Quote from: Spendulus on July 26, 2018, 11:08:13 PM

Now you claim what? That it will all melt, but you don't know when?

Now you've finally got it! Yes, the ice will all melt. No, I don't know when. No, nobody does. It could be in 100 years from global warming, it could be in millions of years with a repeat of the climate seen in the Eocene.

Quote from: Spendulus on July 26, 2018, 11:08:13 PM

If not, then let me suggest it's okay to simply admit that you believe in the cause

I don't "believe" in global warming anymore than I "believe" in gravity. I understand that global warming is happening because I understand the facts and data. Using language like "believe" is commonly used by the scientific illiterate to create the illusion of controversy where none exists.

Quote from: Spendulus on July 26, 2018, 11:08:13 PM

it's okay to admit that you just get paid by the post. Others have.

Most signature campaigns don't count posts in Politics & Society, so this is just yet more incorrect nonsense.

Quote from: Spendulus on July 26, 2018, 11:48:47 PM

-snip-

Excluding results exceeding 5 standard deviations is a perfectly reasonable practice when looking at trends. 5 standard deviations is actually a very generous cut off - 3 standard deviations would be more than sufficient. Regardless, the CRUTEM data also exclude plenty of results that are above average temperature, for example Riyadh, Feb 2002 (5.5 SDs hotter than the mean), Barquisimeto, August 2008 (6.6 SDs hotter than the mean), Diego-Suarez, Nov 2013 (7.8 SDs hotter than the mean). In fact, since 1990, they have excluded approximately 6 times as many data points for being too hot than for being too cold. If you include all the outliers, the trend upwards is even steeper.

The mere fact that you would post some nonsense ramblings written by a non scientist on his pseudoscientific blog that actually prove my point even more as if that is an appropriate rebuttal to a peer reviewed meta analysis is hilarious. It is clear that neither you nor the author understand the data.

It is also hilarious that you are quite happy to refer to scientific data and when you think the data support your position,* but equally happy to ignore them all when they contradict you.

*They don't.

Quote from: Quickseller on July 27, 2018, 06:12:41 AM

The density of ice results in approximately 92% of it being under water.

Correct. Also irrelevant. 10% of the world's land surface area is covered in ice, approximately 15 million km². This is known as land ice. When it melts, its volume is completely added to the sea. As an aside, even sea ice will raise the water level a little when it melts as fresh water is less dense than the salt water.

Quote from: Spendulus on July 27, 2018, 12:14:17 PM

Arguments that Greenland and Antarctica will melt are simply unscientific.

This is the most ridiculous thing you have posted yet. We are quite literally observing Greenland and Antarctica melting before our eyes.