A question about polar ice caps

I have been watching Planet Earth on the Discovery channel (great show, btw), and they showed a before/after comparison of the ice caps in summer compared to winter. There is like a 2000 mile (not 100% on that exact number) difference in diameter between the two. Apparently it grows and shrinks every year.

A lot of people are saying that the polar ice caps are melting. Well, yea, but they grow back. So, am i to understand that all the heartbreaking film clips of chunks of ice falling off into the water is just inflamatory nonsense, or it is a fact that each year they are a little less wide (when it is at its peak diameter). I mean, are they just filming something that happens every year?

If you check out Wikipedia for "polar ice caps", they have a good illustration of the difference between Sept. and Feb. of the northern ice cap.

1 more little question. A lot of people are saying that if the ice caps keep melting, some places will be underwater (like Amsterdam, i think). I performed a little experiment on accident. I put ice in a cup of water and forgot about it. After the ice melted, the water level went down. So, since ice is EXPANDED water, wont the water level go down if more ice melts? Just a thought. This is, of course, assuming that the ice caps are just big ice cubes floating in the water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

I have been watching Planet Earth on the Discovery channel (great show, btw), and they showed a before/after comparison of the ice caps in summer compared to winter. There is like a 2000 mile (not 100% on that exact number) difference in diameter between the two. Apparently it grows and shrinks every year.

A lot of people are saying that the polar ice caps are melting. Well, yea, but they grow back. So, am i to understand that all the heartbreaking film clips of chunks of ice falling off into the water is just inflamatory nonsense, or it is a fact that each year they are a little less wide (when it is at its peak diameter). I mean, are they just filming something that happens every year?

If you check out Wikipedia for "polar ice caps", they have a good illustration of the difference between Sept. and Feb. of the northern ice cap.

1 more little question. A lot of people are saying that if the ice caps keep melting, some places will be underwater (like Amsterdam, i think). I performed a little experiment on accident. I put ice in a cup of water and forgot about it. After the ice melted, the water level went down. So, since ice is EXPANDED water, wont the water level go down if more ice melts? Just a thought. This is, of course, assuming that the ice caps are just big ice cubes floating in the water.

---

True to some degree. 32° to be exact. :-P
Not all ice is floating. Much of it, more so in Antarctica has land underneath it. Therefore it would raise the level if some areas melted

So there is land under there? How much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

So there is land under there? How much?

---

I did not know specifically so I began to research a little.
I did find this:
Size: 13,209,000 sq km, 5,100,021 sq miles
http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/dotclear.gif(varies due to changing ice shelves)
http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/dotclear.gif
http://worldatlas.com/text/red.gif Percent of Earth's Land: 8.9%
http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/dotclear.gif
http://worldatlas.com/text/red.gif Status Antarctica, almost 98% solid ice, was finally considered a continent in 1840, and not just a group of isolated islands. Today it has active territorial claims submitted by Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom. (Many of these claims are not recognized by some countries and remain in a constant disputed status)

There is a ton of information about the South pole I did not know.

Quote:

---

A lot of people are saying that the polar ice caps are melting. Well, yea, but they grow back. So, am i to understand that all the heartbreaking film clips of chunks of ice falling off into the water is just inflamatory

---

Yep. Congrats on seeing past the media.:banana:

All the footage of polar bears on ice is just screwing with people's emotions, too. It happens every year, and the bears just jump into the sea and swim back to the mainland. They spend a very large proportion of their lives at sea, actually.

Now all you've gotta do is take a look at the numbers and you're well on your way to realising the unscientific nonsense that is 'Global Warming'.

Yes, of-course, no scientist ever thought of that! In the winter it grows back! Nobel prize for you! :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm

Of course not.

It melts over Years.

The problem is the temperture world wide gets raised. Eventually, the ice will all melt. So it is still a problem, the world is still getting warmer.

I see no need for sarcasm, neuro. Im pretty sure i asked a question and wasnt an a-hole about it. Congrats to YOU for being SO much smarter than me. I was mostly poking fun at media reports that take advantage of the fact that most people do not know about this constant melting.

Global Warming is real. Anyone who disputes that is ill-informed. I just dont think our (proven) small contributions can destroy the planet.

A couple more questions. If more UV rays get in to the surface, wont that mean more plant life, thus more oxygen, thus more O zone?

hmm but i dont think we are that responsible really. Co2 is still a very tiny percentage, and it naturally rises anyway, its earths cycle.

So now we going to enter the "hot" age for a few thousand years, then the ice will creep back and we will have another ice age. We might be speeding up this process but its going to happen anyway, the reason the ice caps are melting is that the they are whats left of the last ice age, so yes its time for them to melt away.

When theres to much C02 forest fires will be rarer and more plants will grow(faster,bigger). They will producse more oxygen. When there is too much oxygen, there will be more forest fires, and more active animals( whose death will release co2, carbon cycle). So this has been happening for millions if not billions of years. I think we just have to face it's going to happen and start thinking of ways to adapt, rather then trying to stop something which is impossible to stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joey11223

I think we just have to face it's going to happen and start thinking of ways to adapt, rather then trying to stop something which is impossible to stop.

---

You seem sure that changing it is impossible and that adapting to it is possible. Considering what's at stake, don't you think it might be worthwhile to consider that the opposite may in fact be true? Especially since most scientists seem to think this is the case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

You seem sure that changing it is impossible and that adapting to it is possible. Considering what's at stake, don't you think it might be worthwhile to consider that the opposite may in fact be true? Especially since most scientists seem to think this is the case?

---

Ive heard that most qualified scientists think it is inevitable. Unfortunately, they have no plan of action, and therefore their opinions are considered worthless.

People LOVE drama. Nothing is more dramatic than the end of the world. Any person who can come up with the most destructive prediction of our actions, and can back it up with a theory (bogus or not) will get on the news. Just look what happened with Al Gore. Qualified geologists have said Al Gore's findings are from loose studies and 100 year old data.

Does anybody trust the temperature findings from 1906? How can you find an accurate mean-temprature for earth with data from that time period?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Qualified geologists have said Al Gore's findings are from loose studies and 100 year old data.

---

Source please?

Perhaps you heard the data begins at 100 years ago? The mean global temperature is a matter of meteorological record beginning around 1880, when people thought to start recording these things. Earlier temperatures are calculated based on geology, but there's no point in even going that route after 1880, so what exactly woud they have been talking about?

For the record, here are the mean global temperatures from 1880 to 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...ord_since_1880

I cant trust that data. A lot of those records are before globalization. Are you saying that they have completely accurate readings, within 1.8 C, from every corner of the globe? If not, the average temp could easily be skewed.

Has anybody questioned wether our sun is just getting hotter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

I cant trust that data. A lot of those records are before globalization. Are you saying that they have completely accurate readings, within 1.8 C, from every corner of the globe? If not, the average temp could easily be skewed.

Has anybody questioned wether our sun is just getting hotter?

---

Older instuments can be pretty acurate. There are also other ways to find the temperture from over 100 years ago. The info is accurate. Global warming is definately real.

Real? Yes. Imminate destruction of the planet and the complete anhiliation of all carbon based life forms caused by my Chevy Tahoe? Probably not.

The simple fact that the earth was once covered by lava and then by ice is proof enough to me that our climate shifts. It also proves to me that there isnt a damn thing we can do about it.......except misplace blame on the Republicans.

If it werent for global warming, we would still be in the ice age. Think about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

The simple fact that the earth was once covered by lava and then by ice is proof enough to me that our climate shifts. It also proves to me that there isnt a damn thing we can do about it...

---

Wah! It's too *hard!* I can't make a difference! Better to give up without a fight I suppose. I mean since you've proven it and all.

Quote:

---

.....except misplace blame on the Republicans.

---

Newsflash: PLANET EARTH IS NON-PARTISAN! Any dangers we face we face together, regardless of your affiliation. I don't single out Republicans, I single out individuals who deny global warming because the oil companies are lining their pockets. The fact that these people are usually Republicans is incidental to my concerns. The fact that you are letting the oil companies tell you what's what without questioning their motives is quite central to my concern, however.

Quote:

---

If it werent for global warming, we would still be in the ice age. Think about that.

---

Yes, thank you Mr. Science, I've never even considered that. And now that we have temperatures that support life well, you want to start the "Charred Age?" What's the sense in that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Wah! It's too *hard!* I can't make a difference! Better to give up without a fight I suppose. I mean since you've proven it and all.


Newsflash: PLANET EARTH IS NON-PARTISAN! Any dangers we face we face together, regardless of your affiliation. I don't single out Republicans, I single out individuals who deny global warming because the oil companies are lining their pockets. The fact that these people are usually Republicans is incidental to my concerns. The fact that you are letting the oil companies tell you what's what without questioning their motives is quite central to my concern, however.


Yes, thank you Mr. Science, I've never even considered that. And now that we have temperatures that support life well, you want to start the "Charred Age?" What's the sense in that?

---

ha! Such ANGER from those who dissagree with me. Arrrrrrgggh!!!

My question to you. How can you predict the future of earth of 120 years of data? Especially considering the 6 billion+ yearl ife span of earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

ha! Such ANGER from those who dissagree with me. Arrrrrrgggh!!!

My question to you. How can you predict the future of earth of 120 years of data? Especially considering the 6 billion+ yearl ife span of earth.

---

I leave the predicting to people who know better: scientists. I let them gather the data, and review it for myself. I look for data that is published in peer-reviewed papers, and that has a general consensus among the scientific community. Where do you get your data? You still haven't provided a source for your geologist quote. Nor have you produced a single shred of scientific study that supports your viewpoint.

And actually the data goes back millions of years. How do you suppose we know about the ice age in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

ha! Such ANGER from those who dissagree with me. Arrrrrrgggh!!!

My question to you. How can you predict the future of earth of 120 years of data? Especially considering the 6 billion+ yearl ife span of earth.

---

By looking at the average increase in temperture over years....

Its easy to see the pattern. Go watch inconviniet Truth! They show a graph that shows that the temperture has been rising drasticly over the past 100 years!!! The Earth has been around 6 billion years, and its cycle has been working. But we are capable of changing it.

Wasn't there some big deal about Global Cooling a couple decades ago?

Also, as far as the general concensus about scientists on global warming. I'd have to disagree. Everyday I hear about more and more scientists "coming out" and saying they're skeptical or disagree with many of the alarmists. And that huge review that came out from the UN showing the concensus of scientists is a little bogus. Several of the signatures on that document are actually from scientists who disagree with the panel's findings.

And I believe with some googling you can find a petition that was started not too long ago signed by (verrified) scientists rejecting the common theories about global warming. I think there are over 17,000 signatures.

That's all I wanted to say.

[edit] found the petition: http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm
[edit edit] Ah man, I forgot what this topic is about, and I'm just furthering bickering. I should've posted this in a different thread. People, let's talk about the icecaps again. I kinda find Half Dreaming's question pretty interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Out of the Blue

Wasn't there some big deal about Global Cooling a couple decades ago?

---

No, I don't think so, though people like to talk about this. Someone please show me this was the case. I was alive and well throughout the 70s, 80s, AND 90s, but don't recall this phenomena.

Quote:

---

[edit] found the petition: http://www.oism.org/pproject/index.htm
[edit edit] Ah man, I forgot what this topic is about, and I'm just furthering bickering. I should've posted this in a different thread. People, let's talk about the icecaps again. I kinda find Half Dreaming's question pretty interesting.

---

I won't get into the how little the number of signatures taken from a web petition actually means, where identity verification is impossible.

But as to the author of that paper, Frederick Seitz... are you aware that this is the man who helped R. J. Reynolds in the 70s and 80s with research to back up the "fact" that cigarette smoking is not dangerous for your health? Throughout the years, the tobacco industry ran numerous ads in newspapers and magazines citing its multi-million-dollar research program as proof of its commitment to science—and arguing that the evidence on the health effects of smoking was mixed. --- sound like anything that might be going on today?

And are you aware that "Seitz earned approximately $585,000 for his consulting work for R. J. Reynolds, while continuing to draw a salary as president emeritus at Rockefeller University, an institution founded in 1901 and subsidized with profits from Standard Oil, the predecessor corporation of ExxonMobil?" (From the Vanity Fair expose on Seitz)

And are you aware that in his original scientific paper on global warming, Seitz asserted that secondhand smoke posed no real health risks? (an almost complete non-sequitur to this issue, by the way). In an interview he said "I just can't believe it's that bad."

From the Vanity Fair expose:
..."most of the public argument was carried by lesser scientists and, above all, by lobbyists and paid spokesmen for the Global Climate Coalition. Created and funded by the energy and auto industries, the Coalition spent millions of dollars spreading the message that global warming was an uncertain threat. Journalist Ross Gelbspan exposed the corporate campaign in his 1997 book, The Heat Is On, which quoted a 1991 strategy memo: the goal was to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."

And there it is. The smoking gun. "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."

Interesting choice of a word... "reposition."

So congratulations, you found a scientist who spoke out against the threat. How do you like this guy you found? Anybody else you'd like to pass under the microscope?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Out of the Blue

Wasn't there some big deal about Global Cooling a couple decades ago?

---

Yes. We fixed Global Cooling, because every one was getting sick from polluted air. Now global Warming is a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

By looking at the average increase in temperture over years....

Its easy to see the pattern. Go watch inconviniet Truth! They show a graph that shows that the temperture has been rising drasticly over the past 100 years!!! The Earth has been around 6 billion years, and its cycle has been working. But we are capable of changing it.

---

Once again, you cant determine the hell's-end prediction of climate on a 100+ year rise. It is just not logical.

Btw, how much money do you think people like Al Gore stand to make from their predictions? Caring sells. Drama sells.

I dont make conclusions. Many of you have said with 100% certainty that humans are going to kill the planet.

Please, PLEASE tell me you agree that global warming happens INDEPENDENT of human action. PLEASE tell me that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Once again, you cant determine the hell's-end prediction of climate on a 100+ year rise. It is just not logical.

Btw, how much money do you think people like Al Gore stand to make from their predictions? Caring sells. Drama sells.

I dont make conclusions. Many of you have said with 100% certainty that humans are going to kill the planet.

Please, PLEASE tell me you agree that global warming happens INDEPENDENT of human action. PLEASE tell me that

---

It can. That happened from like 1000-1500. But if you look at the graph in inconvinient truth, it jumped. A lot. We are causing the world to heat up at an extremely rapid rate. Global warming is one of the causes of there being so many hurricanes. You can see the effects all ready.

Good. Atleast we agree on that. You would be amazed at how many people deny that.

The truth is, anything we predict is probably going to be wrong. We cant predict the future. I cant predict a cooling in 2020. Others cant predict an underwater Holland in 2050. But we do.

Correlation doesnt always show causation. Dont get me wrong, i dont think we shouldnt do nothing. At the least i would like cleaner air. I live in Atlanta. When im driving on I-20 into the city, i see that purple-greenish haze above the city. I would like nothing more than to see that go away.

Really, i just HATE it when people assume too much and tell me i am the future murderer of billions because of i drive an SUV, and because i am an American. The global warming cult is causing way too much smugness and self-ritcheousness (bad spelling, maybe).

Cleaner air, and stop cutting down trees (even though 3/4 of earth's Oxygen is created from sea algae). I will not argue on this. But I will not dramatically change my lifestyle by being scared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Good. Atleast we agree on that. You would be amazed at how many people deny that.

The truth is, anything we predict is probably going to be wrong. We cant predict the future. I cant predict a cooling in 2020. Others cant predict an underwater Holland in 2050. But we do.

Correlation doesnt always show causation. Dont get me wrong, i dont think we shouldnt do nothing. At the least i would like cleaner air. I live in Atlanta. When im driving on I-20 into the city, i see that purple-greenish haze above the city. I would like nothing more than to see that go away.

Really, i just HATE it when people assume too much and tell me i am the future murderer of billions because of i drive an SUV, and because i am an American. The global warming cult is causing way too much smugness and self-ritcheousness (bad spelling, maybe).

Cleaner air, and stop cutting down trees (even though 3/4 of earth's Oxygen is created from sea algae). I will not argue on this. But I will not dramatically change my lifestyle by being scared.

---

Even if 3/4 of our oxygen come from sea algey, we still need trees! Also, we pollute the water as much as we do the air! In general we need to start helping our enviroment and stop polluting it!

yea, i know. I like everything about trees. Im pro-tree.

If we really are screwing the O-Zone, we might run out of oil before the damage can be done. If we keep using like we are, i heard by about 2060. But there is no real way of telling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

even though 3/4 of earth's Oxygen is created from sea algae.

---

Holy shit, really? Wow, that's cool. *googles*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

No, I don't think so, though people like to talk about this. Someone please show me this was the case. I was alive and well throughout the 70s, 80s, AND 90s, but don't recall this phenomena.

---

I can't speak from personal experience but here's a wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...970s_Awareness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Out of the Blue

I can't speak from personal experience but here's a wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...970s_Awareness

---

Thanks for the reference, Blue.

From this article, it sounds to me like scientists were NOT convinced there was a global cooling trend, which makes this very unlike the present situation. From that article:

Quote:

---

...it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference[5]). However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports.

The term "global cooling" did not become attached to concerns about an impending glacial period until after the term "global warming" was popularized. In the 1970s the compilation of records to produce hemispheric, or global, temperature records had just begun.

---

(emphasis mine)

Reading this thread makes me realize why the world is so fucked up at the moment. Let's continue to argue about superficialities and details and ignore the actual problem.

Good job idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

Yes, of-course, no scientist ever thought of that! In the winter it grows back! Nobel prize for you! :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm

Of course not.

It melts over Years.

---

Lose the tone jackass, you're no Einstein either. Of course the worry is about the annual decline.

My comment was a reply to the fact that the media keep showing emotive footage of huge lumps of ice falling into the sea, implying that such an event is actually news; which, of course, it isn't, considering it's happened every year for millenia.

And yes, there's an annual decline. This is because the Earth is getting warmer each year. I guess you're in the pro-CO2-causal-factor lobby, in which case I'll just make a brief mention of one of the many glaring errors of Gore's little movie:

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.c...res/CO2-01.jpg

Two interesting things to note here. Firstly, as Gore smugly pointed out, there's a very strong correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.

Gore then said that this implies that CO2 rise is the causal factor in global warming, which is what we call a logical fallacy.

And in fact, upon closer examination, the reverse is proven, considering that the changes in CO2 levels take place rougly 1000 years after the changes in temperature.

But what complex process could cause such a thing!? Is it that the CO2 levels of the atmosphere increases the size of the layer of greenhouse gas which is trapping energy in our atmosphere, therefore causing a temperature increase 1000 years in the past?

Let's use Occam's Razor and some basic highschool science here:

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.c...res/CO2-06.jpg

I think the fact that temperature rise significantly reduces the solubility of carbon dioxide in the stuff that 2/3 of the planet is covered with is a somewhat more plausible explanation to the correlation.

And the second thing to point out: notice how the temperature of our planet fluctuates up and down rapidly? And notice also that every 100,000 years, temperature rapidly increases before gradually falling? And that if you actually follow the trendline, what we'd expect to see happening at the moment is an increase in temperature, as has happened repeatedly over the last million years, when the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans was 0, give or take about 0.

So why are we getting worried about it? I guess it must be the fact that nowadays we have eco-maniacs around who repeatedly tell us that industry is satanic, and assholes like Gore who have no scientific qualifications, yet a position in popular media to allow themselves to make great deals of money by spouting nonsense about a subject which they have very little grasp of.

wow. good stuff Xei, you know your stuff for sure. Why are we so worried about it? Armagedom scenarios gets peoples' blood pumping? From the amount of European trash-talkers i have met (in person), anti-Americanism? Fear? Here in America, because its "cool"?I still havent figured out why people think this little spike in temp. is the one that going to scorch the planet. So far it hasnt exceded the other spikes, i dont think.

I heard once that cows put out more CO2 last year than humans have in the last 120 years. Does anybody know if this is true?

Yeah, I've heard that too, but I don't know if that's true. Might just be one of those things people say. That sorta stuff happens on both sides of the argument. But I dunno.

I did not see this turning into a global warming debate. I am tired of of debating this after so many times.
People are going to believe what they believe. Any old or new data that develpoes the nonbelievers will discredit the information in some way. The advocates will exploit it.
One comment I would like to add is (probably not the best word for it, 'snowball") However When many different components come together, like the several different aspects of global warming, I think that a snowball effect might occur and the climate may change more rapidly than any of us are expecting... what ever that change may be.

We shall see. :bluesmile: <?> :microwave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

I did not see this turning into a global warming debate. I am tired of of debating this after so many times.
People are going to believe what they believe. Any old or new data that develpoes the nonbelievers will discredit the information in some way. The advocates will exploit it.
One comment I would like to add is (probably not the best word for it, 'snowball") However When many different components come together, like the several different aspects of global warming, I think that a snowball effect might occur and the climate may change more rapidly than any of us are expecting... what ever that change may be.

We shall see. :bluesmile: <?> :microwave:

---

My bad if i started another one, but this is my first. Sorry!

But you're right. No matter how much arguing and how many points made, only another 100 years will tell the truth.

Honestly, i think it is just another form of political drama. It is just something for them to fight about.

To the OP:

Some areas of Antarctica are covered with an ice sheet 3 miles thick. That is a lot of potential water. Greenland as well holds an ice sheet similar. And Artic ice is floating on the ocean, though I don't know if this would cause and increase in water level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blade5x

To the OP:

Some areas of Antarctica are covered with an ice sheet 3 miles thick. That is a lot of potential water. Greenland as well holds an ice sheet similar. And Artic ice is floating on the ocean, though I don't know if this would cause and increase in water level.

---

well, i assume those 3 miles extend underwater, right? All that water should be displaced, or is there some concept i dont understand? Even the ice above sea level should still contribute to the displacement.

By far the main factor in sea rise is temperature rise causing water to become less dense. The effects of ice melt are minimal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

By far the main factor in sea rise is temperature rise causing water to become less dense. The effects of ice melt are minimal.

---

good. atleast that makes scientific sense.

Another area that has to be taken into account is the rapid melting of the glaciers, which are already on land.
This would add directly to the sea levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Another area that has to be taken into account is the rapid melting of the glaciers, which are already on land.
This would add directly to the sea levels.

---

yea dude, but think how big and deep the oceans are. I wonder how many trillions of gallons of water it would take to raise the sea level 1 inch.

Those critical of Global Warming make my heart break. I want to cry when I look at all the ignorance floating around. We're completely fucked if people keep thinking like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

Those critical of Global Warming make my heart break. I want to cry when I look at all the ignorance floating around. We're completely fucked if people keep thinking like this.

---

careful. You might be just as ignorant as i am. You're no scientist

Checking out numerous web sites, as there are many, I found this one a little interesting.'
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...l_warming.html

I call it, educated guesstimating.

It's over, folks - the Silver Surfer has arrived...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19353905/

Yeah, the globe's fraction-of-a-degree warming has caused a 100 metre deep lake to dissappear. ._o

I'm probably missing the Silver Surfer joke, but eh... just in case there isn't one, the article makes no mention of warming, but thankfully opts for relatively saner explanations, such as tectonic activity opening cavities and such.

Quote:

---

Those critical of Global Warming make my heart break. I want to cry when I look at all the ignorance floating around. We're completely fucked if people keep thinking like this.

---

To show disdain for doubting and testing a theory is to show a complete lack of understanding for scientific method. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it goes.

Note that I've got no agenda for denying it. I already limit my carbon dioxide emissions for far more important reasons (the fact that oil's running out being the main one), so whether or not CO2 emissions do indeed cause warming are pretty much irrelevant to my lifestyle.

But when does healthy criticism become a force in this country invested in masking the truth?

No, I'm not a scientist, but neither is one single person who has written an article critical of global warming. Every single (100%) scholarly article published in the entire world says not only is it real, but its mostly our fault.

There is a lot of money to be made by tearing up the environment, very little to be made in keeping it safe. The greed in this nation has influenced the popular media to present a wash to people. That means their spending millions of dollars creating doubt, because if there's doubt people are less likely to freak out about it and there won't be enough of a defensive movement to real make change. And so contrary to your opininion yes the ice caps shrink and grow but there's still a lot more shrinking and a lot less growing these days, and the entire scientific community is unanimous that it is our fault.

So my point still stands, you fucking break my heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

There is a lot of money to be made by tearing up the environment, very little to be made in keeping it safe. The greed in this nation has influenced the popular media to present a wash to people.

---

Thank you, Doomed... this is a point I've made on this very thread... so before we get the tired old "Gore is making lots of money talking about Global warming" tripe, let's nip that in the bud a bit:

1. Gore can make as much money as he wants traveling around the world giving talks about anything... so why pick Global Warming? He's been talking about it for many years... since long before he was vice president, and probably before many of you were born. The reason: he wants to help the environment. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand.

2. Gore is only one of thousands of people talking about this, yet he seems to be the only target of criticism for some reason. If you think he has some other motives, try applying that to all the scientists, and your arguments fall apart. To put it another way, if the argument is "Gore is not a scientist," then why are you not putting your efforts towards discrediting the scientists?

3. Gore could make billions more by shutting up. Exxon/Mobile would be happy to give him a fat salary for a meaningless title that would keep him from talking. Save him a lot of running around, too... he'd have time to work on his golf swing or something.

I think its about just time that I wade in here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

No, I'm not a scientist, but neither is one single person who has written an article critical of global warming. Every single (100%) scholarly article published in the entire world says not only is it real, but its mostly our fault.

---

Even if there isn't an article against the Greenhouse effect (which I highly doubt. It would be a massacre of the scientific process) There are plenty of articles that state that the warming is coming from other sources such as the sun. Stop taking the choice wording from inconvenient truth and open your frigging eyes to the facts.

Quote:

---

and the entire scientific community is unanimous that it is our fault.

---

NO NO NO NO NO

There are plenty who oppose increased warming by CO2 emissions. EVEN THE CO-FOUNDER OF GREENPEACE, Patrick Moore speaks up against it.

I'm sick of people who watch Inconvenient Truth (a biased film) and think they know everything about the issue. Here is its counterpart. It is also a biased film obviously but will shed major light on how people are doubting global warming.

Quote:

---

I'm probably missing the Silver Surfer joke, but eh... just in case there isn't one, the article makes no mention of warming, but thankfully opts for relatively saner explanations, such as tectonic activity opening cavities and such.

---

Yah, you'd have to see the new Fantastic Four movie to get it. And yes, I knew it wasn't global warming related (shit, it would have to get pretty damn hot it short amount of time to evaporate an entire lake! LOL!).

Just wanted to break the ice a bit in the thread... :hrm:... "break the ice?" --- GET IT!???
:laughhard:

(Good lord, I'm going mad... :? )

Still, global warming or not - isn't the root of all this simply the pollution we (humans) generate and dispose of improperly? Who cares what we call it, the fact both sides can agree on is that we're causing (have been for a while) damage to the planet that we can finaly see the consequences of. Those large flat patches on the sides of mountains in Brazil are not caused by global warming, they are trees being cleared. Those black creatures splashing around the oceans aren't birds with dark tans from the sun, they're birds covered in oil from tankers.

I think what all the Gores and scientists are trying to do is pin a name on something so that people can get behind it. It's basic marketing. Bush did it with "axis of evil", "weapons of mass destruction", "shock and awe".... the list goes on. So, "global warming" is the new catchphrase - if you don't like it, fine, call it something else. What it represents doesn't change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arby

I'm sick of people who watch Inconvenient Truth (a biased film) and think they know everything about the issue. Here is its counterpart. It is also a biased film obviously but will shed major light on how people are doubting global warming.

---

Be careful of citing references without checking up on them. The film you cite has been highly criticized for misrepresenting data from a large number of respected scientific sources INCLUDING SCIENTISTS IN THE FILM.

For example, Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, who was featured in the film called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two." He said his quotes were completely taken out of context, and edited to fit in with a running theme of which he had no idea. Extracted from his response:

Quote:

---

In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making--- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.

---

For his complete response, please see this. He is suing the filmmakers, by the way.

Regarding the director of the film, Martin Durkin, this is a man with no scientific background who tried to convince people that silicone breast implants were actually healthy for women. According to the Independent Television Commission who revied that program: "the programme makers "distorted by selective editing" the views of the interviewees and "misled" them about the "content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part". The station that aired the program was forced to make a humiliating prime time apology.

Here's another fun program by Durkin where he duped scientists, edited their content, and completely misrepresented him. The growing list of scientists who appeared to be supporting his data but who openly speak out against him as a crank an manipulator is an embarrasing testiment to the weak scientific evidence presented in his programs.

So please, do you have anything to present as evidence that isn't so easily dismissed as completely fraudulent?

Yes, I said it was a biased film (although, perhaps more then I thought) But it outlines the points against warming. Thats the value I see in it. Not the stupid propaganda "Its a government conspiracy" component.

First off, I would like to say I agree with Joe. I would love to see a cleaner earth CO2 or not. But I hate seeing CO2 being classified as a pollutant. Its part of the natural cycle. If it were oxygen instead, would we be reacting differently?

Now, my case comprises of 2 things. Basic chemistry and basic astronomy.

First off, what temperature would the earth be without the sun? Around -273? (absolute zero) Thats about 300 degree difference . 0.2 degrees is 0.06666 % of the temperature that it gives us. Now, we know the sun is very "unstable" for the lack of a better word. It fluctuates quite a bit. 0.0666% can easily be within that range. This is how temperature rises.

Now for the chemistry component. The ocean level rises and releases CO2. This is why temperature and CO2 remain largely together

Oh, and to everyone, air people's dirty laundry elsewhere. This should be a scientific discussion, not a political one. Attacks on people such as Al Gore or others are a no-no unless its directly relevant like Skysaw's was.

Arby,

Thank you for keeping this well-mannered and on topic. I can appreciate an opposing view if it appears considered. I too was wondering how whether Gore was an "asshole" or not was relevant.

Just to be clear, I have no disillusionment about C02, what it is, and how it's important. I disagree with someone who says that C02 itself is a pollutant. But it does weigh in the balance of our ecosystem, and its level is certainly affected by pollutants (as it is by heat, biological decay, breathing and other things).

The reason C02 figures centrally in the Global Warming warnings is that computer models have shown what devestation can be wrought when the levels are very high. Are we as humans responsible for all of the C02 in the air? Not by a longshot. The question then becomes "are we responsible for enough of it to tip the balance unfavorably?" -- and here science suggests heavily that we are.

Over the millions of years on Earth, many huge changes in climate have occurred. We are very lucky because it was necessary to start life in the first place. But the conditions we have right now largely determine the quality of our lives. The Earth will change whether we are the cause or not, but we need to be careful not to push and make that change happen much earlier than it would have otherwise. Once we lose the delicate balance we need for humanity to survive, it's all over. The fact that the planet could bring that to us without our help is no reason to speed up the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arby

I think its about just time that I wade in here.



Even if there isn't an article against the Greenhouse effect (which I highly doubt. It would be a massacre of the scientific process) There are plenty of articles that state that the warming is coming from other sources such as the sun. Stop taking the choice wording from inconvenient truth and open your frigging eyes to the facts.



NO NO NO NO NO

There are plenty who oppose increased warming by CO2 emissions. EVEN THE CO-FOUNDER OF GREENPEACE, Patrick Moore speaks up against it.

---

Yeah, thanks for saying that, I'm getting pretty sick of hearing this whole 'no scientists disagree' thing.

There's constant doubters in all areas of science. To think that there could possibly be a consensus on a subject as controversial as this one shows as absolute lack of understanding for the way science works. ._o

I picked up Gore's book today, by the way. There's no doubt about it; the thing shamelessly makes logical fallacies and asserts unscientific nonsense and lies.

For example, saying that the photosynthesis of trees is the only reason why increasing temperature would increase CO2 concentration...

By the way, I'm not so hot on biology; but I know that the respiration of trees is more important than the photosynthesis, and trees do produce carbon dioxide as well as oxygen. Anybody know which gas the trees emit a greater proportion of?

Quote:

---

I have no disillusionment about C02, what it is, [...]

---

Sorry, but that's kind of ironic and really makes the rest of what you say sound a bit silly. You evidently have no grasp whatsoever about the fundamental basics of what it is. :)

I'm not trying to abuse you here or anything by the way, you never claimed to be an expert Chemist and of course there is no obligation to be one.

But yes, it's not 'Oh' as in zero; C02 doesn't mean 'carbon type zero two' or whatever you think: it's 'Oh' as in O, for Oxygen; CO2 means 'one carbon, two oxygens per molecule'.

Carbon Dioxide; the clue's in the name. Di being a prefix meaning 'two'.

Just an interesting example on why the people often really don't understand at all what's going on... and therefore are just repeating what's been told to them, unable to question its validity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

But yes, it's not 'Oh' as in zero; C02 doesn't mean 'carbon type zero two' or whatever you think: it's 'Oh' as in O, for Oxygen; CO2 means 'one carbon, two oxygens per molecule'.

---

Gee, way to nitpick on something that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Never mind that you couldn't be more wrong to assume I don't know what the 'O' is for... something I learned in 11th-grade science class which was, let's see, twenty-six years ago.

By the way, I noticed you had no comment on the dubious nature of the science in the "Swindle" film that I pointed out. Perhaps my Zero was somehow more noticeable than the other several paragraphs of relevant content.

Holy crap, a string of decent posts. I'd have thought it impossible in this thread.

I think half the whole scare portion comes from lack of knowledge of CO2 before hand. I mean, a while ago you could have asked somebody on the street and they would have said "CO2? Is that A band?". When global warming came and people first heard of it, it was only in a negative way.

I bet theres a large number of people who think that CO2 is actually lethal to humans. I sorta want to go around polling people if they think CO2 would hurt them if they breathed it in. I wonder what sort of results you would get.... because I think too many people think of industrial smoke and car exhaust when they think of CO2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Gee, way to nitpick on something that has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Never mind that you couldn't be more wrong to assume I don't know what the 'O' is for... something I learned in 11th-grade science class which was, let's see, twenty-six years ago.

---

Okay, but I'm at a loss as to why you repeatedly pressed the zero key if your understanding is so solid? And to say that the molecular structure of carbon dioxide has 'nothing to do with the discussion at hand' is equally odd.

Quote:

---

By the way, I noticed you had no comment on the dubious nature of the science in the "Swindle" film that I pointed out. Perhaps my Zero was somehow more noticeable than the other several paragraphs of relevant content.

---

Yep, it was. The rest just seemed to imply that because some science appeared in a film which was made by somebody who has been shown to be biased, that the science is therefore 'completely fraudulent', which is a specific type of logical fallacy, by the way.

But anyway, I'd rather debate the science than the people behind it. That just complicates things way beyond what needs be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Okay, but I'm at a loss as to why you repeatedly pressed the zero key if your understanding is so solid? And to say that the molecular structure of carbon dioxide has 'nothing to do with the discussion at hand' is equally odd.

---

Let's not be flippant here. You know perfectly well what was referred to by "nothing to do with." And not that it makes any difference whatsoever, but I use a ten-key regularly, and it's simply faster to type '02' on it than left-hand-shift, right hand-'O', left-hand '2.' Same reason neither of us used the traditional subscript for the 2. /shrug

Quote:

---

Yep, it was. The rest just seemed to imply that because some science appeared in a film which was made by somebody who has been shown to be biased, that the science is therefore 'completely fraudulent', which is a specific type of logical fallacy, by the way.

---

"Seemed to imply" is a very easy conclusion to reach for someone who didn't read it. The point I was making is that the very scientists that supposedly were speaking out against the warming scare were in fact on the other side of the argument, by their own words. If the aim in putting up that link was to prove that there are scientists who say it's not happening, the attempt failed miserably. Which means we have yet to see on this thread credible scientists named who run against the trend.

Quote:

---

I'd rather debate the science than the people behind it. That just complicates things way beyond what needs be.

---

Your thanking Arby for posting that some scientists disagree proves that this is not the case. I could further point out how you earlier dragged Gore through the mud. But never mind... You want to talk about science? Fine, let's talk about science. But it can't be done in a vacuum, or any crazy theory is as good as the next. I haven't personally conducted any experiments in this realm, so I guess I'll have to rely on the ones you've conducted. Can you present your findings please?

Just thought I'd toss in a link to information directly from what I think we've been refering to as "the scientists", no? Figured it might put more focus on reliable sources as opposed to politician and celebrity oppinions.

(From the looks of it there's enough info here to keep this thread going till the next flood.)

http://www.ipcc.ch/header.jpg

Thanks, Joe.

On that topic, here's a direct link to a FAQ regarding their findings in the latest (Feb 2007) report: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_FAQs.pdf

The FAQ is quite a bit easier to digest than the entire report, and answers a lot of questions for those interested in the science behind it all. I'd love for someone to show me some hard data disproving any of their findings.

The Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change would not exist if the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change were to say that there is no such thing as Climate Change, and everybody on the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change would lose their job.

The IPCC is in short biased, and guilty of pretty foul practice. Try searching for the hockey stick graph which they repeatedly used in what I think was their last (but I'm unsure about that) report - the graph was pretty much pivotal, in fact - only to later admit under severe criticism that it was hugely misrepresentative. Or the way in which their '2500 of the top scientists', or a number of that kind of magnitude, is largely consisted of scientists with no knowledge of climatology, and are therefore completely illegitimate in this field. Plus those who actually disagree with the hypothesis are still listed. And have their requests to have their names removed denied.

'The scientists' to whom I refer are certainally not those who constitute the IPCC, in response to that rhetorical comment.

Unfortunately pdfs kill my PC... but looking at some of their statements turns up glaring flaws.

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal", for example. This is just... unbelievable, a ridiculous claim. After millions upon millions of years of all sorts of irrational tectonic and atmospheric activity on our planet, sun flares, and God knows what else; and they claim that the globe's warming faster now that ever before!?

Firstly, there are absolutely no records for global temperatures going back to the beginning of the planet's history!

Secondly, volcanic activity in the past has overwhelmed our contributions to CO2.

And... ahrgh, I'm done with that point, there's just no justifying such a statement. And to have it as a pivotal statement in a report of worldwide significance... jeez.

And then you've got the whole 'the man-made warming theory is 90&#37; likely to be causing most of the warming'.

That again... is just pathetic, since when have you been able to statistically define the certainty of a bipolar scientific hypothesis!? Where did they even get this number from?

Oh, and then there's this whole thing where the G8 leaders have singed an agreement which says 'there is no scientific doubt about the warming hypothesis'... oh come on, you can completely prove that this is a shameless lie by just listening to the number of scientists who've expressed doubt. Surely nobody's going to back this one up?

Man, I've had it with this crap.

I keep waiting for the day when one of our leaders comissions an independent enquiry into the issue using some proper climatologists who've made a significant and testable contribution to the field, but it's just not coming.

Which is annoying, because there are MPs in Britain who think it's a load of hype too.

Edit: Googled and found this at the top, if you're looking for a source.

I really hope skysaw isn't still in denial that there is... well, denial. It shows a complete lack of understanding about scientific method, which that article elucidates quite nicely. And also, how can somebody saying that the warming theory is the mad result of eco-warriors and ultra-conservative government groups possibly be taken out of context? You're just making stuff up now, you can't deny there were scientists in that documentary against the theory if you actually watched all of it.

Quote:

---

Edit: Googled and found this at the top, if you're looking for a source.

---

Good read, and thank you for the post. Do you have anything more recent? The predictions made at that time (2001) by the IPCC have already come to pass. Perhaps a more recent denial can hold you for another six years.

Quote:

---

I really hope skysaw isn't still in denial that there is... well, denial.

---

Absolutely not, or we wouldn't be having a discussion here. I sure do question the motives of denial, however.

Quote:

---

And also, how can somebody saying that the warming theory is the mad result of eco-warriors and ultra-conservative government groups possibly be taken out of context? You're just making stuff up now, you can't deny there were scientists in that documentary against the theory if you actually watched all of it.

---

Perhaps before you make more accusations, such as my "making stuff up," you should actually read from the link I provided. I repeat it here for your convenience: Carl Wunsch's public response. (Yes, he was one of the scientists in the film.)

Oh, and while we're on Richard Lindzen (your link), let's play a little game of follow the money, shall we? Take a look here, please: Richard S. Lindzen.
Looks like he got tired of writing phony science saying tobacco smoke is harmless. I guess Exxon-Mobile pays more than Philip Morris anyway, so it's a step up for him. If you can't smell the blatant conflict of interest here, I'm not sure how else to get to you.

It's all about the money, folks. What scientist on the payroll for major oil and tobacco companies is going to tell us we're polluting too much?

Yeah, that's fine, I understood that, but he wasn't all of the scientists in the film, if you get my meaning. There were clearly some who denied it; and clearly at least one who did not, as you say. I was just replying to your comment that there was no evidence of scientists denying it.

And it strikes me now; okay, you've got a scientist complaining that a documentary miscommunicated its intentions to him and took his quotes out of context.

But above, you've got a major player in the IPCC complaining that the world authority on climate change not only removed his notes that there was significant doubt, but moreover, edited them so that they said that doubt was becoming less. That really does seem like some pretty rotten bias there, to me... and then they refused to take his name off the list, too. I'm deeply suspicious about the whole thing, and I'm definitely not one to jump to any conclusions involving conspiracies (9/11 was due to two planes flown by terrorists, UFOs are due to attention seekers, etcetera...).

By the way, what would you say are my motives for denial, if that's what you meant? Because, like I said, I've all ready reduced my CO2 emissions, so this is all pretty inconsequential to me... and if there is such a thing as spiralling man-made warming, hey, I'm in an area where there'll be a Mediterranean climate.

(My connections to oil barons are minimal).

Edit: You realise that there's no evidence at all there?

There've been reports in the papers like this before; there was something about hundreds of scientists being sent bribes via post to deny global warming, but when they actually asked the scientists who'd been so noble as to refuse the bribes to stand up, there were no letters at all...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

I was just replying to your comment that there was no evidence of scientists denying it.

---

If that's the wording I used, it was hyperbole and I apologize. However, I'd still like to know why those speaking against the IPCC's findings all seem to have connections to oil companies.

By the way, I'm sure you were not aware that the website you linked to, "Heartland Institute" received over $790,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006. Or that an ExxonMobil executive serves as Heartland's Government Relations Advisor. This information is a matter of public record. When you complain about bias, and only have these references to put up for examination, you are hurting your own cause.

Oh, and in case you feel the need to say "there's no evidence there at all" on this one. The money given to Heartland is clearly listed on ExxonMobile's own website.

Climate change summary:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pj

In one of the two forums I participate in from time to time, an
off-topic discussion has started about the whole "Global Warming" thing.
I was asked point-blank how a "reasonable person" such as myself could
hold the views I do. (The questioner doesn't know me very well, obviously.)

Here is how I tried to answer that. It isn't eloquent or concise, but it
does give a pretty fair outline of my secular view of government:

--

Maybe you are finding my arguments annoying because they really do come
more from an anarchist perspective. I'm not a true anarchist, though I
was at one point. Some government, I believe, is necessary - simply
because of human nature. Sadly, human nature will also ALWAYS exploit
the power of government.

Let me sum things up as concisely as I can, in the most general terms
possible:

Here we have the government - US, "world community," and most troubling,
the UN, telling us there is this huge crisis that is threatening life as
we know it.

Those governments then tell us the only solution is more government -
and GLOBAL government at that, via Kyoto!!!

Isn't your BS detector blowing right off the scale here? Mine is... and
has been since this whole things started a very long time ago.

One of the headline stories for Time Magazine yesterday was "Climate
Change: Case Closed". Oh, really? We have finally reached that point in
human history where we can close a line of scientific questioning with
absolute certainty? Apparently so, when the "solution" is to pillage the
strongest wealth creators in the world.

If Kyoto is a solution, why does it exempt China and Russia, two of the
most "egregious" CO2 producers in the world because of their still
backwards but explosively growing economies?

Even if there were a real crisis - be it this or any other - government
is the LAST place rational people should be investing their trust to
come up with solutions. That being said, government is the LAST source I
am going to believe and put any faith in to discern crises in the first
place. People thrive in SPITE of government, if they can. Businesses
prosper in SPITE of government, when they can. Government produces no
wealth... it is a parasite, existing primarily to increase its own power
and wealth. (When was the last time any politician retired poor?)

You asked why a "reasonable person" such as myself would hold these
views. I don't know how else to put it - other than to begin to get into
some of my personal experiences with involvement in research and
activism, which I'm not going to do here. These are the views of one man
- and apparently not so terribly convincing views as all that. I DO have
a fear for our future and some very real crises - government growth,
curtailment of liberty and the ability of humans to create wealth, forge
their own futures and create their own solutions, government
indebtedness, economic manipulation... and mostly, the ever growing
promise that "they" will take something from you and give it to me if I
just play along with them.

Perhaps you are finding out I'm not really so reasonable as all that. I
have been called an "Extremist" - back when that word was originally
being demonized way back in the early '90's. I wear that label proudly,
as I earned it by loving liberty and through my faith in humans to solve
their own problems - if they are simply allowed the freedom to do so.

That's enough of a dissertation for this morning. I'm off to another
LONG day of creating wealth for myself and my family... after the
gumment takes their not so insignificant bites out of it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Climate change summary: -- etc, etc, etc...

---

Howie, I have no idea who's original text this is or if it matches your own views or not, but I suppose it really doesn't matter as it adds absolutely no value to this thread at all. At least Xei has put some thought into his replies, we've at least we've had some intelligent discourse concerning science, politics, etc.

But this "I will not believe it because the government says it's true," is a laughable way to live your life. Aren't you aware that governments don't agree with each other? What do you do in that case?

The US's official policy goes quite against supporting Global Warming. Does your government-wacko detector filter out Bush for some reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skysaw

Howie, I have no idea who's original text this is or if it matches your own views or not, but I suppose it really doesn't matter as it adds absolutely no value to this thread at all. At least Xei has put some thought into his replies, we've at least we've had some intelligent discourse concerning science, politics, etc.

But this "I will not believe it because the government says it's true," is a laughable way to live your life. Aren't you aware that governments don't agree with each other? What do you do in that case?

The US's official policy goes quite against supporting Global Warming. Does your government-wacko detector filter out Bush for some reason?

---

As you can see I have quoted pj on this summary.
No value?
What value have you added that I have not heard three hundred times?
Perhaps you should try to think outside of conventional thinking.

I myself think looking at the largest source of public information is pretty imperative.
I could keep posting little excerpts on rising water temperatures and the like but an overview of the source I think adds a powerful perspective.
Sorry to disappoint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

[COLOR=Teal]
As you can see I have quoted pj on this summary.

---

Who is PJ? Why should I know PJ? Is there anything relevant that you can tell me about PJ? You just plonked down a quote, and expected us to understand what it meant to you.

Quote:

---

No value?
What value have you added that I have not heard three hundred times?
Perhaps you should try to think outside of conventional thinking.

---

Gee, I don't know. How much of it exactly HAVE you heard three hundred times? Am I supposed to know this too? Are you telling me you read everything I wrote and don't have a single constructive criticism of any of my points or references? Come on... at least TRY to present your argument here. So far you have presented no evidence, no citations, no science, nothing but a mixed-up philosophy that has nothing to do with the subject. Nobody is impressed when you run around flapping your arms yelling "Whee! I'm an anarchist! Look at me bash the government!" Why are we supposed to care?

Quote:

---

I myself think looking at the largest source of public information is pretty imperative.

---

Again... why be so mysterious. Come out and TELL us what you think this source of public information is, and how it fits in. I cited quite a bit of public information and challenge you to discredit it in some way other than your natural suspicion of public figures.

Quote:

---

I could keep posting little excerpts on rising water temperatures and the like but an overview of the source I think adds a powerful perspective.

---

Very hard to get a powerful perspective when the source in question hasn't been identified any further than "PJ." Is PJ the new world authority on climate?

[quote=skysaw;449227]Who is PJ? Why should I know PJ? Is there anything relevant that you can tell me about PJ? You just plonked down a quote, and expected us to understand what it meant to you.[quote]

Why would this matter. It is a perspective. Do I know your sources?
Do you? OR ~ Google?

Quote:

---

Gee, I don't know. How much of it exactly HAVE you heard three hundred times?

---

Try the search method

Quote:

---

Very hard to get a powerful perspective when the source in question hasn't been identified any further than "PJ." Is PJ the new world authority on climate?

---

Please tell me who the WORLD AUTHORITY is. Then I can put my idioms aside and we can just clarify the answers, No?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

Why would this matter. It is a perspective. Do I know your sources? Do you? OR ~ Google?

---

Ok, so it's a random opinion you copied and pasted from someone you don't even know. Thanks for clearing that up. I just wanted to know whose opinion it was... pretty standard stuff when you're trying to have healthy discourse that actually makes sense.

Quote:

---

Try the search method

---

Shame on me. I was completely unaware that there was a search engine that had the option of finding "everything that Howie has heard 300 times." That really could come in handy.

Quote:

---

Please tell me who the WORLD AUTHORITY is. Then I can put my idioms aside and we can just clarify the answers, No?

---

Apparently it's PJ, since his opinion is good enough to just copy in whole and present it to the community without comment. It would seem that his views are so clear to you that you don't have a single disagreement or alternative perspective to his. Or could it be that you just don't have a perspective of your own? Honestly, I would like to know since you still haven't presented one.

PJ
A Moderator
Also another member, Peregrinus
Both have very interesting observations on the issue of climate change.

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...Global+warming
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...Global+warming
http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...Global+warming

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...hlight=climate

I was looking for some stuff about the guy who out-bet the MET office when I cam upon this. I couldn't have found anything that demonstrates my view on the whole issue and leaves me not much else to say. And thus I leave this topic (which is falling apart at the seams again) for a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arby

I was looking for some stuff about the guy who out-bet the MET office when I cam upon this. I couldn't have found anything that demonstrates my view on the whole issue and leaves me not much else to say. And thus I leave this topic (which is falling apart at the seams again) for a while.

---

arby.
I really have no idea why skysaw has taken so much offense over me referencing information just as every one else has. It is open discussion. If I had said it was NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's) I question if it would have been an issue.
Quite frankly I feel the discussion needed a twist. As you can see I posted several other like posts.
Also it seems that my initial post may have been over looked as well.
I have posted some other links and the discussion can come together very well if we keep an open mind.
So I urge you not to leave the discussion.

Ah, I grow tired of the whole debate. It consists of two side both of whom don't have strong enough evidence to convince the other that they're wrong. After both sides present scientific data, theres not much else to do except progress into a full out mud brawl about "inaccurate sourcing" and the like.

Really, I'm probably going to just continue on with my life and try to cut my power usage and use of other things that help eat away at the environment. Then wait for the time when we figure out who was right and who was wrong.

And truely, all I wanted when I joined up in this discussion was to show people that there WAS another side. So they can choose for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arby

I was looking for some stuff about the guy who out-bet the MET office when I cam upon this.

---

Thank you for this post. I actually find it very interesting. I too believe the sun is part at fault, contrary to what you may have believed about me. But let's not miss some of the key points made in this article. I quote from your link:

Quote:

---

He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.

---

Quote:

---

While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant,

---

Quote:

---

...the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

---

Quote:

---

The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arby

I couldn't have found anything that demonstrates my view on the whole issue and leaves me not much else to say. And thus I leave this topic (which is falling apart at the seams again) for a while.

---

I agree that there is a "falling apart at the seams" here, but I think that refers to your side of the argument rather than to the topic itself. I'm sorry you didn't feel up to rising to the challenge of defending Lindzen after my ExxonMobile reference. I thought you might have a little fight left in you.

So don't go. There's plenty more to discuss. I enjoy some healthy debate.

Hopefully we can all agree that an increase in CO2 will probably not cause a fall in temperature.

The issue is determining how much of an effect CO2 has, and how much of an effect natural factors have.

Critics often point out that CO2 isn't really the 'main greenhouse gas' at all, no matter how many times it's said in the media. In fact it's fairly minimal if not extremely minimal, and I think I'm right in saying that our contributions to the CO2 levels are also minimal compared to other natural causes which have been going on ever since the planet was born. I noticed how in Gore's lovely book, a very small percentage change in CO2 proportions was represented on the y axis by more than a double in height. That would be severely critisized by any statisticians who looked at it.

But that article really does highlight to me at this particular moment, more than anything else, how overwhelmingly stupid most of the scientists who get quoted in papers seem to be.

'I'm not certain if sun energy output would influence the temperature of the globe'...

Uh... I settle for no comment with that one. Okay, I'll just write 'utter morons' for gratification, but I'll refrain myself from cussing any further.

I've always supported the sun theory, just because it looks to me like there's more evidence. The CO2 causing significant greenhouse theory isn't solidly proved, but I think nobody would deny that the energy output of the sun influencing climate is a steadfast theory (except the kind of scientists who were mentioned in this article, I suppose).

And also, there's no room for misinterpreting the causal factor in correlations this time around, because clearly the Earth's temperature rise would not cause the sun to emit more energy.

I really think the sun theory has more qualitative evidence supporting it, and definitely enough to warrant further investigation.

Not that it looks like there's been any. We can all imagine which cause any funds were diverted to...

Seems I can't leave in peace and without you turning into a cocky arse -_-

Quote:

---

the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.

---

You quoted it yourself.

The reason I like this article is because it claims both have an effect. Because theres not an exact co-relation for a 20-year time frame DOES NOT mean that global warming is the sole cause or even a cause at all.

The fact remains that the guy (don't care enough to find his name) was able to predict the weather better then the Met office with their billion dollar equipment.

oh, and way to miss the entire point of the article by using your selective reading on the lead up.

Quote:

---

"Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."

---

In part from Peregrinus
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/0...onResults.html

Was it mentioned too that the amount of ice (being white) reflects a great deal of the suns energy as well as the other factors stated?