I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Joined: May 27, 2007 Posts: 1723 Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:20 am Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
Professor Jonathan Bamber at the University of Bristol and colleagues estimated the flux of ice from the ice sheet into the ocean from satellite data that cover 85% of Antarctica's coastline, which they compared with simulations of snow accumulation over the same period, obtained using a regional climate model.
They arrived at a best estimate of a loss of 132 billion tonnes of ice in 2006 from West Antarctica – up from about 83 billion tonnes in 1996 – and a loss of about 60 billion tonnes in 2006 from the Antarctic Peninsula.
Over the 10 year time period of the survey, the ice sheet as a whole was certainly losing mass, and the mass loss increased by 75% during this time. Most of the mass loss is from the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica and the northern tip of the Peninsula where it is driven by ongoing, pronounced glacier acceleration. In East Antarctica, the mass balance is near zero, but the thinning of its potentially vulnerable marine sectors suggests this may change in the near future.
I was unable to find any credible (i.e. scientific research) to substantiate your claims. (Real pretty with all the graphs and satellite photos and such, but not substantiated.) Heartland Institute is a conservative think-tank(propaganda generator), not a scientific body. Hannity and Colmes is on Fox Propaganda Channel, nuff-said.
Founded in the early 1990s, Heartland Institute claims to apply "cutting-edge research to state and local public policy issues." Additionally, Heartland bills itself as "the marketing arm of the free-market movement."
The Heartland Institute created a website in the Spring of 2007, www.globalwarmingheartland.org, which asserts there is no scientific consensus on global warming and features a list of experts and a list of like-minded think tanks, many of whom have received funding from ExxonMobil and other polluters.
The Heartland Institute networks heavily with other conservative policy organizations, and is part of the State Policy Network, a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition (as of 4/04), and co-sponsored the 2001 Fly In for Freedom with the Wise Use umbrella group, Alliance for America. Heartland also co-sponsored a New York state Conference on Property Rights, hosted by the Property Rights Foundation of America.
The Institute puts out several publications, including "Environment & Climate News" which frequently features anti-environmentalist and climate skeptic writing.
They also published "Earth Day '96," a compilation of articles on environmental topics. The publication, distributed on college campuses, featured "Adventures in the Ozone Layer" by S. Fred Singer, and "the Cold Facts on Global Warming" by Sallie Baliunas. The articles denied the serious nature of ozone depletion and global warming.
Walter F. Buchholtz, an ExxonMobil executive, serves as Heartland's Government Relations Advisor, according to Heartland's 2005 IRS Form 990, pg. 15.
The Heartland Institute formerly sponsored and hosted www.climatesearch.org, a web page ostensibly dedicated to objective research on global warming, but at the same time presenting heavily biased research by organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute as a FAQ section.
link _________________ In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell
It riles them to believe that you perceive the webs they weave. - Moody Blues
Last edited by Cid_Yama on Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:22 am; edited 2 times in total
Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 1969 Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:54 am Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
Yes, it is melting at a faster rate then previously recorded by modern instrumentation. However, this does not automatically reinforce the premise of anthropogenic induced global climate change. While the reflectivity of the polar ice cap does reflect radiant heat back into space, and water does not as effectivly, it has happened before. Millions of years ago, Alaska, northern Canada, Greenland, Siberia, etc used to be a tropical climate.
Life seemed to thrive perfectly fine in that period, just as it will continue to do so. Life forms adapt to the prevailing circumstances in which it finds its self, or it goes extinct, (evolution and adaptation). The planet has been much warmer in the past, and much cooler. Regardless of what mankind does, the climate on a global scale will continue to fluctuate. The Earth is not, was not, and never will be a static environment. My main point of contention is that mankind is causing the slight warming cycle that we have been able to monitor over the previous century.
Furthermore, even if the arctic ice cap were to completely vanish, (not taking into account greenland and ice over land formations), the sea level would slightly drop. The ice is floating on the sea, (as you are well aware), and as such, if it were to completely melt, it would slightly drop the worldwide sea levels. To verify this on a small scale, fill a cup nearly to the top with water, and place a few ice cubes in it until the glass is full to the brim. Wait for the ice to melt away due to the natural presence of heat, (don't microwave it). After the ice has melted, measure the depth of the water in the glass and compare it to the level you filled the water level to previously with the ice in the glass. You will notice that once the ice has returned to a liquid state, the water level in the glass will have dropped slightly.
Also, if we were to instantly melt the arctic ice cap, (I don't know how we could do it, possibly nuke it), could we prevent it from re-freezing come the next winter? I highly doubt it. Since we could not prevent it from freezing up once again, how are we the primary culprit in the reduction in the overall mass of the arctic ice cap?
Cid_Yama wrote:
That would mean you are admiting there is global warming(otherwise how could the Arctic Ice cap be melting?), but you are blaming it on other factors(the sun?).
Or am I wrong and and you are saying it's not melting?
Sorry, slight-of-hand not allowed. We are discussing the Arctic ice cap. Just answer the question.
_________________ Here Lies the United States Of America.
Joined: May 27, 2007 Posts: 1723 Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:02 am Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
Yes, it is melting at a faster rate then previously recorded by modern instrumentation.
Duh, the Arctic has NEVER been even close to being ice free for over a million years.
Arctic Ice may 'melt away' this summer
It has been 1.1 million years since the Arctic had an ice-free summer, long before humans existed.
The loss of old, thick ice has continued through the winter months, despite the unusually cold weather deriving from La Nina conditions (the other extreme of the El Nino Southern Oscillation) in the Pacific.
The winter ice loss is thought to be driven mainly by the transport of old floes from Arctic waters out into the Atlantic Ocean. The currents driving this are stronger than usual as a consequence of another natural cycle, the Arctic Oscillation.
The net result is that most of the cover consists of ice that has formed since last summer.
With the ice pack containing such a high proportion of thin, salty ice, the scientists believe another major melt is likely in the summer.
"It's becoming thinner and thinner and much more susceptible to melting during the summer - much more likely to melt away," commented Walt Meier from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder.
"It may look OK on the surface, but it's like looking at a Hollywood movie set - you see the facade of a building and it looks OK, but if you look behind it, there's no building there."
Millions of years ago, Alaska, northern Canada, Greenland, Siberia, etc used to be a tropical climate. Life seemed to thrive perfectly fine in that period, just as it will continue to do so.
That was after a near extinction of all life on the planet that took 50,000 to 100,000 years to recover from. What do you think the rest of the planet looked like while alligators were swimming around the North Pole?
This well-documented link between methane and temperature suggests that it hardly matters what causes the initial temperature rise. What matters is that methane emissions explode at some stage during that rise. Ominously, annual methane emissions have more than doubled in the past two centuries, and most of that increase can be blamed on human activities, especially pastoralism, irrigation and energy generation via hydroelectricity. But if the current collapse of methane hydrates continues, our species will be unlikely to survive this century.
This is because the rapid release of such a large mass of methane and its subsequent oxidation to carbon dioxide would have significantly altered ocean chemistry. The added carbon dioxide would have increased the overall acidity or corrosiveness of seawater. This, in turn, would increase the dissolution of calcite shells of microplankton, which are the dominant component of seafloor sediments, leaving behind only nonsoluble clays. The dissolution of calcite would initiate in the deepest parts of the ocean and rapidly spread upwards as additional carbon dioxide entered the ocean.
The scale of carbonate dissolution recorded in these cores is significant. It is suggestive of a much larger flux of methane, possibly double original estimates.
"It far exceeds what has been estimated by models assuming a release of 2,000 gigatons of methane," Kroon said.
The initial results also suggest that the deposition of carbonate shells on the deeper reaches of the seafloor did not resume for at least 50,000 years, and that the total recovery time to a "normal state" took as long as 100,000 years. This result suggests that full recovery from these extreme events takes considerable time.
Don't be an idiot. If there was ever a time for you to take your two brain cells and rub them together, it's now. _________________ In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell
It riles them to believe that you perceive the webs they weave. - Moody Blues
Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:53 am Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
k_semler wrote:
Furthermore, even if the arctic ice cap were to completely vanish, (not taking into account greenland and ice over land formations), the sea level would slightly drop. The ice is floating on the sea, (as you are well aware), and as such, if it were to completely melt, it would slightly drop the worldwide sea levels. To verify this on a small scale, fill a cup nearly to the top with water, and place a few ice cubes in it until the glass is full to the brim. Wait for the ice to melt away due to the natural presence of heat, (don't microwave it). After the ice has melted, measure the depth of the water in the glass and compare it to the level you filled the water level to previously with the ice in the glass. You will notice that once the ice has returned to a liquid state, the water level in the glass will have dropped slightly.
Rubbish. Ever heard of the Archimedes principle? The weight of the ice displaces an equal weight of water. When the ice melts, it's volume changes, but it's weight doesn't. The melted ice has exactly the same weight and volume as the water it displaced when in it's frozen state, and so the water level remains the same. _________________ "Who knows what the Second Law of Thermodynamics will be like in a hundred years?" - Economist speaking during planning for World Population Conference in early 1970s
Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 1969 Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:33 am Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
CrudeAwakening wrote:
k_semler wrote:
Furthermore, even if the arctic ice cap were to completely vanish, (not taking into account greenland and ice over land formations), the sea level would slightly drop. The ice is floating on the sea, (as you are well aware), and as such, if it were to completely melt, it would slightly drop the worldwide sea levels. To verify this on a small scale, fill a cup nearly to the top with water, and place a few ice cubes in it until the glass is full to the brim. Wait for the ice to melt away due to the natural presence of heat, (don't microwave it). After the ice has melted, measure the depth of the water in the glass and compare it to the level you filled the water level to previously with the ice in the glass. You will notice that once the ice has returned to a liquid state, the water level in the glass will have dropped slightly.
Rubbish. Ever heard of the Archimedes principle? The weight of the ice displaces an equal weight of water. When the ice melts, it's volume changes, but it's weight doesn't. The melted ice has exactly the same weight and volume as the water it displaced when in it's frozen state, and so the water level remains the same.
BS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4od86_aV-s8 The glass is full of ice, and in the melted state, the glass is half full of water. The volume displaced by the ice is approximately half when it is a liquid state. Yes, total mass did not change, but displacement did. _________________ Here Lies the United States Of America.
Joined: Oct 06, 2006 Posts: 1371 Location: East Texas
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:38 am Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
You're just involved in a distraction now.
Melting sea-borne ice will contribute next to nothing to the sea level rise; no climate change science disagrees with that.
Almost all sea-level rise will be the result of loss of LAND BORNE ice.
Melting sea ice remains a severe problem; but sea-level change isn't part of THAT. _________________ Yes, we are. As we are.
And so shall we remain; Until the end.
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:41 am Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
It must be nice to have such a sunny disposition, k. So what if the icecap melts? It doesn't worry you. Who cares if that means rapid thawing oft the tundra, release of massive quantities of intensely global warming methane? Big deal. Who cares if that means Greenland's melt accelerates dramatically?
You just seem to have no worries at all. Nice life. Best of luck with that.
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:26 am Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
k_semler wrote:
CrudeAwakening wrote:
k_semler wrote:
Furthermore, even if the arctic ice cap were to completely vanish, (not taking into account greenland and ice over land formations), the sea level would slightly drop. The ice is floating on the sea, (as you are well aware), and as such, if it were to completely melt, it would slightly drop the worldwide sea levels. To verify this on a small scale, fill a cup nearly to the top with water, and place a few ice cubes in it until the glass is full to the brim. Wait for the ice to melt away due to the natural presence of heat, (don't microwave it). After the ice has melted, measure the depth of the water in the glass and compare it to the level you filled the water level to previously with the ice in the glass. You will notice that once the ice has returned to a liquid state, the water level in the glass will have dropped slightly.
Rubbish. Ever heard of the Archimedes principle? The weight of the ice displaces an equal weight of water. When the ice melts, it's volume changes, but it's weight doesn't. The melted ice has exactly the same weight and volume as the water it displaced when in it's frozen state, and so the water level remains the same.
BS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4od86_aV-s8 The glass is full of ice, and in the melted state, the glass is half full of water. The volume displaced by the ice is approximately half when it is a liquid state. Yes, total mass did not change, but displacement did.
What that video shows is that a given mass of ice, being less dense than water, occupies a larger volume than the same mass of water. Because of this lower density c.f water, ice floats in water.
The video doesn't support your contention, it merely demonstrates the effect of differing densities of a substance on it's volume. It has nothing to do with floating ice melting! _________________ "Who knows what the Second Law of Thermodynamics will be like in a hundred years?" - Economist speaking during planning for World Population Conference in early 1970s
Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 1969 Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:28 am Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
How do you propose to halt the "cataclysmic release" of methane? From my perspective, worrying about something that has NO proposed solution, is just a futile waste of energy. Mankind did not create the problem, and mankind cannot solve it. Nature will do what nature is going to do. The official ACG smilie should be this: Worrying about something we have absolutely no control over is nothing but an excuse to panic, and impose overbearing government controls over economic activities due to the "do something, anything even if it is ineffective" disease of the liberal mind. Life will continue on. 99% of the species that once existed are now extinct. Some day, (hopefully in the distant future), mankind will also join those ranks of extinct species.
Now, I'm not for pollution; not many people that I know of are in favor of H2SO4 raining out of the sky, or aquifers you wouldn't even want to attempt to tap because of the high arsenic levels. I'm not for burning plastics and rubber, (besides the toxic gasses released into the atmosphere, it doesn't burn that well, and chemicals leech into ground water). But CO2 as a pollutant? Get real. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, life on Earth would cease to exist in a very short time.
Sometimes, I assume the greenie weenies would only be happy if all mankind were to return to a subsistence agricultural lifestyle. Oh wait, that might even anger some of them, after all, we would still need to have cattle, chickens, pigs, and horses so we could get essential proteins necessary to sustain human life, and tow our farm implements. I guess that means natural selection would soon eliminate the vegans. (yes, it is possible to survive on a vegetarian diet, but not vegan).
As far as "right-wing noise machine". Puh-leeze. The left has CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, CNN International, and The Weather Channel. The Neo-Cons, (big government, "entitlement program" [WELFARE, income redistribution, core plank of the Communist Manifesto], "compassionate conservatives" have Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Ingram, Etc. "Paleo-Cons", (if there is such a thing), such as myself, (keep the government out of my life as much as possible, leave me the fsck alone, and I'll leave you the fsck alone), only have Black Listed News, Raw Story, Lew Rockwell, some of BBC, some of Google News, and whatever I can pick up on SW. The left wing by far has media dominance.
The left wing relies upon emotion, "how does that make you feel? It's the intentions that count, not the results." The Neo-cons aren't much better. Myself, I prefer logic over panic and raw emotion. Fine, you have a problem; now find out a solution, and get to fixing it. Intentions matter little, results are what count. Never forget what road was paved with good intentions.
You cite a potential catastrophic release of methane which is stored in the arctic and deep sea regions of the planet. While deep sea excursions would most likely cost trillions of dollars, (and is economically not feasible at this point in time, [if ever]), why not utilize the methane hydrate trapped under the permafrost? Since it's just going to be released into the atmosphere, why not utilize this resource instead of letting it go to waste, (and wait for it to be a potential to unleash an ELE, [that we once again, have NO control over]).
"What if..." doesn't scare me. What if the Russians and Chinese just launched their entire nuclear arsenal, and NATO attacked in retaliation? What if a 16 Km asteroid is on a collision course with Earth, and causes an ELE in 2 hours time? What if some twisted nation combines Ebola with influenza, and it accidentally gets released into the general population?
If there is no possible solution to a problem, it is a waste of time and effort worrying about a hypothetical, (not even guaranteed), scenario that may or may not happen that we have absolutely NO influence upon in any aspect. If it happens, we die; if not, then you could have used that time and energy doing something productive such as improving PHEV technologies, or pressure congress to pass a bill requiring all new vehicles sold within the United States to be flex-fuel capable.
Hand wringing, and emotional appeals will accomplish absolutely nothing. If you are truly worried about it, find a solution instead of just standing on the street corner wearing a sign "the end is nigh" while ringing a cow bell and yelling "repent at the feet of the all-might Al-gore because he got a Nobel Peace Prize." Big deal. Limbaugh got nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize too. If he would have gotten it, would you be kissing his feet?
Cid_Yama wrote:
Yes, it is melting at a faster rate then previously recorded by modern instrumentation.
Duh, the Arctic has NEVER been even close to being ice free for over a million years.
Arctic Ice may 'melt away' this summer It has been 1.1 million years since the Arctic had an ice-free summer, long before humans existed.
The loss of old, thick ice has continued through the winter months, despite the unusually cold weather deriving from La Nina conditions (the other extreme of the El Nino Southern Oscillation) in the Pacific.
The winter ice loss is thought to be driven mainly by the transport of old floes from Arctic waters out into the Atlantic Ocean. The currents driving this are stronger than usual as a consequence of another natural cycle, the Arctic Oscillation.
The net result is that most of the cover consists of ice that has formed since last summer.
With the ice pack containing such a high proportion of thin, salty ice, the scientists believe another major melt is likely in the summer.
"It's becoming thinner and thinner and much more susceptible to melting during the summer - much more likely to melt away," commented Walt Meier from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder.
"It may look OK on the surface, but it's like looking at a Hollywood movie set - you see the facade of a building and it looks OK, but if you look behind it, there's no building there."
link Millions of years ago, Alaska, northern Canada, Greenland, Siberia, etc used to be a tropical climate. Life seemed to thrive perfectly fine in that period, just as it will continue to do so.
That was after a near extinction of all life on the planet that took 50,000 to 100,000 years to recover from. What do you think the rest of the planet looked like while alligators were swimming around the North Pole?
This well-documented link between methane and temperature suggests that it hardly matters what causes the initial temperature rise. What matters is that methane emissions explode at some stage during that rise. Ominously, annual methane emissions have more than doubled in the past two centuries, and most of that increase can be blamed on human activities, especially pastoralism, irrigation and energy generation via hydroelectricity. But if the current collapse of methane hydrates continues, our species will be unlikely to survive this century.
link
This is because the rapid release of such a large mass of methane and its subsequent oxidation to carbon dioxide would have significantly altered ocean chemistry. The added carbon dioxide would have increased the overall acidity or corrosiveness of seawater. This, in turn, would increase the dissolution of calcite shells of microplankton, which are the dominant component of seafloor sediments, leaving behind only nonsoluble clays. The dissolution of calcite would initiate in the deepest parts of the ocean and rapidly spread upwards as additional carbon dioxide entered the ocean.
The scale of carbonate dissolution recorded in these cores is significant. It is suggestive of a much larger flux of methane, possibly double original estimates.
"It far exceeds what has been estimated by models assuming a release of 2,000 gigatons of methane," Kroon said.
The initial results also suggest that the deposition of carbonate shells on the deeper reaches of the seafloor did not resume for at least 50,000 years, and that the total recovery time to a "normal state" took as long as 100,000 years. This result suggests that full recovery from these extreme events takes considerable time.
link
Don't be an idiot. If there was ever a time for you to take your two brain cells and rub them together, it's now.
_________________ Here Lies the United States Of America.
Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 1969 Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:53 am Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
dohboi wrote:
It must be nice to have such a sunny disposition, k. So what if the icecap melts? It doesn't worry you. Who cares if that means rapid thawing oft the tundra, release of massive quantities of intensely global warming methane? Big deal. Who cares if that means Greenland's melt accelerates dramatically?
You just seem to have no worries at all. Nice life. Best of luck with that.
I'd love to see minimal snow in the winter, and a 9 month growing season. I'd love to see the temperatures in the winter raise 14.4 F as one poster stated above. That would put the median temperature in the winter here in the low 40's. That would allow 2 harvests per year. Yeah, in the summer it would be hot, (raise from 83 degrees to 97 average), would be uncomfortable, but it would be livable. I regard it with the same aspect as I do tribal wars in Africa, (it doesn't affect me, so why should I care?), and a commercial transaction, (what's in it for me?)
AGC will have minimal impact on first world nations, the onl people who may suffer are those who do not know how to adapt to climates, and live on subsistence agriculture. They will adapt agricultural practices, relocate to a more hospitable environment, or die. Mankind has adapted to various climate fluctuations in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. Yes, some people will die, but that happens every day already. Organisms which fail to adapt to their surroundings perish. It is the natural way of the world. Adapt or die. _________________ Here Lies the United States Of America.
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 8:31 am Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
ks wrote: "Mankind did not create the problem"
Again, every major, established scientific body in the world that has issued a statement on this topic disagrees with you. Oh, but then you are clearly smarter than all those wacky scientific bodies;)
What exactly are you going to adapt to. Know one can tell for sure if any location is going to turn into a desert or be constantly drenched with huricane level rains. We have had both going on around here in neighboring counties.
Most of the rest of your post is beyond comment. The "CO2 is natural" schtick is right out of old Exxon denialist commercials. They were totally idiotic, your version is just as idiotic. Too much of anything, not matter how "natural," can become a problem. And CO2 has.
You are part of a rapidly shrinking remnant who are still denying the reality of AGW, kind of like the Japanese fighters stranded on Pacific islands, still thinking that the war was on years after it ended. Stop embarrassing yourself.
OK, I'm done feeding trolls. Best wishes for an interesting future. When you get past the boring denial stage into the more interesting anger stage, let me know.
Joined: May 27, 2007 Posts: 1723 Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:50 am Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
and impose overbearing government controls over economic activities
And there it is in a nutshell. In other words you're saying, "How dare you try and stop me from profiting on the destruction of the biosphere."
You're a criminal and you're an idiot. Fortunately, there is no place you can go afterwards, and leave everyone else to suffer the consequences. You are stuck here with the rest of us, and will suffer the fate of your own actions. _________________ In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell
It riles them to believe that you perceive the webs they weave. - Moody Blues
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:52 pm Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
Quote:
Again, every major, established scientific body in the world that has issued a statement on this topic disagrees with you.
and there are a large number of respected researchers who think man's impact is limited to changes to the surface, erosion, heat islands etc. The premise for CO2 driven AGW is completely model driven and over the past ten years the average global temperature and CO2 curves have been diverging undercutting the validity of the models.
Quote:
What exactly are you going to adapt to. Know one can tell for sure if any location is going to turn into a desert or be constantly drenched with huricane level rains. We have had both going on around here in neighboring counties.
well you have a logic disconnect now because on the one hand you herald the IPCC and other climate alarmist organizations as having the answers and then you say "know one can tell". Ignoring the english faux pas I would point out that the climate alarmists have been saying for a long time that they can predict what is going to happen and where, they publish these prediction ad naseum in the various journals. Oh and just for your future information the idea that hurricanes are linked at all to global warming has been discounted by a number of very well known hurricane researchers...a recent paper speaks to the lack of correlation
Quote:
Briggs, W.M. 2008. On the changes in the number and intensity of North Atlantic tropical cyclones. Journal of Climate 21: 1387-1402
Quote:
The "CO2 is natural" schtick is right out of old Exxon denialist commercials. They were totally idiotic, your version is just as idiotic. Too much of anything, not matter how "natural," can become a problem. And CO2 has.
It surprises me how much this forum is like the animal kingdom....the small and insiginficant beasts often make the biggest noise and show. So you can show us some proof that CO2 has become a problem? I've asked this a number of times on a number of threads here simply because there is no proof. All you have is a recognition that CO2 has increased, a theory on greenhouse gas and some models. Models aren't proof especially given the fact they can create any number of results within the range of error of the forcings.
Quote:
You are part of a rapidly shrinking remnant who are still denying the reality of AGW
been sleeping the last year? The number of vocal scientists speaking out against the inadequacy of models and the alarmist nature of the AGW bandwagon community has increased, not diminished. This is largely due to the fact that the past 10 years of global average temperatures are not replicated by any of the predictions.
Joined: May 27, 2007 Posts: 1723 Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
If you pulled your head out of Fox Propaganda Channel's angus for a sec, you would find YOU are the one who is extremely delusional. Other than Fox and their propaganda-generating corporate-funded Foundations with names to give the impression they are somehow 'scientific', no one is claiming this nonsense.
(Except you and your neo-consevative ilk who prefer to reinforce each others delusions.)
Doesn't is bother you that the only ones spouting your nonsense are Conservatives, Conservative foundations, and Fox Conservative pseudo-science channel?
Human Life in imminent danger from a runaway deadly Global Warming
There are apparently some people who think that the current "Greenhouse Effect" will simply lead to an "evolutionary" change in the global climate, so that climatic areas in the northern hemisphere like Canada, Scandinavia, Russia, Alaska in the U.S., and Antarctica in the southern hemisphere will become like one big tropical resort area like Tahiti, Cuba, or Jamaica. Soon everyone will be enjoying glorious sunshine, and sipping exotic tropical drinks in Nova Scotia, Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, or around the Arctic waters of Siberia, according to people with this apparent view. These people profess a dislike for the cold, and they therefore welcome any change that might eventually get rid of their abhored winter blaaaaahs.
link _________________ In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell
It riles them to believe that you perceive the webs they weave. - Moody Blues
Last edited by Cid_Yama on Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:53 pm; edited 5 times in total
Joined: Apr 06, 2006 Posts: 3623 Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:43 pm Post subject: Re: k_semler's Anti GW extravaganza
k_semler wrote:
Yes, it is melting at a faster rate then previously recorded by modern instrumentation. However, this does not automatically reinforce the premise of anthropogenic induced global climate change. While the reflectivity of the polar ice cap does reflect radiant heat back into space, and water does not as effectivly, it has happened before. Millions of years ago, Alaska, northern Canada, Greenland, Siberia, etc used to be a tropical climate.
You needn't go back that far: during the Eemian sea levels were 4-6 meters higher. Life per se is adaptable but modern civilization is far from it, and we toy with GHGs at our peril. But for that matter our dependence on FFs in the first place wasn't a plan for long term survival. I don't see us having the luxury of framing these matters as partisan issues for much longer, nor will the AGW camp have any success in halting coal burning. Whether we can transition to more renewable sources of energy (by which I include nuclear) remains to be seen; I'm not very hopeful myself. Those sources go light on the CO2 as well. Anybody will agree that a move away from FFs and GHGs is the better long term strategy, unless they're Michael Lynch. _________________ Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
C'mon man, who're you gonna believe?
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Worrying about something we have absolutely no control over is nothing but an excuse to panic, and impose overbearing government controls over economic activities due to the "do something, anything even if it is ineffective" disease of the liberal mind. Life will continue on. 99% of the species that once existed are now extinct. Some day, (hopefully in the distant future), mankind will also join those ranks of extinct species.
