldn't mankind somehow REDUCING the world's temperature by TWO degrees be catastrophic?

One Degree of Warming Having Major Impact, Study Finds

i didn't call it man-made climate change, i simply called it climate change. all i'm doing is including infos that small changes in climate can manifest into larger noticeable changes in the climate. i'm not speaking to the man-made issue, etc, just the incremental change, it would apply the other way as well, a degree cooler would also have broad impacts. also, this is celsius, not farenheit.

[dyna mo]

you have to sift through the floxum and jetsam of politicizing the issue in this article, but

"In general, each degree C of global temperature increase can be expected to produce:

• 5-10% changes in precipitation across many regions

• 3-10% increases in the amount of rain falling during the heaviest precipitation events

• 5-10% changes in streamflow across many river basins

• 15% decreases in the annually averaged extent of sea ice across the Arctic Ocean, with 25% decreases in the yearly minimum extent in September

• 5-15% reductions in the yields of crops as currently grown

• 200-400% increases in the area burned by wildfire in parts of the western United States

However, many other impacts remain difficult to quantify, in part because they depend on additional factors besides climate change. "

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static...orld_final.pdf

[dyna mo]

i've mentioned a few times here that the MIT guys are pretty much the smartest guys in the room

Global warming is expected to intensify extreme precipitation, but the rate at which it does so in the tropics has remained unclear. Now an MIT study has given an estimate based on model simulations and observations: With every 1 degree Celsius rise in temperature, the study finds, tropical regions will see 10 percent heavier rainfall extremes, with possible impacts for flooding in populous regions.

MIT Study: For Every 1 Degree C Rise In Temperature, Tropical Regions Will See 10 Percent Heavier Rainfall Extremes | ThinkProgress

Sensitivity of tropical precipitation extremes to climate change : Nature Geoscience

[Robbie]

I just checked out that article. It's from 2008. And it looks like the main concern was glaciers melting.

But now we know that they aren't melting. They are instead growing back.

And yeah...that whole reduce the Earth's temp by 2 degrees did sound to me like hypocrisy on their part when they claim that the 1/2 degree is so bad.

And of course...there is always the fact that the Earth has been warmer over the last few thousand years, and much colder at times as well. And yet...here we humans are. Even the polar bears somehow made it through the warm times before the Little Ice Age that occurred between 1300 and 1850

Ever notice how alarmists NEVER use the temperature of the Earth between 1300 and 1850?

That's because the Earth started warming up pretty fast after that point. So they always start around 1880 when the warm up was kicking in so they can tie it to "manmade" instead of the Earth warming back up.

I would also like to see the ACTUAL temperature (and not the temp anomaly) of the Earth in the warm Medieval period that brought about the Renaissance and the rise of Europe as a rich and cultural area.

But no matter how much I search...I can't find the actual TEMPERATURE of the Earth (which I would assume they could tell us through various scientific methods) during the warm periods so that we could compare it to the actual temperature now.

Instead all we get are graphs that show temperature anomaly. And the anomaly is from what? What is the "normal" Earth temperature that they are using to measure for the anomaly?

I can't find that either. We just get a graph that is zoomed up big to make 1/2 of one degree look huge when compared to the lower temp which was 1/2 of one degree anomaly below whatever temp it is they are using as "normal"

I'd like more information. But I just can't find it.

I'm simply supposed to toss out everything I ever learned about the Earth's history and BELIEVE in the new religion of making billions of dollars from carbon trading.

EDIT: I was referring to the first article you had posted. Not the last couple of posts you made.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

One Degree of Warming Having Major Impact, Study Finds

That article, as is typical with similar articles that beat us over the head with negatives, left out a major benefit witnessed in the past few decades:

Global Garden Gets Greener : Feature Articles

As ********** would say: "believe NASA!".

And besides that, despite whatever warming we are experiencing, extreme weather is actually decreasing. So that should also be considered a benefit as well.



.

[dyna mo]

neither of the above posts has anything to do with my point- again, a 1/2 degree C change in temp has far and wide repercussions. it doesn't sound like much, 1 degree, but it is.

again, that has nothing to do with the politics.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by EonBlue

That article, as is typical with similar articles that beat us over the head with negatives, left out a major benefit witnessed in the past few decades:

Global Garden Gets Greener : Feature Articles

As ********** would say: "believe NASA!".

And besides that, despite whatever warming we are experiencing, extreme weather is actually decreasing. So that should also be considered a benefit as well.



.

actually, after reading this article, this post does pertain, it supports my post that 0.5 degree change is significant. i didn't state any and all changes are dire/negative. i simply stated that 0.5 degree C change is significant.

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I would also like to see the ACTUAL temperature (and not the temp anomaly) of the Earth in the warm Medieval period that brought about the Renaissance and the rise of Europe as a rich and cultural area.

But no matter how much I search...I can't find the actual TEMPERATURE of the Earth (which I would assume they could tell us through various scientific methods) during the warm periods so that we could compare it to the actual temperature now.

Instead all we get are graphs that show temperature anomaly. And the anomaly is from what? What is the "normal" Earth temperature that they are using to measure for the anomaly?

I can't find that either. We just get a graph that is zoomed up big to make 1/2 of one degree look huge when compared to the lower temp which was 1/2 of one degree anomaly below whatever temp it is they are using as "normal"

Exactly. There is no "set" temperature for the Earth and out of the range of known temps that the planet has experienced we are currently closer to the bottom end of the range. The planet, humans and civilization have survived periods of much warmer temps than we have now. This supposed goal of a two degree decrease will return us to conditions of the LIA and do much more damage than a two degree increase.

The anomaly graphs are almost meaningless because .5 degrees is just about the margin of error for terrestrial based temperature data. Besides that there is not sufficient global coverage of reliable ground-based temperature data collection. Over half of it is guess work and predictions based on models that are faulty to begin with.

On top of that NASA and the NOAA have been adjusting the ground-based temperature data record to effectively cool the past and warm the present. Most of the current data is meaningless because it is basically made up.



.

[dyna mo]

A new analysis has examined the effects of melting polar ice sheets and the subsequent rise in sea levels over the last three million years.

The paper summarizes 30 years of research into the relationships between melting ice sheets, fluctuating sea levels and the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Its most startling conclusion: sea levels have risen by 6 meters (20 feet) multiple times in the past, and this increase was prompted by a rise in global mean temperatures of only 1–2C.

Global Temperature Increase of 1 Degree Caused Sea Level Rise of 6 Meters | IFLScience

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Robbie

No NASA didn't say there is a "problem".

They said quite clearly in the very graph that you linked to...that temps have went up 1/2 of ONE DEGREE over the last 145 years from some sort of predetermined "normal" temperature.
So they don't even try to call it going "up". They call it an "anomaly".

But no **********, they NEVER said that 1/2 of one degree was any kind of "problem"
You did.

This page:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
sites
Sea Level Rise
Global Temperature Rise
Warming Oceans
Shrinking Ice Sheets
Declining Arctic Sea Ice
Glacial Retreat
Extreme Events
Ocean Acidification
Decreased Snow cover

So again, are you saying that Nasa is wrong, and you are right? Are you saying that you are smarter than Nasa?

[Robbie]

The first thing I saw "wrong" on that page Mark, was them saying that human civilization has only existed 7,000 years.

That has very recently been proven wrong. It's quite a bit older archeologists have found.

Secondly, it's very dated. It's talking about glacier melting. Which is now known to not be happening as the ice is once again expanding.

Do I think I'm smarter than NASA? Hell no.

Do I think I'm smart enough to understand climate changes effect on the world. Hell yes.

Do I think that we can do anything at all to "stop" the Earth from warming up or cooling down. No, I do not believe we have the technology to control the Earth. If we did, we would.

Do I think that this is being used to make money and not addressing the supposed "problem" at all? Hell yes, that is a simple fact.
Is our govt. trying to curb it's GIANT carbon footprint. Hell no.

Now you tell me Mark, who is looking at reality? Me or you?

[EonBlue]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

A new analysis has examined the effects of melting polar ice sheets and the subsequent rise in sea levels over the last three million years.

The paper summarizes 30 years of research into the relationships between melting ice sheets, fluctuating sea levels and the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Its most startling conclusion: sea levels have risen by 6 meters (20 feet) multiple times in the past, and this increase was prompted by a rise in global mean temperatures of only 1?2C.

Global Temperature Increase of 1 Degree Caused Sea Level Rise of 6 Meters | IFLScience

Yes, during the Eemian it was warmer in some areas but cooler in others and sea levels were much higher than they are now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian

At the peak of the Eemian, the Northern Hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now, though some areas were actually slightly cooler than today. The hippopotamus was distributed as far north as the rivers Rhine and Thames.[3] Trees grew as far north as southern Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago: currently, the northern limit is further south at Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec. Coastal Alaska was warm enough during the summer due to reduced sea ice in the Arctic Ocean to allow Saint Lawrence Island (now tundra) to have boreal forest, although inadequate precipitation caused a reduction in the forest cover in interior Alaska and Yukon Territory despite warmer conditions.[4] The prairie-forest boundary in the Great Plains of the United States lay further west near Lubbock, Texas, whereas the current boundary is near Dallas, Texas. The period closed as temperatures steadily fell to conditions cooler and drier than the present, with 468-year-long aridity pulse in central Europe,[5] and by 114,000 years ago, a glacial period had returned.

But we are nowhere close to matching any of those conditions presently. And that was at the peak of the Eemian. Chances are we have already passed the peak of this current interglacial and we will begin the slow slide back into glaciation.

The .5 degree anomaly that they parrot is based on a "normal" temperature period of about 30 years from the 50's to the 80's. That "normal" temperature is still well below the peak temperatures of this interglacial.

This whole thing is a smoke-and-mirrors poloically driven and motivated shell game.


.