Chip Bok by Chip Bok

Chip Bok

Comments (38) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. chipscount

    chipscount said, almost 3 years ago

    global warming…tee hee, tee hee

  2. katzenbooks45!

    katzenbooks45! said, almost 3 years ago

    It also means the hot AND cold temperature extremes are increasing over time.

  3. Captain Colorado

    Captain Colorado said, almost 3 years ago

    Why do extreme environmentalists take any natural phenomenon as evidence for global warming? “Warmer? Global warming!” “Colder? Global warming!”

  4. mrs1wing

    mrs1wing GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    We have ALWAYS had Global Warming! It happens in different ecological zones throughout the ages & very regularly. What the Libs can’t accept is Natural History & will continue long after they are gone. Evidence of tropical rain forests in the Arctic & Antarctic is proof of this.

  5. no1scouse

    no1scouse said, almost 3 years ago

    The human race will do what it always does; adapt! We don’t need the help of politicians or eco people to adapt, nature does it for us.

  6. Tax Man

    Tax Man said, almost 3 years ago

    It is cyclical. Do you know why we refer to the last ice age as “the last ice age?” It is because there have been many ice ages. In between the ice ages has always been “global warming.”
    Global warming has always been there. It is not man made.

  7. Stipple

    Stipple said, almost 3 years ago

    All the extra open water in the arctic increases the mean level of water vapor in the air.
    The shift in the jet stream brings the moisture laden arctic air across North America.
    The water vapor sucks all the heat from the land it passes over, making the land colder. This drop in temperature in the lower areas is offset by a much larger increase in temperature up north.
    Our winters in Alaska have gained over 6 degrees in the last 25 years, the larger areas to the south have cooled an average on 1 degree.
    This is a net gain in heat, it is redistributed unevenly, places like Alaska are way way warmer while Michigan and the eastern states are somewhat colder.
    Denying this changes nothing, individual singular events have little to do with the world climate.

  8. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    @Captain Colorado

    Every now & then, it rains in the Sahara. That doesn’t mean you should plant corn there. There’s a difference between weather & climate, but Chip doesn’t seem to know that.

    The vast majority of climate scientists aren’t “extreme environmentalists”.

  9. brent

    brent GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    I thought Chip Bok was brighter than this.

  10. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    How about some of you Global Warming believers explaining the Holocene Maximum.

    We have survived natural cycles like the Holocene Maximum, so you have a point. According to the factors that caused the HM, we’re supposed to be on a cooling cycle. It’s impossible to argue that man has nothing to do with it.

    Keep in mind that while the Sahara desert was much wetter & greener during the HM, the Midwestern United States was a desert. The nomads of Iowa & Kansas will have to hope the farmers in Africa will send some food…

  11. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, almost 3 years ago

    Wow, the deniers are out in force today! Sadly, their tools are just as blunt as always.
    We still get variation in weather, because the Earth’s cycles have not changed. When we are tilted away from the sun, that hemisphere gets colder.
    What has changed is that the overall temperature on average is warmer. And it is continuing to warm. The research now is not about whether it is happening, but what the various implications are, and what we can do about it.
    Some of the posters above claim that the simulations are not trustworthy. Well, it’s true they have not been as accurate in past years: they consistently UNDERESTIMATED the amount of warming. It’s even worse than we thought.
    Some want to believe that this is all just natural cycles. No, because the natural cycle right now would be taking us away from warmth. Something else is happening.
    Actual climate scientists are in overwhelming agreement on the evidence — not “belief,” but scientific judgment. Warming is occurring, and it is 95% certain that it is primarily human-caused.
    Of course we can influence the Earth. There are seven billion human beings. You can see the “Asian brown cloud” from orbit. There is a giant island of trash in the Pacific.
    Some people now think the cold period that took place in the 1600s was due to reforestation after ~90% of the Native American population was wiped out by disease (also the reason the Pilgrims’ pitiful colony took hold – they took over developed lands).
    The data are overwhelming, for anyone who wishes to look at it. We probably won’t be wiped out (barring a runaway warming like Venus), but our civilization certainly can be.

  12. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 3 years ago

    For those who care about looking at real science, here is a link to an article by Jinlun Zhang:
    And here is the abstract:
    “Estimates of sea ice extent based on satellite observations show an increasing Antarctic sea ice cover from 1979 to 2004 even though in situ observations show a prevailing warming trend in both the atmosphere and the ocean. This riddle is explored here using a global multicategory thickness and enthalpy distribution sea ice model coupled to an ocean model. Forced by the NCEP–NCAR reanalysis data, the model simulates an increase of 0.20 × 1012 m3 yr−1 (1.0% yr−1) in total Antarctic sea ice volume and 0.084 × 1012 m2 yr−1 (0.6% yr−1) in sea ice extent from 1979 to 2004 when the satellite observations show an increase of 0.027 × 1012 m2 yr−1 (0.2% yr−1) in sea ice extent during the same period. The model shows that an increase in surface air temperature and downward longwave radiation results in an increase in the upper-ocean temperature and a decrease in sea ice growth, leading to a decrease in salt rejection from ice, in the upper-ocean salinity, and in the upper-ocean density. The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 1979–2004 and the extended period 1948–2004.”

  13. ARodney

    ARodney said, almost 3 years ago

    The amount of ignorance displayed by the conservatives on this forum is absolutely staggering. This information is available on the internet, people. Climate change is not a partisan issue. It’s the facts, as measured, on the ground.

  14. corzak

    corzak said, almost 3 years ago


    laugh! You should check out forums on Yahoo. The energy companies have so many sock puppets there that they’ve been dubbed “DenialAnts” due to the way they swarm and overrun every article dealing with this issue . . . smothering all discussion with the same talking points over and over and over . . .

  15. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, almost 3 years ago


    Plus, the problem is not that similar changes have not taken place in the past. As the deniers of human caused rapid temperature changes leading to rapid climate changes would use to disparage most scientific data. These levels of change have indeed taken place in the past by natural means. And when compared to geological changes have been relatively rapid. However, rapid is a relative term here. Those rapid changes took place over thousands of years as opposed to millions of years for geological changes. The evidence that these current changes are not natural, and are being caused by the activities of mankind is that the same amount of change has now taken place since the start of the industrial revolution only some 150 years ago. This is at least some 10 times as fast as the fastest such changes have taken place naturally in the past!! It takes very little reason and logic to see the truth here.

    Besides which, is continuing to burn literally billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere every year from fossil fuels such a good thing anyway? For those such as myself that already suffer from various pollution caused lung problems (in my case chronic bronchitis) is that continuing pollution such a good thing?

    Then there is the simple fact that burning these irreplaceable (and therefore very precious) commodities of coal and oil up into the atmosphere instead of preserving then for future generations, is the most stupid of use for such commodities imaginable. They need to be kept for such civilization generating activities as lubricating and cutting oils for machinery, the entire plastics industry is dependent upon their use, and medicines also. In fact there is practically no aspect of modern civilization that does not depend on such irreplaceable materials. This is especially true when there are developing industries that can and will be replacing such fuel in the future, and the faster we can get to that t future the better off our own descendants will be!!

  16. Load the rest of the comments (23).