Report: Worldwide retreat of glaciers confirmed in unprecedented detail "While the shrinking of glaciers on all continents is already known from ground observations of individual glaciers, by using repeated satellite observations GLIMS has firmly established that glaciers are shrinking globally. Although some glaciers are maintaining their size, most glaciers are dwindling. The foremost cause of the worldwide reductions in glaciers is global warming, the team writes. "
Google currently powers 35% of their datacenters with renewables. Source.
They've also invested over $1.5 billion in renewables. Source.
Yep. They do and they did. They are not rethinking that ?
Source ? Reality. Did you not even read the links ?
Maybe true, but they killed their own project because it was costing too much for renewable energy...guess they figure better to let someone else waste their money.
...and this is what some are trying to push on everyone else?
quote
But sadly, one of their most promising clean energy projects has just gotten the axe. Renewable Energy Cheaper Than Coal (known by the acronym RE<C), which was launched in 2007 via the Google.org Foundation, aimed to drive down the cost of renewable energy via R&D efforts until it was cheaper than coal, the magic point at which adoption would reach escape velocity.
Quoting charts from Skeptical Science and Climate Central over and over again does not debunk facts. There is no proof of Global Warming for almost 18 years.
I'm out of this thread. It's obvious that FlyingFieros isn't concerned with having a conversation, or even staying in reality. He's using spamming, and calling names to push junk science in a thread he took over, when there were already threads made for him.
Good job FF. You've made someone completely ignore you. I'm not negging you, I'm not saying you are right or wrong. I AM saying that you are a troll that cannot have a rational conversation, and it's useless to even try to discuss anything with you.
Brad
[This message has been edited by Fats (edited 11-27-2014).]
I welcome all viewpoints whether I agree with them or not. I have changed my mind lots of times when presented with new facts. FF is completely necessary for this discussion as are the rest of you. Although I lean in his direction I can be swayed by a good argument and particularly science. My biggest concern is how we deal with climate change not whether it is happening or not.
As the debate rages over anthropogenic, or human-caused, global warming, some of the biggest arguments used to manipulate public opinion are melting away in the wake of the cold, hard facts.
Here are 5 debunked facts about climate change:
1. Global temperatures are rising at an alarming rate never seen before.
Measurements going back to the late 1800s show that global temperatures go through warming and cooling cycles. According to Friends of Science, the world cooled between 1878 and 1911, warmed until 1941, cooled until 1964, and warmed until 1998 at the same rate as it warmed between 1911 and 1941 and has been cooling since 2001.
John Coleman, co-founder of The Weather Channel, has said that temperature rises are a “natural phenomenon” within a developing ecosystem. He told the Express in October that there’s “no significant global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.”
2. Global warming could be slowing down the polar vortex and causing more extreme weather.
This effect is unsubstantiated and not supported by many climate scientists, said Isaac Held, who co-wrote a letter published in the journal Science in February 2014. Held is a lecturer in the Princeton (University) Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and a scientist with the Geophysical Dynamics Laboratory and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Co-author John Wallace of the University of Washington said they wrote the letter “because of our concern that this is getting picked up by the press and presented as if it were part of the consensus about global warming.”
The Weather Channel’s Coleman observed that “heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms. In fact storms are diminishing.”
3. Melting glaciers and calving ice shelves are proof that the world is warming.
It’s not even certain that the sea ice is melting at all. The National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported in October that sea ice in Antarctica has remained at satellite-era record high daily levels for most of 2014.
Furthermore, Antarctic ice “is at its highest extent measured by the current microwave satellite sounding system” since 1978 and stopped declining around 2005 to 2006, according to Patrick Michaels, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science.
4. Anthropogenic CO2 is the major culprit of the greenhouse effect contributing to global warming.
The real cause for concern are chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), according to a study reported by Phys.org. "Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined — matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry at Canada’s University of Waterloo’s Faculty of Science. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."
5. The world’s oceans are warming.
In fact, the deep waters of the ocean have not been warming. NASA said the cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years:
Researchers have revealed that volcanic eruptions reduce global warming. The researchers have found that aerosols released by volcanic eruptions from Iceland to Alaska have actually played a role in reducing the temperature.
According to Associated Press report, "A recent study demonstrated that small volcanic eruption expelled a large amount of sulfur dioxide gases into the top layer of Earth's atmosphere. This particular action has decreased considerable amount of global warming in the last few decades".
Researchers have earlier thought that chances were remote for minor outburst to be a significant part of the global warming hiatus, a period when average surface temperatures experienced a slight change. However, their belief has been debunked by air and satellite measurements, leading them to now determine that the last volcanic eruption has imbibed almost twice the amount of solar radiation.
The impact of volcanoes provides a solution to the warming hiatus, said David Ridley, lead author of the study. The occurrence of these eruptions is more regular than it was in the previous decades.
Live Science has reported that 1998 was recorded the warmest year in history. Although temperature in current years is relatively higher than 1998, still the unreasonable global warming has declined to a great extent. This left scientists puzzled with some of them thinking that unreasonable global warming must have absorbed the heat, which was causing global warming.
Findings of the new study have been published in the October 31 issue of Geophysical Research Letters. The study researchers have deduced that small volcanic eruptions release material into the atmosphere in amounts good enough to bring down the rise in temperature.
The scientists measured cooling effect of 0.09 to 0.22 degrees Fahrenheit on the planet since 2000 because of the total impact of aerosol released by small volcanoes.
Practically everything you have been told by the mainstream scientific community and the media about the alleged detriments of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide, appears to be false, according to new data compiled by NASA's Langley Research Center. As it turns out, all those atmospheric greenhouse gases that Al Gore and all the other global warming hoaxers have long claimed are overheating and destroying our planet are actually cooling it, based on the latest evidence.
As reported by Principia Scientific International (PSI), Martin Mlynczak and his colleagues over at NASA tracked infrared emissions from the earth's upper atmosphere during and following a recent solar storm that took place between March 8-10. What they found was that the vast majority of energy released from the sun during this immense coronal mass ejection (CME) was reflected back up into space rather than deposited into earth's lower atmosphere.
The result was an overall cooling effect that completely contradicts claims made by NASA's own climatology division that greenhouse gases are a cause of global warming. As illustrated by data collected using Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), both carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), which are abundant in the earth's upper atmosphere, greenhouse gases reflect heating energy rather than absorb it.
"Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," says James Russell from Hampton University, who was one of the lead investigators for the groundbreaking SABER study. "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."
Almost all 'heating' radiation generated by sun is blocked from entering lower atmosphere by CO2 According to the data, up to 95 percent of solar radiation is literally bounced back into space by both CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere. Without these necessary elements, in other words, the earth would be capable of absorbing potentially devastating amounts of solar energy that would truly melt the polar ice caps and destroy the planet.
"The shock revelation starkly contradicts the core proposition of the so-called greenhouse gas theory which claims that more CO2 means more warming for our planet," write H. Schreuder and J. O'Sullivan for PSI. "[T]his compelling new NASA data disproves that notion and is a huge embarrassment for NASA's chief climatologist, Dr. James Hansen and his team over at NASA's GISS."
Dr. Hansen, of course, is an outspoken global warming activist who helped spark man-made climate change hysteria in the U.S. back in 1988. Just after the release of the new SABER study, however, Dr. Hansen conveniently retired from his career as a climatologist at NASA, and reportedly now plans to spend his time "on science," and on "drawing attention to [its] implications for young people."
As an engineer with a background in science and math, I’ve followed the global warming debate for decades. I found a new twist recently.
Iowa State University Meteorology Professor William J. Gutowski Jr. sent me an Internet page that provided an interesting comment from a climate change activist. The conclusion admits the lack of science behind the issue and proof of its actual nature.
“Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. …. ” (see http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337, Dr. Richard Alley, Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences, Wisconsin-Madison,
The author admits that science is irrelevant in his argument. Further admitting that the science and data shows that the Earth may actually be trending toward global cooling. The author has distilled the argument into what we already knew: It’s not about good science, it’s about their “good intentions.” State Sen. Rob Hogg confirmed to me that is his motivation.
There are several reasons we should be cautious about regarding this theory.
First, the global warming advocates use the inflammatory statement — “the hottest on record” — to try and justify their position. Science isn’t about a flat Earth mentality. The Earth’s long geological and climate history is millions of years old. It includes seven ice ages in 700,00 years. Using 150 years (of records kept) is an unscientific comparison that is statistically insignificant. The probability of a theory being right based on 150 years of data is essentially zero.
Second, every extreme weather event they point to has happened before. After Hurricane Katrina, they harangued about large storms — what happened, fewer storms. They predicted the Arctic ice sheet would melt, it has gotten bigger and now the Great Lakes are freezing over. It takes 500 years to reveal a 500-year flood, not 150 years.
Third, their computer models are unable to simulate and predict what is happening. They predict global atmospheric temperatures rising but in the last 15 years, global atmospheric temperatures are level. The reason they are wrong is that they don’t have command of all the environmental variables. Professor Gutkowski has confirmed that they cannot make decade-by-decade predictions. This winter is an example of natural and normal climate change, temperatures go up and they go down, sometimes to extremes.
Fourth, we know that some of the people leading these arguments have cooked the books. There exist emails proving that they manipulated climate data. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a “consensus” report in name only; they do not publish sound science that challenges their political opinions.
Fifth, they don’t believe in their own solutions. Activists admit that the changes they propose will not appreciably reduce the trend they forecast. The only solution to their claims is for the entire world to stop using fossil fuels. Can you imagine what that would be like?
Good intentions is not a reason to wipe out our entire economy. Good public policy says we need to gather much more information and create real, sound science based on data that can be confirmed to make accurate predictions.
In the meantime, we should be good stewards of the environment. We can continue working on clean air, water and soil without sacrificing our economy and freedom to a hysterical myth. l Gary Ellis of Cedar Rapids is an electrical engineer with 40-plus years of work experience in electrical generation from methane gas to coal, natural gas and nuclear, while following environmental issues and regulation. Comments: egarye@cs.com
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
So there it is. The whole CO2 causing "global warming" is and has always been a scam. Anthropogenic global warming, like the thread title, is in fact now debunked. How about that?
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
So there it is. The whole CO2 causing "global warming" is and has always been a scam. Anthropogenic global warming, like the thread title, is in fact now debunked. How about that?
This post (first from avengador1, and seconded by Arns85GT) is the scientific equivalent of the globally celebrated Mark Sanchez "Butt Fumble".
First of all, it's not a new report: The SABER satellite data relating to high altitude carbon dioxide and nitric oxide was discussed on that NASA web page in 1Q 2012.
Secondly, it absolutely does not "debunk" the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming, driven by human emissions of carbon dioxide, nitric oxide and other greenhouse gases.
The SABER data highlighted the role of high altitude carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO) molecules in reflecting a significant amount of the Sun's energy away from Earth during the 72 hours of a major Solar Flare event.
There is no direct line of reasoning from this one brief report about the SABER data, that would arrive at the conclusion that we do not already have a sufficient concentration of high altitude CO2 and NO for this solar flare protection. Nothing to suggest that humans would benefit from having any more CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere than there already is. Nothing to define the relationship between human greenhouse gas emissions and the amount of CO2 and NO in the upper atmosphere, either historically, or projecting into the future as the rate of human greenhouse gas emissions continues to accelerate. And absolutely nothing to debunk the relationship between human greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
This brief NASA report does not say anything about the effects of CO2 and NO in general, or about CO2 and NO2 at lower altitudes, or about how CO2 and NO concentrations affect the Earth's energy budget during every single 24 hour period, apart from these relatively infrequent major solar flares.
What an idiotic comment. So molecules behave one way in the presence of a solar flare and totally differently at all other times?
You obviously haven't studied highschool chemistry.
Molecules of a substance may behave differently at different temperatures, but you cannot claim CO2 is both a coolant and a heat generator at the same time at different altitudes.
Keep talking in circles and supporting your flaky President and past VP in their support for a failed theory.
I'll give you that if CO2 can reflect heat away from the planet it can reflect heat back toward the planet, however, the sun's radiation is the vast majority of heat source for the earth. This is the reason that Venus is too hot for human habitation while Mars is too cold, while the earth is just about right.
If CO2 was a cause of heat, the rise of CO2 would bring a commensurate rise in earth temperature as well. The problem is that the rise in CO2 is in no way related to the average temperatures. In case you missed it, there has been no global warming in almost 18 years.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: I'll give you that if CO2 can reflect heat away from the planet it can reflect heat back toward the planet, however, the sun's radiation is the vast majority of heat source for the earth. This is the reason that Venus is too hot for human habitation while Mars is too cold, while the earth is just about right.
No, it's not. You just swept something really big under the carpet: planetary atmospheres and the greenhouse warming effect.
Unlike Earth, where carbon dioxide (CO2) is only a trace gas (currently, just under 0.04 percent), the atmospheres of both Venus and Mars are over 90 percent CO2, in terms of their chemical composition.
But the atmosphere of Venus is almost 100 times as dense as Earth's. Mars, on the other hand, has almost no atmosphere. The Martian atmosphere is more than 100 times more rarified (less dense) than Earth's.
The first row of this table provides the predicted planetary temperatures for Venus, Earth and Mars using a simple black body radiation model which takes into account only two factors: each planet's average orbital distance from the sun, and each planet's albedo or surface reflectivity. As can be seen from this table, the black body temperature predictions for Venus, Earth and Mars are actually not all that different.
The second row provides the actual (measured) planetary temperatures for Venus, Earth and Mars. Venus is gi-normously hotter than what is predicted from its black body calculation. Earth, somewhat warmer. And Mars has almost no greenhouse warming: the observed temperature of Mars (planetary mean) is almost exactly the same as its black body calculation.
That's the greenhouse effect of CO2 in action. Venus is superheated, because it is surrounded by a dense shroud of heat trapping CO2 molecules. Even though the atmosphere on Mars is 95 percent CO2 (in composition), there are very few CO2 molecules, because the atmosphere on Mars is so rarefied. "Even 95 percent of almost zero, is almost zero." So Mars has essentially no greenhouse warming, and its actual temperature is just fractionally higher than its black body calculation.
Finally, Earth: most of the greenhouse effect that warms the Earth is caused by water vapor (H2O). The hydrologic cycle of evaporation and precipitation maintains the average concentration of H2O in the atmosphere at a fixed, temperature dependent level. So humans have no direct effect on the amount of H2O in the atmosphere. But when scientists crank the numbers, the calculations reveal that the other greenhouse gases that humans produce (starting with CO2) are just enough to tip the balance in the direction of more greenhouse warming. And that is AGW--Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming--in action.
You can talk all you like about the differences in the composition of the planets, but the fact is that none of the planets generate heat all on their own. Without the sun the planets would all turn into ice cubes pretty quickly. It is the sun that supplies the heat. The planet core which is hot has been gradually cooling since time in memorial. The climate variability is not driven by human activity. It is driven by solar variability.
What is true is that the vast majority of greenhouse effect is good old water vapour, with other gases a small percentage. This isn't going to change.
The fact still stands. We have had no "global warming" in almost 18 years. Even though the CO2 has continued to rise. That is the crux of the anthropogenic global warming argument. All the fear mongering of Al Gore, the IPCC and the American government agencies has not amounted to squat.
Where are the increased hurricanes? Where is the open ocean and year round shipping in the Arctic? Where are the projected millions of climate refugees? Why is there now a record number of polar bears? Why have we just had a record winter with another one on the way? Why is there a record level of snow build up in Antarctica? And why have the Maldives not been inundated? All the forecasting made so many years ago has proved to be flat wrong. They keep changing feet but nothing comes true. Any other argument is fatuous.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
No, it's not. You just swept something really big under the carpet: planetary atmospheres and the greenhouse warming effect.
Unlike Earth, where carbon dioxide (CO2) is only a trace gas (currently, just under 0.04 percent), the atmospheres of both Venus and Mars are over 90 percent CO2, in terms of their chemical composition.
But the atmosphere of Venus is almost 100 times as dense as Earth's. Mars, on the other hand, has almost no atmosphere. The Martian atmosphere is more than 100 times more rarified (less dense) than Earth's.
The first row of this table provides the predicted planetary temperatures for Venus, Earth and Mars using a simple black body radiation model which takes into account only two factors: each planet's average orbital distance from the sun, and each planet's albedo or surface reflectivity. As can be seen from this table, the black body temperature predictions for Venus, Earth and Mars are actually not all that different.
That's the greenhouse effect of CO2 in action. Venus is superheated, because it is surrounded by a dense shroud of heat trapping CO2 molecules. Even though the atmosphere on Mars is 95 percent CO2 (in composition), there are very few CO2 molecules, because the atmosphere on Mars is so rarefied. "Even 95 percent of almost zero, is almost zero." So Mars has essentially no greenhouse warming, and its actual temperature is just fractionally higher than its black body calculation.
Finally, Earth: most of the greenhouse effect that warms the Earth is caused by water vapor (H2O). The hydrologic cycle of evaporation and precipitation maintains the average concentration of H2O in the atmosphere at a fixed, temperature dependent level. So humans have no direct effect on the amount of H2O in the atmosphere. But when scientists crank the numbers, the calculations reveal that the other greenhouse gases that humans produce (starting with CO2) are just enough to tip the balance in the direction of more greenhouse warming. And that is AGW--Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming--in action.
Yes, the sun. All three planets--Venus, Earth and Mars--are heated almost entirely by energy from the sun.
That is why the black body temperature calculations (of my previous post) factor in each planet's mean orbital distance from the sun.
According to that table (provenance: American Chemical Society), if it were not for the extreme greenhouse conditions on Venus (dense atmosphere that is over 90 percent carbon dioxide), the mean planetary temperature of Venus would be lower than Earth's, even though Venus is always closer to the sun.
That's because Venus has a higher albedo (surface reflectivity) than the Earth.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-01-2014).]
You can't realize the absolute bias of the sources you provide. Natural news also touts other conspiracy theories such as chem trails, anti-vaccination, 'alternative medicine', and mind control fluoride drinking water. Oh, and its 'conclusion' demonstrates a complete mis understanding of science.
For example:
quote
Just after the release of the new SABER study, however, Dr. Hansen conveniently retired. . .
The author 'conveniently' forgot to mention Dr. Hansen is 73 years old; I guess that's too early to retire. SOURCE
...it is a twisting of the facts in a press release about solar flares and the thermosphere to make it look like the lower atmosphere works the same way.
quote
Originally posted by avengador1: Global warming debunked http://thegazette.com/2014/...al-warming-debunked/ [QUOTE]As an engineer with a background in science and math, I’ve followed the global warming debate for decades. I found a new twist recently.
Iowa State University Meteorology Professor William J. Gutowski Jr. sent me an Internet page that provided an interesting comment from a climate change activist. The conclusion admits the lack of science behind the issue and proof of its actual nature.
“Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. …. ” (see http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337, Dr. Richard Alley, Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences, Wisconsin-Madison,
The author admits that science is irrelevant in his argument. Further admitting that the science and data shows that the Earth may actually be trending toward global cooling. The author has distilled the argument into what we already knew: It’s not about good science, it’s about their “good intentions.” State Sen. Rob Hogg confirmed to me that is his motivation.
There are several reasons we should be cautious about regarding this theory.
First, the global warming advocates use the inflammatory statement — “the hottest on record” — to try and justify their position. Science isn’t about a flat Earth mentality. The Earth’s long geological and climate history is millions of years old. It includes seven ice ages in 700,00 years. Using 150 years (of records kept) is an unscientific comparison that is statistically insignificant. The probability of a theory being right based on 150 years of data is essentially zero.
Second, every extreme weather event they point to has happened before. After Hurricane Katrina, they harangued about large storms — what happened, fewer storms. They predicted the Arctic ice sheet would melt, it has gotten bigger and now the Great Lakes are freezing over. It takes 500 years to reveal a 500-year flood, not 150 years.
Third, their computer models are unable to simulate and predict what is happening. They predict global atmospheric temperatures rising but in the last 15 years, global atmospheric temperatures are level. The reason they are wrong is that they don’t have command of all the environmental variables. Professor Gutkowski has confirmed that they cannot make decade-by-decade predictions. This winter is an example of natural and normal climate change, temperatures go up and they go down, sometimes to extremes.
Fourth, we know that some of the people leading these arguments have cooked the books. There exist emails proving that they manipulated climate data. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a “consensus” report in name only; they do not publish sound science that challenges their political opinions.
Fifth, they don’t believe in their own solutions. Activists admit that the changes they propose will not appreciably reduce the trend they forecast. The only solution to their claims is for the entire world to stop using fossil fuels. Can you imagine what that would be like?
Good intentions is not a reason to wipe out our entire economy. Good public policy says we need to gather much more information and create real, sound science based on data that can be confirmed to make accurate predictions.
In the meantime, we should be good stewards of the environment. We can continue working on clean air, water and soil without sacrificing our economy and freedom to a hysterical myth. l Gary Ellis of Cedar Rapids is an electrical engineer with 40-plus years of work experience in electrical generation from methane gas to coal, natural gas and nuclear, while following environmental issues and regulation. Comments: egarye@cs.com
[/QUOTE]
So his main points are:
1.) Stupid argument and false. We didn't know about electrons until the 1890's but the electron has been around for billions and billions of years. Does that mean Electrical Engineering is utter BS? There are numerous sub atomic particles that were discovered even more recently. We didn't discover the neutron until the 40's. Does that mean we don't know how fusion works and how are Sun came to be?
2.) So he cites large weather pattern changes (great lakes freezing over) as proof that large weather pattern changes aren't happening? His only other point of 'weather isn't getting extreme' is the lack of more hurricanes as intense as Katrina? What about the massive amounts of drought happening globally? What about the fact of ocean acidification? Then his notion on the arctic expanding is either intentionally misleading or a flat out lie (and one that's often repeated in this thread). The Arctic IS LOSING ICE.
3.) First, false logic. "We don't know whats happening. . .So we definitely know that it isn't AGW". Second, the models are pretty accurate. As more information becomes available, their accuracy increases. SOURCE. You guys are hell bent that until every friggin detail is included in the model for infinite precision accuracy other wise the models are 100% wrong. If I'm solving a vibration issue, I can either take the analytical approach which is computationally heavy, but describes the model accurately. However, with this, I can only describe changing one or two variables. Solving the system analytically using nth order differential when the equation can change subject to certain variables and it becomes mind bogglingly complex. I CAN however write some easy matrices and use state space to solve by just running it. If I compare 5th order polynomials to 6th order polynomials, I can get a very close to accurate solution, BUT NOT 100% ACCURATE. This doesn't mean the answer is wrong, its just has a minute amount of error and lacks finite precision; which is fine for describing a system that it describes.
4.) "We don't know the consequences so there's nothing wrong with continuing what we're doing." This Kehoe method of argument is false. Just because you don't know the consequences doesn't mean there aren't any.
5.) The second isn't even an argument against the science, its a moral argument. "If we really can't have any effect, why bother?!" - That's the spirit. If you can't do a simple solution that works instantly, no worries! That's as ignorant as you can get. "I can't take a pill to make me lose 100 lbs in a night. . .That whole 'you should work out' mumbo jumbo by the doctor is BS. If I can't take a magic pill rather than start working out, then there's no issue with continuing on being morbidly obese!"
Thanks to RandomTask for helping to explain why that SABER satellite data about CO2 in the very highest reaches of the atmosphere does not "debunk" the causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and global warming.
I have already cited sources that explain why it is premature to chalk up anything that is currently going on with the Antarctic sea ice as solid evidence against global warming.
A team of UC Irvine and JPL climate researchers has revealed a new study about the melt rate of the West Antarctic ice sheet. That is land ice. According to this research, the melt rate has increased by almost 300 percent over the last 10 years. A rapid meltdown of these South Pole glaciers has the potential to increase mean global sea level by as much as 13 feet by year 2100.
The impact of that much sea level rise on coastlines around the world would be large, indeed.
In line with expectations of a continuing reduction in the Arctic cryosphere, the U.S. Coast Guard wants to establish a 5-mile wide shipping route through the Bering Strait, between Alaska and Russia:
We seem to be having 2 discussions here. 1 is if global warming is happening at all. 2 is if carbon dioxide produced through human activity is causing warming. This thread is about the 2nd argument. We are not any closer to an answer therefore I will not agree to any tax increase or carbon credits or any other scheme. The science is not even close to being settled.
Key Polar Bear Population Plummets in Alaska and Canada
A key polar bear population fell nearly by half in the past decade, marked by a dramatic increase in deaths of young cubs, a new U.S.-Canada study says. Researchers chiefly blame shrinking sea ice from global warming. Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey and Environment Canada tagged and released polar bears in the southern Beaufort Sea off Alaska and northwestern Canada from 2001 to 2010. The bear population shrank to about 900 in 2010, down from about 1,600 in 2004.
Study lead author Jeff Bromaghin said only two of 80 polar bear cubs the team tracked between 2004 and 2007 survived. Normally about half of cubs live. He thinks the cubs starved because there was a lack of summer sea ice and they couldn't get to seals. The study is in the journal Ecological Applications.
As I read it there are two factors involving the polar bear population. Climate change and hunting. If there is an increase in bear population it is due to less hunting. Good point though.
An NBC News report looks at the latest findings about the Antarctic cryosphere (land ice + sea ice).
Certain groups have latched onto data confirming a recent expansion of sea ice around the coastlines of the Antarctic continent and offered this as evidence against the IPCC and its affirmation of continuing Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Originally posted by Arns85GT: The temperature at the South Pole is - 29C today. What is melting? The average mean temperature in the interior is −57 °C (−70 °F). Again, what is melting?
What's melting are the enormous ice sheets that cover the continent of Antarctica. This is not sea ice, which is ice that forms when ocean water freezes, always starting at the surface of the ocean and freezing its way downwards. This is land ice. Under the force of gravity, it flows from higher elevations inland, in all directions, downwards, to all the coastlines around Antarctica, where it meets the ocean. As it flows even further a ways into the Antarctic Ocean, it forms ice shelves: shelves (layers) of ice that cover the surface of the ocean immediately adjacent to the coastline. But it is still land ice, not sea ice. It is not sea water that has frozen. It is water from glaciers that formed in the interior of the Antarctic continent.
It's the relatively warm waters of the Antarctic ocean (warm, relative to the air temperatures that were just posted by Arn) that melt the ice shelves from underneath, or from their base. This is called basal melting. And as these ice shelves adjacent to the coastlines are diminished by basal melting, gravity flows more of the land ice from the continent's interior, downwards all the way to the coastlines and a ways beyond, and that becomes ice shelves which undergo basal melting. That's the flow. It converts land ice into sea water.
This is from that new NBC News report :
quote
The melt rate is accelerating because warmer water is getting into the shallow West Antarctic shelf areas, according to a separate study published Dec. 5 in the journal Science.
Those warmer waters "melt the glaciers on the bottom and reduce the buttressing," study lead author Sunke Schmidtko from the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel in Germany told NBC News in an email. "This makes the glaciers flow faster into the ocean, the ice loss is accelerated."
Elsewhere in Antarctica, a strong coastal current prevents the warmer water from getting onto the shelf, though Schmidtko has his eyes on the southern Weddell Sea, on the east side of the Antarctic Peninsula. There the water is currently below freezing — 29 degrees Fahrenheit — but deep, warmer offshore waters are getting closer, he noted.
And what is causing the waters to warm? The answer appears to be tied to a shift in winds along with higher sea surface temperatures farther north. "That temperature rise and wind intensification is usually attributed to climate change," . . .
Good job FF. You've made someone completely ignore you. I'm not negging you, I'm not saying you are right or wrong. I AM saying that you are a troll that cannot have a rational conversation, and it's useless to even try to discuss anything with you. 
