why don't you respond to the post? It's debt that's causing "warming".
P.S. Oh, and that's because the earth's been cooling, not warming for the past 10+ years.
you say that like it is a fact, when in reality it is an incredibly misguided opinion.
Say what like a fact? The fact that debt/GDP is more highly correlated with global warming than CO2? Or that the earth's been cooling?
Regardless,...
The reality is - my whole complaint (from origin until now) could be summarized in what you've written if switched. So, I'd switch a few words (making it more polite and more on-point to my message):
Leftist environmentalists approach the issue of global warming and the aspects associated with it like they are facts, when the reality is underlying the entire notion is an opinion, or broader theories.
My problem is the wholehearted notion that science has proven their theory correct, and the story is over. Polaris is the prototypical example of a person who can't imagine a scenario where his views are incorrect on this issue. To him, and many others here - perhaps including yourself, it's impossible that their "opinion" is wrong on this issue.
That's "misguided". Science is never over. What those environmentalist (or supporters of the thought that global warming is real and man made) have is a theory. Sure, there's some data to back up their claims, but there's data to so that's not true too. The irony is that when anything is presented to the debate that runs contrary to their opinion, they dismiss it immediately as being oil-friendly, ect. But, looking at it from a bird's eye view, someone could easily say the same about the research on the other side... being big governement friendly. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter who the science is coming from, if it's sound science. And with this issue, there's too many reasons to argue it's just not sound science.
As for me - I'm not saying I know everything. I don't know all the answers here, nor do I claim to (unlike you and others). I'm saying none of us really know. You, we, have all a theory, an opinion. You use some data to try to align the public with their theory. Others have opposing data and try to align the public with that theory.
This issue is not something that can currently be "proven" 100% because it's too complicated. There are too many unknowns. We don't know enough about what other things could impact climate/temperature on the earth. And due to that, saying CO2 is the cause of this and in particular is man-made, is difficult to rally 100% around.
That's been my point all along. I find it hysterical that I get pinned as the closed-minded individual, when I say I don't know for certain the answer here and am presenting information from an opposition viewpoint because too often we hear one side from individuals who claim they do know for certain.
there may be a correlation between debt and temperature...
but to say that debt is causing the temperature to change, rather than things like pollutants and CO2, is just a totally worthless and horrible argument. "yes, those calculations that only exist within a computer somewhere and aren't even tangible - that's why it is 5 degrees warmer this year" :roll:
regardless, I was referring to your statement about "global cooling" as being just totally off base, not the debt thing, but that is too.
not that I *love* debt or something... I'm a fiscal conservative.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
why don't you respond to the post? It's debt that's causing "warming".
P.S. Oh, and that's because the earth's been cooling, not warming for the past 10+ years.
why should he respond when you don't respond? ... in your own thread?
i would love to hear what you think about the guy who took the metoffice information and completely distorted it? ... but alas - it's crickets on those points from you because you don't know what the heck anyone is talking about ... your inability to discuss the points in the articles you posted while still simultaneously perpetuating propaganda is a clear indication of your indoctrination ... it shouldn't be a surprise considering your viewpoints on other topics ... you want to call me close minded but yet you don't even understand the things you are posting and are strictly posting it because it supports your biased and unfortunately ignorant view point ...
First, I've responded to you every time I had an opportunity and felt it was appropriate. I know your head practically explodes when you realize someone would stand against your religion. But, guess what,... people do.
Second, I did respond to him. So, I asked for a response from him. I'll do so with you too: What are your thoughts on the graph that shows that debt is a bigger indicator of global warming than CO2?
Third, you don't make friends by insulting them or their intelligence constantly, simply because they don't see they world the way you do. That's not how grown ups do it. I have done research and had it published. And, honestly, if someone with your innate bias was doing the research and I was an academic referee, I'd toss it immediately. I feel a lot of the researchers do have your type of bias. That's basically been one of my points all along, the whole community of climate research needs to keep global warming an issue because their careers depend on it. Therefore, the academic material that is released, typically sides with that side of the theories. This is just as much as an issue as those on the other side and where they receive their funding. Both sides may be bias.
Third, what exactly did this individual you mention distort, polaris? Please use your own words.... don't post other people's "bias" blogs with your answer.
inlet... if your household debt is increasing, why is that?
it is because you are consuming more than you should be.
now take that to a worldwide scale. if we're consuming more on a worldwide basis than we should be, does that mean that we're also producing a lot of waste, greenhouse gases, pollutants, CO2, and the like?
*correlation*
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
ok ... final statement to inlet13 ... after this i will continue to post :( after his propaganda links:
your position on science and theory is fine - the primary problem with you in this thread is that you have not posted anything credible to support your dissension ... not one credible piece ...
on top of that - when others (mainly myself) did the work that you should have done - you completely ignore it ... it is why i've called you disingenuous and a troll ... you post blatantly false statements and then lack the integrity to back them up ... then when all else fails you go back to the same point about science ...
so again, i will ask you ... if that is how you feel about science - would you let smokers smoke in front of your baby? do you want toxic waste buried in your back yard? do you believe in modern medicine? ... that all falls into science ...
Third, what exactly did this individual you mention distort, polaris? Please use your own words.... don't post other people's "bias" blogs with your answer.
this is a joke? ... ... you didn't even look at the link i posted!?? ... really!?? ...
so ... you post a link from some guy who basically posted an utter lie and one that is easily proven at that ... and then i post a statement from the organization he misused to paint his article and you don't even read it ... again - disingenuous ... if you really want to foster discussion and debate on global warming ...
1. know what global warming is
2. read both sides of the argument
there may be a correlation between debt and temperature...
but to say that debt is causing the temperature to change, rather than things like pollutants and CO2, is just a totally worthless and horrible argument. "yes, those calculations that only exist within a computer somewhere and aren't even tangible - that's why it is 5 degrees warmer this year" :roll:
regardless, I was referring to your statement about "global cooling" as being just totally off base, not the debt thing, but that is too.
not that I *love* debt or something... I'm a fiscal conservative.
I am well aware with the potential issues in saying debt is "causing" temperature changes. Yet, the "science" of statistics says it is, or could say so (as shown in that graphic). In fact, it says it's a much better indicator than CO2 (as you can see with the coefficient). So, if we can say debt is NOT causing temperature fluctuations, why? Further, why can't we do the same with CO2? Or at the very least, why can't we "DOUBT" CO2's contribution without being crucified?
Underlying point - these are theories and the empirics can be flawed and rarely "prove" anything. Although everyone is jumping down my throat, my claim is nothing is proven here, there's just data supporting an argument. And the data in that chart, implies debt is a better indicator than CO2. That's actual data.
inlet... if your household debt is increasing, why is that?
it is because you are consuming more than you should be.
now take that to a worldwide scale. if we're consuming more on a worldwide basis than we should be, does that mean that we're also producing a lot of waste, greenhouse gases, pollutants, CO2, and the like?
*correlation*
The chart uses debt/GDP... which should account for that (since GDP is measured in expenditures). That chart shows an issue of government debt, not spending. I'd be curious as to hear how you'd explain...
...government spending above it's means results in more waste, greenhouse gases, pollutants, CO2, etc. And remember, this is so much so, that it's a better fit with temperature changes than CO2.
So, if we can say debt is NOT causing temperature fluctuations, why? Further, why can't we do the same with CO2? Or at the very least, why can't we "DOUBT" CO2's contribution without being crucified?
because debt is a fucking calculation in a computer... it is a construct of the mind.
CO2 is a tangible thing... it is a GAS that intensifies the damn sunlight. it doesn't matter if it is a "pollutant" it makes shit HOTTER.
Underlying point - these are theories and the empirics can be flawed and rarely "prove" anything. Although everyone is jumping down my throat, my claim is nothing is proven here, there's just data supporting an argument. And the data in that chart, implies debt is a better indicator than CO2. That's actual data.
there is a LOT that is proven in global warming science, and again... to say that debt is an "indicator" of temperature change is like this;
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
ok ... final statement to inlet13 ... after this i will continue to post :( after his propaganda links:
your position on science and theory is fine - the primary problem with you in this thread is that you have not posted anything credible to support your dissension ... not one credible piece ...
No offense, but what I've been trying to say back to you is that (according to the other side) you never post a credible piece. Not one credible piece, according to them. It works both ways. You pretend like you're the judge of credibility. You're not.
on top of that - when others (mainly myself) did the work that you should have done - you completely ignore it ... it is why i've called you disingenuous and a troll ... you post blatantly false statements and then lack the integrity to back them up ... then when all else fails you go back to the same point about science ...
I ignore it because I know you immediately believe that anything that runs counter to your religion is false. You'll concoct various ways of saying "see this is why it's wrong", typically in a hot-headed aggravated manner. For example, this entire article is false because of roughly 20 scientists, several were worked a field tied to petroleum or whatnot. My point back is both sides could be attacked in this way. I've been saying that all along. When you do attack the message of posts, you use messengers on your side of the issue to do it. It's unbelievably hysterical because you start by saying "this guy's has an agenda"... then if you do dig at substance of what they said... you use "your guy's" points (who the other side would say has an agenda) to prove your point. My takeaway is both sides probably have agendas... and due to that, it's refreshing to look and promote what we rarely hear or read.
so again, i will ask you ... if that is how you feel about science - would you let smokers smoke in front of your baby? do you want toxic waste buried in your back yard? do you believe in modern medicine? ... that all falls into science ...
To directly answer your question... Would I let smokers smoke in front of my baby? I'd probably walk away. I don't like smoke, and do believe it's most likely bad for me and the baby. Do I want toxic waste buried in my back yard? No, I don't for a variety of reasons. Do I believe in modern medicine? Yes, I do believe in most aspects associated with modern medicine.
Answering all of these doesn't really get at my points though... like toxic waste in my backyard example... I don't know if it would effect me or not. But, I wouldn't take the chance. I know the next response would be "well, you're willing to take a chance with global warming"? Global warming or climate change is not the same to me. I'm saying I don't know about man's contribution to climate changes. I see climate changes constantly. I figure the sun has to have something to do with it. I also get the fact that this is a leftist way to increase regulation with public support, increase their tentacles and slow economic growth. So, on net, it's different than every single issue you put forth. In other words, there's a lot to be lost if we think global warming exists and We're WRONG.
Personally, I believe there are incentives for climatologists to be bias. I don't believe there's as much of an incentive for health statisticians to be bias. I think it depends on your field and where you receive your funding. For example, I do think pharma stasticians downplay side effects and whatnot.
Medical professional statisticians are up there as some of the best in the business. Climate statisticians probably fall down the bottom of the list, if they are even statisticians at all. As someone who engages in statistics regularly, I know the amount of scrutiny that goes on in certain fields vs. others. It's excessive in medicine. And in medicine, I just don't see the cause of the bias as much. In my humble opinion, if medical statisticians were to look at these issues statistically, they would say this issue the answer to CO2's role is largely unknown, and most likely not significant. That's my take.
CO2 is a tangible thing... it is a GAS that intensifies the damn sunlight. it doesn't matter if it is a "pollutant" it makes shit HOTTER.
I disagree about CO2 being tangible. By definition, you can't touch CO2. So, it's not tangible by definition. Even if it does make things hotter, it's not easily and accurately measured in the entire atmosphere. There's tons of issues with saying CO2 is the "Cause" here.
there is a LOT that is proven in global warming science, and again... to say that debt is an "indicator" of temperature change is like this;
You don't get, and no offense, I don't think you are trying to. My point is you can't prove this 100%. Period. You can't. You are saying, this is proven in global warming science, I'm saying if it is "proven" it's BS. I work in statistics... I'm saying, no, there are theories that have some empirical backing. That's it. Yet, you guys freak when someone puts forward information to the contrary.
In all honesty, to me, the global warming backers are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists. This thread is proof IMHO.
The chances of anyone, no matter how adept or empathetic a communicator, penetrating that thicket of resentment, martyrdom, and fantasy and extracting climate sanity just strike me as … slim. This is a demographic death rattle. It just has to play out.
CO2 is a tangible thing... it is a GAS that intensifies the damn sunlight. it doesn't matter if it is a "pollutant" it makes shit HOTTER.
I disagree about CO2 being tangible. By definition, you can't touch CO2. So, it's not tangible by definition. Even if it does make things hotter, it's not easily and accurately measured in the entire atmosphere. There's tons of issues with saying CO2 is the "Cause" here.
there is a LOT that is proven in global warming science, and again... to say that debt is an "indicator" of temperature change is like this;
You don't get, and no offense, I don't think you are trying to. My point is you can't prove this 100%. Period. You can't. You are saying, this is proven in global warming science, I'm saying if it is "proven" it's BS. I work in statistics... I'm saying, no, there are theories that have some empirical backing. That's it. Yet, you guys freak when someone puts forward information to the contrary.
In all honesty, to me, the global warming backers are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists. This thread is proof IMHO.
When you state, "... the global warming backers are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists" you have officially gone off the deep end.
I'll agree with you that we cannot satisfy the certainty of a global warming epidemic with 100% assuredness; but you'll have to agree with me that- especially with the stakes so extremely high- there is more than enough evidence to proceed with extreme caution. Not heeding the warnings is stupid. Flat out stupid.
The people arguing with you aren't mindless sheep. In contrary, the people who would suggest global warming is not occurring are in denial. Ignoring the mountain of evidence pointing to climate change and continuing with our glutenous ways is akin to playing Russian Roulette. Odds are you aren't going to get a bullet in the head, but why would you still play?
thirty bills ... check out the grist article i posted on top of page 9 ...
he's part of the group of people that think these scientists (not sure what he thinks about other scientists who are in academia) are only supporting AGW in order to get grants and/or to further a liberal conspiracy to perpetuate big gov't ... and that an article written by a big oil shill is the same as one from a climatogist who's been peer reviewed and published in respected journals ...
the article states that no matter what you say - it will be hard to convince him otherwise ... and it's played out in this thread ... he doesn't even know what global warming is ... and yet he is arguing against it ... how can you reason with someone like that?
CO2 is a tangible thing... it is a GAS that intensifies the damn sunlight. it doesn't matter if it is a "pollutant" it makes shit HOTTER.
I disagree about CO2 being tangible. By definition, you can't touch CO2. So, it's not tangible by definition. Even if it does make things hotter, it's not easily and accurately measured in the entire atmosphere. There's tons of issues with saying CO2 is the "Cause" here.
there is a LOT that is proven in global warming science, and again... to say that debt is an "indicator" of temperature change is like this;
You don't get, and no offense, I don't think you are trying to. My point is you can't prove this 100%. Period. You can't. You are saying, this is proven in global warming science, I'm saying if it is "proven" it's BS. I work in statistics... I'm saying, no, there are theories that have some empirical backing. That's it. Yet, you guys freak when someone puts forward information to the contrary.
In all honesty, to me, the global warming backers are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists. This thread is proof IMHO.
When you state, "... the global warming backers are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists" you have officially gone off the deep end.
I'll agree with you that we cannot satisfy the certainty of a global warming epidemic with 100% assuredness; but you'll have to agree with me that- especially with the stakes so extremely high- there is more than enough evidence to proceed with extreme caution. Not heeding the warnings is stupid. Flat out stupid.
The people arguing with you aren't mindless sheep. In contrary, the people who would suggest global warming is not occurring are in denial. Ignoring the mountain of evidence pointing to climate change and continuing with our glutenous ways is akin to playing Russian Roulette. Odds are you aren't going to get a bullet in the head, but why would you still play?
Come on, man... you've been slaughtered here.
No, I haven't gone off the deep-end by claiming certain global warming backers (particularly here) are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists. They have their religion, you may have yours. Both parties KNOW they are 100% right. Any doubt or points to the contrary are met with harsh criticism and immediately dismissed due to their results (not immediately due their methodology). It's one in the same.
Well, if you say you agree we can't be 100% certain on this, you're not in the majority here in this thread. As for whether I agree with you that we should proceed with caution, I think it's a question. Here's my take, certainly "IF" global warming is correct, we should proceed with caution. But, we don't know IF it's correct, which you just pointed out. Also, there's reason to say, there's more to be lost for proceeding with caution that to be gained. For example, I can think of two or three reasons: Growth of government regulations (and gov't in general) and power, regulations effects on the economy, and future techonlogy (if man can damage, can they heal it with new technology). So, on net, since we don't know for sure if this is exists and what causes it if it does and won't, I'd be just as cautious to jump on board the global warming train as to jump off it. The economy is in the shitter, government is growing at leaps and bounds and people are unemployed. You ask the jobless if they would rather enact legislation that's good for the environment or get a job. Because the truth is, whether you're blind to it or not, there is a real trade off between the two.
I don't think all of the people arguing with me are mindless sheep. I think a few can't admit that there's a chance they could be wrong, however. To those, I do equate them with fervent religious fundamentalists. Further, I'm not in denial about anything. In fact, I've said it before in this thread, I don't really know one way or the other on this issue. That said, I think it's silly to think this issue is closed. I'm open minded on it. I've read both sides, and I have my own theory. But, I'm not willing to bet heavily one way or the other because of the reasons I've listed repetitively in this thread.
Finally, acting like a discussion on a message board has winners and losers is silly. I know I'm ridiculously out-numbered here. But, outside of this left-leaning bubble, I'd bet more would agree with my take than the opposite.
The earth does cycle. The 'spike' we are living at the current moment is much more dramatic than any spike we can recall through scientific research. It doesn't take a smart man to look at our patterns of consumption and determine that the Earth cannot sustain such.
With recycling efforts and making a greener earth... there is industry as well- big industry: some of it old, some refined, some entirely new! It would be the 'old guard' (major oil companies, etc.) attempting to preserve their way of life that would be resistant to the notion of climate change because it doesn't fit with their ability to make a living.
Inlet, you are well-spoken, but I truly feel you are misdirected here- clinging to the notion that maybe we are wrong. You are correct that the possibility might exist that what we are currently witness to (polar ice caps crumbling into the sea, etc.) is a natural cycle that we have had little impact on; however, with the life of the planet at stake, I'm not going to be a gambling man. I'll error on the side of caution and take the safe bet instead of 'waiting and seeing' until 100% conclusive evidence is shown to me. The percentages weigh heavily towards explaining what is occurring right now- I don't need any more. I believe what the majority of experts tell me and what I can deduce from common sense.
CO2 is a tangible thing... it is a GAS that intensifies the damn sunlight. it doesn't matter if it is a "pollutant" it makes shit HOTTER.
I disagree about CO2 being tangible. By definition, you can't touch CO2. So, it's not tangible by definition. Even if it does make things hotter, it's not easily and accurately measured in the entire atmosphere. There's tons of issues with saying CO2 is the "Cause" here.
there is a LOT that is proven in global warming science, and again... to say that debt is an "indicator" of temperature change is like this;
You don't get, and no offense, I don't think you are trying to. My point is you can't prove this 100%. Period. You can't. You are saying, this is proven in global warming science, I'm saying if it is "proven" it's BS. I work in statistics... I'm saying, no, there are theories that have some empirical backing. That's it. Yet, you guys freak when someone puts forward information to the contrary.
In all honesty, to me, the global warming backers are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists. This thread is proof IMHO.
What do you mean you can't touch CO2? Am I missing something. It a physical thing, right? I can certainly touch the air I exhale.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
"With our thoughts we make the world"
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,430
Accurate measurements of CO2 in the environment have been taken on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, since 1958. Charts of these measurement are available here, through this site provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
These measurements were not made be fervent religious fanatics but highly trained, well educated scientists. This is basic CO2 101 stuff. The facts pertaining to CO2's role in global warming are overwhelming. The consensus of well trained, intelligent scientists that our planet is warming at an unusually high rate is overwhelming. Of these scientists, there is also a wide spread consensus that global warming is anthropogenic in nature due to human activity that has caused the release of carbon emissions into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate.
The data provided by climate science deniers who say the earth is not heating up is underwhelming. They proceed in their beliefs (or in some cases with their economically motivated smoke screens) at great risk as do the vast majority of people don't give a damn one way or another. Good luck to us all.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
What do you mean you can't touch CO2? Am I missing something. It a physical thing, right? I can certainly touch the air I exhale.
now we're just being fucking silly, eh?
If the guy won't even admit that "gas" is a real thing, a concept, a tangible property that actually exists within the atmostphere... and not a construct invented by the mind (like the ratio of revenue to expenses) then there's no point in discussing this anymore.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
again folks ... look to the link on top of page 9 .. time to move on from inlet ...
the guy posts a link that actually says the earth is cooling based on some guy who totally took information out of context from a legit meteorological office ... i then post the official statement from that office and he doesn't even read it ... he doesn't even know what global warming is ... engaging someone in a topic in which he has no interest in understanding it nor reading viewpoints counter to his indoctrination is futile ...
The U.N. got it wrong on Himalayan glaciers -- and the proof is finally here.
The authors of the U.N.’s climate policy guide were red-faced two years ago when it was revealed that they had inaccurately forecast that the Himalayan glaciers would melt completely in 25 years, vanishing by the year 2035.
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and director general of the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in New Dehli, India, ultimately issued a statement offering regret for what turned out to be a poorly vetted statement.
A new report published Thursday, Feb. 9, in the science journal Nature offers the first comprehensive study of the world’s glaciers and ice caps, and one of its conclusions has shocked scientists. Using GRACE, a pair of orbiting satellites racing around the planet at an altitude of 300 miles, it comes to the eye-popping conclusion that the Himalayas have barely melted at all in the past 10 years.
The U.N. got it wrong on Himalayan glaciers -- and the proof is finally here.
The authors of the U.N.’s climate policy guide were red-faced two years ago when it was revealed that they had inaccurately forecast that the Himalayan glaciers would melt completely in 25 years, vanishing by the year 2035.
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and director general of the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in New Dehli, India, ultimately issued a statement offering regret for what turned out to be a poorly vetted statement.
A new report published Thursday, Feb. 9, in the science journal Nature offers the first comprehensive study of the world’s glaciers and ice caps, and one of its conclusions has shocked scientists. Using GRACE, a pair of orbiting satellites racing around the planet at an altitude of 300 miles, it comes to the eye-popping conclusion that the Himalayas have barely melted at all in the past 10 years.
Melting glaciers on the Himalayas not contributing to sea level rise
The Himalayas has lost no significant ice over the past decade, according to a new study, that found melting ice from glaciers is having a much smaller effect on sea levels than previously thought.
Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds
The Passu glacier in the Karakorum region of Pakistan Photo: ALAMY
Louise Gray
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
1:44PM GMT 09 Feb 2012
Comments41 Comments
Previous studies relied on physical measurements of ice caps and glaciers on the ground.
However less than 120 out of more than 160,000 across the world have actually been measured because of the difficulty of accessing freezing and remote regions.
The new study, published in Nature, used satellites to measure the loss of ice from ice caps and glaciers for the first time from 2003 to 2010.
The results found that overall ice loss from ice caps and glaciers on land, excluding the huge ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica, is adding 0.4 mm per year to sea levels compared to previous projections that estimated 1mm per year.
Mountain glaciers in Asia in particular are having a much smaller effect than thought, with a “neglible mass loss” from the Himalayas over the last ten years.
The fact that the satelllite is measuring ice much higher up the mountain range rather than concentrating on more accessible glaciers in warmer areas lower down could account for the change in estimates.
It comes after the “Himalayagate” scandal that saw the United Nations science body the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forced to admit it was a mistake to predict the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.
Jonathan Bamber, of the Bristol Glaciology Centre at the University of Bristol, said melting glaciers are an iconic symbol of climate change.
He said the new study will help to understand the effect of climate change on the billions of people living in areas relying on melt ice and help to understand the long term effect on sea level rise.
“The contribution of glaciers and ice caps (excluding the Antarctica and Greenland peripheral GICs) to sea-level rise was less than half the value of the most recent, comprehensive estimate obtained from extrapolation of in situ measurements for 2001-05 (0.41 +/- 0.08 compared with 1.1mm yr). Second, losses for the High Mountain Asia region - comprising the Himalayas, Karakoram, Tianshan, Pamirs and Tibet - were insignificant.”
The expansion of water as the oceans warm and the melting of the major ice caps at the Poles are the main driver of sea level rise, which is predicted to rise by between 30cm and 1m by 2100.
Prof John Wahr, of the University of Colorado, pointed out that the new way of measuring glaciers using satellites known as Grace (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) is at an early stage and more work needs to be done.
The study shows 148 billion tonnes of ice, or about 39 cubic miles, was lost annually between 2003 and 2010.
This equates to some 1,000 cubic miles of ice disappearing between 2003 and 2010 – enough to cover the US in one-and-a-half feet of water.
"Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year," he said. "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."
It is encouraging to see that less ice is being lost at higher levels than previously thought but notice the last statements in this article. Global warming and climate science are not related to one factor alone.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,430
CO2 is a tangible thing... it is a GAS that intensifies the damn sunlight. it doesn't matter if it is a "pollutant" it makes shit HOTTER.
I disagree about CO2 being tangible. By definition, you can't touch CO2. So, it's not tangible by definition. Even if it does make things hotter, it's not easily and accurately measured in the entire atmosphere. There's tons of issues with saying CO2 is the "Cause" here.
there is a LOT that is proven in global warming science, and again... to say that debt is an "indicator" of temperature change is like this;
You don't get, and no offense, I don't think you are trying to. My point is you can't prove this 100%. Period. You can't. You are saying, this is proven in global warming science, I'm saying if it is "proven" it's BS. I work in statistics... I'm saying, no, there are theories that have some empirical backing. That's it. Yet, you guys freak when someone puts forward information to the contrary.
In all honesty, to me, the global warming backers are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists. This thread is proof IMHO.
What do you mean you can't touch CO2? Am I missing something. It a physical thing, right? I can certainly touch the air I exhale.
The word used was tangible. I basically said it was improper use of the word.
Tangible means "perceived by touch". Gas, like CO2, is typically not perceived by touch. When you walk into a room you don't typically feel CO2, and say... "hey that's CO2 right there that I just felt". Hence, my point.
What do you mean you can't touch CO2? Am I missing something. It a physical thing, right? I can certainly touch the air I exhale.
now we're just being fucking silly, eh?
If the guy won't even admit that "gas" is a real thing, a concept, a tangible property that actually exists within the atmostphere... and not a construct invented by the mind (like the ratio of revenue to expenses) then there's no point in discussing this anymore.
I never said gas is not a real thing and never would. Where the hell did you get that from? To be real, I find it funny that so many people here feel the need to exaggerate verbal exchanges with those they disagree with in order to try to get a point across. It shows immaturity and a weak case, in my opinion.
Anyway, what I did say was that your use of the word "tangible" was improper, in my opinion. Tangible means perceived by touch. So, even if we touch CO2, we rarely (if ever) perceive it when we touch it. Therefore, tangible is an incorrect word.
To remind you, this was in response to an exchange on the fact that Debt/GDP is more closely correlated to global temperature changes than CO2. I brought the example forward not to say Debt/GDP is the "cause", or even more important than CO2. I brought it forward because I knew people, like yourself, would try to say it's not really the "cause", just correlated. My response back is simply: what if the same is true (or a degree of it) regarding CO2? What if there's other variables that are the real cause? I mean, you all find it easy to cast Debt/GDP aside as the cause, yet statistically it's correlation is closer.
This underscores my point throughout this entire thread. Anyone who closes their minds on this issue and pretends they already know the answer is foolish.
again folks ... look to the link on top of page 9 .. time to move on from inlet ...
the guy posts a link that actually says the earth is cooling based on some guy who totally took information out of context from a legit meteorological office ... i then post the official statement from that office and he doesn't even read it ... he doesn't even know what global warming is ... engaging someone in a topic in which he has no interest in understanding it nor reading viewpoints counter to his indoctrination is futile ...
Ha ha ha... I don't know why I even bother responding to you after your obvious intention to be increasingly inflammatory and condescending. But, what the hell...
I still don't know what the major issues were with the article presented on page whatever it was. I asked you to supply them in your own words, because you typically feel the need to use sources to refute. Regardless, I tried your link and if you click on the link you provided, there's tons of stories there, none of which (I see) are related to that article. Seriously, try it.
Remaining on this point for a second, the original story posted in this thread, you discounted because of a few of the individuals who signed it. You didn't really get into substance. When you tried to, you used a global warming blog from what you said was "some guy". I know you may think "some guy" is a great unbiased source, but ummm... me... no, I don't.
Continuing on... We've gone through the definition of "global warming". I asked you earlier in the thread what you think I don't "get". You then put out a couple questions, which I answered. You clearly don't like my answers. If you want further clarification, I'd be happy to do so. But, honestly, your consistent "he doesn't know what it is" comes across as immature and frail.
Speaking of that, I think it should be clarified that "Global Warming" (as a word) can be interpreted in a few ways. First, it can be thought of a theory. This theory could be as broad as climate change being induced by man-made CO2. It could be more narrow as well. Alternatively, it could be thought of as simply temperature rising globally. That's it, no cause or anything. Just the words "global" and "warming"... things on earth getting hotter. I question the first. As for the second, I do believe that at times the earth gets warmer or it cools. Basically, I don't think there's a human who would ever say temperature remains static. Whether temperature can be accurately measured globally is another question entirely.
Regardless, the question in these parts generally comes down to what causes the changes in temperature. You believe that it's man-made CO2. I just showed a chart that showed Debt/GDP is more closely correlated than CO2. What did you think about that?
And if you discount a factor (Debt/GDP) that's more closely related than CO2, how can you possibly blame someone for doubting the role of CO2?
Accurate measurements of CO2 in the environment have been taken on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, since 1958. Charts of these measurement are available here, through this site provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
These measurements were not made be fervent religious fanatics but highly trained, well educated scientists. This is basic CO2 101 stuff. The facts pertaining to CO2's role in global warming are overwhelming. The consensus of well trained, intelligent scientists that our planet is warming at an unusually high rate is overwhelming. Of these scientists, there is also a wide spread consensus that global warming is anthropogenic in nature due to human activity that has caused the release of carbon emissions into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate.
The data provided by climate science deniers who say the earth is not heating up is underwhelming. They proceed in their beliefs (or in some cases with their economically motivated smoke screens) at great risk as do the vast majority of people don't give a damn one way or another. Good luck to us all.
I'm sure there are other locations, but don't you see what I was saying? I am basically saying that this data is taken from certain locations. It's not pervasively taken, because there's no way to do that. In that sense, there CO2 readings may be sound for a particular area, not the entire "globe". And this is called global warming, is it not? Further, how do they aggregate the CO2 readings from these locations? Do they simply do averages? Going on, how do they deal with the warming aspect in terms of measurement? Same questions...
This is what I'm saying. Even if after all of that, you find a correlation, that could mean squat in the grand scheme. But, before you get there, to have NO DOUBT, you'd have to know your data covers the globe... in full terms. I don't think it does.
Accurate measurements of CO2 in the environment have been taken on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, since 1958. Charts of these measurement are available here, through this site provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
These measurements were not made be fervent religious fanatics but highly trained, well educated scientists. This is basic CO2 101 stuff. The facts pertaining to CO2's role in global warming are overwhelming. The consensus of well trained, intelligent scientists that our planet is warming at an unusually high rate is overwhelming. Of these scientists, there is also a wide spread consensus that global warming is anthropogenic in nature due to human activity that has caused the release of carbon emissions into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate.
The data provided by climate science deniers who say the earth is not heating up is underwhelming. They proceed in their beliefs (or in some cases with their economically motivated smoke screens) at great risk as do the vast majority of people don't give a damn one way or another. Good luck to us all.
I'm sure there are other locations, but don't you see what I was saying? I am basically saying that this data is taken from certain locations. It's not pervasively taken, because there's no way to do that. In that sense, there CO2 readings may be sound for a particular area, not the entire "globe". And this is called global warming, is it not? Further, how do they aggregate the CO2 readings from these locations? Do they simply do averages? Going on, how do they deal with the warming aspect in terms of measurement? Same questions...
This is what I'm saying. Even if after all of that, you find a correlation, that could mean squat in the grand scheme. But, before you get there, to have NO DOUBT, you'd have to know your data covers the globe... in full terms. I don't think it does.
I've never said I'm 100% sure of anything, but I've studied climate change enough to have very little doubt that when the vast majority of hard work, intelligent, dedicated scientists (some of whom I personally know and there are others with whom I've corresponded and believe me, they are not crack pots) with no political, religious, or monetary agenda say that anthropologically caused global warming is happening I'm not going to side with the very tiny chance that they could be wrong. I respect your right to state your opinions and you've heard mine often enough. I just don't see what your point is in trying to form an argument against the vast majority of experts in this field unless is is just for amusement or the sake of argument. Maybe you really don't believe in global warming. I'm sorry for that. Feel free to respond but this feels like dead lock to me- I see no reason for me to try to convince you that global warming is a reality. I'd like to suggest that we respectfully end this circular exercise.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Comments
Say what like a fact? The fact that debt/GDP is more highly correlated with global warming than CO2? Or that the earth's been cooling?
Regardless,...
The reality is - my whole complaint (from origin until now) could be summarized in what you've written if switched. So, I'd switch a few words (making it more polite and more on-point to my message):
Leftist environmentalists approach the issue of global warming and the aspects associated with it like they are facts, when the reality is underlying the entire notion is an opinion, or broader theories.
My problem is the wholehearted notion that science has proven their theory correct, and the story is over. Polaris is the prototypical example of a person who can't imagine a scenario where his views are incorrect on this issue. To him, and many others here - perhaps including yourself, it's impossible that their "opinion" is wrong on this issue.
That's "misguided". Science is never over. What those environmentalist (or supporters of the thought that global warming is real and man made) have is a theory. Sure, there's some data to back up their claims, but there's data to so that's not true too. The irony is that when anything is presented to the debate that runs contrary to their opinion, they dismiss it immediately as being oil-friendly, ect. But, looking at it from a bird's eye view, someone could easily say the same about the research on the other side... being big governement friendly. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter who the science is coming from, if it's sound science. And with this issue, there's too many reasons to argue it's just not sound science.
As for me - I'm not saying I know everything. I don't know all the answers here, nor do I claim to (unlike you and others). I'm saying none of us really know. You, we, have all a theory, an opinion. You use some data to try to align the public with their theory. Others have opposing data and try to align the public with that theory.
This issue is not something that can currently be "proven" 100% because it's too complicated. There are too many unknowns. We don't know enough about what other things could impact climate/temperature on the earth. And due to that, saying CO2 is the cause of this and in particular is man-made, is difficult to rally 100% around.
That's been my point all along. I find it hysterical that I get pinned as the closed-minded individual, when I say I don't know for certain the answer here and am presenting information from an opposition viewpoint because too often we hear one side from individuals who claim they do know for certain.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
but to say that debt is causing the temperature to change, rather than things like pollutants and CO2, is just a totally worthless and horrible argument. "yes, those calculations that only exist within a computer somewhere and aren't even tangible - that's why it is 5 degrees warmer this year" :roll:
regardless, I was referring to your statement about "global cooling" as being just totally off base, not the debt thing, but that is too.
not that I *love* debt or something... I'm a fiscal conservative.
First, I've responded to you every time I had an opportunity and felt it was appropriate. I know your head practically explodes when you realize someone would stand against your religion. But, guess what,... people do.
Second, I did respond to him. So, I asked for a response from him. I'll do so with you too: What are your thoughts on the graph that shows that debt is a bigger indicator of global warming than CO2?
Third, you don't make friends by insulting them or their intelligence constantly, simply because they don't see they world the way you do. That's not how grown ups do it. I have done research and had it published. And, honestly, if someone with your innate bias was doing the research and I was an academic referee, I'd toss it immediately. I feel a lot of the researchers do have your type of bias. That's basically been one of my points all along, the whole community of climate research needs to keep global warming an issue because their careers depend on it. Therefore, the academic material that is released, typically sides with that side of the theories. This is just as much as an issue as those on the other side and where they receive their funding. Both sides may be bias.
Third, what exactly did this individual you mention distort, polaris? Please use your own words.... don't post other people's "bias" blogs with your answer.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
it is because you are consuming more than you should be.
now take that to a worldwide scale. if we're consuming more on a worldwide basis than we should be, does that mean that we're also producing a lot of waste, greenhouse gases, pollutants, CO2, and the like?
*correlation*
your position on science and theory is fine - the primary problem with you in this thread is that you have not posted anything credible to support your dissension ... not one credible piece ...
on top of that - when others (mainly myself) did the work that you should have done - you completely ignore it ... it is why i've called you disingenuous and a troll ... you post blatantly false statements and then lack the integrity to back them up ... then when all else fails you go back to the same point about science ...
so again, i will ask you ... if that is how you feel about science - would you let smokers smoke in front of your baby? do you want toxic waste buried in your back yard? do you believe in modern medicine? ... that all falls into science ...
this is a joke? ...
so ... you post a link from some guy who basically posted an utter lie and one that is easily proven at that ... and then i post a statement from the organization he misused to paint his article and you don't even read it ... again - disingenuous ... if you really want to foster discussion and debate on global warming ...
1. know what global warming is
2. read both sides of the argument
ok ... this is really my last post to you ...
I am well aware with the potential issues in saying debt is "causing" temperature changes. Yet, the "science" of statistics says it is, or could say so (as shown in that graphic). In fact, it says it's a much better indicator than CO2 (as you can see with the coefficient). So, if we can say debt is NOT causing temperature fluctuations, why? Further, why can't we do the same with CO2? Or at the very least, why can't we "DOUBT" CO2's contribution without being crucified?
Underlying point - these are theories and the empirics can be flawed and rarely "prove" anything. Although everyone is jumping down my throat, my claim is nothing is proven here, there's just data supporting an argument. And the data in that chart, implies debt is a better indicator than CO2. That's actual data.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
The chart uses debt/GDP... which should account for that (since GDP is measured in expenditures). That chart shows an issue of government debt, not spending. I'd be curious as to hear how you'd explain...
...government spending above it's means results in more waste, greenhouse gases, pollutants, CO2, etc. And remember, this is so much so, that it's a better fit with temperature changes than CO2.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
because debt is a fucking calculation in a computer... it is a construct of the mind.
CO2 is a tangible thing... it is a GAS that intensifies the damn sunlight. it doesn't matter if it is a "pollutant" it makes shit HOTTER.
there is a LOT that is proven in global warming science, and again... to say that debt is an "indicator" of temperature change is like this;
No offense, but what I've been trying to say back to you is that (according to the other side) you never post a credible piece. Not one credible piece, according to them. It works both ways. You pretend like you're the judge of credibility. You're not.
I ignore it because I know you immediately believe that anything that runs counter to your religion is false. You'll concoct various ways of saying "see this is why it's wrong", typically in a hot-headed aggravated manner. For example, this entire article is false because of roughly 20 scientists, several were worked a field tied to petroleum or whatnot. My point back is both sides could be attacked in this way. I've been saying that all along. When you do attack the message of posts, you use messengers on your side of the issue to do it. It's unbelievably hysterical because you start by saying "this guy's has an agenda"... then if you do dig at substance of what they said... you use "your guy's" points (who the other side would say has an agenda) to prove your point. My takeaway is both sides probably have agendas... and due to that, it's refreshing to look and promote what we rarely hear or read.
To directly answer your question... Would I let smokers smoke in front of my baby? I'd probably walk away. I don't like smoke, and do believe it's most likely bad for me and the baby. Do I want toxic waste buried in my back yard? No, I don't for a variety of reasons. Do I believe in modern medicine? Yes, I do believe in most aspects associated with modern medicine.
Answering all of these doesn't really get at my points though... like toxic waste in my backyard example... I don't know if it would effect me or not. But, I wouldn't take the chance. I know the next response would be "well, you're willing to take a chance with global warming"? Global warming or climate change is not the same to me. I'm saying I don't know about man's contribution to climate changes. I see climate changes constantly. I figure the sun has to have something to do with it. I also get the fact that this is a leftist way to increase regulation with public support, increase their tentacles and slow economic growth. So, on net, it's different than every single issue you put forth. In other words, there's a lot to be lost if we think global warming exists and We're WRONG.
Personally, I believe there are incentives for climatologists to be bias. I don't believe there's as much of an incentive for health statisticians to be bias. I think it depends on your field and where you receive your funding. For example, I do think pharma stasticians downplay side effects and whatnot.
Medical professional statisticians are up there as some of the best in the business. Climate statisticians probably fall down the bottom of the list, if they are even statisticians at all. As someone who engages in statistics regularly, I know the amount of scrutiny that goes on in certain fields vs. others. It's excessive in medicine. And in medicine, I just don't see the cause of the bias as much. In my humble opinion, if medical statisticians were to look at these issues statistically, they would say this issue the answer to CO2's role is largely unknown, and most likely not significant. That's my take.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
No, debt is a number. In fact, it's a measurable and accurate number.
I disagree about CO2 being tangible. By definition, you can't touch CO2. So, it's not tangible by definition. Even if it does make things hotter, it's not easily and accurately measured in the entire atmosphere. There's tons of issues with saying CO2 is the "Cause" here.
You don't get, and no offense, I don't think you are trying to. My point is you can't prove this 100%. Period. You can't. You are saying, this is proven in global warming science, I'm saying if it is "proven" it's BS. I work in statistics... I'm saying, no, there are theories that have some empirical backing. That's it. Yet, you guys freak when someone puts forward information to the contrary.
In all honesty, to me, the global warming backers are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists. This thread is proof IMHO.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Holy crap- I never realized pirates are in such a state of decline!
WTF? What's happening?
slim is right ...
When you state, "... the global warming backers are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists" you have officially gone off the deep end.
I'll agree with you that we cannot satisfy the certainty of a global warming epidemic with 100% assuredness; but you'll have to agree with me that- especially with the stakes so extremely high- there is more than enough evidence to proceed with extreme caution. Not heeding the warnings is stupid. Flat out stupid.
The people arguing with you aren't mindless sheep. In contrary, the people who would suggest global warming is not occurring are in denial. Ignoring the mountain of evidence pointing to climate change and continuing with our glutenous ways is akin to playing Russian Roulette. Odds are you aren't going to get a bullet in the head, but why would you still play?
Come on, man... you've been slaughtered here.
he's part of the group of people that think these scientists (not sure what he thinks about other scientists who are in academia) are only supporting AGW in order to get grants and/or to further a liberal conspiracy to perpetuate big gov't ... and that an article written by a big oil shill is the same as one from a climatogist who's been peer reviewed and published in respected journals ...
the article states that no matter what you say - it will be hard to convince him otherwise ... and it's played out in this thread ... he doesn't even know what global warming is ... and yet he is arguing against it ... how can you reason with someone like that?
No, I haven't gone off the deep-end by claiming certain global warming backers (particularly here) are the equivalent of fervent religious fundamentalists. They have their religion, you may have yours. Both parties KNOW they are 100% right. Any doubt or points to the contrary are met with harsh criticism and immediately dismissed due to their results (not immediately due their methodology). It's one in the same.
Well, if you say you agree we can't be 100% certain on this, you're not in the majority here in this thread. As for whether I agree with you that we should proceed with caution, I think it's a question. Here's my take, certainly "IF" global warming is correct, we should proceed with caution. But, we don't know IF it's correct, which you just pointed out. Also, there's reason to say, there's more to be lost for proceeding with caution that to be gained. For example, I can think of two or three reasons: Growth of government regulations (and gov't in general) and power, regulations effects on the economy, and future techonlogy (if man can damage, can they heal it with new technology). So, on net, since we don't know for sure if this is exists and what causes it if it does and won't, I'd be just as cautious to jump on board the global warming train as to jump off it. The economy is in the shitter, government is growing at leaps and bounds and people are unemployed. You ask the jobless if they would rather enact legislation that's good for the environment or get a job. Because the truth is, whether you're blind to it or not, there is a real trade off between the two.
I don't think all of the people arguing with me are mindless sheep. I think a few can't admit that there's a chance they could be wrong, however. To those, I do equate them with fervent religious fundamentalists. Further, I'm not in denial about anything. In fact, I've said it before in this thread, I don't really know one way or the other on this issue. That said, I think it's silly to think this issue is closed. I'm open minded on it. I've read both sides, and I have my own theory. But, I'm not willing to bet heavily one way or the other because of the reasons I've listed repetitively in this thread.
Finally, acting like a discussion on a message board has winners and losers is silly. I know I'm ridiculously out-numbered here. But, outside of this left-leaning bubble, I'd bet more would agree with my take than the opposite.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
With recycling efforts and making a greener earth... there is industry as well- big industry: some of it old, some refined, some entirely new! It would be the 'old guard' (major oil companies, etc.) attempting to preserve their way of life that would be resistant to the notion of climate change because it doesn't fit with their ability to make a living.
Inlet, you are well-spoken, but I truly feel you are misdirected here- clinging to the notion that maybe we are wrong. You are correct that the possibility might exist that what we are currently witness to (polar ice caps crumbling into the sea, etc.) is a natural cycle that we have had little impact on; however, with the life of the planet at stake, I'm not going to be a gambling man. I'll error on the side of caution and take the safe bet instead of 'waiting and seeing' until 100% conclusive evidence is shown to me. The percentages weigh heavily towards explaining what is occurring right now- I don't need any more. I believe what the majority of experts tell me and what I can deduce from common sense.
What do you mean you can't touch CO2? Am I missing something. It a physical thing, right? I can certainly touch the air I exhale.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
These measurements were not made be fervent religious fanatics but highly trained, well educated scientists. This is basic CO2 101 stuff. The facts pertaining to CO2's role in global warming are overwhelming. The consensus of well trained, intelligent scientists that our planet is warming at an unusually high rate is overwhelming. Of these scientists, there is also a wide spread consensus that global warming is anthropogenic in nature due to human activity that has caused the release of carbon emissions into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate.
The data provided by climate science deniers who say the earth is not heating up is underwhelming. They proceed in their beliefs (or in some cases with their economically motivated smoke screens) at great risk as do the vast majority of people don't give a damn one way or another. Good luck to us all.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
now we're just being fucking silly, eh?
If the guy won't even admit that "gas" is a real thing, a concept, a tangible property that actually exists within the atmostphere... and not a construct invented by the mind (like the ratio of revenue to expenses) then there's no point in discussing this anymore.
the guy posts a link that actually says the earth is cooling based on some guy who totally took information out of context from a legit meteorological office ... i then post the official statement from that office and he doesn't even read it ... he doesn't even know what global warming is ... engaging someone in a topic in which he has no interest in understanding it nor reading viewpoints counter to his indoctrination is futile ...
The U.N. got it wrong on Himalayan glaciers -- and the proof is finally here.
The authors of the U.N.’s climate policy guide were red-faced two years ago when it was revealed that they had inaccurately forecast that the Himalayan glaciers would melt completely in 25 years, vanishing by the year 2035.
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and director general of the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in New Dehli, India, ultimately issued a statement offering regret for what turned out to be a poorly vetted statement.
A new report published Thursday, Feb. 9, in the science journal Nature offers the first comprehensive study of the world’s glaciers and ice caps, and one of its conclusions has shocked scientists. Using GRACE, a pair of orbiting satellites racing around the planet at an altitude of 300 miles, it comes to the eye-popping conclusion that the Himalayas have barely melted at all in the past 10 years.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/ ... z1lzutlsn4
o.k go ahead and say it "but it's on FOXnews"
Godfather.
I read it... but it's on FOX news...
Now to be more serious:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn ... -rise.html
Melting glaciers on the Himalayas not contributing to sea level rise
The Himalayas has lost no significant ice over the past decade, according to a new study, that found melting ice from glaciers is having a much smaller effect on sea levels than previously thought.
Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds
The Passu glacier in the Karakorum region of Pakistan Photo: ALAMY
Louise Gray
By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
1:44PM GMT 09 Feb 2012
Comments41 Comments
Previous studies relied on physical measurements of ice caps and glaciers on the ground.
However less than 120 out of more than 160,000 across the world have actually been measured because of the difficulty of accessing freezing and remote regions.
The new study, published in Nature, used satellites to measure the loss of ice from ice caps and glaciers for the first time from 2003 to 2010.
The results found that overall ice loss from ice caps and glaciers on land, excluding the huge ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica, is adding 0.4 mm per year to sea levels compared to previous projections that estimated 1mm per year.
Mountain glaciers in Asia in particular are having a much smaller effect than thought, with a “neglible mass loss” from the Himalayas over the last ten years.
The fact that the satelllite is measuring ice much higher up the mountain range rather than concentrating on more accessible glaciers in warmer areas lower down could account for the change in estimates.
It comes after the “Himalayagate” scandal that saw the United Nations science body the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forced to admit it was a mistake to predict the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.
Jonathan Bamber, of the Bristol Glaciology Centre at the University of Bristol, said melting glaciers are an iconic symbol of climate change.
He said the new study will help to understand the effect of climate change on the billions of people living in areas relying on melt ice and help to understand the long term effect on sea level rise.
“The contribution of glaciers and ice caps (excluding the Antarctica and Greenland peripheral GICs) to sea-level rise was less than half the value of the most recent, comprehensive estimate obtained from extrapolation of in situ measurements for 2001-05 (0.41 +/- 0.08 compared with 1.1mm yr). Second, losses for the High Mountain Asia region - comprising the Himalayas, Karakoram, Tianshan, Pamirs and Tibet - were insignificant.”
The expansion of water as the oceans warm and the melting of the major ice caps at the Poles are the main driver of sea level rise, which is predicted to rise by between 30cm and 1m by 2100.
Prof John Wahr, of the University of Colorado, pointed out that the new way of measuring glaciers using satellites known as Grace (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) is at an early stage and more work needs to be done.
The study shows 148 billion tonnes of ice, or about 39 cubic miles, was lost annually between 2003 and 2010.
This equates to some 1,000 cubic miles of ice disappearing between 2003 and 2010 – enough to cover the US in one-and-a-half feet of water.
"Our results and those of everyone else show we are losing a huge amount of water into the oceans every year," he said. "People should be just as worried about the melting of the world's ice as they were before."
It is encouraging to see that less ice is being lost at higher levels than previously thought but notice the last statements in this article. Global warming and climate science are not related to one factor alone.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0 ... ill-rising
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... intcmp=239
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
The word used was tangible. I basically said it was improper use of the word.
Tangible means "perceived by touch". Gas, like CO2, is typically not perceived by touch. When you walk into a room you don't typically feel CO2, and say... "hey that's CO2 right there that I just felt". Hence, my point.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I never said gas is not a real thing and never would. Where the hell did you get that from? To be real, I find it funny that so many people here feel the need to exaggerate verbal exchanges with those they disagree with in order to try to get a point across. It shows immaturity and a weak case, in my opinion.
Anyway, what I did say was that your use of the word "tangible" was improper, in my opinion. Tangible means perceived by touch. So, even if we touch CO2, we rarely (if ever) perceive it when we touch it. Therefore, tangible is an incorrect word.
To remind you, this was in response to an exchange on the fact that Debt/GDP is more closely correlated to global temperature changes than CO2. I brought the example forward not to say Debt/GDP is the "cause", or even more important than CO2. I brought it forward because I knew people, like yourself, would try to say it's not really the "cause", just correlated. My response back is simply: what if the same is true (or a degree of it) regarding CO2? What if there's other variables that are the real cause? I mean, you all find it easy to cast Debt/GDP aside as the cause, yet statistically it's correlation is closer.
This underscores my point throughout this entire thread. Anyone who closes their minds on this issue and pretends they already know the answer is foolish.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Ha ha ha... I don't know why I even bother responding to you after your obvious intention to be increasingly inflammatory and condescending. But, what the hell...
I still don't know what the major issues were with the article presented on page whatever it was. I asked you to supply them in your own words, because you typically feel the need to use sources to refute. Regardless, I tried your link and if you click on the link you provided, there's tons of stories there, none of which (I see) are related to that article. Seriously, try it.
Remaining on this point for a second, the original story posted in this thread, you discounted because of a few of the individuals who signed it. You didn't really get into substance. When you tried to, you used a global warming blog from what you said was "some guy". I know you may think "some guy" is a great unbiased source, but ummm... me... no, I don't.
Continuing on... We've gone through the definition of "global warming". I asked you earlier in the thread what you think I don't "get". You then put out a couple questions, which I answered. You clearly don't like my answers. If you want further clarification, I'd be happy to do so. But, honestly, your consistent "he doesn't know what it is" comes across as immature and frail.
Speaking of that, I think it should be clarified that "Global Warming" (as a word) can be interpreted in a few ways. First, it can be thought of a theory. This theory could be as broad as climate change being induced by man-made CO2. It could be more narrow as well. Alternatively, it could be thought of as simply temperature rising globally. That's it, no cause or anything. Just the words "global" and "warming"... things on earth getting hotter. I question the first. As for the second, I do believe that at times the earth gets warmer or it cools. Basically, I don't think there's a human who would ever say temperature remains static. Whether temperature can be accurately measured globally is another question entirely.
Regardless, the question in these parts generally comes down to what causes the changes in temperature. You believe that it's man-made CO2. I just showed a chart that showed Debt/GDP is more closely correlated than CO2. What did you think about that?
And if you discount a factor (Debt/GDP) that's more closely related than CO2, how can you possibly blame someone for doubting the role of CO2?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I'm sure there are other locations, but don't you see what I was saying? I am basically saying that this data is taken from certain locations. It's not pervasively taken, because there's no way to do that. In that sense, there CO2 readings may be sound for a particular area, not the entire "globe". And this is called global warming, is it not? Further, how do they aggregate the CO2 readings from these locations? Do they simply do averages? Going on, how do they deal with the warming aspect in terms of measurement? Same questions...
This is what I'm saying. Even if after all of that, you find a correlation, that could mean squat in the grand scheme. But, before you get there, to have NO DOUBT, you'd have to know your data covers the globe... in full terms. I don't think it does.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"