Originally posted by Formula88: I'm still waiting for someone so solve the issue of man made Sea Level Change. Millions of people go to the beaches of the world every year and pee in the ocean. The physics is pretty simple. If you add liquid to a container, no matter how large, the level will rise. We must do something to combat this before all the world is submerged.
IP: Logged
11:03 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36745 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by newf: Nice, you admit you don't understand and also admit you don't want to know.
Where did you get that from my input, ? I understand all right. It's a hoax. Even if it were true, so what ? Why is this such a life altering/ending event ?
Where did you get that from my input, ? I understand all right. It's a hoax.
Where did I get that? Hmmmm let's see I asked you to " read the link or any other credible scientific info you can find." to which you replied "Why would I do that ?" Therefore you can not know what the Science has to say about Climate Change, which also what your assertion that it is a hoax points to.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Even if it were true, so what ? Why is this such a life altering/ending event ?
Again I would direct you to do some reading on the subject.
IP: Logged
11:59 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36745 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by newf: Where did I get that? Hmmmm let's see I asked you to " read the link or any other credible scientific info you can find." to which you replied "Why would I do that ?" Therefore you can not know what the Science has to say about Climate Change, which also what your assertion that it is a hoax points to.
Science my azz, . The Global Warming saviour's science has already been found to contain bunk. False readings, scientifically unworthy data gathering, exagerations, and other such nonsense. The "warming" in Global Warming even had to be changed. That was the argument, global warming. The skunk in the room was that the scammers already had a climate change stock market set up to cash in on the scare mongering before it was an agreed problem. They invested heavily in it, set up companies, and bought scientists.
quote
Originally posted by newf: Again I would direct you to do some reading on the subject.
Well, the problem with that is that I am not gonna read up on bunk. The problem is on the Global Warming saviors to try to convince nay sayer's that we do indeed have a problem.
This is really hillarious. We're down to quoting Rolling Stone for scientific discussions?
By the way the ice has started a down turn in the past couple of days. It is finally starting to slip.
However, we'll have to see what happens next year.
The ice cap ebbs and flows very slowly.
Arn
Yes it's far better to come up with your own theories buy misrepresenting and cherry-picking data from a credible source while completely ignoring the scientific findings of that same source. I can give you their email address again if you'd like to submit your critiques of their work and your theories.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: By the way the ice has started a down turn in the past couple of days. It is finally starting to slip.
However, we'll have to see what happens next year.
Where did you get that from my input, ? I understand all right. It's a hoax. Even if it were true, so what ? Why is this such a life altering/ending event ?
and This is really hillarious. We're down to quoting Rolling Stone for scientific discussions?
new dated 6-23-2013 and give a clear answer as to what is at risk
SORRY IF YOU DO NOT LIKE WHAT THE REPORT SAID
THE HOAX IS BY THE OIL& COAL POLLUTION PRODUCERS who do have a cash interest in lieing to you
simple question the solar input went down why didNOT the temperatures FOLLOW ?
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
IP: Logged
02:21 PM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Originally posted by cliffw: Science my azz.. the Global Warming saviour's science has already been found to contain bunk. False readings, scientifically unworthy data gathering, exagerations and other such nonsense. The "warming" in Global Warming even had to be changed. That was the argument, global warming. The skunk in the room was that the scammers already had a climate change stock market set up to cash in on the scare mongering before it was an agreed problem. They invested heavily in it, set up companies, and bought scientists.
Well, the problem with that is that I am not gonna read up on bunk. The problem is on the Global Warming saviors to try to convince nay sayer's that we do indeed have a problem.
Timeline of key events in the evolution of modern climate science from 1800 to date (from the American Institute of Physics):
As usual here, veiled references to Al Gore, as if it were ALL his doing. There is a million times more bunk ABOUT Al Gore going around on this forum, than there ever was bunk about global warming FROM Al Gore.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-01-2013).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: If I had to guess, I'd say the ice coverage will gradually increase, and not dramatically change
Much the same as the gradual increase in Antarctica
There's a major difference between glacier ice and sea ice, yet you never differentiate between the two. Why is that?
By the way I'm still waiting for evidence to support your outlandish claim that "for every glacier shrinking there are hundreds expanding." A simple "I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about -Arn" would be adequate, as the following graph and supporting evidence demonstrates quite well.
Glacier ice world wide is shrinking. "Warming temperatures lead to the melting of glaciers and ice sheets. The total volume of glaciers on Earth is declining sharply. Glaciers have been retreating worldwide for at least the last century; the rate of retreat has increased in the past decade. Only a few glaciers are actually advancing (in locations that were well below freezing, and where increased precipitation has outpaced melting). The progressive disappearance of glaciers has implications not only for a rising global sea level, but also for water supplies in certain regions of Asia and South America." Source.
Sea ice is expanding in Antarctica however it's a strong likelihood the increase in water that makes up the sea ice came from melting glaciers. So just saying "ice is increasing" doesn't automatically make it a good thing. You have to understand why it's increasing instead of jumping to your favorite disproven conclusion of "global warming isn't real." Climate denier's haven't figured that out yet... Watts Up With That's ignorance regarding Antarctic sea ice
Hitler (Anthony Watts) learns Arctic Sea Ice isn't recovering:
Almost a year old! I'll save it for next year too.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 07-02-2013).]
IP: Logged
03:55 PM
PFF
System Bot
cliffw Member
Posts: 36745 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by rinselberg: Completely debunks cliffw's post (above)
No, not exactly. Interesting timeline though. I was not saying all climate data or observations were bunk. I was talking about manipulating certain data to help win your case. Once you lie to me, you deserve no respect.
Scientists—even brilliant ones—are not better than other people. They are at least as prone to vanity, malice, groupthink, charlatanism, and outright dishonesty as those in any other line of work. Well, I say they are not better than other people. Politicians are much worse. Many of these pro Global Warming scientists are funded by the governmental bodies that are trying to perpetuate this lie. Politicians see money and power. I say lie. In fact, I do think mankind can affect the environment, for better or for worse. It is our environment. If we need to cut down trees to build houses, keep warm or cook, clear a land for crops, we will do it and we should. Even a beaver affects it's environment with the building of dams. So what the temperature goes up ten degrees ? It goes up whenever snowbirds travel south, or when people move from a northern climate to a southern one. So what if the oceans rise ten inches. The average elevation of New Orleans is currently between one and two feet (0.5 m) below sea level. 51% of New Orleans is at or above sea level. Since the beginning of the 20th century, it has been estimated that Louisiana has lost 2,000 square miles (5,000 km2) of coast (including many of its barrier islands), which once protected New Orleans against high tides and storm surges. Was that cause by mankind also ? If you choose to live next to an ocean, deal with it.
Originally posted by ray b: climate ''gate'' was way over blown by the right
Too bad too sad the left had to lie. Overblown ? Like when the left turned down the A/C during a conference to make Global Warming seem real ?
quote
Originally posted by ray b: climate ''gate'' was way over blown by the right it is like the 4 guys who were killed in bengasie they harp about
Pathetic comparison. Shame on you. Really ! If it wasn't for the harping, we would not know the truth. That the truth was hidden, during a Presidential election, is troubling to me. Especially since we now know the "left" denied freedom of speech and association of the right, to the right of assembly, using the IRS as a weapon. Congress is charged with oversight. The left always harps about the right. Wake up rayb.
quote
Originally posted by ray b: and never mention the 4000 plus killed 10k's of maimed from iraq by bushco's f-up
The same f-upl the Dumb's voted unanimously for, ?
quote
Originally posted by ray b: there is lots of cheating and lies from the oil and gas and coal barons
You want to talk about them ? Talk about them. Don't paint no guilty by association BS.
quote
Originally posted by ray b: south fla is at real risk and is not the only place at risk
Boo Hoo, cry me a river, . Move. That's what smart people do. Nobama wants to give up nuclear arms and is willing to do it without tit for tat. He is willing to give up on cheap energy with out tit for tat. The rest of the developing world will not do that, especially since it propelled us to the top of the "successful" heap. We are already at CO2 levels proposed by the Kyoto summit, which we rejected.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 07-02-2013).]
IP: Logged
06:17 PM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Originally posted by cliffw: Boo Hoo, cry me a river, . Move. That's what smart people do. Nobama wants to give up nuclear arms and is willing to do it without tit for tat. He is willing to give up on cheap energy with out tit for tat. The rest of the developing world will not do that, especially since it propelled us to the top of the "successful" heap. We are already at CO2 levels proposed by the Kyoto summit, which we rejected.
So, "Nobama" wants to make unilateral reductions in the U.S. nuclear weapons inventory without any corresponding reductions by the Russians? What exactly do you mean by "without tit for tat"? Here's a recent excerpt from Foreign Policy's Gordon Lubold:
In Berlin today, Barack Obama will outline plans for further cuts to the U.S. nuclear arsenal. But, counter the expectations of some wonks who suggested he might make the reductions unilaterally, the president wants Russia to respond in kind. Obama will propose a one-third reduction in strategic nuclear warheads - on top of the cuts already required by the New START treaty - bringing the number of deployed warheads to about 1,000. (At its peak, the U.S. arsenal was a total of 32,000 warheads, in 1966.) It sounds like a big cut, but last year the AP reported that the White House was considering a reduction to as low as 300 warheads, which would have necessitated a major shift in the military's nuke doctrine. One question now is how much effect the president's proposed reduction -- and the nuclear weapons employment guidance he has issued with it -- will have on who, what, and how the Pentagon targets with U.S. nukes.
Obama, in 2009, spoke of trying to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Those who want him to pursue greater reductions may see hope in his dusting off those first-term ambitions. But his speech today will reflect a more pragmatic view of the global and domestic politics of nuclear reduction. "This speech offers another reminder that the President views his 'Prague Agenda' as a key element of his historical legacy. Everyone understands, however, the formidable challenges that lie ahead in converting his words into concrete achievements," an administration official told FP this morning.
In the broad policy speech, Obama will also say that the U.S. must continue to work to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, including efforts to isolate both Iran and North Korea. He will also push for a bipartisan effort to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and call once again for all countries to begin negotiations on a new treaty to end the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. "The President has determined that we can ensure our security and that of our allies and maintain a strong, credible strategic deterrent while safely pursuing up to a one-third reduction in deployed strategic nuclear warheads below the New START Treaty level," according to briefing documents provided to FP on the speech. "We will seek to negotiate these reductions with Russia to continue to move beyond Cold War nuclear postures." Obama will also announce also say that he will participate in the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit in the Hague, as well as host a Nuclear Security Summit in his last year in office, in 2016, "to continue progress with our international partners in securing nuclear materials and preventing nuclear terrorism," according to the briefing documents.
It's ironic to me that you call the "left" out on global warming, because SOME people have been guilty of exaggerations and misrepresentations on the side of anthropogenic global warming, but it looks to me like you are guilty of the same tactics in the service of your own arguments here.
Glacier ice world wide is shrinking. "Warming temperatures lead to the melting of glaciers and ice sheets. The total volume of glaciers on Earth is declining sharply. Glaciers have been retreating worldwide for at least the last century; the rate of retreat has increased in the past decade. Only a few glaciers are actually advancing (in locations that were well below freezing, and where increased precipitation has outpaced melting). The progressive disappearance of glaciers has implications not only for a rising global sea level, but also for water supplies in certain regions of Asia and South America."
The data you are quoting takes up to 2009. The data I am posting is current. It is posted virtually every day. It is current satellite data.
You need current data to argue your point.
Data from yesterday shows the dip (and entirely expected) in Arctic ice cover. It is summer after all. The real evidence will show up next year at this time.
You can look up similar Antarctic ice data, including the under ice lakes and rivers, and the ice flow.
Arn
IP: Logged
03:16 PM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The data you are quoting takes up to 2009. The data I am posting is current. It is posted virtually every day. It is current satellite data.
The two graphs are not comparable. The fact that you consider them comparable confirms my suspicion you do not understand the difference between sea ice and glacier ice:
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: There's a major difference between glacier ice and sea ice, yet you never differentiate between the two. Why is that?
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You need current data to argue your point.
My data is of GLACIER ICE world wide for the last 50 years. Your data shows SEA ICE for the last 4 months. It's not the same data.
Try understanding my point before telling me what I need to argue it.
why-the-city-of-miami-is-doomed-to-drown in the new rollingstone
You can be a kook like rayb, and get your climate bullshit from Rolling Stone, or you can believe the latest of THREE PUBLISHED PAPERS showing sea level rise is low, and NOT accelerating.
Originally posted by rinselberg: So, "Nobama" wants to make unilateral reductions in the U.S. nuclear weapons inventory without any corresponding reductions by the Russians? What exactly do you mean by "without tit for tat"? Here's a recent excerpt from Foreign Policy's Gordon Lubold: In Berlin today, Barack Obama will outline plans for further cuts to the U.S. nuclear arsenal. But, counter the expectations of some wonks who suggested he might make the reductions unilaterally, the president wants Russia to respond in kind.
It's ironic to me that you call the "left" out on global warming, because SOME people have been guilty of exaggerations and misrepresentations on the side of anthropogenic global warming, but it looks to me like you are guilty of the same tactics in the service of your own arguments here.
I am neither guilty of exaggeration nor misrepresentation. I heard his speech in Berlin. He did not call on Russia to do the same. He never mentioned the Chinese either, nor does your article (quote from article). What you present, I suspect, is some insider policy talks. That's fine. He always speeches with lofty promises.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Don't you work in the oil fields?
I do. I work on a drilling rig, drilling holes. It's just a job. I am involved with no petroleum organizations nor subscribe to any views the energy establishments have. I just do my job.
IP: Logged
11:13 PM
Jul 4th, 2013
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Originally posted by cliffw: I am neither guilty of exaggeration nor misrepresentation. I heard [Obama's] speech in Berlin. He did not call on Russia to do the same. He never mentioned the Chinese either, nor does your article (quote from article). What you present, I suspect, is some insider policy talks. That's fine. He always speeches with lofty promises.
Peace with justice means pursuing the security of a world without nuclear weapons -- no matter how distant that dream may be. And so, as President, I've strengthened our efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and reduced the number and role of America’s nuclear weapons. Because of the New START Treaty, we’re on track to cut American and Russian deployed nuclear warheads to their lowest levels since the 1950s.
But we have more work to do. So today, I’m announcing additional steps forward. After a comprehensive review, I’ve determined that we can ensure the security of America and our allies, and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent, while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third. And I intend to seek negotiated cuts with Russia to move beyond Cold War nuclear postures.
At the same time, we’ll work with our NATO allies to seek bold reductions in U.S. and Russian tactical weapons in Europe. And we can forge a new international framework for peaceful nuclear power, and reject the nuclear weaponization that North Korea and Iran may be seeking.
America will host a summit in 2016 to continue our efforts to secure nuclear materials around the world, and we will work to build support in the United States to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and call on all nations to begin negotiations on a treaty that ends the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. These are steps we can take to create a world of peace with justice.
I think it is apparent from these remarks that Obama was talking about concomitant reductions in both the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, not unilateral reductions by the United States.
As far as China, it's obvious (to me) why Obama didn't call out China specifically, but referred to China indirectly, using the words "all nations". Russia has about 8500 nuclear weapons. The U.S., about 7700. China.. about 300. China is in a group of second-tier nuclear powers, along with the U.K., France, India, Pakistan and Israel. Not one of these second-tier countries has anywhere near as many nuclear weapons as the U.S. or Russia.
Are you trying to "take down" Obama because he didn't go into enough detail about his ideas for reducing the global inventory of nuclear weapons? And you expected him to lay out a comprehensive plan for nuclear weapons reductions, from A to Z, addressing all the countries that could be involved, in the context of a brief political address to a general audience in Berlin, that touched on a number of different topics of international interest?
You can't make a fool of Obama by expecting the completely unreasonable from him. That only backfires against your own credibility, as an ardent Obama (or should I say, "Nobama") opponent.
I realize that this nuclear weapons issue is just something that came up peripherally, in a discussion about changes in the extent of Arctic sea ice and how that relates to climate issues, but what you are saying about this (Obama and nuclear weapons) doesn't inspire any confidence on my part in the acuity of your thoughts on the energy and climate-related issues that are more in line with the original intent of this discussion.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-04-2013).]
IP: Logged
11:41 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36745 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by rinselberg: I think it is apparent from these remarks that Obama was talking about concomitant reductions in both the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, not unilateral reductions by the United States.
Thank you for that. I try to stay informed but am no expert. I much prefer to hear from the horse's mouth than a news recap. I was looking for a source in which he said what I think I heard. I found another, given in Berlin, which I listened to again (as much as it pained me to do, even though afterwards it was a pretty good speech). I had the official prepared remarks and I read along. He deviates a little, as I would be prone to do, intentionally or not. I did not hear him say that (Russian bilateral reductions) and it was a WTF moment to me. I used my misinterpretation as an example to this thread's topic. As I said, I am no expert. My point was, scientists and politicians, who are supposed to be experts, manipulated data, excluded contrary data, and the point of their data is to drive an agenda. I was not using devious claims to gain credibility. That said, doesn't it seem to you that Nobama wants to unilaterally proceed with CO2 reductions ? Even going further than the Kyoto Agreement recommendations, which we have already exceeded.
What have Nukes got to do with Arctic Ice? First we have somebody talking about historical Glacier data, and then we have Nuclear Disarmament. How can we stay on subject?
Arn
IP: Logged
02:13 PM
Jul 5th, 2013
Mickey_Moose Member
Posts: 7543 From: Edmonton, AB, Canada Registered: May 2001
Watched a TV show yesterday and with all this talk about the warming of the oceans - I have to wonder how much of this 'warming' can be attributed to a volcano like Kilauea which has been dumping hot lava into the ocean for a few years now?
They were talking that the ocean water just a few hundred yards off the shore was scalding hot. Yes the show was only talking about the 1, but it has to have some sort of effect. Now add in a few more subsurface volcanoes/vents/etc and now add some ocean currents to help spread this 'warmed' water around.
For the record, the show was unrelated to global warming and more about understanding the Hawaiian volcano.
Just saying, of that nice little graph posted about the ocean temp increasing, can they 100% prove that it is all because of man or at the very least say what percentage of that is man? I am sure the graph posted is only showing overall average temp and is used for the 'shock and awe factor' and they have no data showing a break down of all possible causes. This of course, would take a lot of effort to map all active underwater volcanoes/vents/etc and calculate their total contribution (and if it has increased or not) - just easier to blame it all on man I tend to think...
quote
Originally posted by ray b: there is lots of cheating and lies from the oil and gas and coal barons but very few truths from that sector at all
Very true, but the same can also be said about the 'green' industry as you never hear the true costs are associated with these processes and the fact that they are not even close to being as efficient as oil/gas/coal (never mind the process of making solar cells is hardly 'green' - or what about the gear oil that is needed in those big windmills?). You never hear them say, switch to solar as your cost per megawatt is xx cheaper than coal/etc. You only hear that you would be "saving the planet".
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 07-05-2013).]
"The Arctic is warming dramatically - two to three times faster than mid-latitude regions - yet we lack sustained observations and accurate climate models to know with confidence how the balance of carbon among living things will respond to climate change and related phenomena in the 21st century," said Miller. "Changes in climate may trigger transformations that are simply not reversible within our lifetimes, potentially causing rapid changes in the Earth system that will require adaptations by people and ecosystems."
You can be a kook like rayb, and get your climate bullshit from Rolling Stone, or you can believe the latest of THREE PUBLISHED PAPERS showing sea level rise is low, and NOT accelerating.
The study found basal melting is distributed unevenly around the continent. The three giant ice shelves of Ross, Filchner and Ronne, which make up two-thirds of the total Antarctic ice shelf area, accounted for only 15 percent of basal melting. Meanwhile, fewer than a dozen small ice shelves floating on "warm" waters (seawater only a few degrees above the freezing point) produced half of the total melt water during the same period. The scientists detected a similar high rate of basal melting under six small ice shelves along East Antarctica, a region not as well known because of a scarcity of measurements.
The researchers also compared the rates at which the ice shelves are shedding ice to the speed at which the continent itself is losing mass and found that, on average, ice shelves lost mass twice as fast as the Antarctic ice sheet did during the study period.
"Ice shelf melt doesn't necessarily mean an ice shelf is decaying; it can be compensated by the ice flow from the continent," Rignot said. "But in a number of places around Antarctica, ice shelves are melting too fast, and a consequence of that is glaciers and the entire continent are changing as well."
Originally posted by cliffw: I do. I work on a drilling rig, drilling holes. It's just a job. I am involved with no petroleum organizations nor subscribe to any views the energy establishments have. I just do my job.
Do you see how you share the same 'guilt by association' bias you accused scientists of having? You're dependent upon an oil company for your paycheck.
It's unfair for me to assume you're incapable of thinking for yourself just because you work for an oil company. Likewise, there are many scientists that "just do their job."
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Just saying, of that nice little graph posted about the ocean temp increasing, can they 100% prove that it is all because of man or at the very least say what percentage of that is man? I am sure the graph posted is only showing overall average temp and is used for the 'shock and awe factor' and they have no data showing a break down of all possible causes. This of course, would take a lot of effort to map all active underwater volcanoes/vents/etc and calculate their total contribution (and if it has increased or not) - just easier to blame it all on man I tend to think...
Neat theory! But majorly flawed. Please explain why the oceans are heating from the surface downward. If it were undersea volcanoes it would heat from the bottom up, which isn't happening:
"It is very easy to try to throw around some partially baked ideas about volcanism to try to explain the changing in the ocean temperature worldwide, but they would require extraordinary circumstances where ocean volcanic activity was increasing exactly when human carbon dioxide production was also increasing. Sorry, the subsurface volcanoes are no source for your ocean heating (and if I had the time, I'd calculate how much energy would take to heat all the oceans by 0.5C - it is bound to be more than you can get out of a few hundred thousand Ruapehus)." Source.
Actually, the Hawaii volcano is heating from the surface downward. But I agree, in the scheme of things it is not a major factor.
What is a major factor is that the oceans comprise 3/4 of the surface of the earth.
They also receive 3/4 of the sun's rays.
Having no trees or plant life to absorb the light, they take it right on the chin. The same as desert does.
If you measured the soil temperature in Death Valley it would far exceed the soil temps in Michigan.
However, the oceans have nowhere to hide when the sun is up.
And no, we cannot prove mankind is responsible for the oceans receiving more heat than the land.
And, although it has been prognosticated ad nauseum, We do not have drowning and starving polar bears, islands have not been inundated, the polar ice cap is still in tact, we have no increase in hurricane activity. All this over the 10 years since the forecast of man made global warming consequences was foisted on an uneducated public.
Arn
IP: Logged
03:11 PM
PFF
System Bot
cliffw Member
Posts: 36745 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Do you see how you share the same 'guilt by association' bias you accused scientists of having? You're dependent upon an oil company for your paycheck.
Guilt by association, ? Share it with scientists who do wrong ? I don't see it.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: It's unfair for me to assume you're incapable of thinking for yourself just because you work for an oil company. Likewise, there are many scientists that "just do their job."
A forum search will result in many threads of mine about quitting my job. It's just a job. I am sure many scientist also "just do their job". My beef is not with the scientists. It's with the falsifying of the data for an agenda. Which immediately tells me I am getting conned.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: And no, we cannot prove mankind is responsible for the oceans receiving more heat than the land.
You base that off of?? Absolutely nothing?
The oceans are warming at the rate of 2 Hiroshima bombs every second SINCE 1961! It's greenhouse gases! NOTHING ELSE FITS THE DATA.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: And, although it has been prognosticated ad nauseum,
You're the only one who keeps repeating these lies.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: We do not have drowning and starving polar bears,
We certainly have scientific evidence of polar bears looking longer and harder for food: "The timing of migration showed a trend towards earlier arrival of polar bears on shore and later departure from land, which has been driven by climate-induced declines in the availability of sea ice." Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: islands have not been inundated,
Sea levels are rising and are accelerating in the last 20 years. Note that half of sea level rise is just from the water expanding from being heated. We haven't begun to see future melted Antarctica's contribution. Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: the polar ice cap is still in tact,
Do you declare a target intact after you put 100 rounds through it? Yeah the Arctic is still there, but it's fading fast.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: All this over the 10 years since the forecast of man made global warming consequences was foisted on an uneducated public.
You calling anyone 'uneducated' is like a pig farmer telling a PhD physicist to get an education.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: It's with the falsifying of the data for an agenda. Which immediately tells me I am getting conned.
If you could provide some specific examples instead of speaking in generalities it would be beneficial.
The fast majority of evidence that supports man's dominate roll in effecting the climate has been verified, reverified, independently verified, and reverified again. For example the Berkley Earth study took data from SIXTEEN different data sets from different organizations around the world, NASA GISS, NOAA / NCDC, and Hadley / CRU and compared the data. The data, despite different methods at NASA, NOAA, and CRU, actually matched. This proves the data is not being manipulated. Source.
There's also a good set of independent evidence that confirms the instrument record. Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 07-05-2013).]
IP: Logged
04:28 PM
Mickey_Moose Member
Posts: 7543 From: Edmonton, AB, Canada Registered: May 2001
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Neat theory! But majorly flawed. Please explain why the oceans are heating from the surface downward. If it were undersea volcanoes it would heat from the bottom up, which isn't happening:
Wow - did I say it was a theory? I just made an observation. Anyways, back to the program and the volcano on Hawaii, it was the surface water that was 'scalding hot' - there were able to dive under the hot water in the cooler layers to film the edge of the land mass that was being created underwater. Also if you read my post, all the graphs you show do not break this 'warming' down just all grouped together. How much is man, how much is natural, etc, etc. Kind of selectively leaving out some info would you not say?
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: Hurricanes are not the only weather the planet has. Your point here is absolutely meaningless. Extreme events ARE on the rise.
BTW - if you take a browse at the NASA website, you will see that "extreme events ARE on the rise" on other planets in our solar system as well - not just happening on the earth.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
The oceans are warming at the rate of 2 Hiroshima bombs every second SINCE 1961! It's greenhouse gases! NOTHING ELSE FITS THE DATA.
....
If you could provide some specific examples instead of speaking in generalities it would be beneficial.
Please post links to publish scientific papers - all your links are "political blogs" (as you like to call them). You also say "NOTHING ELSE FITS THIS DATA" - yet science HAS to keep an open mind, what you are saying is that, and I quote, "the science is settled". How's that for progress?
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 07-05-2013).]
And, please quit quoting and citing the "hockey stick" graph and it's spinoff graphs. (they are fraudulent)
If you go to the reputable websites for Polar Bear management and monitoring, run by the Inuit People, and the Government of Canada, you will see that the Polar Bear population is thriving. 16,000 in Canada alone.
You, FlyinFieros are the biggest denier in the discussion
You deny that the Global Warming alarmists flat out lied to us. You deny that the forecasted catastrophes have not happened. You deny that the Sun warms the planet, not my Chevy.
You post misleading data from dubious sources, like Global Warming lobby groups.
The data I have posted is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. not a blog. It is current satellite data.
And that data shows that for the past winter season, the ice has been very close to the 1981 norm. This year it is melting more slowly even though the jet stream has been drawing southern air northward.
The ice field is not "fading fast". Please quit exaggerating.
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 07-05-2013).]
IP: Logged
07:41 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
This appears to be the bloggers opinion of the scientific papers NOT the conclusions of the papers themselves.
So if Rolling Stone's article is bullshit then surely the blog is as well.
Wrong. The "blogger" is giving you the summary of what the papers are saying. If you think the blogger is wrong, then go into the papers and show where you think he is mistaken. The burden of proof is on YOU.
Wrong. The "blogger" is giving you the summary of what the papers are saying. If you think the blogger is wrong, then go into the papers and show where you think he is mistaken. The burden of proof is on YOU.
Burden of proof is on me? Why would I need to prove anything? I know I'm not an expert in this field and accept it. I'll trust the vast majority of scientists and experts in the Climate research field on this one thanks. You are free to think what you will.
The blogger appears to opining on the studies. What do the authors of the studies have to say about it I wonder?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 07-06-2013).]
• A large majority of Americans (87%, down 5 percentage points since Fall 2012) say the president and the Congress should make developing sources of clean energy a “very high” (26%), “high” (32%), or medium priority (28%). Few say it should be a low priority (12%).
• Most Americans (70%, down 7 points since Fall 2012) say global warming should be a “very high” (16%), “high” (26%), or “medium priority” (29%) for the president and Congress. Three in ten (28%) say it should be a low priority.
• Majorities of Americans support:
• Providing tax rebates for people who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels (71%); • Funding more research into renewable energy sources (70%); • Regulating CO2 as a pollutant (68%); • Requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax and using the money to pay down the national debt (61%); • Eliminating all subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry (59%); • Expanding offshore drilling for oil and natural gas off the U.S. coast (58%); • Requiring electric utilities to produce at least 20% of their electricity from renewable energy sources, even if it costs the average household an extra $100 a year (55%). - See more at: http://environment.yale.edu...sthash.oIdNqzPu.dpuf
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
IP: Logged
07:08 AM
cliffw Member
Posts: 36745 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
Originally posted by cliffw: It's with the falsifying of the data for an agenda. Which immediately tells me I am getting conned.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: If you could provide some specific examples instead of speaking in generalities it would be beneficial.
I will if you will answer these questions. So what if it is true ? Will mankind end ? No. The poor dummies (millions) who built next to an ocean will be inconvenienced ? A fix for that is to inconvenience everybody else in the world ? Including all the people who depend on jobs from the coal industry ? Including the people's productivity due to cheap oil and gas motorization and heating ? Including all the spin off economy generated from fossil fuels ? Including all the tax revenues generated. So what if man made Global Warming is happening ?
? I understand all right. It's a hoax. Even if it were true, so what ? Why is this such a life altering/ending event ?
. The Global Warming saviour's science has already been found to contain bunk. False readings, scientifically unworthy data gathering, exagerations, and other such nonsense. The "warming" in Global Warming even had to be changed. That was the argument, global warming.
