Artic sea-ice is approaching a record minimum.

brianlux · August 2012

Make of it what you will. Just passing the information along.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=12969%3Cbr

An update on the Arctic sea-ice

We noted earlier that the Artic sea-ice is approaching a record minimum. The record is now broken*, almost a month before the annual sea-ice minima usually is observed, and there is probably more melting in store before it reaches the minimum for 2012 – before the autumn sea-ice starts to form.

* Looking at the responses in the link the record may only be close to broken, but the season in not over. If not set already, the record minimum is likely to be reached soon.

rollings · August 2012

So it used to be worse?

How long have we been keeping records?
( Does it say in the article? )

edit: it says 1978.

and from the chart it's unclear whether each year we break the previous year's "record"...

the only concrete urgency and most of the news from the Arctic has to do with our pathetic eagerness to go “up” and extract freshly available hydrocarbons so we can literally add gasoline to the fire consuming us, said a commenter to this aritcle

If you stop a Gyroscope, remove material from top and bottom,
then redistribute the material evenly about the gimbals, then restart the
gyroscope it will rotate to achieve a new position of dynamic balance.
Apparently the planet is susceptible to Newton’s laws of motion as well. With
similar results expected when the Polar Ice Caps melt, said another commenter
with regards to this article

Prince Of Dorkness · August 2012

What most people don't really understand is that "global warming" doesn't really mean a uniform rise in temperatures, it means catastrophic changes in climate.

The Polar ice caps melt... that means that the salinity levels of the ocean will change and THAT means that the ocean currents will change. And when that happens, it means that temperatures in Europe will drastically drop. Making make currently heavily-populated places much less livable.

It means more hurricanes and much stronger ones. It means much heavier rains in places that generally don't get rain and it means less rain in other places that usually get a lot more. It means that the state of Florida will be gone. So will Manhattan and much of Louisiana.

And so will The Netherlands and much of Holland, Belgium and most of the small islands in the south pacific.

It means a lot more than "it will be warmer in Toronto in the winter."

riotgrl · August 2012

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

What most people don't really understand is that "global warming" doesn't really mean a uniform rise in temperatures, it means catastrophic changes in climate.

The Polar ice caps melt... that means that the salinity levels of the ocean will change and THAT means that the ocean currents will change. And when that happens, it means that temperatures in Europe will drastically drop. Making make currently heavily-populated places much less livable.

It means more hurricanes and much stronger ones. It means much heavier rains in places that generally don't get rain and it means less rain in other places that usually get a lot more. It means that the state of Florida will be gone. So will Manhattan and much of Louisiana.

And so will The Netherlands and much of Holland, Belgium and most of the small islands in the south pacific.

It means a lot more than "it will be warmer in Toronto in the winter."

Nicely said. Here is an article about rising sea levels along the US East Coast and possible consequences.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/east-coast-sea-level-rise_n_1624134.html

And the Greenland ice melt:

http://www.theworld.org/2012/07/nasa-greenland-ice-melt/

Prince Of Dorkness · August 2012

The fact that the Greenland ice melt wasn't covered is bizarre. That is a potentially earth-changing event and most people don't even know it happened.

JonnyPistachio · August 2012

brianlux wrote:

Make of it what you will. Just passing the information along.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=12969%3Cbr

An update on the Arctic sea-ice

We noted earlier that the Artic sea-ice is approaching a record minimum. The record is now broken*, almost a month before the annual sea-ice minima usually is observed, and there is probably more melting in store before it reaches the minimum for 2012 – before the autumn sea-ice starts to form.

* Looking at the responses in the link the record may only be close to broken, but the season in not over. If not set already, the record minimum is likely to be reached soon.

Thanks for that link Brian. At the bottom of the article there were a few interesting links leading to places like the National Snow and Ice data center. http://nsidc.org/news/press/20120620_em ... guins.html

Many dont realize how easily a food chain can be disrupted by the simple loss of Artic sea ice. But we dont have to go there and measure it ourselves to understand there might be an issue.

People sometimes don't pay much attention to Greenland and Arctic Ice, so its good this is brought to our attention. Maybe its a natural trend and maybe it isnt...but as long as its a cause for concern to motivate even a few people to change or others to develop new technologies, its good to stay informed.

MotoDC · August 2012

brianlux wrote:

Make of it what you will. Just passing the information along.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=12969%3Cbr

An update on the Arctic sea-ice

We noted earlier that the Artic sea-ice is approaching a record minimum. The record is now broken*, almost a month before the annual sea-ice minima usually is observed, and there is probably more melting in store before it reaches the minimum for 2012 – before the autumn sea-ice starts to form.

* Looking at the responses in the link the record may only be close to broken, but the season in not over. If not set already, the record minimum is likely to be reached soon.

It was a fucking hot summer in the mid-atlantic region of the US, I can tell you that. Not that that really means a damn thing.

MotoDC · August 2012

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

What most people don't really understand is that "global warming" doesn't really mean a uniform rise in temperatures, it means catastrophic changes in climate.

The Polar ice caps melt... that means that the salinity levels of the ocean will change and THAT means that the ocean currents will change. And when that happens, it means that temperatures in Europe will drastically drop. Making make currently heavily-populated places much less livable.

It means more hurricanes and much stronger ones. It means much heavier rains in places that generally don't get rain and it means less rain in other places that usually get a lot more. It means that the state of Florida will be gone. So will Manhattan and much of Louisiana.

And so will The Netherlands and much of Holland, Belgium and most of the small islands in the south pacific.

It means a lot more than "it will be warmer in Toronto in the winter."

I've always found that a mildly interesting irony -- that the problem with global warming is in fact that it's gonna make us really damn cold.

inlet13 · August 2012

I'll bite and offer a quick summary of points:

1) From what I understand, this is "day" data. It's not a moving average of any sort. It should be smoothed. From what I understand from a brief check, if it was smoothed (as it should be), it wouldn't be a record.

2) There's about 30+ years of data here. That's all. Why did they decide on starting the data at 1978? Anyway, regardless of why - one of the 30+ years will be the worst. It's shocking - I know. And I'm not certain this is the worst of the 35, it mentions nothing about that. Moreover, I think it would be most interesting to see if it was the worst "all the way throughout the year" rather than several weeks in the summer.

3) How do they obtain their data? Why did they focus on Sea Ice extend "more or less" rather than area? Does area say the same thing?

4) How about trends? From what I understand, we should be looking at trends here. Smoothing the data, won't help with that. You need to look at the annual changes. You need to know is it getting worse over time. For example, let's say 2009 was the highest of all those drawings. Then 2010, was low. 2011 was also higher than average. Then let's say 2012 was the lowest. What does that tell you? Are you going to argue that it says it's global warming? Because I'd say that doesn't really seem right - it just seems it's volatile. 2009 was the coldest of all years in this example. Long story short - we'd need to know more about the other year's data to get anything at all from this.

5) Were the ice caps always there? If not, what caused them to melt before?

brianlux · August 2012

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

What most people don't really understand is that "global warming" doesn't really mean a uniform rise in temperatures, it means catastrophic changes in climate.

The Polar ice caps melt... that means that the salinity levels of the ocean will change and THAT means that the ocean currents will change. And when that happens, it means that temperatures in Europe will drastically drop. Making make currently heavily-populated places much less livable.

It means more hurricanes and much stronger ones. It means much heavier rains in places that generally don't get rain and it means less rain in other places that usually get a lot more. It means that the state of Florida will be gone. So will Manhattan and much of Louisiana.

And so will The Netherlands and much of Holland, Belgium and most of the small islands in the south pacific.

It means a lot more than "it will be warmer in Toronto in the winter."

Thank you, PoD! This is the point that is too often overlooked. As far back as the late 80's I had a friend who was a meteorologist for a major news program out of San Francisco who had been tracking weather for a number of years prior to that. He told me that catastrophic weather events were on the rise and stated that over the next several years these events would increase in number and frequency. He was certain even then that human activity resulting in pollutants were changing weather patterns. This was before AL Gore's "Inconvenient Truth or any of that. He also said people would not listen. That was a good 24 years ago.

And what I'm saying isn't spreading fear. It's just information I've gathered over all these years. Like I said, make of it what you will.

DS1119 · August 2012

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

What most people don't really understand is that "global warming" doesn't really mean a uniform rise in temperatures, it means catastrophic changes in climate.

The Polar ice caps melt... that means that the salinity levels of the ocean will change and THAT means that the ocean currents will change. And when that happens, it means that temperatures in Europe will drastically drop. Making make currently heavily-populated places much less livable.

It means more hurricanes and much stronger ones. It means much heavier rains in places that generally don't get rain and it means less rain in other places that usually get a lot more. It means that the state of Florida will be gone. So will Manhattan and much of Louisiana.

And so will The Netherlands and much of Holland, Belgium and most of the small islands in the south pacific.

It means a lot more than "it will be warmer in Toronto in the winter."

DS1119 · August 2012

inlet13 wrote:

I'll bite and offer a quick summary of points:

1) From what I understand, this is "day" data. It's not a moving average of any sort. It should be smoothed. From what I understand from a brief check, if it was smoothed (as it should be), it wouldn't be a record.

2) There's about 30+ years of data here. That's all. Why did they decide on starting the data at 1978? Anyway, regardless of why - one of the 30+ years will be the worst. It's shocking - I know. And I'm not certain this is the worst of the 35, it mentions nothing about that. Moreover, I think it would be most interesting to see if it was the worst "all the way throughout the year" rather than several weeks in the summer.

3) How do they obtain their data? Why did they focus on Sea Ice extend "more or less" rather than area? Does area say the same thing?

4) How about trends? From what I understand, we should be looking at trends here. Smoothing the data, won't help with that. You need to look at the annual changes. You need to know is it getting worse over time. For example, let's say 2009 was the highest of all those drawings. Then 2010, was low. 2011 was also higher than average. Then let's say 2012 was the lowest. What does that tell you? Are you going to argue that it says it's global warming? Because I'd say that doesn't really seem right - it just seems it's volatile. 2009 was the coldest of all years in this example. Long story short - we'd need to know more about the other year's data to get anything at all from this.

5) Were the ice caps always there? If not, what caused them to melt before?

5 of a million questions that can't be answered...but it's global warming that's causing it all man!!!!

It's the humans that are changing this ever powerful Earth!

JonnyPistachio · August 2012

inlet13 wrote:

1) From what I understand, this is "day" data. It's not a moving average of any sort. It should be smoothed. From what I understand from a brief check, if it was smoothed (as it should be), it wouldn't be a record.

I'm not really concerned if its a record or not. I'm concerned about the downward trend.

inlet13 wrote:

2) There's about 30+ years of data here. That's all. Why did they decide on starting the data at 1978? Anyway, regardless of why - one of the 30+ years will be the worst. It's shocking - I know. And I'm not certain this is the worst of the 35, it mentions nothing about that. Moreover, I think it would be most interesting to see if it was the worst "all the way throughout the year" rather than several weeks in the summer.

This is about when reliable satellite observations were able to keep a close eye on ice. They have since noticed relatively steady declines.

inlet13 wrote:

3) How do they obtain their data? Why did they focus on Sea Ice extend "more or less" rather than area? Does area say the same thing?

I think they teamed up with NASA, NOAA, and the National Geophysical Data center. They use advanced microwave scanning radiometers, field research, and a few other methods...but mostly rely on satellites.
http://nsidc.org/data/collections.html
http://nsidc.org/data/tools/

inlet13 wrote:

4) How about trends? From what I understand, we should be looking at trends here. Smoothing the data, won't help with that. You need to look at the annual changes. You need to know is it getting worse over time. For example, let's say 2009 was the highest of all those drawings. Then 2010, was low. 2011 was also higher than average. Then let's say 2012 was the lowest. What does that tell you? Are you going to argue that it says it's global warming? Because I'd say that doesn't really seem right - it just seems it's volatile. 2009 was the coldest of all years in this example. Long story short - we'd need to know more about the other year's data to get anything at all from this.

There are some graphs that i've seen that show an overall trend of losing Arctic Ice since 1940s and 50s...i'll have to look for that later though. But very recent trends can get confusing, I think, because they do fluctuate year to year...sometimes it does appear to get better here and there.

inlet13 wrote:

5) Were the ice caps always there? If not, what caused them to melt before?

There are a lot of natural trends that do occur, reducing the ice caps, but there is a lot of research indicating that we might have a problem with things such as black carbon or other man-made compounds such as chloroflorcarbons (cfcs)...luckily, we identified the problems with many CFCs and have attempted to reduced their presence...some of these problems, however, can simply speed up the natural trends, or intensify them.

inlet13 · August 2012

What I don't understand is why people look at data presented on bias sites, and think it's fact without at least asking a few questions first.

Seems reasonable - ask questions. If you do, are you a "denier"? :fp:

ComeToTX · August 2012

I have a challenge for everyone that doesn't believe people contribute to climate change. Go turn your car on and sit in your closed garage. You'll fucking die. Now is it that far of a stretch to believe that billions of us pumping that shit into the air may have a negative effect?

JonnyPistachio · August 2012

inlet13 wrote:

What I don't understand is why people look at data presented on bias sites, and think it's fact without at least asking a few questions first.

Seems reasonable - ask questions. If you do, are you a "denier"? :fp:

Its always good to ask questions, obviously.
I wouldnt call you a denier. You just need definite proff is what it sounds like. My stance is that we should expect the worst so that we can make a difference just in case...And even if we arent affecting the environment in any way, isnt it good to move forward with cleaner, more sustainable technologies anyway?

Even if I had zero evidence from reputable sources, I personally can't see how all the shit we produced beginning with the industrial revolution hasnt done even a tiny bit of damage to our planet. Again, i'll resort to my car in the garage theory -- what happens when you sit in your garage with a car running? You die. and you die pretty quickly. That's just ONE car.

**edit, just saw CometoTX's post...didnt mean to steal your thunder dude...guess we just think the same.

BinauralJam · August 2012

ComeToTX wrote:

I have a challenge for everyone that doesn't believe people contribute to climate change. Go turn your car on and sit in your closed garage.

Fixed :twisted:

JonnyPistachio · August 2012

inlet13 wrote:

What I don't understand is why people look at data presented on bias sites, and think it's fact without at least asking a few questions first.

Seems reasonable - ask questions. If you do, are you a "denier"? :fp:

I read through this and it was very, very interesting...I know, I know..its got Al Gore's name on it :fp:

http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Ved ... report.pdf

But you'll also see many other reputible scientists listed throughout such as:

--Richard Armstrong – National Snow and Ice Data Center, USA
--Ross Brown – Environment Canada
--Terry Callaghan – Abisko Scientific Research Station, Sweden / University of Sheffield, UK
--Pavel Groisman – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USA
--Margareta Johansson – Abisko Scientific Research Station / Lund University, Sweden
--Niklas Labba – University of Tromsø, Norway
--Vladimir Radionov – Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, Russia
--David Robinson – Rutgers University, USA
--Daqing Yang – CliC International Project Office, Norway / University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA

...and many, many more..

inlet13 · August 2012

First, I appreciate that you responded...

inlet13 wrote:

1) From what I understand, this is "day" data. It's not a moving average of any sort. It should be smoothed. From what I understand from a brief check, if it was smoothed (as it should be), it wouldn't be a record.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I'm not really concerned if its a record or not. I'm concerned about the downward trend.

The entire article was about the fact that it was a record and there was no evidence whatsoever - presented that there was a large scale downward trend other than several weeks. Once again, this data - even the people who put it together admit - should be a moving average... otherwise, weather outliers trend the data.

inlet13 wrote:

2) There's about 30+ years of data here. That's all. Why did they decide on starting the data at 1978? Anyway, regardless of why - one of the 30+ years will be the worst. It's shocking - I know. And I'm not certain this is the worst of the 35, it mentions nothing about that. Moreover, I think it would be most interesting to see if it was the worst "all the way throughout the year" rather than several weeks in the summer.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

This is about when reliable satellite observations were able to keep a close eye on ice. They have since noticed relatively steady declines.

Are you sure that's why? Further, my other point still stands. This says absolutely nothing about "trends", which you said earlier you were most concerned with. We have no clue how 2011 and 2010 looked and in order for us to guage this is worsening, we'd need to know all other data points.

inlet13 wrote:

3) How do they obtain their data? Why did they focus on Sea Ice extend "more or less" rather than area? Does area say the same thing?

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I think they teamed up with NASA, NOAA, and the National Geophysical Data center. They use advanced microwave scanning radiometers, field research, and a few other methods...but mostly rely on satellites.
http://nsidc.org/data/collections.html
http://nsidc.org/data/tools/

You didn't answer my question on why they focused on "extent more or less" and not area. I think it's reasonable to ask - does area see the same thing?

Further, this data has tons of reasons to be flawed because of the reasons you mentioned. Field research, for example, ha ha... seriously? That couldn't involve an innate bias on the part of the "field researcher" could it?

inlet13 wrote:

4) How about trends? From what I understand, we should be looking at trends here. Smoothing the data, won't help with that. You need to look at the annual changes. You need to know is it getting worse over time. For example, let's say 2009 was the highest of all those drawings. Then 2010, was low. 2011 was also higher than average. Then let's say 2012 was the lowest. What does that tell you? Are you going to argue that it says it's global warming? Because I'd say that doesn't really seem right - it just seems it's volatile. 2009 was the coldest of all years in this example. Long story short - we'd need to know more about the other year's data to get anything at all from this.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

There are some graphs that i've seen that show an overall trend of losing Arctic Ice since 1940s and 50s...i'll have to look for that later though. But very recent trends can get confusing, I think, because they do fluctuate year to year...sometimes it does appear to get better here and there.

Thing is - I wouldn't be surprised at all if Artic ice is trending downwards. Personally, I think there could a variety of reasons for this and it's very likely they have nothing to do with global warming. So, I remain open-minded. Yet, I think this article does absolutely nothing to prove anything - I mean the point was to say a record, and it should have been a moving average - it wasn't, then there's all the problems with this being a consistent problem and so on.... overall the article is pretty meaningless. It shows a blip down in a particular year that - for all we know - will blip back up next year... in fact it could blip back by year's end.

inlet13 wrote:

5) Were the ice caps always there? If not, what caused them to melt before?

JonnyPistachio wrote:

There are a lot of natural trends that do occur, reducing the ice caps, but there is a lot of research indicating that we might have a problem with things such as black carbon or other man-made compounds such as chloroflorcarbons (cfcs)...luckily, we identified the problems with many CFCs and have attempted to reduced their presence...some of these problems, however, can simply speed up the natural trends, or intensify them.

That research could very well have the same evident statistical holes this research did. That's my point.

Everyone seems blind in the fact that they don't even use their noggin when looking at this information.

Go Beavers · August 2012

inlet13 wrote:

What I don't understand is why people look at data presented on bias sites, and think it's fact without at least asking a few questions first.

Seems reasonable - ask questions. If you do, are you a "denier"? :fp:

That's funny coming from you, with all the links you post from that fight club guy.

brianlux · August 2012

inlet13 wrote:

What I don't understand is why people look at data presented on bias sites, and think it's fact without at least asking a few questions first.

On what basis do you claim this is a "bias site"? I'm actually surprised you have a problem with this site. It is non-partisan, a-political, non-religious and science based. If you spend a little time checking it out I think you will find this to be self-evident. Knowing what I know about you through your posts, I would think you would find this site at least useful. Putting it down without anything to back that up doesn't sound like your style, inlet. I wonder if it is just the information that bothers you- something you don't want to hear or deal with. Either that or you just enjoy the debating process. But like I said- it's just information. Do with it what you will.

ComeToTX · August 2012

BinauralJam wrote:

ComeToTX wrote:

I have a challenge for everyone that doesn't believe people contribute to climate change. Go turn your car on and sit in your closed garage.

Fixed :twisted:

Ha. Nice!

Godfather. · August 2012

DS1119 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I'll bite and offer a quick summary of points:

1) From what I understand, this is "day" data. It's not a moving average of any sort. It should be smoothed. From what I understand from a brief check, if it was smoothed (as it should be), it wouldn't be a record.

2) There's about 30+ years of data here. That's all. Why did they decide on starting the data at 1978? Anyway, regardless of why - one of the 30+ years will be the worst. It's shocking - I know. And I'm not certain this is the worst of the 35, it mentions nothing about that. Moreover, I think it would be most interesting to see if it was the worst "all the way throughout the year" rather than several weeks in the summer.

3) How do they obtain their data? Why did they focus on Sea Ice extend "more or less" rather than area? Does area say the same thing?

4) How about trends? From what I understand, we should be looking at trends here. Smoothing the data, won't help with that. You need to look at the annual changes. You need to know is it getting worse over time. For example, let's say 2009 was the highest of all those drawings. Then 2010, was low. 2011 was also higher than average. Then let's say 2012 was the lowest. What does that tell you? Are you going to argue that it says it's global warming? Because I'd say that doesn't really seem right - it just seems it's volatile. 2009 was the coldest of all years in this example. Long story short - we'd need to know more about the other year's data to get anything at all from this.

5) Were the ice caps always there? If not, what caused them to melt before?

5 of a million questions that can't be answered...but it's global warming that's causing it all man!!!! It's the humans that are changing this ever powerful Earth!

not totaly true..

Godfather.

inlet13 · August 2012

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Its always good to ask questions, obviously.
I wouldnt call you a denier. You just need definite proff is what it sounds like. My stance is that we should expect the worst so that we can make a difference just in case...And even if we arent affecting the environment in any way, isnt it good to move forward with cleaner, more sustainable technologies anyway?

I am by no means pro-pollution. I agree we should limit pollution to the extent possible - I don't pollute... I clean up the beach when people litter and actually call them out on it. That said, I'm not naive. I know there's a distinction between being clean and whatnot to massive regulations for things that are not really 100% evident and proven. More importantly, I know there's a huge economic trade-off between economic growth and green regulations, and regulation in general. Further, in some cases, the push to more green initiatives could arguably cause more pollution - see electric cars. I'm a realist.

I do know climate changes. It always has, and always will. Sometimes it gets warmer, sometimes cooler. That's fact. But, do I think we without a doubt contribute? I'm not sure. I'd say my guess is that if we do - it's super small to negligible. I believe that there are more likely causes of large scale trend changes in climate - and they would involve the sun.

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Even if I had zero evidence from reputable sources, I personally can't see how all the shit we produced beginning with the industrial revolution hasnt done even a tiny bit of damage to our planet. Again, i'll resort to my car in the garage theory -- what happens when you sit in your garage with a car running? You die. and you die pretty quickly. That's just ONE car.

**edit, just saw CometoTX's post...didnt mean to steal your thunder dude...guess we just think the same.

I don't know if it has or if it hasn't. I'll say what I said before. We've had ages - on earth - where we've had it much cooler and much hotter than now. Economic activity wasn't robust then. So, the cause and effect doesn't line up.

Moreover, this continues to prove that there could be a bias involved with teh scientific research that backs this ideology. Basically, "capitalism" is to blame. If you're anti-capitalist - it's certainly a plausible game plan to convince everyone that capitalism is going to literally kill us, does it not? I mean let's be real... there's without a doubt an agenda behind an Al Gore type and it's not all "pro-environment". I'm not naive. I know this and the fact that the pro-green crowd, doesn't at least acknowledge it is --- um... bad.

As for the car in garage, I'd argue is it the gas or the size of the car/garage? That little size factoid gets in the way sometimes. Further, dumb arguments like that one can be countered with other dumb arguments like...

Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses.

inlet13 · August 2012

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

What I don't understand is why people look at data presented on bias sites, and think it's fact without at least asking a few questions first.

On what basis do you claim this is a "bias site"? I'm actually surprised you have a problem with this site. It is non-partisan, a-political, non-religious and science based. If you spend a little time checking it out I think you will find this to be self-evident. Knowing what I know about you through your posts, I would think you would find this site at least useful. Putting it down without anything to back that up doesn't sound like your style, inlet. I wonder if it is just the information that bothers you- something you don't want to hear or deal with. Either that or you just enjoy the debating process. But like I said- it's just information. Do with it what you will.

I'm not an idiot, Brian. That's how I know the site is bias.

I am aware that there are two sides to this issue. I am aware that both sides are bias.

Here's the "other side's" view on this issue - where they present a lot of little factoids to say they are bias:

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/truth-about-realclimateorg

They seem to disagree a lot with your take. I'm sure you'd present more factoids back saying they're wrong and they are bias. Now, who's right? I'd say both of you are wrong - Both sides are bias.

For more on my take, see here:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=194643

brianlux · August 2012

inlet13 wrote:

Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses.

You're better than this, inlet.

And why politicize the issue? You say you don't believe in polluting so why not just do your part because it makes sense. Some of us would like to see legislation regarding emissions because we don't see that the general populace or private sector are acting quickly or strongly enough. But you don't care for that kind of legislation. Fine. So why not just do your part because it's the right thing to do?

Edit- fixed, Jonny!

inlet13 · August 2012

Go Beavers wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

What I don't understand is why people look at data presented on bias sites, and think it's fact without at least asking a few questions first.

Seems reasonable - ask questions. If you do, are you a "denier"? :fp:

That's funny coming from you, with all the links you post from that fight club guy.

First, I don't call people "deniers" who disagree with my "science". Second, I also would whole-heartedly agree with anyone who claimed zerohedge, the fight club site as you call it, is a bias site. It is bias. I think they would even say that.

inlet13 · August 2012

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses.

You're better than this, inlet.

And why politicize the issue? You say you don't believe in polluting so why not just do your part because it makes sense. Some of us would like to see legislation regarding emissions because we don't see that the general populace or private sector are acting quickly or strongly enough. But you don't care for that kind of legislation. Fine. So why not just do your part because it's the right thing to do?

Don't patronize me.

I do my part fine. I also acknowledge that I don't like people starving. I am not an idiot. I know there's a an economic trade-off with large-scale regulations. I question - are we positive we need them? Further, I know that "some" may be seeking that trade-off as their goal due to political persuasions, and be using this issue (formerly global warming, now global climate change) as a guise.

brianlux · August 2012

inlet13 wrote:

Here's the "other side's" view on this issue - where they present a lot of little factoids to say they are bias:

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/truth-about-realclimateorg

We've been through this before. Heartland Institute is a right wing political organization with strong ties to the oil and gas industry as well as Phillip Morris. You're using this to refute the findings of a non-partisan, a-political, non-religious, scientific organization that disseminates information about climate? Really.

inlet13 · August 2012

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Here's the "other side's" view on this issue - where they present a lot of little factoids to say they are bias:

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/truth-about-realclimateorg

We've been through this before. Heartland Institute is a right wing political organization with strong ties to the oil and gas industry as well as Phillip Morris. You're using this to refute the findings of a non-partisan, a-political, non-religious, scientific organization that disseminates information about climate? Really.

We have been through this before... I am not saying Heartland Institute is not bias as you could see in the entire post that you decided to cut up. I'm sure they are bias. I'm also sure realclimate, a left-leaning institution, is bias too. It doesn't take a rocket-scientist to say both are bias,... that's why they dislike one another so much.

Anyway - did you read their comments, Brian? They had interesting tid-bits on realclimate. I can post them for you if you'd like.

JonnyPistachio · August 2012

inlet13 wrote:

I don't know if it has or if it hasn't. I'll say what I said before. We've had ages - on earth - where we've had it much cooler and much hotter than now. Economic activity wasn't robust then. So, the cause and effect doesn't line up.

I dont know how anyone can say it doesnt line up. I think there's more than enough proof that many man-made byproducts of the industrial revolution have made some scars. To say that there's been global increases/decreases naturally before economic activity and use that as an excuse for today's problems, is risky.

inlet13 wrote:

As for the car in garage, I'd argue is it the gas or the size of the car/garage? That little size factoid gets in the way sometimes. Further, dumb arguments like that one can be countered with other dumb arguments like...

Don't breathe or fart or your contributing to global warming. We should therefore - just kill everyone. That way we'd avoid being killed by global warming. Dumb arguments, get dumb responses.

Very funny.
Is it the gas or the size of the garage? You're asking the wrong questions. What is the cause of death in this case? TOXIC Carbon monoxide filling the lungs, caused by burning of gasoline. Holding this toxic soup in a small area is lethal in most garages, no matter the size. Size is only a factor in how long it will take you to die. So fart all you like. Point is, these gases at large amounts DO get trapped and DO affect our environment.

Why in God's name have governments all over the world banned and reduced certain products and processes? Not because they dislike acid rain or smoggy cites by chance?

Artic sea-ice is approaching a record minimum.

Comments